Title: False premises. Tortured defintions. Unenlightening.
Product review: The premise that the deeply religious (those with deep beliefs in specific religions) and deeply scientific (those tied to scientific method as opposed to specific theories) either feel a strong need to integrate these aspects of their lives or would be willing to give up "truths" in order to do so is more questionable than, as Wilber claims, arguable. To buttress his argument for integration of religion and science, he draws a straw man definition of each -- neither of which is acceptable to respective practitioners -- then predictably tears these definitions down. The philosophical window dressing he employs indicates that he has read (or skimmed) much critical literature (exposing the surfaces of science and religion, in which he claims to be looking for depth), but he clearly does not understand the practices and tenets of them (the deeper meanings). This is a perplexingly manipulative and unenlightening read.
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
