About book I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist (2004)
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.
Overall this is a good introduction to Christian apologetics and theology. I have read it both as a student and as a teacher of a class based on the text.The book begins with an overview of worldviews and an explanation of the project of the book. The project of the book is to begin at near total skepticism and end at Christian theism through exploration of worldviews, a look at arguments for theism, and assessment of the historical evidence for Christian claims as well as a few stops along the way to undermine naturalistic alternatives and answer common objections. The book does require an investment of time and mental power, especially for those who are not philosophically inclined, but my experience as a teacher has proven to me that even the most uninitiated can follow along when a good format for discussion is set alongside a leisurely pace.The first section of the book includes some basic epistemological questions, such as: How do we know there is truth? How do we know what is true? What are reliable guides to finding truth?The next several chapters are all natural theology; the bulk of the time is spent on 3 classical arguments for the existence of God: Cosmological (Kalam), Teleological, and Moral. The presentation of the Kalam argument includes a very brief defense of the philosophical argument against an infinite regress but is focused mainly on the scientific evidence of a cosmic beginning. The presentation of the Teleological argument is primarily based on cosmic fine-tuning, though there is a negative argument against evolutionary alternatives for design of life. (This I think the authors could have left out - it is distracting from the positive case made by the cosmic fine-tuning and is a dead-end in most practical conversations anyway.) The version of the Moral argument presented in the book is particularly weak. I had to spend 2 class periods explaining to students why I would never use the book's version, and explaining and defending a stronger version (the one presented by Craig) that lies at the bottom of most moral arguments.Next the book turns to questions about the possibility of miracles and historical knowledge, along the way dealing with the typical objections articulated by Spinoza, Hume and other enlightenment and modern thinkers. Finally the historical reliability of the gospel accounts is assessed over the last several chapters, with a view to establishing the truth of the resurrection of Jesus. The book ends with a shallow treatment in appendices of the Problem of Evil, relativism, and a critique of the Jesus Seminar.As an introduction to Christian apologetics and theology, this book is worthwhile. I do think that a classroom setting will particularly benefit those who are not used to thinking philosophically or following a fairly tight logical progression over the course of several hundred pages. In addition to my problem with their presentation of the Moral argument, I would add that more time could have been spent talking about conversational tactics and dead-ends, seeing as how this book is meant to be fairly comprehensive in scope and given the fact that these issues are obliquely and anecdotally treated anyway. The addition, even if at the end, of a chapter on conversational approaches would be a most valuable addition - it could even displace entirely the chapter on the Jesus Seminar.
Do You like book I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist (2004)?
A truly excellent argument for the existence of God. Gives Christians empirical evidence for what they believe and keeps us from falling into blind faith. The book is incredibly dense. After laying a foundation for the objectivity of truth, the authors go on to consider the existence of God through the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments. Dealing with the Anthropic Principle, the Big Bang, and the acronym SURGE. Concluding these arguments they go on to explain how miracles are possible in a theistic universe and how God has used miracles to confirm Himself. From this point, what needs to be proved is the trustworthiness of the New Testament. The authors do just that. In a condensed, Josh McDowell fashion, Geisler and Turek prove beyond reasonable doubt that the historicity of the New Testament is accurate and goes above and beyond what is needed to prove the historicity of other books of antiquity. Ending their book with an overabundance of evidence that prove Jesus is God and the Bible is the Word of God, I can conclude it indeed takes more faith to be an atheist.
—Bryant Rudisill
Given to me by a friend...but I could barely get through the first 10 pages. Premise: it takes alot of "faith" to be an atheist, and takes less faith to be a Christian...ipso facto, just give in and be a Christian before you go straight to Hell! Also, began rambling about how the Old Testament is the most meticulously maintained historical record ever! Okay, I have better things to do with my time. I'm not an atheist anyway, just not a fundamentalist Christian! I'll take my chances. Jesus, save me from your followers...please.
—Paige
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.
—L.S.
