Well-written and excellent for novices. However whole topics are either skipped over hastily (e.g. troubleshooting) or omitted altogether (e.g. multimedia support). A bit out-of-date, considering it covers the original release, prior to all Service Packs. Even MS's support site offers more in-depth info on variety of issues.
Still, a handy desktop reference. Those who want to dive in deep may want to look elsewhere.

Finally, a book for users like me! I am an experienced computer user with a deep background in many operating systems including Unix. I want consise information to help me really understand Windows 2000 as an expert user. It is not hard to find such books for Unix, probably because you pretty much have to be an expert to use Unix. Most Windows books, on the other hand, seem to be addressed to non-computer people.

I use this book regularly to look things up, but I've also enjoyed just browsing around discovering interesting things about Windows 2000. Actually, the book has given me a whole new appreciation of the operating system.

I am an MCSE, MCT, etc etc and like others found answers in a few minutes to questions I have had for months. This is a GREAT book! The author states it is not meant to be read cover to cover, but instead to be used to research a particular issue. It certianly does what he intended very well, but I for one will read it through.

The book takes a systematic approach to Windows 2000 issues and covers each topic in a clear to the point manner that is amazingly easy to read. It is complete enough for the seasoned network admin, but easy enough to follow for the entry level support tech. However, I would not reccomend it for the regular Windows user due to the technical nature of the topics covered.

I just ordered a copy for everyone on my support staff. You will want to do the same.

It is the best encyclopedia of philosophy available in English,
and as comprehensive as one could reasonably want on the
Anglo-American analytic tradition. However, it is still inferior
to the magisterial Historisches Woerterbuch der Philosophie, ed.
Joachim Ritter (12 vols., of which 11 have thus far been
published) - the one true indispensable philosophical reference
work.

This collection, especially the CD-ROM version is a very useful resource. It is easy to use and very consice, full of information. This encyclopedic collection contains all themes in philosophy and some in religion, which makes it useful when someone is trying to make connections to other fields. Individual philosophers and a general overview of their life works and projects, different idealogies and terms are all explained in full extent in this simple to use encyclopedia.

It is so exciting to be able to use this resource. It is a recent acquisition at the college's library, and since I have discovered it I haven't been able to put it down. I give it 5 stars, and although I haven't read it entirely (for obvious reasons), I think it will be a resource I will be using for the rest of my life.

Check it out and see for yourself!?!

We bought this encyclopedia set to the Royal School of Library and Information Science in Copenhagen (both the 10 vol. hardbound and the cd-rom version). I simply find it indispensable and so do many of my colleagues and students. My experience is that this effect comes from the first glance in this work. We are not using this work as professional philosophers but as library and information scientists who needs a broad orientation about fundamental problems related to knowledge, its production, dissemination and use. In my opinion there is a general trend in many of the social sciences towards more theoretical and philosophical foundations. In this process it is extremely important that you have works that bring concise introductions to various traditions in thinking and scientific methodology. The importance of this work is in my view, that it allows researchers and students in social sciences and other fields to have a central reference point when we put forward our arguments.

This work is useful along several dimensions. In this review I shall only mention epistemology and the philosophy of science. We have in all the sciences (especially in the social sciences, psychology, media and information sciences) many approaches or "paradigms", for example: (social) constructivism, critical realism, empiricism, feminist epistemology, hermeneutics, historicism, paradigm theory (Thomas Kuhn), Marxist philosophy of science, critical rationalism (Karl Popper), positivism and logical positivism, postmodernism and poststructuralism, pragmatism, rationalism, and realism (with scientific realism and antirealism). One simply need to be informed about the basic principles behind such approaches, and the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy is the only place where you can get a reasonable detailed and comprehensive overview. Add to this that every article starts with a summary, and ends with references and reading lists (often annotated). This is simply a very user friendly design. Of course no work can answer all questions, and of course serious students need much more than this (and of course a few articles is a little disappointing). This work is, however, an important tool, that in my view cannot be overestimated. Its real importance is, I think, that it can strengthen the theoretical approaches in many sciences because it provides us with a common overview and reference point. When I am introducing or discussing Library and Information Science, I am trying to connect the different approaches or paradigms in this field to basic philosophical questions (se my article "Library and information science: practice, theory, and philosophical basis in the journal Information Processing and Management, vol. 36(3), 2000, pp. 501-531). In this way I hope to be able to contribute to the development of this field. In my opinion all other fields should benefit in a similar way. Why is philosophy important for most fields? Because the empiricist and positivist view is simply wrong. You cannot produce knowledge from observations alone. You simply have to consider many theoretical issues which have been clarified through accumulated experiences.

