What do you think?
Rate this book
True Reason: Christian Responses to the Challenge of Atheism
While New Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and others proclaim loudly their rationality, clear thinking, and incontrovertible scientific arguments, others are beginning to wonder how genuinely rational they are. Have they proved anything? Have they argued convincingly? Have they pinpointed any real challenges to the credibility of Christian faith?"True Reason," edited by Tom Gilson and Carson Weitnauer, brings together a compendium of writers--philosophers, apologists, ethicists, theologians, historians--who look carefully at the best arguments atheism has and evaluate their validity, logic, assumptions, and naturalist conclusions. Authors include noted philosopher William Lane Craig and popular apologist Sean McDowell, along with Gilson, Weitnauer, John DePoe, Chuck Edwards, Matthew Flannagan, Peter Grice, Randy Hardman, David Marshall, Glenn Sunshine, David Wood, and Samuel Youngs. Each chapter tackles a different atheist argument and brings reason fully into the discussion. Which is more atheism or Christianity? Read "True Reason" and think for yourself.“‘People of faith are biased,’ we are told. This critique is tossed so often at those who express faith in a personal God that we forget that those who express faith in atheism and secularism are themselves guilty of bias. There is no evidence to support Dawkins’ or Harris’ loud proclamations that they have secured their belief via reason. In fact, the evidence shows the opposite. Their loud diatribes and definitive conclusions show a lack of reason, and True Reason points this out. Reasonable people will take this content seriously.” -- John Stonestreet, Speaker, Radio Host, Author — The Point Radio, BreakPoint, and Summit Ministries“One of the key talking points of the New Atheists is that theirs is the side of reason and evidence. It is a powerful rhetorical device; after all, who would want to be on the side of irrationality and ignorance? But the contributors to this wide-ranging volume call their bluff, inverting the charge and arguing that it is not atheism but Christian theism that has reason and evidence on its side. Anyone who engages with these arguments thoughtfully will discover that it is surprisingly difficult to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” -- Timothy McGrew, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy, Western Michigan University“A splendid and timely book…. I thought all the chapters were first rate and that each contributed to the overall defense of the rationality of the Christian faith and the poverty of resources in Naturalism for accounting for the possibility of reason and science.” -- Dr. Larry Lacy, (retired) Chair of the Philosophy Department, Rhodes College
278 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 9, 2012
9 people are currently reading
52 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
December 27, 2012
Not stellar. There are better books on apologetics. I've copied my Amazon.com review (http://amzn.to/U3IeIE) below, and my full review is at http://bit.ly/W2pXJJ.
For the most part I agree with C. Murphy's review (True Reason? Not so fast...) but will explain below why I think the chapter on the Outsider Test for Faith was actually a failure, not a success.
A brief outline of the book:
Chapters 1-5: Lots of examples of atheistic claims (especially by Dawkins and Harris) and why they are unreasonable, arrogant, silly, etc. I guess this is a pop-the-balloon technique to help readers realize that Dawkins and Harris are not gods of reason, and that their claims must be subjected to careful analysis.
Chapter 6: Answering the Outsider Test for Faith. See below.
Chapter 7: Summary of the usual arguments against naturalism/materialism: cosmological argument; fine tuning; biological complexity and the origin of life; consciousness and reason; origin of values; logic ("Naturalism ... entails that there are no transcendent logical laws."); natural uniformity (science assumes uniform laws of nature, an unwarranted assumption unless the universe was put together by a rational mind; apparently Marshall doesn't consider the empirical nature of science but thinks it needs a philosophical basis of uniformity). Conclusion: "Naturalism is bankrupt as a worldview. . . . Hence, if science tells us anything, it tells us that Naturalism is a dead option."
Chapter 8: The impossibility of meaning and value in a purely natural universe. "Only a few atheists have understood that if there is no ultimate purpose behind existence, then ultimately none of the alleged purposes in existence have a basis." Really, so few understood that? Christianity provides a basis for morality and values with the image of God, the Fall, sacrifice.
Chapter 9: The Bible often appeals to evidence and reason, and tells believers to think, use their minds. "In Christianity, faith is an active, justified trust in God. It is neither `blind' nor irrational.... Rather, it simply follows upon sufficient evidence of trustworthiness." "The biblical pattern of coming to faith always begins with evidence." If naturalism is true, we can't trust our brains even to tell us so, since they have no built-in purpose as truth-seeking organs.
