Is Atheism Dead?

by Eric Metaxas

Is Atheism Dead? is an entertaining, impressively wide-ranging, and decidedly provocative answer to that famous 1966 TIME cover that itself provocatively asked “Is God Dead?” In a voice that is by turns witty, muscular, and poetic, Metaxas intentionally echoes C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton in cheerfully and logically making his astonishing case, along the way presenting breathtaking—and often withering—new evidence and arguments against the idea of a Creatorless universe. Taken all together, he shows atheism not merely to be implausible and intellectually sloppy, but now demonstrably ridiculous. Perhaps the only unanswered question on the subject is why we couldn’t see this sooner, and how embarrassed we should be about it.

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

429 pages, Kindle Edition

First published October 19, 2021

About the author

In a decidedly eclectic career, Eric Metaxas has written for VeggieTales, Chuck Colson, Rabbit Ears Productions and the New York Times, four things not ordinarily in the same sentence. He is a best-selling author whose biographies, children’s books, and works of popular apologetics have been translated into more than 25 languages.

Reviews

[Jeff Koeppen · Rating 1 out of 5]

I always find comfort in reading my favorite atheist and science authors but come from a Catholic and Catholic School background and I like to occasionally check in and see what popular literature has popped up on the religious best seller lists. With its provocative title and it’s free price tag in Audible I couldn’t resist trying out Eric Metaxas’s Is Atheism Dead?. Being an atheist and a member of a number of atheist organizations I already know the answer to this question but it never hurts, and is sometimes entertaining, to hear an opposing viewpoint and what a true believer has to say about my ilk. This book is seventeen hours long. I listened to much of it at a higher playback speed on a road trip so I couldn’t take notes but it had me talking to myself and shaking my had constantly. But it wasn’t all bad, even though it was pretty insulting to us heathens.

To begin, one has to understand that the author is a Christian and creationist, so not only are atheists misguided (he actually uses stronger words to describe us) but so are all the other many religions in the world. Christianity is the only true way and the Bible is the only true account of what happened. So when he is describing in detail complex scientific principals and cosmic truths, like how our solar system is in the exact only place in the galaxy which could support life, he believes that the god from the Old and New Testaments put it there. Right off the bat I had a problem with this. So the infallible superintelligence that created the entire unimaginably huge and complex universe (and possibly multiverses) is the same guy who inspired that holy book and showed up in the Middle East 2,000 years ago to die to free humans from original sin, and then become the hide and seek champion until today?

Basically, this book is broken down in to three parts with an appendix that ties everything together and seemingly proves the point that everything was created by the supernatural Christian god. Part One is the authors attempt to prove creationism. He attempts to explain how the everything right down to the cell was intricately fine-tuned for the god’s people to be in existence, and there is no way any of this could’ve come about naturally. I’m just some guy with an interest in science and could see through some of his arguments. This section reminded me of that meme in which a water puddle in a pot hole states “look at how perfect I fit in this pothole, it was created just for me”. The author is looking at this exactly backward. We evolved the way we are because of our living conditions. Life is a product of its environment, and if you want to claim it was designed than you must realize that it was designed by nature and not by the guiding hand of a supernatural being. He brings up the tired old irreducible complexity argument relating to cells. Cosmologically speaking, he claims that the size of the sun and size of the moon are perfect for life, and Saturn and Jupiter have saved the Earth from killer asteroids – and this is all proof that the solar system was designed. Did you know that the god designed eclipses, too? Read the book to find out why. And because we have no other signals from other civilizations in the cosmos this is proof that we are the god’s only creation. What about the billions and billions and billions of other galaxies out there? We have no idea what is out there. The magnitude of the universe is almost unimaginable. Furthermore, he argues that scientific discoveries like the big bang and relatively have proven the truths of the Bible and disproven atheism. He uses quotes from a number of cherry-picked Christian scientists to support his claims that religion is more compatible with science than atheism. I can see why this part of the book would appeal to people who want to believe that the Bible is a science book and didn’t pay attention in biology or astronomy class, or had a Catholic education and were not taught proper science. It’s as if the author didn’t read a word of scientists such as Stephen Hawking or Carl Sagan (he quotes Sagan from the 1960s, c’mon), contemporary physicists like Laurence Krauss, Sean Carroll, or Brian Greene; or contemporary cosmologists like Janna Levin or Roger Penrose. Any one of these people could shoot Part One full of holes.