I really wanted to like this book. I'm an organ enthusiast, having attended hundreds of organ concerts, including ones by Virgil Fox at the fabulous Hammond Castle described in this book. (I won't go so far as to call myself an organ player, although I have trained a bit and can punch out a few notes.) I have a good collection of organ music and listen to it a lot. I've read organ books like Schweitzer's J. S. Bach.

And Craig Whitney, the author, is clearly a talented researcher. I can only imagine the thousands of hours he put into going over every conceivable concert program, book, and letter relating to his topic. I can just see him poring over his voluminous notecards laboriously putting together each paragraph of this documentary of the history of the organ in America.

Only problem: it's BORING. Is it the story itself which is boring, or his telling of it? Probably a little of both. I'm giving the book three stars to try to show how much I value the scholarship that went into the tome while at the same time I can't recommend the flaccid narrative and tone.

There are certainly dramas in the history of the organ in America that could have been played out much more, well, dramatically here. Something beyond, Player A was a good organist, got famous, had some personal issues, then died. Organbuilder B had some good ideas, built some good organs, then died. Some people thought organs should be like X, but then there were other ones that thought they should be like Y.

This is still a useful book for those wanting to flesh out their knowledge of US organ history, but far from a must-read.

I was pleased to discover Craig Whitney's "All the Stops" when a friend recently received a copy of the book. I was even more satisfied when I bought my own copy and finished reading it.

Whitney has done a remarkable service to the world of pipe organs. For those of us who play the organ "All the Stops" contains a rich history of the instrument over the past one hundred years and it is told by an author who is an unabashed organ fan and player himself. Reading this book is like witnessing a tug of war on several levels. There is a battle of organ builders about whether or not to use tracker or electropneumatic action. Wars rage with regard to pipe vs. electric organs. How good are European organs when compared to organs in America? How much input should an organist have with regard to a particular organ being built? As Whitney underscores, the organ world is a rather elite one with egos and tempers as big as the instruments on which organists play. And all of this takes place under the shadow of two men....E.M. Skinner, one of the most successful organ builders of all time and the larger shadow of Johann Sebastian Bach.

The most enticing chapters of "All the Stops" contain the mini-biographies of and the rivalry between the two best-known organists of the twentieth century...E. Power Biggs and Virgil Fox. The playing styles and personalities of the two couldn't have been more different and Whitney does a nice job in setting the two up in conflict. Biggs and Fox represented two different likes and dislikes of organs as well with Biggs preferring the European sound and tracker action and Fox opting for a larger, more romantic style. One of the key points that Whintey makes is that earlier in this century organists promoted the bigger, romantic organs only to have that phase pass as a generation ago the smaller, brighter tracker organs became more favorable. That tide has turned yet again.

It is hard to believe that not too long ago thousands of people turned out for organ concerts....numbers that today would not be seen. But if Craig Whitney is correct, that tide is also turning. The pipe organ has no instrumental rival and its modern story is well-told in this book.

As Whitney quotes one expert, organists are an odd lot for musicians: They often work out of sight, and almost never show much interest in other classical music. So I doubt this book will become a mainstream best-seller, but it has much to recommend it.

