Note: I rank books differently than Goodreads: 3 stars is "it's okay".
A pen pal sent me this, so of course I had to read it :-).
Before opening it, my conclusion has always been that yes, man needs faith, but not necessarily in the Christian God. After completing it, I'm at the same place. Since I'm a Deist, the existence of a God wasn't an argument he had to win with me. Unfortunately for whatever his point in writing was, it was the only argument that I actually bought.
He starts out completely misrepresenting what it means to be atheist. I've decided that he gives a purely philosophical view, but that view doesn't translate to the everyday life of an atheist and therefore invalidates his arguments. Besides, he uses atheism and anti-theism synonymously and according to /r/atheism, that isn't accurate.
His entire argument for the existence of Jesus as a deity is dependent on Jesus and the Bible being TRUTH, and he fails to prove this claim. If Jesus word were TRUTH, then it would be possible to show why they aren't false. His only defense seems to be that "if they were false, his "enemies" wouldn't also say that they're true"--so what evidence is there that these "enemies" weren't lying about that status? There was a complete lack of analysis here.
For all the bold claims he made in the introduction, he unfortunately fell short. As always, I went into this book blind and tried to be unbiased, hoping that he'd convince me, but it wasn't there.
On an interesting note, while replying to the pen pal in question, she had said that people can never have enough guns. What I found intriguing by this statement is that on pg. 36, in describing how "Reasoning Failed the Test on Reasoning", Zacharias laments the fact that skeptics forget the second qualifier of Kant's claim that morality can be found purely through reason, that "an individuals moral choices were not to be determined by the happiness test, meaning that one ought not to choose a certain path for life just because it makes one happy." He goes on to bash Marxism which apparently based a lot of itself on Kant (I haven't done this research, so I take his word for it) and (perhaps laughingly) finishes by saying our "new world of democratic utopia inscribed the pursuit of individual happiness as a fundamental right for all individuals at the cost of the collective good. In both arenas, Kantian ethics were deviously mangled."
I'm not a philosopher and will quickly admit that strictly philosophical reasoning often goes over my head, but I interpret this passage as, to some extent, agreeing with Kant (though I doubt Zacharias would admit to this) in that it's important to put the collective good above the happiness of the individual. So since I enjoy complicating arguments, wouldn't we agree that it's in the interest of the collective good to put reasonable restrictions on gun ownership (such as waiting periods, more thorough background checks, etc) even if it means inconveniencing legal gun owners? Granted, my argument is dependent on my reading Zacharias correctly and since he's vague more often than not, I cannot say that I did with certainty.
Showing posts with label Book. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Book. Show all posts
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
2009: Banned or challenged for occult/Satanism, religious viewpoint and violence.
2007: Banned for insensitivity, violence, being unsuited to age group, and occult/Satanism.
2001: Banned for violence, being unsuited to age group, and occult themes
I personally like the morals held within some of these stories. I also like that Schwartz included an interesting section at the end that gives a brief history of ghosts and ghost stories showing that they aren't just for fun, but hold cultural significance. I'm also laughing because there is a list of sources, something distinctly lacking in the work of "non-fiction" also on my reading list this week.
2007: Banned for insensitivity, violence, being unsuited to age group, and occult/Satanism.
2001: Banned for violence, being unsuited to age group, and occult themes
I personally like the morals held within some of these stories. I also like that Schwartz included an interesting section at the end that gives a brief history of ghosts and ghost stories showing that they aren't just for fun, but hold cultural significance. I'm also laughing because there is a list of sources, something distinctly lacking in the work of "non-fiction" also on my reading list this week.
The Evolution of Human Intellect: Discover the Information that Schools and Religions Aren't Yet Teaching by L.N. Smith
The author sent me a "coupon" to read this book for free.
I find the method used to tell this story (the roller coaster ride) to be different, but useful and, to some extent, fun. But since I came into this book blind (in terms of the author's background and intent), I also find it to be questionable.
