Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
82 of 87 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Lacking in relevant value, April 21, 2004
It stands to reason that if an author is going to presume to correct the alleged errors, misunderstandings and misperceptions presented in another work, one might actually use arguments of his own that are not specious and do not sidestep the questions being considered. It also doesn't seem unreasonable for a reader to expect the author of such an ambitious probject to possess the necessary training, qualifications and expertise needed to address the problems as they are presented rather than skirt the specific issues involved and resort to little more than gain-saying. That sort of intellectual authority is missing here. There simply is nothing of value in this [...] book that draws most of the volume of its contents from material not necessarily related to the topic at hand. The "Skeptic's Annotated Bible" to which this is allegedly a rebuttal is a web-based resource that is readily available at no cost to those who seek alernative viewpoints to and reasoned analysis of certain aspects of American fundamentalist christianity. It's not unreasonable to expect some sort of reasoned response from a qualified theologian, but we don't get that here. This "rebuttal" feeds off of the popularity of the "Skeptic's Annotated Bible" site and frequent references to it in newsgroups, but offers nothing of substance in return. For the unbiased intellectual attempting to examine the christian viewpoint, the arguments presented here are particularly unsatisfying. Many of them are reminiscent of an exchange in Monty Python's "The Life of Brian," when Brian asks his mother why women are not allowed at stonings. "Because it's written, that's why," snaps the mother. There are many of those kinds of "corrections" and "explanations" in this work and so many of them are the same sort of vacuous and inadequate arguments that have been provided so many times elsewhere that one is also struck by the lack of imagination, insight and originality that characterizes the whole of what comparatively little was actually written by the author. The history of christian apologetics is long and distinguished, and there are many whom have contributed to the various debates on these issues through the publication of commentaries, histories, works of exegesis and hermaneutics. By and large, these authors have possessed the requisite knowledge of history, culture, philosophy and language needed to provide sound, intellectual analysis, and they have added value and challenge to the debates. None of that is evident here; and none of the arguments will convince someone who is not already predisposed to fundamentalists beliefs. Far superior resources are quite readily available, many times at no cost via the WorldWide Web, so we're left to wonder about the utility of "The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained," especially when it doesn't explain or correct anything. The serious student of these subjects would be better served by giving this one a pass.
|
|
|
54 of 56 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Falls short of its ambition, April 24, 2004
Reviewers who uncritically agree with Jason's conclusions have given this effort short, substanceless recommendations. Those who don't have had plenty to criticize. I also find that this e-book provides little of merit. The analysis and critical evaluation of the issues that are presumed to be "corrected" and "explained" tend to get standard fundamentalist christian "rebuttal" - the "explanations" are not new - we've seen them before. Mostly, the "corrections" and explanations" are superficial glossings-over of the specific "errors" that are discussed.
For example, with respect to the age of the Earth, Jason tries to approach the question of the disagreement between creationists, whom believe that Genesis is a literal history and the age of the Earth can be measured in thousands of years, and scientists, who tell us that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. His "correction" and "explanation" is that God could have made the world in six 24-hour days. This is, of course, an axiom for most believers in an omnipotent deity. But Jason starts with that conclusion and then only superficially deals with the issue. This does both the Bible and science a disservice and it certainly is not intellectual behavior. To say that God *could* have created in a relatively short time is not relevent. God *could* also have used the slower processes of nature, couldn't he? The issue is the alleged "error" that is to be "corrected," i.e., the age of the Earth as interpreted by the Scriptures and by science as represented in the "Skeptic's Annotated Bible." Jason avoids the question that he presumes to "answer" and the error that he pretends to "correct" and "explain." Jason's tells us that even scientists are not in agreement about the age of the Earth. The fact is that the scientists generally DO agree - what minor disagreement exists does not come close to the huge statistical difference between what the evidence tells us and what Jason's literal reading of Genesis would tell us. There is no "correction" here - Jason simply disagrees with the scientists and, I might add, with most christians who have no problem with an ancient Earth.