Whitney manages to combine a history of the pipe organ in America, especially its flourishing from about 1925 to 1975 with the personalities of the builders (Skinner, Harrison and Fisk) and two performers who defined the age. Patrician, starchy E. Power Biggs (b. 1906) who came to represent the "back to basics" German school of playing, and the flamboyant Virgil Fox (b. 1912) who promoted the romantic orchestral sound of the organ.

There's just enough background to understand the different schools of organ building (North German, English, French and American Eclectic) without getting bogged down in stoplists. Whitney is a keen observer of the instruments and the politics, so this book ends up being a combination of artistic testament, business history and social commentary. Quite an achievement and nicely readable too!

This would make a fine gift for any young organ player, and should be read by every church musician. It belongs in every school library too.

This book gives broad coverage of the topic and the author obviously enjoys sharing his experience. The book would have been easier to read with better organization and fewer tangental stories, but overall I learned quite a bit. The material is getting a bit dated at this point.

I bought this wonderful book a few years ago and have read and re-read it many times since then. I was eager to learn about the various hunting rifles and calibers, and was pleased to find that this book covers all the basics, and more. Not only does it go over each of the most popular calibers individually, it also covers the different rifle actions that are commonly chambered for hunting calibers.

A significant plus with this book is the author's anecdotes and opinions sprinkled throughout. Craig Boddington writes well, and he has a lot of experience to share with riflemen of all levels. As I have learned over the years, every hunter or rifleman has his or her own opinions/biases as to the best (or most appropriate) caliber for each hunting situation. Craig Boddington clearly has his opinions, and is not shy about offering these to the reader. This is one of the book's assets. I find that listening to people's opinions on this matter is a great way to learn the pros and cons of each caliber. It's also a colorful backdrop to a fascinating and enjoyable sport.

I sincerely hope that this book is updated soon. Since its publication, there have been several new calibers introduced (e.g., .260 Rem, .30 WSM, 7mm Rem SAUM, etc.) that I would love to see included in this book. I would without a doubt buy an updated edition of this book. Also, it would be an improvement if the included pictures would be in color. The black and white pictures included with the current addition are excellent, but color would be even better.

This is a great book for anyone interested in hunting big game. It has tons of information from an experienced hunter, which can help hunters of all game in North America.

Ancient Rome merits a contemporary investigation of its attitudes towards sexuality and homosexuality but sadly Craig A Williams book "Roman Homosexuality" is not capable of the task. Apart from the dull prose and paucity of illustrations. A pathetic eight pages of miniscule black and white photos, including the front cover which is repeated again inside the book itself. Williams actually has the audacity to state in the introduction that he will refrain from translating Roman sexual terms such as catamite, virgo, virtus, irrumator struprum, cinaedus, pudicitia, lingis, futuis, fututor, and fellator. The reader is therefore greatly hampered from the beginning by the absence of a Latin glossary and dictionary to guide them through Roman terminology.

William's book is liberally sprinkled with extracts from conservative poetry and plays which express mock outrage at licentiousness and addictive sexual behavior. In Seneca "Naturales Quaestiones" the character Hostius Quadra confesses that

"I simultaneously submit both to a man and to a woman. Yet I also play the man's role to someone else's disgrace, using, that redundant part of mine. My entire body is engaged in stupra (1.16)

Williams without exception considers the playwrights sexual prudery as being typical of all Romans tastes which is a dangerous assumption because reading actual Romans graffiti in which ordinary Romans brag about the numerous men and women they have slept with implies that the Romans could not be classified as sexually up tight. Their puns, jokes and pranks suggest a high voltage spiritual but bawdy people who considered every sexual act a blessing from the gods. You would hardly know this from Williams dry historical accounts, weighed down inappropriately as they are with references to contemporary French and American philosophers and social theorists. Their inclusion only makes the reading of his book more laborious. However quotes from actual Romans give fleeting insight into their culture and everyday lives. Such as a prayer to the Roman phallic god Priapus from Julius Agathemerus which asks that the following wishes be fulfilled.

"Grant me a flowering youth: grant that I may please good boys and girls with my naughty penis, and that with frequent fun and games I may chase away the worries that harm the soul, and that I may not fear old age too much" (Cil 14, 3565,2-7)

Who could not identify with this lament so universal is its longing to starve of the loneliness of old age? The most striking thing about Roman culture is that unlike the Greeks the Romans had no terms for gender specific sexuality. There were no homosexuals or heterosexuals only sexuality in Rome and it was craved constantly. ON this matter Williams selects extracts from Roman playwrights and poets that were openly critical of promiscuous men and women, who they termed lewd and greedy. However laws restraining adulterous conduct tended to fall on deaf ears. The average Roman parent when seeking a personal tutor for their beautiful son had to take into consideration the risk of his being seduced by his teacher. The parents themselves had access to both male and female slaves and freeborn lovers some of whom were notorious lesbians, concubines and male prostitutes.

In fact the Romans would provide male and female lovers to bribe jurors to ensure a legal case produced a favorable outcome, if they could afford it. The Romans though lusty did not approve of pedophilia and past laws banning what they classified as Amicitiae mos Graecorum or the " Greek practices". Where an adolescent would come under the wing of an older man. The vast majority of Roman men would be classified today as bi-sexual though exclusive homosexuality existed as well. There was no social criticism because some men married other men, but castrati and effeminacy was disliked. This is because the Romans were a warrior society so they did not approve of extreme femininity in men which was associated with the promiscuity of womanizers and male prostitutes. Excessive attention to personal appearance was considered effeminate or feminine behavior not appropriate to a warrior. Who had to be ready to brandish the sword at a moments notice. But in reality it was a free for all and some people flaunted their camp-ness regardless. However the Romans disliked slobs. They expected high standards of personal hygiene from both their men and woman, no nose hair, no dirty armpits, no shapeless haircuts, no frumpy tunics and no sloppy shoes. The Romans admired beauty both male and female as much as they did sex. And celebrated their awe struck wonder of love in their text an example of which can be found in "Satyricon' by the Roman author Petronius

"Ye gods and goddesses, what a night that was! How soft the bed! We clung together hot, and on this side and that we exchanged our wandering souls by our lips"

Sadly juicy extracts such as these are few and far between because their lost within pages of Williams dull pontifications. A better book would be one that simply presented page after page of original Roman comments on their sex lives. accompanied by hundreds of fabulous illustrations.

This is one of the very best books ever written on gay history.

Strong words! Why would I say that?

I say that simply because I have been studying gay history (off and on) for my entire life, and, while the general picture of male love in ancient Greece became clear quite early, I was never able to quite make sense of what the Roman attitudes were. And frankly -- neither was anyone else working in the field. About the best you could come up with was: "contradictory evidence." Plenty of evidence for male love, quite a bit of evidence that it was, in some circumstances at least, a Very Bad Thing.

Now the picture is clear. Williams brilliantly dispenses with the term "homosexuality" in the very first pages, and paints a very persuasive picture of Roman sexuality in general.

The important -- overriding -- overwhelming factor here was not some idea of "gay" or "straight" -- it was "citizen" versus "non-citizen." Sexual behavior between citizens was a disgrace. It was scandalous. It was totally forbidden -- unless of course the two citizens were married. The wife in such a marriage was expected to be faithful. The male, apparently, was not. But his outside activity was limited to slaves and prostitutes, both of which were relatively abundant in ancient Rome. There a male could sow his wild oats, always provided that he took the "masculine" role. If he took the "passive" role, well, that was a dead secret that could not ever be spoken of.

Now, if you think of it, eliminating slavery and prostitution would wind up giving that Roman male no sexual freedom at all. Even more interesting is the startling contrast that emerges with the practice of the ancient Greeks.

In Greek culture, the normative form of male love was expected to occur between citizens: one was older than the other, but they were of (eventually) equal status. It was therefore possible to express love for fellow citizens -- and the love affairs were very much expected to be honorable and long-lasting. Anal intercourse was specifically outlawed in such relationships.

