Well needed argument (with a near-fatal flaw)
356352
This book is a joy to read for anyone longing to escape the confines of our decadent culture. The history of gentlemanliness, chivalry, courtship, and honor that comprises the first portion of the book is sound and thorough enough, but the point of this text comes toward the end, where Miner explains what it is to be a gentleman in today's society. He shows how it is possible and gives examples of modern day gentlemen (largely centered around the military and the heroes of 9/11).

The argument for chivalry stumbles when the author tries to make a case for martial combat. Simply, our age cannot condone martial combat because technology has eliminated the possibility of honorable combat. School shootings and the prospect of nuclear war are proof that we should find a better outlet for physical prowess. Sport is the closest thing I can think of, but it is not mentioned in the book.

The big problem with Miner's examination is his exaltation of coolness. The way he puts it, cool (sprezzatura) is the ultimate aim of the gentleman. And while a solid case can be made for sprezzatura, coolness means nonchalance and insouciance, and those things do not always lead to refinement and excellence. Indeed, coolness is the primary aim of our culture these days and it leads directly to all the problems that Miner is trying to correct with the compleat gentleman.

It is a fine collection of refreshing ideas and is well worth the read despite its near-fatal flaw. The author is diligent in locating the source of words and ideas and it is worth the read just to know where the word `romance' came from. Ultimately, the book will probably add some energy to the growing movement toward a more civilized society.
322352
Mark Levin's book falls into some of the usual pitfalls that almost all biased political argumentation today falls into--evidence is often stretched and recontextualized to fit certain predisposed conclusions.  The book is clearly well researched, and Levin is no doubt quite knowledgeable about legal process and the language of the US Constitution, but his conclusions are often stretched to a degree that no longer fits the evidence.  I would hesitate comparing his method to a smokescreen, for I am not entirely sure if Levin is purposefully making exaggerated claims that he doesn't support but artfully disguises in the ethos of research, but at the core of many of his ideas are assumptions or basic contradictions that he just can't back up.

For example, Levin is trying to show with this book that there is a long-term conspiracy of liberalism that has been slowly forging opportunities for itself in the process of applying the Constitution to the cases before it so that there would be precedent to back what Levin calls unConstitutional decisions like in Roe vs. Wade.  Levin pushes a good case to look further (personally) into the basis of that and other decisions and if they do have Constitutional basis, but Levin instead goes into a history lesson of the decisions that predicated decisions like Roe vs. Wade with the assumption that every opportunity opened in previous decisions regarding things like the right to privacy was in fact the doing of a long-term liberal plan to open the doors of power for an activist court.  Certainly, legal cases are often made on the grounds of precedent, but instead of revealing the focus on precedent rather than the Constitution as a problem in the deliberations of the Supreme Court, Levin tries to turn the problem into an unsupportable conspiracy that comes across on the edge of paranoia rather than sound, unbiased reason.  And when Levin starts out the book stating that the justices should be treated as humans rather than gods, he wants to convey the idea that their actions may be questioned, but will not acknowledge himself that the history of precedents may also be the mistakes of the same human beings whom he does not want us to deify.

Levin also breaks his guise of the the reasonable viewer of history when he tries to establish the intents of the founding fathers, equating Jefferson's participation in prayer services at Congress as a direct negation of his over-used mention of the wall of separation.  Clearly, Levin cannot see no possible correlation between the two, and thus the questioning of the validity of prayer in schools must be a moot argument.  Just to make sure that his bias is clear, he throws in a little slippery scare tactic of suggesting a future where religious observance is also banned in the home.

Levin makes the same kind of rhetorical blunders when he suggests that Blackmun may have turned 'left' under the influence of his wife (while giving a little shot in the arm to Richard Nixon for having the foresight of wanting to base a Supreme Court nomination partly on the quality of a man's wife).  When discussing the famous argument over the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, Levin focuses more on how much the plaintiff's daughter actually wanted to say the phrase, which is of course moot when considering the actual legitimacy of requiring the phrase in a patriotic statement.

