11/06/2007

Flew's New Book II

I retract my previous statement about being excited about Flews new book. After reading an New York Times article about it (thanks to The Uncredible Hallq)I am no longer interested in it. It has been ghost written and in no way interests me. I am sad that I.D. people have done this to Flew.

2 comments:

Keith said...

Ha! Your belief that "it has been ghost written" is just wrong, as Flew and others (theists and atheists alike) have shown. How closely have you followed the intrigue, really? Vic Reppert has probably done the best job around of keeping up with the updates, most of which can be found on this page: http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2007_11_01_archive.html.

The really laughable part of your post is your proclaimed sadness "that I.D. people have done this to Flew." Seriously? What do you think Flew is, some incompetent freshman? You think he's so stupid and senile that he can't even prevent a book attirbuting to him views he doesn't hold from being published?

Look, you *should* be excited about Flew's book. Besides, dismissing the book's arguments because you don't like "I.D. people" or whoever you *think* wrote it is argumentum ad hominem.

Matthew said...

I think that a book that needs so much defending could hardly be a good scholarly work. I do not have time to read books that are not written well. I ignore pop philosophy books for a good reason, I believe that they are not legitimate and do not use precise enough reasoning to merit reading. It is the reason I will never read Sam Harris, Dawkins' "The God Delusion" or another Lee Strobel book. My original hope was that he had written something scholarly (though with a title like that I should have known better). Also you can imagine when I found that the majority of the book was written by someone else I was greatly disappointed.

In addition to that I'm in no way interested in ID arguments (especially pop ID arguments written by a psudo-scholar under the auspicious title of a well known philosopher), I've never found them compelling and in fact I've often been very suspicious of what (if anything) they actually contribute to scientific discussion.