In ancient Rome, on the other hand, it was IMPOSSIBLE to form a significant love relationship with another male citizen. Such attentions had to be diverted to slaves and prostitutes. One fairly predictable result is that a lot of slaves had sexual experiences unwillingly, and that the Roman Empire became hated among its subject people precisely for such very bad behavior. This widespread rape of male slaves (apparently rape is the correct term) could well have accounted for a lot of the violent homophobia of later times.

Highly recommended!

In college, I took Professor William's class on "Greek and Roman Sexuality" and looked forward to attending his lectures every other day and his excellent insights on the erotica of the time, as well as the social commentaries. I learned more from that class than from many others and still enjoy reading the books, poetry, and plays reflective of that period that we explored in that class. Williams is a woderful teacher, and this book puts so much of what he taught to his classes into the written word..its an excellent reference material I would recommend to all.

Skipp and Spector are rock and rollers at heart and this is their rock and roll horror novel (with a nod towards heavy metal). Like the music, it assualts your senses and in the end you know you've had one heck of a ride. This is the boys at their best.

First S&S book I ever read. Captivating writing, a little iterminable about the capers of the Jacob Hamer band but overall one of the best pieces of horror writing I have read next to "It".

Their best book is "The Light at The End" but this is a very close second.

The Scream contiinues to be my favorite Skipp and Spector book, right up there with The Light at the End and The Bridge. It shows an excellent balance between the different storylines as well as dishing out the splat in the ways that few can.

My one complaint when reading the book was that I didn't have a soundtrack to listen to. A CD by The Scream would have been perfect companion material. Well, going by how they were described, there is a band who is strikingly similar to The Scream. The band's name is Crisis. Karyn Crisis is not Tara Payne exactly but close. Exotic-looking with a voice that can bounce between melting butter and shattering steel, backed up by a band with it's own dark, heavy feel with touches of the beautiful mixed in. Check out the Strangeland soundtrack for an excellent cover of Twisted Sister's Captain Howdy, exhibiting Tara's...I mean, Karyn's, vocal ability.

Craig Stanford has written a book that continues to inform the public of just how similar we are to the primates by attempting to show the reader that the differences between us are actually very minute. Through data and analysis Stanford points out how the behaviors of primates can be applied to our own human nature, which supports his thesis that "to understand human nature, you must understand the apes." (p.xviii). Stanford self describes Significant Others as a "field guide to the current state of our understanding of both human and ape culture..." (p. xviii). Through the descriptions of social interactions, tool usage, language, and culture Stanford provides a strong case in support of his thesis.
Starting right from the beginning in his introduction, Stanford uses data and research theory to support his thesis and to refute the alternatives. He is not afraid to discuss behaviors that are of questionable regard. He delves into the subject of infanticide with similar gusto as he does in the chapter on language. Stanford's bottom line is the same throughout that we can use the studies of the great apes to explain our human nature and why problem behaviors like human infanticide persist today.
Overall Significant Others is a good read. Stanford does an exceptional job of providing research that supports the notion that many of our human behaviors and traits can be explained by similar behaviors studied in the great apes. Although this was not pointed out until the end of the book by supporting his thesis Stanford also was providing strong evidence for the importance of conserving and protecting the great apes. Stanford was not afraid to indulge into his own opinions when he felt the need and this added a personal touch to the reading that provided interest to sometimes dry research findings. He also covered highly debatable information well by giving equal consideration to both sides of the picture, even though it was often evident what side of the debate he was on. I would recommend Significant Others to those that enjoyed reading Roger Fout's Next of Kin and want to further their knowledge of great ape behavior and how it might be related to human nature.

University of Southern California anthropologist (and primatologist) Craig Stanford's thesis in this attractive but somewhat breezy (and politically considered) book is that the difference between humans and apes is one of degree and not of kind. That is why the word "continuum" is used in the title.

I agree with his thesis, and I think he does a great job of making the case. His prose is readable and his enthusiasm is genuine. However there are some problems. In attempting to walk the tightrope of political correctness while conveying to the reader what he has learned as a scientist, Stanford sometimes slips into a fuzzy and inexplicit expression.