There are two aspects to this book: evolutionary history and evolution of thought. I have a problem with the evolutionary history aspect because without a solid bibliography, we're left with a tale that is at best a thought provoking piece of fiction (by my own definition) and at worst a piece of blatant plagiarism. I personally demand evidence for any piece of information, even if it's just, "based on this, this, and this, I conclude this". I do not question the validity of evolution based on my own research, but I do not particularly condone any "non-fiction" which does not show it's own train of research since no scholar reaches a conclusion purely through their own abilities.
I do not know what work has been done by others on the evolution of thought, nor do I know how much is philosophical and how much is based on scientific evidence. Since this book lacks a bibliography, I do not know what parts are purely from Smith's own reasoning and what parts come from other research done and that troubles me.
His, I assume, philosophical conclusions are the reason I rate this book so highly. I like the idea of human intellect being metaphorical bridges evolving over time and I like that Smith does build his argument on good foundations...I just wish those foundations had better foundations themselves.
I rank this a 5 for enjoyability and thought provoking conclusions. I rank it a 3 for scholarship.
I find the method used to tell this story (the roller coaster ride) to be different, but useful and, to some extent, fun. But since I came into this book blind (in terms of the author's background and intent), I also find it to be questionable.
There are two aspects to this book: evolutionary history and evolution of thought. I have a problem with the evolutionary history aspect because without a solid bibliography, we're left with a tale that is at best a thought provoking piece of fiction (by my own definition) and at worst a piece of blatant plagiarism. I personally demand evidence for any piece of information, even if it's just, "based on this, this, and this, I conclude this". I do not question the validity of evolution based on my own research, but I do not particularly condone any "non-fiction" which does not show it's own train of research since no scholar reaches a conclusion purely through their own abilities.
I do not know what work has been done by others on the evolution of thought, nor do I know how much is philosophical and how much is based on scientific evidence. Since this book lacks a bibliography, I do not know what parts are purely from Smith's own reasoning and what parts come from other research done and that troubles me.
His, I assume, philosophical conclusions are the reason I rate this book so highly. I like the idea of human intellect being metaphorical bridges evolving over time and I like that Smith does build his argument on good foundations...I just wish those foundations had better foundations themselves.
I rank this a 5 for enjoyability and thought provoking conclusions. I rank it a 3 for scholarship.
Full disclosure: I link to the books below because I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they're very similar to the book I reviewed which at 52 pages (at the link I was provided) seemed like it was a chapter or two from a much longer work, either one or the other or maybe some combination of both. I have no desire at this time to read either book I'm offering links to.
Monday, May 28, 2012
If you like to write ANYTHING
Or read anything, please hop over to http://tvtropes.org/ and browse whatever you like. It's fascinating to see how writers aren't really that original (or better yet, seeing how your favorite authors rebel against the status quo). And seriously, writers are going to write something that's already been done, so go there and read how to do it properly and what to avoid. It'll keep you from making rookie mistakes.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Colbert Shoutout
I'm digging Colbert's guest last night who ranked UVA with MIT as the best in Humanities education...and Colbert knew his "Wahoo-Wa"! [End Brag]
And if you care, the guest is Richard Hearst who wrote: We're losing our minds
And if you care, the guest is Richard Hearst who wrote: We're losing our minds
Friday, March 2, 2012
Taming the Scotsman by Kinley MacGregor
This series is pretty good (Brotherhood/MacAlister), though it's pretty clear what kind of man Kinley MacGregor, also known as Sherilyn Kenyon, likes--tall, generally dark, and brooding. She's just as good as Jim Butcher when it comes to beating down the cutie. My only problem is that I'm worried that her brooding guys will lose some of their personality when they're tamed by the lady--will they be just as fierce 5 years later? But anyway.
I'm sitting here laughing my butt off because the big, bad, and sexy hero just handed his sword off to the chatterbox heroine who it turns out is quite the swordswoman so that she can fight the girl who helped kidnap them--while he's just standing there watching the fight with the 4 men who round out the kidnappers instead of beating them up easily while the only 2 swords available are occupied by the women.
