What do you think?
Rate this book
Skeptics Answered
D. James Kennedy takes on some of the most-asked questions regarding the validity of the Christian faith in Skeptics Answered
In clear, unassuming language, Dr. Kennedy examines the reliability of the Bible, the nature of God, and Christian faith in the face of life's harsh realities. Skeptics Answered uses factual, well-reasoned arguments to affirm the faith of Christians everywhere. Ideal for both personal and group study, it makes an excellent gift for any non-believer who, as a matter of intellectual integrity, is willing to consider the clear evidence for the Christian faith.
In clear, unassuming language, Dr. Kennedy examines the reliability of the Bible, the nature of God, and Christian faith in the face of life's harsh realities. Skeptics Answered uses factual, well-reasoned arguments to affirm the faith of Christians everywhere. Ideal for both personal and group study, it makes an excellent gift for any non-believer who, as a matter of intellectual integrity, is willing to consider the clear evidence for the Christian faith.
- GenresReligion
208 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 1997
7 people are currently reading
56 people want to read
About the author
D. James Kennedy
159 books24 followersDennis James Kennedy was an American Presbyterian pastor, evangelist, Christian broadcaster, and author. He was the senior pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, from 1960 until his death in 2007. Kennedy also founded Evangelism Explosion International, Coral Ridge Ministries (now known as D. James Kennedy Ministries), the Westminster Academy in Fort Lauderdale, the Knox Theological Seminary, radio station WAFG-FM, and the Center for Reclaiming America for Christ, a socially conservative political group.
In 1974, he began Coral Ridge Ministries, which produced his weekly religious television program, The Coral Ridge Hour, carried on various networks and syndicated on numerous other stations with a peak audience of three million viewers in 200 countries. He also had a daily radio program, Truths That Transform, from 1984 on. During his lifetime, Coral Ridge Ministries grew to a US$37-million-a-year non-profit corporation.
In 2005, the National Religious Broadcasters association inducted Kennedy into its Hall of Fame.
In 1974, he began Coral Ridge Ministries, which produced his weekly religious television program, The Coral Ridge Hour, carried on various networks and syndicated on numerous other stations with a peak audience of three million viewers in 200 countries. He also had a daily radio program, Truths That Transform, from 1984 on. During his lifetime, Coral Ridge Ministries grew to a US$37-million-a-year non-profit corporation.
In 2005, the National Religious Broadcasters association inducted Kennedy into its Hall of Fame.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
May 26, 2013
The initial chapter gave me high hopes for this book of apologetics (at least initially). I have no issues with reasoning together. I think it's essential if we are to come closer to the truth on any subject. Sadly, I was rapidly disappointed.
He refers to Josh McDowell (author of Evidence that Demands a Verdict). As McDowell became a Christian due to the evidence, so claims Kennedy, anyone who does not also convert to Christianity after looking through the evidence is intellectually dishonest. So we're not even past chapter 1, and the intended audience is already being insulted.
The nasty asides don't stop coming. Immediately prior his thinly-veiled blackmail (aka Pascal's Wager), Kennedy accuses non-Christians of being rebellious (p20).Such arguments have no place in a forum based on reason. Sadly, after reading and listening to a considerable amount of apologetics, I have come to expect dishonest and condescending tactics such as these.
Chapter 2 continues with using a "fulcrum" to knock your opponent (in this case, the nonbeliever) off-balance. He suggests starting by recognising the nonbeliever's right to disbelieve, and to be willing to fight for it. This, claims Kennedy, will surprise the unbeliever. I don't see where the surprise comes in. I would certainly respect a believer who is willing to leave unbelievers alone, but I would not see this as evidence for his position. Empirical evidence stands or falls on its own merits, not on the individual who provides such information. Kennedy's pat follow-up is "If you don't believe the bible's message, then you don't understand it. What is the bible's message, in your view?" Wow. Not only is this condescending, but is a classic example of arguing from one's conclusions. The author starts from the conclusion that the bible is true (a dubious proposition at best, given that he is apparently addressing skeptics), and launches his assaults on (true) reason and non-belief from that position.
Unsurprisingly, he holds the bible to possess monumental spiritual power that can change hearts and lives (he must be unaware of the plethora of atheists who deconverted precisely because they read the bible and found more holes in it than your average wedge of Northern European cheese).
So what is the bible's main message? How to teach people how to gain eternal life (the invisible carrot). Sugar helps bitter medicine go down. One always catches more insects with honey. The early bird gets the worm. Personally, I am happy to accept the fact that I won't live forever. Nor would I. Eternal boredom would not appeal to me. But I digress. The bible is not evidence, nor historical (there are Christians that assert that the bible isn't meant to be a science book, but then why would it claim to offer "cures" for leprosy and boils?).
Next, Kennedy goes on to address the natural historicity of the bible (miracles will be addressed in a later chapter). He concedes that the original Hebrew texts no longer exist (wouldn't this count as rather strong evidence against his god's desire to preserve the original meaning of his word?). So, according to the author, their reliability can be determined by collating the number of copies we have, their consistency, and the time lag between the originals and the oldest copies in existence.
He claims that there is only a thirty year gap between the events of the gospel and the disciple John's penning of his tome. He doesn't cite secular sources for this, but the apologists Norman Geisler and William Nix. It also raises a curious issue - why would John wait three decades after the events he witnessed? It's far more likely that the "gospel" of "John" was penned by another individual who had access to the Old Testament and made good use of this to "fulfill" ancient prophecies by writing such events into it.
Chapter 2 ends by accusing skeptics of scouring the bible for "excuses not to believe." The two examples he uses are not even contradictions (Cain's wife and Peter's metaphor of Jesus being "hung from a tree"). Well, if he's going to aim high, he might as well aim for the broad side of a barn, I suppose. He proceeds to (unwittingly) embarrass his faith and himself by claiming that Christianity is a reasonable belief. Why? Because, according to 2 Peter 1:16, "...we were eyewitnesses to his majesty." Too bad no one alive today was alive then, and so we must rely on hearsay.
Well, there are ten more chapters, plus an epilogue, so I will try to be as brief as possible.
Chapter 3: Miracles and Prophecies: Fact or Fiction?
Kennedy launches into this chapter by attacking Jefferson and his now-famous abridged bible. I must agree that anyone who believes in a deity that created the universe and stepped back is not far from being an atheist (though some theists disagree). Believing in a single supernatural event is not far removed from believing in numerous supernatural events. So, according to the author, someone who believes in a deist-type god should have no problem making the simple step of moving to believing in a theist-style deity.
Unfortunately, all miraculous claims have already failed the test of empirical studies and analysis. Take the famous Templeton Prayer Study (2006), which empirically tested 1800 heart patients split into three groups.
(1. Patients who were told people would pray for them)
(2. Patients who were not told people would pray for them, but people did pray for them)
(3. Patients who were not told anything, and nobody prayed for them)
The patients who knew they were being prayed for ended up with the most post-surgery complications (likely due to expectation bias).