To begin with (p. 16) he contends that if women "crave" men with resources (he is attempting to answer David Buss, et al.) it is "mainly in patriarchal societies in which they must depend on men to obtain resources and power for them." This is gratuitous because, as Stanford himself notes on page 147, "Human societies are, political correctness notwithstanding, universally patriarchal." Whether women would behave differently if the societies were matriarchal (or otherwise) is unknown. Citing an isolated society in special circumstances that is matriarchal really does not prove the general case, although it does point to a range of possibilities, and that is good. However it is ingenuous to pretend that women are not looking for resources in a mate if they can find them. Why would a reasonable woman, given a choice, choose a poor, ineffective, unsuccessful man, to one who has the ability to help her provide for her children?

In the same paragraph, Stanford contends that the "old adage about _what women want_ should more accurately be phrased as _what women can realistically hope to achieve in their cultural context_." In the first place, it's not an adage, it's a joke or a lament, and it's a question, "What DOES a woman want?" The original is lost in the prehistory, but Ernest Jones attributed these words to Freud: "The great question...which I have not been able to answer, despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, is _What does a woman want?_" This is probably the source that Stanford had in mind--and, by the way, this is a question that evolutionary psychology has largely answered, much to the dismay of those who would prefer to keep the mystery. In the second place it is NOT enough to merely say "in their cultural context." There is a biological context as well, exemplified by nine months of being pregnant, and several years of intense maternal responsibility that is fundamental to all cultures that can't be explained away as something from the patriarchy unless you believe that human biology itself is patriarchal.

There is also Stanford's summary dismissal of evolutionary psychology in Chapter 8 to consider, a strange dismissal since part of his title is "the Quest for Human Nature" (from the study of primates), which is one of the ways that evolutionary psychologists work. (He is actually being an evolutionary psychologist himself but apparently doesn't know it.) Evolutionary psychology should be compared with other psychologies, say, psychoanalytical theory, or behaviorism, and not to, e.g., biology.

It's important to add that the work of anthropologists is no more scientific or rigorous than the work of evolutionary psychologists, as can be demonstrated from reading this book. For example on page 129 Stanford tells a story of seeing the low-ranking chimp Beethoven make a sexual display through a cluster of chimpanzees. He writes: "This enraged the alpha, Wilkie, who chased Beethoven off into the thickets, whereupon Beethoven circled around and came back to mate with an eager female before Wilkie realized what was happening."

Stanford uses this as an example of planned deceptive behavior in chimps, but whether Beethoven displayed foresight or just got lucky is unclear. To be picky I could also point out that "enraged" and "realized" are anthropomorphic projections of Stanford's lively mind and not something that could be tested scientifically (which is the essence of his criticism of evolutionary psychology on page 134).

Yet, Professor Stanford understands that social scientists today are mightily constrained by a postmodern culture in academia that demands politically correct findings first, and scientifically persuasive findings only if they are in agreement with the PC party line. He writes, "Some of this sentiment [not admitting "essential cultural commonalities"] reflects anthropologists' political burden of favoring the cultural underdog at all costs. Postmodernism's purpose has become a vehicle, in part, to give meaning to identity politics in the battle of the oppressed against the perceived enemy, the white male elite." (p. 146)

There is a lot more worth discussing in this book. (I wish I had more space.) The chapter on what it's like in the field (Chapter 12) is vivid and compelling; and in the concluding chapters we can see that Stanford is a scientist who cares passionately about the great apes and their environments. He is also a man who can communicate what he knows to a general readership as long as he avoids the trap of imagining that there is a political censor sitting on his shoulder as he writes. The truth will out, and the educated public that reads books written by professional scientists is much more sophisticated than is sometimes supposed.

Craig Stanford is a good authority on the subject. He holds the position of the Director of the Jane Goodall research institute (And if you dont know who she is, perhaps you should begin with The chimpanzees of Gombe, written by her).

