Thanks for the response Don.
Don Bradley wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 9:48 am
If I see a reader saying that an author "says many things without hardly saying much of anything" throughout his book and that the "wording was confusing" and the arguments seemed to run in a circular, then I take in that the reader is saying they didn't get much
saying you didn't get much substantive meaning from the book. In that case, there are two possible explanations for this that I can see: 1) the author really didn't say much of anything substantive, or 2) the reader didn't understand the substantive things the author said.
I'm in agreement. I already offered these two possibilities in the thread. An issue I've noted on this is if I didn't understand it, as an atheist, and he wishes to speak to atheists, he may have a problem. The book doesn't seem to speak a useful language to those who fail to see good reason to think there's a god. And, ultimately, he never really tries to understand the other position, it seems. He dogmatically asserts a number of presuppositions, revels in old time philosophical ideas, and somehow thinks doing so disproves the possibility for one to reasonable hold an atheist view, as if being atheist is anything more than a lack of belief in a god. His ground of being position carries with it too many guesses, it seems to me, that renders his strident view problematic. But seeing as you aren't really interested in discussing it, I'll just leave my comments as my impression.
How we would we assess which of these was the case? In the case of the book that confused me on fluid dynamics and chaos theory, what would be a reasonable way of determining this? How about if I looked at the judgment of those well acquainted with the author's field: Was he a well respected scholar in his field? What were the bona fides of the institution that published the book? What do reviewers in or close to the author's field say about the book? If the author is a well respected scholar, the publisher is a well respected academic publisher, and the book gets solid reviews, then should I attribute my lack of easy clarity in the book to a lack of understanding on the author's part rather than on my own?
Mind you, this kind of assessment doesn't yet tell me whether the author's conclusions are right: intelligent, complex, and cogent arguments are often made on multiple sides of a discussion between scholars. But it will certainly tell me whether the author was making substantive and intelligent arguments.
I'll disagree with your last line. If there are positives to the book, as I've noted, it is more in explaining an Aristotelian/semi-Platonic view rather than in his arguments. Thus, any positive reviews could solely be focused on his renderings of old philosophical concepts, and why a modern atheist perspective often miss those. That's fine for what it is. I just don't think the old concepts carry a necessary reason to accept them simply because they are old, and can be applied fairly widely amongst different peoples, as he seems to think. In sum I see as little reason to accept his ground of being god as I do for the Mormon God or the traditional Christian God. And certainly if I'm missing something, as I've said, I'm missing it and would need further clarification at this point. I read it, re-read, pondered it...I attempted. What more can I do? Keep trying I guess.
Just as most of aren't deeply immersed in fluid dynamics and chaos theory, most of us are not deeply immersed in metaphysics, phenomenology, and philosophical theology--some of the weighty subjects covered in The Experience of God. You mentioned the idea that you "could be missing something." Would a reasonable way of looking into this possibility be to check into, say, the general regard in which David Bentley Hart is held as a scholar, the general regard with which Yale University Press is held in academia, and the general tenor of reviews by those whose field is philosophy? Can you think of a better way of assessing this? If you find that they disagree with you on whether Hart really makes meaningful arguments, then I would suggest this means that your view that he doesn't really say anything in the book means, not that he didn't say substantive things, but that you didn't understand what he did say.
Yes. I do find a better way. Actually assessing it. If I fail, I fail. But I'd need to know why I fail. That'd be part of the assessing it. Scholars can be wrong, even good ones. Arguing from authority doesn't resolve scholarly disputes, and can't really resolve disputes in general. We have to actually hold ideas accountable. I'll keep trying, but these kinds of dismissive responses don't help, not that you have any obligation to help me. Just pointing that out.
To be crystal clear--I'm not saying that looking into this means you should accept what the author concludes. I'm suggesting that looking into this may make you reject your own hasty conclusion that not yet understanding the author's substantive arguments means he made no substantive arguments.
If Hart gave me any reason to reject my own
hasty conclusions I didn't see it. I mean he certainly tried, but he seemed to misunderstand my hasty conclusions from the outset and tried to replace my presuppositions with his simply because he thinks he's smarter, or something. It was pretty weak, and I doubt he's convinced many (of course there'll be a few).