Moreover, where are the healed amputees? Why aren't theologians winning Nobel prizes left and right for demonstrating the existence of miracles? Because miracles don't exist, the supernatural doesn't exist, and Kennedy is a dishonest huckster. Expectedly, he trots out the tired old libelous canard that skeptics fear a god that will judge them (page 32). He concludes this chapter by citing Lee Strobel, a fake skeptic who believes that honest skepticism will lead anyone to Christ (hah!).
Chapter 4: Be Ready Always
After admonishing a novice preacher for relying on prayer rather than an orderly set of sermon notes (I hope I'm not the only one seeing the irony here), Kennedy quotes 1 Peter 3:15, and admonishes Christians to always be ready to answer any skeptics they may encounter. He concedes that most Christians don't even know what they believe, and so cannot begin a long dissertation into the wherefores of their faith.
As for the fulfilled prophecies, I could easily point to a whole bundle of unfulfilled ones. These are just a small appetizer from RationalWiki:
(Failure to smite Jebus
In Joshua 3:10 the eponymous Jew is quoted as saying the following:
Hereby ye shall know that the living God is among you, and that he will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Hivites, and the Perizzites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Jebusites.
This is a repetition of a promise had from God's own lips in earlier books. However, mere moments later we learn that:
As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day.[7]
Apparently, while good at smiting the amusingly named Girgashites, Jebus was a bit too tough for Joshua.
Israelites will be unbeatable
In Exodus 23:27 God tells Moses that he will defeat every enemy he encounters:
I will send my terror ahead of you and throw into confusion every nation you encounter. I will make all your enemies turn their backs and run. (NIV)
However, history indicates many defeats suffered by the Israelites. Note that most believers will pull a no true Scotsman and claim that the defeats happened only at times when the Israelites weren't pious enough.
Land promises
In the Bible, God allegedly made promises to Abraham to deliver him land then under the control of other tribes. For example, upon Abraham entering Canaan, Genesis 12:7 states, in part, "The LORD appeared to Abram and said, 'To your offspring I will give this land.'" (NIV) This promise was reiterated in slightly different ways throughout the books of Genesis and Exodus.
However, this did not reasonably soon thereafter come to be, as illustrated by Hebrews 11:13, which, regarding Abraham's descendents, states,
All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. (NIV)
Similarly, in Exodus 23:31 God promises to give the Israelites all the land from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea and from the Euphrates River to "the desert." Historically this never happened.
Joshua was also promised specific land. Per Joshua 1:3-5:
I will give you every place where you set your foot, as I promised Moses. Your territory will extend from the desert to Lebanon, and from the great river, the Euphrates--all the Hittite country--to the Great Sea on the west. No one will be able to stand up against you all the days of your life. As I was with Moses, so I will be with you; I will never leave you nor forsake you. (NIV)
Strangely, Joshua 11:23 indicates that he did indeed take the land:
So Joshua took the entire land, just as the LORD had directed Moses, and he gave it as an inheritance to Israel according to their tribal divisions. Then the land had rest from war. (NIV)
However, history and the Bible indicate all the land was not taken. Per Joshua 13:1-5:
When Joshua was old and well advanced in years, the LORD said to him, "You are very old, and there are still very large areas of land to be taken over. This is the land that remains: all the regions of the Philistines and Geshurites: from the Shihor River on the east of Egypt to the territory of Ekron on the north, all of it counted as Canaanite; the territory of the five Philistine rulers in Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath and Ekron--that of the Avvites from the south, all the land of the Canaanites, from Arah of the Sidonians as far as Aphek, the region of the Amorites, the area of the Gebalites; and all Lebanon to the east, from Baal Gad below Mount Hermon to Lebo Hamath. (NIV)
Israel will live in peace with its neighbors
A Merkava vineyard planter
Ezekiel 28:26-24 predicts that Israel will live in peace with its neighbors:
No longer will the people of Israel have malicious neighbors who are painful briers and sharp thorns. Then they will know that I am the Sovereign LORD. This is what the Sovereign LORD says: When I gather the people of Israel from the nations where they have been scattered, I will show myself holy among them in the sight of the nations. Then they will live in their own land, which I gave to my servant Jacob. They will live there in safety and will build houses and plant vineyards; they will live in safety when I inflict punishment on all their neighbors who maligned them. Then they will know that I am the LORD their God. (NIV)
Ouch, that one hurt. A consistent aspect of history is that Israel has never gotten along with its neighbors. (Or, if you prefer, that its neighbors have never gotten along with it.))
Back to my review.
He uses Zeno's Paradox to illustrate the limit of logic. He goes on to accuse skeptics of using logic to support their preconceived conclusions. This is rich, and beyond insulting, given the willful ignorance of Christians and their undying desire to ignore evidence for evolution and rebuttals to their own positions. Their ceaseless attempts to limbo under the problem of suffering is a perfect case in point.
Chapters 10 and 11 - the Problems of Evil and Pain (or Suffering)
I have slogged through dozens of hours of theodicies attempting to reconcile an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving god with the existence of suffering, so I will recap my primary rejoinders here.
The Problem of Evil is an insurmountable one for Christians (and all other theists who believe in a perfectly loving, all-powerful and all-knowing god). There have been intense and motivated efforts over the past two millennia to defend such a position rationally, and they have all failed. Miserably. Utterly. And in many cases, dishonestly.
Some approached involve invoking an unknown "greater good" defense (which throws god's omnipotence under the bus. An omnipotent deity could simply actualise a desired goal without needing to use suffering as a "middle man"). Attempts to shift the problem by asserting that human happiness is not the goal of life (but knowing god is) removes the omnibenevolence and omnipotence of god (if you love someone, you don't want them to suffer. It really is that simple).
Here, Kennedy trots out the old canard of free will. Unfortunately, free will is meaningless unless everyone has an equal amount of it. This is undeniably NOT the case. Not everyone is given the same lifespan, physical strength, mental acuity, political clout, financial resources, and so on. Kennedy is pontificating from the luxurious confines of his residence, funded by conveniently gullible sheep. This has certainly damaged his ability to empathise with the billions who live on less than a dollar each day. And the thousands who starve to death every time the Earth completes a full rotation.
Kennedy also, perhaps unwittingly, advocates a social Darwinism in which the rich and physically powerful are able to murder, rape and steal from weaker individuals (and are therefore less able to exercise their own free will to prevent their own suffering). Kennedy worships a cosmic pedophile who revels in granting freedom to abhorrent individuals while getting his jollies from seeing the most vulnerable suffer and die in agony (only to get thrown into even more torture in the Christian vision of hell).