Chapter 10: Contradicting Richard Carrier's claim that early Christians accepted the Gospel on faith without rational inquiry, the NT gives seven ways which tied reason to faith in Jesus: "historical investigation, rational argument, critical accounts of Jesus' life, miraculous `signs' ..., prophecy, convincing depictions of Jesus' character, and the resurrection." "Trust in God is the ultimate act of rationality."
Chapter 11: There is no inherent conflict between religion and science. There are even some real scientists today who are Christians! Debunking the story of Galileo as paradigmatic for religion and science. Science only works because the universe is orderly. Atheists can't do real science unless they import the theistic assumptions of an orderly universe.
Chapter 12: I'm a bit unclear on the purpose of this chapter, but I think that it's designed to explain why God made the universe regular in the first place, rather than constantly intervening in it. Reasons include that without uniformity: we couldn't distinguish miracles from the ordinary; we couldn't learn from experience (broken law of consequences); science could not move forward; we could not be moral agents without the action-consequence connection.
Chapter 13: The oral tradition behind the Gospels may have been more constrained to consistency than previously thought; there may have been some written materials backing it up. John Mark is reasonable as the author of the 2nd Gospel, and Luke of the 3rd and Acts. The last part of Acts has been shown to be historically reliable, so it is reasonable that Luke wrote a factual Gospel as well. Nothing is said about non-canonical gospels or the 4th Gospel (John).
Chapter 14: God might have allowed suffering and evil in the universe because it builds our character (so we can be courageous and patient in the face of suffering, for example) and allows us to be true moral agents, with the free will to choose good or evil. [There is no real explanation of why it is so important to have creatures that can be patient or choose evil, we are just told that those are very valuable attributes.]
Chapter 15: Countering arguments that the Bible supports slavery (or turns a blind eye), we are given instances of how it was regulated in the Old Testament and how NT teachings undermined the very idea of slavery, ultimately (1800 years later) resulting in its abolition. Interesting examples of how the Church opposed slavery throughout history, and of how the Church saw slaves as persons rather than property.
Chapter 16: Nicely deals with the problem of the Canaanite genocide by saying that it was all a misunderstanding ... phrases like "killed every living thing" and "left no survivors" were just standard figures of speech in those days. All that really happened was that the Israelites conquered the Canaanites and drove them out of the land. No killing of women and children. Oh, and when Moses had thousands of Midianite women and children killed (well, the virgin women were kept for the Israelites) (Numbers 31)? That was on his own authority, not because God told him to do it.
My problem with David Marshall's chapter on the Outsider Test for Faith
In a nutshell, John Loftus' Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) says that when evaluating the validity of their religious views, believers should try to analyze its claims as would an outsider, impartially weighing the claims of any religion. For example, a Christian should apply the same rigor to the claims of Christianity as she does to those of Islam, a Protestant should be as critical of the evidence for his beliefs as he is for those of Mormonism, and so on.
I have summarized Marshall's response to the OTF more fully in my complete review ([...]), but to bring it down to the simplest terms:
* The OTF is "amusing, coming from an atheist from Indiana."
* Some people do rationally evaluate their inherited faith, and some do convert.
* Culturally-inherited knowledge is sometimes (usually??) valid. Just because my religion is a product of my culture does not mean I should doubt it.
* Christianity's popularity proves it to be valid (or at least a major contender). Other popular religions don't count because they're not popular for the right reasons.
* Religions are not all that different, anyway, and Christianity is the fulfillment of them all, so why stress about comparing them!
* Christianity is the fulfillment of "hundreds" of prophecies from the Old Testament about the salvation of the world coming through the descendants of Abraham.
* "The Gospel also fulfills specific archetypes and prophecies, beginning with the Jewish Scriptures, but even prophecies among Gentile writers who foresaw such a Savior."
What Marshall really seems to be claiming is that there are so many reasons to believe Christianity that we don't need to address the OTF on its own terms. I think the underlying message is summed up in this quote from the chapter: "Is not this vast movement of hearts and minds over centuries and continents, a more objective test of the Christian faith than the abstract mental exercise of an Indiana skeptic?"
Overall, I find this book depressing because it seems to just pick at the edges of atheism. It probably does achieve its stated goals of showing that atheists are not always reasonable, and Christians can be reasonable. For those new to the issues, or whose only exposure is to popular atheist arguments, the responses in this book will probably be helpful.
For the most part I agree with C. Murphy's review (True Reason? Not so fast...) but will explain below why I think the chapter on the Outsider Test for Faith was actually a failure, not a success.
