Clever Argument Lacking Balance/Context
595500
I found this book very frustrating.  Throughout the book, I felt as though Ross and Makovsky are largely on a soapbox about how they are essentially better informed and 'get it' while neo-cons and realists are both out of touch and misguided.  However, the authors base their arguments on very narrow quotes and then selectively interpret/apply such quotes to advance their agenda.  By taking quotes out of context, it conveniently positions the authors to argue that neither side 'gets it' because -- wait for it -- they ignore context.  Can anyone else smell the hypocrisy in the argument?  It's quite laughable.

I'm sure the targets of his criticism -- such as Walt/Mearsheimer -- would take issue with the authors for poorly representing their positions, though I haven't done research to find out whether they have responded to the book.  Ross and Makovsky can't honestly defend their positions/solutions as more balanced/effective without providing the readers with a fairer view of those they criticize.

Ross and Makovsky do offer some substantive and valuable historical background and analysis.  However, their tone and approach to writing the book was done in a very convenient way so as to come out looking more clever than everyone else.  If you keep this in mind while reading it, you will be better off.
3171613
Geisler and McCoy wrote this book because they believe that atheists are guilty of holding contradictory beliefs, and I agree. They state their thesis like this: "...the atheist holds two contradictory beliefs in his mind simultaneously, and moreover, he does it twice. These two fundamental inconsistencies will invalidate two central atheistic arguments." (Page 9)

The first inconsistency they claim to have found centers around the belief that an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God cannot exist because of the existence of evil. They also claim atheists reject God's interventions to fix the problem of evil as being essentially immoral in nature. They say this is an inconsistency which proves the atheist worldview is contradictory (Atheists say evil should not exist, but they reject God's interventions to fix it because it violates human autonomy).

The second inconsistency they attack is that while atheists claim God's interventions would be immoral, they are in favor of some of these same interventions being done by mankind on a societal level, further highlighting the inconsistency of their rejection of God.

The primary problem with Geisler and McCoy's work here is that they are guilty of (I think unintentionally) creating a straw man when they laid out the main points of their argument. The atheists that they interact with, and boy do they ever interact (the book is filled with quotations), are not simply arguing that if God really existed he would deal with the problem of evil. If that was the extent of the atheistic argument then Geisler and McCoy would be spot on. However, it's not that simple. The atheists reject God's interventions to fix the problem of evil, because they say if God was who he is said to be the problem of evil wouldn't exist in the first place. The Atheist's Fatal Flaw does not provide a satisfying answer to THAT question. Geisler and McCoy don't interact much with the question except to essentially dismiss it on pages 137-138.

The real atheist argument is this: if God is all good, all powerful, and all loving, then why can he not simply make a world where everyone has total autonomy, free will, and no evil exists? Geisler and McCoy don't answer this question. They say that to suggest God be more forceful in fixing the problem of evil and also give humans autonomy is nonsense, as Lewis said: "You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense." (pg. 138)

In summary, I think the authors have overlooked the greatest atheistic critique of their position, and in doing so undermined the whole thesis of their book. The authors also overlooked a number of primary examples on how an atheistic worldview is obviously self-contradictory. In a world without God, moral judgments are made but what is the foundation for having any morality? Logic is used to argue, appeals are made to justice, but in a worldview without God no such appeals can be successful because there is no "oughtness" to it. Why should you be right, and I wrong? Geisler and McCoy miss out on an entire presuppositional approach that would have fit very well with the theme of their book.

I would say that the book is still worth purchasing even just for all of the interaction with actual quotations from primary sources.

I received this book for free from Baker Books in exchange for my reviewing it, and I was not required to write a positive review.
763096
Logic is the frequent victim in our political debates, TV panels, newspaper editorials, and so forth so somebody had to stand up for it and this book does that. Not only does it expose the logic falacies that we hear so much in the news media, it does so in an entertaining way, so it is a fun book to read. Some religious people seem to find it offensive, so if you are a "believer" you may wish to stay away from the book.

I have one minor quibble. Whyte ignores the social context of arguments that introduce implicit factors in the debate. For example, in the second chapter, he points out that people dismiss arguments by point out that the person who makes the argument has an ulterior motive. He points out correctly that an argument may be valid regardless of the motives of the person making it. In reality people look at things not only logically, but also in Bayesian terms. If I have heard person Z several times making arguments that were proven false and in each case he/she had a motive making them, then I can classify Z as someone who routinely makes invalid arguments when he/she has a motive. Then I can save time in the future by dismissing off hand any of his/hers arguments when there is a motive behind them.
2247523
There's a fuzzy line between arguing and manipulation and that line is sometimes crossed here.