In the end, this book comes across as yet another argument of bias in what has clearly become a divisive popular culture--evidently, a book isn't commercially viable unless it has a line to hold, no matter which side.
2501473
The book was at its best when providing quantitative support for the authors' arguments.  While well written, I found most chapters to be excessively partisan and, well, preachy.  The result is that I found myself increasing harangued and irritated.  This was surprising and disappointing in that philosophically I agree with most of the arguments.  I think the book would have been stronger if it had realistically addressed how a liberterian philosophy accommodates complex and nuanced public policy issues.  For example, what exactly is the prescription for a 50-year old factory worker with physical impairments who loses his job due to technological innovation?  Do we ensure the personal freedom of parents whose irresponsible behavior creates insurmountable roadblocks to the future of their children?  Are there no moral questions that arise from the excessive salaries paid to CEOs, entertainers and celebrity athletes?  I'm not suggesting that bigger government or promoting helplessness is the solution, only that an ad nauseam exposition of principles was not helpful.
3580766
As a devout born-again Christian who converted to atheism after much open-minded inquiry, I have seen both sides of this argument.  I like the humorous vibe much better than the condescending tone of many atheist authors.  Although Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and others argue brilliantly, I worry that religious people who read their work will think all atheists are arrogant and angry.  I agree with most of the points covered by this author, although a few could stand further exposition to address the likely Christian counter-arguments.  The Garden of Eden "moral choice" question is an example:

Atheist argument: Adam and Eve were not capable of choosing right and wrong when they ate the apple, so they are not liable for that choice.
Christian argument:  Small children may not know moral right and wrong or understand the consequences of their actions, but they do know that they should trust and obey their parents, who have always taken care of them.  When God told Adam and Eve not to eat that fruit, he was testing whether they trusted and would obey him.  What God was asking them to do was make the choice to stay with Him or go out on their own, looking to their own knowledge for guidance instead of seeking His take on everything.  This is a choice they HAD to have in order to be agents with free will.

The author might have addressed this by mentioning that at some point children turn into adults, and expect their parents to treat them with enough respect to deal with them on an adult level.  That means God should be willing to explain things, prove things, and answer pertinent questions.  This is something the God of the bible refuses to do.  Even Jesus says we have to be like little children to enter the kingdom of God.  So we have a God who gives us critical thinking skills, a human nature that is insatiably curious about the unknown, an innate knowledge of right and wrong that requires no direction from a book, and life experience that teaches us to be distrustful of faith which often leads to wrong conclusions and bad behavior, while logical reasoning repeatedly proves itself as the best way to determine the truth and improve lives.  Then He expects me to discard all that.  What???  Is this not a point worth mentioning?

Perhaps he didn't want to delve that deeply into the arguments, but if you are dealing with some of the more intelligent apologists out there, you will need more ammunition.  If the author simply wanted to entertain atheists and agnostics, he certainly does that well.  A delightful read.
3781687
Reinke offers some solid insights into the value of reading, but I found myself disagreeing on several points--not in significant ways, but disagreeing none the less. The point at which I disagreed most sharply was in regards to the formative power of literature. In a couple places he writes of an ideal situation in which we are only formed by the Bible, allowing only it to have that kind of power and impact in our lives, but the reality is that we are formed--at least in some way--by everything we read. My disagreement stems, in part I think, from what seems to be an over-emphasis in this book on the head in our reading and a neglect of the heart. Reading is formational, even when we don't want it to be. Reinke's caution is appropriate, but I think there are underlying reasons that he misses.
3323588
This book serves as an excellent example of the Fundamentalist Christian argument that the KJV is the inspired word of God. The problem with the argument is, that it ignores entirely the principles Protestants used to establish the canon coming out of the Reformation, as a part of refuting that the bible was given to us merely by the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, which determines how the concept of inspiration is formulated by methods of proof given through Moses. One of the most popular explanations on the biblical system used by Protestants to establish the canon is set out by Geisler & Nix in A General Introduction to the Bible. Grady shows he is completely familiar with the book, which he just runs down, but he never acknowledges the system set out to establish inspiration. Instead, he sets up a straw man argument, that scholars uphold only the original text is inspired based on II Timothy 3:16, rather than the passages from the OT on how an inspired prophet is to be recognized. However, this is the standard procedure of KJV-Only advocates. And like these advocates, Grady constantly insults and degrades anyone disagreeing with his position, as if it is supporting evidence, rather than extreme immaturity in scholarship.

