Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are missing the target

by John C. Lennox

Atheism is on the march in the western world, and its enemy is God. Religion, the "New Atheists" claim, "is dangerous", it "kills" or "poisons everything". And if religion is the problem with the world, their answer is simple: get rid of it. But are things really so straightforward? Tackiling the likes of Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett head on, John Lennox highlights the fallacies in the their approach, arguing that their irrational and unscientific methodology leaves them guilty of the same obsinate foolishness of which they accuse dogmatic religious folks. Erudite and wide-ranging, Gunning for God packs some debillitating punches. It also puts forward new ideas about the nature of God and Christianity that will give the New Atheists' best friends and worst enemies alike some stimulating food for thought.

Genres: Christian, Religion, Theology, Philosophy, Christianity, Nonfiction, Atheism

256 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2011

About the author

John Carson Lennox is Professor of Mathematics in the University of Oxford, Fellow in Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science, and Pastoral Advisor at Green Templeton College, Oxford. He is also an Adjunct Lecturer at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University and at the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics and is a Senior Fellow of the Trinity Forum. In addition, he teaches for the Oxford Strategic Leadership Programme at the Executive Education Centre, Said Business School, Oxford University.

He studied at the Royal School Armagh, Northern Ireland and was Exhibitioner and Senior Scholar at Emmanuel College, Cambridge University from which he took his MA, MMath and PhD. He worked for many years in the Mathematics Institute at the University of Wales in Cardiff which awarded him a DSc for his research. He also holds an MA and DPhil from Oxford University and an MA in Bioethics from the University of Surrey. He was a Senior Alexander Von Humboldt Fellow at the Universities of Würzburg and Freiburg in Germany. He has lectured extensively in North America, Eastern and Western Europe and Australasia on mathematics, the philosophy of science and the intellectual defence of Christianity.

He has written a number of books on the interface between science, philosophy and theology. These include God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? (2009), God and Stephen Hawking, a response to The Grand Design (2011), Gunning for God, on the new atheism (2011), and Seven Days that Divide the World, on the early chapters of Genesis (2011). Furthermore, in addition to over seventy published mathematical papers, he is the co-author of two research level texts in algebra in the Oxford Mathematical Monographs series.

Reviews

[Paul Bryant · Rating 3 out of 5]

Here then is a book arguing against some ill-mannered people who are making needlessly offensive remarks about something I don’t believe in but think we should all be polite about. I don’t like the New Brash Atheists but I don’t like John Lennox’s book either (but I'll give it a solid three stars, he really does try hard).

This book is a refutation of a refutation. The “New Atheists” came out and refuted Christianity, so John C Lennox, Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University no less, is refuting their refutation.
Dawkins says “yah! You Christians suck!” and Lennox says “oh yeah? Well you suck worse and you never wash your socks!”

In fairness Lennox does acknowledge that Dawkins & his crew are not every atheist’s cup of tea, they sure ain’t mine:

Atheists are clearly divided about the aggressive approach of the New Atheists, and some find it positively embarrassing

WHAT IS FAITH?

If scientific research is thought to be still worth pursuing, scientists have to believe in the rational intelligibility of the universe as their fundamental article of faith or basic assumption. …. You cannot begin to do physics without believing in that intelligibility.

The concept of faith brings on one of my headaches – once again we are dragged into the semantic morass : is atheism a faith? Well, I’m still saying no. Prof Lennox says that I myself believe in loads of stuff I can’t prove – electricity, Goldilocks planets, black holes, Susan Boyle, subatomic particles. But I believe that people other than me can rigorously prove their existence. Not so with religious assertions. You have no proof, you only have revelation.
A religious friend of mine says well, look here, for a couple of thousand years almost everybody has believed in this stuff, and you say they were all wrong. Brainy people, too. Isn’t that a leetle bit arrogant? And I say well, yes, I think they were all wrong. It’s a bit feeble.

…AND JUSTICE FOR ALL

Prof Lennox tries to say that religion is not just wish-fulfilment. But here he is on the subject of justice:

At times I try to imagine what the glorious realm is like, and the question arises within me : if the veil which now separates the seen and the unseen world were to be parted for a moment, and we could see how God has treated, say, the myriads of innocent children who have suffered from horrendous evil… is it just possible that all our concerns about God’s handling of the situation would instantly dissolve?

I fear the answer, from me anyway, would be no. Lennox’s idea of justice is different to mine – or perhaps, it’s the concept of “justice” itself which is offensive to me. If a great crime is committed – Lennox’s example is Josef Mengele’s horrible experiments on children at Auschwitz – he says that there will be a Judgement Day. So Mengele and all his accomplices will be judged and punished, we earnestly believe. And that is justice. No one will ever get away with anything, even if it looks like they do from our earthly perspective.

But before my eyes there is still the great suffering which happened, and great suffering plus great punishment does not make it all good. The original grief, pain and misery cannot un-happen. The punishment of the offenders is a footnote and does not fix anything, ask the parents of any murdered child.

WHAT HAS AN ATHEIST GOT THAT ANYONE WOULD WANT TO BUY?

Nothing. Lennox gets this right, and atheists have to cough up. We offer no hope, no firm foundation of morality (although Lennox comes very close to saying in the crudest possible way that if you ditch religion there will be moral chaos – what, we don’t have moral chaos now? Of course we do.)

Why anyone would want to abandon their faith and become an atheist is beyond me. I would never recommend that. It’s not a very cheery thing to be. Have you ever seen an Ingmar Bergman film? It's like that.

WE SEE THINGS DIFFERENTLY

The more I read Christian writers the more I have to rather sadly conclude that there is no talking to them, and, from their point of view, there is no talking to me. We have entirely different concepts of what evidence is, for instance, or what makes life meaningful – we are forever talking past each other. The visions which Christians find beautiful atheists consider horrific, such as Christ’s death on the cross and the concept of atonement, and such as the idea of heaven and hell.

