Victor Reppert is Blind as a Bat and I Can Prove It

I'll let you read this exchange between Vic and myself for yourselves. Do you see what I do? I said what I wanted to say there although I'll duplicate it below.

I don't even completely buy a sharp natural-supernatural distinction, and hence I am don't think it's perfectly obvious that God (the theon) is a supernatural being. In theory, God could enter into a scientific explanation, and we could predict God's behavior in much the way we predict the behavior of other unobservable entities. And I am not sure what would count as real evidence? Seeing a miracle? I have personally seen evidence of the paranormal myself.

Vic, what a deceived person you are. Here, get this truly brilliant book: How to Think about Weird Things. There are older editions of it at less cost. It's being used at the University of Louisiana in their critical thinking college classes. You need to take this class.

Really? I ran across this in an Amazon critique of the book.
In many places in the book, however, they dont appear to follow their
own advice. The book is full of exemplary analyses of 'strange' topics
such as near-death expeiences, UFOs, ESP and so on. In many of these
analyses, they appeal to the readers sense that these things are
'riduculous' or 'silly'. Instead of arguing these points
on-their-merits, the authors disregard their own good advice. For
example, in a section devoted to near-death experiences, the authors
describe the possible reality of these events as 'incomprehensible'. The
authors then use this as a reason to dismiss NDE. Well, perhaps NDES
are 'incomprehensible' simply for a lack of imagination. Also, the
authors should be reminded that quantum mechanics (the most accurate
physical theory ever created) is 'incomprehensible'-after 70 years
physicists still cant figure out if its real or what. Also, Occams razor
(a principle discussed and advocated in the book) suggests that taking
NDEs on face-value is reasonable since it is much less complicated than
the Rube-Goldberg explanations used to dismiss NDEs.
This looks like the book is committed to an uncritical dismissiveness.

No Vic, you are committed to uncritical dismissiveness. You did see the other reviews right? You would also be disagreeing with Dr. Keith Korcz who uses this text in his classes, as well as many others, since this college textbook is now in its sixth edition. For all I know the review was written by a believer who could not bring himself to think critically. It is most definitely not as he says. In my edition (4th) the discussion on NDE's takes place at the end of the book after having more than established throughout the book that we should doubt such things. And the authors look at the evidence and show there is no good reason to believe in NDE's.

I now consider you an idiot for grabbing one negative review off Amazon, written by an anonymous person who's credentials you haven't got a clue about, despite my recommendation and the recommendation of many other critical thinking professors who use it in their classes. You are a dimwit. Do not claim you were joking either. I don't buy it.

Is this how you decide the merits of a book? You are indeed blind. The proper response was for you to say, "that looks like an interesting book," and leave it at that. If this does not slap you in the face as to what you're doing then nothing will. When I say you are blind this proves it. Do not claim you are skeptical about your faith. You aren't. Whenever you do from now on I will link to your incompetency right here.

I would never dream a college professor would dismiss a book like you just did. You should be fired. I'm dead serious. How dare you even claim to have the critical thinking skills to write about the Argument From Reason. You are clearly unreasonable. Palpably unreasonable. Obviously unreasonable. How do you even get along in life? It makes me wonder.

In any event I don't see exactly how the book is a specific response to what I said. The point I am driving at is that these are pretty complicated topics, and the issues are controversial, and I hardly think they can be settled straightforwardly by one book.

If you say "You're deluded and this book proves it," and put that in place of an actual argument, then I think all I have to do is just point out that the issues are, and remain, open to controversy and debate.

I probably should have been clearer about just what claim my quotation from the review was supposed to support.

But if I could take one instance of trigger-happiness on your part and draw a decisive conclusion that you are an incompetent thinker, I would have plenty of material to work from. I don't think that such a move would be a legitimate assessment, but it would be easy to make.

Vic, I linked to this on the front page. I find you to be a very sloppy thinker.
I had said (for the reading impaired):
Vic, what a deceived person you are. Here, get this truly brilliant book...You need to take this class.
I never hinted that this book or class would change your mind or prove you wrong. I cannot hope for that since you are blind. I only thought it was brilliant and worthy of your consideration.

That's my recommendation. It's still my recommendation. Even though it's for college students you could learn a few things from it and from taking that class. Now I think that more than before.

We all make mistakes, sure, but this one is huge. It reveals how stupid you can be in defense of your faith. That's a claim I make in that edited book of mine The End of Christianity coming out in a month--that defending the faith makes people stupid.