What do you think?
Rate this book
I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist
c-5
447 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2004
About the author
Norman L. Geisler
206 books284 followersNorman L. Geisler (PhD, Loyola University of Chicago) taught at top evangelical colleges and seminaries for over fifty years and was a distinguished professor of apologetics and theology at Veritas Evangelical Seminary in Murrieta, California. He was the author of nearly eighty books, including the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics and Christian Ethics. He and his wife lived in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 701 reviews
January 31, 2009
This book is great! I recommend it to Christians or people who have serious doubts about the Christian faith. Atheist will probably say that the arguments are straw-man or the facts are not reliable.
I really enjoyed the first two chapters about logic and the knowledge of truth. A great part is where Norm is telling the story of how he, in only a few sentences, destroys the logical positivism course of one of his professors from Detroit University. Then the book deals with some arguments favoring theism: cosmological, teleological, moral. The universe had a beginning: this is sustained by the SURGE argumentation - Second law of thermodynamics, Universe`s expansion, Radiation generated by the big bang, Seeds o the galaxy, Einstein`s relativity.
Hume`s skepticism of miracles is refuted. Then the book presents a great deal of evidence for the historicity of the New Testament manuscripts and the truth that they speak of. This part is really a must for every Christian. In the appendix there is also an imaginative dialogue between an atheist and a theist that is very instructive. A five star book.
I really enjoyed the first two chapters about logic and the knowledge of truth. A great part is where Norm is telling the story of how he, in only a few sentences, destroys the logical positivism course of one of his professors from Detroit University. Then the book deals with some arguments favoring theism: cosmological, teleological, moral. The universe had a beginning: this is sustained by the SURGE argumentation - Second law of thermodynamics, Universe`s expansion, Radiation generated by the big bang, Seeds o the galaxy, Einstein`s relativity.
Hume`s skepticism of miracles is refuted. Then the book presents a great deal of evidence for the historicity of the New Testament manuscripts and the truth that they speak of. This part is really a must for every Christian. In the appendix there is also an imaginative dialogue between an atheist and a theist that is very instructive. A five star book.
June 8, 2008
It was really hard to get through the first few chapters because they were so patronizing, but I muddled through the book so that when it comes up in discussions about religion, I'll know what people are talking about. It did get more interesting as it went on, but there were many logical fallacies, as other reviewers have also said. For instance, the Road Runner Tactic is key in knocking down Atheist arguments, such as when someone says "nothing is absolute" you can say "is the statement that nothing is absolute, absolute?". If this Road Runner tactic is so great, how about this one: If God is all-powerful, can he create something so heavy that he can't lift it? I'm curious what the authors would say to that.
The authors also clearly don't understand how evolution works. He brings up the example of Dinosaurs evolving into birds as something that is ridiculous and requires too much "faith" to be believed. Since evolution requires slight advantages to work, he says wings couldn't have evolved on dinosaurs, because half-formed wings would have created a disadvantage. He doesn't seem to understand that sometimes things not only evolve in shape, but in function as well, allowing for a gradual progression that is useful all along the way. The species of dinosaur that eventually became the birds we know today first evolved feathers, which had the advantage of insulation, then slightly larger feather/pseudo-wings helped them run faster (like swimming but through the air), then from there it doesn't take much faith at all to believe that they started to fly- maybe only a little at first, then more and more. I'm no dinosaur expert, so I don't know if this is the leading theory or not at the moment on how the evolution took place. But the point is that it was a gradual progression. It's the same thing with eyeballs. Scientists don't claim that eyeballs all of a appeared on an ancient fish fully-formed. Eyes probably started as just a couple light-sensitive cells that maybe helped aquatic creatures figure out how close to the water surface they were, or whether a shadow was passing over them or not, signalling a predator. Some of the babies of the light sensitive fish had none of those light sensitive cells, and some had more, and then maybe some of the grandbabies had even more cells, and maybe they were even more sensitive, and then maybe eventually some great great grandfishbaby had a freakish extra bubble of skin encasing the eyeballs, like a blister. It's really not hard to see how gradual progressions like this can take place. Moreover, when he claims that it is highly unlikely that life arose spontaneously, he starts with a cell as being the first life. Actually, it probably didn't start with a cell or even DNA. It probably started with an RNA-like self-replicating molecule, that wasn't alive, but could self-replicate, and got better and better as the imperfect replications brought on accidental new and better techniques for replicating. It wasn't alive, but it's far-down-the-line descendants were (it's a blurry line- is a virus alive?), and it was much much simpler than DNA or a whole cell.
Anyway, much of this book is highly questionable. I felt the most compelling part was the part about the bible and about Jesus being God. It also happens to be the part I knew the least about. The parts I knew more about were filled with important omissions or misleading misunderstandings. Thus I can only be suspicious that the parts I know least about also contain omissions and misunderstandings. Because of this and the sometimes faulty logic, I find this to be a very untrustworthy book. I am very glad that I read it, however, because I really understand why people are convinced by the argument posed by this book. Before I read this I was always dumbfounded when I heard of anyone not believing in evolution. Now I know that it is easy to cast doubt on it because not many people truly understand it. For anyone who has doubts about evolution but wants to understand what evolutionists believe (just I as I wanted to know what creationists argue) I recommend reading The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.
April 15, 2012
Final Review:
Very hard to get through Chapter 6. I couldn't believe I still had half the book to wade through. But as bad as their argument is, I got through it.
This is an anti-education, anti-science book.
Their basic argument is "we don't understand, therefore there's a god."
First thoughts:
Just starting, so far, no good. Very fallacious.
How much faith does one have to have not to accept an unsupported claim? Let's take god out and stick in faery dust. If You were to tell me you have a pocket full of faery dust. How much faith does it take for me not to accept that claim?
Atheism is a rejection of a claim, not a position that the claim is false as the authors describe.
I'm not saying that you don't have faery dust in your pocket. I'm saying, based on what you told me, I don't accept the position that you do.
I also don't accept the position that there are pots of gold at the end of rainbows, or that aliens have ever abducted people.
These things may be true, but there is no reason to accept these positions based in the evidence presented so far.
There is no faith involved in rejecting any of these positions, because none of these positions have been demonstrated.
My cousin is constantly saying he won a billion dollar lottery. I'm not saying he didn't win this lottery, as he describes. I'm saying I reject his claims that he did. No faith required.
The "faith of atheism" is an oxymoron.
It's a nonsensical statement.
Very hard to get through Chapter 6. I couldn't believe I still had half the book to wade through. But as bad as their argument is, I got through it.
This is an anti-education, anti-science book.
Their basic argument is "we don't understand, therefore there's a god."
First thoughts:
Just starting, so far, no good. Very fallacious.
How much faith does one have to have not to accept an unsupported claim? Let's take god out and stick in faery dust. If You were to tell me you have a pocket full of faery dust. How much faith does it take for me not to accept that claim?
Atheism is a rejection of a claim, not a position that the claim is false as the authors describe.
I'm not saying that you don't have faery dust in your pocket. I'm saying, based on what you told me, I don't accept the position that you do.
I also don't accept the position that there are pots of gold at the end of rainbows, or that aliens have ever abducted people.
These things may be true, but there is no reason to accept these positions based in the evidence presented so far.
There is no faith involved in rejecting any of these positions, because none of these positions have been demonstrated.