A GOD I COULD BELIEVE IN

No one examines what God is much, in the Christian books I have read. The authors assume we all think the same thing about God, that he is omnipotent, eternal, creator of the universe and creator of himself. Oh and also, that he is completely interested in and involved with humanity. But I think differently. I think it’s very likely there was something we may as well call God for want of a better term – it’s what the astrophysicists try to explain about the big bang and the creation of the laws of physics and gravitational singularities and what-all. It happened, it was real, us non-astrophysicists will never understand it. It’s all way above our pay grade. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. That still sounds good to me.
But why we need to assume that God continued to exist after the Big Bang is something I never quite got – God was a one time thing, a fleeting micro-moment. He only stuck around to create the universe, once that was done, and it didn’t take long, he was gone like snow on the water. Job done.

OR MAYBE

Or, okay, let’s go with the idea that God didn’t go away. I can imagine him getting lonely, like the Christian writers propose (they actually do say that), and wanting to create some creatures with free will to see what would happen. I imagine him not getting it right first time, having not done it before, so there would be various attempts at making a planet which could evolve human beings (God created evolution, I never saw any contradiction there). So, just like Windows, I think there would be several versions of the Humanity Experiment before he got it right. In this scenario I think the human race we have here on this planet is clearly an early version (2.1 maybe) - there’s so much wrong with it, you don’t need me to make a list. I imagine God occasionally remembering Planet Earth with a shudder. He thinks he should probably have deleted us a long time ago. Maybe he’ll get round to it soon, just after he fixes the bugs in Humanity 12.

[Joseph Sverker · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of the best, of probably actually the best, apologetic book dealing with the New Atheism that I have read. Lennox writes with huge authenticity and authority, yet remaining a very humble tone throughout (even though he cannot resist the temptation of hitting some jibes against Dawkins' and Hitchen's (unbelievable) ignorance about mainstream Christianity and biblical scholarship.) I know that people in the atheism camp probably will not read it and if they do they will say that it is simply the same answers as Christians always give and as such it can be brushed under the carpet. But if it is the same answers it is themselves that are to blame because the atheists hasn't really brought anything new since Lucretius, except for perhaps Darwin and how his theory of evolution has been used. The ending is an absolutely excellent summary of the main Christian beliefs and if someone wants to read a very short introduction to contemporary evangelical view of the historicity and importance of the Gospels and resurrection then is is a great place to start.
One argument that I would like to hear a response to is Lennox's response to Hakwins theory that the theory of gravity explains everything, even the creation of the universe. Lennox states that the theory is one thing, but the creation of matter is a completely different one. It is so simple yet profound, and I suppose this question was the reason why Aristotle argued that matter was eternal (which many scientist seemed to have believed up until the mid 20th century), because where does the stuff come from? Can a theory create matter - no it can't according to Lennox and I am ready to agree with him. Anyway, I'm sure that there will be responses and that there will be much walking around in circles in the Atheism-Theism debate, but to my mind this is a very credible inclusion to the debate!

[Chris Naylor · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is a bad book. It contains several bad arguments for the existence of God, and a treatment of the evidence for the Resurrection which is naïve and unanalytical.

Chapter 1
One of Lennox's aims is to convince us that religion is as intellectually respectable as science. Here is one of his arguments:

'... it is often claimed that scientists who believe in a Creator are being unscientific, because their model of the universe is incapable of generating testable predictions.... However... The discovery of the galactic red-shift and the cosmic echo of creation, the microwave background, confirmed the obvious prediction that the biblical account implied - there was a beginning to space-time.' [p.30]

Lennox conveniently forgets that the biblical account also says that the earth was created in seven days, and that birds preceded land animals, both of which are wrong. Two wrong and one right: evidently the bible is not, after all, very good at scientific prediction.

Next we get into the 'fine-tuning' argument. Essentially this runs as follows:

1) If the values of the fundamental constants were even slightly different, life could not exist.
2) It is highly improbable that these precise values could have arisen by chance.
3) Therefore it is probable that these values were purposely fixed by a designer.

This is a classic ‘God of the gaps’ argument. There may be a natural process that has resulted in the values of the constants being what they are, but instead of giving science time to find this out, theists leap in and claim that the values were set by God.

There are two other things wrong with the argument: first, it is plainly not valid, because the conclusion does not follow from the premises (where did the idea of the designer come from?); and second, we have no way of knowing whether premise 2) is true. We don't know the range of possible values of these constants, so we can't say whether the values they actually have are probable or improbable. If it is suggested that the range of possible values is the whole range of natural numbers, then since there are an infinite number of these, the probability of the values being what they actually are becomes 1 over infinity, which is zero, i.e. it is impossible that our universe could exist! The fine-tuning argument is hopeless, and must be rejected as unsound. (It has in fact been refuted: see http://www.colyvan.com/papers/finetun...)

While he is trying to persuade us that the fine-tuning argument works, Lennox commits two further errors. The first is when he approvingly quotes John Polkinghorne on the subject of multiple universes:

'A possible explanation of equal intellectual respectability - and to my mind greater economy and elegance - would be that this one world is the way it is, because it is the creation of the will of a Creator who purposes that it should be so.' [p.36]

Well, to begin with, you can’t explain the existence of the universe simply by saying who created it; that isn’t explanatory at all, any more than a murder is explained simply by naming the person who did it. Any explanation of the existence of something must explain how the thing comes to exist. And since no-one has ever been able to explain just how God is supposed to have created the universe (saying it was an act of divine will explains nothing; you might as well say God created the universe by waving a magic wand) the God hypothesis has no explanatory value whatsoever. And any mind that could create a universe must be at least as complex as the human mind, and complexity is the very opposite of economy, so it is nonsense to claim that the God hypothesis has ‘greater economy’ than the multiverse hypothesis.