A brief outline of the book:
Chapters 1-5: Lots of examples of atheistic claims (especially by Dawkins and Harris) and why they are unreasonable, arrogant, silly, etc. I guess this is a pop-the-balloon technique to help readers realize that Dawkins and Harris are not gods of reason, and that their claims must be subjected to careful analysis.
Chapter 6: Answering the Outsider Test for Faith. See below.
Chapter 7: Summary of the usual arguments against naturalism/materialism: cosmological argument; fine tuning; biological complexity and the origin of life; consciousness and reason; origin of values; logic ("Naturalism ... entails that there are no transcendent logical laws."); natural uniformity (science assumes uniform laws of nature, an unwarranted assumption unless the universe was put together by a rational mind; apparently Marshall doesn't consider the empirical nature of science but thinks it needs a philosophical basis of uniformity). Conclusion: "Naturalism is bankrupt as a worldview. . . . Hence, if science tells us anything, it tells us that Naturalism is a dead option."
Chapter 8: The impossibility of meaning and value in a purely natural universe. "Only a few atheists have understood that if there is no ultimate purpose behind existence, then ultimately none of the alleged purposes in existence have a basis." Really, so few understood that? Christianity provides a basis for morality and values with the image of God, the Fall, sacrifice.
Chapter 9: The Bible often appeals to evidence and reason, and tells believers to think, use their minds. "In Christianity, faith is an active, justified trust in God. It is neither `blind' nor irrational.... Rather, it simply follows upon sufficient evidence of trustworthiness." "The biblical pattern of coming to faith always begins with evidence." If naturalism is true, we can't trust our brains even to tell us so, since they have no built-in purpose as truth-seeking organs.
Chapter 10: Contradicting Richard Carrier's claim that early Christians accepted the Gospel on faith without rational inquiry, the NT gives seven ways which tied reason to faith in Jesus: "historical investigation, rational argument, critical accounts of Jesus' life, miraculous `signs' ..., prophecy, convincing depictions of Jesus' character, and the resurrection." "Trust in God is the ultimate act of rationality."
Chapter 11: There is no inherent conflict between religion and science. There are even some real scientists today who are Christians! Debunking the story of Galileo as paradigmatic for religion and science. Science only works because the universe is orderly. Atheists can't do real science unless they import the theistic assumptions of an orderly universe.
Chapter 12: I'm a bit unclear on the purpose of this chapter, but I think that it's designed to explain why God made the universe regular in the first place, rather than constantly intervening in it. Reasons include that without uniformity: we couldn't distinguish miracles from the ordinary; we couldn't learn from experience (broken law of consequences); science could not move forward; we could not be moral agents without the action-consequence connection.
Chapter 13: The oral tradition behind the Gospels may have been more constrained to consistency than previously thought; there may have been some written materials backing it up. John Mark is reasonable as the author of the 2nd Gospel, and Luke of the 3rd and Acts. The last part of Acts has been shown to be historically reliable, so it is reasonable that Luke wrote a factual Gospel as well. Nothing is said about non-canonical gospels or the 4th Gospel (John).
Chapter 14: God might have allowed suffering and evil in the universe because it builds our character (so we can be courageous and patient in the face of suffering, for example) and allows us to be true moral agents, with the free will to choose good or evil. [There is no real explanation of why it is so important to have creatures that can be patient or choose evil, we are just told that those are very valuable attributes.]
Chapter 15: Countering arguments that the Bible supports slavery (or turns a blind eye), we are given instances of how it was regulated in the Old Testament and how NT teachings undermined the very idea of slavery, ultimately (1800 years later) resulting in its abolition. Interesting examples of how the Church opposed slavery throughout history, and of how the Church saw slaves as persons rather than property.
Chapter 16: Nicely deals with the problem of the Canaanite genocide by saying that it was all a misunderstanding ... phrases like "killed every living thing" and "left no survivors" were just standard figures of speech in those days. All that really happened was that the Israelites conquered the Canaanites and drove them out of the land. No killing of women and children. Oh, and when Moses had thousands of Midianite women and children killed (well, the virgin women were kept for the Israelites) (Numbers 31)? That was on his own authority, not because God told him to do it.
