Customer Reviews

Letter to a Christian Nation: Counter Point

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(15)

 

 

Well, as an atheist, I took up reviewer "Sally"s challenge "to give the opposition a fair hearing and read RC Metcalf's book, too." Yikes. Within the first 15-20 pages I quit counting the various fallacious arguments -special pleading, appeals to authority, reversals of proof burdens, etc., etc. I have a theory that religious belief creates in the mind a sort of template for thinking based on the religious necessity to accept things on faith, quite without evidences or proof. It is this template for (non)thought that allows the Sallys of the world to read both Harris and Metcalf and somehow decide that Metcalf has solidly refuted Harris.

Except to the extent that a reader wants to chronicle logical fallacies in Christian 'argument', I'd advise you give this one a pass. Metcalf is merely preaching and it holds value only to the already-believers desperate for insulation against the chilly truth of Harris' books. I suggest Metcalf and his publisher change the title to "Sermon To A Christian Nation" for there is zero argumentation here.

I would also question the efficacy of Christian faith if books such as this have become necessary to Christians. Why would truly faithful Christians care what some atheist might think of them?

(Cue the "we are under attack!" responses).

I decided to read this book in the hope it might provide something fresh--perhaps a new point of view that I should consider. I was also curious how anyone could possibly refute Harris, when he is so utterly logical in pointing out the fallacies and contradictions in the holy text and the beliefs of those who follow it. I wanted to know, how could a person attempt to refute the facts?

But, like so many others, I coudn't finish the book either. I don't apologize for that. There is neither benefit nor honor in continuing to waste time on something that repeatedly violates reason, misconstrues the other person's words and bases much of its "argument" on the the very premise that is in question: the existence of a biblical-style god. I recall one place where Metcalf said something like, "Of course I realize you don't believe God's exists, but we believe God instructs us thus and so...."

That's no counterpoint, that's just sermonizing. And I think that's the real purpose of this book--to cheer the believers on. All they need, to feel comfortable dismissing Harris, is for someone to tell them, in a religious-sounding way, that it's all okay. "There, there, it'll be all right." They will hear what they want to hear and rationalize away Harris just as they rationalize away the biblical problems he points out. They will pretend Harris' points were "just opinion."

But that's not enough for those of us whose beliefs are subject to reality, rather than the other way around.

I will read other points of view that are at least worthy of a listen--logical, honest, based on reasonably accurate sources--but this work doesn't meet the criteria. For example, like others, I was very put off by Metcalf's response re a moral responsibility to a rock. How many times does one have to observe such obvious disingenuousness before wondering whether to bother trusting anything else the person says? Once? Twice?

To summarize, believers who successfully scrounge for a way to rationalize God's clear and emphatic embracing of slavery will also manage to find a way to see Metcalf's book as an adequate response to Harris... and all will be well in Christendom. The rest of us will see little or nothing compelling about it.

After having finished reading Sam Harris's "Letter to a Christian Nation" I wanted to see what the Christian response was ( self disclosure: I am an agnostic). Metcalf's response is a poor rebuttal. Metcalf makes claims then doesn't follow up with supporting evidence. For example in a section entitled "Science and Christianity" Metcalf writes " ...I would suggest that while the essence of God Himself exists outside the physical universe,Christian claims about God can ( the word "can" is italicized for emphasis) be addressed scientifically" ( p50 ). Metcalf never states how. Bottom line, for myself, Metcalf does a poor job in rebutting Harris.

I was very impressed with Sam Harris' "Letter To A Christian Nation." I am an atheist having abandoned my Catholic roots in early adulthood. However, I seek to be intellectually honest in the sense that I do try to examine all sides of an issue before making up my mind. Thus, I was very eager to read RC Metcalf's counter-point to Sam Harris. I was sorely disappointed in what I read.

While Mr. Metcalf claims to be a scientist, his book reads more like the ramblings of Jerry Fallwell rather than the lucid reasoning of an objective, rational intellectual that Metcalf purports himself to be. He is clearly preaching to the choir, doing his best to reassure the flock of sheep that Harris is dead wrong and that everything is OK with the Christian religion.

How does he do this? By anegdotal evidence, multiple fallacies of selective observation, special pleadings, ad hoc, etc... Finally when confronted with an insurmountable logical obstacle, he always falls back on Scripture as a safety net. When all else fails, Scripture and faith always triumph over reason and science in Metcalf's world.

One cannot call oneself a reasonable person and much less a scientist if one abandons all reason and relies on faith when faced with facts and logic that completely obliterate one's long held beliefs. R.C. Metcalf is no scientist. He is an apologetic at best. And a fundamentalist at worst.

I highly recommend reading his book though. It is a great example of the mental gymnastics a person of faith is forced to do in order to stay true to his dogma.

All PhD's are equal but some are more equal than others. In reading through Metcalf's Letter to a Christian Nation: Counterpoint, I am forced to admit that I am completely astonished at the complete inanity of Metcalf's infantile-like reasoning skills. As such, I am possessed to admit that I was initially agreeing with Metcalf's opening paragraph, but then it went off-the-rails. I have always struggled with the mystery of how an individual is able to persevere and thus acquire the highly-revered PhD, but only to fail to learn the basic tenets of logic. Metcalf's case is, I'm afraid, not an exception to my age-old mystery.