Lastly, a loving god would take away free will from those who would willingly surrender it in return for a life without suffering. Funnily enough, Kennedy seems to believe in a heaven without suffering but with all the bells and whistles of freedom. So why not create that universe from the get-go and stick with it? Why create a universe with even the possibility of corruption? It certainly is not something a perfect god would do. Then again, a perfect god would not blackmail beings he supposedly loves for eternal worship.
Eternalism doesn't work as a dodge. If a god has perfect foreknowledge, then he's still responsible. And as we experience a coherent, cohesive set of events, I don't see how eternalism could be true.
NONE of the theodicies thus far created hold any water. Why? Because an omnipotent deity does not need to use evil to achieve greater goods.
Any such being could achieve the desired outcome from the get-go, no suffering required.
Kennedy engages in numerous logical fallacies. He commits special pleading to let his god off the hook. He clearly does not hold his god to the same moral standard as his god supposedly holds humans to. An all-powerful, all-knowing being who did nothing while billions starved to death is just as guilty as someone who caused such deeds personally. Might does not make right.
Painting god as a loving father who "suffers with" us is almost as bad. Such a god doesn't do a thing to alleviate suffering.
In summary, a thorough response to this book would have to be at least twice its length. Kennedy is simply preaching to the choir and trying to rope in armchair skeptics who have not done the historical research (or are too lazy to). This would be more useful in a goat's belly than on a bookshelf.
He refers to Josh McDowell (author of Evidence that Demands a Verdict). As McDowell became a Christian due to the evidence, so claims Kennedy, anyone who does not also convert to Christianity after looking through the evidence is intellectually dishonest. So we're not even past chapter 1, and the intended audience is already being insulted.
The nasty asides don't stop coming. Immediately prior his thinly-veiled blackmail (aka Pascal's Wager), Kennedy accuses non-Christians of being rebellious (p20).Such arguments have no place in a forum based on reason. Sadly, after reading and listening to a considerable amount of apologetics, I have come to expect dishonest and condescending tactics such as these.
Chapter 2 continues with using a "fulcrum" to knock your opponent (in this case, the nonbeliever) off-balance. He suggests starting by recognising the nonbeliever's right to disbelieve, and to be willing to fight for it. This, claims Kennedy, will surprise the unbeliever. I don't see where the surprise comes in. I would certainly respect a believer who is willing to leave unbelievers alone, but I would not see this as evidence for his position. Empirical evidence stands or falls on its own merits, not on the individual who provides such information. Kennedy's pat follow-up is "If you don't believe the bible's message, then you don't understand it. What is the bible's message, in your view?" Wow. Not only is this condescending, but is a classic example of arguing from one's conclusions. The author starts from the conclusion that the bible is true (a dubious proposition at best, given that he is apparently addressing skeptics), and launches his assaults on (true) reason and non-belief from that position.
Unsurprisingly, he holds the bible to possess monumental spiritual power that can change hearts and lives (he must be unaware of the plethora of atheists who deconverted precisely because they read the bible and found more holes in it than your average wedge of Northern European cheese).
So what is the bible's main message? How to teach people how to gain eternal life (the invisible carrot). Sugar helps bitter medicine go down. One always catches more insects with honey. The early bird gets the worm. Personally, I am happy to accept the fact that I won't live forever. Nor would I. Eternal boredom would not appeal to me. But I digress. The bible is not evidence, nor historical (there are Christians that assert that the bible isn't meant to be a science book, but then why would it claim to offer "cures" for leprosy and boils?).
Next, Kennedy goes on to address the natural historicity of the bible (miracles will be addressed in a later chapter). He concedes that the original Hebrew texts no longer exist (wouldn't this count as rather strong evidence against his god's desire to preserve the original meaning of his word?). So, according to the author, their reliability can be determined by collating the number of copies we have, their consistency, and the time lag between the originals and the oldest copies in existence.
He claims that there is only a thirty year gap between the events of the gospel and the disciple John's penning of his tome. He doesn't cite secular sources for this, but the apologists Norman Geisler and William Nix. It also raises a curious issue - why would John wait three decades after the events he witnessed? It's far more likely that the "gospel" of "John" was penned by another individual who had access to the Old Testament and made good use of this to "fulfill" ancient prophecies by writing such events into it.
Chapter 2 ends by accusing skeptics of scouring the bible for "excuses not to believe." The two examples he uses are not even contradictions (Cain's wife and Peter's metaphor of Jesus being "hung from a tree"). Well, if he's going to aim high, he might as well aim for the broad side of a barn, I suppose. He proceeds to (unwittingly) embarrass his faith and himself by claiming that Christianity is a reasonable belief. Why? Because, according to 2 Peter 1:16, "...we were eyewitnesses to his majesty." Too bad no one alive today was alive then, and so we must rely on hearsay.
Well, there are ten more chapters, plus an epilogue, so I will try to be as brief as possible.
Chapter 3: Miracles and Prophecies: Fact or Fiction?
Kennedy launches into this chapter by attacking Jefferson and his now-famous abridged bible. I must agree that anyone who believes in a deity that created the universe and stepped back is not far from being an atheist (though some theists disagree). Believing in a single supernatural event is not far removed from believing in numerous supernatural events. So, according to the author, someone who believes in a deist-type god should have no problem making the simple step of moving to believing in a theist-style deity.
Unfortunately, all miraculous claims have already failed the test of empirical studies and analysis. Take the famous Templeton Prayer Study (2006), which empirically tested 1800 heart patients split into three groups.
(1. Patients who were told people would pray for them)
(2. Patients who were not told people would pray for them, but people did pray for them)
(3. Patients who were not told anything, and nobody prayed for them)
The patients who knew they were being prayed for ended up with the most post-surgery complications (likely due to expectation bias).
Moreover, where are the healed amputees? Why aren't theologians winning Nobel prizes left and right for demonstrating the existence of miracles? Because miracles don't exist, the supernatural doesn't exist, and Kennedy is a dishonest huckster. Expectedly, he trots out the tired old libelous canard that skeptics fear a god that will judge them (page 32). He concludes this chapter by citing Lee Strobel, a fake skeptic who believes that honest skepticism will lead anyone to Christ (hah!).
Chapter 4: Be Ready Always
After admonishing a novice preacher for relying on prayer rather than an orderly set of sermon notes (I hope I'm not the only one seeing the irony here), Kennedy quotes 1 Peter 3:15, and admonishes Christians to always be ready to answer any skeptics they may encounter. He concedes that most Christians don't even know what they believe, and so cannot begin a long dissertation into the wherefores of their faith.
As for the fulfilled prophecies, I could easily point to a whole bundle of unfulfilled ones. These are just a small appetizer from RationalWiki:
(Failure to smite Jebus
In Joshua 3:10 the eponymous Jew is quoted as saying the following:
Hereby ye shall know that the living God is among you, and that he will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Hivites, and the Perizzites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Jebusites.
