|
|
Post by James Hannam on Apr 8, 2010 14:08:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by perplexedseeker on Apr 8, 2010 15:40:56 GMT
I guess it's good to know you've put the wind up some people at least. I really must get round to reading your book. Will there be a paperback edition?
Edit:
Just read the amazon review. Did my eyes decieve me or did he really suggest people search for more ideologically appropriate alternatives???
|
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Apr 8, 2010 21:05:41 GMT
Hello Perplexed,
Well it wasn't the most perceptive of reviews... but I did like being called dangerous.
Paperback out on 7 May everywhere except the US.
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Apr 8, 2010 21:26:06 GMT
Well it wasn't the most perceptive of reviews... but I did like being called dangerous. James, I know little of history, even less of this period, and I haven't read the book yet (though I intend to). But I noted this conclusion in the review: "This is in a sense a dangerous book because it presents itself in the guise of a scholarly work, but is in actual fact an apologia and justification for the repressions and reprisals of a very oppressive period in the history of human thought. I don't doubt the breadth of knowledge of the author but there is too much interpretation for the book to be considered scholarly."I am interested in how such an opinion can be justifiably arrived at and supported, and how you would contest it. I note that you obtained a PhD on this topic, so your views have been peer reviewed (I presume the book follows your PhD in subject matter and conclusions?) and I further note that Tim O'Neill, not known for being especially cozy with the Catholic Church, gave it an excellent review. So of course I am predisposed to accept your conclusions. But is there any objective way to show that you are not offering "an apologia and justification for the repressions and reprisals of a very oppressive period in the history of human thought", and that it is the review that is an apologia? I hope you don't see this as an offensive question, I am just interested in understanding how such matters could be settled objectively. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Apr 8, 2010 21:29:15 GMT
Well, if this is what he says about the publishers of "The Christian Delusion", I would hate to see what he says about someone he actually disagrees with:
They are just clueless. Obstinately clueless. Some of them are well meaning. I don't think they're stupid. But groupthink has got their souls. They make a ton of stupid decisions. I could draw up a list over the past five years, and I know a dozen of their authors who have vented their own similar complaints to me or those I know. They just don't get how to market books in the 21st century (they are still operating on a 1980s business model; even their forray into e-marketing is inept). They don't run their offices with the same professionalism I encounter from other publishers. And the contracts they give authors are criminal, which I think is what enrages me the most (I'll say something about that in my next blog). But I don't think they're malicious or mercenary. I think they just don't know what they are doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by merkavah12 on Apr 9, 2010 1:49:50 GMT
Dangerous?
Hmmm...from a marketing stand-point, I smell gold!
I can see it all now:
"This summer....The Middle Ages.....STRIKE BACK! Based on the most DANGEROUS book of the 21st century isnow the MOST THRILLING MOVIE OF THE SUMMER! Quentin Tarrantino presents GOD'S PHILOSOPHERS."
"This summer....GET MEDIEVAL."
Edit: The sad part? In some producer's head, that actually sounded like a good idea...
|
|
|
|
Post by perplexedseeker on Apr 9, 2010 9:44:04 GMT
Of course everyone wants to be described as "dangerous"! And being told to stuff it by PZ Myers is just the icing on the cake, really!
|
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Apr 9, 2010 12:30:04 GMT
But is there any objective way to show that you are not offering "an apologia and justification for the repressions and reprisals of a very oppressive period in the history of human thought", and that it is the review that is an apologia? Hi unklee, The review was wrong-headed because history is interpretation. Just listing facts is antiquarianism - history is the analysis and interpretation of those facts. As to whether the facts support my interpretation, there is no easy way to tell beyond seeing what reviewers say and studying the subject yourself. But since God's Philosophers assumes no prior knowledge, it does lay out many more facts than academic books tend to. So if you trust that I'm not actually making it up, you can judge for yourself whether the facts are sufficient. Best wishes James |
|
|
|
Post by acornuser on Apr 9, 2010 13:45:24 GMT
I think the reviewer would have preferred something that agreed with his view that "The facts of the matter clearly speak a different message"....
|
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Apr 10, 2010 6:06:29 GMT
Thanks to some probing from Humphrey, Carrier has made a comment on God's Philosophers (in the comments here: richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2010/04/christian-delusion.html). I am actually extremely pleased about this. Since Carrier is the expert on ancient science, I'm quite willing to find he can correct me on aspects of that and look forward to his blog posts. Best wishes James |
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Apr 10, 2010 17:52:42 GMT
Carrier is incredible when writing on this new book "The Christian Delusion" (which I ordered ages ago, collecting anti-religious books):
First he dismisses negative reviews in advance.