The book is wonderfully written and easy to read. The reason I am not giving it five is that the writer seems to digress from the central theme often. However, there is some wonderful elaboration of chimpanzee societies and their rituals, that brings a sense of eerieness to our own humanity and makes one sit up and think.

The book is wonderfully balanced and brings out many hitherto covered truths - such as the male dominated bastion of anthropology and hence masculine myths propagated, the views of the 'science' of evolutionary psychology etc. This is a book which allows you to develop your own theories after stating the facts of chimp interactions in a highly narrative and gripping story-format.

All in all a good book. If you are the kind who has a book collection of origins books which include Leakey and Jared Diamond, then Craig Stanford deserves his place there. If you are not a collector and are not planning on buying this, then check with your library and do read this, but read this you should - if indeed you have an interest in anthropolgy and the origins question.

_The Only Wise God_ is a defense of freewill (in the face of divine foreknowledge) and Molinism. Craig turns his attention to the age-old dilemma of human freedom and divine foreknowledge, and attempts a solution. Through a series of discussions on time travel, psychic precognition, and logical fatalism, Craig tries to show that people have freewill even though God knows what they are going to do tomorrow. The strengths of this book include its Biblical defense of divine foreknowledge, and its amazingly clear presentation of the Molinist doctrine of "middle knowledge." However, I do not think that Craig proves his point. His entire case rests upon the reduction of theological fatalism to logical fatalism. That is, Craig thinks that the existence of an omniscient God poses no more of a threat to libertarian freedom than it would if no God existed. But this reductionistic presentation has been sharply critiqued by Nelson Pike and others. I was unconvinced by Craig's book, and I suspect most people will be. The strong intuition that God's past belief about what I will do tomorrow is somehow "fixed" and "unalterable" is hard to deny, and Craig doesn't deal with this issue in any real detail, since he sees it as superfluous.

Furthermore, Craig attempts to refute the major lines of D. A. Carson's argumentation in his book, _Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility_, but in doing so he does not fairly wrestle with the actual Biblical passages. Having read Carson, this severely disappointed me. Craig claims that the Bible says men have freewill, but he produces no clear-cut verses that establish this fact, and he brushes aside the counter-examples given by Carson without any discussion.

I recommend this book for a good defense of Molinism. But for a Biblical critique of Craig's belief in libertarian freewill, I recommend Carson's book mentioned above, and the site,

www.freewill.doesntexist.com

This site offers a storehouse of arguments and Biblical passages used by Calvinists and Arminians alike.

William Lane Craig's book, The Only Wise God, is probably the best introduction to the topic of molinism for beginners of the subject. That is not to say the book is easy reading; it is not. But his clarity and abundance of examples brings out his points nicely such that any casual reader with some intellectual capacity can comprehend his work. There are several positive and negative points of this book. I will highlight each in turn.

Positive Points: (1) The book does a great job explaining God's knowledge of future contingents. He deals with a number of objections, such as those posed by the open theists. (2) He does a nice job explaining Nelson Pike's argument, laying it out formally, and then providing and critiquing three ideas that philosophers have suggested to avoid theological fatalism. (3) In answering the problem with a more reasonable answer, he ties it to questions about precognition, Newcomb's paradox, time travel, etc. He also answers one of the traditional fatalist arguments raised through history about necessity. (4) Lastly, he offers tables to make his points more understandable and he argues his view well.