I should perhaps have forewarned in recommending the book that the subject matter is complex, the writing is dense, and Hart's vocabulary is extraordinarily wide. For most of us who are not ourselves philosophers--myself included--that means that this is book that requires much more than the ordinary amount of work--albeit for much more than the ordinary payoff.
Then he made a number of huge mistakes, if that's the case. His point was, as he said, to speak to atheists, you know those simpletons who simply don't get it. If he's being honest, then, all he really did, as I've said earlier in the thread was, attempt to confuse people hoping his command of vocabulary will impress them. THat amounts to a failure, as I see it.
It's a book that merits and rewards a reading that is as close and systematic as its writing. Speaking for myself, I read it slowly, pausing over the more dense passages to re-read them and chew on them, and, because of Hart's wide vocabulary and very precise use of terms, looking up some of the less familiar words in a dictionary. But I found that each dense passage I looked into closely could be unpacked quite clearly and meaningfully. My resulting experience with the book can accurately be described with the antonyms of the words you used. I found Hart's overall arguments clear--far clearer, in fact, than the writings of most philosophers--and found his approach to be linear, systematic, and cumulative. So, in essence, you and I experienced not only very different but essentially opposite books.
Well, good for you. I did the same. I read, re-read, I paused, I looked things up. I simply didn't see much effort on his part to support his dogma. He just keep beating it. And, as it were, he'd get me all intrigued by saying he has something really meaningful to say...then when he got to it, he basically repeated himself. He did that a number of times and it seemed in so doing, he failed to accomplish what he intended, every time he said he was going to explain himself--granted in some instances he did follow through.
In fact, I find that when Hart's writing is given the sustained attention it merits his arguments are so clear and well made that I wouldn't try to phrase them better. For that reason I don't really see any point in me trying to make his for him. He's already done it so well.
Again this is really unhelpful and again, I acknowledge, you have no obligation at all to try. But it gives me nothing, of course, and feels rather dismissive of all that's been said--as minimally we dug into it so far in this thread.
by the way, for what it's worth, in doing a quick search just now, I see that favorable reviews by academic philosophers are easy to find. Here, for instance, is the conclusion to one that came up on the first page:
[quote]The Experience of God will be of interest to the educated general reader with an interest in philosophy. ... I think it should be required reading for philosophy students, especially those in analytic philosophy departments, who might benefit from understanding that the history of philosophy is not just a source of dated philosophical arguments and ‘thought experiments’ but has a rational coherence as a way of life.
I suppose that how much effort one will want to put into delving into any question depends on how important the topic is. Fundamental questions of the meaning of our existence, what happens to us and everyone we love when our brief time here ends, the ultimate origin and destiny of ourselves and of every being, what the Good is--to me these are utterly vital questions, in fact, the most important ones we can ask.[/quote]
Yes. And as it happens, I found reviews that were detailed, helpful, and very negative--moreso than even my own. The positives were always lacking substance, were surface so I never got the impression from them he really accomplished what he set out to do from them. As the positive you quote--I agree---it's good to read. You can get a feel for some old philosophical concepts. But that doesn't mean there is no rational coherence as a way of life on an atheist perspective. That was his point, made over and over. I don't think he validated it. That'd be my point in reading it and that was a main point, he declares he had in writing it. He only claimed atheist can't be rational because to be an atheist one must reject Hart's presuppositions. Why? Who knows? Its nebulous.
We are here in this world tasked with judging whether our lives ultimately mean something, whether the pure gift of existence merits gratitude--and to whom, and whether we will live as if there is really such a thing as the good. I am increasingly convinced that we can arrive at the truth of these questions both by curiosity directed outside ourselves and by spiritual disciplines that point us inside of ourselves and enable us to be more honest with ourselves about ourselves--what we are and in what relation we stand to the ultimate.
Thanks for your testimony. I think we can find meaning, and purpose without assuming there is a spirit realm. We can look inside ourselves without assuming we're directed by a different world we only assume is there and is better than what we have.
I won't be engaging in debate here, so I'll catch you sometime on another thread.
In any case, all the best in your continuing searches.
Don
Seriously thanks for responding. I know it's not fun to get into the details sometimes. I understand the lack of desire to quibble over things with me. Sadly, as far as sadness may go, that's why I spend time here. I'm just trying to learn something...anything really. On that...thanks for the recommendation. It took me on a tour.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