Have you ever noticed someone talking to you and clearly but subtly trying to manipulate you? It's slightly annoying and comes off as disingenuous, which the best rhetoric shouldn't be at all.  You get the sense that the author is trying to use his occasionally slightly manipulative tricks on you and it as well as the cultural references come off as a little bit tacky. It's a good book nonetheless.

I'd like to find a better book about rhetoric that comes at it with slightly more decorum and respect.
3198124
While Dawkins and Hitchens are both authors with a neat style and acerbic wit, Stenger strikes to the heart of the matter. Is or isn't absence of evidence evidence of absence? Taking his forte, he wears away at the deliberately confusing arguments apologists use to dilute what cosmology really teaches.
4412850
Riddled with weasel words (some say, some people say, many people say, many people think), political opinions, and sentences longer than I-20.

There is nothing wrong with holding the opinion, that, say, a single-payer system of healthcare is what this country needs (pg 46).  Even though I may disagree with you, if you, as an individual, expressed that opinion to me and argued your position, I would listen politely and offer my own point of view.  In other words, we'd have a conversation.

Now, to be completely fair, the authors were reiterating a position statement from the American Nurse's Association on page 46 regarding the desirability of a single-payer option "for financing a reformed healthcare system."  However, the very next sentence is, "These suggestions have merit but would require a cultural change in how we think about health care, the education and training of healthcare providers, and the financing of our healthcare system."  And that, I am sorry, is editorializing and opinion-spinning.  I cannot dialogue with the authors.  If there is a test question that asks me if, according to the textbook, a single-payer system of financing healthcare has merit, I will be forced to answer "Yes" in order to receive credit for the question.

Based on some reviews I've written in the past that have been critical of social science textbooks, it seems that a lot of people's knee-jerk reaction is to vote my reviews down because I don't necessarily agree with author's premises.  I want to make it clear that I am not making a statement about the opinions the authors hold (except where explicitly stated otherwise), only that I believe their inclusion in a textbook that is supposed to be about nursing science is inappropriate and amounts to attempted indoctrination of new nurses into a particular political point of view.  This book contains similar statements regarding gun control, snide and simplistic observations of libertarian philosophy, and some statements about people of various races which, if they came from an older white man, would probably be greeted with charges of hate speech.

The authors do manage to be objective quite often, in that they are simply relaying important information.  When they do that, it's a decent textbook to read, and I learned a lot about public health policy in the US from using this textbook.  It's a good book for that purpose, mostly, but it must be read critically to avoid simply accepting everything the authors say as fact, when it may in fact be nothing more than their opinion, preceded by weasel words.

Some nuggets:
"Value citizenship and public service above entrepreneurship (pg 60)."

"Those who view nature as dominant (e.g., African-Americans and Hispanics) believe that they have little or no control over what happens to them (pg 81)."

"The American middle-class culture tends to be future oriented, and individuals are willing to delay immediate gratification until future goals are accomplished.  In contract, African-American and Hispanic families may place greater value on quality of life and view present time as being more important than future time (pg 80)."

At times, I found myself wondering if the authors were writing this way for the lulz.
3180315
"Random Designer" is a laudable attempt at reconciling the apparent discrepancy between religion and science.  Much of the current debate as it plays out in contemporary politics is based on rigid either-or thinking that is far too dogmatic.  Science offers a description of the universe but not an explanation.  However, when Christians deny science it recalls the era when Galileo was tried for proclaiming that the earth revolves around the sun.  God is the who of creation and evolution is the how.  Any perceived contradiction is an illusion.

Colling may be overstretching his case, e.g. in his criticism of intelligent-design theory.  Even intelligent-design theory is not incompatible with science.  Intelligent-design theory (a/k/a the teleological strand of Christian apologetics) holds that just as from observing a watch you conclude there must have been a watchmaker, the order of the universe suggests there was a Creator.  True enough, but that still does not tell you much about the process by which the watchmaker actually produced the watch.  In the case of the universe, think of science as the description of that process.

The title-word "random" may be confusing insofar as it connotes a lack of divine purpose.  Just because we cannot always (or often) discern a purpose does not mean there is none.  But it is clear that Colling does not deny this, making this only a minor point.

