A bit more reading.

.
.
The Irrational Atheist has been being read for several days now.  Focus being the reason it isn't finished.  A fine read.  Truly, I am enjoying it.  I had some notion about the content, but was surprised to find it more exactly as a response to other authors, authors I haven't bothered to muddle through.  Though, from reading the blog of the author, I did have plenty of content and discussion by which to fill in the holes.  And the author of this book does go beyond just rebuttal.  Quite a good read for a number of reasons.

So far there were only a few things I doubt, small things I should be able to check, such as intellectual productivity of US versus French... producers.  I just want to check the numbers.  There are a few other minor questions I wish answered.  Trust me, these are quite minor points, not really completely salient to the points as I consider them, at least not that specifically.  I trust the general gist enough already.  Still... a doubt is a doubt.  I have merely a handful of things I wish to check.  Not at all bad, really.

I may not find myself in complete agreement in the final direction of some thrusts.  I do, however, very much agree with the more general direction.  My disagreements aren't even usually about the final product offered by the author.  It is about the thrust.  It is sort of like disagreeing about where to shoot a deer.  Some suggest a head shot, I would recommend a vital organ body shot.  Now, both will work.  My way simply reduces the precision necessary.  Then again, sometimes I take the opposite position.  In the end, as long as the deer ends up on the table, the general ideas are sound. 

He does a very thorough investigation, including several crazy ivans, in order to check his intellectual baffles.  He looks at the possibilities of what is being contested from their standpoint, or even his standpoint if he were to make their arguments.  So far I have found his thoughts to be sound.  As would be expected, he has difficulty sounding out notions that aren't logical... through logic.  As it should be.  If someone found atheism to be reasonable, he would at least have to balance that against his  own beliefs, in this case against Christianity.  He does make the effort.  No more, say, than as a parent trying to put himself in his child's shoes for a moment, to understand.  It doesn't really work, but the effort can have value.

I'll finish, before too long.  Ah... one thing that really adds value to reading the book, beside for a few learning bits, and a general agreement, is in... categorizing some things.  When I speak of liberals, communists, socialists, and some others, I generally lump them.  To some degree that is absolutely fair.  Even when I get more specific, I can see where I might be misunderstood... or confusing in my thoughts.  The book is helping me to more clearly define where and when and how the various groups do and do not work as a group, and to see the break points much more clearly.  It is detail, not absolutely functionally necessary, but a fine addition nonetheless.  Then, when someone gets smart, I can smack them down a bit more easily.  Smart?  How about smarmy.  Yes, when they get smarmy, I can leave them to chew the fat of their failed coup, from higher level thinkers.  The typical isn't hard.  Most of them can't think their way out of a wet paper bag.  A few of them are almost clever, deviously so.  Take away their bait for their bait-and-switch, trip up their double entendre, show them how they are shooting their own foot while they... shoot their own foot... and it become clear, quickly.

Yes, a good read.  If you are interested in apologetics, this might be an interesting start.  The bible, and reading it heavily, with some decent capacity to understand and associate with the world, is best to begin with.  Then move on to something like this.  This is more general, but starts with the serious bullies of the atheist world, defining a few notions and mistakes in logic plus solid examples and counters.  The rest will flow well from these things.  I wish I had more reading mojo.  Even so, I may re-read immediately.  It's an easy read, solid thinking Christian's primer into intermediate or higher apologetics, and just interesting.  History, a rough touch on math, science, and of course theology, logic, reasoning, and more.  Good good.  I'll have to do a review, full review, when I finish.