My cousin is constantly saying he won a billion dollar lottery. I'm not saying he didn't win this lottery, as he describes. I'm saying I reject his claims that he did. No faith required.
The "faith of atheism" is an oxymoron.
It's a nonsensical statement.
June 19, 2008
This is pretty much the best book ever. I think that it's probably the no. 1 or 2 apologetics book that I've read so far. It's so logical!
August 25, 2013
This book probably represents the best case Christian apologetics can make in the twenty-first century. But that's not saying much. Geisler and Turek divide their book into several broad arguments for theism before moving on to the more specific argument that Christianity is the only true religion. These broad arguments include the "cosmological argument," which deals with the beginning of the universe, the "teleological argument," which deals with the design of the universe and of life on earth, and the "moral argument," which deals with human morality. Each of these major arguments is deeply flawed, and displays either grievous misunderstandings of physics, biology, and ethics, or a willful deception of the reader.
The "cosmological argument" is built upon our modern understanding of the Big Bang. It is summed up with a question the authors repeatedly raise: why is there something instead of nothing? This is the strongest of their three major arguments, so they are right to place it at the beginning of the book. In fact, until very recently, this argument would have at least cast some doubt upon the atheist perspective. Post-Einstein physicists have acknowledged that our universe had a starting point (the Big Bang), which would at least raise serious philosophical questions about how something came from nothing. Unfortunately for Geisler and Turek, in the last several years, physicists have demonstrated that the philosophical concept of "nothing" (the absence of anything) is NOT what "nothing" is in reality. Counterintuitively, the real nothing has weight, and it is theoretically possible that out of nothing, universes are popping in and out of existence all the time. Unlike those universes, our universe has a total energy equal to zero--meaning its potential energy is exactly balanced with its kinetic energy, allowing our universe to continue expanding without popping out of existence. Geisler and Turek (and anyone else who may be persuaded by their arguments) would be well-advised to read Dr. Lawrence Krauss's book _A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing_, which explains this issue in detail.
The "teleological argument" comprises two main parts: the apparent design of the universe, and the apparent design of life. The former is slightly less absurd, so again the authors were right to place it first. The apparent design of the universe is argued through the so-called fine-tuning argument, which suggests that a variety of phenomena in our universe are calibrated very minutely to allow for life to exist. In short, life as we know it very nearly never occurred, so it must have been calibrated by an external intelligence. This is unpersuasive for two main reasons: 1) the vast majority of the universe (and indeed our own world) is composed of uninhabitable wasteland that is either much too hot or much too cold to support life. If that's a design, it's a very shoddy one. More importantly, 2) the teleological argument boils down to wish-fulfillment on the part of the observer; if a pond could suddenly become sentient and self-aware, it would look at its surroundings (the hole in which it lay), and naturally assume that those surroundings were designed just for it! Since it fits so precisely into its environment, it would erroneously conclude that some other intelligence must have created that environment for it. This is exactly the error Geisler and Turek make. Just because humans CAN survive in SOME parts of ONE small planet, it does not follow that that planet was designed with them in mind (let alone that the vast, inhospitable universe was so designed).
The second component of the "teleological argument" should be an embarrassment to authors as well-educated as Geisler and Turek. It amounts to a denial of Darwinian evolution, which has now been accepted science for over a century and a half. Although they admit that "microevolution" (evolution within a single species) is possible, they insist that "macroevolution" (evolution across different species) is impossible, and has never been observed. This, of course, is factually inaccurate, as anyone with the education of a first-year college student can tell you. "Macroevolution" is simply the same thing as "microevolution," except that it occurs over a much longer span of time. Contrary to the creationist misunderstanding, modern humans did not evolve from modern apes OR from modern fish. Modern humans evolved from prehistoric apes, which in turn evolved from even more prehistoric fish. Since every creature that was ever born belonged to the same species that its parents did, how did humans evolve from fish, by way of apes? Because the changes from one species to another were so gradual that they are impossible to detect from one generation to the next. This is akin to the adage "a watched pot doesn't boil." To put it another way, it's like watching a clock without a second hand; an observer can't see the time change as it happens, but time does pass, and the hands do move. Moreover, Geisler and Turek also make the erroneous claim that the fossil record contains no transitional forms between species. As anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of science knows, there are fossils of Homo habilis, which represents the transition from the genus Australopithecus to the genus Homo (to which modern humans belong). Other transitional fossils include Tiktaalik, a transitional tetrapod fossil, and Archaeopteryx, a transitional fossil connecting feathered dinosaurs to modern birds. I mention these by way of example; there are many others. The fact that the authors seem to be ignorant of the existence of these fossils is disturbing, to say the least.
The last major argument in favor of theism is the "moral argument." This is the weakest of the three, as it attempts to explain human conscience (the intuitive understanding that certain things are wrong) with an objective "moral law," which the authors insist must come from a "lawgiver." Though philosophers may disagree on this point, it seems self-evident that morality is socially constructed, because its project is to teach us (sentient beings) how to behave toward each other. The authors concede that atheists can know right from wrong, but insist that they can have no way of justifying right from wrong in the absence of a supreme authority. This suggests that they take a very dim view of human nature, indeed. The so-called golden rule is a simple enough basis for objective moral standards without the imprimatur of a divine lawgiver. Besides, if moral standards are defined as the will of a supreme authority, then being moral would simply mean doing as you are told by the lawgiver. It provides no means for verifying whether the lawgiver's will is moral in itself. The authors' fundamental point here seems to be that "might makes right;" if a god created the universe and is omnipotent, ipso facto, it is a moral entity. This faulty reasoning is tantamount to a justification for tyranny.
After making these three main arguments for theism, the authors proceed to examine Christianity in particular, arguing that Christianity is the only true religion because it is the only one that corresponds to the universe as they interpret it from their three major and (as I describe above) deeply flawed arguments. Although I read the book to its end, I could have stopped at this point, because since the authors fail to establish any of their claims for theism, their arguments for Christianity become moot.
This book contains so much propaganda and (probably intentional) misinformation that it deserves to be ridiculed by any thinking person.
The "cosmological argument" is built upon our modern understanding of the Big Bang. It is summed up with a question the authors repeatedly raise: why is there something instead of nothing? This is the strongest of their three major arguments, so they are right to place it at the beginning of the book. In fact, until very recently, this argument would have at least cast some doubt upon the atheist perspective. Post-Einstein physicists have acknowledged that our universe had a starting point (the Big Bang), which would at least raise serious philosophical questions about how something came from nothing. Unfortunately for Geisler and Turek, in the last several years, physicists have demonstrated that the philosophical concept of "nothing" (the absence of anything) is NOT what "nothing" is in reality. Counterintuitively, the real nothing has weight, and it is theoretically possible that out of nothing, universes are popping in and out of existence all the time. Unlike those universes, our universe has a total energy equal to zero--meaning its potential energy is exactly balanced with its kinetic energy, allowing our universe to continue expanding without popping out of existence. Geisler and Turek (and anyone else who may be persuaded by their arguments) would be well-advised to read Dr. Lawrence Krauss's book _A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing_, which explains this issue in detail.
