What's Keeping "The God Thing" From Being Published?

[Geoff]

Name one.

Why?

I mean, sure... given that I have a degree in Philosophy, I'm more than qualified to take any one of his arguments and break down all the logistical problems with it. But this isn't the right forum for it.

More importantly, why should I put forth such effort? You said that McDowell's book should convince me that God is real. I'm telling you that I read it, and it didn't... nor does it have much chance of convincing anyone else who doesn't already accept God's existence on faith alone. How is this my burden to explain why McDowell was entirely uncompelling?

You can go on through life believing that he's a philosophical genius and I'm just too dense to see it... but you won't gain many converts that way.

 

[David cgc]

^ You can't possibly believe that anybody here would be impressed by those hypocritical hacks, do you?

Speaking as a religious person, I'm going to confirm that I'm quite unimpressed by those two. Indeed, I rather resent them and their ilk for making my ilk look bad.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ You can't possibly believe that anybody here would be impressed by those hypocritical hacks, do you?

Speaking as a religious person, I'm going to confirm that I'm quite unimpressed by those two. Indeed, I rather resent them and their ilk for making my ilk look bad.

Seconded.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Why would you ask him to "name one" when he just named all of them?

He mentioned logical fallacies. I see some other bloggers did, too. Name one.

It is... illogical to assume that accusations alone can convince me (or anyone else, for that matter) of anything. If you will not offer an explanation, I'll frankly have no reason to believe such accusations.

 

[Thrawn]

Why would you ask him to "name one" when he just named all of them?

He mentioned logical fallacies. I see some other bloggers did, too. Name one.

Strobel: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_doland/strobel.html
McDowell: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/

That should do.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Strobel: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...d/strobel.html
McDowell: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...f_lowder/jury/

That should do.

Not quite. It seems the "Strobel" critic is just repeating the question after hearing the answer. See, some people hear an explanation worded in a certain way, and they understand completely. Others, like this critic apparently, don't, and when they try to express their problem, they usually do it by rewording the question, without changing the content. When this happens, it is best for them to talk to the author in person, or at least make a phone call, and ask him/her to clarify the answer.

As for the "McDowell" critics, they seem to either dismiss the argument as hogwash without taking them as seriously as claimed (they use terms like "nonsense" and "idiotic" far too often to sustain any claims for objectivity), or they neglect to look at the context. In The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, McDowell adds a great deal of material addressing the authenticity of Scripture, alternate philosophies, and so on. And yes, I know of the section of the critic page which (briefly) criticizes the new volume. He claims he didn't find any real response to the "Jesus Seminar". It seems to me that the critic simply skimmed over the chapter in question, and therefore didn't really look for one.

I encourage one to read the infidels.org "criticisms" (and McDowell's new volume) with my comments planted firmly in the mind, and see what I mean.

 

[Rush Limborg]

I mean, sure... given that I have a degree in Philosophy, I'm more than qualified to take any one of his arguments and break down all the logistical problems with it. But this isn't the right forum for it.

Perhaps not. However... if such a forum does appear around here, suitible to such needs, then by golly I'll be one of the first to be on it.

You can go on through life believing that he's a philosophical genius and I'm just too dense to see it... but you won't gain many converts that way.

(soft chuckle) We shall see, my friend. We shall see.

 

[Dancing Doctor]

I mean, sure... given that I have a degree in Philosophy, I'm more than qualified to take any one of his arguments and break down all the logistical problems with it. But this isn't the right forum for it.

Perhaps not. However... if such a forum does appear around here, suitible to these needs, then by golly I'll be one of the first to be on it.

There's always...The Neutral Zone *dramatic music here*

 

[David cgc]

I'd like to buy tickets to that dance.

 

[Rush Limborg]

There's always...The Neutral Zone *dramatic music here*

Hmm. Interesting....

 

[Dancing Doctor]

There's always...The Neutral Zone *dramatic music here*

Hmm. Interesting....

It's a forum that allows for pretty much anything, as long as you're careful about how you go about posting.

 

[Rush Limborg]

I'd like to buy tickets to that dance.

The cost isn't that much. Just about... 10% of one's income.

 

[David cgc]

Boy, Premium Membership is a lot pricier than I remember. And here I thought "pay, pray, and obey" referred to the Church.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Rush, if you want to check out The Neutral Zone, go to User CP (far left on the link bar at the top of each page) and scroll down to Group Memberships under Miscellaneous.

With that in mind, let's redirect this thread back on topic, i.e. The God Thing (the project, not the poster ).

 

[William Leisner]

Strobel: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...d/strobel.html
McDowell: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...f_lowder/jury/

That should do.

Not quite. It seems the "Strobel" critic is just repeating the question after hearing the answer. See, some people hear an explanation worded in a certain way, and they understand completely. Others, like this critic apparently, don't, and when they try to express their problem, they usually do it by rewording the question, without changing the content. When this happens, it is best for them to talk to the author in person, or at least make a phone call, and ask him/her to clarify the answer.

As for the "McDowell" critics, they seem to either dismiss the argument as hogwash without taking them as seriously as claimed (they use terms like "nonsense" and "idiotic" far too often to sustain any claims for objectivity), or they neglect to look at the context. In The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, McDowell adds a great deal of material addressing the authenticity of Scripture, alternate philosophies, and so on. And yes, I know of the section of the critic page which (briefly) criticizes the new volume. He claims he didn't find any real response to the "Jesus Seminar". It seems to me that the critic simply skimmed over the chapter in question, and therefore didn't really look for one.

