Douglas Wilson Books

I mean Amazon, not the book or the debate.
After reading both Harris books, Dawkins and Hithcens I do not think that beleivers of any persuasion can possibly have anyting to say. I find it amusing how they still try.
The reason for my comment is to praise Amazon and its evolving system.
Reading the reviews here are truly enabling me to make the best decisions about any book I may consider buying.
Especially in the case of highly polarized reviews such is this one.
Very often just the quality of the reviews can make me decide either way. In this particular case however the most usefull tool was "Search inside" No negative review can be as convincing as reading the text itself. The few pages presented are already more than what I can take. The arguments - if you can call them that - are beyond pathetic.
They do not represent counterpoints, just reformulation of arguments already demolished by Harris and Dawkins. I could not find a single paragraph without fundamental errors in logic, misunderstanding or misrepresentation of common terms.
I would also think that the new feature (the author's blog), although a great feature, will not help this particular author.
What I found here convinced me that buying and reading this book would be a waste of my money and time.

Since the Treaty of Tripoli:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."



denounced the idea of xtianity being a basis of the founding principles of America, when is Metcalf going to come down from his rocky mountain "high" and get a grip on reality?

And he claims to be a Mensa?

I guess his genius must be slipping, last time I checked, you aspire for more knowledge, not less, a Master's in Theology?

I can only imagine the sort of mental hopscotch one must perform to justify the oxymoron : science and religion are (sic)
compatible?

Isn't that like saying "safe baby toys and high levels of lead paint on baby rattle paint is nothing to worry about"?

So Muslims were the actual crusaders?

If that's the case, how come the Bush regime quickly changed the xtian themed name for the Afghanistan invasion after someone clued them in to the xtian (crusades) vs. a Muslim country invasion political nomenclature?

You're asking people to believe that xtians never killed infidels or heretics, but that they only defended their catholic land from invasion?

I don't know what they're putting in the water there in the Springs, but I don't recall being that deluded when I lived there over 30 years ago, I envy the "so-called" atheist upbringing you claim to have experienced growing up, fortunately the hypocrisy of xtianity opened my eyes to the subtle effects of that mind poison before it became a full-blown religious infection, thanks to human nature, my parents true nature showed it's ugly xtian love side often on a daily basis, torture has nothing on the debilitating mental anguish that personifies Christianity.

This book is a pathetic attempt to refute Sam Harris' brilliant, original "Letter to a Christian Nation". Harris' book bears the imprimatur of esteemed scientists and intellectuals and would be hard to challenge under any circumstances. Even a philosopher or theologian of great standing would find it difficult. And Metcalf, you are no theologian or philosopher, to paraphrase the great Lloyd Bentsen's drubbing of Dan Quayle, another prominent theist who pledged allegiance to the "Christian United States".

I was very impressed with Sam Harris' "Letter To A Christian Nation." I am an atheist having abandoned my Catholic roots in early adulthood. However, I seek to be intellectually honest in the sense that I do try to examine all sides of an issue before making up my mind. Thus, I was very eager to read RC Metcalf's counter-point to Sam Harris. I was sorely disappointed in what I read.

While Mr. Metcalf claims to be a scientist, his book reads more like the ramblings of Jerry Fallwell rather than the lucid reasoning of an objective, rational intellectual that Metcalf purports himself to be. He is clearly preaching to the choir, doing his best to reassure the flock of sheep that Harris is dead wrong and that everything is OK with the Christian religion.

How does he do this? By anegdotal evidence, multiple fallacies of selective observation, special pleadings, ad hoc, etc... Finally when confronted with an insurmountable logical obstacle, he always falls back on Scripture as a safety net. When all else fails, Scripture and faith always triumph over reason and science in Metcalf's world.

One cannot call oneself a reasonable person and much less a scientist if one abandons all reason and relies on faith when faced with facts and logic that completely obliterate one's long held beliefs. R.C. Metcalf is no scientist. He is an apologetic at best. And a fundamentalist at worst.

I highly recommend reading his book though. It is a great example of the mental gymnastics a person of faith is forced to do in order to stay true to his dogma.