Overall I wholeheartedly recommend this slim, well-written volume.  In the very least it will encourage you to think about critical issues that are normally treated with far too little nuance and understanding.
2751545
There are good things in this book, but my goodness, the author presents himself as an authority on other belief system and religions that he obviously knows very little about, and therefore should not state as fact that which is only an uneducated opinion.  This made me wonder if what he reported regarding religions or thought processes that I was not familiar with could be trusted at all. I heard that he said in an interview that if people got hung up on these inaccuracies that  they were "missing the point."  Woah!  Blame the reader, and carry on!  Really??  Seems cocky and like there is an agenda that I cannot be okay with here. At times I felt he tried to make things more complicated than they needed to be as to seem super intelligent or deep.  I found this somewhat comical.  He loves run-on sentences where simplicity could easily make the point.  So, in spite of some  good thoughts that I gleaned from this book, in my opinion, it was not worth the price.
4379477
I did not give Ellis a 4 star because I agree with him.  I did so because, from his viewpoint, he was an effective "debater" in his response to Brown.  He managed to "frame" the arguments to his own purposes, for the most part.  Ellis is sticking to the theory of grace as the basis for our relationship.  Brown is trying to demonstrate that the Hyper-grace preachers and teachers are ignoring a lot of Scripture.  So, he (Brown) tends to refer to a huge amount of Scripture.  His weakness is that he does not develop a coherent theory that explains how these Scriptures apply within the overarching grace relationship.  So, because Ellis has a coherent theory, he often comes off more logical than Brown.  Ellis, on the other hand, quite often fails to respond to the examples and Scriptures that Brown cites.  He just chooses to ignore them.  Thus, he makes his own case, but does not really answer the objections to the case.  Moreover, he sidesteps many of the controversies and extreme examples that Brown cites.  Brown has done enormous research and has documented the cases where the Hyper-grace movement has gone too far.  Ellis answers by either denying or ignoring.  Though Ellis generally keeps a pretty cool head, he does get pretty grumpy at times.  When Brown gives a chapter-full of examples of how Hyper-grace preachers and others characterize their enemies--"grace-haters," into "sin management," "rock-throwing legalists," etc--Ellis says this is "a bit rich" from one who "names names" and writes a judgmental book.  Maybe that is so, but Brown has carefully documented all of this.  (I think Brown's mistake was to put this chapter so early in the book.)  In another place, Brown has described certain extremes--such as gay Christians using Hyper-grace rhetoric and another person who "sanctified" profanity--as a logical extension of Hyper-grace.  Ellis huffs that he "could" make a logical link between "mixed-grace" theology and "all the worst ills of Christendom."  At the end of his essay, Ellis gives a very succinct summary of his assessment of Brown's book.  (Brown's worst failing is that he can never be succinct.)  He says Brown fails to portray Hyper-grace accurately (I do not agree), but does present "mixed-grace" theology (which Ellis believes is a mixture of grace and legalistic add-ons).  I read this book after I read Brown's book.  It forced me to re-examine Brown's book.  I realized that Brown effectively describes the Hyper-grace theology and rhetoric and shows how they fail to adhere to the overall teachings of the New Testament.  Brown would have been much more effective if he had not thrown so many Scriptures at the reader and if he had guided the reader with some theory to understand the failings of the Hyper-grace movement.  Ellis, on the other hand, ably presents the theoretical framework of Hyper-grace theology.  He, however, fails to acknowledge its weakness and sidesteps serious issues that Brown has raised.
2911979
Most of the objections seem to arise from criticism of particular sections, while disregard others that plainly address their issue. Considering the brevity, I'm not sure how this could occur, but if one does choose to read 'Freewill' and reflect on such, they should find themselves at a fairly comedic conclusion.
36688
Very clever premise -  a foetus gets to choose whether or not to be born. With the right editor it could be a clever satire of the"Choice" versus "Life" controversy.
1931869
Sometimes I get to teach a freshman course on logic, essentially introducing students how to identify a "bad" argument - in other words, how to spot a fallacy.  While this charming little tome doesn't cover all of them, it does touch on the most common errors of reasoning, and it does so clearly and cleverly.

19 different errors are explained and illustrated here of what I would venture are the most common fallacies used - for example, the appeal to irrelevant authority, false dilema, hasty generalization, affirming the consequent and composition and division.  Each argument is clearly explained ("The 'straw man' is to intentionally characature a person's argument with the aim of attacking the characature rather than the actual arguement. ... For example a skeptic of Darwinism might say, 'My opponent is trying to convince you that we evolved from chimpanzees who were swinging from trees, a truly ludicrous claim. ..." On the facing page, an illustration of a "straw man" argument showing a toucan and two different sketches of the bird with the caption: "The energitic, muscular and colorful toucan was completely misrepresented by one of the artists.  Later on he showed the audience his painting and criticised how dull and lifeless the toucan had looked."