Lennox then tries to prove that science involves faith in the same way as religion:

'Dawkins' statement, quoted earlier, that "atheists have no faith", seems doubly silly since, in common with all other scientists, he could not engage in science without believing in (having faith in) the rational intelligibility of the universe.... scientists have always had to assume, before they started their investigations, that the universe does have an inherent order and intelligibility.' [p.47]

Lennox is wrong about this. All that is required for something to be rationally intelligible is that it should obey the laws of logic. Everything in every possible universe must obey the laws of logic, or it simply could not exist. It is thus a necessary condition of the existence of any universe that it should be rationally intelligible, and since this must be so, there is no need for scientists to have faith that it is so.

Towards the end of the first chapter, Lennox brings up another tired old argument - that if our brains are merely the result of evolution by natural selection, we have no reason to believe that they are telling us the truth:

'Atheists hold that the driving force of evolution, which eventually produced our human cognitive faculties - reason included - was not primarily concerned with truth at all, but with survival ... if the thoughts in my mind are just the motion of atoms in my brain - a mechanism that has arisen by mindless unguided processes, why should I believe anything it tells me?' [pp. 53-4]

Lennox is making a beginner’s mistake about evolution. He describes the human brain as ‘a mechanism that has arisen by mindless unguided processes.’ But evolution is not an unguided process: it is guided by natural selection in response to environmental pressures. Suppose two early hominids see a lion go behind a rock. The first deduces, incorrectly, that the lion has ceased to exist. The second deduces, correctly, that the lion is still there, and may at some point emerge from behind the rock. Clearly the second hominid is more likely to survive to pass on its able-to-reason-correctly gene than the first is to pass on its unable-to-reason-correctly gene. And so able-to-reason-correctly genes, other things being equal, will tend to spread through a population.

Lennox thinks our ability to reason comes from God:

'... if we eliminate God, there is no rational basis for science. Indeed, there is no rational basis for truth.' [p. 55]

This is much less plausible. The evolutionary story brings along with it good evidence that it is correct (it explains our survival and success as a species). The God story brings no such evidence, and in fact pulls the rug from under our feet, leaving us with no rational grounds for believing in it at all: for if our reason comes from God, how are we to refute the suggestion that God is malicious, and has given us a faculty of reason that is untrustworthy? All the theist can do then is appeal to the goodness of God; but what if God is bad, and merely deceives us into thinking that he is good? What can the theist do to refute this suggestion? All he can do is reiterate his same faith that God is good: this is all he has.

Chapters 2 and 3

In these chapters, Lennox attempts to rebut the criticism that religion (specifically, Christianity) has bad effects, claiming that the effects of atheism are far worse. I don't feel inclined to challenge any of this, because it is all irrelevant to the main question, which is: is either theism or atheism true?

Chapter 4
The title of chapter 4 is 'Can we be good without God?' Lennox says:

'Traditionally... God has been the transcendent ultimate guarantor and source of morality. If there is no God, then we are left with raw nature and society, or a mixture of both to source morality.' [pp. 98-9, my italics]

Lennox evidently believes that God creates moral right and wrong, and that if he had not done this, nothing would be morally right and nothing would be morally wrong. I wonder if Lennox, and others who share this view, have realised its implications. If God creates moral right and wrong, then he could have created this universe so that instead of murder and theft and torture being morally wrong and looking after the sick and needy morally right, it was the other way round - murder and theft and torture were morally right, and looking after someone who is ill or in need was morally wrong.

I submit that this is not plausible. How could it ever be the case, in any universe, that torturing people - deliberately causing them severe pain for no better reason than that one derived pleasure from doing so - is morally right? I submit that it is much more believable that torture is wrong, not because God makes it wrong or decrees that it is wrong, but simply because of what pain is like. Anyone who has suffered pain knows that pain is bad, and the more severe the pain, the worse it is. And since making someone experience something bad is, other things being equal, a bad thing to do, because the badness of the experience naturally transfers to the action that causes it, we don’t need God to tell us that causing other people pain is, other things being equal, a bad thing to do.

Perhaps part of the reason Lennox gets this wrong is because he fails to distinguish between science and nature. Immediately after the sentence I quoted above, he goes on:

'First of all, there is widespread acknowledgment on all sides that it is very difficult to get a base for morality in nature.... According to Einstein... science cannot form a base for morality.' [p.99]

But science and nature are not the same thing: science is the study of nature, not nature itself. It may be the case that one cannot derive morality from science, but that doesn't show that one can't derive it from nature. Lennox's discussion in this chapter fails to recognise this important distinction, and this is a serious flaw in his argument.

Chapter 5

In this chapter, Lennox asks whether the God of the bible is a despot. Since Lennox has not yet given us any good reason to suppose that the God of the bible is not fictitious, I shall ignore this chapter.

Chapter 6

In the next chapter, Lennox attempts to defend the doctrine of the Atonement. Much of the chapter is concerned with justifying the view that the Atonement was necessary because human beings are sinful and can’t, by their own efforts, stop being sinful, so Jesus’ death is needed to remove our moral imperfections.

How could someone’s death, even if that someone is God, change the moral character of billions of human beings? Lennox recognises that this is a difficulty, and tries to address it:

“Does anyone fully understand this? No – and that should not surprise us. If the cleverest of scientists do not fully understand things like energy, light and gravity, how could anyone ever hope to fathom this most profound of all events in the history of the universe – the crucifixion of God incarnate?” (p. 160)

Lennox is drawing a false analogy here, in two ways. Firstly, while scientists may not fully understand energy, light and gravity, they do have at least a partial understanding of how these things work. By contrast, no-one has the slightest idea of how the Atonement could possibly work. Secondly, we are forced to accept that there are such things as energy, light and gravity, because scientific instruments have consistently shown that there are. But no-one is required to accept that there was ever such a thing as the Atonement, because there is no evidence for its ever having occurred.