All PhD's are equal but some are more equal than others. In reading through Metcalf's Letter to a Christian Nation: Counterpoint, I am forced to admit that I am completely astonished at the complete inanity of Metcalf's infantile-like reasoning skills. As such, I am possessed to admit that I was initially agreeing with Metcalf's opening paragraph, but then it went off-the-rails. I have always struggled with the mystery of how an individual is able to persevere and thus acquire the highly-revered PhD, but only to fail to learn the basic tenets of logic. Metcalf's case is, I'm afraid, not an exception to my age-old mystery.

Metcalf begins his initial assault on Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation by asserting, "Do you see American Christians at war with other faiths? Are Protestant Christians killing Roman Catholics in the United States due to doctrinal differences? Do you see American Christians diverting air traffic toward buildings in the Middle East?" (Metcalf 2). First of all, one should never end a sentence with a prepositional phrase, ah, but more to the point. Whether a Christian happens to be American or Irish doesn't have any bearing on the doctrines of Christianity. In order to support his illogical thesis, Metcalf is making cultural rather than religious distinctions regarding religious behavior. Indeed, Protestants and Romans have been killing one another for centuries, but Metcalf is nevertheless correct in his assertion that America has been more tolerant toward religion. Perhaps our Constitution coupled with our higher-standard of living has prevented a superfluity of needless religious bloodshed. Perhaps when these all-too-important impediments to religious violence are removed, then it's possible we'll see the rivers of blood flowing yet again.

The book is filled with inane and irrelevant points and "evidence," for example, "A president, who grounds his morality in the teachings of Jesus Christ, could not ignore the cruelty reflected in the crimes against humanity that Saddam Hussein inflicted upon his own people." Did it ever occur to Metcalf that an atheist president wouldn't like this either? Furthermore, what about the little problem of international law? Perhaps in the pursuit of their "higher authority and morals" religious people are inclined to ignore this troublesome little detail. Harris was correct; it is this type of thinking that makes the religious mind so dangerous and terrifying. In other words, "International law doesn't matter because God's law is higher, and we Christians are thus justified in taking action against our enemies." Using this type of reasoning, religious people are thus able to justify anything they choose to do.

In reading through the book's excerpt, I could go on and on, but I know as I write that it will be to no avail, and even if I did refute every illogical point made by Metcalf, the time I'd need would ensure that I'd die in my chair. However, in his confused and puerile reasoning, Metcalf somehow believes that archaeological and historical evidence can prove that the Bible is true or that God exists. For example, "The historicity of Christianity has both archaeological and historical support" (Metcalf, 38); surely as a PhD, Metcalf must concede that this is neither evidence nor is his reasoning to the standards of a PhD. Because there is historical or even archaeological evidence to support that a certain high priest existed doesn't prove that the Bible is true or that God exists. This, I'm afraid, is patently absurd.

In the end, from what I read, Metcalf's argumentation is so appallingly representative of his ilk. In his fervor to prove Sam Harris and his assertions regarding Christians incorrect, Metcalf has only demonstrated his willingness to relinquish logic in favor of his world-view. I would have loved to have read a sound refutation of this book or any book for that matter, but I'm afraid that this book completely misses the mark. Metcalf will have to get up fairly early in the morning to out think Sam Harris...

This book is part of the Leaders in Action series, which means it is not a typical biography. These books are usually written in three parts, each one focusing on the life, the character, and the legacy of the subject, in this case, Anne Bradstreet.

The book does describe her life, but more importantly, her views on life. Anne was a Puritan, through and through, and she was a beautiful woman in whose footsteps the women of today would do well to follow. She knew her place, and delighted in her role as a woman. She lived with passion, and the book describes those things, people, and ideas about which she was passionate. I look to Anne as an ideal of a Godly woman, a woman whose many virtues I would like to mirror.

Wilson makes the point that Anne was a typical Puritan in her beliefs and views. She does not conform to the Puritan stereotype, which is not Puritan at all, but more like a grim Victorian outlook. The Puritans were sober but not grim. They valued their women, and their education. They were passionate about life.

I recommend the book to those who want a better understanding of Anne's character, and that of her times, and those who want to see the life of an exemplary Christian woman.

The author seems unable to stay on topic for very long. In his determination to associate Anne Bradstreet with all of his views, he abandons any chance to help us understand and appreciate her worthwhile body of work.

Wilson constantly harps and carps about the bad rap given to the Puritans. Even when I agree that certain common statements about the Puritans are unfair and incorrect, I am put off by his pompous tone.