This is a repetition of a promise had from God's own lips in earlier books. However, mere moments later we learn that:
As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day.[7]
Apparently, while good at smiting the amusingly named Girgashites, Jebus was a bit too tough for Joshua.
Israelites will be unbeatable
In Exodus 23:27 God tells Moses that he will defeat every enemy he encounters:
I will send my terror ahead of you and throw into confusion every nation you encounter. I will make all your enemies turn their backs and run. (NIV)
However, history indicates many defeats suffered by the Israelites. Note that most believers will pull a no true Scotsman and claim that the defeats happened only at times when the Israelites weren't pious enough.
Land promises
In the Bible, God allegedly made promises to Abraham to deliver him land then under the control of other tribes. For example, upon Abraham entering Canaan, Genesis 12:7 states, in part, "The LORD appeared to Abram and said, 'To your offspring I will give this land.'" (NIV) This promise was reiterated in slightly different ways throughout the books of Genesis and Exodus.
However, this did not reasonably soon thereafter come to be, as illustrated by Hebrews 11:13, which, regarding Abraham's descendents, states,
All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. (NIV)
Similarly, in Exodus 23:31 God promises to give the Israelites all the land from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea and from the Euphrates River to "the desert." Historically this never happened.
Joshua was also promised specific land. Per Joshua 1:3-5:
I will give you every place where you set your foot, as I promised Moses. Your territory will extend from the desert to Lebanon, and from the great river, the Euphrates--all the Hittite country--to the Great Sea on the west. No one will be able to stand up against you all the days of your life. As I was with Moses, so I will be with you; I will never leave you nor forsake you. (NIV)
Strangely, Joshua 11:23 indicates that he did indeed take the land:
So Joshua took the entire land, just as the LORD had directed Moses, and he gave it as an inheritance to Israel according to their tribal divisions. Then the land had rest from war. (NIV)
However, history and the Bible indicate all the land was not taken. Per Joshua 13:1-5:
When Joshua was old and well advanced in years, the LORD said to him, "You are very old, and there are still very large areas of land to be taken over. This is the land that remains: all the regions of the Philistines and Geshurites: from the Shihor River on the east of Egypt to the territory of Ekron on the north, all of it counted as Canaanite; the territory of the five Philistine rulers in Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath and Ekron--that of the Avvites from the south, all the land of the Canaanites, from Arah of the Sidonians as far as Aphek, the region of the Amorites, the area of the Gebalites; and all Lebanon to the east, from Baal Gad below Mount Hermon to Lebo Hamath. (NIV)
Israel will live in peace with its neighbors
A Merkava vineyard planter
Ezekiel 28:26-24 predicts that Israel will live in peace with its neighbors:
No longer will the people of Israel have malicious neighbors who are painful briers and sharp thorns. Then they will know that I am the Sovereign LORD. This is what the Sovereign LORD says: When I gather the people of Israel from the nations where they have been scattered, I will show myself holy among them in the sight of the nations. Then they will live in their own land, which I gave to my servant Jacob. They will live there in safety and will build houses and plant vineyards; they will live in safety when I inflict punishment on all their neighbors who maligned them. Then they will know that I am the LORD their God. (NIV)
Ouch, that one hurt. A consistent aspect of history is that Israel has never gotten along with its neighbors. (Or, if you prefer, that its neighbors have never gotten along with it.))
Back to my review.
He uses Zeno's Paradox to illustrate the limit of logic. He goes on to accuse skeptics of using logic to support their preconceived conclusions. This is rich, and beyond insulting, given the willful ignorance of Christians and their undying desire to ignore evidence for evolution and rebuttals to their own positions. Their ceaseless attempts to limbo under the problem of suffering is a perfect case in point.
Chapters 10 and 11 - the Problems of Evil and Pain (or Suffering)
I have slogged through dozens of hours of theodicies attempting to reconcile an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving god with the existence of suffering, so I will recap my primary rejoinders here.
The Problem of Evil is an insurmountable one for Christians (and all other theists who believe in a perfectly loving, all-powerful and all-knowing god). There have been intense and motivated efforts over the past two millennia to defend such a position rationally, and they have all failed. Miserably. Utterly. And in many cases, dishonestly.
Some approached involve invoking an unknown "greater good" defense (which throws god's omnipotence under the bus. An omnipotent deity could simply actualise a desired goal without needing to use suffering as a "middle man"). Attempts to shift the problem by asserting that human happiness is not the goal of life (but knowing god is) removes the omnibenevolence and omnipotence of god (if you love someone, you don't want them to suffer. It really is that simple).
Here, Kennedy trots out the old canard of free will. Unfortunately, free will is meaningless unless everyone has an equal amount of it. This is undeniably NOT the case. Not everyone is given the same lifespan, physical strength, mental acuity, political clout, financial resources, and so on. Kennedy is pontificating from the luxurious confines of his residence, funded by conveniently gullible sheep. This has certainly damaged his ability to empathise with the billions who live on less than a dollar each day. And the thousands who starve to death every time the Earth completes a full rotation.
Kennedy also, perhaps unwittingly, advocates a social Darwinism in which the rich and physically powerful are able to murder, rape and steal from weaker individuals (and are therefore less able to exercise their own free will to prevent their own suffering). Kennedy worships a cosmic pedophile who revels in granting freedom to abhorrent individuals while getting his jollies from seeing the most vulnerable suffer and die in agony (only to get thrown into even more torture in the Christian vision of hell).
Lastly, a loving god would take away free will from those who would willingly surrender it in return for a life without suffering. Funnily enough, Kennedy seems to believe in a heaven without suffering but with all the bells and whistles of freedom. So why not create that universe from the get-go and stick with it? Why create a universe with even the possibility of corruption? It certainly is not something a perfect god would do. Then again, a perfect god would not blackmail beings he supposedly loves for eternal worship.
Eternalism doesn't work as a dodge. If a god has perfect foreknowledge, then he's still responsible. And as we experience a coherent, cohesive set of events, I don't see how eternalism could be true.
NONE of the theodicies thus far created hold any water. Why? Because an omnipotent deity does not need to use evil to achieve greater goods.
Any such being could achieve the desired outcome from the get-go, no suffering required.
Kennedy engages in numerous logical fallacies. He commits special pleading to let his god off the hook. He clearly does not hold his god to the same moral standard as his god supposedly holds humans to. An all-powerful, all-knowing being who did nothing while billions starved to death is just as guilty as someone who caused such deeds personally. Might does not make right.
Painting god as a loving father who "suffers with" us is almost as bad. Such a god doesn't do a thing to alleviate suffering.
In summary, a thorough response to this book would have to be at least twice its length. Kennedy is simply preaching to the choir and trying to rope in armchair skeptics who have not done the historical research (or are too lazy to). This would be more useful in a goat's belly than on a bookshelf.