Chapter 7

In chapter 7, Lennox turns his attention to miracles. Lennox says:

“If there is a God who created the universe, then surely there is no difficulty in believing that he could do special things.” [p. 166]

But Lennox has given us no reason to think that there is a God. Suppose you saw Jesus walking across the Sea of Galilee. Would it be scientific to hail this as a miracle? No, it wouldn’t. The scientific thing would be to try to work out how he was managing to do it. Appealing to miracles is not even trying to find the explanation for something. It’s just giving up.

Chapter 8

Lennox then turns his attention to the resurrection of Jesus. He shows us that the author of Luke’s gospel was accurate on local geography and politics, and infers from this that the New Testament accounts of the resurrection are reliable. This inference is unsound. The consensus among New Testament scholars is that Luke was not an eyewitness, and copied much of his material from Mark. When we compare Luke’s story of the empty tomb with Mark’s, we find that while in Mark there is a young man dressed in white sitting in the tomb, in Luke this has become two men in dazzling apparel. Far from being a reliable witness, Luke isn’t even a reliable transmitter of information from his sources! This is par for the course: Matthew, who also wrote with Mark’s gospel in front of him, not only turns the young man into an angel, but has him rolling back the stone (which in Mark has already been rolled back), and then for good measure adds an earthquake! To regard accounts like these as reliable is ridiculous. It’s noticeable also that the later writers – Matthew, Luke and John – add extra resurrection stories to Mark, and their stories are all different! What we have here is clearly not the reliable transmission of eyewitness accounts, but the continuous addition of probably spurious narratives with increasingly supernatural elements.

Lennox makes much of the stories of Joseph of Arimathea and the empty tomb, claiming that if these stories were false, people at the time would have pointed this out. But the earliest record we have of these stories is at least 33 years after the event, and who then would have recalled whether the 71 members of the Sanhedrin 33 years before had included a man called Joseph of Arimathea, or whether a particular privately-owned tomb had really existed – especially if, as is likely, the gospels were not composed in the Holy Land, but elsewhere?

One of the earliest resurrection accounts is in the Acts of the Apostles, where St Paul describes Jesus ‘appearing’ to him on the Damascus road. This ‘appearance’ seems to consist merely of a voice which only he heard. He uses the same Greek word, ophthe, for the appearances to others such as Peter, so we may be dealing here with nothing more than people’s subjective belief that they had some kind of supernatural experience. Lennox says that Jesus’ followers were not expecting a resurrection; but they would surely have read the Old Testament to try and make sense of Jesus’ death, and they would have found passages like this:

“And many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. “ (Daniel 12 verse 2)

Perhaps we need look no further than this for the source of the belief in Jesus’ resurrection. But this never occurs to Lennox, who throughout this book fails to critically examine his own arguments. The result is a book that deserves only 1 star.

[David Haines · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book would be considered a work of general apologetics. The Author responds to a number of accusations that are brought against Christianity by the New Atheists. In the course of responding to them we are brought through a number of different domains of research, including psychology, physics, biology, history, archeology, higher criticism, philosophy and theology. The author interacts with each of the domains with ease, and renders them understandable for the lay-man. I have not read a book that is purely apologetic in years, but I must say that this book is a pleasure to read. I think that it is relatively just to say that John Lennox is the C.S. Lewis of this generation. With an amazing eloquence, and respect he points out the logical errors and incoherencies in the feeble war-cries of the New Atheists. This book is a must read for anyone who is interested in Christian apologetics, whether or not one is a christian or an atheist.

[Kris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great specifics organized in a reader-friendly style. I kept picking this one up and putting it down, and every time it always held great ideas for me. I don't agree with Lennox on some details, but for most of this book I was right there with him. And I always love his dry humor!

[Adrian Hart · Rating 1 out of 5]

Although some of the author's critiques of the New Atheist movement are spot-on (i.e. mere disbelief in God does not automatically make you Bright), the final chapters border on the inane as he tries to "prove" such things as miracles and the divinity of Christ. You get the sense that he's preaching to the converted in the second half of the book. I didn't believe in Christianity before I read this book, and I still don't believe in it now

[Rodney Harvill · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this apologetic work, Dr. Lennox takes aim at the rhetoric of militant atheists such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins and skillfully demonstrates that, while they may be quick on the draw, they are not the crack shots they think they are. In his apologetic, Dr. Lennox plays both defense and offense with the following questions, each one addressed in a separate chapter:

1. Are god and faith enemies of reason and science?
2. Is religion poisonous?
3. Is atheism poisonous?
4. Can we be good without God?
5. Is the God of the Bible a despot?
6. Is the atonement morally repellent?
7. Are miracles pure fantasy?
8. Did Jesus rise from the dead?

Regarding the first question (Are god and faith enemies of reason and science?), Dr. Lennox confronts and debunks various popular perceptions of faith that imply that it is belief without or in opposition to evidence. There is also a section in which he articulates some of the arguments he develops in much greater detail in his book God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design Is It Anyway? My review of that work can be accessed via this link.