The "teleological argument" comprises two main parts: the apparent design of the universe, and the apparent design of life. The former is slightly less absurd, so again the authors were right to place it first. The apparent design of the universe is argued through the so-called fine-tuning argument, which suggests that a variety of phenomena in our universe are calibrated very minutely to allow for life to exist. In short, life as we know it very nearly never occurred, so it must have been calibrated by an external intelligence. This is unpersuasive for two main reasons: 1) the vast majority of the universe (and indeed our own world) is composed of uninhabitable wasteland that is either much too hot or much too cold to support life. If that's a design, it's a very shoddy one. More importantly, 2) the teleological argument boils down to wish-fulfillment on the part of the observer; if a pond could suddenly become sentient and self-aware, it would look at its surroundings (the hole in which it lay), and naturally assume that those surroundings were designed just for it! Since it fits so precisely into its environment, it would erroneously conclude that some other intelligence must have created that environment for it. This is exactly the error Geisler and Turek make. Just because humans CAN survive in SOME parts of ONE small planet, it does not follow that that planet was designed with them in mind (let alone that the vast, inhospitable universe was so designed).
The second component of the "teleological argument" should be an embarrassment to authors as well-educated as Geisler and Turek. It amounts to a denial of Darwinian evolution, which has now been accepted science for over a century and a half. Although they admit that "microevolution" (evolution within a single species) is possible, they insist that "macroevolution" (evolution across different species) is impossible, and has never been observed. This, of course, is factually inaccurate, as anyone with the education of a first-year college student can tell you. "Macroevolution" is simply the same thing as "microevolution," except that it occurs over a much longer span of time. Contrary to the creationist misunderstanding, modern humans did not evolve from modern apes OR from modern fish. Modern humans evolved from prehistoric apes, which in turn evolved from even more prehistoric fish. Since every creature that was ever born belonged to the same species that its parents did, how did humans evolve from fish, by way of apes? Because the changes from one species to another were so gradual that they are impossible to detect from one generation to the next. This is akin to the adage "a watched pot doesn't boil." To put it another way, it's like watching a clock without a second hand; an observer can't see the time change as it happens, but time does pass, and the hands do move. Moreover, Geisler and Turek also make the erroneous claim that the fossil record contains no transitional forms between species. As anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of science knows, there are fossils of Homo habilis, which represents the transition from the genus Australopithecus to the genus Homo (to which modern humans belong). Other transitional fossils include Tiktaalik, a transitional tetrapod fossil, and Archaeopteryx, a transitional fossil connecting feathered dinosaurs to modern birds. I mention these by way of example; there are many others. The fact that the authors seem to be ignorant of the existence of these fossils is disturbing, to say the least.
The last major argument in favor of theism is the "moral argument." This is the weakest of the three, as it attempts to explain human conscience (the intuitive understanding that certain things are wrong) with an objective "moral law," which the authors insist must come from a "lawgiver." Though philosophers may disagree on this point, it seems self-evident that morality is socially constructed, because its project is to teach us (sentient beings) how to behave toward each other. The authors concede that atheists can know right from wrong, but insist that they can have no way of justifying right from wrong in the absence of a supreme authority. This suggests that they take a very dim view of human nature, indeed. The so-called golden rule is a simple enough basis for objective moral standards without the imprimatur of a divine lawgiver. Besides, if moral standards are defined as the will of a supreme authority, then being moral would simply mean doing as you are told by the lawgiver. It provides no means for verifying whether the lawgiver's will is moral in itself. The authors' fundamental point here seems to be that "might makes right;" if a god created the universe and is omnipotent, ipso facto, it is a moral entity. This faulty reasoning is tantamount to a justification for tyranny.
After making these three main arguments for theism, the authors proceed to examine Christianity in particular, arguing that Christianity is the only true religion because it is the only one that corresponds to the universe as they interpret it from their three major and (as I describe above) deeply flawed arguments. Although I read the book to its end, I could have stopped at this point, because since the authors fail to establish any of their claims for theism, their arguments for Christianity become moot.
This book contains so much propaganda and (probably intentional) misinformation that it deserves to be ridiculed by any thinking person.
March 21, 2007
This book was given to me by my daughter who has become a Fundamentalists and she is trying her utmost to bring into the fold. As a courtesy to her, I slogged my way through it and found it to be a waste of time. The book is shot full with fallacies, dubious psychological extrapolations, bad philosophy and muddled thinking.
We did have some good discussions though :)))
We did have some good discussions though :)))
June 22, 2008
While this book professed to show how non-belief requires the faith so derided by atheists, it soon derailed and failed to make a case at all.
December 29, 2008
Definitely my favorite apologetics book!
January 21, 2019
This book was amazing and helped me a ton. Great for anyone who may be dealing with any atheistic friends or someone who is just curious about the scientific reasons atheism and evolution are not true.
May 23, 2008
Whether you believe that there is a God or if you believe that there isn't a God there are a lot of things out there that we believe based on faith. From the beginning of the universe, to the beginning of life, to the historical reliability of historical documents such as Homer's Illiad to Alexander the Great to the Bible. Using scientific methods of induction and logic and making extensive use of proven scientific theory, this book suggests that it takes MORE faith to not believe in the events that are recorded in the Bible than it does to believe what was recorded in the Bible.
I highly recommend this book to both those who believe in God and those who don't because we all live by faith. The question is which of us needs MORE of it to support our beliefs?
I highly recommend this book to both those who believe in God and those who don't because we all live by faith. The question is which of us needs MORE of it to support our beliefs?
November 12, 2022
This book was absolutely outstanding and I would give it 10 stars if I could. This is one of the few books that I intend on reading again in the future. Highly recommend!
October 23, 2012
The authors highlight from the start how logical they are in their assesment of the subject. However, their arguments are quite the opposite. For example, on page 43, they write about a conversation with Don:
"Well Don, ... There's the ordinary agnostic who says he doesn't know anything for sure and then there's the ornery agnostic who says he can't know anything for sure"
Then the conversation goes on to prove that thus the agnostic claim is self-defeating. But of course, they have twisted the definition of agnostism to get to this conclusion. It's twisted since "agnostic" only gives information about knowing about gods, not about "anything" as the above quote suggests.
The Don in this story is not aware of this tric and comes to the conclusion that he cannot be an agnostic. So much for honest logic.
The authors make several claims without supporting evidence. For instance, they write on page 68 that "we teach kids that there is no real difference between any human and a pig [...] we are producing criminals who see no meaning or value in human life."
This suggests that atheists are more likely to have criminal behavior, and that they see no meaning in life. Research does not confirm this. On the contrary. For example: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news... (The Times, 2005, USA)
The list of logical errors, jumping to conclusions, making unwarranted assumtions, just goes on and on.
"Well Don, ... There's the ordinary agnostic who says he doesn't know anything for sure and then there's the ornery agnostic who says he can't know anything for sure"
Then the conversation goes on to prove that thus the agnostic claim is self-defeating. But of course, they have twisted the definition of agnostism to get to this conclusion. It's twisted since "agnostic" only gives information about knowing about gods, not about "anything" as the above quote suggests.
The Don in this story is not aware of this tric and comes to the conclusion that he cannot be an agnostic. So much for honest logic.
The authors make several claims without supporting evidence. For instance, they write on page 68 that "we teach kids that there is no real difference between any human and a pig [...] we are producing criminals who see no meaning or value in human life."
This suggests that atheists are more likely to have criminal behavior, and that they see no meaning in life. Research does not confirm this. On the contrary. For example: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news... (The Times, 2005, USA)
The list of logical errors, jumping to conclusions, making unwarranted assumtions, just goes on and on.