However, Grady has done a lot of research, and there is a lot of useful information in the book. For example, he does an excellent job of explaining the relationship of Vaticanus with Sinaiticus, how one scribe penned both endings of Mark, and how the manner of transmission indicates the examplar had the final verses. It is becoming obvious that there has been a great deal of dishonesty among scholars in setting out the Critical Text. Just like the theory of evolution, the evidence behind the new Greek text is a sham. People from the KJV-Only side are often excellent in pointing out where that dishonesty has occurred. Final Authority can be included among them.

My personal position is, that the TR represents the original text and the KJV is the best translation in English, as well as the most anointed bible actually used in history.
2861569
Provan builds a great case for the Biblical teaching against contraception, utilizing scripture, the testimony of Protestant church fathers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and the like), and the testimony of  various Protestant church councils.
What one finds most tragic, though,  in reading this book is that nobody in the Protestant church is listening.  This is the fruit that the Protestant reformation has sown.  In rejecting  the teaching ministry of the Church in favor of Sola Scriptura, the  individual Protestant can look at the scriptural arguments Provan makes and  say "nice exegesis, but I don't agree".  Likewise, the individual  Protestant can look at the testimony of the Protestant fathers and  Protestant Councils and say "well, they're not infallible".
Another irony...Provan takes great pains to show his readers that he's  no Catholic, by including several anti-Catholic quotations.  Yet here he  is, reinventing the wheel on an important Christian doctrine, on which the  Catholic church's teaching has been consistent. If he is right in his  exegesis, and the Bible forbids contraception, his next question should be  "what church teaches this?  Where I will find the truth?"  When  he finds that there is only one church that teaches this, he would know  that that is the church that God established, one, holy, catholic and  apostolic...
In making his case against contraception, Provan ultimately  makes a case for the Catholic Church and against the Protestant  Reformation.  And thats a case that needs to be made, again and again,  until once again the Christian church can stand unified before the world.
4606805
With the growing attention surrounding the evolution v. Christianity debate, I feel that Enns' book was introduced at a most opportune time.

In the first part of the book, Enns seeks to highlight the occasionality of the Genesis text- stressing the importance of engaging it within its socio-historic context. Herein he sensitively provides evidence for the cultural constraints that shaped the biblical authors' worldviews while simultaneously arguing for their legitimacy and inspiration.

To form the second part of his book, Enns launches a (in my opinion, successful) series of well-structured arguments against the growing dichotomy between evolution and Christianity. In these, he critically assesses the most popular "issues" held against a synthesis between Christianity and evolution.

Ultimately however, Enns fails to provide a satisfying resolution to the implications of a non-historical Adam. His theology is clear and reasonable, yet seemingly incomplete at times.  I will not however, condemn Enns for this. As an introductory text, I feel that he has specified a strong case for evolution/biblical synthesis in a tone that is quite appropriate for his intended audience.  Altogether, this work serves as a strong introduction to the biblical criticism that surrounds Genesis, as well as a succinct articulation of Enns' arguments for biblical/evolutionary synthesis.