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Regarding the second question (Is religion poisonous?), Dr. Lennox addresses allegations that Christianity is a source of evil in the world. Often atheists cite evils perpetrated by Christians, such as the Crusades and Inquisition, and convict all of Christianity of these “evils,” implying that without Christianity, these “evils” would not have happened. Dr. Lennox’s response to this is to agree with the atheists’ criticism of these “evils” and then point out the good that Christianity has accomplished in the world. Likewise, without Christianity, these “goods” would not have happened, either. While I agree with the second part of this approach, I am uncomfortable with Dr. Lennox’s seemingly uncritical acceptance of the atheists’ generalizations of these historical events. For example, the First Crusade was prompted by wildly successful expansion of Muslim-controlled territory by the Seljuk Turks. All of Anatolia, much of it still Christian, was under their control, and they were poised to cross Bosporus into Europe and attack Constantinople. Pope Urban II called for the First Crusade on the basis of Christian charity. Christians were under threat of Muslim domination, and Christians from Western Europe travelled to Constantinople to work with the Byzantine army to drive back the Turks, liberating Christians and taking the pressure of Constantinople. How different is this from crossing the English Channel into Normandy on D-Day? There are reasons why that offensive was called a crusade. I will grant that the crusaders perpetrated some evils in the name of Christ, but the atheists have overgeneralized these evils to the entirety of the Crusades just as they have overgeneralized them to the entirety of Christianity. I am disappointed that Dr. Lennox, as brilliant as he is, missed the opportunity to expose another example of atheist overgeneralization. I am also concerned that he may have inadvertently acquiesced to the mantra of modern secularism that religious views must not be the basis for actions in the public sphere.

Regarding the third question (Is atheism poisonous?), Dr. Lennox goes on the offensive, holding the atheists to their own standard. If Christianity is guilty because of evils perpetrated by Christians, then is atheism not equally guilty on account of evils perpetrated by atheists? Here Dr. Lennox brings up the atrocities of Hitler’s NSDAP and communist regimes that killed tens of millions of people. He could have gone further back, such as the anti-clericalism of the French Revolution, in which thousands of clergy were executed, but he already made his point, quite well.

Regarding the fourth question (Can we be good without God?), Dr. Lennox argues that without timeless moral and ethical standards from God, we are left with human conventions that are anchored to nothing but human preferences. This chapter is a good follow-up for the previous one, linking the atrocities of atheistic regimes to their human conventions. For the record, the argument that without God, there is no basis for morals or ethics, does not mean that atheists and agnostics cannot be moral or ethical; rather, it points out that their morals and ethics are borrowing their basis from theism.

Regarding the fifth question (Is the God of the Bible a despot?), Dr. Lennox faces atheist challenges to the morality of the Israelite conquest of Canaan, in which God commanded them to annihilate the Canaanites. This has been an issue with which modern Christians have been uncomfortable ever since the genocide of Jews in Europe by Hitler’s NSDAP, and I appreciate that Dr. Lennox didn’t shy away from it. Then again, the atheists he opposes probably wouldn’t let him get away with it if he tried. In this chapter, he points out that the conquest of Canaan wasn’t an ethnic cleansing. Other passages in the Torah provide for just treatment of foreigners as well as war prisoners. What was different about the Canaanites was a judgment of God for their sins. Furthermore, this judgment wasn’t a temper tantrum, either. God gave them at least four centuries from the time of Abraham to repent, and they never did. God’s command to annihilate the Canaanites puts on display both is judgment and his mercy. He executed judgment only after a prolonged opportunity for repentance had been spurned.

The sixth question (Is the atonement morally repellent?) challenges the morality of substitutionary atonement. In this chapter, Dr. Lennox must necessarily build his case starting with the doctrine of sin; for without original sin and without the consequences of sin there would be no need for substitutionary atonement. If there are no consequences for sin, morality dies and is replaced by license. What judge does not understand this? For that matter, what loving God would allow His creation to descend into licentious chaos? No, sin must necessarily have consequences. I have been well aware that many find the doctrine of sin offensive because it asserts that they are not as good as they think they are. In this chapter, Dr. Lennox answers a powerful objection to the concept of divine forgiveness of sins of which I was unaware. Specifically, if I sin against another human, what right does God have to absolve me of my responsibilities to my fellow man incurred on account of my sin. In other words, is it right for person A to forgive person B for what he has done to person C? It is a worthy question that should not be dismissed out of hand, and Dr. Lennox confronts it head on, pointing out that all sin, even those against our fellow man, are ultimately against God.

Since most modern objections to the idea of miracles are built on the foundation of David Hume’s argument against miracles, Dr. Lennox’s response to the seventh question (Are miracles pure fantasy?) focuses on Hume and his argument. This is a topic worthy of an entire book. For example, David Beckwith critiqued Hume in his book David Hume's Argument Against Miracles: A Critical Analysis. My review of that work can be accessed via this link.

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Although Dr. Lennox addresses the topic of miracles in a single chapter, his arguments are quite cogent.

In answering the eighth and final question (Did Jesus rise from the dead?), Dr. Lennox takes a two-pronged approach, answering two sub-questions:

1. Have the accounts of the resurrection available to us been accurately transmitted to us?
2. Were the original accounts of the resurrection accurate?

Until the invention of the printing press, all manuscripts of the New Testament, whether whole or in part, had to be copied by hand, a process that necessarily introduces transcription errors. People are well justified in asking how confident we are that the New Testament we have is an accurate representation of the original autographs. Dr. Lennox approaches this question by appealing to the manuscript evidence for the New Testament in comparison to the scanty manuscript evidence for other ancient works before moving on into a brief discussion of the science of textual criticism. This is an entire field of study, and entire books have been written about it. Hence, Dr. Lennox cannot do justice to it in a mere few pages but what he does write serves to make his point about the accuracy of the New Testament we have.

Regarding the accuracy of the resurrection accounts in the New Testament, Dr. Lennox surveys the evidence for the death of Jesus (no death, no resurrection) as described in the New Testament and for the empty tomb. Because all the eyewitnesses are long dead and all we have is their testimony, he evaluates the validity of their testimony just as attorneys would do in a courtroom.

