Talk:The Case for Faith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Why ought we to have only a paraphrase of his questions? When we say he is responding to eight questions, tis better to actually tell them what questions he's responding to rather than paraphrasing them. Disagree? If so, why? -SocratesJedi | Talk 04:42, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Moved

Moved page to reflect correctness in title. No need to capitalize for. -SocratesJedi | Talk 04:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not paraphrasing, he does pose these objection in question form in the "On the Road to Answers" section of the book, but the shorter phrases mark the beginning of each chapter and line the table of contents. I'm suprised you came up with these questions in the first place, I had to hunt through the book to find out where you got them.

  • Mm.. Point well taken. Apologies on a hasty revert. I'm fine with using the TOC phrasing or leaving it as it is now. Sorry to have not been paying sufficient attention to alternate ways of saying things. -SocratesJedi | Talk 05:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus/Christ synonym

I am wondering if it is intelligent to use Christ as a synonym for Jesus. Christ is a title and assumes one has accepted Jesus as the Messiah. Is this hidden POV?

  • I agree. I also think it makes the Templeton story misleading. I changed Christ to "the man" in the Plot Details.

[edit] Plot Details/Intended Audience

  • I'm fine with Intended Audience for now, but this page needs a summary of the book. I'm working on it.

[edit] Fallacies

I would like to link in some of the logical fallacies contained in The Case for Faith. The book didn't actually contain all that many, but it did contain some and I think linking them is a valid thing to do in a wikipedia article. Before I do so, though, I'd like to hear any objections if people have them. I don't want this article to degenerate into a flame war. --Yamla 17:04, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

  • Having read the book I am aware that he does occassionally commit these and would think that it would be intelligent to show some of them here for informational purposes. However, I also strongly believe that we need to show support for someone independent of Wikipedia making these claims (which is easy, because there are a number of sources which do so). If we don't attribute to external than it's a case of original research, which is vorboten by the GodKing. Also, some people may object that Strobel actually commits fallacies and we ought to mention them as well. I'd be happy to help too when I have the time. In any case, I'll be paying attention to this article too. -SocratesJedi | Talk 08:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Case_for_Faith_0382.html"