I encourage one to read the infidels.org "criticisms" (and McDowell's new volume) with my comments planted firmly in the mind, and see what I mean.

You actually think you're making a compelling case here, don't you?

That's so fucking precious.

 

[Thrawn]

Strobel: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...d/strobel.html
McDowell: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...f_lowder/jury/

That should do.

Not quite. It seems the "Strobel" critic is just repeating the question after hearing the answer. See, some people hear an explanation worded in a certain way, and they understand completely. Others, like this critic apparently, don't, and when they try to express their problem, they usually do it by rewording the question, without changing the content. When this happens, it is best for them to talk to the author in person, or at least make a phone call, and ask him/her to clarify the answer.

As for the "McDowell" critics, they seem to either dismiss the argument as hogwash without taking them as seriously as claimed (they use terms like "nonsense" and "idiotic" far too often to sustain any claims for objectivity), or they neglect to look at the context. In The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, McDowell adds a great deal of material addressing the authenticity of Scripture, alternate philosophies, and so on. And yes, I know of the section of the critic page which (briefly) criticizes the new volume. He claims he didn't find any real response to the "Jesus Seminar". It seems to me that the critic simply skimmed over the chapter in question, and therefore didn't really look for one.

I encourage one to read the infidels.org "criticisms" (and McDowell's new volume) with my comments planted firmly in the mind, and see what I mean.

Look.

This was an interesting thread, about Gene Roddenberry's infidelity and bizarre script ideas. I was enjoying it. Then you showed up attempting to convince everyone - in posts of just a few paragraphs, on a board dedicated to something else - that your point of view, vastly different from most everyone else's, is legitimate. I will happily argue 'till I'm blue in the face that any 'logical' evidence for the God of Christianity is so far beyond nonsense that you insult the entire concept of rational thought just by daring to suggest such a thing, and if you PM me I'd love to do so, but this thread is not the place. I linked you to criticisms because you asked someone to; they give several lists of logical fallacies that you clearly don't find convincing. This isn't surprising. I was hoping for a "fine, I understand why other people may dislike these books," but I wasn't expecting to change your mind, just help you understand why you weren't changing anyone else's. That clearly failed, so let's try something simpler:

There ARE legitimate complaints with those books. YOU disagree with those complaints. NO ONE else in this thread is convinced. And NONE of this is going to change. There are venues for this discussion and this is not one. You will make no one agree with you, and you will anger (and have already angered) several people along the way.

Please stop.

 

[Thrawn]

I mean, sure... given that I have a degree in Philosophy, I'm more than qualified to take any one of his arguments and break down all the logistical problems with it. But this isn't the right forum for it.

Perhaps not. However... if such a forum does appear around here, suitible to such needs, then by golly I'll be one of the first to be on it.

You can go on through life believing that he's a philosophical genius and I'm just too dense to see it... but you won't gain many converts that way.

(soft chuckle) We shall see, my friend. We shall see.

This is what I'm talking about. If you expect anyone to be convinced by your posts in this thread, you're a bit unaware of exactly what constitutes a legitimate argument. "We shall see" my left foot.

 

[Thrawn]

Getting back on topic, someone (not me) posted an interview about Star Trek from 1976 on YouTube from Tom Snyder's old show. It is a five-part interview and here's the link to part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P32wGXbNMbo

In one of the parts, DeForest Kelley mentions The God Thing, although not by name. I don't remember which part, but the whole show is interesting, and it is worth watching the whole thing.

Enjoy,

Surak

On topic: thank you for sharing this interview. Very cool. I got into Star Trek with the end of TNG, and never really knew much about that era, so I love hearing stories like all of the hullabaloo over The God Thing and seeing interviews like this.

It's just amazing to me that they were calling it such a phenomenon back then, not having any idea the ridiculous heights that it would hit over the coming decades. They're just hoping for a second movie after this one... It's funny, in hindsight.

 

[Rosalind]

With that in mind, let's redirect this thread back on topic, i.e. The God Thing (the project, not the poster ).

And another reminder, I really don't another locked thread this week.

 

[Steve Roby]

Let's see if we can get this back on topic, starting with a brief side trip the relevance of which will soon become apparent.

It's well known that the movie Casablanca was based on the play "Everybody Comes to Rick's" by Murray Burnett and Joan Allison. Casablanca was a big hit in 1942, was revived for TV (briefly) in the 1950s, became a cult classic in the 1960s, was revisited for TV in the early 1980s, inspired countless pop culture references and a lot of books about the movie, including an authorized sequel novel in the 1990s. It's considered a classic film. Critics and academics argue about the many rewrites the movies went through, debating whether Howard Koch or the Epstein brothers were responsible for this line or that scene. There's a lot of interest.

So you'd think that original play would be published somewhere, right? Wrong. The only way to get a copy is to contact the Warner Brothers Archive at the University of Southern California, fill out some paperwork attesting that you need the script for noncommercial research purposes and will die before reproducing it, pay a rather hefty per-page charge for copying, and eventually it should end up in your mailbox. (See my old blog for comments on the play.)

So... if UCLA's collection of Roddenberry and Trek-related papers happened to include a God Thing manuscript (doesn't look like it, according to their database, but anyway), how many people would go to the trouble of trying to get a copy? "Everybody Comes to Rick's" cost me about $45; other, longer items I've seen in other university library special collections cost significantly more. Would this be a reasonable way to provide at least some access without going to the risk of publishing what could turn out to be a disaster of a book? Or would it turn up scanned and all over the Internet in no time flat?