Skip this one. Go straight to "The Works of Anne Bradstreet" (Harvard University Press) to get a good dose of a fine poet.

I originally thought this book was of Anne's poetry, with a mere introduction by Douglas Wilson. Instead, it is a study of her life by him. Unfortunetly, I must agree with the first reviewer: rather than making this a moving tribute, Douglas Wilson has merely attempted to turn it into a testimony of his own views of womanhood.

Apparently, there's some disagreement about how Anne viewed womanhood. Feminists believe she saw more of womanhood than many of her time, whereas people like Wilson prefer to see her as a woman who "knew her place." Wilson harps on and on about how Anne let the men rule like a good little girl and didn't try to compete with them. The book basically turns into an anti-feminist, pro-submissive book rather than an appreciation of a brilliant poet.

Wilson spends a good deal of time explaining how spiritually unhealthy feminists are and how lovely Anne Bradstreet was. He fills pages with how modern women today would be horrified by Anne's "true" leadership because we're too jaded by feminism and how Anne herself would be horrified by how women today are not complimenting manhood the way we should. The only thing I found more humorous than Wilson's thinly disguised anti-feminist tirade is how grossly he and so many of his ilk simply don't get feminism! Once again, his faulty understanding of feminists keeps him from realizing what power Anne really had. Wilson claims that feminists today would see Anne's influential leadership as secondary and not good enough, but he couldn't be more wrong, at least as far as I'm concerned. As a feminist, I greatly appreciate the tendency of historical women to lead by influence since there were few times that they could do anything else. Indeed, this has always been one of women's greatest strengths, today and back then! Many a historical woman held the upper hand because they led in such a way that men couldn't even tell the scope of their influence, or see the changes they were making and the power that they had. This is the sort of leader that Anne was, and I couldn't care less whether she did this as a warrior queen or a quietly instructional woman. To say that she didn't share feminist beliefs to ANY extent is as erroneous and ridiculous as claiming that Mark Twain didn't really believe in racial equality. As a feminist and an advocate for gender equality, I very much admire Anne Bradstreet's power of leadership, as well as the men in her life who were gracious and secure enough to celebrate it.

At one point, Wilson attempts to prove that Anne Bradstreet was opposed to feminism by sharing a line of her poetry in which she spoke of a woman usurping her husband's place as king. She said this of the woman:

"like a brave virago she played the rex, and was both shame and glory of her sex."

(Lord, does that beautiful line give me chills!) Douglas Wilson apparently thinks this line alone proves that Anne would have hated feminism, and I had to wonder if he was serious. Anne admitted that the woman in question was shame AND glory of her sex; this sounds to me like Anne was referring to the fact that the woman merely shamed the stereotype of what her sex was supposed to be and, in so doing, broke free of the restrictions of her gender and became a glory unto herself even as she was considered a shame by other women. Indeed, I too would wish to be a shame to the narrow mold of womanhood that people of the time held and that people like Douglas Wilson still hold.

In fact, an unbiased critic of a body of Anne's work confirmed that she did, indeed, see her sex as something far greater than the narrow mold that the Douglas Wilsons of the time wished to put her in. She not only scorned those who told her that needlework was more suitable than writing, but "masked her true intentions" by appearing to flatter male writers and acknowledge them as superior! Apparently, Douglas Wilson bought her flattery hook, line and sinker just like some of the men of her time, because he actually claims in the book that she realized male writers were superior! I had to laugh at that. Once again, he proves himself the cuckold in gender matters by not only underestimating a woman's strength, but her knowledge of her own power.

If you're looking for a fine work dedicated to Anne Bradstreet, I suggest you look elsewhere. I myself plan to get Nichols' book, "Anne Bradstreet: A guided Tour". Nichols' book contains the lady's actual poetry and only brief outside notes. I'll write a review when I've looked through it.

To Douglas Wilson, women are secondary followers, no matter how much he or anyone attempts to gloss this over. Wilson's grand labels of women don't change their subordinate status in his mind. Even I got caught up a few times in his flattering gob about women being glory, but when all is said and done, we're still, according to him, the Grand Number Two sex in the world.