This particular episode of "correction" demonstrates the most significant (and most often repeated) intellectual flaw in this work: Jason assumes his conclusions based on a specific brand of biblical literalism and despite contrary evidence that actually demonstrates *his* errors - errors that exist both in the available facts, the extant evidence, and in his methods of research and argument. Jason insists that his conclusions are correct IN SPITE of the evidence - not BECAUSE of it. The result is not what one might understand as "correcting" and "explaining" any alleged "errors" that might have appeared in the "Skeptic's Annotated Bible."
Other issues are "corrected" and "explained" by making unwarranted and unevidenced assumptions - in effect, Jason creates his own "evidence" as a matter of convenience. Regarding the issue of rabbits "chewing their cud," as it says in the Old Testament, Jason manufactures his "explanation" pretty much out of thin air. He asserts that refection (which is what occurs when rabbits reingest their own waste after having been processed by the digestive system and expelled through the anus) and rumination (which is what happens when cows regurgitate from the stomach to reprocess plant matter by further chewing) were the same things to the ancient Hebrews, so that's why the Bible refers to rabbits chewing cud. But we don't KNOW that this is true. Jason assumes it and forwards it as an explanation, regardless. In other words, he makes excuses for what is clearly an error, AND AFFIRMS THAT IT'S AN ERROR. God certainly knows the difference between solid waste and cud and between refection and rumination, even if the ancient Hebrews did not. Consider that Jason's "explanation" effectively tells us that the point made about this error by the "Skeptic's Annotated Bible" is correct, that is, that the Bible is wrong about this issue because the Hebrews got it wrong. In other venues, Jason acknowledges that this is an error and that the King James Bible is NOT inerrant (Jason has even had recent "debates" on the subject with KJV inerrantist apologists, and has even suggested that he might soon create his own "inerrant translation" of the Bible) The result is that Jason affirms the error while trying to "explain" why it is not an error. So what was corrected? Obviously, nothing.
Jason declares evolution to be an "unproven theory" believed primarily by atheists. This exposes his intellectual superficiality. The claim that evolution is believed "primarily" by atheists is an attempt at inflammatory rhetoric - designed to press a hot-button topic and appeal to emotion rather than intellect. Devout scientists of many faiths who have no problem with evolution. Many are christians. Regadless, Jason doesn't "correct" anything about this issue. He simply demonizes conventional scientists.
As for style, the prose is often condescending, ponderous and forced, as if Jason lost interest here and there but pushed himself to finish. It looks very much like the a lower-division college report that Jason once claimed it to be. However, while the scope of editorial errors is outside of the intent of this review, it should be sufficient to say that this is an amatuerish effort. I have taught at the college level, and my first inclination would be to return something of this "quality" to the student, suggest a complete reconstruction and substantive research. The student would be free to resubmit, but I would not waive the penalties for late submission.
In closing, I must say that there is nothing to recommend this effort. The serious student of christian religion will find it a complete waste of time and money. Those already strong in their fundamentalist faith may find something here to affirm that faith, but they can get these kinds of text-bites for free in churches, through television sermons, the Internet, and evangelistic crusades, or they can pay for competent authors such as Paul Little, Francis Schaefer and even Josh McDowell. Those who seek substantive commentary are best advised to look elsewhere. They won't find it here.
|
|
|
48 of 51 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
worst apologetic ever, April 3, 2005
I'm not sure that I can add anything that hasn't already been said, but I will try. As the title states, SAB:C&E is the worst attempt at apologetics I've ever come across. Many of the "corrections" are little more than highly unusual, entirely hypothetical explanations that are more effective at eliminating cognitive dissonance and desparately maintaing inerrancy rather than drawing unbiased reasonable conclusions. Much like the entire field of apologetics, Jason Gastrich shows how far he will go to ignore obvious conclusions in favor of erasing the Bible's flaws.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
See all Editorial Reviews
