Poor arguments; inaccurate attacks on philosophers
339935
After reading many 'classical' philosophers like wittgenstein, schopenhauer, kant, plato, heidegger etc i tried a contemporary approach to philosophy namemly the straw dogs. Unfortunately, although some of the thesis stated on this book are really the case nowdays, most of the book consists of aphoristic paragraphs without intellectual support from the writer but instead it is based quotes, is full with inaccurate accusations on philosophical systems such as Popper and Wittgenstein and the writer gives the impression of a fanatic misanthrope deeply influenced from Schopenhauer who would prefer to be be born a hedgehog or a flower. Furthermore the language is really dry, darwin obsessed  and repetitive, the writer tries to be more pessimistic than he really seems to be and the whole thing seems to be missing an original core - it looks more than an anthology of opinions which the writer comments. Try a more mature approach on todays political, anthropological and philosophical matters.
1762263
The arguments are poorly developed and riddled with logical fallacies. The text gives me the strong impression that the author is contemptuous in general of at least one racial/ethnic group.
3120527
This book is yet another good addition to the available texts by Rorty.  As he says of debates on the matters he discusses, "I suspect that all either side can do is to restate its case over and over again, in context  after context."  This he has done, and done well, and it's badly  needed.
But, as far as I can tell, it remains flawed.  No, I don't want  to accuse Rorty of some shameful circularity, much less of the inanely  conceived offense of "relativism."  Rather, I believe that in  misdecribing the relationship between philosophy and politics he  understates the importance of what he is doing and provides readers wrongly  with every reason to ignore it.
"Most of what I have written in the  last decade consists of attempts to tie in my social hopes - hopes for a  global, cosmopolitan, democratic, egalitarian, classless, casteless society  - with my antagonism towards Platonism."  Thus does Rorty begin the  Preface to this book, though like all of his books this one devotes much  effort to minimizing any possible connection between Rorty's two fields of  interest.  By the time we get to page 18, he denounces "the idea that  you can evaluate a writer's philosophical views by reference to their  political utility."
This comes after he has criticized the  philosophy he opposes as wasting human energy that could serve better  purposes, and after he has defined truth in pragmatist terms as what it is  useful to believe.
Rorty is correct, of course, that a Platonist or a  pragmatist can be a democrat or a facsist.  But, when he says on page 18  that he finds "the orthodox" to be "philosophically wrong as  well as politically dangerous," I think he is mistaken if he believes  this to be a coincidence.  He is wrong to separate these two  characteristics in the case of many Americans today.  I think he does so  simply because the two things have appeared separately in other  people.
Call it "contingent" or "historical" or any  other number of bad words, but I think it remains the case that much of  what is ugliest in American politics is connected in the minds of its  proponents with much of what is most metaphysical and morally weak in the  world today.  People fail to look beyond their narrow groups, declare  certain sexual habits improper, decree that "the market" not be  interfered with or that the races not mingle, and that dollars constitute  protected speech - and they do so, many of them, metaphysically.  Homosexuality, they say, is evil because God said so.  Of course the two  can be separated.  Atheists can condemn homosexuality and Platonists can -  like many of the characters of the Dialogues - accept it.  But the two  ideas go together in many minds right now, and removing either one weakens  the other.  If you turn a Christian gaybasher into a pragmatist, you make  him less likely to bash gays (and to accept the valuable teachings of  Christianity as opposed to its theism).  If you turn a Christian gaybasher  into an acceptor of gays, you make him more able to question his theism.  This is why Rorty is much more important than he lets on.
3681514
Johnson's book has recieved a great deal of press in recent years, but unfortunately it isn't warranted. His attacks on Darwin have often been assumed by laymen to be "objective" and "logical" arguments that somehow shoot straight for the core of Darwinism and have even received praise exactly because they offer argument in place of data!  Unfortunately, the majority of Johnson's method involves constructing strawman arguments that fall under his attack, but which are not at all what science has to say about the subject. He constructs false arguments which he claims represent the Darwinist viewpoint, but which are often outdated or even simply false so that they can be bowled over in the next paragraph. His claims about the origin of animals with hard skeletons (the "Cambrian Explosion"), for example, were dated even when the book was originally published and are now simply part of the wastebin of speculation as new fossils resoundingly refute Johnson's claims. More troubling is the fact that this very argument is more an attack on Stephen J. Gould, noted paleontologist and prolific writer, than any sort of cogent argument about the origin of modern animals in the Cambrian. Without a background in the topic, Johnson's arguments may sound alluring to the general public (need I remind anyone of his profession?), but disguising an attack on Gould as a "logical" argument against Darwinian evolution fails to prove the basic thesis of the book.  It should be noted that Johnson has a few points now and then about excessive faith in the philosophical concept of naturalism, but these few tidbits are often lost in the much larger house of cards he constructs regarding Darwinism itself.  We all know that despite David Copperfield's skill as a magician, he is still perfoming illusions. We know that he simply does it better than we did with our own K-Mart magic sets and have to applaud his showmanship. Johnson too deserves applause for his showmanship, but like the tricks of Mr. Copperfield, Darwin on Trial is showmanship, not scholarship.
3207931
Positive reviews for this book are an indicator of the complete lack of understanding of philosophy in culture today. Frank asks Philosophy 101 questions and comes up with bizarre answers. He goes on a rant about not being able to define the word significance, then ends the chapter with it is if I say it is. I wouldnt mind that so much if he didn't rail on Dawkins and Dennett for things they haven't said. He quotes the Bible and others, but when he speaks against atheists, he puts thoughts in their heads and tells us they are wrong. The New Atheists never said that there is no meaning, okay Frank?