Shelved as 'not-interested'
September 26, 2014HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
A book for agnostics! Wait...this isn't a joke? Huh? Yeah, I don't have enough faith to be an atheist, but I sure as hell don't have enough to be a Christian. How can you not have enough faith to be something that doesn't require a lot of faith but do have enough to be the thing that only depends on faith? Huh? You don't have enough faith to not have faith? What? Either say you have faith (awesome, go for it, kudos--wish I could) or just don't. This is just weird.
It has to be a joke.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
Still not a joke? I don't get it...
A book for agnostics! Wait...this isn't a joke? Huh? Yeah, I don't have enough faith to be an atheist, but I sure as hell don't have enough to be a Christian. How can you not have enough faith to be something that doesn't require a lot of faith but do have enough to be the thing that only depends on faith? Huh? You don't have enough faith to not have faith? What? Either say you have faith (awesome, go for it, kudos--wish I could) or just don't. This is just weird.
It has to be a joke.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
Still not a joke? I don't get it...
April 6, 2007
This book is great when it comes to evidence about the existence of God. I liked it because it provides logic based arguments instead of merely faith based statements..
May 24, 2013
Turek and Geisler clearly have axes to grind against their college professors. Sadly, for all their bluster and apologetics "gotcha" arguments, after trimming away at their premises, all we are really left with are appeals to intuition and ignorance. While inductive reasoning (the byproduct of intuition's usefulness throughout most of human history), close analysis reveals the flaws in these arguments. Similarly, while life may appear to be perfectly designed for their niches, examinations of birth defects, sociopaths among humans and apes, adaptation through time, hemochromatosis, diabetes and every other evolutionary trade-off proves that life was not designed competently, but evolved over millions of years to fill the niches they currently inhabit. Their appeals to intuition are as hollow and transparent as Xeno's paradox. Even a cursory examination reveals their arguments to be more akin to the Titanic than to a modern warship.
In the early chapters of the book, Geisler demonstrates how he demolished a (nameless) professor by claiming that empiricism is neither self-evidently true or helpful in explaining reality. He does not explain why, but merely asserts it. Everyone who has studied the scientific method will most likely have to keep themselves from passing out from laughter. Empiricism is the most reliable source of knowledge because it is self-correcting, unlike religion, which is based on sheer dogma. I do give the authors a modicum of respect for at least paying lip service to the change that they could be wrong. They are also fond of quoting Ravi Zacharias, who has a similar habit of popping anecdotes about students or professors (which change from lecture to lecture) which make him look like an eloquent speaker or storyteller (my money's on the latter).
Chapter 1 is a classic presuppositionalist argument from ignorance. "Can truth be known?" According to Turek and Geisler, truth is knowable, but only if a god exists. Again, this is not explained, merely asserted. Chapter 2 is along similar lines - "Why Should Anyone Believe Anything at All?" Well, empiricism, peer review and multiple points of view, for one thing. The authors certainly don't seem to demonstrate a knowledge of scientific peer review and how the power of educated professionals trying to deconstruct any proposed hypotheses is actually a good thing for human knowlege.
Chapter 4 is the argument from design, already soundly debunked by Victor Stenger. Geisler and Turek view the universe through god-coloured lenses, ignoring the majority of Earth unsuited for human life (or any life at all), the vast void that comprises most of space, and even the Garden of Eden fable, which, if true, is the first case of entrapment in history.
Chapters 5 and 6 deal with abiogenesis and evolution respectively. Unsurprisingly, the authors showcase their ignorance for the whole world to see. And if they have received more than one vaccination for the flu virus, they are hypocrites as well.
Chapter 7 is the moral argument. They contradict themselves almost in the same breath, initially claiming that ALL humans have an innate moral compass (Romans 2:15, which is nonsense - no two people have the exact same morals), then go on to state that MOST humans have this compass (sociopaths need not apply). And moral laws require lawgivers, so they say. This doesn't follow, and more importantly, doesn't deal with the Euthyphro dilemma. Are good deeds good because god says they are good, or does god label them "good" BECAUSE they are good? If the former, then god's morality is arbitrary. If the latter, then god is a middle-man and doesn't provide anything we cannot discover on our own.
Funnily, they contrast two sadists (Mother Teresa, patron saint of dilapidated "homes" for the dying, and Hitler). They make bold claims, such as "If there is no god, then rape is no different from love, and killing a homeless man is no different from killing him." Really? Even if there was no god, those acts would be completely different in character. Their results and the motives behind them would be different, even if there was no god.
Furthermore, if there is objective morality (a position I hold), it cannot come from divine command; that is simply arbitrary fiat.
The remainder of the book deals with the supposed resurrection of Jesus. Like McDowell and Strobel before them, Norman and Geisler display a breathtaking ignorance of historical consistency. This tome is arrogantly condescending to its target audience, and should be treated like a nurse who believes that compassion means "suffering with others" - kept at a 50-foot distance.
In the early chapters of the book, Geisler demonstrates how he demolished a (nameless) professor by claiming that empiricism is neither self-evidently true or helpful in explaining reality. He does not explain why, but merely asserts it. Everyone who has studied the scientific method will most likely have to keep themselves from passing out from laughter. Empiricism is the most reliable source of knowledge because it is self-correcting, unlike religion, which is based on sheer dogma. I do give the authors a modicum of respect for at least paying lip service to the change that they could be wrong. They are also fond of quoting Ravi Zacharias, who has a similar habit of popping anecdotes about students or professors (which change from lecture to lecture) which make him look like an eloquent speaker or storyteller (my money's on the latter).
Chapter 1 is a classic presuppositionalist argument from ignorance. "Can truth be known?" According to Turek and Geisler, truth is knowable, but only if a god exists. Again, this is not explained, merely asserted. Chapter 2 is along similar lines - "Why Should Anyone Believe Anything at All?" Well, empiricism, peer review and multiple points of view, for one thing. The authors certainly don't seem to demonstrate a knowledge of scientific peer review and how the power of educated professionals trying to deconstruct any proposed hypotheses is actually a good thing for human knowlege.
Chapter 4 is the argument from design, already soundly debunked by Victor Stenger. Geisler and Turek view the universe through god-coloured lenses, ignoring the majority of Earth unsuited for human life (or any life at all), the vast void that comprises most of space, and even the Garden of Eden fable, which, if true, is the first case of entrapment in history.
Chapters 5 and 6 deal with abiogenesis and evolution respectively. Unsurprisingly, the authors showcase their ignorance for the whole world to see. And if they have received more than one vaccination for the flu virus, they are hypocrites as well.
Chapter 7 is the moral argument. They contradict themselves almost in the same breath, initially claiming that ALL humans have an innate moral compass (Romans 2:15, which is nonsense - no two people have the exact same morals), then go on to state that MOST humans have this compass (sociopaths need not apply). And moral laws require lawgivers, so they say. This doesn't follow, and more importantly, doesn't deal with the Euthyphro dilemma. Are good deeds good because god says they are good, or does god label them "good" BECAUSE they are good? If the former, then god's morality is arbitrary. If the latter, then god is a middle-man and doesn't provide anything we cannot discover on our own.
Funnily, they contrast two sadists (Mother Teresa, patron saint of dilapidated "homes" for the dying, and Hitler). They make bold claims, such as "If there is no god, then rape is no different from love, and killing a homeless man is no different from killing him." Really? Even if there was no god, those acts would be completely different in character. Their results and the motives behind them would be different, even if there was no god.
