Due to the substantive and substantial criticisms that have been made recently of my review of Paul Copan’s Is God a Moral Monster?, criticisms both of its content and its tone, I have been hard at work revising the review, removing all of my errors...I hope that this edition will prove more worthwhile than the first.
http://religionatthemargins.com/2011/06/is-god-a-moral-compromiser-second-edition/
1. why wouldn't you interpret this as a humble attempt at honest dialogue after being critiqued for his hyperbolic and often sarcastic tone, rather than pejoratively labeling it backpedaling?
ReplyDelete2. You really should download it and take a look.
1. Why wouldn't you interpret it as backpedaling in the face of harsh critiques both of Stark's tone as well as his actual arguments, rather than as 'a humble attempt at honest dialogue'?
ReplyDeleteShould we be assuming that the 'humble attempt at honest dialogue' is a recent thing, whereas before Stark couldn't care less about such? Or is it that he cared about it from the start, but he's got that Cult of Gnu social autism thing going on, and is hobbled when it comes to interacting with others?
2. Considering the responses I've seen to Stark's arguments on here, it seems at least some of the Triabloggers have taken a look and found much of it wanting. That's possible, eh?
Change of tone or no - Stark has this one in the bag IMHO.
ReplyDeleteEh... Am I the only one who actually downloaded the file, and got the joke?
ReplyDeleteDale,
ReplyDeletei) His second edition was, indeed, a vast improvement over the first edition.
ii) The problem with the "joke" is that he speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Over at Parchment & Pen he's admitted that his tone was counterproductive, and on his own blog he's having to make factual corrections.
Well, I didn't say it was a *funny* joke.
ReplyDeleteOn 2 - good point. I sees he's making humble in various places. Why, then, the smart-alec-ery?
Kind of like apologizing, then giving the finger...
Dale,
ReplyDeleteNo, that's not how I intended it at all. It was meant to be entirely self-deprecating. Paul Copan thought it was funny, and appreciated it, and his is the only opinion that really matters to me in this situation.
Steve is of course free to make whatever guesses about my motivations he desires.
As for the corrections I've made, they've been minor ones that do not affect my primary arguments at all; and revising errant arguments is a part of scholarship. Again, Steve can cite these as evidence of whatever he pleases, but I have no qualms about saying I was wrong when it's clear to me that I was.
Nevertheless, I am adjusting my tone, but I am not at all "in retreat." I continue to stand by 99% of my arguments (though I welcome corrections), and I still contend that Copan's book is deeply flawed.
THOM STARK SAID:
ReplyDelete"Steve is of course free to make whatever guesses about my motivations he desires."
I'd say Jn 3:19-20 sums that up nicely.
"As for the corrections I've made, they've been minor ones that do not affect my primary arguments at all."
They're important to his argument until the moment he's forced to correct them, at which point they suddenly become "minor."
"...and revising errant arguments is a part of scholarship."
Not to mention shoddy scholarship.
"Again, Steve can cite these as evidence of whatever he pleases, but I have no qualms about saying I was wrong when it's clear to me that I was."
Since there's so little that Stark is right about, perhaps a blanket recantation would save time.