My problem with David Marshall's chapter on the Outsider Test for Faith
In a nutshell, John Loftus' Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) says that when evaluating the validity of their religious views, believers should try to analyze its claims as would an outsider, impartially weighing the claims of any religion. For example, a Christian should apply the same rigor to the claims of Christianity as she does to those of Islam, a Protestant should be as critical of the evidence for his beliefs as he is for those of Mormonism, and so on.
I have summarized Marshall's response to the OTF more fully in my complete review ([...]), but to bring it down to the simplest terms:
* The OTF is "amusing, coming from an atheist from Indiana."
* Some people do rationally evaluate their inherited faith, and some do convert.
* Culturally-inherited knowledge is sometimes (usually??) valid. Just because my religion is a product of my culture does not mean I should doubt it.
* Christianity's popularity proves it to be valid (or at least a major contender). Other popular religions don't count because they're not popular for the right reasons.
* Religions are not all that different, anyway, and Christianity is the fulfillment of them all, so why stress about comparing them!
* Christianity is the fulfillment of "hundreds" of prophecies from the Old Testament about the salvation of the world coming through the descendants of Abraham.
* "The Gospel also fulfills specific archetypes and prophecies, beginning with the Jewish Scriptures, but even prophecies among Gentile writers who foresaw such a Savior."
What Marshall really seems to be claiming is that there are so many reasons to believe Christianity that we don't need to address the OTF on its own terms. I think the underlying message is summed up in this quote from the chapter: "Is not this vast movement of hearts and minds over centuries and continents, a more objective test of the Christian faith than the abstract mental exercise of an Indiana skeptic?"
Overall, I find this book depressing because it seems to just pick at the edges of atheism. It probably does achieve its stated goals of showing that atheists are not always reasonable, and Christians can be reasonable. For those new to the issues, or whose only exposure is to popular atheist arguments, the responses in this book will probably be helpful.
December 31, 2013
This books presents as a fair and respectful response to "New Atheism". It gets points for that, however that makes the content even scarier.
It is full of:
* 1 = 0 type proofs (defense of the ontological argument, a "logical" deduction that naturalism proves science is false),
* semantic quibbling (see sections on "free will")
* mis-characterizations of probability ("When faced with an improbable event or apparent miracle, there are three logical alternatives: 1) the event did not happen as reported, 2) the event happened and was caused by some natural but unknown precipitator, or (c) the event was caused by supernatural means. If one simply presupposes that (3) is not an alternative, then one-third of the potential explanations are eliminated a priori, without examination or discussion. A much more responsible approach is to take the evidence into account, and to judge miracle reports case by case, with all the options on the table.")
* ... and epistemologies ("Human testimony was the only way to establish the truth of historical claims. And whenever anyone tells you how weak it is, listen to her talk for ten more minutes, and she will contradict herself by appealing to human testimony in everything else she says that day: things she has learned in class, in books, on the Web, on the radio."),
* question begging ("And what is science but systematized learning from experience? God made the world friendly for science, not for the sake of science alone, but to accomplish the whole scope of His purposes for us.")
* holocaust-denial style mental gymnastics, which I found particularly horrifying (of the genocide in Joshua: "if the language of “striking all the people by the sword,” “leaving no survivors,” “totally destroying,” “striking all the inhabitants with the edge of the sword,” and so on is hyperbolic (as the evidence suggests it is), then the command cannot have been intended to be taken literally." ... so they just roughed them up a little!? In justifying the presence of evil in the world: "It is also important to keep in mind that the amount of suffering that can exist is limited to the maximum amount of suffering a single person can bear. ... The limits to human suffering are marked out by the capacity of an individual to experience pain, which have physiological and temporal boundaries. These limits to human suffering seem consistent with the kinds of morally sufficient reasons that God would have for not eliminating evil.").
* Extraordinary claims that I literally cannot understand how someone could make sincerely: “Indeed,” says D’Souza, “there is no other example in history of the Catholic Church condemning a scientific theory.” [in reference to galileo, in defense of church's relationship to science]
That is not to say there are no criticisms of new atheism in this book that at least inspire critical thought, ("If religious believers get no credit for their positive contributions to society (e.g., shaping modern science) because “everyone was religious,” then why should their mistakes, like atrocities committed in the name of God, discredit them? This is a double standard.") but they are drowned out by the above.
A conclusion I drew from this book is that we need to institute a taboo on the words "reason" and "faith" (atheistic or otherwise). These words simply do not mean the same things to different people, and a persistently used to mis-represent opposing views. The clearest example: The apologists in this book consider themselves more "reasonable" (a recurring claim) than the new atheists, since their arguments are presented and dressed up in a much more "logical" form. That is not a definition of reasonable that I (or new atheists) ascribe to.
