Nicholas Wade's "The Faith Instinct" begins promisingly but fizzles out, its argument unproven. It is lucidly written and contains several thought-provoking passages, but it is also padded with whole sections of pop-science banalities.
Someone who has the book and is reading it can presumably provide some specifics from the book that are relevant to the topic and which are compelling arguments, but which aren’t available via a quick AI or Google search…
I'm surprised our troll wasn't more careful in his selection from the Amazon religion list, as BYU reviewers panned this book 15 years ago (yes it's that old). Usually he's more careful to toe the party line as he tries to trash those who believe differently:
...To Wade, the very fact that humans have agency to change the way we worship constitutes a more-than-human something that is very much like “the hand of the deity in action” (283).
Of course, this theory is an unsatisfactory conclusion to those who believe that religion is revealed rather than made. For believers who experience God’s direction in religious matters, it may be a salve to think that religion, contra Dawkins and the sour neoatheists, is considered beneficial to societies, but it is nonsensical to believe that we can at will change the way we practice it...
Wow. This reviewer doesn't believe in free will, sadly! Another thing the gymnast will have to pretzel himself around, as he is adamant he has free will.
This additional idea from the book is also fully at odds with the mentalgymnast's insults here:
Yet as Wade closes his remarkable book, he notes that the three-hundred year march of modernity has made secularism a viable and attractive alternative to religion...
Like you, I am interested in hearing why mg considers this book 'right up his alley,' when others in his religion have explained why it's not. Well, I'm not really that interested, as he can't seem to post without trying to insult every person who is different from him.
The Faith Instinct reviewed… Someone who has the book and is reading it can presumably provide some specifics from the book that are relevant to the topic and which are compelling arguments, but which aren’t available via a quick A.I. or Google search…
I'm surprised our troll wasn't more careful in his selection from the Amazon religion list, as BYU reviewers panned this book 15 years ago (yes it's that old). Usually he's more careful to toe the party line as he tries to trash those who believe differently:
...To Wade, the very fact that humans have agency to change the way we worship constitutes a more-than-human something that is very much like “the hand of the deity in action” (283).
Of course, this theory is an unsatisfactory conclusion to those who believe that religion is revealed rather than made. For believers who experience God’s direction in religious matters, it may be a salve to think that religion, contra Dawkins and the sour neoatheists, is considered beneficial to societies, but it is nonsensical to believe that we can at will change the way we practice it...
Wow. This reviewer doesn't believe in free will, sadly! Another thing the gymnast will have to pretzel himself around, as he is adamant he has free will.
This additional idea from the book is also fully at odds with the mentalgymnast's insults here:
Yet as Wade closes his remarkable book, he notes that the three-hundred year march of modernity has made secularism a viable and attractive alternative to religion...
Like you, I am interested in hearing why mg considers this book 'right up his alley,' when others in his religion have explained why it's not. Well, not really, as he can't seem to post without trying to insult every person who is different from him.
First, it would be helpful if you would not continue to use the word "troll" as a reference to a regular poster. Not helpful. Not kind. Not necessary. Especially if you would like that person to interact with you in a productive and humane way.
I have called your actions in following me.around on the board "trolling". Whether you do or don't continue to use the word troll thrown my way I am going to discontinue throwing that word in any of its forms your way.
TTOC.
The book you are referencing is one I picked up off the shelf at my brother's house a few weeks ago. I've started reading it but have not finished it. I have enjoyed it so far. From the title it looked like a book that some here might like to read.
Apparently not! Although there may be some folks that have not responded that might find it useful/interesting. I figured there was no harm in throwing a title of a book out there that sounds interesting. Maybe that's considered a faux pas around here by some folks.
The Faith Instinct reviewed… Someone who has the book and is reading it can presumably provide some specifics from the book that are relevant to the topic and which are compelling arguments, but which aren’t available via a quick A.I. or Google search…
I'm surprised our troll wasn't more careful in his selection from the Amazon religion list, as BYU reviewers panned this book 15 years ago (yes it's that old). Usually he's more careful to toe the party line as he tries to trash those who believe differently:
...To Wade, the very fact that humans have agency to change the way we worship constitutes a more-than-human something that is very much like “the hand of the deity in action” (283).
Of course, this theory is an unsatisfactory conclusion to those who believe that religion is revealed rather than made. For believers who experience God’s direction in religious matters, it may be a salve to think that religion, contra Dawkins and the sour neoatheists, is considered beneficial to societies, but it is nonsensical to believe that we can at will change the way we practice it...
Wow. This reviewer doesn't believe in free will, sadly! Another thing the gymnast will have to pretzel himself around, as he is adamant he has free will.
This additional idea from the book is also fully at odds with the mentalgymnast's insults here:
Yet as Wade closes his remarkable book, he notes that the three-hundred year march of modernity has made secularism a viable and attractive alternative to religion...
Like you, I am interested in hearing why mg considers this book 'right up his alley,' when others in his religion have explained why it's not. Well, I'm not really that interested, as he can't seem to post without trying to insult every person who is different from him.
I'm waiting to see insights that cannot be gained via AI or Google showing that MG 2.0 is actually reading the book he claims to be reading and which he thinks would add value to people. It may be a case where he is lying having a memory lapse due to wishful thinking. Again.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
I'm surprised our troll wasn't more careful in his selection from the Amazon religion list, as BYU reviewers panned this book 15 years ago (yes it's that old). Usually he's more careful to toe the party line as he tries to trash those who believe differently:
Wow. This reviewer doesn't believe in free will, sadly! Another thing the gymnast will have to pretzel himself around, as he is adamant he has free will.
This additional idea from the book is also fully at odds with the mentalgymnast's insults here:
Like you, I am interested in hearing why mg considers this book 'right up his alley,' when others in his religion have explained why it's not. Well, I'm not really that interested, as he can't seem to post without trying to insult every person who is different from him.
I'm waiting to see insights that cannot be gained via A.I. or Google showing that MG 2.0 is actually reading the book he claims to be reading and which he thinks would add value to people. It may be a case where he is lying having a memory lapse due to wishful thinking. Again.
I'm waiting to see insights that cannot be gained via A.I. or Google showing that MG 2.0 is actually reading the book he claims to be reading and which he thinks would add value to people. It may be a case where he is lying having a memory lapse due to wishful thinking. Again.
TTOC
Exactly as I suspected. Thanks for confirming.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
I'm waiting to see insights that cannot be gained via A.I. or Google showing that MG 2.0 is actually reading the book he claims to be reading and which he thinks would add value to people. It may be a case where he is lying having a memory lapse due to wishful thinking. Again.
TTOC
Exactly as I suspected. Thanks for confirming.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.