|  |
| Customer Reviews: | | Average Customer Review: ( 18 customer reviews )
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
5 of 6 found the following review helpful:
Ambitious, but in need of editors Nov 25, 2008
By Benjamin Lukoff
Though from the outside The Bridge looks like any other book, the lack of standard front matter and the invitation to order additional copies at [...] makes it apparent David Hillstrom's thin volume is a self-published affair. Nothing wrong with that, in and of itself, but a quick read demonstrates that he could have done with the services of a developmental and copy editor. (The book design, on the other hand, I am rather impressed with, though the choice of typeface is somewhat questionable -- perhaps I just have a bias against sans-serif.)
I also question Hillstrom's decision to sprinkle the pages of his book with his own poetry, and to include allegorical tales with characters named Bertrand, Midrash, Sarah Lee, Kwame, En Lai, and David, who has crossed the metaphorical bridge while the former five stand arguing at the opposite bank.
In additon, though Hillstrom says his views may be judged as "iconoclastic or extreme," I don't think he goes nearly that far.
I must ultimately congratulate him, though, on what must have been a labor of love. His proposal that this book be taken as the starting point of a discussion which can take place on his website is a good one. Perhaps this is an example of a work which could have better been presented as a series of blog posts? But I understand the desire to have a tangible copy of one's work.
2 of 2 found the following review helpful:
 Unworthy of Anyone's Time Dec 20, 2008
By Publius
What's tragic about The Bridge is that I actually agree with its author on several issues, and yet I could find no passages in his writing that offered a cogent explanation of how he came to his beliefs. Worse, his explanations are simplistic and invariably flawed.
The Bridge is Hillstrom's attempt at converting theists into materialists, which I have no problem with, but his book is so badly written that I am ashamed that my views are connected to his. It's like having someone as inarticulate and arrogant as George W. Bush as my philosophical spokesman. With authors as bad as Hillstrom, who needs a right-wing dominated religious/military/industrial complex to shovel dogma down the public's throat?
This book never should have been published in its current form. I am thankful that there are far, far better books on the subject.
2 of 2 found the following review helpful:
 I want to like it Dec 10, 2008
By D. Westfall
"westfallwatergardens"
I wanted to like this book, I really did. I love philosophy, and politics; however, while reading it I would have swings back and forth, between thinking the writing was fine and the ideas flawed, to him just being a tad pompous with flawed ideas.
The book is broken up into two parts, the first section is an argument against the existence of the supernatural, and a plea to atheism; and the second part is an argument for a one-world gov't headed by the always competent U.N. or some other similar governing body.
"The Bridge" is atheism, once you have forsaken all cultural and religious traditions you have crossed the bridge. His argument for the lack of God's existence hinges upon three arguments. The first is that we came from evolution so we have no need of a creator, the second is that the structure of the Universe (the harshness, the lack of abundant life, and the fact that we are not literally at the center of our galaxy) all seem to him to be evidence of our existence hinging upon a cosmic accident and not design. The last piece of evidence is the advances in philosophy and neuroscience that he feels have dealt a deathblow to dualism.
Setting aside the issue of evolution, he spends roughly a whopping two pages on the mind-body problem and doesn't interact with any counter arguments on the issue, such as from that of Dr. J.P. Moreland. He seems to imply pretty heavily that something follows from the fact that we are not at the literal center of the galaxy, but what follows from that? Not much. You can't assume a level of attention or affection (or whether or not there is any at all) based upon where in the galaxy life exists. My son is not less cared for if he is in the corner of the living room than in the center of it, and stated like this how silly the whole argument is seems clear. Which consequently is why I believe he strives to let the implications carry the work instead of stating it outright. He does briefly interact with the anthropic principle because it is an obvious counter argument to his case, but he straw mans it. Advocates of the anthropic principle do not state that since life on Earth with these conditions are so improbable there MUST be a God; instead, they say there is probably a God. Etc.... I found his twenty-page section dedicated to tearing down belief in God to be rather weak. Why should we only limit ourselves to these three pieces of evidence? I realize the authors space is limited but ours is not. The author admits that science cannot directly address the question of God, so by relying on that field alone to show a lack of evidence for God isn't he only getting a good hand from a stacked deck?
Because the entire rest of the text rests upon the assumptions in the first part, if you are not persuaded by his argument the rest of the book unravels at frightening speed.