Under the FTC guidelines, I state that I received a free copy of this book to review it.
4814182
This book is readable and thorough, and probably the best introduction to critical thinking around.
With such a large number of fallacies demanding multiple examples, the author must be forgiven if some of them seem a little off the mark, even while being technically correct. For example, the proposition (I'm paraphrasing) "Our baseball team was 1 and 11 this year, but with a new coach we'll do better next year." is in fact false. However, if the proposition were that "we'll probably do better" it would be true, because the probability is that we would get an average coach and an average coach has a record of 0.500, while assuming that coaching has a positive effect. Another example has former Predident Bush answering the question, "Did Dan Quayle's parents help him get into the national guard?" with words to the effect that "At least he served patrioticly and didn't run to Canada or burn the flag."  The answer while technically irrelevant is a politician's way of saying, "Whether his parents helped or not is unimportant, at least ...blah, blah." Such an answer invites a rejoinder along the lines of "It really is important, because ..."  The fault of the example is that it implies it is OK to rest on the technicalities even when you have a very good idea of what your opponent is really saying.
So if some of the example are a little off-base, perhaps that is all to the good as a learning experience. The small bits of uneasiness are left to the student as an exercise to resolve. The author provides the tools for doing so.
349607
We used this as a textbook in Old Testament Survey at Belmont - I suspect largely because the author had just retired from a professorship there.  The book is well written, and accessible, but not particulary useful.
Tullock assumes the validity of the documentary hypothesis (as developed by Wellhausen et al.) and proceeds from there, which is a fatal flaw for two reasons:  1)The introductory student probably doesn't care about theories of composition and would be better served by spending more time becoming acquainted with the content and themes of the OT books; 2)Wellhausen's theories are deeply flawed, as many authors in the past century have pointed out (as an example, see Kline's Structure of Biblical Authority, which makes a compelling case that the form of Deuteronomy is that of an ancient treaty and only fits the milieu of the Mosaic period).
Skip this one.
Note:  the above comments apply to the edition which was current in 1991.  One hopes that Tullock has improved the book during the intervening decade.
4236899
As an advocate of presupposionalism and fan of the late Dr. Greg Bahsnen, I greatly appreciate this book, and must also admit that this school of apologetics is widely misrepresented.  And one should not be surprised to find an atheist disagreeing with this method.  After reading the book and the most recent review below, apparently Paul Doland has failed to evaluate this work as "best as possible."  This book is an excellent example of defending the faith in a presuppositional manner.  And Dr. Bahsnen is the guy to turn to if one is looking for a man with explanatory skills, and a faithful student of Van Til.  In the book he uses this skill and his Vantilian training to do what Donald said he doesn't.

Doland says he just asserts that non-Christian worldviews are self-contradictory, but does not offer proof.  But Bahsnen does demonstrate that all other worldviews cannot make sense of ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology; they suffer from arbitrariness and/or inconsistency.

The things that Bahnsen suggests are to be received as "self-evident" (though I don't think he used that phrase) are final authorities.  Bahnsen says that one's final authority is self-authenticating, or self-attesting, in the nature of the case.  One can't go behind his final authority (A) to authorize it with B: in that case B would be the final authority.  So this is a misreading and misunderstanding of Bahnsen's claims. And, by the way, Bahnsen's example of Jesus' word being self-authenticating is both what scripture teaches as well as an example of a self-authenticating, highest authority (scripture, or God's Word).

The quote by Bahsnen on page 63 in Doland's post is true.  Christ demonstrated to his followers that they must have a revelational epistemology: they must start with God's revealed word as the self-authenticating [not "self-evident"; there is a linguistic difference], and indisputable starting point.  So I'm not sure whether the reviewer's point is a criticism of Bahnsen's exegesis or just simply a piece of ridicule of our Lord's claim.

Doland, Bahnsen, and every person have worldviews that contain presuppositions which are final authorities used for interpreting and interrelating every aspect of knowledge and experience. An atheist's belief in materialism (as well as the Christian's view of Scripture's authority) is a presuppositional claim about the universe which is not established by the methods of natural science.
However, the atheist's worldview, as Bahsnen shows, cannot account for logic, science, morality, etc.  The Christian worldview does.