Furthermore, if there is objective morality (a position I hold), it cannot come from divine command; that is simply arbitrary fiat.
The remainder of the book deals with the supposed resurrection of Jesus. Like McDowell and Strobel before them, Norman and Geisler display a breathtaking ignorance of historical consistency. This tome is arrogantly condescending to its target audience, and should be treated like a nurse who believes that compassion means "suffering with others" - kept at a 50-foot distance.
August 1, 2019
I love that Geisler and Turek put their argument up front. It gives the book a solid structure, and it gets the conversation going. We can get right to the point.
I liked less the tone. They write with an I'm-smarter-than-you vibe that will likely turn off those who most need the information.
Finally, while I understand the snarky reversal intended by the book's title, it may do more harm than good. It plays into mistaken notions of "blind" faith. It misunderstands what faith is and how it's used in the Bible.
Notes:
Recommended by John O'Brien
Audible
The less evidence you have, the more faith you need. Personal note: I may be starting with a different understanding of faith than Geisler. Faith isn’t a contrast to evidence. It's what you do with evidence.
Major Argument:
1. Truth about reality is knowable.
2. The opposite of true is false.
3. It is true that the theistic God exists. This is evidenced by the:
1. Beginning of the universe
2. Design of the universe
3. Design of life
4. Moral law
4. If God exists, then miracles are possible.
5. Miracles can be used to confirm a message from God.
6. The New Testament is historically reliable, evidenced by:
1. Early testimony
2. Eyewitness testimony
3. Uninvited authentic testimony
4. Eyewitnesses who were not deceived
7. The New Testament says Jesus claimed to be God.
8. Jesus' claim to be God was miraculously confirmed by:
1. His fulfillment of many prophecies about Himself.
2. His sinless life and miraculous deeds
3. His prediction and accomplishment of His resurrection
9. Therefore Jesus is God
10. Whatever Jesus (who is God) teaches is true.
11. Jesus taught that the Bible is the Word of God
12. Therefore it is true that the Bible is the Word of God.
Personal note: written in a snarky, tongue-in-cheek style that will please believers but likely annoy the ones who most need to hear it.
"In grammar school they told me that a frog turning into a prince is a fairy tale. In the university they told me that a frog turning into a prince is a fact"
Survival of the fittest is a tautology.
We understand moral absolutes by our reactions (what is our impulse when we are wronged or experience evil?).
The atheist has a dilemma. If he says history cannot be known, he loses warrant for evolution. If he says history can be known, he must accept the overwhelming evidence of the New Testament
Personal note: Great point about the apostles' bias. It is precisely because they were convinced that they're trustworthy. What would be the point of writing the Gospels if they weren't convinced Jesus rose?
Ironically it's not the New Testament that's contradictory, it's the critics. On one hand the critics claim that the synoptic gospels are too uniform to be independent sources. On the other they say that they are too divergent to be trustworthy.
Personal note: great point on why there isn’t more historical evidence for the Exodus. Really what people are asking for is records from Egypt, but why would Egypt report on getting their hats handed to them?
I liked less the tone. They write with an I'm-smarter-than-you vibe that will likely turn off those who most need the information.
Finally, while I understand the snarky reversal intended by the book's title, it may do more harm than good. It plays into mistaken notions of "blind" faith. It misunderstands what faith is and how it's used in the Bible.
Notes:
Recommended by John O'Brien
Audible
The less evidence you have, the more faith you need. Personal note: I may be starting with a different understanding of faith than Geisler. Faith isn’t a contrast to evidence. It's what you do with evidence.
Major Argument:
1. Truth about reality is knowable.
2. The opposite of true is false.
3. It is true that the theistic God exists. This is evidenced by the:
1. Beginning of the universe
2. Design of the universe
3. Design of life
4. Moral law
4. If God exists, then miracles are possible.
5. Miracles can be used to confirm a message from God.
6. The New Testament is historically reliable, evidenced by:
1. Early testimony
2. Eyewitness testimony
3. Uninvited authentic testimony
4. Eyewitnesses who were not deceived
7. The New Testament says Jesus claimed to be God.
8. Jesus' claim to be God was miraculously confirmed by:
1. His fulfillment of many prophecies about Himself.
2. His sinless life and miraculous deeds
3. His prediction and accomplishment of His resurrection
9. Therefore Jesus is God
10. Whatever Jesus (who is God) teaches is true.
11. Jesus taught that the Bible is the Word of God
12. Therefore it is true that the Bible is the Word of God.
Personal note: written in a snarky, tongue-in-cheek style that will please believers but likely annoy the ones who most need to hear it.
"In grammar school they told me that a frog turning into a prince is a fairy tale. In the university they told me that a frog turning into a prince is a fact"
Survival of the fittest is a tautology.
We understand moral absolutes by our reactions (what is our impulse when we are wronged or experience evil?).
The atheist has a dilemma. If he says history cannot be known, he loses warrant for evolution. If he says history can be known, he must accept the overwhelming evidence of the New Testament
Personal note: Great point about the apostles' bias. It is precisely because they were convinced that they're trustworthy. What would be the point of writing the Gospels if they weren't convinced Jesus rose?
Ironically it's not the New Testament that's contradictory, it's the critics. On one hand the critics claim that the synoptic gospels are too uniform to be independent sources. On the other they say that they are too divergent to be trustworthy.
Personal note: great point on why there isn’t more historical evidence for the Exodus. Really what people are asking for is records from Egypt, but why would Egypt report on getting their hats handed to them?
April 7, 2016
The arguments in the first half of the book have been around for a while (first cause, argument from design, etc.), and the authors presented these arguments, and the arguments of the "Darwinists" (which they used as an umbrella term and in an almost discriminatory way, lumping everyone, including Nazis, into a single, monolithic, stereotyped group) in a rather simplified, somewhat (read very) condescending manner. But if the book had stopped there, I probably would have given 3 stars anyway.
However, the second half of the book made me angry with its sloppy handling of historiography, New Testament scholarship, and theology.
Example #1 - it was predicted by Daniel's "seven sevens" passage that Jesus would die in AD 33. This assumes for Jesus a three year ministry starting at 30 years old (which at least can be argued from John and Luke) AND a year 0 birth. A year 0 birth?! When Herod died in 4BC according to Josephus, whom the authors cite multiple times as a source of corroborating evidence for Jesus? Ok...
Example #2 - Arguing that because the Gospel writers cite numerous real historical figures in their writing, all of what they write is completely historically accurate. Not only does this gloss over areas where the gospel writers are mistaken or break chronology with each other (such as geography in Mark or the dates of Quirinius' governorship in Luke or when Jesus flipped tables in John), but it also projects a modern understanding of "historian" and the purpose/techniques of writing history onto an ancient genre, which is sloppy historiography. Ancient history writing was not done like 21st century American history writing is! the genres are not the same, the purpose was not the same, the techniques were not the same!
Example #3 - the argument from "Would you write a story where (fill in the blank)? Obviously not; therefore the early Christians didn't." This is just bad argumentation, and they use this technique several times throughout the second half of the book to "prove" points.