I think its an excellent - and humorous - introduction to logic (and I may make it an optional text if I teach the class in the future).  For philosophiles, logicians or anyone who can't stand poor reasoning, I highly recommend this delightful little book.
453840
The God Delusion  is a well-written, entertaining critique of organized religion and fundamentalism.  Dawkins is clearly a truth seeker, and some of his points are difficult to refute.  For example, he shows how the argument from intelligent design is its own undoing.  If items of great complexity are proof of a designer, that designer himself, being quite complex, must have been designed by an even more talented designer.

The book has two major weaknesses.  First, Dawkins makes no mention of the Sociology of Religion, preferring instead an evolutionary viewpoint.  He asks, "If religious beliefs are irrational, how did they survive the process of natural selection?"  He then discusses meme theory, meme's being ideas and beliefs whose evolution can be compared to the evolution of living organisms.  Those are interesting ideas.  But there is an entire body of literature, based in the Sociology of Knowledge, that provides better, more logical answers.  Well-known books like The Social Construction of Reality and The Sacred Canopy explain how humans create their own reality, and then anchor this cosmically through religion.  They also explain how reality thus constructed then becomes subjectively real to individuals, and how the human creation of religion in turn acts back upon its human creators.  Dawkins should let us know his position on this.

The second weakness is the lack of appreciation for religion's positive social and personal impacts.  A lot of altruistic behavior, social compassion, sincerity and value clarification are tied up in religion.  Yes, that doesn't prove that God is real. Yes, many evils also occur in the name of religion, such as making children afraid of Hell.  And yes, atheists can have positive values as well.  But it's nave to believe the religious enterprise should just be stripped away because it's not based on logical argument.

Religion should continue to evolve and modernize.  It should embrace science fully, and let go of beliefs that contradict science.  The New Testament is an improvement over the Old.  Currently, a big part of Christianity is the personal development angle.  And our view of God changes as cultural values change.  For example, since we no longer believe homosexuals should be executed, be assume the Old Testament was wrong about that.  Obviously, we're invoking moral standards that are independent of religion or at least of the Bible, as Dawkins points out.  The works of Bishop Spong illustrate how far this process has come.  Faith in the absence of proof can be a good thing, and that can only be measured by our ever-evolving values.

Nonetheless, a must read for believers and nonbelievers alike who seek the truth and want to think more clearly.
915432
This book on apologetics is different. Rather than give arguments for the existence of God, Bannister looks at the arguments for God not existing. Are they valid?

Atheists have become very vocal of late. In many Western countries atheism is seen as the default position. In fact, Bannister writes, Many people assume that atheism is, indeed, the only position for somebody who wishes to be considered educated, sophisticated, urbane, and rational. (6)

The arguments for atheism just do not stand up to scrutiny, Bannister says. I love how he has us think through the arguments and other statements atheists have made. He clearly points out how to spot which arguments are good and which are bad. One of the tests is if the argument stands up in a different setting. He sometimes turns an argument of atheists around,using it on the atheists themselves, thereby showing it just does not work.

Atheists demand evidence from Christians that God exists so Bannister turns the tables on atheists, demanding evidence God does not exist. Atheists claim their view is just non-belief in the statement, God exists. Bannister says that does not fly. An atheist must rather say, It is true that there is no God. Then evidence is required. He suggests atheists, must recognize their belief for what it is and engage accordingly. (35) He quotes extensively from atheist authors, calling them to intellectual integrity.

This is a serious subject but Bannister is not overly academic. The book is very readable. In fact, he has a quirky sense of humor and inserts it from time to time. One might think humor inappropriate in a book on such a serious issue. As Bannister says, Humour is powerful because it can prick pomposity and puncture delusions of self-importance. (234) I love it.

I really like how he engages the reader by starting of each chapter with a humorous story. As one continues through the chapter, it becomes clear the story clearly illustrates the absurdity of an atheist argument or statement.