For the most part I've been enjoying the books by this author and her real name (series is "Dark-Hunter"). They're fun romances where there's actually an enemy besides poor communication skills (which just annoys me and is why I've avoided romances like the plague before) which is right up my alley. The problem is that you can tell when an author writes romances and when they write epics that just happen to have romance in them--Kenyon's fight scenes are greatly lacking. It was very smart of her to invent a conviently blind character for one of the books. 'Course, I'm the first to say that a fight scene goes into too much detail--we really don't need to have 3 pages of battle for a great book. Butcher's background in martial arts means that he knows exactly what he's talking about when he describes, for instance how one man can take on 12 men singlehandedly. I did a year of Aikido with a friend teaching and I picked up enough to know how beautiful this fighting style is--using the weight of your opponent to throw them across the room. Kenyon glances over these fights, letting other characters talk while the fighting "just happens." I mean, if these women are as good with a sword as she claims, then why don't her hero and heroine ever practice against each other? I'm reading The Warrior now and I think that Cat and Lochlan should have an epic sword fight that ends up with them rolling on the ground kissing for the first time. They have such an antagonistic relationship the fireworks should be quite entertaining.
She also has the problem of the seriously anti-climatic resolution. I mean sure, sometimes the long, overly complicated conclusion is unncessary--sometimes you just need to push the big baddie into the convient fiery pit or shoot the missle into the 2 meter wide hole in the otherwise indestructible Death Star. But sometimes you want more than "I'm a goddess, see me just will you to death, even though I decided not to, and or for some other reason couldn't, for the past 300 pages" though granted, I'm now thinking that she has some overarching plan in mind...or at least I hope. I mean, Butcher is very good at leaving lose ends that come to bite Dresden on the ass three books later.
But all in all Kenyon is a very smart writer. I read the first two books and decided that even though the climaxes were dull, I had to find out more about the bad-ass leader "Acheron", so I decided that I'd read the series until his story got told. Well, one trip to goodreads.com told me that that would not be the 4th or 5th book, as I thought, but rather the 15th--I probably will read all the series because I found some really intreguing spoilers (I've found that sometimes spoilers make for better reading because I know what to look for and forward to).
I'm sitting here laughing my butt off because the big, bad, and sexy hero just handed his sword off to the chatterbox heroine who it turns out is quite the swordswoman so that she can fight the girl who helped kidnap them--while he's just standing there watching the fight with the 4 men who round out the kidnappers instead of beating them up easily while the only 2 swords available are occupied by the women.
For the most part I've been enjoying the books by this author and her real name (series is "Dark-Hunter"). They're fun romances where there's actually an enemy besides poor communication skills (which just annoys me and is why I've avoided romances like the plague before) which is right up my alley. The problem is that you can tell when an author writes romances and when they write epics that just happen to have romance in them--Kenyon's fight scenes are greatly lacking. It was very smart of her to invent a conviently blind character for one of the books. 'Course, I'm the first to say that a fight scene goes into too much detail--we really don't need to have 3 pages of battle for a great book. Butcher's background in martial arts means that he knows exactly what he's talking about when he describes, for instance how one man can take on 12 men singlehandedly. I did a year of Aikido with a friend teaching and I picked up enough to know how beautiful this fighting style is--using the weight of your opponent to throw them across the room. Kenyon glances over these fights, letting other characters talk while the fighting "just happens." I mean, if these women are as good with a sword as she claims, then why don't her hero and heroine ever practice against each other? I'm reading The Warrior now and I think that Cat and Lochlan should have an epic sword fight that ends up with them rolling on the ground kissing for the first time. They have such an antagonistic relationship the fireworks should be quite entertaining.
She also has the problem of the seriously anti-climatic resolution. I mean sure, sometimes the long, overly complicated conclusion is unncessary--sometimes you just need to push the big baddie into the convient fiery pit or shoot the missle into the 2 meter wide hole in the otherwise indestructible Death Star. But sometimes you want more than "I'm a goddess, see me just will you to death, even though I decided not to, and or for some other reason couldn't, for the past 300 pages" though granted, I'm now thinking that she has some overarching plan in mind...or at least I hope. I mean, Butcher is very good at leaving lose ends that come to bite Dresden on the ass three books later.
But all in all Kenyon is a very smart writer. I read the first two books and decided that even though the climaxes were dull, I had to find out more about the bad-ass leader "Acheron", so I decided that I'd read the series until his story got told. Well, one trip to goodreads.com told me that that would not be the 4th or 5th book, as I thought, but rather the 15th--I probably will read all the series because I found some really intreguing spoilers (I've found that sometimes spoilers make for better reading because I know what to look for and forward to).
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Left Turn by Tim Groseclose
I haven't read this book, but I heard about it on The 700 Club. The topic intregued me, so when my computer finally started working again, I looked up the quiz that is supposed to tell you whether or not you're conservative or liberal.
I found the 10 question quiz published in the book here . I'll warn you now that the questions are essentially whether or not you would support or not bills passed in this session of Congress. Apparently, if you would support a bill also supported by Democrats, you're liberal; if it was opposed by Republicans, you're conservative--who knew?!? I'm also upset by the fact that each question includes the voting record for the bill. Does the author realize that any person predisposed to think that they're conservative will probably make at least some of their decision based on that voting record? I mean, a reasonable person wouldn't make a decision for or against ANY of these issues purely based on what the blurb in the question says--unless you're a complete right or left winger who economically thinks one side or the other should be punished. That's why there are extensive debates in Congress--everyone reasonable person wants to know EXACTLY how far the terms go, what loopholes could possibly exist, etc.
So, I'm going to say that of all the "rank your political feelings" quizes, this is one of the worst. The one I took in high school was very good. It wasn't based on the complexity of congressional laws, but on the actual issues. "Would you support a law that increases pro-choice rights?" "Would you support a reduction in the powers of the EPA?" Questions like that, but I'm doubtful that they're so straight forward in the asking--Any good questionaire writer/researcher knows that you need to ask the same question 3 ways because you're going to get a different answer depending on the wording. It's also a good idea to have a ranking system, because you probably do feel more for or against one way of wording than another. In this quiz, they're way of asking the same question more than once is showing the House's version and the Senate's version. There is also no way of quantifying the circumstances that these bills were made under. In other words, an Independent is screwed if the past 2 years they've been thinking Democrat. That would be the definition of an Independent--someone who votes Democrat or Republican depending on the current situation and what they believe is necessary.
I'm also disappointed that the quiz doesn't address the issue that the book is supposed to cover--whether the media has influenced your belief. If I remember correctly, the author was talking about how our natural inclinations are skewed after viewing so called liberal media, so maybe the quiz is supposed to show you what your natural inclinations are? But as shown above--I don't think it does that at all.
One last point I want to make. Notice that the major claims are:
- All mainstream news outlets in the United States have a liberal bias.
New York Times-73.7.
CBS Evening News-73.7.
NPR Morning Edition-66.3.
U.S. News & World Report-65.8.
Drudge Report-60.4.
ABC Good Morning America-56.1.
Washington Times-35.4
It's interesting that when I wrote this, none of the comments on top even address the fact that this is a pretty skimpy list. I mean, Mr. Redhawk of KY, who holds the first comment spot is quick to make a judgment on MSNBC, CNN, and DC (?!?! I actually have no idea what he's trying to say--go and read it--I don't believe the "slime of NY" is an accepted alterego of a known news source--or at least one I know...would that be the NY Times?)--which aren't even on the list. I mean, if Fox News is not as far right biased as people say, then how did they rank? Isn't that a basic question that they should have answered in this article?
Or are they making it so that you have to buy the book and make this guy a buck? If for no other reason, support your local library, because this is the type of book that you should read, but I do not want to give this guy my money without knowing for sure that I support his ideas.
