In this book, D.Q. McInerny attempts to convey to the reader a sense of the importance and utility of logic in daily life without taking too many risk...moreIn this book, D.Q. McInerny attempts to convey to the reader a sense of the importance and utility of logic in daily life without taking too many risks in terms of tackling controversial issues. This is wise for an introduction to practical logic and ends up being effective. A short and easy read, one very noteworthy quality of the author's writing is the impeccable grammar used throughout, a pleasant departure from typical reading.
This book is effective in introducing the concepts of critical thinking and gives a good overview. However, I felt that the author struggled a bit with breaking down some of the concepts of formal logic into manageable chunks of information. This problem is intrinsic to formal logic as it is to mathematics - there just isn't any way around using symbols and the specific, rule-governed and purpose-built grammar of the propositional calculus. McInerny doesn't delve too deeply into this topic, going over the basics of conjunction, disjunction, implication and the various forms an argument may take based upon those concepts. I felt that, throughout this section, the author worked very hard for not quite enough payoff, but again, this is understandable considering the topic.
Finally, his section on fallacies started off strong and ended somewhat abruptly, as if this section were either written very last and McInerny was eager to cross the finish line, or written very first as his means of motivating himself to start the book and simply placed into the appropriate section of the outline. You'll note that the grammar in this section isn't quite so precise and intricate, a glaring but forgivable inconsistency.
In the end, I would definitely recommend this book to anybody taking an interest in critical thinking or interested in a refresher in logic, but I would not recommend this as anything other than supplemental for a formal study of logic itself.(less)
Written by a mathematician who went out of his way to refrain altogether from using formulas and equations and stick strictly to prose, this charming ...moreWritten by a mathematician who went out of his way to refrain altogether from using formulas and equations and stick strictly to prose, this charming book is a humble refutation of a collection of the most common arguments in favor of the existence of god. Paulos goes through these arguments one after the other, first documenting the form of the argument itself before discussing how the argument holds up.
For people who are already avowed nonbelievers, this book is an invaluable resource to aid in breaking down and analyzing the attempts of the religious to push belief, demonstrating with each page how weak the arguments in favor of god really are. For readers who do believe, this is a confirmation of what they already know - that belief is a personal matter and that for lack of clear evidence, there is no irrefutable argument for the existence of a supreme being.
Far from being an extremist about religion, Paulos' tone is that of a man who sees danger in the forceful side of religion and simply wishes to arm those who do not wish to be forced. His arguments are as sensible and thorough as one would expect those of a mathematician to be while remaining very approachable. I would recommend this book to anybody, particularly the nonreligious and religious moderates as well as anybody making a study of contemporary American religious culture.(less)
Well written polemic that introduces nothing new to the argument between religion and atheism but summarizes the arguments and counterarguments very w...moreWell written polemic that introduces nothing new to the argument between religion and atheism but summarizes the arguments and counterarguments very well. Wielding the second person as an effective literary device, the book in its entirety addresses American Christian religious fundamentalists, or at least the concept thereof. Acknowleding that this stereotype of Christianity in America doesn't truly reflect the views of all people who call themselves religious, he maintains that evidence indicates that much of the nation claims such piety, even if it goes unpracticed, and that it is this phenomenon of religiosity that is the cause of much suffering and strife within our borders.
Recapitulating the arguments in favor of atheism and refuting religion, Harris goes on the attack, showing that the recent trends in religious fundamentalism clearly indicate that the battle for the future of humanity is already well underway. Because he is directly addressing the American Christian fundamentalist, he is able to effectively draw comparisons between Christianity as practiced in the West and Islam, both being religions based upon the unquestioning belief in an oppressive, petty and tyrannical deity who, by all literary accounts, does not Himself endorse moderation when it comes to dealing with outsiders and infidels. Harris uses the apparently extremist nature of the god of Abraham to further condemn the complicity of what he calls "moderate, liberal Christians" in a battle being waged by religious extremists. He ends on a dour note, echoing the thoughts of a great many atheists when he says that the likelihood of religion ceasing to exist and therefore ceasing to cripple the human species is very slim and that the consequences for this appear to be potentially very dire.
I'm sure that all of this sounds very disrespectful, but I must say that throughout the book, Harris retains a very respectful tone, simply refuting religious arguments and expressing his own opinion. At no point does he condemn the average Christian, fundamentalist or otherwise, as being somehow unworthy or less than human. He does not exalt his position, he simply pleads for it and asks that it be understood that people are suffering unnecessarily in order to propitiate a petty deity that cannot be proven to exist. However, he concedes throughout his work that the unreasonable nature of religious belief is, if anything, usually strengthened by circumstances and arguments that might and should reasonably subvert it. So in the end, Harris is left with little hope for the future of our species in the face of it all.
Included are more examples that substantiate his arguments than I can enumerate, but the afterword in this edition does explicitly call out Stephen J. Gould's concept of NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magesteria) and refutes it very directly. This is similar to the argument made by Richard Dawkins that so long as religion purports to tell us things about the physical universe, it does in deed overlap with science and this cannot be reckoned away with doublethink. It is for this reason that Harris, Dawkins and many others continue to wage this battle for reason, logic and those conclusions that may be drawn from evidence.(less)
I read this book immediately after reading Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, which made for a fitting followup. Whereas Dawkins explores the arena o...moreI read this book immediately after reading Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, which made for a fitting followup. Whereas Dawkins explores the arena of religion in terms of scientific evidence and reason, Christopher Hitchens' strengths lie in the humanities. He demonstrates his vast knowledge of history, literature and culture, often pompously but to good effect, throughout the book. His arguments against the special privilege of immunity to inquiry granted to religion in our society are pretty much the same arguments as atheists and secularists have been making for some time, although Hitchens does a good job of placing these arguments into a historical context and then placing the historical elements into the context of modern morality.
There were some areas where I thought his arguments were a little weak or unnecessary. In particular, I think (as Hitchens also seems to) that the "Hitler and Stalin were atheists" argument in opposition to atheism is weak, but his counterargument had all the feeling of an obligatory capitulation. I could sense his venom at feeling pressure to dignify this old argument with a response. This argument is also covered in other works, including that of Dawkins who obviously penned his chapter in ink rather than pure vitriol.
The aforementioned counterargument as well as many of the rest of the arguments Hitchens' made throughout his book would have been better supported had he spent more time exploring the meanings of his pompously obscure literary and cultural references. He tosses around the product of his arguably superior education in the humanities without regard to engineers like myself and others who don't have his vast background. I even got the impression that he was holding back a little. That's fine if your audience is classically educated humanities majors, but in this case, his audience is already drastically limited due to the nature of the topic and he serves himself and us poorly by alienating the rest of us. However, I concede that had he invested the time in adding a summarizing sentence or two to each of his inline references, it would have been a much larger book.
As I mentioned, the obvious problem with atheist texts is that they appeal only to atheists. It just so happens that I agree with many of Hitchens' points, but I'm hardly a difficult sell since I came on board with many of those opinions already fully formed. It is nice to get some of the context, as well as a feeling of having an intellectual niche occupied by more than just myself. That is certainly one area where Hitchens delivers: I feel less alone both among my peers and historically.
I would recommend this book to anybody who is either an atheist or who is on the fence. I might also recommend it to anybody who is looking to put together a yellow-brick reading list to the land of pompOzity. Still and all, it was a good read where it was good and it wasn't ever truly bad. Don't take his word as gospel, though - the irony might undo all of Creation.(less)
Loading...
