Product Details
Reason in the Balance: The Case against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education

Reason in the Balance: The Case against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education
By Phillip E. Johnson

Price:

This item is not available for purchase from this store.
Click here to go to Amazon to see other purchasing options.


16 new or used available from £1.39

Average customer review:

Product Details

  • Amazon Sales Rank: #746808 in Books
  • Published on: 1998-12-31
  • Original language: English
  • Number of items: 1
  • Binding: Paperback
  • 245 pages

Customer Reviews

Great book! A must read by everyone!5
This book details the worldviews of naturalism and materialism vs theistic views. It deftly shows the flaws of naturalism, the fallacies it creates and how it started. A must read for all thinking people no matter what their personal views are!

Clear, well thought-out arguments5
While there are a few places where he treats the "opposition" fairly superficially, going into too much more detail would render the text unreadable. He is very careful to go for the core of the issues, though, and does a remarkable job at making sure that his reasoning is solid. You'd be a fool to only one side and not major authors on the other, but he greatly clarifies what the debate is really about. Excellent.

A lawyer's conception of truth1
Nobel laureate Kary Mullis was asked to testify as an expert witness at the O. J. Simpson trial (in the end, he didn't.) Consequently, he thought quite a lot about the nature of truth as it is seen by lawyers and by scientists. In law, the opposing sides approach a trial by collecting all the evidence that will be used in the trial, and exchanging it in discovery proceedings. At a certain point, the stream of evidence is cut off, and this finite body of information is used to reach an absolute, final verdict (truth-telling.) In science, to the contrary, the stream of evidence is never cut off, never ends, and no one ever reaches a final, absolute, unmodifiable truth. This distinction Johnson fails to understand (or at least chooses to gloss over.) He is committed to lawyer's truth and has no interest in scientific truth. That is the trouble with this book and, indeed, all of Johnson's pseudoscientific writings.