Bahnsen's ultimate claim (from the mass of his work in this area) is that if you want to be rational (and thus salvage epistemology, ethics, metaphysics, etc) you must be a Christian: you must have a worldview that provides the pre-conditions of human experience and intelligibility.  So what is amazing is not that Bahsnen has a Ph. D., but that non-Christians hold their terminal degrees.
1391070
This book by Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, the Pope's former student and right hand man,  is every anti-Intelligent Designer's nightmare. In it he argues effectively against many of the arguments against ID. For example, why would a loving God make a praying mantis that consumes the male alive after copulation is covered on page 91 and in the rest of this chapter. His answers are partly theological and depend on the use of reason and not biology, but I am not sure these kinds of questions can be answered biologically. Nonetheless, he does give reasonable answers. It would have been better in some cases to give biological answers, such as why the retina is "backward" when it seems that the rods and cones should face the incoming light, and not the back of the eye as presently exists. Here too he gives reasonable answers even though a biological answer would have been more complete. I could be biased, as this is one of the very few theological books I have read in decades but, this fact aside, it was an excellent read and highly recommended. This book is a brief readable introduction to the controversy and this may be a handicap. For example, Schoenborn noted the "missing link" problem, but does not go into detail. He could write a 400 page book on this topic alone and doubtless most of his readers would not buy the book if he did, but he could have gone into more detail to document this concern. He does an excellent job covering the theology, showing that classical Neo-Darwinism is totally incompatible with the Catholic faith, thus his title, Chance or Purpose, highlights the conflict. An excellent point was evidence for the creator does not begin at the point where we do not yet know something (the so called God of the gaps), but at the point at where we do know something on the basis of scientific evidence (page 79). Schoenborn also stresses that God not only created in the past, and keeps on creating today, but also must sustain the universe. In his words, if God were to let go of creation, it would fall back into nothingness (page 80). An interesting point which will no doubt trigger debate among many.
4334951
Any person considering this book would do well to carefully read Thomas Fletcher's review here.  In addition to being perceptive and thorough, it gives potential readers a good sense of the level at which Griffin's arguments proceed.  However, Fletcher concludes his review by stating "No student of philosophy would fail to benefit greatly from reading this book."  This is undoubtedly true, to be sure, but I also believe all serious laypersons (of whom I am one, with a background in science) who are willing to put some time and effort into this book would find those efforts very well rewarded. In particular, If you are a person who has ever: (1) found traditional Christian orthodoxy to be an inadequate basis for a serious intellectual life; (2) found forced and unconvincing the attempts of scientists like John Polkinghorne, Francis Collins, or Kenneth Miller to insist that supernaturalism must continue to fill the remaining gaps of their experiences; (3) found the writings of people like Sam Harris, Jerry Coyne, and Christopher Hitchens largely convincing, as far as they go, but deficient in providing a broader base from which to view the entire human condition; in short, if you are searching for a world view that has a rational, defensible metaphysical base but that can also do justice to all aspects of our humanly experienced reality, may I suggest you do the following.  Griffin has written two previous books that lead directly to this one: "Religion and Scientific Naturalism" and "Reenchantment Without Supernaturalism."  Both are very valuable, but if you do not own it already, beg, borrow, or steal a copy of the first of these and turn to the Epilogue.  There you will find, in (literally) less than half a page, the complexities of the broad sweep of Western history clearly laid out and interpreted at a level beyond what you might encounter in a half-dozen heavy tomes.  If you are intrigued (as, dare I say it, we all should be), then buy this present book.

I call attention here to just a few of the very important issues Griffin discusses: a clear analysis of the Enlightenment, modernism, and postmodernism; the absolutely essential distinction between hard-core and soft-core common sense; the very critical "genus-species" distinction in discussions of theism; the convincing demonstration that what is often called "the modern scientific world view" is itself based on an unacknowledged and deficient 17th c. Christian world view; and the defense of the reality of the flow of time and the possibility of a universal "now."  Griffin includes a very insightful analysis of special relativity, with support from top-drawer physicists for his views.  Fletcher's review, again, will provide more details, but the richness and relevance of this material for an understanding of our present world is very impressive.

Perhaps it should also be pointed out that neither Whitehead nor Griffin has ever claimed finality for any of their conclusions.  Both have insisted that further revision of their thought is not only inevitable but essential.  Nevertheless, a move is afoot today that is pointing in the direction of a genuinely unified world view, one that can provide us with a place to stand while addressing ALL aspects of reality, internal as well as external, scientific as well as religious.  Griffin's writings are on the cutting edge of these developments that, he argues persuasively, can provide a way forward through the five major conundrums that bedevil the modern intellectual world, and this book is perhaps the finest available exemplar of this emerging perspective.  The topic could not be more important, and studying and digesting this material could be life-changing.
3765583
The author presents a solid ethical argument for significantly increased charitable giving to combat poverty among the poorest of the poor. One can quibble with some of the simplifications in his key argument, but saving a life or relieving serious suffering through relatively modest sacrifice on one's part is hard to argue with. One of the critics of aid he addresses, William Easterly, responds to his presentation in an article in the Wall Street Journal, March 4, 2009. He makes the key qualification which is the question of efficacy. Singer addresses this but ends up rather glossing over it, especially if we take seriously the idea of scaling up aid at the level he advocates. Since there is an almost total lack of transparency and evaluation of results from even the most reputable international aid agencies, how could we justify a huge increase in their resources in the near term?