In the same vein, I don’t believe the author read any of the works of preeminent authors in biological sciences (well, he read Richard Dawkins’s atheist-themed books, but not his biology-themed books). He refers over and over to the famous 1952 experiment to create life from organic molecules but neglects to talk about current research. Other claims: panspermia is a “crackpot theory” (recent space missions found water and organic molecules on other bodies moving about the solar system) and the water molecule is miracle created for us as it is necessary for life (there is water all over the solar system, and it’s basic chemistry). In summary, the chapters in Part One intend to show that there is no way life came about naturally. If there is something science can’t explain then it must have a supernatural cause (the ol' “god of the gaps”). EVERYTING after the big bang was carefully orchestrated by the invisible hand of a superintelligence right up until this very second. And guess who this superintelligence is?

Part Two is biblical archeology. I found this part to be very interesting and I learned a lot actually. I have always found archeology interesting and it’s intriguing that many of the biblical settings have been found. He does make some definitive claims linking biblical events which may or may not happened to some of the discoveries which cannot be proven and may never be. He claims that Jesus’ childhood home and a number of other Jesus-related locations have been identified. The information regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls and other relics and writings was interesting, some of this I remembered from parochial school. This all being said, the author goes off the deep end and claims that the discovery of ancient locations the Bible was set in proves that Jesus existed, rose from the dead, and ascended in to heaven. “There is too much evidence (of the resurrection) for us to ignore it”, he states. Checkmate, atheists! What evidence? Some rocks? A foundation? That’s quite a leap of faith. That’s like saying the existence of King’s Cross Station in London proves the existence of Harry Potter.

Part Three was hard to get through. It was basically an all-out bash fest of the concept of atheism, past and present. This was followed by more science-proves-religion arguments. Basically, you either follow the Bible or are one of “them’, along with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, (insert horrible historical figure here), etc. He claims atheists have no inherent morality and since we reject the afterlife really nothing to live for and no motivation to be inherently good. Wow. Predictably, he points out how horrible past godless countries have been and the shortcomings of current godless countries such as China. But according to the recent book Beyond Doubt: The Secularization of Society by Zuckerman, Kasselstrand, and Cragun there are seven democratic countries in the world today with over 50% non-believers: Czech Republic (62%), South Korea (59%), the Netherlands (56%), Estonia (54%), Norway (53%), and the UK (52%). None of these countries are mentioned though when he is making his point about countries with a lack of moral compass without a god. Most atheists I know are guided by the golden rule and commit no crimes, and try to life our one life to the fullest. It’s sad that the author and others think less of atheists because they are not “god fearing”.

As this part of the book goes on he rages and uses ad-hominem attacks against his hated “four horsemen” of new atheism – Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris – and particularly rips on Hitchens for his anti-theist writings. You can hear the contempt in his voice as he hurls insults towards these guys. It felt personal. Richard Dawkins is one of the the world’s preeminent evolutionary biologists and the author trashes him over and over. He went on to rip Neil deGrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan for their Cosmos series, which he said mislead millions of people as creationism wasn’t even addressed. On the contrary, the author states that the similarity of the color of the start in our galaxy proves the uniformity of matter and their common source of creation. And did you know that Christianity gave birth to science? A Google search of the history of science is all you need to be set straight on the origins of scientific thinking. It’s ironic how the author continues to bring up the shortcomings of science and how there are so many things that can’t be observed and which science can’t yet explain (but very well may in the future) and therefore magic did it. He also claims that atheists are hypocrites for enjoying art and music even though we don’t understand the mechanisms for their appeal. I don’t know either but I sure am not going to credit some invisible being. This is just another example of shoehorning the supernatural in to something that happens in our brain.

I could go on and on. This book is full of outdated scientific information and logical fallacies including special pleading and ad-hominem attacks. But based on its ratings it has successfully won over most of its intended audience. It’s just sad that he has to bash atheism and those who “reject god”. What?! That’s like saying people reject leprechauns, bigfoot, or the tooth fairy. Is it so hard to fathom that there is a growing number of humans who refuse to believe in the supernatural? I’m happy to report that atheism is nowhere near dead.