It seems clear that the author put great effort into the work. Portions of his poetry and prose are good, and on that, perhaps his other book would be worth the reader's time. This book holds an interesting niche, it would be better served if the front portion was removed and it was simply a book on political theory addressed to fellow atheists. If that's you, you might really enjoy the last half of this book.
6 of 8 found the following review helpful:
Intellectual Ping-Pong With No Winner Nov 30, 2008
By Bruce Varner
In his book "The Bridge", author David Hillstrom puts forth a thesis. His thesis is that religion, and cultures and laws based on religious belief, are fundamentally misguided and thus must be discarded. To support this thesis, he draws on a dizzying intellectual array of history, philosophy, physics, chemistry, biology, linguistics, and economics to name a few. Unfortunately, his arguments are sometimes fatally flawed and do not lead to any sort of definitive conclusion. Additionally, Mr. Hillstrom does not advance any sort of revolutionary thought as to how to fix what he believes to be broken.
"The Bridge" is Mr. Hillstrom's metaphor. It is a bridge that he wants the reader to cross with him. The bridge goes from our current, "wrong" way of thinking to his "right" way of thinking. I somehow don't see that bridge collapsing from heavy foot traffic.
I can't debate each and every point he makes. There are some highlights that should be mentioned, however. In the Chapter titled "The Cornerstone", the author asserts that all social beliefs and religion are human constructs. Fine. Then he asserts that they are "rooted in earlier mythologies and constrained by an anthropocentric perspective". OK, I'll buy that. Then, he flatly asserts that they are therefore "fundamentally wrong". Thus, the author asserts as true what he is trying to prove. This bit of circular logic taints the rest of his argument.
Mr. Hillstrom does have some ideas on how to "fix" the world. For example, we should have one world government where policy decisions are reached by open and honest dialogue and consensus. Nice idea, but maybe just a tad naive? Sometimes, it's hard to get a consensus between a married couple picking out carpet.
I did give this book 3 stars, mainly because the author does draw on several sources, and there are moments when this book is interesting and entertaining. Additionally, while I do not agree with his conclusions, I do admire his passion and intellectual curiosity.
In the end, I felt kind of bad for this author with his admittedly "lonely" philosophy. He wants a world based on rational thought. Yes, believing in God is irrational. In that sense, count me as irrational. But so are art, music, poetry, and romantic love. Human beings find comfort and beauty in these things. Plugging data into an algorithm will not make your heart beat faster, or bring tears to your eyes, or find you peace and comfort. Maybe, just maybe, a world at peace and comfort is the best world of all.
1 of 1 found the following review helpful:
An interesting addition to a sparse field Feb 04, 2009
By T. K. Kenyon
"Author"
*The Bridge* is a short work, somewhere between a convoluted essay and a rant, about all that David Hillstrom thinks is wrong with the world.
First, Hillstrom takes on religion. Other rants have been written on the problems of religion, such as God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything The God Delusion or PZ Myers's blog *Pharyngula.* There is plenty of room in the field of atheist apologists for another writer. Indeed, when compared to Christian or other religious non-fiction, the field is nearly unoccupied. The more, the merrier. This book is an interesting addition to the secularist canon.
The second half of the book is Hillstrom's solutions to everything else in the world. Many of these positions only vaguely follow from the first half of the book, making *The Bridge* less cohesive than a work like God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Many of Hillstrom's political opinions seem haphazard, grounded neither in ideology nor realpolitik.
While I'm probably close to Hillstrom's ideal reader, I found his ideas not well rounded. This book is far too short for a manifesto on religion and politics. Thus, it reads like a Cliff Notes cheat sheet of a much longer work. Ideas are neither explained well nor expounded upon. The poetical and narrative digressions are specious.
At the end of *The Bridge,* Hillstrom says that he wants to start a dialogue on his website, yet his website does not have forums nor any way for dialogue to occur other than an email address for him. Hillstrom has put the metaphorical cart before the horse, here. He should have started forums and built a following with his website, perhaps honed his ideas, then published this book.
The website also states that Hillstrom was an investment banker before he turned to writing. With the current abysmal state of banking, it would be easy to take many cheap shots, but I was surprised that Hillstrom did not seriously consider the ramifications of economic entanglements with political policy, especially via the UN and the US system.
TK Kenyon
See all 18 customer reviews on Amazon.com
|
| | |
|
|
