PERMAFREE BOOK
Bridges for honest skeptics
by Joel Lantz
Description
Are you an honest skeptic? Do you seek truth
and at least don't categorically dismiss the possibility of a biblical God. BUT,
might you find yourself...
... befuddled by the
plethora of prejudices, distortions, and contradictory information in the
marketplace of ideas — some of which logically MUST be false?
... bombarded by
aggressive scienTISM, which posits that all knowledge and truth ultimately must
bow to science (except its own unscientific claims); that nonscientific
evidence equals non-evidence; that supernatural equals superstition?
... reading/hearing personal
philosophy and conjecture presented as though it's almost established science?
... therefore wondering
whether science nullifies the existence of God — or least the need for or significance
of God?
... yet sometimes wondering whether we really are just animals and just 'stuff', as often claimed — totally the
result of undirected material processes?
... concerned about
the compatibility of world evil and suffering with the existence of God?
... confused by verbal
and behavioral MISrepresentations of true (genuinely biblical) Christianity,
both current and historical?
... wondering whether
attested empirical evidence might exist for the biblical God —contradicting the
self-refuting claims of scienTISM?
... unsatisfied with
shallow answers to hard questions?
If so, you may find Bridges for honest skeptics helpful thinking fodder. This free
e-book — written by a physical scientist and former honest skeptic — addresses
the concerns raised above.
Interested? Check out the overview at the obooko.com download site and the table of contents at the free-ebooks.net download site (via the 'Click to Preview' link). Though the treatment of topics in
this book varies appropriately, the excerpt below illustrates one of the core perspectives
I address.
Excerpt
The
following comes from a chapter entitled 'Just animals?' — which presents
evidence and arguments for directed human origins. You'll find the citations
and endnotes referenced with letters and numerals at the end
of this blog post. Hyperlinks to other sections and a glossary are unfortunately omitted.
The cognitive uniqueness of human free will[1]
Are we truly just advanced animals at the
pinnacle of evolutionary processes? However intelligent, are we ultimately
little more than deterministic machines that are born, eat, live, work,
reproduce, and die; born, eat, live, work, reproduce, and die; born, eat, live,
work, reproduce, and die...with all behaviors ultimately directed by chains of
material cause and effect? Or is morally-cognitive free will REAL and clearly
UNIQUE to humans?
I can’t hold the deer that destroyed over a
thousand dollars' worth of arborvitae in my yard morally culpable. But had
humans maliciously destroyed my bushes, I’d hold them culpable — as would you.
Most of us empirically and unambiguously know, without doubt, that claims of
human determinism — near-infinite chains of causes and effects — can’t
realistically excuse human negatives as the inescapable result of nature and
nurture. They can’t realistically devalue human positives as inescapable
either. Bad genes and environments notwithstanding, we still regularly make
free decisions, good and bad.
Why then do we encounter academic doublethink
and ultimate denial of the obvious? Stay tuned.
Claims of determinism self-refute
Consider this argument for the claim titled
above:
"In the opinion of many thinkers, human
freedom is closely connected with human rationality. If we were deterministic
beings, what would validate the claim that our utterance constituted rational
discourse? Would not the sounds issuing from mouths, or the marks we made on
paper, be simply the actions of automata? All proponents of deterministic
theories, whether social and economic (Marx), or sexual (Freud), or genetic
(Dawkins and E. O. Wilson), need a covert
disclaimer on their own behalf, excepting
their own contribution from reductive dismissal."[2] <Emphases are mine.>
Hmm. Such authors then can’t legitimately
take pride in or credit for their work. Long chains of deterministic causes and
effects, over which these materialists ultimately have no control, compel each
word they write or speak. That compulsion must include affirmations of
deterministic ‘programming’ in the face of empirically obvious free will —
frank admissions of which comprise the bulk of the next subsection.