It is full of:
* 1 = 0 type proofs (defense of the ontological argument, a "logical" deduction that naturalism proves science is false),
* semantic quibbling (see sections on "free will")
* mis-characterizations of probability ("When faced with an improbable event or apparent miracle, there are three logical alternatives: 1) the event did not happen as reported, 2) the event happened and was caused by some natural but unknown precipitator, or (c) the event was caused by supernatural means. If one simply presupposes that (3) is not an alternative, then one-third of the potential explanations are eliminated a priori, without examination or discussion. A much more responsible approach is to take the evidence into account, and to judge miracle reports case by case, with all the options on the table.")
* ... and epistemologies ("Human testimony was the only way to establish the truth of historical claims. And whenever anyone tells you how weak it is, listen to her talk for ten more minutes, and she will contradict herself by appealing to human testimony in everything else she says that day: things she has learned in class, in books, on the Web, on the radio."),
* question begging ("And what is science but systematized learning from experience? God made the world friendly for science, not for the sake of science alone, but to accomplish the whole scope of His purposes for us.")
* holocaust-denial style mental gymnastics, which I found particularly horrifying (of the genocide in Joshua: "if the language of “striking all the people by the sword,” “leaving no survivors,” “totally destroying,” “striking all the inhabitants with the edge of the sword,” and so on is hyperbolic (as the evidence suggests it is), then the command cannot have been intended to be taken literally." ... so they just roughed them up a little!? In justifying the presence of evil in the world: "It is also important to keep in mind that the amount of suffering that can exist is limited to the maximum amount of suffering a single person can bear. ... The limits to human suffering are marked out by the capacity of an individual to experience pain, which have physiological and temporal boundaries. These limits to human suffering seem consistent with the kinds of morally sufficient reasons that God would have for not eliminating evil.").
* Extraordinary claims that I literally cannot understand how someone could make sincerely: “Indeed,” says D’Souza, “there is no other example in history of the Catholic Church condemning a scientific theory.” [in reference to galileo, in defense of church's relationship to science]
That is not to say there are no criticisms of new atheism in this book that at least inspire critical thought, ("If religious believers get no credit for their positive contributions to society (e.g., shaping modern science) because “everyone was religious,” then why should their mistakes, like atrocities committed in the name of God, discredit them? This is a double standard.") but they are drowned out by the above.
A conclusion I drew from this book is that we need to institute a taboo on the words "reason" and "faith" (atheistic or otherwise). These words simply do not mean the same things to different people, and a persistently used to mis-represent opposing views. The clearest example: The apologists in this book consider themselves more "reasonable" (a recurring claim) than the new atheists, since their arguments are presented and dressed up in a much more "logical" form. That is not a definition of reasonable that I (or new atheists) ascribe to.
May 7, 2012
I was pretty disappointed in the weakness of the arguments made in this "book." I was expecting more of a challenge. The only chapter that gave me pause was the chapter on Sam Harris' debate with William Lane Craig. I have to agree with the author -- Harris didn't address the proposition made by Craig. But, to be honest, that does nothing to convince me that Craig is right. It just shows that Harris didn't go to the event with the intention of interacting with what Craig had to say. He just stuck with his own talking points. And let's be honest.... these debates and interactions between believers and non-believers are pointless anyway. Neither side actually HEARS what the other has to say. It has nothing to do with what one does or does not believe. It's just how humans ARE. People don't listen. They just sit quietly waiting for their chance to open their mouths again. As for Craig's assertion that if a god exists we can have a reasonable foundation for morals... I totally disagree. That is not an assumption that can just be wrapped into the claim. The existence of a creator explains nothing OF the creator. How are we to know if the creator is good? Worthy of being followed? Or if that creator even still exists? I am completely unconvinced that the existence of a god answers any of those questions.
But, back to the "book"... let's be honest. It's not really a book. It's a jumbled compilation of previously published articles cherry picked and put together under one title.
Anyway, aside from the criticism of the Harris/Craig debate, the other chapters disappointed me when they weren't outright making me laugh. The miracle of the fishes and loaves can be explained by the pile of fishes being multiplied the same way the sea multiplies them? Really? One can't say that God achieves his miracles through natural means and then use an example which is completely impossible in the natural world to support that claim. And what of the bread? It was multiples the same way ovens multiply it? Come on now. Just admit that your god intervenes to make things happen. It's much less silly, if still unbelievable.