For its relatively small size, this book covers a lot of ground. A brilliant and rational thinker, Dr. Lennox makes his points incisively and effectively. Furthermore, unlike the atheists he opposes, he treats with respect those with whom he disagrees. This is an example we need to follow.

[Martin · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's been almost 10 years from the publication of this book and the so called New Atheists are nowhere to be found. This speaks for itself. Yet, this book has still so much to offer. Well researched, with a good Notes section, the most persuasive thing about it is author using other sceptics' and atheists' arguments to dismantle the New Atheism. Brilliant!

[Peter · Rating 1 out of 5]

Surprised by Ridicule

Apologetic double speak , nonsense on stilts Etc
Some useful criticism of excesses of some " new atheists " , dated and narrowly focused on either straw manning or some good criticism of some actual OTT positions held by some atheists . Biased in the extreme , labels atheists as caricaturing the bible by saying it talks of a God that sees everything when, ahem, it actually does . Lennox moves effortlessly between literal and metaphorical views as it suits him. Cheekily criticises atheists for saying " probably no god" yet is quite happy to state that various god "events " are unquestionably real. Read it critically, some good insights but alas embedded in layers of superstitious drivel that it's probably not worth try buying . In terms of his previous books, it's very similar in style and tone. A few new opinions but little to add from his " god's undertaker" etc

[Massimo Tursi]

I find the continuity of Lennox approach one of the best aspects of this book. With the same scientific rigour adopted to show the fallacy of the New Atheists logic in proving the non-existence of God he looks at the proves of God’s existence. The same method used to show the limitations of biology, chemistry and some a priori principles in proving the origin of life apart from a great designer is used to show how the testimonies within and outside the New Testament demonstrate the reality of the resurrection of Jesus.
This is a good work, an apologetic one, but there is no attempt to twist and submit the truth to his final goal, that is show how much the message of the gospel makes sense. He shows the way, the readers can follow it and find out for themselves.

[Bram · Rating 5 out of 5]

Honest, coherent, logically convincing. If you are impressed by Hawkings, Hitchens et all, and you do't want to change opinions, stay away from this book. His explanation on the resurrection and theories around that are very convincing reading. Disarming the New Atheists as intellectually sloppy on their own terms; quite a feat!

[Luis Trauwitz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Disparando contra Dios de John C. Lennox.
"Por qué los nuevos ateos no dan en el blanco"

Admiro la inteligencia con la que escribe John Lennox, más que un libro yo diría que se trata de una investigación muy profunda sobre el nuevo ateísmo en la cual muchas de las preguntas que el nuevo ateísmo propone, tienen respuesta a través de la cosmovisión cristiana, un libro rico en referencias e investigaciones que vale la pena estudiar a fondo si quieres profundizar más en el mundo de la apologetica.

"El ateísmo no tiene respuesta ante la muerte, ni esperanza final que ofrecer. Es una cosmovisión vacía y estéril, que nos deja en un universo cerrado que un día incinerará toda huella de nuestra existencia. Es una filosofía inútil y carente de esperanza. Su historia termina en la tumba. Pero la resurrección de Jesús abre la puerta a una historia de mayor dimensión. Cada uno de nosotros deberá decidir si es o no la verdadera historia". John Lennox.

[Alexx Martinez · Rating 3 out of 5]

Quiero seguir entendiendo... la fe ciega definitivamente es mala.

El libro contesta a mi parecer las preguntas más comunes de los agnósticos y ateos de una forma científica, filosófica y religiosa.

Llena de referencias de libros de distintos autores.

Lo tengo en pendiente para volverlo a leer después de haber leído más sobre el tema.

[Robert Phelps · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book that addresses the larger contradictions in atheist thought. Definitely a helpful and clarifying read!

[Steve · Rating 3 out of 5]

There is much to like about this book. But there are also some significant problems which means it doesn't really pack the 'debilitating punches' that the description on the book suggests. Firstly, I love a fiery debate. And, while GUNNING FOR GOD does not contain contributions by the so-called "New Atheists", John Lennox has been involved in debates with a number of them. And Lennox's rhetoric in the book is fiery and witty. I enjoyed that aspect of the book. Secondly, many of the points the author makes about the arguments of some of the atheists he is responding to are good. Polemicists like Richard Dawkins and (the late) Christopher Hitchens often offer arguments that are not evidence-based and, particularly in Dawkins' case, appear ignorant of some of the nuances, range and complexity of some Christian beliefs.

There are areas, however, where the book is inadequate. One of these is in the chapter entitled "Can we be good without God?". The answer is obviously "yes". Millions of people live ethical lives without believing in the Christian god (which is what Lennox is debating). The problem with Lennox's approach is that he argues over whether it is possible to have ABSOLUTE moral standards without God. The focus on absolute morality is really a straw man argument because no atheist I know of wants to argue for absolute morality. Most atheist arguments around morality promote the idea of a more pragmatic approach to morality, suggesting that ethical guidelines are required for humanity to live together in ways that promote their well being. So, in some ways, Lennox's focus on absolute moral standards misses the point.

The last third or so of the book becomes an apologetic for miracles and Christ's resurrection. The best part of this section is Lennox's critique of Hume's arguments against miracles. Very insightful and worthy of consideration. The chapter on the reliability of the New Testament text, the historical reliability of the New Testament Gospels, and the evidence for the resurrection of Christ are pretty much traditional arguments offered by most Christian apologetics and not entirely convincing.