Materialism, determinism, and reality
Perhaps not all materialists deny free will,
but seemingly the tendency is to do so, per my exposure to such positions and
as suggested below:
"Because
materialists only accept the existence or primacy of material things, they also
only accept the existence or primacy of
material explanations for events. Whatever happens in the world, it must be
explained and explainable by reference to matter. Materialism thus tends towards determinism: because there are material
causes for every event, then every event follows necessarily from its causes."[3] <Emphases are mine.>
Does determinism for humans square with
empirical reality? Even some materialists have frankly admitted that we cannot practically live with determinism; free will stares us in the face. Yet,
despite the overwhelming evidence for free will that we routinely see and
experience, many materialists continue to hold determinism and free will in
cognitive dissonance. (Some materialists even claim that evolution has
deterministically programmed us to falsely affirm free will — to believe a
supposed lie.) Here are some admissions of such dissonance — the frankness of
which I admire:
·
Humanities scholar Edward Slingerland, self-described as a ‘complete atheist’[4]:
"...whatever we
may assert qua naturalists, we cannot escape from the lived reality of moral
space. As neuroscientists, we might believe that the brain is a deterministic,
physical system, like everything else in the universe, and recognize that the
weight of empirical evidence[a]
suggests that free will is a cognitive illusion. Nonetheless, no cognitively
undamaged human being can help acting like and at some level really feeling
that he or she is free. There may well be individuals who lack this sense, and
who can quite easily and thoroughly conceive of themselves and other people in
purely instrumental, mechanistic terms, but we label such people ‘psychopaths’,
and quite rightly try to identify them and put them away somewhere to protect
the rest of us."[5]
Moreover, a
journalist noted in 2013 that,
"The couple have
a six-year-old daughter whom, Slingerland says," ‘I love
intensely’...Slingerland admits his deep affection for his daughter is
illogical, since he doesn’t really believe in ‘love’".[6]
Slingerland
accordingly proposes
"...living with a dual consciousness,
cultivating the ability to view human beings simultaneously under two
descriptions: as physical systems and as persons." [7] <Emphasis is mine.>
A dual
consciousness? The ‘hard problem of consciousness’ isn’t
hard enough as it is? Might Slingerland and others quoted below prefer such
cognitive dissonance over unwanted psycho-social implications of abandoning
materialism?
·
MIT artificial-intelligence pioneer Marvin Minsky, who once called the human brain a three-pound computer made of
meat:
"No matter that
the physical world provided no room for freedom of will: that concept is
essential to our models of the mental realm. Too much of our psychology is
based on it for us to ever give it up. We’re virtually forced to maintain that
belief, even though we know it’s false..."
[8]
With lived reality
staring us in the face, according to what unambiguous, unbiased evidence do
"...we know it’s false"?
·
Philosopher Galen Strawson:
"As a
philosopher I think the impossibility of
free will and ultimate moral responsibility can be proved with complete certainty..."
...except for a small
problem...
"It’s just that
I can’t really live with this fact from day to day. Can you, really? As for the
scientists, they may accept it in their white coats, but I’m sure they’re just
like the rest."[9] <Emphases are mine.>
Why then does
Strawson (and, similarly, others quoted here) insist on "the impossibility
of free will...with complete certainty,"
despite the plethora of obvious contrary evidence?
Which of the
following might best explain this:
- Deterministic chains of cause and effect that compel him to so insist?
- Free-will unwillingness to face unwanted consequences of abandoning his materialism?
·
Harvard cognitive scientist, psychologist, and linguist Steven
Pinker:
"We have every
reason to believe that consciousness and decision making arise from the
electrochemical activity of neural networks in the brain. But how moving
molecules should throw off subjective feelings (as opposed to mere intelligent
computations) and how they bring about choices that we freely make (as opposed
to behavior that is caused) remain deep enigmas... These puzzles have an
infuriatingly holistic quality to them. Consciousness
and free will seem to suffuse the
neurobiological phenomena at every level, and cannot be pinpointed to any
combination or interaction among parts. The best analyses from our
combinatorial intellects provide no hooks on which we can hang these strange
entities, and thinkers seem condemned either to denying their existence or to
wallowing in mysticism."[10] <Emphases are mine.>
Do Pinker’s
"puzzles" and "enigmas" constitute "every reason to believe" that
consciousness and decision-making arise purely from neurochemical processes?
·
UC Berkely philosopher John Searle,
who
"...believes that the mental will
ultimately be explained through neuroscience,"[11] nonetheless admits that we don’t know
that free will is false:
"...we cannot
get on with our lives without presupposing free will. Whenever we are in a
decision-making situation, or indeed, in any situation that calls for voluntary
action, we have to presuppose our own freedom. Suppose you are given a choice in a restaurant between steak and veal.
The waiter asks you ‘And sir, which would you prefer, the steak or the veal?’
