How it should be done

[unkleE]

Philosopher Alvin Plantinga has written a book that looks interesting - Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. Fellow philosopher Thomas Nagel has reviewed the book, positively. I haven't read the book (yet) but I was impressed with Nagel's review for several reasons:

1. He is an atheist and Plantinga a christian, yet he treats Plantinga with respect and reviews the book on its merits.

2. The review tells us what the book is about, not just what Nagel thinks (as many reviews do).

3. Nagel is genuinely interested in what Plantinga thinks. He says he can't imagine ever thinking the same, but finds it interesting and worthwhile seeing how Plantinga addresses complex issues from a christian viewpoint.

4. He briefly outlines where he thinks there may be weaknesses in Plantinga's argument, and admits where his arguments point up weaknesses in Nagel's own viewpoint.

The review is well worth reading, and I reckon the book will be too.

[fortigurn]

That was a very satisfying review, thanks for the link.

[turoldus]

Plantinga has returned the favor.

Simon Blackburn's oh-so predictable take on Nagel's new book.

[metacrock]

Sept 18, 2012 22:43:00 GMT unkleE said:

Philosopher Alvin Plantinga has written a book that looks interesting - Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. Fellow philosopher Thomas Nagel has reviewed the book, positively. I haven't read the book (yet) but I was impressed with Nagel's review for several reasons:

1. He is an atheist and Plantinga a christian, yet he treats Plantinga with respect and reviews the book on its merits.

2. The review tells us what the book is about, not just what Nagel thinks (as many reviews do).

3. Nagel is genuinely interested in what Plantinga thinks. He says he can't imagine ever thinking the same, but finds it interesting and worthwhile seeing how Plantinga addresses complex issues from a christian viewpoint.

4. He briefly outlines where he thinks there may be weaknesses in Plantinga's argument, and admits where his arguments point up weaknesses in Nagel's own viewpoint.

The review is well worth reading, and I reckon the book will be too.

Real academics are gentlemen and scholars. they are not posting on message boards. Real old fashioned thinking atheists are such a refreshing treat. I wish there were some around to talk to.

[elephantchang51]

Oct 14, 2013 15:36:42 GMT metacrock said:

Sept 18, 2012 22:43:00 GMT unkleE said:

Philosopher Alvin Plantinga has written a book that looks interesting - Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. Fellow philosopher Thomas Nagel has reviewed the book, positively. I haven't read the book (yet) but I was impressed with Nagel's review for several reasons:

1. He is an atheist and Plantinga a christian, yet he treats Plantinga with respect and reviews the book on its merits.

2. The review tells us what the book is about, not just what Nagel thinks (as many reviews do).

3. Nagel is genuinely interested in what Plantinga thinks. He says he can't imagine ever thinking the same, but finds it interesting and worthwhile seeing how Plantinga addresses complex issues from a christian viewpoint.

4. He briefly outlines where he thinks there may be weaknesses in Plantinga's argument, and admits where his arguments point up weaknesses in Nagel's own viewpoint.

The review is well worth reading, and I reckon the book will be too.

Real academics are gentlemen and scholars. they are not posting on message boards. Real old fashioned thinking atheists are such a refreshing treat. I wish there were some around to talk to.


You seem to be saying there are no 'real academics',who are 'gentlemen and scholars',posting on this message board.You are entitled to such a low opinion of yourself if you wish,but I've always thought the opposite about the vast majority of contributors here.

[chavoux]

I have not read Plantinga's book, but found the review interesting, because it apparently says something that I have independently (and probably much less rigorously) also found. That as sources if knowledge there is a number of assumptions (properly basic beliefs?) that are indispensable, but cannot themselves be proven. I had a group of only three: 1. Internal (I.e. the rules if logic, maths etc.) 2. Empirical (Scientific observation and personal experience) and 3. Faith. Where I would differ from him, is that I see faith as universal and not specifically Christian. I agree with him (and with the Bible - Eph.2:8) that Christian faith is a gift from God, but think that this faith entails who and what you believe, rather than that you believe. I think that faith is not simply yes or no, but a relative assurance that something is true or that somebody is trustworthy. And the difference between Christians and non-Christians is simply that we put our (ultimate) trust in different things, not that atheists don't believe at all! Rather, they trust in theit own reason and intellect as their ultimate source of knowledge. If they are scientists, by faith they have to believe that published articles have actually been peer-reviewed and that the research results are actually being reported correctly. It is simply impossible to repeat each and every experiment for yourself in order to confirm it as true.
I have read a lot about Plantinga before, but being a scientist rather than a philosopher, have never been that interested in reading his books. This review just might have changed my mind.