Metcalf begins his initial assault on Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation by asserting, "Do you see American Christians at war with other faiths? Are Protestant Christians killing Roman Catholics in the United States due to doctrinal differences? Do you see American Christians diverting air traffic toward buildings in the Middle East?" (Metcalf 2). First of all, one should never end a sentence with a prepositional phrase, ah, but more to the point. Whether a Christian happens to be American or Irish doesn't have any bearing on the doctrines of Christianity. In order to support his illogical thesis, Metcalf is making cultural rather than religious distinctions regarding religious behavior. Indeed, Protestants and Romans have been killing one another for centuries, but Metcalf is nevertheless correct in his assertion that America has been more tolerant toward religion. Perhaps our Constitution coupled with our higher-standard of living has prevented a superfluity of needless religious bloodshed. Perhaps when these all-too-important impediments to religious violence are removed, then it's possible we'll see the rivers of blood flowing yet again.

The book is filled with inane and irrelevant points and "evidence," for example, "A president, who grounds his morality in the teachings of Jesus Christ, could not ignore the cruelty reflected in the crimes against humanity that Saddam Hussein inflicted upon his own people." Did it ever occur to Metcalf that an atheist president wouldn't like this either? Furthermore, what about the little problem of international law? Perhaps in the pursuit of their "higher authority and morals" religious people are inclined to ignore this troublesome little detail. Harris was correct; it is this type of thinking that makes the religious mind so dangerous and terrifying. In other words, "International law doesn't matter because God's law is higher, and we Christians are thus justified in taking action against our enemies." Using this type of reasoning, religious people are thus able to justify anything they choose to do.

In reading through the book's excerpt, I could go on and on, but I know as I write that it will be to no avail, and even if I did refute every illogical point made by Metcalf, the time I'd need would ensure that I'd die in my chair. However, in his confused and puerile reasoning, Metcalf somehow believes that archaeological and historical evidence can prove that the Bible is true or that God exists. For example, "The historicity of Christianity has both archaeological and historical support" (Metcalf, 38); surely as a PhD, Metcalf must concede that this is neither evidence nor is his reasoning to the standards of a PhD. Because there is historical or even archaeological evidence to support that a certain high priest existed doesn't prove that the Bible is true or that God exists. This, I'm afraid, is patently absurd.

In the end, from what I read, Metcalf's argumentation is so appallingly representative of his ilk. In his fervor to prove Sam Harris and his assertions regarding Christians incorrect, Metcalf has only demonstrated his willingness to relinquish logic in favor of his world-view. I would have loved to have read a sound refutation of this book or any book for that matter, but I'm afraid that this book completely misses the mark. Metcalf will have to get up fairly early in the morning to out think Sam Harris...

I mean Amazon, not the book or the debate.
After reading both Harris books, Dawkins and Hithcens I do not think that beleivers of any persuasion can possibly have anyting to say. I find it amusing how they still try.
The reason for my comment is to praise Amazon and its evolving system.
Reading the reviews here are truly enabling me to make the best decisions about any book I may consider buying.
Especially in the case of highly polarized reviews such is this one.
Very often just the quality of the reviews can make me decide either way. In this particular case however the most usefull tool was "Search inside" No negative review can be as convincing as reading the text itself. The few pages presented are already more than what I can take. The arguments - if you can call them that - are beyond pathetic.
They do not represent counterpoints, just reformulation of arguments already demolished by Harris and Dawkins. I could not find a single paragraph without fundamental errors in logic, misunderstanding or misrepresentation of common terms.
I would also think that the new feature (the author's blog), although a great feature, will not help this particular author.
What I found here convinced me that buying and reading this book would be a waste of my money and time.

Read this work only for amusement, and to remind yourself once again of the raw irrationality of True Believers of any ilk. Religions necessarily must be based on irrationality (aka "faith"). It is simply insane for committed irrationalists to attempt to use rationality to bolster their "faith". And anyway, GODS-WILL-KNOW-IT-ALL has direct knowledge from the gods that christians are, and always have been, wrong. End-o-story!

Yes, Dr. Metcalf, as a matter of fact I do see American Chrisians at war with other faiths... every time something comes out of their mouths. They (you) hate other religions and believe that anyone who does not believe what they (you) believe is going to burn in hell. If that's not being at war with people, I don't know what is...

1. Misuse/Misunderstanding of Metaphysics
2. Lack of proper methodology on Epistemology
3. Swinging between subjective rights (to have a good feeling) to objective claims, depending on whether one can defend the latter.
4. Ignorance on latest research on Neurophysiology or Philosophy of Mind about the fallacy of Descartes' Dualism.
5. Ignoring negative socialogical impacts of what 'incorrect beliefs' are having on humanism.
6. Mixing up 'faith' (which is required even for science .. just that it comes with a proper methodology) with 'blind faith'.
7. Euphemism on obvious problems.
8. Misunderstanding of 'Rights' (which requires other people's obligation to fulfill)
9. Misuse of languages (see Wittgenstein) and rely on unsubstantiated analytics.
10. Clinging onto hope of living after death.
11. Intellectual dishonesty
12. Emperor's New Clothes
13. Systematic spreading of falsehoods
14. Ignorance of the problems relating to the concepts of 'Evil', 'Greatest of the greatest' and easy excuses for explaining away problems.
15. Ignoring the negative Mob Effect on the society.

This author deflects many incriminating facts and truths from Harris' book by blaming it elsewhere. Oh, don't blame all Christians for that, it was the Catholics. Or we may have played a violent hand in the crusades but the muslims were much much worse. This is ridiculous aurgumenting but I didn't expect much from it to start since it is trying to refute logic and fact.