August 22, 2013
I got 4 chapters in and could not take being insulted another moment. Kennedy stated in the beginning of the book that he hoped skeptics could read this and have some of their questions answered. And I was hopeful of that. From there he went on to insult non-Chritians (and even Christians at that), saying we were all ignorant "I am so ignorant of the facts, I really shouldn't be opening me mouth" (p28). That is no way to get to your audience. I found him rude and conceided and I hope he doesn't taint any other Christians into thinking the way he does.
March 18, 2022
This is an excellent book to give quick, simple answers to the most common objections to Christianity. If you like apologetics, or you are looking for answers, but you don't want to get into a heady theological exercise, then this is the book for you.
January 14, 2022
Thoughtful, helpful, and readable. Highly recommended.
I have read the negative reviews and find them to be nit-picky, full of false assumptions, some written by people obviously under conviction, others written by people who obviously just like to be critical. I suppose jealously could be a contributing factor but I don't know their hearts and nor do they know DJK's heart.
I have read the negative reviews and find them to be nit-picky, full of false assumptions, some written by people obviously under conviction, others written by people who obviously just like to be critical. I suppose jealously could be a contributing factor but I don't know their hearts and nor do they know DJK's heart.
May 26, 2013
The initial chapter gave me high hopes for this book of apologetics (at least initially). I have no issues with reasoning together. I think it's essential if we are to come closer to the truth on any subject. Sadly, I was rapidly disappointed.
He refers to Josh McDowell (author of Evidence that Demands a Verdict). As McDowell became a Christian due to the evidence, so claims Kennedy, anyone who does not also convert to Christianity after looking through the evidence is intellectually dishonest. So we're not even past chapter 1, and the intended audience is already being insulted.
The nasty asides don't stop coming. Immediately prior his thinly-veiled blackmail (aka Pascal's Wager), Kennedy accuses non-Christians of being rebellious (p20).Such arguments have no place in a forum based on reason. Sadly, after reading and listening to a considerable amount of apologetics, I have come to expect dishonest and condescending tactics such as these.
Chapter 2 continues with using a "fulcrum" to knock your opponent (in this case, the nonbeliever) off-balance. He suggests starting by recognising the nonbeliever's right to disbelieve, and to be willing to fight for it. This, claims Kennedy, will surprise the unbeliever. I don't see where the surprise comes in. I would certainly respect a believer who is willing to leave unbelievers alone, but I would not see this as evidence for his position. Empirical evidence stands or falls on its own merits, not on the individual who provides such information. Kennedy's pat follow-up is "If you don't believe the bible's message, then you don't understand it. What is the bible's message, in your view?" Wow. Not only is this condescending, but is a classic example of arguing from one's conclusions. The author starts from the conclusion that the bible is true (a dubious proposition at best, given that he is apparently addressing skeptics), and launches his assaults on (true) reason and non-belief from that position.
Unsurprisingly, he holds the bible to possess monumental spiritual power that can change hearts and lives (he must be unaware of the plethora of atheists who deconverted precisely because they read the bible and found more holes in it than your average wedge of Northern European cheese).
So what is the bible's main message? How to teach people how to gain eternal life (the invisible carrot). Sugar helps bitter medicine go down. One always catches more insects with honey. The early bird gets the worm. Personally, I am happy to accept the fact that I won't live forever. Nor would I. Eternal boredom would not appeal to me. But I digress. The bible is not evidence, nor historical (there are Christians that assert that the bible isn't meant to be a science book, but then why would it claim to offer "cures" for leprosy and boils?).
Next, Kennedy goes on to address the natural historicity of the bible (miracles will be addressed in a later chapter). He concedes that the original Hebrew texts no longer exist (wouldn't this count as rather strong evidence against his god's desire to preserve the original meaning of his word?). So, according to the author, their reliability can be determined by collating the number of copies we have, their consistency, and the time lag between the originals and the oldest copies in existence.
He claims that there is only a thirty year gap between the events of the gospel and the disciple John's penning of his tome. He doesn't cite secular sources for this, but the apologists Norman Geisler and William Nix. It also raises a curious issue - why would John wait three decades after the events he witnessed? It's far more likely that the "gospel" of "John" was penned by another individual who had access to the Old Testament and made good use of this to "fulfill" ancient prophecies by writing such events into it.
Chapter 2 ends by accusing skeptics of scouring the bible for "excuses not to believe." The two examples he uses are not even contradictions (Cain's wife and Peter's metaphor of Jesus being "hung from a tree"). Well, if he's going to aim high, he might as well aim for the broad side of a barn, I suppose. He proceeds to (unwittingly) embarrass his faith and himself by claiming that Christianity is a reasonable belief. Why? Because, according to 2 Peter 1:16, "...we were eyewitnesses to his majesty." Too bad no one alive today was alive then, and so we must rely on hearsay.
Well, there are ten more chapters, plus an epilogue, so I will try to be as brief as possible.
Chapter 3: Miracles and Prophecies: Fact or Fiction?
Kennedy launches into this chapter by attacking Jefferson and his now-famous abridged bible. I must agree that anyone who believes in a deity that created the universe and stepped back is not far from being an atheist (though some theists disagree). Believing in a single supernatural event is not far removed from believing in numerous supernatural events. So, according to the author, someone who believes in a deist-type god should have no problem making the simple step of moving to believing in a theist-style deity.
Unfortunately, all miraculous claims have already failed the test of empirical studies and analysis. Take the famous Templeton Prayer Study (2006), which empirically tested 1800 heart patients split into three groups.
(1. Patients who were told people would pray for them)
(2. Patients who were not told people would pray for them, but people did pray for them)
(3. Patients who were not told anything, and nobody prayed for them)
The patients who knew they were being prayed for ended up with the most post-surgery complications (likely due to expectation bias).
Moreover, where are the healed amputees? Why aren't theologians winning Nobel prizes left and right for demonstrating the existence of miracles? Because miracles don't exist, the supernatural doesn't exist, and Kennedy is a dishonest huckster. Expectedly, he trots out the tired old libelous canard that skeptics fear a god that will judge them (page 32). He concludes this chapter by citing Lee Strobel, a fake skeptic who believes that honest skepticism will lead anyone to Christ (hah!).
Chapter 4: Be Ready Always
After admonishing a novice preacher for relying on prayer rather than an orderly set of sermon notes (I hope I'm not the only one seeing the irony here), Kennedy quotes 1 Peter 3:15, and admonishes Christians to always be ready to answer any skeptics they may encounter. He concedes that most Christians don't even know what they believe, and so cannot begin a long dissertation into the wherefores of their faith.
As for the fulfilled prophecies, I could easily point to a whole bundle of unfulfilled ones. These are just a small appetizer from RationalWiki:
(Failure to smite Jebus
In Joshua 3:10 the eponymous Jew is quoted as saying the following:
Hereby ye shall know that the living God is among you, and that he will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Hivites, and the Perizzites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Jebusites.