By the way, The Wall Steet Journal came out more liberal than most people would originally think. This was mentioned by Pat Robinson who read this book and is an avid reader of the WSJ. Apparently their opinions are often more liberal than their news. Robinson admitted that he often reads only these opinions and finds a lot to agree with within them. Please, keep this in mind when you start trying to say "I'm Conservative" or "I'm Liberal". Quit labeling yourself and start paying attention to what it is that you actually agree and disagree with and why you do so. You might be surprised at what things you actually support when it's no longer labeled.
I found the 10 question quiz published in the book here . I'll warn you now that the questions are essentially whether or not you would support or not bills passed in this session of Congress. Apparently, if you would support a bill also supported by Democrats, you're liberal; if it was opposed by Republicans, you're conservative--who knew?!? I'm also upset by the fact that each question includes the voting record for the bill. Does the author realize that any person predisposed to think that they're conservative will probably make at least some of their decision based on that voting record? I mean, a reasonable person wouldn't make a decision for or against ANY of these issues purely based on what the blurb in the question says--unless you're a complete right or left winger who economically thinks one side or the other should be punished. That's why there are extensive debates in Congress--everyone reasonable person wants to know EXACTLY how far the terms go, what loopholes could possibly exist, etc.
So, I'm going to say that of all the "rank your political feelings" quizes, this is one of the worst. The one I took in high school was very good. It wasn't based on the complexity of congressional laws, but on the actual issues. "Would you support a law that increases pro-choice rights?" "Would you support a reduction in the powers of the EPA?" Questions like that, but I'm doubtful that they're so straight forward in the asking--Any good questionaire writer/researcher knows that you need to ask the same question 3 ways because you're going to get a different answer depending on the wording. It's also a good idea to have a ranking system, because you probably do feel more for or against one way of wording than another. In this quiz, they're way of asking the same question more than once is showing the House's version and the Senate's version. There is also no way of quantifying the circumstances that these bills were made under. In other words, an Independent is screwed if the past 2 years they've been thinking Democrat. That would be the definition of an Independent--someone who votes Democrat or Republican depending on the current situation and what they believe is necessary.
I'm also disappointed that the quiz doesn't address the issue that the book is supposed to cover--whether the media has influenced your belief. If I remember correctly, the author was talking about how our natural inclinations are skewed after viewing so called liberal media, so maybe the quiz is supposed to show you what your natural inclinations are? But as shown above--I don't think it does that at all.
One last point I want to make. Notice that the major claims are:
- All mainstream news outlets in the United States have a liberal bias.
- The Drudge Report is the most fair, balanced and centrist news outlet in the United States.
- Fox News' "Special Report," which is usually characterized as conservative, is not biased as far right as typical mainstream outlets are biased to the left.
Apparently Fox News isn't mainstream, which is a rediculous claim to make. I mean, according to Bill O'Reilly (he mentions it at least once a week), they have the highest viewership across the boards. They're on cable, they're part of News Corp (and we now know exactly what kind of power THAT company has), and you are hard pressed to find a person who hasn't heard about Fox News. I'm sorry, but apparently I have the wrong definition of mainstream. Perhaps Fox should stop demanding extreme payment to view their...views...and should join the world of basic cable or online. I can't watch MSNBC either....does that make THEM non-mainstream? Because they are to me.
2nd point. USNews gives the lowdown on the scores that a few of the "mainstream" news sources got, here. Apparently ABC News (Good Morning America) got a score of 56. The Drudge Report got a 60. If 50 is "fair and balanced", then wouldn't that make GMA more fair? Or are they quantifying that the Drudge is more balanced overall? Because then, wouldn't it be nice to show how the rest of ABC does? I mean--there's a lot of shows that are conviently missing from this list. See for yourself:
It's interesting that when I wrote this, none of the comments on top even address the fact that this is a pretty skimpy list. I mean, Mr. Redhawk of KY, who holds the first comment spot is quick to make a judgment on MSNBC, CNN, and DC (?!?! I actually have no idea what he's trying to say--go and read it--I don't believe the "slime of NY" is an accepted alterego of a known news source--or at least one I know...would that be the NY Times?)--which aren't even on the list. I mean, if Fox News is not as far right biased as people say, then how did they rank? Isn't that a basic question that they should have answered in this article?