Example #4 - the assumption of Penal Substitution atonement theology (one of the newest explanations, dating from the Reformation) in their evangelical chapters at the end of the book, without any examination of/regard for any other possible theories such as, say, Ransom or Recapitulation Theory, both of which date to the early church fathers. This is a nitpicky problem on my part and not absolutely necessary in my review of their apologetics, but if they are citing church fathers for their other argumentation and using the substitution assumption as part of their overall case for "why Christianity," then they might want to be consistent in where they pull theology from.
Example #5 - Citing "one angel vs. two angels at the tomb" as an example of an apparent contradiction in the Gospels and then leaving it at that. The actual contradictions in the Gospels that nonbelievers point to (like the incongruent birth narratives or the Thursday/Friday crucifixion discrepancy) are simply not addressed in the book, which is a grievous oversight in their case and hints at omission because of inability to explain.
Example #6a - treating the gospel message (1 Cor. 15) as though it is the same thing as the Gospel narratives, which is sloppy semantics.
6b - Calling the Bible the "word of God" without ever clearly defining or addressing what they mean by & what assumptions they carry with that phrase. For instance, without clarification on the statement (which they take for granted that everyone knows/understands the meaning behind), I could then point out that, by their argumentation: Jesus = God. Jesus = The word of God . The Bible = the word of God. Therefore the Bible = God, which I doubt is a point they want to make.
Example #7 - Arguing for a literal interpretation of scripture in the second half of the book while glossing over the implications of that view in the first half. If part of their case includes the argument that Jesus and the other New Testament writers treat the figures in Genesis (Noah, Adam, etc.) as historical figures, then they can't disregard a literal reading of Genesis in their cosmology. This would mean taking a young earth viewpoint, which they never argue for in the first half of the book (and much of their evidence argues against). If they were consistent in their interpretation then they would at least get credit for consistency, but...
Example #8 - overgeneralized (and untrue) statements such as nobody doubting the authorship of the major letters of Paul (what are considered "major" letters? Because several letters, including "big" ones like Colossians, are of disputed authorship by historians), or that there was no dispute over canon after the 4th century. Also downplaying the argument over canon by saying it was only over "minor" works like Jude (and completely ignoring the argument over the Apocalypse of Peter vs. John and whether or not to include 1st Clement), and completely ignoring the fact that Catholic and Protestant Bibles don't follow the same scriptural canon. All of which is sloppy research & argumentation, and borders on dishonest presentation of fact.
There are many more examples than these, but these serve to illustrate. All in all, I was very disappointed in this book, which came highly recommended from several people.
However, the second half of the book made me angry with its sloppy handling of historiography, New Testament scholarship, and theology.
Example #1 - it was predicted by Daniel's "seven sevens" passage that Jesus would die in AD 33. This assumes for Jesus a three year ministry starting at 30 years old (which at least can be argued from John and Luke) AND a year 0 birth. A year 0 birth?! When Herod died in 4BC according to Josephus, whom the authors cite multiple times as a source of corroborating evidence for Jesus? Ok...
Example #2 - Arguing that because the Gospel writers cite numerous real historical figures in their writing, all of what they write is completely historically accurate. Not only does this gloss over areas where the gospel writers are mistaken or break chronology with each other (such as geography in Mark or the dates of Quirinius' governorship in Luke or when Jesus flipped tables in John), but it also projects a modern understanding of "historian" and the purpose/techniques of writing history onto an ancient genre, which is sloppy historiography. Ancient history writing was not done like 21st century American history writing is! the genres are not the same, the purpose was not the same, the techniques were not the same!
Example #3 - the argument from "Would you write a story where (fill in the blank)? Obviously not; therefore the early Christians didn't." This is just bad argumentation, and they use this technique several times throughout the second half of the book to "prove" points.
Example #4 - the assumption of Penal Substitution atonement theology (one of the newest explanations, dating from the Reformation) in their evangelical chapters at the end of the book, without any examination of/regard for any other possible theories such as, say, Ransom or Recapitulation Theory, both of which date to the early church fathers. This is a nitpicky problem on my part and not absolutely necessary in my review of their apologetics, but if they are citing church fathers for their other argumentation and using the substitution assumption as part of their overall case for "why Christianity," then they might want to be consistent in where they pull theology from.
Example #5 - Citing "one angel vs. two angels at the tomb" as an example of an apparent contradiction in the Gospels and then leaving it at that. The actual contradictions in the Gospels that nonbelievers point to (like the incongruent birth narratives or the Thursday/Friday crucifixion discrepancy) are simply not addressed in the book, which is a grievous oversight in their case and hints at omission because of inability to explain.
Example #6a - treating the gospel message (1 Cor. 15) as though it is the same thing as the Gospel narratives, which is sloppy semantics.
6b - Calling the Bible the "word of God" without ever clearly defining or addressing what they mean by & what assumptions they carry with that phrase. For instance, without clarification on the statement (which they take for granted that everyone knows/understands the meaning behind), I could then point out that, by their argumentation: Jesus = God. Jesus = The word of God . The Bible = the word of God. Therefore the Bible = God, which I doubt is a point they want to make.
Example #7 - Arguing for a literal interpretation of scripture in the second half of the book while glossing over the implications of that view in the first half. If part of their case includes the argument that Jesus and the other New Testament writers treat the figures in Genesis (Noah, Adam, etc.) as historical figures, then they can't disregard a literal reading of Genesis in their cosmology. This would mean taking a young earth viewpoint, which they never argue for in the first half of the book (and much of their evidence argues against). If they were consistent in their interpretation then they would at least get credit for consistency, but...
Example #8 - overgeneralized (and untrue) statements such as nobody doubting the authorship of the major letters of Paul (what are considered "major" letters? Because several letters, including "big" ones like Colossians, are of disputed authorship by historians), or that there was no dispute over canon after the 4th century. Also downplaying the argument over canon by saying it was only over "minor" works like Jude (and completely ignoring the argument over the Apocalypse of Peter vs. John and whether or not to include 1st Clement), and completely ignoring the fact that Catholic and Protestant Bibles don't follow the same scriptural canon. All of which is sloppy research & argumentation, and borders on dishonest presentation of fact.
There are many more examples than these, but these serve to illustrate. All in all, I was very disappointed in this book, which came highly recommended from several people.
June 13, 2017
I was channel-surfing one night when I came across Frank Turek's (co-author) I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. Great show! Great speaker.
An apologetic gem! Messrs. Geisler & Turek walk the reader using an objective, logical basis for the veracity of the Bible, the historicity of biblical events, life's origin, and even the beginning of everything (i.e. the beginning and subsequent development of the Universe.)
While this volume will encourage the believer, it is really written with a seeker -- or even atheist -- in mind. Verifiable, extra-biblical data is referenced moreso than biblical verses. The bibliography is impressive. (The fact that it has a bibliography is impressive. I wish more Christian literature utilized bibliographies.)
A great work for any seeker or Christian that is mystified by the abundance of info challenging the Bible.
I wish I had a Kindle or Nook edition so I could carry this around with me! I did purchase a Kindle version of this book in March 2017.
An apologetic gem! Messrs. Geisler & Turek walk the reader using an objective, logical basis for the veracity of the Bible, the historicity of biblical events, life's origin, and even the beginning of everything (i.e. the beginning and subsequent development of the Universe.)
While this volume will encourage the believer, it is really written with a seeker -- or even atheist -- in mind. Verifiable, extra-biblical data is referenced moreso than biblical verses. The bibliography is impressive. (The fact that it has a bibliography is impressive. I wish more Christian literature utilized bibliographies.)