I find it suspicious that he doesnt know the basics of how science works. He says all science is circular, showing a lack of knowledge of the last 400 years that have demonstrated the premises of the scientific method to be completely workable and in a very real sense, true.  I was starting to believe he was insincere until he said, my hunch is that things were beautiful before we were around to observe them. Of course they were, but that says nothing about God or materialism. We evolved to be aware of beauty, to reflect on it, and to create words and art to describe it. That all this happened without a creator does not make it meaningless.

The redeeming quality of the book is his liberal Bible studies. And he admits that he is cherry picking. I admire that. He quotes someone saying Christianity should be reforming itself. I agree. But he comes up with weird stuff, like saying the Enlightenment was an empathy time bomb set by Jesus. In other words, after the Kings and Popes had their power taken away, after people were allowed to think for themselves without threat of torture, then he says it was Christianitys idea to be inclusive and multi-cultural. Wrong.
4097330
This book promises a unified theory of mind, language, and the fundamental laws of the universe.  What it delivers, however, is a jumbled mish-mash of pseudo-science, curiosities, fallacious arguments and bad reasoning.  The structure is unbearably random, wildly jumping from one subject to another, rarely clear on what is supposed to be proven or disproven by his listings of coincidences and weak strings of logic.  In the parts where I have more than a layman's knowledge of the matter, I can easily spot numerous errors.  This book could be used for only two things: Practicing your skills at detecting pseudo-science, and exercising your basic logic in refuting his bogus arguments.  In no way is this book worth your money or your time.
3665805
Don't waste your money on this book no matter what your persuasion: Christian, agnostic, or atheist. I bought the book expecting that it would present a well-thought-out evaluation of the neo-atheists (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens). After all, Hedges is a New York Times journalist who won a Pulitzer. Unfortunately, his book turned out to be nothing more than a rant against science and reason.

It's obvious that Hedges has an ax to grind and he grinds it hard. He makes a few valid criticisms of the neo-atheists. He points out that some of what they say about memes and the cosmos is speculative, that they can be too dogmatic, and that they make a few extreme statements about Muslims. But then he goes on to blame those who believe in science and reason for everything from the Holocaust to Hiroshima to the Iraq war. Essentially his point is that almost everything that is wrong with the world today is the fault of people like Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, and Hitchens.

I was astonished to find that Hedges apparently would like a return to the Dark Ages because he thinks that all of our misery began with the Enlightenment. He also tries to equate neo-atheism with conservative Christianity by claiming that both are a form of fundamentalism, even though the neo-atheists don't have any fundamental doctrines. He overlooks the most critical difference between Christian fundamentalists and atheists, namely that atheists are willing to change their mind if presented with new evidence.

Hedges says the same things over and over throughout the book. His book only has 185 pages, which could probably have been cut to 125 by eliminating all the repetitiveness. Hedges continually makes assertions about the neo-atheists without citing anything from their books as proof. For example, he claims that they are trying to bring about Utopia, but he fails to give any quotations to support his claim. I've read all four authors and don't remember anything about Utopianism.

I think what really got Hedges riled up about the neo-atheists is their criticism of the more violent aspects of Islam. He was the Balkan Bureau Chief for the Times for several years, and no doubt he has a lot of sympathy for Muslims. Some of his arguments amount to an apologetic for Islam. He neglects to mention that the neo-atheists don't single out Islam for criticism; they also talk about the violent aspects of Christianity.
1749568
This is just another compilation of previously refuted claims by apologists.

I have read parts of this book and it is filled with unsupported claims, logical fallacies, and sophistry. I have a more detailed review coming later, but I will start by pointing out that he makes a fallacy of equivocation by trying to falsely equate "faith" with "trust". There are two good usages of the word "faith" in the religious context:

1) Belief without sufficient evidence or in spite of the evidence which is even worse.
2) Pretending to know things you don't really know.

The author claims that "faith" in a doctor or chair is the same as faith in god. This is sophistry. We know what doctors are and what they do. We know what chairs are and how they work and have used them before. This is not faith, but trust based on previous experience and with a well established track record. Faith has no such track record. We would have major problems with a cop that pulled us over and issued us a ticket based on his "faith" that he knew we were speeding. No rational judge in the world would tolerate "faith" as evidence.

He also claims that Christianity is not at war with reason. This is a flat out lie. Christianity has always been opposed to reason since the days of Martin Luther. "Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spritual things, but--more frequently than not --struggles against the Divine Word...."  & "Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God."

The author claims that unbelief isn't about the lack of evidence for god. This is patently false and simply nonsense. Belief is all about evidence. Drop a hammer on your foot and you believe in gravity. Climb a ladder and try to not believe in gravity. You simply can't do it. The author fails to offer any substantial evidence for the existence of god or the truth of Christianity. He is clearly a science denier.

The author's chapter about evolution is just a load of logical fallacies and straw men. He clearly is 100% ignorant about what evolution is and is in no position to refute it. He quotes from people who literally know nothing about evolution and dishonestly quote mines those who do.

Just pathetic. The author should be ashamed.
4513634
Mr. Prothero wrote a book with the purpose of encouraging the inclusion of the Bible as literature and comparative world religions in the academic setting.  Mr. Prothero states literacy will create better citizens in today's America and today's world.  For this premise and purpose I applaud his efforts.

However, Mr. Prothero, sadly, chose to attack individuals (such as Karen Armstrong) who have written theological books which he disagrees with, and ties together religious literacy with those who are religious within the framework of organized religions.

Mr. Prothero draws the incorrect correlation between books like Ms. Armstrong's&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/The-Great-Transformation-The-Beginning-of-Our-Religious-Traditions/dp/0375413170/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">The Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions</a>&nbsp;and religious ignorance.  Ms. Armstrong's treatment of different religious as originating from a similar or identical source is a theological statement.  Her book also relies upon knowledge of each of the traditions examined, and does educate the reader regarding those traditions.  Mr. Prothero goes to pains in his TV interviews to state he is not a theologian, but a professor of religious studies.  The theology of Ms. Armstrong and the desire for religious literacy are not incompatible - rather they are in two different camps.  Ms. Armstrong is looking at theology, Mr. Prothero's premise is looking at citizenship.  The beliefs (or non-beliefs) of Mr. Prothero's readers and audience should not be at issue.  Whether Ms. Armstrong, myself, or any other reader of Mr. Prothero's believes that many religious may have similar origins does not change the need for American citizens and world citizens to be better educated with respect to the Bible and world religions.

Further, Mr. Prothero spends many pages in his book implying that religious individuals (i.e., members of organized religions) are more likely to be religiously literate.  This again has nothing to do with Mr. Prothero's premise.  As Mr. Prothero himself points out, the vast majority of members of organized religious institutions are themselves religiously illiterate.  While Mr. Prothero may want more individuals to be members of organized religion, it has nothing to do with his premise, and detracts from the same.