There was also a problem with a typical apologetic tactic: use a tactic to defend one thing but then use it to discredit something else. We should believe in Jesus because the oral tradition and eye witness claims are credible. But don't believe Joshua when he said they exterminated the Canaanites.... because those ideas are based on oral tradition.
I also had to roll my eyes at the idea that Joshua saying he slaughtered the Canaanites is equivalent to a high school basketball player saying he slaughtered the other team. That argument basically comes down to what you should believe in the Bible and what you shouldn't... and once you open that can of worms everything is up for debate. But hey, I'm not going to complain about that. I can't wait for the day when Christians look at the claims against homosexuals in the Bible and see them as ludicrous as the other admonitions in Leviticus about shell fish and clothing fibers.
Overall: I keep looking into Christians' claims hoping there is something with some meat on the bones. And I always come back disappointed. Sorry Christians, this one was a swing and a miss.
But, back to the "book"... let's be honest. It's not really a book. It's a jumbled compilation of previously published articles cherry picked and put together under one title.
Anyway, aside from the criticism of the Harris/Craig debate, the other chapters disappointed me when they weren't outright making me laugh. The miracle of the fishes and loaves can be explained by the pile of fishes being multiplied the same way the sea multiplies them? Really? One can't say that God achieves his miracles through natural means and then use an example which is completely impossible in the natural world to support that claim. And what of the bread? It was multiples the same way ovens multiply it? Come on now. Just admit that your god intervenes to make things happen. It's much less silly, if still unbelievable.
There was also a problem with a typical apologetic tactic: use a tactic to defend one thing but then use it to discredit something else. We should believe in Jesus because the oral tradition and eye witness claims are credible. But don't believe Joshua when he said they exterminated the Canaanites.... because those ideas are based on oral tradition.
I also had to roll my eyes at the idea that Joshua saying he slaughtered the Canaanites is equivalent to a high school basketball player saying he slaughtered the other team. That argument basically comes down to what you should believe in the Bible and what you shouldn't... and once you open that can of worms everything is up for debate. But hey, I'm not going to complain about that. I can't wait for the day when Christians look at the claims against homosexuals in the Bible and see them as ludicrous as the other admonitions in Leviticus about shell fish and clothing fibers.
Overall: I keep looking into Christians' claims hoping there is something with some meat on the bones. And I always come back disappointed. Sorry Christians, this one was a swing and a miss.
February 24, 2014
This book is an excellent resource for apologists and laypeople alike who seek clarity on this issue. The New Atheist movement has gained a following by claiming to have a corner on the market on reason. Rather than being reasonable they employ emotionally charged arguments against God and people of faith that get headlines and create a caricature of Christianity that is warped and baseless. This critique shows how philosophically driven the New Atheists are and how poorly they reason as a group.
Anyone with serious questions about the Bible should take the time to read this book. The contributors not only demonstrate the reasonableness of the Christian faith but also address the tough questions everyone should be asking about Biblical Christianity such as: 1) the problem of pain, 2) the relationship of science to Christianity, 3) the morality of the Old Testament God with a special emphasis on slavery and the destruction of the Canaanites.
Christians can and should be proud of the intellectual legacy of their faith. The contributors of this book build a case for the reasonableness of faith in a fair and respectable way with sound logic and evidence.
If you are an unbeliever you may not agree with the conclusions of the authors but you should come away knowing that Christian thinkers apply rigorous standards of logic to their own belief system, have substance upon which to have faith, and engage in fair play when debating in the public square.
Anyone with serious questions about the Bible should take the time to read this book. The contributors not only demonstrate the reasonableness of the Christian faith but also address the tough questions everyone should be asking about Biblical Christianity such as: 1) the problem of pain, 2) the relationship of science to Christianity, 3) the morality of the Old Testament God with a special emphasis on slavery and the destruction of the Canaanites.
Christians can and should be proud of the intellectual legacy of their faith. The contributors of this book build a case for the reasonableness of faith in a fair and respectable way with sound logic and evidence.
If you are an unbeliever you may not agree with the conclusions of the authors but you should come away knowing that Christian thinkers apply rigorous standards of logic to their own belief system, have substance upon which to have faith, and engage in fair play when debating in the public square.
November 5, 2012
Some essays a bit dry, for those not used to academic writing, but very rich in content and scope in dealing with the not terribly deep arguments coming from the popular atheists.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews