Taibbi on Fish and Eagleton

Stanley Fish reviewed Terry Eagleton’s atheist-bashing book in the New York Times this week. I read the review, and emailed a friend that “it seems to be about a book talking nonsense about science, written by somebody clueless about science, reviewed by someone equally clueless about science.”

I was going to leave it at that, since I had (and have) no intention of reading a book that promises largely to be drivel, and academese drivel at that. (I like drivel, but other varieties.) Still, Matt Taibbi just blogged about the review. He’s one of my favorite writers, who does real quality rants. So I thought I’d point it out.

"It seems to me that the Argument from Contingency uses some misleading nomenclature, because "necessary" ..."

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part ..."
"Rather than ask clarification on words, you could just ask him to re-write his argument ..."

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part ..."
"I've noticed a simple problem with proposition 1c: "...if that thing depends on something else ..."

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part ..."
"Your suggestion would be more tempting if there were just one or two unclear words ..."

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment