Any other _Free Inquiry_ subscribers here?

[Ignis]

If not, I heartily recommend trying out a copy of the magazine.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=fi&page=index

Not every issue is a complete gem, and there's a lot more Objectivist-tinged nonsense between the covers than I'd like, but overall it's a great value at $20/year.

http://secularhumanism.myshopify.com/products/free-inquiry-subscription

The magazine often republishes (in the form of summary/critique/analysis articles) some fascinating items from smaller journals that you're unlikely to have read, and the book reviews are almost always in-depth, probing, and opinionated. Recent issues have focused on the history of the early Christian church, the life of Darwin, the first publication of the Christian Bible, population growth, Abraham Lincoln, and faith-based funding.

Lots of facts, heavy data analysis, and a strong commitment to humanism--what's not to love?

[DavidDvorkin]

1. Ex-subscriber here

I realized that too many of the articles were like the meaningless, meandering bull sessions in my college dormitory. I let that subscription lapse but kept my subscription to Skeptical Inquirer.

[Ignis]

4. I find SkepInq is sometimes guilty of Scientism.

Personally, I'd rather read the facts and make up my own mind than be told that X group of people are idiots for believing Y to be true.

Of course, FreeInq has the occasional article that does the same--a recent, completely slanted article about the work of psychiatrist Willhelm Reich springs to mind-- but the op-eds and book reviews tip the scales enough that I'm willing to subscribe.

[salvorhardin]

2. Objectivist-tinged nonsense?

Is that a recent phenomenon? Can you give a couple examples? I'm not doubting you, I'm truly curious. CFI seems to be in transition since the ousting of Paul Kurtz and I'm not sure I like where it's going.

[Ignis]

3. At least two of the regular columnists are serious Randroids.

I don't have my stack of paper issues in front of me, but I believe they're Tibor Machan and Nat Hentoff.

I've only been a subscriber for the past ~18 months, so perhaps it's a recent phenomenon? I have to admit I'm grumpy about the change in editorship as well, but I'm willing to give the magazine the benefit of the doubt until my subscription expires.

[salvorhardin]

5. Ah

Tibor Machan is most definitely a Libertarian. Nat Hentoff, formerly of The Village Voice is 90% on our side but starting in the '80s he became opposed to abortion and adopted some other unsavory ideas. I wouldn't describe him as Randroid, but I haven't read anything by him in years. Maybe he's completely embraced the ideology by now.

[Ignis]

8. Yeah, I'm not 100% sure I'm right.

I know I'm perpetually annoyed by Hentoff's "think of the children! ...until they're born" meme, so I could be crossing the streams.

I'll double-check when I get home.

[DavidDvorkin]

6. Oh, yeah. Tibor Machan.

Endlessly smug and annoying.

[Ignis]

7. "Smug" is definitely the word.

I do try to read each of his columns with a blank slate, but just looking at his smug picture that accompanies each column makes me want to slap him.

Is that wrong? :shrug:

[DavidDvorkin]

9. I don't think so!

[vixengrl]

10. I read it for the articles--anybody?

Um, well, my husband gets it, but I read it. We also get Skeptical Inquirer and The Humanist. And have back issues for, like, a decade or so. It's interesting to get a feeling for the variety of atheist voices. I don't always agree with, well, anybody.

(Hmm, atheists and skeptics I disagree with: Hitchens: the justification for Iraq War, Michael Shermer: anything to do with economics {he knows people believe stupid things and thinks they'll behave rationally and libertarianly in business--wow, so totally not!}, Hentoff: well, yes, I'm a relativist re: life, if the party who is capable of exercising free will has to make a decision regarding a being who is life in potentia, but as yet is not a player--and I know it's not a great answer, too. Harris, on torture: I disagree with it on "civil libertarian absolutist" grounds.)

We aren't a monolithic movement, that's for sure.

I read all the articles, and have a nice argument with what I read. It's refreshing to read any publication that makes one develop an argument.

[Ignis]

11. Yes, love or hate the columnists, it has great articles.

I find myself passing along copies to my (intelligent) Christian friends more often than my Humanist/Atheist friends, because of the excellent biblical and early-church history articles.

There was a great series of articles in the April/May 2008 issue about Christian approaches to environmentalism (or "creation stewardship," as some Christians call it), and I found that leaving that issue on my coffee table led to some amazing conversations.

I'm also a big fan of Peter Singer's philosophy, so I'm glad to see his columns appear regularly to give a non-woo voice to animal rights issues.

It's refreshing to read any publication that makes one develop an argument.

Agreed! And statements like this remind me why I love DU. :hi: