I've posted an Amazon review of Stephen Braude's recent book. The review repeats some of what I've said here, but also adds some comments on other subjects, such as the evidence Christianity provides for life after death.
If I may, I'm going to advance the dangerously 'conspiratorial' suggestion that the reason Braude appears to waver on survivalism is partly because Mishlove's show is quite deliberately indeterminate. It thrives on vagueness and obfuscation, thereby allowing it to continue. It's very much academia in a microcosm - the last thing the Academy wants are firm and final answers to questions that would stymie the continued generation of income from fee-paying PhD students. Mishlove's stock in trade is 'mystery' so arguing strenuously for something directly paranormal is contrary to his business model. Even his book, the PK Man, though chronicling what appears to be genuine phenomena, still casts quite a bit of shade against itself, hinting even at a sequel which never got written - perhaps because sales off the first were disappointing.
Another contributing factor (and there is likely more than one or two) is that he's getting older; is more concerned about his legacy; and wants to be remembered as 'respectable' by other academics. John Frame really raised this idea with me - that Christian philosophy and witness often suffers because people want to be loved by the world. Braude is no Christian but he has the same character defect. I've even had direct correspondence with a very famous Christian apologists and world class debator (need I say more?) who admitted to me that he was annoyed that Oxford refused to invite him to speak at certain philosophical events - suggesting that even he (an otherwise exemplary Christian) wants Recognition and Respect - which perhaps might even explain his softening on the historicity of Adam and Eve...
If I may, I'm going to advance the dangerously 'conspiratorial' suggestion that the reason Braude appears to waver on survivalism is partly because Mishlove's show is quite deliberately indeterminate. It thrives on vagueness and obfuscation, thereby allowing it to continue. It's very much academia in a microcosm - the last thing the Academy wants are firm and final answers to questions that would stymie the continued generation of income from fee-paying PhD students. Mishlove's stock in trade is 'mystery' so arguing strenuously for something directly paranormal is contrary to his business model. Even his book, the PK Man, though chronicling what appears to be genuine phenomena, still casts quite a bit of shade against itself, hinting even at a sequel which never got written - perhaps because sales off the first were disappointing.
ReplyDeleteAnother contributing factor (and there is likely more than one or two) is that he's getting older; is more concerned about his legacy; and wants to be remembered as 'respectable' by other academics. John Frame really raised this idea with me - that Christian philosophy and witness often suffers because people want to be loved by the world. Braude is no Christian but he has the same character defect. I've even had direct correspondence with a very famous Christian apologists and world class debator (need I say more?) who admitted to me that he was annoyed that Oxford refused to invite him to speak at certain philosophical events - suggesting that even he (an otherwise exemplary Christian) wants Recognition and Respect - which perhaps might even explain his softening on the historicity of Adam and Eve...