A great work for any seeker or Christian that is mystified by the abundance of info challenging the Bible.
June 24, 2008
I found this book very useful recently when I was writing a paper in my philosophy class on the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God. I know my high school asked me to keep all the books I read for my Bible class and it was sometimes annoying, but do save them because you never know when they may come in handy. I did really well on the paper.
August 26, 2008
An excellent introduction to Christian apologetics. This covers the foundations of what Christians believe, why they believe it, and the evidence God has provided us to know that the Bible is His word.
Read
July 25, 2010I would choose fewer stars if I could. Maybe faith is required to purport the truth of any non-Christian way of viewing the world, but complete and utter intellectual dishonesty is required to present this material. I'm not that intelligent, and I can blow shotgun holes through the arguments presented.
They attempt to prove the validity of a theistic approach, as well as the inerrant Word of God(Bible). Which is what they prove. However, if I attempt to disprove the inerrant Bible, I can do so in the time it takes for them to write the chapter page alone. Bart Ehrman has done this very well in a number of his books.
My frustration ran rampant; I had numerous happenings of needing to throw it down and walk away at the idiocy, knowing that people will believe the pseudo-science presented. Part of me wants to burn this book, so as to never have to read such fragile arguments again.
It was quite humorous I do admit.
They attempt to prove the validity of a theistic approach, as well as the inerrant Word of God(Bible). Which is what they prove. However, if I attempt to disprove the inerrant Bible, I can do so in the time it takes for them to write the chapter page alone. Bart Ehrman has done this very well in a number of his books.
My frustration ran rampant; I had numerous happenings of needing to throw it down and walk away at the idiocy, knowing that people will believe the pseudo-science presented. Part of me wants to burn this book, so as to never have to read such fragile arguments again.
It was quite humorous I do admit.
June 21, 2013
Circular logic, forced admittance to their side being right, no actual reasons, just pages and pages of run on repetition of trying to make the claim that god is mysterious.
I've done the Strobel, the Craig and the D'Souza readings and this was no different. At no point is there any real evidence of anything other than trust god and suspend logic.
At some points it got ridiculous. This writer has had conversations with the late, great Christopher Hitchens and he writes atheists as if we're bumbling idiots who just strayed away from the flock and need to be led back.
Evil and science are the "reasons" this writer's fictional atheist gives for his atheism.
Read this if you want to be comforted with your christianity, atheists, read it if you want to waste a day.
I've done the Strobel, the Craig and the D'Souza readings and this was no different. At no point is there any real evidence of anything other than trust god and suspend logic.
At some points it got ridiculous. This writer has had conversations with the late, great Christopher Hitchens and he writes atheists as if we're bumbling idiots who just strayed away from the flock and need to be led back.
Evil and science are the "reasons" this writer's fictional atheist gives for his atheism.
Read this if you want to be comforted with your christianity, atheists, read it if you want to waste a day.
April 9, 2012
Probably the best Atheism -> fully mature faith in Christ apologetic I have ever seen. It logically, using previously established truths from clearly identified premises, leads the reader from each step from Atheism to Christ and beyond.
WOW.
Sorry, trying to add more and Goodreads keeps chopping my post.
Clearly hits a nerve as well, from reading some of the reviews. Most don't try to address the points, but instead attack the authors. Definitely a powerful work.
WOW.
Sorry, trying to add more and Goodreads keeps chopping my post.
Clearly hits a nerve as well, from reading some of the reviews. Most don't try to address the points, but instead attack the authors. Definitely a powerful work.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 18, 2007
This book is great because by using science, logic, and history it explains why God exists and why Jesus was more than just a person. Over all it states the case for why believing in a higher being requires LESS faith than believing in nothing. I would recommend this book to Christians, people of other religions, those questioning a higher power, and Atheists.
August 29, 2008
This book is a must read by anyone regardless of their beliefs. Yes, it is a Christian book but it discusses the proof of God's existience with easy to undersatnd scientific data.
June 29, 2018
A masterful work. While I can see the flaws, I have to give this five stars purely for the amount of work that went into it.
Mini rant about a side point:
While they do draw a distinction between micro and macroevolution, the authors carefully evade the contradictions between the creation account and macroevolution. I still want to find a book that talks about creationism and compares macroevolution against the creation story of the Bible. Geisler and Turek don’t tackle that problem in this book.
But nevertheless, it’s a good book for the other evidence it presents. Half the chapters are about philosophical questions on the nature of God and man and reason. The second half is about miracles and the Bible and Jesus specifically (comparable to The Case for Christ). There's an odd chasm in the middle of these two sections. I feel the authors zeroed in on Christianity too quickly, without fully discussing enough other world religions or half-truths. But again, I suppose that’s just not within the scope of their goals for the book.
I have other books by these authors on my lists:
If God, Why Evil?: A New Way to Think about the Question
Legislating Morality: Is It Wise? Is It Legal? Is It Possible?
Table of Contents:
Forward, by David Limbaugh
Preface: How Much Faith Do You Need to Believe This Book?
Acknowledgements
Introduction: Finding the Box Top to the Puzzle of Life
Chapter 1: Can We Handle the Truth?
Chapter 2: Why Should Anyone Believe Anything At All?
Chapter 3: In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE
Chapter 4: Divine Design
Chapter 5: The First Life: Natural Law or Divine Awe?
Chapter 6: New Life Forms: From the Goo to You via the Zoo?
Chapter 7: Mother Teresa vs. Hitler
Chapter 8: Miracles: Signs of God or Gullibility?
Chapter 9: Do We Have Early Testimony About Jesus?
Chapter 10: Do We Have Eyewitness Testimony About Jesus?
Chapter 11: The Top Ten Reasons We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth
Chapter 12: Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?
Chapter 13: Who is Jesus: God? Or Just a Great Moral Teacher?
Chapter 14: What Did Jesus Teach About the Bible?
Chapter 15: Conclusion: The Judge, the Servant King, and the Box Top
Appendix 1: If God, Why Evil?
Appendix 2: Isn't That Just Your Interpretation?
Appendix 3: Why the Jesus Seminar Doesn't Speak for Jesus
Mini rant about a side point:
While they do draw a distinction between micro and macroevolution, the authors carefully evade the contradictions between the creation account and macroevolution. I still want to find a book that talks about creationism and compares macroevolution against the creation story of the Bible. Geisler and Turek don’t tackle that problem in this book.
But nevertheless, it’s a good book for the other evidence it presents. Half the chapters are about philosophical questions on the nature of God and man and reason. The second half is about miracles and the Bible and Jesus specifically (comparable to The Case for Christ). There's an odd chasm in the middle of these two sections. I feel the authors zeroed in on Christianity too quickly, without fully discussing enough other world religions or half-truths. But again, I suppose that’s just not within the scope of their goals for the book.
I have other books by these authors on my lists:
If God, Why Evil?: A New Way to Think about the Question
Legislating Morality: Is It Wise? Is It Legal? Is It Possible?
Table of Contents:
Forward, by David Limbaugh
Preface: How Much Faith Do You Need to Believe This Book?
Acknowledgements
Introduction: Finding the Box Top to the Puzzle of Life
Chapter 1: Can We Handle the Truth?
Chapter 2: Why Should Anyone Believe Anything At All?
