Top critical review
Strange and Confusing Writing Style
December 17, 2018
This book has a lot of good information, but one of the authors has a peculiar way of writing, which often leaves me confused. Some of the sentences seem disjointed and lacking in coherency. I wonder if the author is interested in communicating knowledge, or just trying to show off his peculiar and confusing writing style. I wonder how much English the author took, because I don't consider him to be a good writer. A good writers is scant in words. The author in question often says a lot, but communicates little information. For example, on page 121 the section is on art history, in the Surreal section. A lot is said, but the actual meaning is never given. Overall, I don't care for the book because the writing style is so bizarre. The author in question uses too much humor, which is annoying. I purchased this book to learn, not to be entertained. I am on page 152. There was some normality in the chapter on Economics. But the weird writing style returned in the chapter on Film. There are two authors of this book. One of them obviously has a strange way of writing. The chapter on film is hard to understand. The more I read this book, the more I don't like it. One of the authors always seems like he (or she) is in the middle of drama or in the middle of a subject or sentence, but with no proper context For example, in the chapter on literature. The author just get's right into it, as if this has been the topic of the whole book. There is no proper beginning. A poorly executed chapter. There are too many hyphens (not sure which author is responsible). The author behind the chapter on philosophy claims that philosophy is basically obsolete. I disagree. I think we are in a gold age of philosophy, and I think William Lane Craig would basically agree with me. He addressed the claim that philosophy is dead in a Youtube video. The author thinks arguments for God's existence are not persuasive. I disagree. To see a good defense of the cosmological argument, read William Lane Craig's books, and to see a good presentation of the ontological argument, read the relevant material from Alvin Platinga. The author of the philosophy chapter is not abreast on the developments of the arguments for God's existence and doesn't know what he is talking about.
I hate this book. The author(s) seem more concerned about entertaining people than actually communicating information; and they often don't make any sense. In the chapter on the Lexicon, it says about "specious and spurious"
"Good debunking words, these, possessed of an Oxford-debates-Cambridge rarefaction and spleen"...
What? lol! What does a spleen have to do with anything? What is he talking about? lol This is the kind of thing I have complained about. The authors make no sense!
The more I read this book, the more I don't like it. Hard to understand, and there is so much humor, it defeats the purpose of actually communicating information to the reader. I am not sure the authors are conversant enough on the subjects they discuss. In their chapter on religion, the claim is made that the Christian east-west schism of 1054 was due to the controversy on icons (images). That's not true. It was over the claims of the papacy and the filioque. In the section on science, the book actually teaches that human beings evolved from apes. They are either ignorant of modern science or just uncritically following the party-line of evolutionists. Numerous books by top sciences have been written refuting the Theory of Evolution. See these books:
1. Mere Creation: Science, Faith & Intelligent Design, By Dembski; 2. The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer, By Moreland; 3. Intelligent Design, By Dembski 4. Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, By Behe.
Douglas Axe also wrote some material against evolution.