Wilson comes right out and says that masculinity means leading and femininity means following. Granted, he admitted that women are not always to follow in every circumstance, but he says this is because sometimes women must be "masculine" and goes on to claim that if a woman leads, she's not even being feminine! Likewise, he says that when men follow, they must be "feminine". I was glad that he admitted women can lead, but I was disgusted with his definitions of masculinity and femininity. To be feminine is NOT always to follow; a woman can be perfectly feminine and still initiate and lead, just as a man obeying a higher force can still be masculine! I daresay very few could call the male soldiers in our army feminine when they obey their general and march into battle! Simply because they are obeying an order doesn't lessen their masculinity. Likewise, no one could call my sweet and gentle pastor's wife "masculine" when she leads and instructs the young men and women of our Bible study.

Inspite of Wilson's admittance that women can lead, he maintains his false idea that submission is almost exclusively for women and a very "feminine" thing. In fact, he comes right out and claims it's God's plan for them. According to Wilson, "Because of God's design, women have no choice about submission. It's not a matter of if they submit, so much as who they submit to." He goes to say, for example, that if a woman leaves her father's authority and flees, she'll just place herself at another man's authority instead and this time, Wilson threatens, it may be a male who doesn't have her best interests at heart. Basically, Wilson would have us believe that if we ladies don't submit to daddy or hubby, we'll inevitably end up with a Bad man in charge of us instead. In other words, women must have a master, so why not choose a benevolent master? These awful words remind me of the poor slaves in the past during auction: watching to see what new master will buy them and hoping it'll just be a benevolent one. How utterly disgusting! The only thing equally repulsive to me is that Wilson acts as though submission and subjugation is practically imprinted in a woman's genes; we'll always end up underneath a man, because according to Wilson, that's our God-ordained place and even our own deep down, masochistic desire.

A wise friend of mine on another site was speaking of the ridiculous hyper-patriarchal design and how it always attempts to influence men to be dominant and women to be passive and reactive rather than proactive. Here are her words:

"The "men don't submit" principle inherent in patriarchy is based, once again, on an immature obsession with sex differences and, perhaps, an insecurity with one's own sexual adequacy. (MY hypothesis.)

Men and women are different. (What a "duh" level concept!) So far, so good.

But in patriarchy, men being different from women must be absolute. That's why they invent long, complicated, legalistic lists of what men are like and what women are like, and why they're polar opposite lists.

So if it's a virtue for women to be submissive, then it's anathema for men to be submissive.

That's why virtually all the fruit of the Spirit wind up on the "pink" lists and why you have boorish, arrogant traits being commended for the boys. I suspect it's also why they're making such a business of accusations of "feminizing men/boys" in church, schools, society in general, etc. When reasonable people expect both boys and girls, men and women, to be courteous, humble, respectful, loving, kind, and other "feminine" things that are actually signs of civilized human beings, these wingnuts think that it's an outrageous demand, that we're "stifling" our boys and "emasculating" our men."

This is Wilson in a nutshell: females are delicate, males are tough and must, MUST avoid soft sensitivity at all costs (in another book, he even made the ludicrous claim that it's not "masculine" for a boyfriend to be concerned about disrupting his girlfriend's life-plans).

Naturally, Wilson's beliefs about female followers goes right into marriage. He even misquoted a Proverb by saying that women should give men their "crowns" so men may wear them instead. I wasn't too surprised that he claimed obedience (in everything) was a wife's role, but there was also an attempt to gloss this over by saying that woman is man's "glory" and that, while a husband does lead the "dance" of marriage, he only does it to show off his wife. A man must adorn his wife, be sweet to her, and make her beautiful, Wilson says. But of course, she still remains behind him. As people proudly lead their groomed poodles on gilded leashes into dog shows, so do husbands in Wilson's idea of Christianity lead their adorned wives.

If you make a bird's cage pretty, it's still a cage. If you dress a servant in a pretty dress, she is still a servant; she is still in your control and subordinate to you no matter how much you beautify her and compliment her. In fact, doing so might be an insult to her because you know perfectly well that her role, as far as you and society are concerned, is beneath you. Why pretend otherwise by mocking her with fancy clothes that she couldn't get herself? Why gloss over the truth of subjection with flattery? I don't want to be beautiful in the eyes of men like Wilson; I just want to be free. I'd rather live my life considered by patriocentrists to be the bane, rather than the glory, of womanhood.