What's the best translation of "God and the State"?

[Diello]

I'm reading Bakunin's God and the State in e-format (translated by Brad K. Berner); I'm finding it both hilarious and brilliant. Assuming it doesn't take an enormous downturn in quality before the end, I'd like to seek out a physical copy of it.

For those of you who own God and the State-- which edition do you have? Can someone point me toward a translation?

(There have been a few instances in which I've bought copies of English-translated books online and ended up with a typo-ridden, awkward, or artlessly literal translation, hence my current concern.)

[NGNM85]

I'm reading Bakunin's God and the State in e-format (translated by Brad K. Berner); I'm finding it both hilarious and brilliant. Assuming it doesn't take an enormous downturn in quality before the end, I'd like to seek out a physical copy of it.

For those of you who own God and the State-- which edition do you have? Can someone point me toward a translation?

(There have been a few instances in which I've bought copies of English-translated books online and ended up with a typo-ridden, awkward, or artlessly literal translation, hence my current concern.)

I have this version, it's very good; http://www.amazon.com/God-State-Michael-Bakunin/dp/048622483X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1294388419&sr=8-1

Unfortunately, the book was never finished. It should be required reading for anyone with an interest in radical politics, certainly any Anarchist. It's a classic, however, it's really more for beginners. Anyone seeking a more in-depth examination of religion and it's effects on society will have to look elsewhere, to something like Dawkins' The God Delusion.

[Diello]

I have this version, it's very good; http://www.amazon.com/God-State-Michael-Bakunin/dp/048622483X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1294388419&sr=8-1

See, I thought that one looked like a good bet, but one of the reviewers was complaining about typos. If you reckon it's of decent quality, however, I'll probably end up getting it.

Semiunrelatedly, there's a fairly widespread edition of the book with the most hideous pink cover.


Unfortunately, the book was never finished. It should be required reading for anyone with an interest in radical politics, certainly any Anarchist. It's a classic, however, it's really more for beginners. Anyone seeking a more in-depth examination of religion and it's effects on society will have to look elsewhere, to something like Dawkins' The God Delusion.

XD You know, about ten pages in I thought "I wonder if Richard Dawkins knew that somebody else had already written The God Delusion."


The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.


Jehova, who of all the good gods adored by men, was certainly the most jealous, the most vain, the most ferocious, the most unjust, the most bloodthirsty, the most despotic, and the most hostile to human dignity and liberty.

Naturally I'm not implying actual plagiarism, but I found Bakunin's tone of outrage against religion on behalf of humanity highly reminiscent of Dawkins's. The main differences that I've observed so far are that Dawkins, as a biologist, understands and explains evolution primarily in a Darwinian sense, that Dawkins's logic is apparently a bit more rigorous, that Dawkins is more apt to divert into explorations of the little quirks and eccentricities of religion (and writes far more anecdotally in general), and that Dawkins doesn't really propose a specific, proactive method by which to finally cure humanity of religion, instead believing that religious faith will probably gradually wither into irrelevance as society progresses.

So far as books on atheism go, I also liked a lot of the stuff in Dan Dennett's Breaking the Spell. It takes almost the exact opposite approach to Dawkins and Bakunin, addressing religion in a way most civil to the faithful. I doubt this helped it land any better with believers, though, as it was quickly tarred with the same brush as The God Delusion as "militant atheism," vapid "pop atheism," etc., but I found it nice to read a book on religion from an antitheistic perspective that wasn't also filled with constant outrage; infinitely justified though that outrage might be, I'm not always in the mood to absorb it.

One passage from Breaking the Spell I found memorable offers a scenario in which it was determined, somehow, that listening to music brought on all kinds of overwhelmingly negative effects-- emotional disorders, tendency to violence, interruption of logical thinking, etc., and asks the atheistic reader to consider how difficult it might be to renounce music even if, intellectually, one knew that listening to music was potentially extremely harmful. Dennett offers this as a way for the comfortably atheistic to consider what someone strongly attached to their religion might have to face, emotionally, in contemplating giving it up due to intellectual doubts.

Of course it's only a very general analogy, but I found it interesting to think about.

[NGNM85]

See, I thought that one looked like a good bet, but one of the reviewers was complaining about typos. If you reckon it's of decent quality, however, I'll probably end up getting it.

I haven’t read it in a few years. There may have been some typos, but it wasn’t really egregious.


Semiunrelatedly, there's a fairly widespread edition of the book with the most hideous pink cover.

That’s unfortunate.


XD You know, about ten pages in I thought "I wonder if Richard Dawkins knew that somebody else had already written The God Delusion."

I have no idea if he has read it or not.


Naturally I'm not implying actual plagiarism, but I found Bakunin's tone of outrage against religion on behalf of humanity highly reminiscent of Dawkins's. The main differences that I've observed so far are that Dawkins, as a biologist, understands and explains evolution primarily in a Darwinian sense, that Dawkins's logic is apparently a bit more rigorous, that Dawkins is more apt to divert into explorations of the little quirks and eccentricities of religion (and writes far more anecdotally in general), and that Dawkins doesn't really propose a specific, proactive method by which to finally cure humanity of religion, instead believing that religious faith will probably gradually wither into irrelevance as society progresses.