You cannot say to the waiter, ‘Look, I am a determinist. I will just wait and
see what I order because I know that my order is determined.’ The refusal, i.e.
the conscious, intentional speech act of refusing to place an order, is only
intelligible to you if you understand it as an exercise of your own free will. The
point that I am making now is not that free will is a fact. We don't know if it
is a fact. The point is that given the structure of our consciousness, we
cannot proceed except on the presupposition of free will.[12]" <Emphases are mine.>
Will Searle
ultimately resolve his cognitive dissonance between deterministic materialism
and obvious reality?
·
MIT computer science and engineering professor Rodney Brooks:
"On the one
hand, I believe myself and my children all to be mere machines. Automatons at
large in the universe. Every person I meet
is also a machine—a big bag of skin full of biomolecules interacting according to
describable and knowable rules. When I look at my children, I can, when I force
myself, understand them in this way. I can see that they are machines
interacting with the world.
But this is not how I treat them. I treat them
in a very special way, and I interact with them on an entirely different level.
They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational
analysis. Like a religious scientist, I
maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs and act on each of them in different
circumstances.[13] <Emphasis is mine.>
Dr. Brooks writes accurately about himself; the huge
cognitive dissonance between his "two sets of inconsistent beliefs"
is clear. By contrast, he writes inaccurately
about the "religious scientist", at least in my case. This ‘religious’[b]
scientist (me) experiences no cognitive dissonance between the existence of and
evidence for a biblical God AND unambiguous, falsifiable science — vs. some
broadly interpretable and interpreted observations, worldview-biased
interpretations (from materialist axe-to-grind scientists as well as
religionists), unfalsifiable hypotheses, and pure conjecture.
·
Evangelistic atheist Richard
Dawkins claims that we’re
ultimately nothing but machines. Referencing a British comedy scene, in which a
car owner 'punishes' a car that won’t start by beating it with
a tree branch, Dawkins writes,
"Of course we
laugh at his irrationality. Instead of beating the car, we would investigate the problem...Why do we not
react in the same way to a defective man: a murderer, say, or a rapist? Why
don't we laugh at a judge who punishes a criminal? Isn't the murderer or the
rapist just a machine with a
defective component? Or a defective upbringing? Defective education? Defective
genes?"[14] <Emphases are mine.>
What if someone
encrypted Dawkins’s computer system with ransomware, raped his wife or
daughter, beat his car with a branch,
or punched him in the nose? Would he
dispassionately "investigate the defective component, upbringing,
education, or genes of the responsible 'machine'?
Probably not. In a
Q&A session during a Washington DC promotion of one of Dawkins's books, he
was confronted by Joe Manzari, a young Washington think-tank employee:
Manzari: "If humans are machines,
and it is inappropriate to blame or praise them for their actions, then should
we be giving you credit for the book you are promoting?"
Dawkins: "I can't bring myself to
do that. I actually do respond in an emotional way and I blame people, I give
people credit."
Manzari: "But don't you see that as
an inconsistency in your views?"
Dawkins: "I sort of do, yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of
have to live with—otherwise life would be intolerable."[15] <Emphases are mine.>
So Dawkins must
abandon a key tenet of his materialism in real life, which "otherwise... would be intolerable." Why, then,
does Dawkins regularly express so much contempt for non-materialist, non-determinist
belief systems?
·
Journalist Tom Wolfe has referred to
scientists, including Richard Dawkins, whose
"...theory is
that the human brain is nothing but a machine, after all, a form of computer,
and therefore it has no free will. In any situation we find ourselves we can
only do what our evolutionary software—they love computer talk like ‘software,’
meaning genetic makeup—has programmed us to do."
Wolfe decided to test
the livability of that position:
"So at a recent
conference on the implications of genetic theory for the legal system—five
distinguished genetic theorists are up on stage—I stood up in the audience and
asked, 'If there is no free will, why
should we believe anything you’ve said so far? You only say it because you’re
programmed to say it.' You’ve never heard such stuttering and blathering in
response to anything in your life."[16] <Emphasis is mine.>
Though I admire the frankness of the folks
I’ve quoted above, I ask the same question as Wolfe. Does ‘unity of truth’ no longer
apply? Can we legitimately simultaneously hold contradictory truth claims to
suit our fancy? Doing so sounds much like Eastern ‘Both/And’ thinking, arguments for which ultimately self-refute
(recall 'Contradictory belief systems are equally true?') [Hyperlink to another
subsection in the book.]