Bannister's aim is not to disprove atheism. He just wants to weed out the bad arguments so a more sensible dialog can occur. Is this important? Yes. Whether God exists or not is arguably the most important question there is. (27) Is it important to read and think through arguments on both sides of the issue? Yes. After all, Bannister writes, it's only when you're willing to go down to the basement with a flashlight and poke around your foundations that you can really know whether what you're building stands on rock, sand, or simply hot air. (204)

I highly  recommend this book to atheists and Christians alike. Atheists will be challenged to truly think through their arguments. Bannister hopes this will encourage them to abandon bad arguments and engage the question of God's existence anew. Christians who have been intimidated by the forcefulness of the new and very vocal atheists will realize how inadequate their arguments really are.

This is a foundational issue. As Ravi Zacharias says in the forward, ...without God as our ultimate frame of reference, we don't know who we are in essence or where we are in the great scheme of life. (11)

I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for the purpose of an independent and honest review.
3601353
I'm a liberal, but often I read books by conservative authors such as Robert H. Bork ("Slouching Towards Gomorrah"), Thomas Sowell ("Black Rednecks and White Liberals"; "Economics Politics"; and "Race and Culture: Around the World"), Walter Williams, and Shelby Steele. I jokingly say to my friends, "It's good to know what the enemy's thinking." But on a serious note, some of these more illuminating conservative writers have very good arguments concerning the various political and social problems of the day and arguments, which are grounded in logic, experience, and reason.

That bring us to Ann Coulter's book, "Godless". I read it because of the controversy surrounding the book. I'm a native New Yorker, so it was interesting to read her book coupled with her public comments. In conclusion, I must say that the book is full of witty satirical prose, but the book is very short on arguments. Instead, it delves into ranting, at times, downright hatred of liberals. The arguments are very one-sided, which is disappointing because it seems that Coulter engages in a classic "strawman" argument: setting up the opposition and their positions in the weakest manner possible and then countering them, not with logical arguments: premise, premise, conclusion; but rather straight to conclusions--very outrageous and particularly harsh ones at that. In addition, the number of times she engages in the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem (appeal to ridicule) is unforgivable, particularly for a writer and scholar of her supposed ability and stature (this is the first Coulter book I've read). For the few arguments that may be somewhat logical and convincing, Coulter's ability to jump to dubious universally applicable conclusions based on skewed facts and quotations paired with the unbelievably harsh prose at times, is a real turn-off for a person approaching the book with an open mind or politcally moderate. Further, the book seems to ignore examples that stand contrary to Coulter's standard liberal caricature, as if Coulter casted the liberal ideology accurately and confronted them head-on, the book might have been decent--but I find Coulter's intellectual honesty inherently suspect throughout the book. If one does get this book, I would suggest checking the sources, as I did (particularly concerning the 9/11 widows and the 9/11 commission--I won't supply my findings here, I suggest you read the book and draw your own conclusions), and even the Biblical quotations are skewed and crudely interpreted to imply divine hatred of liberals.

In this book, there is no debunking of a somewhat accurate liberal belief system, with straight analysis and facts, that you might find in Bork, Sowell, Williams, or Steele. While those aforementioned authors can be harsh writiers as well, their analysis is clear and logical. Certainly, Sowell and Steele in particular, made me reconsider and challenge some of the political and social perceptions concerning my race--a mea culpa of sorts (I'm an African-American male). I didn't become greatly more conservative as a result, but those authors added more clarity to the political discourse concerning race in our country. It was a refreshing intellectual experience, and I was well-rewarding for reading those who challenged my preconceived notions of how the world operates. However, if you are looking for such an experience in this "Godless," I would emphatically urge you to look elsewhere. But, if you want to fill your head with at times, nonsensical ranting, unsupported facts, and virulent hatred then read the book. The other conservative  authors I listed above, I would recommend you reading instead, regardless of your political ideology. In conclusion, I would simply chalk Coulter's book as another step in the decline of reasonable and civil political discourse in this country.
1388733
The surface argument of this sounds academic, but the undertone close to virulent.

I have read many books on this position, so I know it is possible to have a viewpoint and even to name names without sounding pompous.

His argumentation is very simple. Were he to write a book on all other theological topics, the author's positioned would be widely challenged.
1596137
The author wisely counsels the reader not to skip ahead to the punchline chapter, but when the reader does get there, the punchline lacks adequate explanation.  Without trying to re-phrase the author's ideas here, I would suggest that he needs to spend more time explaining what yoga is and is not, and how the practice of yoga is to be done.  Without that explanation, I doubt that most western-mind readers would know how to implement what Sri Vishwanath suggests.