The premise of this book would have been better served had Mr. Prothero provided anecdotal evidence of situations where literacy could have changed circumstances in recent history, and how literacy would help prevent those same mistakes in the future.
3401732
Same old arguments against Christian Faith coated with the emptiness of what Reason has to offer. A much better read is Has Christianity Failed You? By Ravi Zacharias (Chapter 6 specifically he dissect the sub-sophomoric response and says he could argue Price's points better than he could even though he believes differently). Foreword by a "comedian"? That should give it plenty of academic "stock". Give me a break, usually its the Christians stealing ideas from the world, this guy wasn't clever enough to write a decent book on his own so he rides to coat tails of Warren. Hate on Warren all you want, his charity work is massive
3347049
Anyone in search of a true understanding of reasoning and formal logic should look elsewhere. I would be shocked if this could pass for five year olds at Zainy Brainy. Each small chapter provides a brief overview of a fallacy with an example. The format is appropriate and fitting. Nevertheless, the examples are fraught with inaccuracies, misinterpretations and, yes, politics!!! One poor example is the author's take on Tertullian which is remarkably reductionistic. Highly decontexualized excerpts from early church fathers are not at all helpful to readers. And the politics is inexplicable to me. It is improbable that any logician would stoop to this level. Anyone willing to suffer through the portions of text challenging Biblical authority will get a sense of the pseudo-intellectual that authored this book. And try this title if you want to sell more copies: "Arguing with Republicans" by Al Franken.
1313500
First, this book is way too expensive.  It's ridiculously short.  It spends little time actually discussing philosophy, is full of straw man arguments, and faulty reasoning.  Logic is almost nonexistent in the text and what little there is is circular, faulty, or fallacious.

Ruggiero spends more time writing suggestions on using Google than he does on Deontological Ethics (ie, Kant).  He writes statements such as, "Somehow, the idea has arisen that ethics and religion are unrelated and incompatible" (pg 6). He supports his claim with an appeal to the hack Chesterson, over the Philosophical tradition, see Plato's Euthyphro.

Though I agree that there is a problem with "moral relativism", it is an issue of logic (something avoided by Ruggiero at every opportunity), rather than the weak humanism which is the text's principle foundation.