Or are they making it so that you have to buy the book and make this guy a buck? If for no other reason, support your local library, because this is the type of book that you should read, but I do not want to give this guy my money without knowing for sure that I support his ideas.
By the way, The Wall Steet Journal came out more liberal than most people would originally think. This was mentioned by Pat Robinson who read this book and is an avid reader of the WSJ. Apparently their opinions are often more liberal than their news. Robinson admitted that he often reads only these opinions and finds a lot to agree with within them. Please, keep this in mind when you start trying to say "I'm Conservative" or "I'm Liberal". Quit labeling yourself and start paying attention to what it is that you actually agree and disagree with and why you do so. You might be surprised at what things you actually support when it's no longer labeled.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Unwise Passions by Alan Pell Crawford
First off, I recommend this book; as a good historic novel, not for it's scholarly contribution.
It's about the "first" great scandal of 18th century America. Well, the scandal happened in 1793, so how exactly can it be the first? But then the country was only born in 1787, so maybe I'll let it slide.
Alan Crawford isn't a scholar, in fact he's a former speech writer and press secretary. I can't find who in particular he wrote for, but I did find out that his latest book on Jefferson dying in debt is well liked by UVA's Jefferson Professor. Fine--I haven't read that one. I read Unwise Passions. And this post is about that book.
I think Crawford took some liberties with the story to give it a moral theme. I mean, the story literally ended with me feeling that "if I'm good and persevere I will come out on top and anyone who makes my life miserable will die miserable and alone". That's not how real life works--that's a Jane Austen novel. One of my friends gave me a good label for this: "non-fiction novel".
So, to end this: take it with a grain of salt. I believe that any non-fiction book should be taken with a grain of salt but I think this book should be taken with an even bigger grain of salt than normal. Use it to become interested in the people and look for more scholarly works on them.
It's about the "first" great scandal of 18th century America. Well, the scandal happened in 1793, so how exactly can it be the first? But then the country was only born in 1787, so maybe I'll let it slide.
Alan Crawford isn't a scholar, in fact he's a former speech writer and press secretary. I can't find who in particular he wrote for, but I did find out that his latest book on Jefferson dying in debt is well liked by UVA's Jefferson Professor. Fine--I haven't read that one. I read Unwise Passions. And this post is about that book.
I think Crawford took some liberties with the story to give it a moral theme. I mean, the story literally ended with me feeling that "if I'm good and persevere I will come out on top and anyone who makes my life miserable will die miserable and alone". That's not how real life works--that's a Jane Austen novel. One of my friends gave me a good label for this: "non-fiction novel".
So, to end this: take it with a grain of salt. I believe that any non-fiction book should be taken with a grain of salt but I think this book should be taken with an even bigger grain of salt than normal. Use it to become interested in the people and look for more scholarly works on them.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Bedknob and Broomstick
Just knocking another book off my list--I want to read every book/story that classic Disney movies are based on. I'm not sure which ones are left, but I just bought 101 Dalmatians which has been at the top of the list for about 8 years. I didn't even realize that "Bedknob and Broomstick" was on the list until I found it on the shelf at camp this summer. It's only half like the movie that we all know and love, but still was an excellent book. I decided to go ahead and link to the movie too, in case that it isn't one that you know.
Shadows on my Heart: Civil War Diary of Lucy Buck
Definitely not your typically view of the Civil War. This is the diary of a southern plantation mistress of sorts (she's a young southern daughter, not married). If nothing else, she gives a different view of the Yankees than the heroic champions of freedom that we are often taught in school. Is she biased? Of course, but that's what makes it real. You'll need to like the way Anne of Green Gables talks because this girl does have a visual way of writing like that and since it's her diary, there's no Marilla around to tell her to "shut up and get to the point" haha. So keep that in mind if you're thinking about reading this book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)