Chapter 3: In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE
Chapter 4: Divine Design
Chapter 5: The First Life: Natural Law or Divine Awe?
Chapter 6: New Life Forms: From the Goo to You via the Zoo?
Chapter 7: Mother Teresa vs. Hitler
Chapter 8: Miracles: Signs of God or Gullibility?
Chapter 9: Do We Have Early Testimony About Jesus?
Chapter 10: Do We Have Eyewitness Testimony About Jesus?
Chapter 11: The Top Ten Reasons We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth
Chapter 12: Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?
Chapter 13: Who is Jesus: God? Or Just a Great Moral Teacher?
Chapter 14: What Did Jesus Teach About the Bible?
Chapter 15: Conclusion: The Judge, the Servant King, and the Box Top
Appendix 1: If God, Why Evil?
Appendix 2: Isn't That Just Your Interpretation?
Appendix 3: Why the Jesus Seminar Doesn't Speak for Jesus
June 26, 2012
Good book reviewers should have the stamina to give unbiased reviews of books with opposing ideologies, but this 'Apologetics 101' text is disappointing enough that I feel no guilt in giving it a low rating.
The simple truth is that "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" tries to bite off much more than it can chew by attempting to travel literally from the basic laws of logic down to a particular brand of Trinitarian Evangelical Christianity, leaving globbing puddles of naivety in its wake. Entire schools of philosophy are laughed away with a paragraph or two. The life work of today's best modern scientists are blissfully hand-waved away by simply calling them "silly". At each step, the authors treat their own conclusions as obvious and unassailable, while making straightforward logical fallacies.
As an atheist reading this book, at first I was confused by this attitude. Could these authors seriously think that they had refuted Stephen Hawking's work simply because he uses the phrase 'imaginary time'? Could they honestly claim to have found a one-paragraph dismissal of Kant's Categorical Imperative and Hume's attack on miracles? Did they really think that their single argument for an early dating of the Gospel of Luke was enough to reject the consensus of biblical scholars? Were the authors unaware that entire books had been written on each of these subjects?
But then I realized what was going on: this book is not written for rationalists. This book is written for the believer, for the person who wants some quick, comforting, one-line responses to back up the beliefs that they've been brought up with. This is what I found so disappoint about the book: it's not meant to be engaging, but simply comforting and reassuring. This is not kind of book I choose to read.
The only redeeming value in this book is that it gives some genuinely interesting information and arguments in its section on the reliability of the New Testament. For that, I give it two stars.
The simple truth is that "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" tries to bite off much more than it can chew by attempting to travel literally from the basic laws of logic down to a particular brand of Trinitarian Evangelical Christianity, leaving globbing puddles of naivety in its wake. Entire schools of philosophy are laughed away with a paragraph or two. The life work of today's best modern scientists are blissfully hand-waved away by simply calling them "silly". At each step, the authors treat their own conclusions as obvious and unassailable, while making straightforward logical fallacies.
As an atheist reading this book, at first I was confused by this attitude. Could these authors seriously think that they had refuted Stephen Hawking's work simply because he uses the phrase 'imaginary time'? Could they honestly claim to have found a one-paragraph dismissal of Kant's Categorical Imperative and Hume's attack on miracles? Did they really think that their single argument for an early dating of the Gospel of Luke was enough to reject the consensus of biblical scholars? Were the authors unaware that entire books had been written on each of these subjects?
But then I realized what was going on: this book is not written for rationalists. This book is written for the believer, for the person who wants some quick, comforting, one-line responses to back up the beliefs that they've been brought up with. This is what I found so disappoint about the book: it's not meant to be engaging, but simply comforting and reassuring. This is not kind of book I choose to read.
The only redeeming value in this book is that it gives some genuinely interesting information and arguments in its section on the reliability of the New Testament. For that, I give it two stars.
January 25, 2021
I have a hard time reading non-fiction! I start with the best intentions but I usually fizzle out. I was asked to teach this at church, so you could say I HAD to finish it😊 I’m glad I did. I learned facts that affirm my faith in the Bible. I’ll give you an example:
•
Do you know anything about the Dead Sea scrolls? They were found in 1947 and scientists have dated them back to at least 100 years before Christ. They contain a segment of every single Old Testament book except Esther, and the entire book of Isaiah.
•
So? Isaiah contains numerous prophecies referring to a “suffering servant” and when you examine them objectively they are very obviously Christ. Verses you have probably heard all of your life, especially at Christmas, and you assumed were about Christ, are from Isaiah which was found 100 years before Christ’s birth. Chapter 9 of Isaiah says: “For unto us a child is born. Unto us a son is given. And the government will be upon his shoulders and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
•
Jesus was a good teacher, and maybe you think that’s all he was. If so, you would also have to believe he was either a liar or a crazy person, because he claimed to be God. I believe He was/is God! I believe our choices matter, and because of Jesus our lives have ultimate meaning.
•
The first fourth of this book is harder than the rest. It’s philosophy that reads like a textbook. The second half of the book was easier to read and contains facts about the origins of the Old and New Testament that I will always remember. It not only affirms my faith but helps me answer knowledgeably when I’m asked questions about the truth of God’s Word.
•
The statement, “We don’t know all the answers. You just have to have faith.” is true. Much of believing in Jesus and the truth of the Bible requires faith, BUT much of it has evidence to back up its truth.
•
Do you know anything about the Dead Sea scrolls? They were found in 1947 and scientists have dated them back to at least 100 years before Christ. They contain a segment of every single Old Testament book except Esther, and the entire book of Isaiah.
•
So? Isaiah contains numerous prophecies referring to a “suffering servant” and when you examine them objectively they are very obviously Christ. Verses you have probably heard all of your life, especially at Christmas, and you assumed were about Christ, are from Isaiah which was found 100 years before Christ’s birth. Chapter 9 of Isaiah says: “For unto us a child is born. Unto us a son is given. And the government will be upon his shoulders and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
•
Jesus was a good teacher, and maybe you think that’s all he was. If so, you would also have to believe he was either a liar or a crazy person, because he claimed to be God. I believe He was/is God! I believe our choices matter, and because of Jesus our lives have ultimate meaning.
•
The first fourth of this book is harder than the rest. It’s philosophy that reads like a textbook. The second half of the book was easier to read and contains facts about the origins of the Old and New Testament that I will always remember. It not only affirms my faith but helps me answer knowledgeably when I’m asked questions about the truth of God’s Word.
•
The statement, “We don’t know all the answers. You just have to have faith.” is true. Much of believing in Jesus and the truth of the Bible requires faith, BUT much of it has evidence to back up its truth.
November 29, 2008
This book takes a basic approach to defending Christianity as a l/ogical choice. The first portion is geared from a scientific perspective and how the world could not come into existence on its own, which includes discussion of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Due to there being a creator (the book does not endorse creation science, but more so intelligent design) there must be a God (Jew, Christian, or Muslim). The authors then discuss the possibility of miracles, which must be true based on how the world came into existence. If there are miracles, then it is possible for Jesus to be more of a virgin. The authors then defend the authenticity and validity of the New Testament Bible. Overall the book will get you to think about faith. It poses questions and makes assertions without hateful rhetoric. Although I do not agree with everything it, the book will get you to think and research additional topics.
January 6, 2008
This book was very helpful while I was going through a crisis of faith. It helped put some things in perspective and set me on a path that has strengthened my faith.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 701 reviews