This is a repetition of a promise had from God's own lips in earlier books. However, mere moments later we learn that:
As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day.[7]
Apparently, while good at smiting the amusingly named Girgashites, Jebus was a bit too tough for Joshua.
Israelites will be unbeatable
In Exodus 23:27 God tells Moses that he will defeat every enemy he encounters:
I will send my terror ahead of you and throw into confusion every nation you encounter. I will make all your enemies turn their backs and run. (NIV)
However, history indicates many defeats suffered by the Israelites. Note that most believers will pull a no true Scotsman and claim that the defeats happened only at times when the Israelites weren't pious enough.
Land promises
In the Bible, God allegedly made promises to Abraham to deliver him land then under the control of other tribes. For example, upon Abraham entering Canaan, Genesis 12:7 states, in part, "The LORD appeared to Abram and said, 'To your offspring I will give this land.'" (NIV) This promise was reiterated in slightly different ways throughout the books of Genesis and Exodus.
However, this did not reasonably soon thereafter come to be, as illustrated by Hebrews 11:13, which, regarding Abraham's descendents, states,
All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. (NIV)
Similarly, in Exodus 23:31 God promises to give the Israelites all the land from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea and from the Euphrates River to "the desert." Historically this never happened.
Joshua was also promised specific land. Per Joshua 1:3-5:
I will give you every place where you set your foot, as I promised Moses. Your territory will extend from the desert to Lebanon, and from the great river, the Euphrates--all the Hittite country--to the Great Sea on the west. No one will be able to stand up against you all the days of your life. As I was with Moses, so I will be with you; I will never leave you nor forsake you. (NIV)
Strangely, Joshua 11:23 indicates that he did indeed take the land:
So Joshua took the entire land, just as the LORD had directed Moses, and he gave it as an inheritance to Israel according to their tribal divisions. Then the land had rest from war. (NIV)
However, history and the Bible indicate all the land was not taken. Per Joshua 13:1-5:
When Joshua was old and well advanced in years, the LORD said to him, "You are very old, and there are still very large areas of land to be taken over. This is the land that remains: all the regions of the Philistines and Geshurites: from the Shihor River on the east of Egypt to the territory of Ekron on the north, all of it counted as Canaanite; the territory of the five Philistine rulers in Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath and Ekron--that of the Avvites from the south, all the land of the Canaanites, from Arah of the Sidonians as far as Aphek, the region of the Amorites, the area of the Gebalites; and all Lebanon to the east, from Baal Gad below Mount Hermon to Lebo Hamath. (NIV)
Israel will live in peace with its neighbors
A Merkava vineyard planter
Ezekiel 28:26-24 predicts that Israel will live in peace with its neighbors:
No longer will the people of Israel have malicious neighbors who are painful briers and sharp thorns. Then they will know that I am the Sovereign LORD. This is what the Sovereign LORD says: When I gather the people of Israel from the nations where they have been scattered, I will show myself holy among them in the sight of the nations. Then they will live in their own land, which I gave to my servant Jacob. They will live there in safety and will build houses and plant vineyards; they will live in safety when I inflict punishment on all their neighbors who maligned them. Then they will know that I am the LORD their God. (NIV)
Ouch, that one hurt. A consistent aspect of history is that Israel has never gotten along with its neighbors. (Or, if you prefer, that its neighbors have never gotten along with it.))
Back to my review.
He uses Zeno's Paradox to illustrate the limit of logic. He goes on to accuse skeptics of using logic to support their preconceived conclusions. This is rich, and beyond insulting, given the willful ignorance of Christians and their undying desire to ignore evidence for evolution and rebuttals to their own positions. Their ceaseless attempts to limbo under the problem of suffering is a perfect case in point.
Chapters 10 and 11 - the Problems of Evil and Pain (or Suffering)
I have slogged through dozens of hours of theodicies attempting to reconcile an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving god with the existence of suffering, so I will recap my primary rejoinders here.
The Problem of Evil is an insurmountable one for Christians (and all other theists who believe in a perfectly loving, all-powerful and all-knowing god). There have been intense and motivated efforts over the past two millennia to defend such a position rationally, and they have all failed. Miserably. Utterly. And in many cases, dishonestly.
Some approached involve invoking an unknown "greater good" defense (which throws god's omnipotence under the bus. An omnipotent deity could simply actualise a desired goal without needing to use suffering as a "middle man"). Attempts to shift the problem by asserting that human happiness is not the goal of life (but knowing god is) removes the omnibenevolence and omnipotence of god (if you love someone, you don't want them to suffer. It really is that simple).
Here, Kennedy trots out the old canard of free will. Unfortunately, free will is meaningless unless everyone has an equal amount of it. This is undeniably NOT the case. Not everyone is given the same lifespan, physical strength, mental acuity, political clout, financial resources, and so on. Kennedy is pontificating from the luxurious confines of his residence, funded by conveniently gullible sheep. This has certainly damaged his ability to empathise with the billions who live on less than a dollar each day. And the thousands who starve to death every time the Earth completes a full rotation.
Kennedy also, perhaps unwittingly, advocates a social Darwinism in which the rich and physically powerful are able to murder, rape and steal from weaker individuals (and are therefore less able to exercise their own free will to prevent their own suffering). Kennedy worships a cosmic pedophile who revels in granting freedom to abhorrent individuals while getting his jollies from seeing the most vulnerable suffer and die in agony (only to get thrown into even more torture in the Christian vision of hell).
Lastly, a loving god would take away free will from those who would willingly surrender it in return for a life without suffering. Funnily enough, Kennedy seems to believe in a heaven without suffering but with all the bells and whistles of freedom. So why not create that universe from the get-go and stick with it? Why create a universe with even the possibility of corruption? It certainly is not something a perfect god would do. Then again, a perfect god would not blackmail beings he supposedly loves for eternal worship.
Eternalism doesn't work as a dodge. If a god has perfect foreknowledge, then he's still responsible. And as we experience a coherent, cohesive set of events, I don't see how eternalism could be true.
NONE of the theodicies thus far created hold any water. Why? Because an omnipotent deity does not need to use evil to achieve greater goods.
Any such being could achieve the desired outcome from the get-go, no suffering required.
Kennedy engages in numerous logical fallacies. He commits special pleading to let his god off the hook. He clearly does not hold his god to the same moral standard as his god supposedly holds humans to. An all-powerful, all-knowing being who did nothing while billions starved to death is just as guilty as someone who caused such deeds personally. Might does not make right.
Painting god as a loving father who "suffers with" us is almost as bad. Such a god doesn't do a thing to alleviate suffering.
In summary, a thorough response to this book would have to be at least twice its length. Kennedy is simply preaching to the choir and trying to rope in armchair skeptics who have not done the historical research (or are too lazy to). This would be more useful in a goat's belly than on a bookshelf.