Following a talk in which apologist Nancy
Pearcey presented some of the examples above[17] — which primarily highlight academic materialists’ cognitive
dissonance — a visibly upset Harvard professor approached her and complained
that,
"They know their
theories don’t explain ordinary life outside the lab. But why throw it in their
faces?"[18] <Emphasis is in the source.>
Why indeed? Was Pearcey being unkind? No.
These scholars’ frank admissions of cognitive dissonance are public, in their
own writings. Pearcey, and I, merely seek — in the interest of truth — to
emphasize to a broader audience that purely naturalistic assessments of human
cognition and behavior don’t jive with empirical reality. I submit that
doublethink like that revealed above ultimately stems less from the pursuit of
truth than from a materialistic commitment to scientism.[c]
The concerns of this chapter go well beyond
unwarranted rejection of theistic involvement in human existence. Falsely
reducing human existence to undirected, purely mechanistic processes — to ‘just
machines’ and ‘just stuff’[d] —
seriously demeans human value and significance. Ideas have consequences. For
example, Friedrich Nietzsche’s a) naturalism-based reduction of humans
ultimately to little more than advanced, power-seeking animals, b) his despisal
of human kindness and modern morality as unnatural
and dangerous, and c) his promotion
of the conquering, valueless Übermensch (superior man) substantially fueled
Adolf Hitler’s murderous policies.
We’d be foolish to think that falsely
considering humans as little more than deterministic machines, with no ultimate
value or freedom, has no negative consequences for us.
Author Q & A
For
what age group do you recommend your book?
Teen to adult. Thinking people of all ages (other
than perhaps young children) wrestle with the concerns that I address.
What
sparked the idea for this book?
For several years I pondered why some people
embrace biblical Christianity as true
(including me, after a period of skepticism) and others reject it. Though the
answer is multifaceted, I concluded that one factor is knowledge of available
evidence. I sensed a calling to publicize a bit of such evidence, leading to
the first edition of my book (thirteen accounts). Based on 1st-edition
feedback, I felt led in the 2nd edition not only to expand the number of
evidential accounts but — most importantly — to add large sections containing
scientific and logical evidence and arguments
to help readers overcome potential objections to the accounts based on faulty
information, unwarranted scientistic bias, and anti-supernatural prejudice. This
3rd edition greatly expands that material further in multiple ways.
What
was the hardest part to write in this book?
Even though I'm a scientist, the
science-related parts demanded more research, reflection, and rewriting than
some of the others. Also, such concepts
were often more difficult to express clearly and concisely to my readers. Hopefully some colored illustrations, a large
hyperlinked glossary, appendices, and extensive hyperlinked endnotes enhance
understanding.
How do
you hope this book affects its readers?
I hope to mitigate some misunderstandings,
prejudices, and factual distortions and — in their place — promote realistic
perspectives. Most importantly, I want my readers to come away from the
evidence and arguments in this book understanding that acceptance of the
supernatural generally and the biblical God specifically is rational and worthy
of their consideration.
How
long did it take you to write this book?
The first (brief) edition, called God sightings?, was released in late
2012, the second edition in early 2014, and this now-renamed third edition in
June 2016 — with a few 'point-release' revisions since. I.e., I've worked on this book intermittently
over four years.
What
is your writing routine?
It varies. Sometimes insights and new data
have driven many hours, late nights, and even days of work at a time. At other
times I've frankly struggled to put in even an hour or two a day.
I often write down ideas and insights as I
hear of them or as they come to mind internally, wherever I am — sometimes on
snippets of paper but mostly now as text entries or dictations into my
smartphone. If worthwhile, these insights
often catalyze revised or new subsections in the book.
I usually don't lose heart at the struggles
of writing, keeping in mind that I have plenty of company in that regard. At least I haven't needed the extreme motivational
measures reportedly used by one famous author; he worked naked (semi-naked?),
having asked a servant to hide his clothes so he'd not be tempted to wander
from home when he was supposed to be writing!
How
did you get your book published?
My book was first published on obooko.com, a free-ebook site. This was a relatively painless process, and I've
published the second and third editions there too. The folks at obooko have
been very helpful. I've also published on getfreeebooks.com and, most recently, on free-ebooks.net.
They've all worked well, though I less favor getfreeebooks.com because
they don't have a download counter (important to me). I can recommend any of
these three sites to other free-ebook authors.