So GUNNING FOR GOD is uneven in its quality from my perspective. It's worth reading for those interested in the contemporary debates going on between high-profile atheists and high-profile Christian apologetics. But the average reader who is unaware of, or doesn't much care for this debate, probably won't find it of much value.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE OXFORD PHILOSOPHER EXPANDS ON HIS ANSWERS IN DEBATES WITH ATHEISTS

Author John C. Lennox wrote in the Introduction to this 2011 book [after noting that he had debated Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Victor Stenger], “That brings me to my motivation for this book. In each of my debates and discussions I have tried to present … a credible, rational alternative to the fare which the New Atheists offer, rather than simply attempting to use rhetoric or emotional appeal to ‘win’ the argument on the day… However, these public events do not… permit full development of arguments. I thought it worthwhile, therefore, to draw from such experience and give in book form a more thorough presentation of the central issues… The debate has necessarily given prominence to atheist arguments and reactions to them, which means that the positive presentation of the alternative tends to come short…. I propose in this book not only to deal reactively with atheist objections to Christianity, but also positively to present detailed evidence for the truth of Christianity.” (Pg. 14-15)

He says of Stephen Hawking’s book ‘The Grand Design,’ “Hawking’s inadequate view of God could well be linked with his attitude to philosophy in general. He writes: ‘Philosophy is dead.’ But this itself is a philosophical statement. It is manifestly not a statement of science… Because Hawking has an inadequate concept both of God and of philosophy, he blunders into a further series of errors by asking us to choose between God and the laws of physics. Here he confuses two very different things: physical law and personal agency. The choice he asks us to make is between false alternatives… The point here is that the laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but not how it came to exist in the first place… Not only did scientists not put the universe there; neither did science of the laws of mathematical physics. Yet Hawking seems to think they did.” (Pg. 31-33)

He asserts, “it is not faith in God that is the delusion. It is the New Atheist concept of faith that is a delusion in the precise sense they assign to that term: a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. Against all the evidence … they irrationally reduce all faith to blind faith, and then subject it to ridicule.” (Pg. 56)

He points out, “if a person is nothing but his/her genes, and these genes control his/her moral behavior, how could s/he ever be blamed for doing wrong, or praised to doing right?... what sense would that make if the concept of morality is a genetically induced illusion? One cannot resist the temptation to think that it is a very strange kind of ETHICS that is founded on such an UNETHICAL trick as deception by an illusion to get our cooperation! And why stop there: what reason is there then to think that this theory is not itself genetically generated illusion?” (Pg. 108) Later, he adds, “how can we rebel, if we are nothing but our genes? If there is no non-material, non-genetic, element or force within us, what is there in us that could possibly have the capacity to rebel against our genes and behave morally?... And where would we every get any objective moral principles to guide us in that rebellion?” (Pg. 111)

Of the invasion/destruction of Canaan by Israel, he comments, “according to Deuteronomy, the action taken against the Canaanites was morally justifiable… Firstly, the action contemplated is exceptional in terms of the biblical record as a whole… Secondly, the invasion of Canaan is regarded as a judgment of God on the evils of these nations…. Thirdly, God has been patient with the tribes engaged in these evil practices for several centuries… Fourthly, the invasion was not to be based on any assumed feeling of national moral superiority… Fifthly, the nation of Israel was not to regard itself as God’s favorites who could do no wrong… It follows that it is simplistic and inaccurate to regard the invasion of Canaan as ethnic cleansing by a war-thirsty antagonist.” (Pg. 127-128)

He suggests, “Surely a God who is all-powerful could have prevented all this horrendous evil and suffering, simply by creating human beings incapable of doing evil? Well, he could surely have made BEINGS like that. But they would not have been HUMAN beings, would they?... God could have removed the potential for hatred and evil at a stroke by creating us as automata, mere machines doing only that which we were programmed to do. But that would have been to remove all that we ourselves value as constituting our essential humanity.” (Pg. 140)

He asserts, “the biblical diagnosis is that the human race is flawed by evil… The ‘original’ sin that infected the human race from its very start was a revolt of the human spirit against the God who created it; a revolt that changed the attitude of the creature to his Creator, to other humans and to the creation around him; a revolt has given us the New Atheists… The biblical diagnosis is that we have inherited a nature that is sinful, and then have proceeded to sin on our own account. We are on all sides influenced and pressurized by the prevailing ethos of a fallen world.” (Pg. 150-152)

Of Hume’s argument against miracles, he states, “Suppose Hume is right, and no dead man has ever risen up from the grave through the whole of earth’s history so far; by his own argument he still cannot be sure that a dead man will not rise up tomorrow. That being so, he cannot rule out miracle. What has now become now of Hume’s insistence of the laws of nature, and its uniformity? He has destroyed the very basis on which he tries to deny the possibility of miracles.” (Pg. 169)

On Matthew’s account of the guards at Jesus’ tomb, he observes, “Although some have questioned the authenticity of the story about the guards, there is strong evidence of its truth. First of all, it is not hard to imagine the unease and nervousness of the priests as they recalled Christ’s prediction of his resurrection. They could not afford to run any risk of a deception here, so it was in their interests to get the tomb guarded.” (Pg. 204)

He concludes, “Atheism has no answer to death, no ultimate hope to give. It is an empty and sterile worldview, which leaves us in a closed universe that will ultimately incinerate any last trace that we ever existed. It is, quite literally, a hope-less philosophy. Its story ends in the grave. But the resurrection of Jesus opens the door on a bigger story. It is for each one of us to decide whether it is the true one or not.” (Pg. 231)

This book will be “must reading’ for anyone seriously studying Christian apologetics.

[Naomi · Rating 4 out of 5]

I like John Lennox and enjoyed this book as like his others it's very concise and well written.

My specific gripes are that A) in places he seemed a little too smug and personal about even the smallest flaw in Dawkins / Hitchens arguments. It made me feel a bit uncomfortable as in the spoken debates he cites, the content is not designed to be pulled apart word by word. That's the very nature of spoken debate. It's not an academic paper where every word is considered before selection.