He refers to Josh McDowell (author of Evidence that Demands a Verdict). As McDowell became a Christian due to the evidence, so claims Kennedy, anyone who does not also convert to Christianity after looking through the evidence is intellectually dishonest. So we're not even past chapter 1, and the intended audience is already being insulted.
The nasty asides don't stop coming. Immediately prior his thinly-veiled blackmail (aka Pascal's Wager), Kennedy accuses non-Christians of being rebellious (p20).Such arguments have no place in a forum based on reason. Sadly, after reading and listening to a considerable amount of apologetics, I have come to expect dishonest and condescending tactics such as these.
Chapter 2 continues with using a "fulcrum" to knock your opponent (in this case, the nonbeliever) off-balance. He suggests starting by recognising the nonbeliever's right to disbelieve, and to be willing to fight for it. This, claims Kennedy, will surprise the unbeliever. I don't see where the surprise comes in. I would certainly respect a believer who is willing to leave unbelievers alone, but I would not see this as evidence for his position. Empirical evidence stands or falls on its own merits, not on the individual who provides such information. Kennedy's pat follow-up is "If you don't believe the bible's message, then you don't understand it. What is the bible's message, in your view?" Wow. Not only is this condescending, but is a classic example of arguing from one's conclusions. The author starts from the conclusion that the bible is true (a dubious proposition at best, given that he is apparently addressing skeptics), and launches his assaults on (true) reason and non-belief from that position.
Unsurprisingly, he holds the bible to possess monumental spiritual power that can change hearts and lives (he must be unaware of the plethora of atheists who deconverted precisely because they read the bible and found more holes in it than your average wedge of Northern European cheese).
So what is the bible's main message? How to teach people how to gain eternal life (the invisible carrot). Sugar helps bitter medicine go down. One always catches more insects with honey. The early bird gets the worm. Personally, I am happy to accept the fact that I won't live forever. Nor would I. Eternal boredom would not appeal to me. But I digress. The bible is not evidence, nor historical (there are Christians that assert that the bible isn't meant to be a science book, but then why would it claim to offer "cures" for leprosy and boils?).
Next, Kennedy goes on to address the natural historicity of the bible (miracles will be addressed in a later chapter). He concedes that the original Hebrew texts no longer exist (wouldn't this count as rather strong evidence against his god's desire to preserve the original meaning of his word?). So, according to the author, their reliability can be determined by collating the number of copies we have, their consistency, and the time lag between the originals and the oldest copies in existence.
He claims that there is only a thirty year gap between the events of the gospel and the disciple John's penning of his tome. He doesn't cite secular sources for this, but the apologists Norman Geisler and William Nix. It also raises a curious issue - why would John wait three decades after the events he witnessed? It's far more likely that the "gospel" of "John" was penned by another individual who had access to the Old Testament and made good use of this to "fulfill" ancient prophecies by writing such events into it.
Chapter 2 ends by accusing skeptics of scouring the bible for "excuses not to believe." The two examples he uses are not even contradictions (Cain's wife and Peter's metaphor of Jesus being "hung from a tree"). Well, if he's going to aim high, he might as well aim for the broad side of a barn, I suppose. He proceeds to (unwittingly) embarrass his faith and himself by claiming that Christianity is a reasonable belief. Why? Because, according to 2 Peter 1:16, "...we were eyewitnesses to his majesty." Too bad no one alive today was alive then, and so we must rely on hearsay.
Well, there are ten more chapters, plus an epilogue, so I will try to be as brief as possible.
Chapter 3: Miracles and Prophecies: Fact or Fiction?
Kennedy launches into this chapter by attacking Jefferson and his now-famous abridged bible. I must agree that anyone who believes in a deity that created the universe and stepped back is not far from being an atheist (though some theists disagree). Believing in a single supernatural event is not far removed from believing in numerous supernatural events. So, according to the author, someone who believes in a deist-type god should have no problem making the simple step of moving to believing in a theist-style deity.
Unfortunately, all miraculous claims have already failed the test of empirical studies and analysis. Take the famous Templeton Prayer Study (2006), which empirically tested 1800 heart patients split into three groups.
(1. Patients who were told people would pray for them)
(2. Patients who were not told people would pray for them, but people did pray for them)
(3. Patients who were not told anything, and nobody prayed for them)
The patients who knew they were being prayed for ended up with the most post-surgery complications (likely due to expectation bias).
Moreover, where are the healed amputees? Why aren't theologians winning Nobel prizes left and right for demonstrating the existence of miracles? Because miracles don't exist, the supernatural doesn't exist, and Kennedy is a dishonest huckster. Expectedly, he trots out the tired old libelous canard that skeptics fear a god that will judge them (page 32). He concludes this chapter by citing Lee Strobel, a fake skeptic who believes that honest skepticism will lead anyone to Christ (hah!).
Chapter 4: Be Ready Always
After admonishing a novice preacher for relying on prayer rather than an orderly set of sermon notes (I hope I'm not the only one seeing the irony here), Kennedy quotes 1 Peter 3:15, and admonishes Christians to always be ready to answer any skeptics they may encounter. He concedes that most Christians don't even know what they believe, and so cannot begin a long dissertation into the wherefores of their faith.
As for the fulfilled prophecies, I could easily point to a whole bundle of unfulfilled ones. These are just a small appetizer from RationalWiki:
(Failure to smite Jebus
In Joshua 3:10 the eponymous Jew is quoted as saying the following:
Hereby ye shall know that the living God is among you, and that he will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Hivites, and the Perizzites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Jebusites.
This is a repetition of a promise had from God's own lips in earlier books. However, mere moments later we learn that:
As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day.[7]
Apparently, while good at smiting the amusingly named Girgashites, Jebus was a bit too tough for Joshua.
Israelites will be unbeatable
In Exodus 23:27 God tells Moses that he will defeat every enemy he encounters:
I will send my terror ahead of you and throw into confusion every nation you encounter. I will make all your enemies turn their backs and run. (NIV)
However, history indicates many defeats suffered by the Israelites. Note that most believers will pull a no true Scotsman and claim that the defeats happened only at times when the Israelites weren't pious enough.
Land promises
In the Bible, God allegedly made promises to Abraham to deliver him land then under the control of other tribes. For example, upon Abraham entering Canaan, Genesis 12:7 states, in part, "The LORD appeared to Abram and said, 'To your offspring I will give this land.'" (NIV) This promise was reiterated in slightly different ways throughout the books of Genesis and Exodus.
However, this did not reasonably soon thereafter come to be, as illustrated by Hebrews 11:13, which, regarding Abraham's descendents, states,
All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. (NIV)
Similarly, in Exodus 23:31 God promises to give the Israelites all the land from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea and from the Euphrates River to "the desert." Historically this never happened.