This doesn't mean that individuals shouldn't take seriously their personal responsibility, and even Easterly acknowledges there are many projects (if not agencies) whose effectiveness is demonstrable. But on a macro level Singer doesn't address how vast new amounts of aid would be used effectively.

Another caveat. There is more variability in individuals' capacity to give than accommodated by Singer's 5%+ plan, but he does acknowledge that his proposal is a guide. Bill Clinton's point about allowing for people to build up a nest egg before major giving makes sense, especially if you emphasize constraining consumption in order to make that happen sooner than later. One way Singer cites to accomplish that is a policy to match one's giving (or in this case saving for later giving) with "discretionary" expenses defined as those going beyond the basic lifestyle permitted by one's income. ( "Basic" expenses for a very wealthy person could be much higher than for a less wealthy person.)

 Also, Singer doesn't make clear that income should include all income - investment and earned, taxable and non-taxable, as from retirement accounts. If accumulated wealth isn't taken into account, then earned income would be "taxed"  unfairly relative to unearned income or non-income producing assets that nevertheless represent means of the potential donor.

Perhaps the most valuable part of the book is the survey of research showing why people do or do not give more - the importance of perceptions about giving, the role of our emotions and "connectedness" to the recipient, and social or reference group attitudes. The findings help peel away rationalizations, inhibitions and just plain misunderstanding that impede clear thinking about philanthropic commitment. That alone is a considerable service Singer performs for us and alone worth the read.
1587469
The argument is well thought out and vital if you are a fan of democracy.  My only reservation is that much of the writing seems to have been done under time constraints and that it would have benefitted from better editing.  I admit that I opted for a signed copy and that hearing her clear and concise presentation and response to questions colored my opinion of her work.  That said, I recommend the Kindle edition, as I found that though the book is well-annotated, I needed to make notes, Google references and clarify definitions, all of which would have been easier if I hadn't committed to not marking up my paper copy -- it's headed for our village library -- too important to sit on my shelf.
4294307
This book is well-written and engaging.  But its argument, in my view, is far from compelling.  It is often conjectural, and it depends on premises that are at least seriously questionable. These latter include a reassertion of the (by now) old assertion of the "form criticism" school that the Gospels were composed at a time quite far removed from the period when the events of Jesus' life and death took place, and hence are more likely to reflect the particular concerns of their authors instead of what actually transpired at the time of Jesus.
4315043
Most of the recent literature on the relationship between religion and morality is written by theists. It is rare to find anything in print by an atheist on *contemporary* moral arguments for God's existence. It is even less common to find an atheist who discusses such arguments without denying moral realism or moral objectivism. Michael Martin's book is a welcome exception to this trend. Martin responds to moral arguments for God's existence *as a moral realist and as a moral objectivist*.
Martin does not just defend atheism against moral apologetics; he goes on the offensive, presenting an affirmative case for an atheistic moral realism. He also makes many interesting points about the idea that Christianity (and not just God in general) is the foundation of ethics, and offers a detailed discussion of the implications of Christianity and naturalism for the meaning of life.
The breadth of the territory covered by Martin is impressive; I know of no other book on the market that covers such a variety of metaethical issues from an atheistic perspective. Anyone interested in the relationship between naturalism, theism, and morality will find Martin's book useful. Moreover, unlike many books on metaethics, Martin's book is not highly technical, which helps to make it accessible to the lay reader.
However, the book does have its limitations. Many nonphilosophers will find Martin's presentation and defense of Ideal Observer Theory counterintuitive and unconvincing. Martin says nothing about the atheistic justification for adopting the moral point of view. And Martin says little or nothing about some of the influential moral arguments advanced by theists. For example, he says nothing about Robert Adams's work on the social nature of obligation and very little about George Mavrodes's argument about the "queerness of morality." In this sense, Martin's discussion is incomplete.
Nevertheless, despite these shortcomings, this book would make a useful addition to the library of anyone interested in the relationship between atheism and morality.