We'll need honest Amazon reviews to counter the inevitable Christian tactic of low-starring it and lying about it to dissuade fellow Christians from reading it. I'd rather have valid criticisms in there if any.
Then he boasts of his own contributions:
Two of The Christian Delusion's fifteen chapters are mine. The first is Why the Resurrection Is Unbelievable, which is the most definitive refutation of warranted belief in the resurrection I have ever composed. It's a deliberate tour de force, such that I doubt I'll ever have to write another. It even takes down recent attempts to use Bayes' Theorem to argue for the resurrection, and it contextualizes everything so there just isn't any rational basis left for claiming the resurrection is historically proven.
Well, well, well. If all he is against is the claim that it is historically proven, he dosn't need to write a long chapter. But I guess he really is adressing weaker claims as well, just being bit clumsy about it.
Before boasting again:
The second is Christianity Was Not Responsible for Modern Science, which is another tour de force, conclusively taking down once and for all the claim that Christianity gave us modern science.
So fantastic, in fact, that it really is the definite last word on the subject.
My debunking of it is so decisive in this chapter, you won't need to refer anyone anywhere else.
So what he basically says is that none need even bother to check criticisms of the chapter. It just is perfect and utterly precise.
To put it shortly, I don't quite get Carrier. I imagined I was able to spot selfirony and a tad or two of tongue in cheek, however I don't see any here. Is he really so conceited as he comes across?
Truly, it is beyond belief.
His insights doesn't impress me a nano more when he praises Babinski's logic:
Ed Babinski follows with a chapter proving the Old Testament assumes a flat-earth, three-tiered cosmology that everyone now agrees is wholly contrary to the actual physical facts. If the Bible can't even get that right, it can't be the inspired word of God.
If the book is as clumsy, conceited and tunnel visionary as Carrier's post about it, I kinda regret ordering it.
|
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Apr 10, 2010 18:13:22 GMT
BTW, just checked Customer Reviews on Amazon, and it is rather amusing. Loftus as usual gives his own book top score (I guess it is allowed, though I would say it stinks somewhat) Two obviously atheistic supporters, one mostly saying trivialities in a short review and one going on and on about every chapter (in a looong review, which doesn't quite improve by starting with an apology "for the brevity of this review"  ). One rather negative christian ( KC James), providing some speicific counters. Then Carrier and Avalos start arguing with KC James in the comments field. Always interesting when authors start to use the customer review section on Amazon as their own blog. |
|
|
|
Post by eastshore4 on Apr 10, 2010 19:32:07 GMT
When the book comes to the US maybe you should rename it "Hannam's dangerous idea."
This helps clarify things a bit more for me too, thanks. I guess you would say that you need to justify a historical interpretation as a sort of "best fit"... is that more or less correct?
Attitude-wise, I have a hard time taking Carrier seriously. When I first saw some rather smug quotes from him I figured it was taken out of context or something but this does not seem to be the case as I go deeper down the rabbit hole. I get the impression that he fancies himself something of a jack-of-all trades (or perhaps a jack of all tirades?) on more than just religious matters. Still, I wouldn't mind reading some critiques of their works... I've come to familiarize myself with the new atheists rants but I'm still not completely in the know with what the infidels offer. Bjorn if you still get the book I wouldn't mind if you gave us your two cents on it, I'm curious about Babinski's argument and Carrier's "it's so definitive you don't need to ask anyone else about it" resurrection refutation. I do like how Loftus still reviews his own work... hopefully it offsets that "nasty Christian tactic" of shooting off shallow one-star reviews, a tactic I'm pretty sure is not exclusive to religious types.
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Apr 10, 2010 21:45:37 GMT
If the book is as clumsy, conceited and tunnel visionary as Carrier's post about it, I kinda regret ordering it. As Han Solo said to Luke Skywalker: "I've got a bad feeling about this!" On his Debunking Christianity blog John Loftus has this to say about the book: "It's sure to debunk Christianity and cause Christian apologists to scramble in defense of their faith....... It's sure to help change the religious landscape. Get it now. See what you think. If you're a Christian apologist be the first on your block to try and answer us. If you do well you will get noticed among your peers."How's that for talking things up? So it seems John has set the tone and Richard is following suit - or could it be that John wrote Carrier's review for him? It certainly has the same breathless style. PS I passed up the opportunity to get noticed by my peers! : ) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2010 21:59:08 GMT
Attitude-wise, I have a hard time taking Carrier seriously. Who wouldn't? I already criticized some of his nonsense on this board. People like Carrier and Loftus belong to the kooky fringe of contemporary atheism. |
|
).