It’s like I was saying earlier; God & the State is more for beginners. It’s almost all theory, and he presents an almost entirely philosophical perspective, that isn’t even shallow in terms of actually studying the particulars of these faiths. Also, beyond providing a more in-depth and comprehensive study, Dawkins has access to recent discoveries in biology, anthropology, physics, cosmology, etc., that change the way we look at religion, which, to no fault of his own, Bakunin simply didn’t have access to.

Dawkins may not suggest a specific remedy, but I think it’s clear he believes we can accelerate this process.


So far as books on atheism go, I also liked a lot of the stuff in Dan Dennett's Breaking the Spell. It takes almost the exact opposite approach to Dawkins and Bakunin, addressing religion in a way most civil to the faithful. I doubt this helped it land any better with believers, though, as it was quickly tarred with the same brush as The God Delusion as "militant atheism," vapid "pop atheism," etc.,

This tired canard about ‘dogmatic atheism’ is just total nonsense. It’s completely bankrupt. There is no belief system one has to adopt to be an Atheist, it is not an ethos. These false charges are just a distraction.

You might want to check out Sam Harris’ End of Faith, although, if you’ve already read God & the State, The God Delusion, Dennett’s work, etc., you might not get as much out of it. Still worth a look, though, I would say.


but I found it nice to read a book on religion from an antitheistic perspective that wasn't also filled with constant outrage; infinitely justified though that outrage might be, I'm not always in the mood to absorb it.

One passage from Breaking the Spell I found memorable offers a scenario in which it was determined, somehow, that listening to music brought on all kinds of overwhelmingly negative effects-- emotional disorders, tendency to violence, interruption of logical thinking, etc., and asks the atheistic reader to consider how difficult it might be to renounce music even if, intellectually, one knew that listening to music was potentially extremely harmful. Dennett offers this as a way for the comfortably atheistic to consider what someone strongly attached to their religion might have to face, emotionally, in contemplating giving it up due to intellectual doubts.

Of course it's only a very general analogy, but I found it interesting to think about.

Harris made an excellent point; that it is extremely difficult for atheists to wrap their heads around religious fanaticism. Many are incapable of accepting the fundamental truth that people actually believe this stuff, fervently. Hell, I understand that, I mean, it’s difficult to wrap my head around it, too. However, to deny this simple fact blinds us to certain essential truths.

[Diello]

This tired canard about ‘dogmatic atheism’ is just total nonsense. It’s completely bankrupt. There is no belief system one has to adopt to be an Atheist, it is not an ethos. These false charges are just a distraction.

XD Never gets old, does it? "Atheism is a religion cause you have faith in evolution and the Big Bang! Do you really think that the world came from a big explosion! It takes more faith to believe in that than in a designer! You know Darwin admitted he was wrong before he died..." etc., etc. into infinity.


You might want to check out Sam Harris’ End of Faith, although, if you’ve already read God & the State, The God Delusion, Dennett’s work, etc., you might not get as much out of it. Still worth a look, though, I would say.

I read The End of Faith, though I didn't like it nearly as much as The God Delusion or Breaking the Spell (though I might be hard-pressed to explain exactly why; I read it a while ago and only bits and pieces have stuck with me).

I remember when I first heard of The God Delusion. At the time I was quite literally unaware that there was any kind of atheist community. While atheism and anti-creationism may seem cliché and superfluous in more liberal areas, I found it incredibly encouraging at the time to know that there was someone who was well established who openly despised fundamentalist religion.

I think that, sometimes, people who have spent their lives in relatively secular areas and who deride Dawkins et al for making a fuss over their atheism don't realize what it's like to live in an area where fundamentalist religion dominates everything, and how much of an impact it can have for an isolated atheist to find out about the antitheistic community. In some places, saying "God doesn't exist!" may be old hat, but in others it's quite provocative.


I haven’t read it in a few years. There may have been some typos, but it wasn’t really egregious.

The reviewer reported typos on almost every page, but surely that would have jumped out at you.


That’s unfortunate.

Seriously! Look at that fucking thing.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a256/Emperor_Diello/album3/9781605203614.jpg


It’s like I was saying earlier; God & the State is more for beginners.

I am most certainly a beginner when it comes to politics. I've only been aware of the existence of leftist politics (at least in their true nature, as opposed to the distorted versions that had filtered through to me previously) for a few months. My views are still very much in the fetal stage.


Also, beyond providing a more in-depth and comprehensive study, Dawkins has access to recent discoveries in biology, anthropology, physics, cosmology, etc., that change the way we look at religion, which, to no fault of his own, Bakunin simply didn’t have access to.

Oh, yes. I'm not downing Bakunin, really; just noting some apparent differences in two works of strikingly similar tone.

You know, I'm thankful daily for having been born after the discovery of evolution. (Of course, people in the future will doubtlessly make similar observations in regards to us, but still.)


Harris made an excellent point; that it is extremely difficult for atheists to wrap their heads around religious fanaticism. Many are incapable of accepting the fundamental truth that people actually believe this stuff, fervently. Hell, I understand that, I mean, it’s difficult to wrap my head around it, too. However, to deny this simple fact blinds us to certain essential truths.

I'm also incredibly thankful that I was never successfully religiously indoctrinated; that would be terrible to have to deal with, particularly when it comes to strains of Christianity that ingrain a strong fear of Hell and things like that. I'm grateful that circumstance has spared me that.