Negative points: (1) Craig, though I highly respect him, makes some disappointing moves. For instance, he interacts with D.A. Carson, who provides a number of scriptural citations to suggest that libertarian agency is not biblical after all; that is to say that LFW is not what grounds moral responsibility as Craig believes. Here's an excerpt: "Carson counters that there are many cases in the OT where human thoughts and decisions are attributed directly to God's determining (2 Sam. 24:1; Isa. 9:13-14; 37:7; Prov. 21:1; Ezra 1:1; 7:6, 27-28; Neh. 2:11-15). These references, however, are not very convincing and do not even approach a universal determinism.". This is what is called a waving of the hand. I doubt that Carson would find his reply sufficient. (2) There is often this talk about a "genuine freedom." Craig assumes that libertarian agency is genuine when compatibilists will assert that Craig's use of language is an extreme begging of the question. If we in fact do not have the type of control libertarians claim, then it is not genuine at all. (3) I also noticed a loose use of "fatalism." Anyone who apparentely denied the principle of alternative possibilities was rendered a fatalist. Calvinists such as Jonathan Edwards and Paul Helm were noted, along with even Martin Luther. But later, fatalism concerns necessity such that what we will do, we must do. In other words, my writing this review is and has always been necessary. There is no possible world in which I am not writing this review or that this state of affairs could be exemplified. But the "fatalists" mentioned above do not attribute the acts of men as necessary such as the proposition, "God is good," is thought to be necessary. Rather, they denied alternative possibilities and thus libertarian ageny (c.f. "genuine" freedom) because they believed our actions were logically posterior to God's decree and that God's knowledge of our actions were logically grounded in his foreordination. Hence, in the beginning of the book when he does note such people , he is incorrect. When he actually discusses theological fatalism later , I think Craig is on target. (4) The last main problem is that the entire book assumes the existence of libertarian agency. If libertarian agency is incoherent as some philosophers have suggested (i.e. Saul Smilansky), or if determinism (physical or even theological) is true, then the entire book would be completely out of touch with the relationship that actually exists between human beings and God. It would, however, still provide interesting work *if* we were to have libertarian agency. Thus, this book only appeals most strongly to those who already share Craig's assumption.

Though I think Craig is wrong for both philosophical and theological reasons, even if he and Alvin Plantinga state there is no cogent philosophical response (an over-stating of the case in my opinion), I think his work should be read: especially by those who disagree with him. Craig's work has been highly influential, both on the popular and academic level. Despite my vast number of negative comments, as far as I can tell, there is no better place to start than this book for understanding middle-knowledge. I highly recommend it.

If the God of traditional theism is omniscient, then he knows what choices we'll be faced with in the future and how we'll act on them. For instance, if God has always known that I'll write a review of "The Only Wise God" on November 21st, then I cannot do otherwise -- I am "fated" to write this review! For if God has always known that I will write it and I freely choose not to, then God was ignorant of the choice I made. But God cannot be ignorant of my conditional acts, as ignorance is an imperfection. So the question still stands: if God eternally knows our conditional acts, how can true freedom exist? This is the question William Lane Craig attempts to answer.

Craig explains that God's foreknowledge and determination are two different things. For example, I know that spring will occur on March 20th, but I don't "cause" it. My knowing that flowers bloom during this season doesn't "cause" them to do so. Thus God knowing, in His omniscience, how we will respond to His grace does not determine our response. He simply knows the response we will make (being out of time) to that which was necessary for us to act either way (either accepting or rejecting His grace). So although God knew that I was going to write this review before I was born, He did not directly cause my free action. This is a very elementary distinction. If I had chosen to do otherwise, then God would have already known that. This is middle knowledge in a nutshell. Thank you William Lane Craig.

What an entrepreneur! Get elected to the US Senate, marry an ambitious woman and put her in the business of lobbying congress and government agencies. She gets the dough and her husband delivers. Is this legal?

This book both educates and inspires the reader. The varied personal stories bring home the point that success and contribution can be very complementary. I plan to give the book to my associates and my college bound sons. It is reqired reading for everyone with a dream and a desire to make a difference.

None of the people in Craig Hall's book had anything handed to them. Early on they found and harnessed the passion to succeed without forgetting the community. THE RESPONSIBLE ENTREPRENEUR goes beyond the secrets of success by addressing the pitfalls, weaknesses and stereotypes of being an entreprenuer. It's full of stories about tough individuals with big hearts AND the competitive instincts and ability to "pull the trigger" when need be. Whether these men and women give back through the services their company provides or from the profits they've earned, this book shows that all of us can do big things and good things everyday.