Another Atheist Takes a Shot at Me and My Book
A freelance writer, Ed Brayton, gave me ‘‘his thought trophy’ on April 24, 2007. Click His thought trophy was based on the April 21, 2007 review of my book by Mark Chu-Carroll, a Jewish skeptic. Click As usual, Carroll’s followers bowed down to his nonscientific review. Instead of seeing through my mixed English/Pennsylvania Dutch style of writing and focusing on the scientific aspects of my book, the only purpose of his review was to assassinate my character again so he and his atheistic friends could laugh and dance at the steps of Darwin’s religious evolutionary theory.
Carroll seems to be lazy because a mathematician will not get through my book as fast as he did. Getting through Nicholas of Cusa alone takes time, lots of time. He scanned it and this is why his book review is useless.
However, a comment (by Kea) told Carroll a truth. The comment says, "You may be an OK mathematician, but you are a lousy book reviewer. ......your review did nothing to convince me of this. On the contrary, it sounds as though he raises some interesting ideas. ...... Moreover, the terms 'symbols' has been widely used, notably by the 19th century mathematical philosopher C. S. Peirce, ... but you do not appear to have addressed the underlying arguments." Charles Peirce (1839-1914) is one pragmatist who was smelling the big 1920 discovery of many independent linguists --- that sense data are primatily symbolic. This comment by Kea is sensitive to the sciences in my book. This comment is also sensitive to the subject of ‘symbols.’ Carroll is quiet on this subject. The philosophy of symbolism is a major subject of my book. Specific symbols, even some of those in scriptures, are carefully analyzed and discussed throughout my book because the meanings of symbols can affect the human mind negatively.
I discuss the problem of symbolic languages early in my book. I see two basic symbolic languages — scientific languages and talk languages. On talk languages, I say that the English language is poor compared to the German language. The English language is weakened by Aristotle logic and affects the human mind negatively. So, Carroll’s weak English, which forms his MINDSET, might be worse than my English/Pennsylvania Dutch language. Our different styles of writing might explain why Carroll did not review the scientific aspects of my book adequately. My book says that the developments of different languages by humans are not explained by evolutionary theory. Atheists might have a problem with writing styles because they do not know the linguistic problems of humans and the complex relations that exist between symbols and the human mind.
Carroll’s book review was too early for the announcement I made on a blog dated April 26, 2007. On this blog, I tell my website readers about a new book, The God Theory, by Bernard Haisch. He is an astrophysicist. In the announcement, I report that his book and my book will unify the modern creation theory I describe in my book. So, Ed Brayton, your trophy does not fit me. But, it might fit Carroll.
Carroll seems to be lazy because a mathematician will not get through my book as fast as he did. Getting through Nicholas of Cusa alone takes time, lots of time. He scanned it and this is why his book review is useless.
However, a comment (by Kea) told Carroll a truth. The comment says, "You may be an OK mathematician, but you are a lousy book reviewer. ......your review did nothing to convince me of this. On the contrary, it sounds as though he raises some interesting ideas. ...... Moreover, the terms 'symbols' has been widely used, notably by the 19th century mathematical philosopher C. S. Peirce, ... but you do not appear to have addressed the underlying arguments." Charles Peirce (1839-1914) is one pragmatist who was smelling the big 1920 discovery of many independent linguists --- that sense data are primatily symbolic. This comment by Kea is sensitive to the sciences in my book. This comment is also sensitive to the subject of ‘symbols.’ Carroll is quiet on this subject. The philosophy of symbolism is a major subject of my book. Specific symbols, even some of those in scriptures, are carefully analyzed and discussed throughout my book because the meanings of symbols can affect the human mind negatively.
I discuss the problem of symbolic languages early in my book. I see two basic symbolic languages — scientific languages and talk languages. On talk languages, I say that the English language is poor compared to the German language. The English language is weakened by Aristotle logic and affects the human mind negatively. So, Carroll’s weak English, which forms his MINDSET, might be worse than my English/Pennsylvania Dutch language. Our different styles of writing might explain why Carroll did not review the scientific aspects of my book adequately. My book says that the developments of different languages by humans are not explained by evolutionary theory. Atheists might have a problem with writing styles because they do not know the linguistic problems of humans and the complex relations that exist between symbols and the human mind.
Carroll’s book review was too early for the announcement I made on a blog dated April 26, 2007. On this blog, I tell my website readers about a new book, The God Theory, by Bernard Haisch. He is an astrophysicist. In the announcement, I report that his book and my book will unify the modern creation theory I describe in my book. So, Ed Brayton, your trophy does not fit me. But, it might fit Carroll.
posted by George Shollenberger @ 9:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home