6 Following

The Review Man

Formerly of Goodreads, now of both words, in the coming times only here?

Currently reading

Survival: A Thematic Guide to Canadian Literature
Margaret Atwood
Lila: An Inquiry Into Morals
Robert M. Pirsig
Simulacra and Simulation (The Body, In Theory: Histories of Cultural Materialism)
Jean Baudrillard, Sheila Faria Glaser
Leaven of Malice
Robertson Davies
The Salterton Trilogy
Robertson Davies
Effi Briest (Penguin Classics)
Theodor Fontane
Empires of the Word: A Language History of the World
Nicholas Ostler
Cases And Materials On The Law Of Torts
Robert M. Solomon
Public Law : Cases Materials and Commentary
Philip Bryden, Craik, Neil, Craig Forcese, Forcese, Craig
A Property Law Reader
Bruce H. Ziff
The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God - Lee Strobel Is there really a case for a creator? And is it tenable? Lee Strobel ought to have asked himself these questions before writing The Case for a Creator.

There is likely no deterministic proof of God's existence; I'm fairly certain Kurt Gödel's work shows that. Furthermore, current popular opinion dictates that the universe was not "created" in the way the book means. The conclusion Strobel seeks to draw—for he undoubtedly knew what answer he wanted a priori—is unprovable and his arguments fly in the face of everything we believe. Either way, Strobel is fighting an uphill battle.

So why then does Strobel interview scientists who do not have Ph.Ds in the fields they discuss? Having a Ph.D does not automatically imply intelligence; neither does not having one imply ignorance. But if Strobel intended for a potentially hostile audience to take this work seriously, should he not have interviewed experts in their fields? I have a mathematics degree but am not qualified to speak about statistics with any authority, even though math and stats are siblings in the science family tree. What Strobel does is tantamount to a newspaper interviewing me about some controversial topic in statistics, except ten times worse because Strobel published it.

It's worth noting that I'm not criticizing or even critiquing the scientists' arguments. They may be 100% correct for all I know. I'm saying that, were this book meant to be taken seriously by the scientifically-minded community, Strobel pulled a boner.

Surely he couldn't have been that bone-headed though, right? One can never know for sure; the unfathomable depths of human stupidity never cease to amaze me. But the guy's an award-winning journalist, right? So let's assume that he's not a complete ignoramus. The only logical conclusion is that he wrote The Case for a Creator not for a scientific audience but for a lay Christian one. The people who have read and who will read The Case for a Creator, like Strobel himself, believe the book's contents a priori. The only real case to be made here is that Strobel is preaching to the choir.