Finally, as another reviewer points out, this book conflates morality with ethics. If anything it is a text of secularized theological morality rather than a book on philosophical ethics.
1791579
This book purports to teach philosophy through jokes. The survey of philosophy is quite poor; you will come away with a distorted and seriously incomplete view of the ideas of many of the philosophers it mentions. The jokes are very old, often not funny, and at times irrelevant to the philosophy under discussion. So, it is a poor survey of philosophy and isn't very funny. Except for that, it is a complete success.
3958381
Fascinated by constitutional law, I approached Tushnet's book interested in a stand against the notion of judicial review, a central tenet of American jurisprudence. Tushnet's approach, although fleshed out, is not particularly useful to those interested in the theoretical underpinnings of judicial review.
Instead, the book maintains a fairly consistent position that is dubiously supported throughout. Through inconsistent use of caselaw, and little analysis of the legal reasoning of the cases he cites, Tushnet does create an comprehensible position against judicial review, but it is not particularly well argued. Just the fact of being against judicial review does not make for a usable book. The exercise of judicial power does not alone invalidate judicial review as a doctrine. The serious constitutional, historical, logical, and even utilitarian analysis necessary for developing a persuasive opinion is absent from the work.
He typically falls on attempting to undermine the pro-judicial review position as a method of making his case, but it is untenable. Criticizing extreme contemporary positions and labelling them as liberal (read: 'elitist'), does not make the case. By taking quotes out of context, he is moderately successful at creating the image of a sustainable position, but the grand scheme fails. He arduously quotes Madison, after severely paring the quotes to fit his point, but it is not enough. The index does not even cite Alexander Hamilton once; there is no rigorous treatment of the 'Federalist Papers,' the most succint and thorough exploration of US Constitutional theory; there is no sustained theoretical analysis of the powers of government and the utility of republicanism, and the nature of separated and mixed powers.
Essentially, he is making an argument for populism using a populist technique: "the liberals support judicial review because they think you're too dumb to decide for yourself, therefore judicial review is bad." This is hardly sufficient for making a defensible argument with such radical overtones. Tushnet's approach is reminiscent of William Jennings Bryan's majoritarianism, and is certainly bryanesque in its idealistic appeals and its logical inadequacies.
With severely questionable positions on constitutional amendment, which he supports only by criticising the extremes of his opposition as arrogant, he ignores the whole theoretical underpinning of the amendment process of Article V. He then presents some appalingly idealistic support of the populist majority alteration of the Constitution. Any first-year political science student studying state and local politics knows what cumbersome bludgeons state constitutions are. Opinion is still out on popular referenda, and how effective they are at both serving the public good and representing the popular will. I suggest taking a look at the monstrously huge Indian constitution to appreciate the brevity of the American constitution and its demanding amendment process.
4264044
As I read the book, I was shocked by Zacharias's inflammatory and patronizing tone. Zacharias describes atheistic critiques of theistic arguments as "linguistic trickery and distortion of truth" (p.  xiii) and "emotionally charged outburst[s] against the existence of God ... garbed in intellectual terminology." According to Zacharias, atheist philosophers "hide behind philosophical arguments, heavily footnoted for effect," rather than "admit our hurts, our confusions, our loves, and our passions in the marketplace of life's heartfelt transactions." Zacharias also describes atheist philosophers this way: "every now and then there arises on the educational landscape some new antitheistic voice, arrogantly sounding forth with an air of omniscience, mocking religion and debunking the sacred" (p. 6).  He even calls atheists "God-killers" (p. 31)!
 Zacharias' attack on atheism contains many errors and distortions:
 * Atheism is NOT synonymous with materialism (p. 17).
 * Zacharias engages in name-calling when he calls atheists 'antitheists.' (Given that Zacharias's first two consecutive books attack atheism, one wonders if Zacharias is "better described" as an anti-atheist.)
 * Atheism is NOT a worldview.
 * Atheism does not entail nihilism (pp. 18-19).  As a matter of fact, atheism does not logically entail *any* theory of ethics!
 Moreover, despite Zacharias's protests to the contrary, the problem of evil is still an excellent reason for rejecting theism (p. 45). Zacharias argues that the problem of evil cannot be used as evidence for atheism since if atheism is true there is no such thing as evil. However, even if that were true--it isn't--that is irrelevant to whether the problem of evil provides good evidence for the nonexistence of God. *Theists* believe certain things are evil. *Theists* believe God is good. *Theists* believe that good persons are opposed to evil. So *theists* need to explain why a good who is good (in their sense of 'good') would allow so much apparently pointless evil (in their sense of 'evil'). If theists can't explain it, then that is a problem for the internal coherence of a *theistic* worldview.
 Furthermore, Zacharias is simply mistaken when he asserts that atheists cannot consistently accept objective moral values.  Richard Swinburne, arguably the most influential Christian philosopher in the world, says that if there are objective moral values, the *naturalistic* account of them is probably correct.  If Zacharias wants to disagree with Swinburne, he needs to provide objections to Swinburne's view.
 Finally, Zacharias's defense of theism is totally inadequate. Although Zacharias recognizes that he must establish the existence of God before he can defend Christianity (p. 189), he relegates his "case" for theism to a mere 6 pages--0.02% of the book--in an appendix! (A much more logical structure would have been to first refute atheism, then defend theism, and then defend Christian theism.) With such little space devoted to arguing for theism, Zacharias is forced to summarize theistic arguments without adequately explicating and defending key premises in his arguments. ...
3320247
When the authors of this book say "relativism" (or rather, MORAL relativism, don't you love the connotations?), what they are really referring to is that bane of conservatives and Christians alike, the politically-correct, uber-conciliatory capital-"D" Democratic wing of modern-American culture.  This is a gross mischaracterisation.  Real relativism is a complex and thoughtful philosophical argument, not a bunch of burnt-out hippies reassuring themselves that everything is groovy.  Anyone who reads this book and feels that relativism has been dismantled cannot possibly truly understand relativism.

You cannot "dis-prove" relativism.  Relativism is not a truth-value system.  Relativism is not a hypothesis or a theory.  You cannot, as these authors attempt, to employ logic puzzles and make generalizations about what "relativists do" or "say", or point to "inconsistencies" in relativist's actions, and say that you have refuted relativism.  Relativism is not a platform or party line.  Relativism has nothing to do with abortion.
4873356
I bought this book with the expectation of receiving a well-constructed introduction to philosophy.  I was surprised to find a poorly written book that exceeded its scope and purpose for the sole reason of reaching a publisher's page limit.

Within the text, there are errors, typos, inaccurate information, and a poor attempt at wit.  Example: Chapter One is called "It's Greek To Me".

Essentials to Philosophy begins on strong note, giving a substantial and informative overview of the ancient Greeks, Medieval philosophy, and the Renaissance.  After the first seven chapters, the book takes a nosedive.  For whatever reason, the author saw fit to include chapters on psychology and Alchoholics Anonymous.  One chapter is entitled, "Philosophy and the Couch Potato".  What an absurd reach!

Quite honestly, reviewers here on Amazon could write a more captivating and informative book, but I will give the author props for attempting to make philosophy comprehensible to the average Joe.