800 words, nothing too harsh
Nicholas Beale notes on his blog, ‘Quite a favourable review in the FT by Julian Baggini.’ The funny thing about that is that Julian said in his Talking Philosophy post that the FT rejected his first two drafts partly because they were ‘not sufficiently even-handed’ – which, when you compare the review to the TP post, clearly means not favourable enough. Yes it’s quite a favourable review in the FT, because the FT demanded a quite favourable review.
That’s funny in light of Beale’s post but it’s annoying in light of reality and justice. It’s annoying that media outlets commission reviews and then tell the reviewer what to say. It’s annoying that this book by Polkinghorne and Beale got a better review than it would have without FT nudging, especially in light of what we have seen of Beale’s way with an argument. I must be naïve, I thought reviews in responsible newspapers and magazines were supposed to be what the reviewer actually thought, not what the editors specified. I thought the reviewers were supposed to say what they found, not find what the editors told them to find in advance. Another illusion shattered.
Yes it is another illusion shattered. I had no idea that magazines were so directive in what went into a review. After all, reviews are supposed to tell you what the reviewer thought, aren’t they?
Despicable all around – NB’s distorted gloating and FT’s poking their editorial nose into the review.
I once was requested to dumb down an invited article. It pissed me off but I needed another publication that year so I did it and never read that journal again. Too dumbed down. But I have never heard that review content is an editorial decision, or that they get to tell reviewers what tone to take. It is shattering news. Also it pisses me off. In fact I can barely believe it. Maybe it’s different in academic-like journals. Are reviewers like employees to places like FT?
When I read a review I assume that it reflects the reviewer’s point of view, which I am free to consider, reject, sneer at, or forget about. If the reviewer makes a stupid case or is obviously shifty or has a pet theory, well, I’m supposed to be able to notice. That’s what a review is supposed to be. And that is what the reader of a review is supposed to do.
In fact re-reading what I wrote above, I realised that the bit about not testing your friends because it could ruin the possibility of friendship does make me think of a possible religious fear: that were they to actually subject their beliefs to more rational thinking the whole edifice might crumble – better to keep believing and not thinking methinks.
This is understandable if the faith in question is comforting and familiar, but it is hardly intellectually honest, which is another thing Polkinghorne seemed to be implying faith was.
I see that NB refers on his blog to the debate on talking philosophy – http://starcourse.blogspot.com/2009/02/days-of-ignoramuses-drawing-to-close.html.
When you read his comments, it’s as if you’ve stumbled into a looking-glass world…
That last post of yours at TP was a rip-snorter, Nick – but of course he’ll just do more of the ad hoc wriggling by way of reply.
This is what’s so irritating – this absolute refusal to engage. It’s like watching a gear slip, over and over and over and over
I continue to feel not nice. Mounting desire to plunge sharp object into soft place. Must remind self of the intrinsic worth of all humans. Principle of each person as an end. Very good. Guy has grandkids. Probably doesn’t mean to be a prick….But. He thinks I’m a boy named “Jean,” judging from his blog. And that’s just not right. He’s telling me what’s in a talk I listened to and he didn’t. That’s stupid. Really need to tell him to fuck off…but…the management hob nobs with these Important People. Trying to be good…really….trying….
Thanks Ophelia. Yes, I’m sure that it will be just more of the same from NB.
He seems to me to be just a third-rate Swinburne, McGrath, or Plantinga. He thinks that his intellect is such that he can mount a watertight rational and logical case for his worldview, but fails to see the conflict between this and the fact that his whole case is ultimately supported on nothing but blind faith. As such, it is ultimately impervious to reasoned argument. In his case, as soon as he gets a tricky question he seems to just ignore it, argue with a straw man version of it, or just throw in some groundless theological twaddle and consider the matter closed.
He seems to me to be locked in a hall of mirrors, with no way out. I’m sure that in his own mind he just knows that any atheist worldview (and those of other religions too) must be wrong because it is not the Christian worldview, and he takes that as an incontravertible truth.
I wonder how Julian will get on in the debate with him? Of course, Julian has truth and reason on his side (not to mention a greater philosophical knowledge than NB), but these Christian apologists can be very slippery. They usually seem to employ every rhetorical trick in the book the get their opponent on the back foot, and sometimes get nasty when things are not going their way (I would expect NB to do this)…
“Guy has grandkids. Probably doesn’t mean to be a prick.”
No, probably not, but still and all, he needed one to have grandkids!
Also, having grandkids does not automatically let one off the hook – prick-wise.
Pricks come in all shapes and sizes!
NB does indeed come across as a faith-based ass of the highest order…
but would it be entirely unfair to suggest that Mr. Baggini could have stood on his principles (assuming that wouldn’t hurt too much – (c) “Give an old joke a home”, 1736 – financially), and refused to make the edits, since they substantively altered his piece?
After all, as a commercial enterprise, it’s up to the FT what they choose to print – and at the most basic level (I have a couple of friends in ‘arts reviewing’), reviews have to match a “house style” to even be considered.
Just a thought.
“… a third-rate Swinburne, McGrath, or Plantinga…”
The mind fairly boggles. Does anyone here consider any of those three either first-rate or second-rate? But then, I suppose the world might be in marginally better shape if NB were as low on the totem pole as it’s possible to go and I think we all know that that is, sadly, not the case.
“In his case, as soon as he gets a tricky question he seems to just ignore it, argue with a straw man version of it, or just throw in some groundless theological twaddle and consider the matter closed.”
To be fair, he did concede a problem in his outline of the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (in the ‘Plantinga and Dennett (again)’ thread).
“The mind fairly boggles. Does anyone here consider any of those three either first-rate or second-rate?”
It’s all relative I don’t rate any of the trio I mentioned as a first-rate thinker per se but, however I rate them, I rate NB as a third-rate version of them. I get the impression that he is particularly impressed by Plantinga, who I would say is probably the best (or at least the most ingenious) of the three.
“To be fair, he did concede a problem in his outline of the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (in the ‘Plantinga and Dennett (again)’ thread).”
Okay – I didn’t notice that, as I haven’t really been following that thread. I can only presume that it is a point that doesn’t seriously undermine his worldview. I’ve read Plantinga’s argument before, and written some stuff about it elsewhere. I didn’t post any thoughts though, as it would take me some time to get it into a form worth anybody’s time and effort to read
I think Nicholas Beale’s participation at TP has been more or less a “drive by”. He really hasn’t stopped to listen and engage. He makes his contribution with minimal effort, which often means just insulting people and saying they don’t know what they’re talking about. When he’s not doing that, he’s often speaking in fairly inscrutable shorthand.
But really–it’s Polkinghorne who’s the original thinker of the two. Beale “manages his web presence,” according to wikipedia. In fact, he is a management consultant, not a theologian, philosopher, scientist, or whatever. So he’s bound not to be of the caliber of today’s leading Christian philosophers.
Re: Plantinga. He’s intricate and interesting, which is not to say believable.
Here’s an interesting blog post that I think is relevent to the discussion going on with NB –
http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/2009/03/irrationality-of-true-faith-head.html
Thank you for bringing Nicholas Beale’s blog to my attention. There is a laugh on every page. I particularly enjoyed this:
“Whatever you think about Sarah Palin it is clear that the Obama camp and the Liberal Media have got their reactions badly (I originally typed madly) wrong on this. One can understand their fury – they thought they owned this election and they can see it slipping away from them”.
Aw, how disappointed he must have been. That’s so sad.
I’ve just had another look at NB’s blog, and found something amusing. AC Grayling has apparently reviewed the book, and NB finds the review to be “Hilarious”.
I haven’t read Grayling’s review yet, so I can’t comment on it, but NB goes on to say that Grayling “…completely fails to engage with any of our arguments – just calling them names…”. Does that sound familiar at all!?