|
Book was a bit older than i expected but still useable. Everyone in my class has a black version of this; but its essentially the same thing. Now im seen as that kid with the blazing hot pink book.
There's absolutely no basis for that assumption. umm. The author uses the argument that there's most likely not a God because then you would have to answer who created God. It's perfectly acceptable for you to say, "some type of intelligent being created this." It would be idiotic for me to say "you can't say that because that leaves you with a bigger problem: Whatever created this machine must be more complex than this machine so who created him. I guess he was trying to look like someone who has really deep thoughts. Even still it's not a great argument. On a completely unrelated note is it just me or do the atheist elite all look like.
well, let's just say look like people who nobody would want to talk to. But this statement itself is a falacy, it assumes that God is a created being. err. Say you and I travel to Mars and find some type of machinery that is obviously not man made. Since you can't answer that we are to assume it became from entirely natural causes." Saying "oh ya, well who created God." is like children saying "i know you are but what am I." I was hoping for something better. just look at this guy's picture on the sleeve. What's the saying, it's ironic that atheists walk around with a holier than thou attitude.
It also clearly points the way for future study. But I've always had a strong interest in philosophy. No. This book was the perfect introduction.Often, introdcutions to complex subjects are either dry or too technical to hold the interest of the uninitiated.
I did read into the book some of what others have said about a bias regarding religion, but it never detracted from the subject. This book was neither. While introducing a number of key viewpoints, it does it in a way that would hold the interest and educate those with even a passing interest in the subject. and I don't play one on TV, either. Differing points of view are going to be not only the norm, but expected.I gave the book to my son (who is 23) and he's loving it as well. Excellent method, in my humble opinion.Do I agree with all of his examples.
Do I agree with all of his conclusions. No.
Couldn't recommend it highly enough. I find myself thinking of philosophical issues often, yet I knew very little about it.
I'm guessing that other reviewers don't like points of view other than their own. I've already purchased a number of the books the author suggests.From "Does God Exist." to "The Rational Dentist", author Stephen Law tackles the big philosophical questions asked today.
He gives some history on each question, introduces the reader to a few of the philosophers who've written on the subject and then enters into a hypothetical dialog where he explains both sides of the argument. When it comes to philosophy (and indeed, as the book points out, any knowledge)., nothing is 'for sure'.
Even if it's your only foray into the subject of philosophy, it's a good pick.
I dont think at any time during the book does the author try to impose his thoughts on you. This is a good book to read before sleeping. If you are like me (a person who thinks about the day and the events in it right before I doze off) then this kind of book will be a great addition to your collection.This book talks about everything that is important to human beings from a philosophical point of view. he is always comparing arguments for and against and that leads to some intelligent writing. Should be read.
I knocked off one star for this.The other is that some of the arguments have a bit of a straw man feel for the side that the author doesn't favor. This makes many sections harder to read because you are constantly having to ignore the author's errors. This book has very strong merits, but other reviewers have mentioned them so I'm going to concentrate on flaws the flaws (as I see them).One problem is the occasional factual errors. I realize this is terribly hard to avoid (and perhaps my perception in this matter is more than a bit subjective), but it left me feeling that the book is not as good as it first appeared (when I bought it on a whim). I'll just give one example: "As I do know that Pluto is a giant gas ball, I know your first hypothesis must be false." (p. 30) This is just sad, where was the editor/fact-checker. For this, I knocked off another star.Again, a book that has many good sections. It just needed a bit more polishing to be a classic.
|