[Chad Miller · Rating 2 out of 5]

Choosing a star rating for this book was difficult because at times I did genuinely enjoy it, but I had to wrestle with removing stars rapidly for how quickly and how explicitly this book defies its own strong assertions.

In the earliest chapters, Eric Metaxas carefully and diligently loads the large, multi barrel shotgun he uses to repeatedly shoot himself in the foot as the book goes on. Unlike Checkhov's gun, he does not leave it for the third act -- he begins unloading early, and unloading often, and I was left with fewer questions for science than I was left for who this book is ostensibly (as opposed to actually) aimed at.

Let's go over some quick points that made me want to write this review, but in a style I can only really describe as rambly and only semi-coherent. My apologies, but I promise there is a point.

First, in order to even pick up a book like this and add it to the reading list, one must have a certain level of intellectual curiosity -- and there are genuinely fantastic scientific anecdotes in these pages to sate a curious mind! But quickly, you come to the parts where he asks you to (please) be incurious as he comes to conclusions that science cannot answer this or that question. And this is where he begins unloading his carefully prepared shotgun into his own foot, or feet.

The earliest chapters spend a significant amount of time discussing how absurd the idea of God of the Gaps theory is, and how science is proving God did whatever scientific thing he is talking about at the time. But then, when speaking about the universal parameters, he goes on to say science can't explain certain constants, certain facets of the universe, and they haven't managed yet. Therefore, scientists should "cry uncle."

Do you see where he undercuts himself? Science doesn't understand something to this very day, therefore God did it? He describes a gap in our knowledge, and then BAM! Summons God to fill that gap.

When speaking about abiogenesis, again he builds up a case for why science hasn't been able to answer this question yet, necessitating a divine creator. Again, building a gap, and against using God to fill said gap, unloading an additional shell into his foot. With further audacity, he says scientists should be "embarrassed" (something he repeats every few pages) to be wasting time and money trying to answer these questions because there is a gap there and God has filled it. Scientists should "hang up their boots."

When speaking of water, he goes on to say that science can find no reason for certain properties of water - therefore scientists should stop looking. God made water *just so*. Why would you want to look for the answers to these questions when he has the answer, and the answer is God? Please don't fill that gap with science, he seems to imply.

This review probably sounds like a review from an angry atheist, but mostly it is a review from a place of frustration with the assertions this author asks me to accept. "It is impossible to live as an intellectually fulfilled atheist," he says, which seems to me to completely misunderstand the curiosity that drives many of the most aspirational scientists. They are asking questions that are often incredibly difficult to nigh impossible to answer - where did the universe come from? How does the universe work at a fundamental level? How did life begin?

And in the pursuit of those answers, Scientists have found many answers -- but not THE answers. But in science, the questions and what you discover along the way is fulfilling. The journey is fulfilling. I think, if you asked many scientists, you'd find that the idea of having all the answers would be the opposite of intellectually fulfilling, because what frontiers would be left to discover?

And therein lies the crux; Eric Metaxas suffers a dire lack of empathy for different points of view, if his style of writing is any indicator. "The only way to be fulfilled," the pages seem to indicate "is to know all the answers." And anyone who wants to keep looking for more answers? Well, repeatedly, page after page, he says in explicit language, those people *should* feel embarrassed. In those very words he makes that statement.

Telling scientists they should feel embarrassed repeatedly isn't the only bit of language that seems to lack a certain kind of understanding of the feelings of others. He uses turns of phrase one might call Trumpian, honestly, and repeatedly. "No one was thinking of these things." "No one was asking these questions." "Who would have thought Jupiter was important to Earth?"

Many people have asked those questions, and they have for decades. The answers you give in this book, citing repeated studies affirming consensus, are an indicator that many people have been thinking of these questions, and providing answers.

So why give this book 2 stars, despite my problems with so many points in the book? Because I was genuinely entertained at times. Because despite my absolute disagreement with the strong conclusions Metaxas makes in the book, I appreciate the citations he brings to bear. Despite the out of context quotes (even going so far as to pull out of context from A Brief History of Time, as so many hundreds before him have), I appreciate the breadth of research he brought to the book.

