[Post title suggested by Terence Meaden -- and a fine suggestion it was.]
I'm compiling some ideas on the Abrahamic religions; their perils, pitfalls; what makes them ridiculous subjects of antiquity; why they, and their follows, wish the church in such high esteem as it is; and why that will nay must never change, as far as their progeny are concerned.
The book will likely be called the God Complex, touch on all the stuff that Dawkins, in my opinion, left out. Most notably; social context, social commentary; explanations as to why spirituality may have become a bargain basement affair; what it is about the self the religionist can't face and thusly anthropomorphizing these part of the psyche, self they can't come to terms with.
I will also be offering some debate in order to propagate the complexity of these ideas... and while I shall atone for none, I shall also show respect and reverence where it is due.
Perhaps something to get the ball rolling:
Christians live in shame because it may be most notably opposite to pride. Talking pride in ones work is essentially playing God, as it is an example of giving someone clout that they have known something with perhaps almost absolute certainty in order to win, say, and Olympic Gold Medal, a Nobel Prize, and so forth. Obviously no one can ever complete a task so perfectly that it will never again be topped (albeit perhaps not in her/his lifetime) but what is it about that kind of self-reverence that keeps God, God and you, you that we must by no means strive to attain?
I don’t want to engage in battle with you, but I found your description of your proposed writing to be naïve, pretentious gibberish. You may be, as you say on your page, smarter than Stephen Hawking, but what you wrote borders on the incomprehensible. I have neither the time nor the patience to explain what is wrong with what you wrote—I suggest you read it again, maybe out loud, and see if what you wrote clearly states what you intend to say. I don’t think it does. Some of your phrases use words wrongly, for example “propagate the complexity of these ideas.” You can propagate children, or plants, and maybe ideas, but you cannot propagate complexity. You can discuss, or explain, or illustrate complexity, but you can’t propagate it.
I could go on, but what’s the point? If you don’t know enough about correct usage in the English language to see what is wrong with your usage, then I would be wasting my time trying to point it out to you. Big words and awkward phrases are not good substitutes for clarity and simplicity.
Another small point and I will mind my own business [which by the way is a professional writer with advanced degrees in ancient religion and history]—your “compendium” on the Abrahamic religions is a bit pretentious. A compendium is an exhaustive compilation of information and resources; and you are seriously going to attempt that with regard to the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam)? That would take three lifetimes. I don’t know what your academic background and training is, but it does not appear that lies within your competence. Am I wrong? What are your credentials in Judaism? Christian thought and history? Islamic religion?
All right, I have three points to raise, then I shall consider the matter between us closed.
1) You certainly can "propagate complexity", especially when you can tie that kind of qualia to quanta; eg. propagating the girth of the population would entail people having more babies. We're propagating babies, thus also propagating the girth of the population. Hence, propagating complexity it simply creating many new variables in the same combinadic soup... would you prefer I said something as open-ended as "propagating variables"? [problem with that being we have nothing to annotate those variable-designations to... so it's open-ended to the point of being what you believe you are criticizing me of -- may I criticize you for having no imagination?]
2) We could wax intellectual over the etymology of words till the cows came home. Bottom line, the dictionary defines 'compendium' in terms I am satisfied with for its usage in the sentence I put it in, in the context I have put it in. Cerebral sabre-rattling? Looks that way! If you want to be that literal about the geneology of a word, we must then assume that if you're eating Frosted Flakes that you have a problem with excessive masturbation, as Kellog's cereals were developed, originally, to combat this in youths by way of providing better nutrition, as it was believed that this one a key player in such "deviant activity", and also we must be able to concur that since I am using a word that finds its roots in religion, your eating habits must reflect your lack of an adequate social life, which is something doctors do treat.
3) So basically what you've said is; "I don't want to get into a fist fight with you, but please don't hit me back after I smack you in the face." Bravo! <single clap>
Whether or not #1 and #2 are applicable, #3 is the operative one. If you're not willing to spend the time giving constructive criticism, then your criticism isn't particularly valuable.
Plus, you're implying that naive, pretentious gibberish doesn't sell huge numbers of books. That statement is obviously false.