What
advice do you have for someone who would like to become a published writer?
I can only speak for someone like me — who
wants to help others as a labor of love, with no expectation of
remuneration. I recommend the same route
I've taken in 'How did your book get published?'
Also, applicable to all writers, stick with
it, even if irregularly (like me)! Some
days you'll probably want to quit, but keep plodding!
Moreover, I highly recommend using one or more
quality promo sites like this one to publicize the book — something I've done
only recently. Not all such sites are a good choice, however, and I consider my
Facebook promo to have been a waste of time and money. (Though 'your mileage
may vary'.) A second promo site to which
I submitted my book a month ago has neither promoted my book nor even communicated
with me. But a third site resulted in 75 downloads in two days. And I anticipate
favorable results from this site as well. Choose carefully!
What
do you like to do when you're not writing?
Read — and watch/hear in some cases, e.g. via
The Great Courses — modern science
and technology (especially cosmology), philosophy, apologetics, theology and
current events. Watch documentary videos. Read and post in Quora (a Q&A
forum). Hike and camp. Invent and make. Play electronic Scrabble and 1010!, as well
as table games such as Rummikub,
Quirkle, and Sequence. And, of course, spend time with family and
friends!
Please
tell us a bit about your childhood.
I grew up in a home with plenty of latitude
to explore new things, both outdoors (e.g. as a hiker) and indoors (e.g. as a 'child
scientist’). A birthday chemistry set
from my brother evolved into an impressive lab — in which I did serious
chemistry at times but frankly inappropriate 'experiments' at others. (Had my
parents been scientists, they never would have let me do some of that stuff!)
Those experiences lead to choosing a career in science.
Did
you like to read when you were a child?
Yes. I've been a 'reader personality' for a
long time. Sometimes I read encyclopedia entries as a child for fun. (Yeah, I
know; sounds kind of nerdy.) I've always been a self-motivated learner.
When
did you first realize you wanted to be a writer?
A temporary detour from my R&D career
found me doing sophisticated technical writing, professionally. Explaining
concepts and procedures to others proved satisfying. Much of the highly
structured and 'chunked' writing style that you'll find in my book evolved from
those experiences.
Did
your childhood experiences influence your writing?
I suspect that experiences of being bullied
as a child have influenced my interest in the foundations of evil as an adult.
Which
writers have influenced you the most?
Hard to pin that down. I've read so much. But
undoubtedly authors at Reasons.org have been
the most helpful in establishing my confidence in the harmony between science
and the biblical God.
Do you
hear from your readers much? What kinds of things do they say?
Unfortunately, the free-ebook sites on which
I host my book do not provide opportunities for written reader feedback — only
star ratings, which thus far have mostly been quite favorable. Some local-friend readers have supplied some very
encouraging feedback.
What
can we look forward to from you in the future?
I wrestle with the subject of evil and
suffering and have written two large appendices — one complete and the other
partial — that address the foundations of evil. The completed appendix ended up
in the present edition of Bridges for honest skeptics. The partial
appendix did not; but it tentatively will end up as part of an independent book
on this topic.
Anything
else you would like to add?
I welcome feedback, positive or negative, so
long as it's constructive. Feel free
to contact me at bridges4hs@hotmail.com. I cannot promise to respond, but I'll
appreciate comments that may help me to improve the book, either in subsequent
'point release' revisions of this edition or in a future new edition.
About the Author
Joel Lantz, a Northeast Ohio resident, is a
physical chemistry PhD and a former honest skeptic — a person who believes in,
seeks, and at least wants to embrace truth. He's overcome his own doubt
struggles with ENOUGH answers, however incomplete. This book resulted from a
passion to help other honest skeptics — who don't easily settle for shallow
answers to hard questions — as well as folks with doubts further along the road
to belief in a biblical God.
As Joel has found from fact and logic, our
world's myriad and often contradictory belief systems, whether religious or
secular, CANNOT all be true. Either all are false or one must be true or most
true. Logically, then, the marketplace of ideas that we routinely encounter
confronts us with falsehoods and distortions of truth. Joel's book presents
evidence and arguments to counter some of these distortions, thereby
potentially building BRIDGES over a few worldview traps and minefields.
Joel hardly promises anything close to
comprehensiveness or perfection in this little-page, phone-friendly book, and he
admits to personally still having many unanswered questions. But he expects the
book to minimally mitigate some misunderstandings and misrepresentations. And
he’s confident that even if you dislike or disagree with some of the content,
you'll doubtless encounter helpful perspectives that you've not previously
considered. And even if you read only the EVIDENCE part (the first major part
of the book) and forego the more cerebral (and occasionally more technical)
THINKING FURTHER and ABOUT US parts, you'll doubtless get more than your
money's worth :-).
Joel's only reward for writing this free
e-book is the satisfaction of helping others. Contrary to anti-supernaturalist
assertions that we're purely the product of undirected, materialistic,
mechanistic, purposeless processes, he argues that each of us has purpose and
meaning. He considers writing this book part of his purpose.
Endnotes
The endnotes below apply to the Excerpt provided earlier in this blog post.
[a] "...weight of empirical
evidence...?!" What ‘empirical evidence’? The obvious
empirical evidence for free will that stares him (and everyone else) in the
face doesn’t count? Per 'Claims of determinism self-refute', why should anyone
listen to Slingerland’s claim that "...the weight of empirical evidence
suggests that free will is a cognitive illusion." (Consider also the rest
of this chapter and 'Just stuff?'. [Hyperlink to another subsection in the
book.])
[b] I dislike that word because of its huge spectrum of meanings. I
don’t consider myself ‘religious’ per
many behavioral connotations of the word.
[c] ...which insists that all knowledge must
ultimately answer to science, no exceptions. (Moreover, many scientism
adherents seemingly allow, as knowledge, only their own interpretations
even of scientific data). Yet scientism is implicitly a self-refuting worldview
(recall 'The problem of scientism [hyperlink to
another subsection in the book].
[d] See also the next chapter by that name: 'Just stuff?'. [Hyperlink
to another subsection in the book.]
[1] Copyright © 2016 by Joel B. Lantz. All rights reserved, except for
brief quotations in reviews and summaries as allowed by copyright law.
[2] Theoretical-physicist-turned-priest John Polkinghorne, Science and Theology, Fortress Press,
1998, p. 58.
[3] Austin Cline, What is
Materialism? About History of Materialism, Materialist Philosophy,
‘Materialism and Determinism’ section, atheism.about.com, December 4, 2014.
Available as of 3/25/2016 at: http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyschoolssystems/p/materialism.htm
[5] Edward Slingerland, What
Science Offers the Humanities, Cambridge University Press, 2008, p. 289.
[7] Edward Slingerland, op cit,
p. 293.
[8] Marvin Minsky, The Society of
Mind, Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 1988, p. 307.
[9] Galen Strawson, interview by Tamler Sommers, You Cannot Make Yourself the Way You Are, The Believer, March 2003.
Available as of 3/17/2016 at: http://www.believermag.com/issues/200303/?read=interview_strawson.
[10] Steven Pinker, The Modern Denial of Human Nature, Penguin
Books, 2002, p. 240.
[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_dualism,
under the heading ‘Biological naturalism’. I last accessed this on 4/8/2016.
[12] John
R. Searle, Freedom and Neurobiology, Columbia
University Press, 2013, p.11.
[13] Rodney Brooks, Flesh and
Machines: How Robots Will Change Us, Pantheon Books, 2002, p. 174.
[14] Richard Dawkins, Let's all
stop beating Basil's car, Edge.org, 2006: What is your dangerous idea?.
Available as of 3/23/2016 at: https://www.edge.org/response-detail/11416.
[15] Nancy
Pearcey, Saving Leonardo, B&H Publishing
Group, 2010, p. 153. Pearcey heard this Manzari-Dawkins exchange on an audio
tape. (The name of the questioner, Manzari, is revealed in her book only in an
endnote.)
[16] Carol Iannone, A Critic in
Full: A Conversation with Tom Wolfe, National Association of Scholars,
Academic Questions (vol. 21, no. 2), Aug 11, 2008. Available as of 3/24/2016
at: https://www.nas.org/articles/A_Critic_in_Full_A_Conversation_with_Tom_Wolfe.
[17] I want to give appropriate credit here. Many of the book pages and
articles that I’ve reviewed (as originals, in context) and cited in this
subchapter were helpfully called to my attention by citations in Pearcey’s book
Finding Truth (see below).
[18] Nancy Pearcey, Finding Truth,
David C. Cook, 2015, Kindle Edition, p. 171.