B) it would have been nice to see some other views on miracles and science other than Hume and C S Lewis. Lennox seemed to have read a lot on Hume and spent a lot of time rebutting his popularist argument that miracles are against nature. Maybe no one else has any different arguments other than Hume's but I don't believe that.

Other than that I felt the book was well reasoned and strongly presented. Disclaimer: I am already a Christian.

[Matt Lee · Rating 4 out of 5]

Being a big fan of Lennox in debates with Dawkins et al. already, I was interested to see how his arguments and rhetoric would be shaped to fit the written word. Whilst I prefer his oratory skills, his apologetic arguments are still excellent in prose.

Lennox does a good job for the vast majority of the book to precisely and confidently refute the New Atheists' absurd claims; from contradictory pseudo-scientific statements to ridiculous notions that totally atheist regimes have been 'more moral' on the whole. However, the one thing that prevents this book from getting a 5-star review is that some of his latter points are overly-reliant on the free-will (i.e. sovereign will) of man and a defence overly based on human decision. Whilst the book is not written as a systematic theology on the sovereignty of God and fee-will (and perhaps I have mis-interpreted some of Lennox's statements), I still think correct refutations of atheistic logic require correct theology.

[Joe Oaster · Rating 5 out of 5]

My second book I have read by Dr. Lennox. I have actually seen in live doing a presentation and he is among the smartest people I have ever met. I have watched his debates on you tube and he is a brilliant man and scholar. To Dr. Lennox credit as smart as he is, he is able to present and layout his thesis in clear and readable fashion. Great book laying out a great defense of Christianity. Recommended read by even those not of the faith who want an honest intellectual look at both sides of the argument.

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dr Lennox hits the Long Ball!

It can be hazardous to expect to much from a book written by some one you have heard speak once or twice. I expected this book to be an exceptional one based on hearing Dr Lennox speak a couple times. He exceeded my expectation considerably. This book is well worth the time to read and I will likely reread it in the near future.

[Bob · Rating 5 out of 5]

There are many books on apologetics, & most are well done. However, after reading “Gunning For God” by John Lennox, I confess I like his writing & presentation more than most. His book is very profitable, laid out well, difficult subjects are explained well & illustrated superbly.

[Leandro Couto · Rating 5 out of 5]

John Lennox is witty and insightful, and he's not afraid to engage the most shrill opposition to Christianity with precise diagnostics throughout. I thought the ending with evidence for Jesus' ressurrection was very strong and touching.

[Marty Taylor · Rating 5 out of 5]

A nice, concise rebuttal to some of the New Atheists most common attacks on Christianity. Lennox shows the fallacies in their arguments and then uses their standards of proof against them in his defense of miracles. A nice bit of apologetics.

[Joe Fischer · Rating 5 out of 5]

Best book I've read this year, thus far. Great writing and clear, thorough thinking. Highly recommend.

[Boyd · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent

I recommend this book. I also recommend these related books : "Miracles" by Eric Metaxas and "Improbable Planet" by Hugh Ross.

[David Hitchcock · Rating 1 out of 5]

What we need is a clear presentation of evidence, detail of how that justifies Lennox's conclusions, followed by at least an addressing of the well-publicised atheist criticisms of what is claimed as evidence. Instead we get a succession of approvingly-quoted soundbites, misrepresentation, strawmanning and semantic games wrapped up with enough incessant gratuitous ridicule of atheists to put off all but the most ardent Lennox fan. Particularly hypocritical, as Lennox's main beef with atheists is their supposed "aggression", a meme repeated ad nauseam without bothering to address the fact that it just sounds like that to someone who thinks their faith is entitled to a free ride.

There's so much irrelevance to wade through (maybe some studies show Christians to be "happier" on some measure, that is irrelevant to whether their faith is true) that it's hard to pick out what Lennox considers to be his key arguments. At one point he mocks Julian Baggini for claiming that the Bible encourages belief without evidence - yet the "evidence" Lennox points to is simply another Bible story! Lennox's understanding of evidence seems highly suspect, yet he never sees the need to explain or defend how he tries to wield it.

Problems acknowledged as serious by theologians such as the problem of evil are sidestepped altogether. It's hard to see what this book adds to his previous effort "God's Undertaker", itself deeply flawed with special pleading - it appears that in frustration he has given up trying to engage and prefers to play to the gallery. The glowing reviews here are depressing.

[Mark Lewis · Rating 2 out of 5]

I discovered Lennox by watching his debates with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. Based on how well he handled himself, I figured he'd be worth reading. This book, (my first by Lennox) was little more than an apologetic that hit the same topics almost all apologetic works do, and not really adding much to the debate than quoting a bunch of other people who would probably be more rewarding to just read directly.

[Micah Peters · Rating 2 out of 5]

An amazing apologetics book if you are Christian, definitely will be passed around the men's pancake breakfast and church retreats. However it is overall an intellectually dishonest book with half baked god of the gaps arguments. I gave it more than one are star because the were a few good chapters that made me really want to believe that it was true, but the evidence would stop way to many steps short.

[Liam Chilton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lennox pokes holes in (and pokes fun at) the New Atheists naturalistic arguments. He then explains miracles, the reliability of the New Testament and the resurrection of Jesus comprehensively.
“The empty tomb, then, forms a veritable rock on which all rationalistic theories of the resurrection dash themselves in vain.”

[Kara · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very useful view on the new atheists that want to.evangelize their beliefs but don't call it that. This is a heady, intellectual book. Unless you want to go head to head with a die hard atheist on how it does not make logical sense to be one, skip some chapters. But it is useful to see why they think science will solve everything just like in 1890.