Joshua was also promised specific land. Per Joshua 1:3-5:
I will give you every place where you set your foot, as I promised Moses. Your territory will extend from the desert to Lebanon, and from the great river, the Euphrates--all the Hittite country--to the Great Sea on the west. No one will be able to stand up against you all the days of your life. As I was with Moses, so I will be with you; I will never leave you nor forsake you. (NIV)
Strangely, Joshua 11:23 indicates that he did indeed take the land:
So Joshua took the entire land, just as the LORD had directed Moses, and he gave it as an inheritance to Israel according to their tribal divisions. Then the land had rest from war. (NIV)
However, history and the Bible indicate all the land was not taken. Per Joshua 13:1-5:
When Joshua was old and well advanced in years, the LORD said to him, "You are very old, and there are still very large areas of land to be taken over. This is the land that remains: all the regions of the Philistines and Geshurites: from the Shihor River on the east of Egypt to the territory of Ekron on the north, all of it counted as Canaanite; the territory of the five Philistine rulers in Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath and Ekron--that of the Avvites from the south, all the land of the Canaanites, from Arah of the Sidonians as far as Aphek, the region of the Amorites, the area of the Gebalites; and all Lebanon to the east, from Baal Gad below Mount Hermon to Lebo Hamath. (NIV)
Israel will live in peace with its neighbors
A Merkava vineyard planter
Ezekiel 28:26-24 predicts that Israel will live in peace with its neighbors:
No longer will the people of Israel have malicious neighbors who are painful briers and sharp thorns. Then they will know that I am the Sovereign LORD. This is what the Sovereign LORD says: When I gather the people of Israel from the nations where they have been scattered, I will show myself holy among them in the sight of the nations. Then they will live in their own land, which I gave to my servant Jacob. They will live there in safety and will build houses and plant vineyards; they will live in safety when I inflict punishment on all their neighbors who maligned them. Then they will know that I am the LORD their God. (NIV)
Ouch, that one hurt. A consistent aspect of history is that Israel has never gotten along with its neighbors. (Or, if you prefer, that its neighbors have never gotten along with it.))
Back to my review.
He uses Zeno's Paradox to illustrate the limit of logic. He goes on to accuse skeptics of using logic to support their preconceived conclusions. This is rich, and beyond insulting, given the willful ignorance of Christians and their undying desire to ignore evidence for evolution and rebuttals to their own positions. Their ceaseless attempts to limbo under the problem of suffering is a perfect case in point.
Chapters 10 and 11 - the Problems of Evil and Pain (or Suffering)
I have slogged through dozens of hours of theodicies attempting to reconcile an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving god with the existence of suffering, so I will recap my primary rejoinders here.
The Problem of Evil is an insurmountable one for Christians (and all other theists who believe in a perfectly loving, all-powerful and all-knowing god). There have been intense and motivated efforts over the past two millennia to defend such a position rationally, and they have all failed. Miserably. Utterly. And in many cases, dishonestly.
Some approached involve invoking an unknown "greater good" defense (which throws god's omnipotence under the bus. An omnipotent deity could simply actualise a desired goal without needing to use suffering as a "middle man"). Attempts to shift the problem by asserting that human happiness is not the goal of life (but knowing god is) removes the omnibenevolence and omnipotence of god (if you love someone, you don't want them to suffer. It really is that simple).
Here, Kennedy trots out the old canard of free will. Unfortunately, free will is meaningless unless everyone has an equal amount of it. This is undeniably NOT the case. Not everyone is given the same lifespan, physical strength, mental acuity, political clout, financial resources, and so on. Kennedy is pontificating from the luxurious confines of his residence, funded by conveniently gullible sheep. This has certainly damaged his ability to empathise with the billions who live on less than a dollar each day. And the thousands who starve to death every time the Earth completes a full rotation.
Kennedy also, perhaps unwittingly, advocates a social Darwinism in which the rich and physically powerful are able to murder, rape and steal from weaker individuals (and are therefore less able to exercise their own free will to prevent their own suffering). Kennedy worships a cosmic pedophile who revels in granting freedom to abhorrent individuals while getting his jollies from seeing the most vulnerable suffer and die in agony (only to get thrown into even more torture in the Christian vision of hell).
Lastly, a loving god would take away free will from those who would willingly surrender it in return for a life without suffering. Funnily enough, Kennedy seems to believe in a heaven without suffering but with all the bells and whistles of freedom. So why not create that universe from the get-go and stick with it? Why create a universe with even the possibility of corruption? It certainly is not something a perfect god would do. Then again, a perfect god would not blackmail beings he supposedly loves for eternal worship.
Eternalism doesn't work as a dodge. If a god has perfect foreknowledge, then he's still responsible. And as we experience a coherent, cohesive set of events, I don't see how eternalism could be true.
NONE of the theodicies thus far created hold any water. Why? Because an omnipotent deity does not need to use evil to achieve greater goods.
Any such being could achieve the desired outcome from the get-go, no suffering required.
Kennedy engages in numerous logical fallacies. He commits special pleading to let his god off the hook. He clearly does not hold his god to the same moral standard as his god supposedly holds humans to. An all-powerful, all-knowing being who did nothing while billions starved to death is just as guilty as someone who caused such deeds personally. Might does not make right.
Painting god as a loving father who "suffers with" us is almost as bad. Such a god doesn't do a thing to alleviate suffering.
In summary, a thorough response to this book would have to be at least twice its length. Kennedy is simply preaching to the choir and trying to rope in armchair skeptics who have not done the historical research (or are too lazy to). This would be more useful in a goat's belly than on a bookshelf.
September 24, 2025
A few really good, valid, thought-provoking points are buried in here, but wow, the author comes off like an absolute asshole. The condescending tone is so thick it drowns out anything worthwhile he’s trying to say.
Even with those few solid arguments, this book actually pushed me farther from Christ and scripture instead of closer. I’m still searching and I’m not giving up, but next time I’ll pick someone with a little more humility, maybe C.S. Lewis or anyone who isn’t so terrible at apologetics and so off-putting. Rare occasion where I regret reading a book because it did the opposite of what it promised.
Even with those few solid arguments, this book actually pushed me farther from Christ and scripture instead of closer. I’m still searching and I’m not giving up, but next time I’ll pick someone with a little more humility, maybe C.S. Lewis or anyone who isn’t so terrible at apologetics and so off-putting. Rare occasion where I regret reading a book because it did the opposite of what it promised.
September 29, 2014
I enjoy apologetics and reasoning as much as the next person but this book not so much. I honestly hope Christians do not decide to take his approach as I believe it will leave any searching person offended and angry. Though the facts are presented ok the method in which, "you should then say this" is appalling. He quickly leaves his supporting scripture of defending with love and gentleness for a ridicule and insult approach.
February 9, 2015
The concept of the book is good. The way is presented was hard to digest and the way it was presented felt kind of dickish. The book was good in that it presented facts to back up the point. But I don't know if I was given strong enough equipment to thoughtfully discuss something like this with a non-Christian. It's informative. But maybe it just wasn't presented that well to me.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews