Pittsburg Landing was a place at peace--one that never expected to be the site for one of the bloodiest battles of the Civil War. Peace is shattered as Confederate and Federal troops meet on the fields and farms surrounding a tiny Methodist church. In the midst of death and destruction; friendships form as four soldiers struggle to survive the battle.Forced to leave his position as minister; Phillip Pearson knows his life is in danger; but not just from the Confederates. The Harper family; incensed at Pearson's refusal to bury a philandering son; has a vendetta against him that is played out on the battlefield.Demoted from his command by a West Point graduate; Capt.Michael Greirson is forced to choose between ambition and duty.When a bumbling youth becomes his shadow; Private Robert Mitchell gains an unlikely friend--something that has been missing from his life. Afraid to trust; he is forced to confront those fears and depend on others in the heat of battle.War is an adventure to Private Stephen Murdoch and his best friend; William Banks. For months they dream of the glory of war before volunteering together. On the eve of battle; they sense something momentous is about to happen. Their idealistic views fade in the blood of their fallen comrades.
#1739631 in Books 2015-01-01Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 8.83 x .39 x 7.02l; .0 #File Name: 145146469X208 pages
Review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Four StarsBy Craig A. BaronA good introduction to the contemporary conversation about natural theology and possible connections with science.0 of 3 people found the following review helpful. Nothing new here.By Tim JoslingI don't see much if anything new here. What is see is the same type of arguments I am now used to seeing from the Catholics / right to lifers in respect of euthanasia; straight from Aristotle's "Rhetoric" the first PR handbook.I have recently been studying science. The contrast in rigor and intellectual integrity with this book was very striking.* He is completely out of date on philosophy of science (Popper? Really? He is seen as quaint and simple falsification as naive; the Bayesian revolution has transformed our understanding of the scientific process).* All his knowledge of science seems to be fro popular books and he gets a lot of things completely wrong. Generally he fails to understand the things he is talking about and spouts pseudo insights that have been fully dealt with (eg the alleged superfluous intelligence of humans; he mischaracterizes the relationship between physics and chemistry).* "Not even wrong" on Nietzsche (p 111 the will to power is the desire for dominance over others!) Again fails to actually understand what he is talking about.* Large slabs of papal quotes treated as definitive.* Passive aggressive intellectual arguments e.g. he whether evolution could have produced such high human intelligence. Without actually checking up whether anyone has looked into this issue. This is on the same tier as climate science deniers who whether climate scientists realize that the climate has always fluctuates.* Quote mining e.g. Hitchens on 9/11.* Treating introspection as in inherently reliably source of knowledge (it may be a starting point but as with vision we know that introspection is wildly wrong about many things - a point he simply ignores). Of course this is fundamentally necessary - otherwise they would need to admit that faith is a profoundly unreliably source of knowledge.* Many cases of verbal opacity and obfuscation in lieu of actual arguments; usually at the critical point. This is the philosophical equivalent of the advertising maxim "If you have something to say; say it; otherwise use showbiz".* Many unworthy euphemism e.g. dismissing the rape of little boys by priests and others as "sexual aberrations".* Approvingly quoting the pope when he asked for forgiveness for various elliptically referenced sins. Ignoring the utter failure here. You should probably never ask for forgiveness; let alone demand it (as has happened to many victims of priests). But if you do it should only follow a) Full disclosure of the truth of the matter b) A sincere and all-out effort to prevent it from happening again c) Full and ungrudging compensation d) Asking the victims if there is anything else they can do. Unfortunately we have not cleared any of these hurdles yet so asking for forgiveness is insensitive at best and revictimizing at worst. But if this book is any guide he is blind to all this.* The argument that materialists think we are made of atoms therefore they think we are "merely" atoms. Again this is not even wrong.Perhaps we need a new word for this kind of work. We have the term "truthiness " for things that seem true but are not and are used to deceive.Perhaps something good could come from this book if the term "philosophyness" came into use as material that sounds like serious philosophy but is not that actually. This term could also be applied to William Lane Craig's apologetics as well.