But that is also why it is so disappointing. Despite citing writings across hundreds or thousands of years, he comes to the conclusion that now, today, we have come to the end of science. That now, today, we have proven abiogenesis impossible, and we cannot understand water, and the universe is inscrutable in its perfection. And because we can never know these answers, these answers are God.

And fifty years from now, or one hundred years from now, or five hundred years from now, this book, as so many others that have come before it, will likely be forgotten on a list of "God of the Gaps" examples that tried to stake a permanent spot for God to live in those questions Science hasn't answered yet.

And alongside that forgotten book, some new author will be fitting God into new questions science hasn't answered yet, because that is just how this works apparently.

[Beauregard Bottomley · Rating 1 out of 5]

According to the author Nazi Germany was an atheist state and since they did not have an objective morality they used the fat from the dead Jews that they killed and made soap out of it. As with the rest of this book, that statement is full of shit. That falsehood about soap had started circulating during the war and Antony Beevor in his book The Second World War and Michael Berenbaum, who was project manager for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum both debunked it. There is no supporting evidence such as “shipping bills, physical evidence from a manufacturing plant, or receipts for economic transactions” as would be expected, the Nazis were proud of their destruction and were known to have documented everything with pride, but there is no documentation for that statement that Eric Metaxes puts in this foolish book. The fool of the author of this book, Eric Metaxes, makes that statement about soap with an obvious disregard for the Truth. The burden of proof is on the one who makes the assertion and this book is full of assertions with no supporting evidence and is full of shit.

Eric Metaxes used the ‘no true Scotsman paradox’, when he claims the Nazis were atheists because they were killing the Jews and circularly deduces they can not possibly be Christians because of that killing. The bigger problem with the statement is how does it support Metaxes’ thesis that because ‘atheist’ states are bad that makes the believers in God right? Don’t get me wrong, the Nazis are evil and were not an atheist state as Eric Metaxes claims, but that is irrelevant to Metaxes’ claim and the Nazis were bad and I’d even use the word evil when describing the Nazis, evil is just a word I use to put a label on something that is bad to the extreme, and I’m tempted to call the false framing in this book evil, but I won’t. Metaxes never mentions WW II Japan or Italy, two indisputably religious states, but I wouldn’t use them to prove all religious states are wrong and that non-religious states are superior. That is the kind of sloppy logic Metaxes uses everywhere in this book.

According to Metaxes, without a God of the Bible, there is no objective morality and therefore Nazis are justified in killing who they want and that means we must have a God in order to call the Nazis wrong. That’s a weird argument, because it seems that it is easy to call the Nazis wrong and evil without appealing to a faith-based authority outside of myself. I don’t need to outsource my standards to a particular book or self-appointed keepers of that book. Also without his God of the Bible, he’ll say that life can’t possibly have meaning. Once again, if he is right that life has no meaning without God, that doesn’t mean there must be a God. It just means life has no meaning under his paradigm. Nietzsche will say the real nihilist are those who outsource their meaning to others. Metaxes thinks that we must outsource our meaning to his brand of religion based on his faith precepts and since people like me don't appeal to his version of God, he would say I can’t call anything bad or evil. Well, this book is bad and evil (oops, I did call this book evil), and I’ll find meaning where I want to find it not where Metaxes says I should, so, therefore, I can just as easily make moral judgements as he does and his foundation is no more sound than my foundation.

Everything I’ve said so far about this book is only in relation to the opening sentence I stated in this review. This whole book is full of equally stupid reasoning by him. This book is a childish book and is irritatingly superficial throughout. No believer could possibly be convinced by anything in this book if they had not already been deep inside the bubble before having read this book, and for anyone sitting on the edge they would almost certainly stop thinking theists possibly could have reasonable arguments. Lee Strobel with his Case for Christ did that for me year ago since his book used the same old tired arguments as Metaxes does and it makes one realize there is nothing original within their arguments. There are good arguments they can use but these kinds of books are too wrapped up in their own certainty to be original or convincing.

Metaxes will say there must be more than the material world because we have love or he’ll ask where does the mind come from if atoms are all there are? Therefore he’ll claim God of the Bible must be true. This kind of faulty reasoning is what passes for serious thought by Metaxes.

His major point is along the lines that as science learns more about the world, we learn that we must have a ‘fine tuner’ keeping the universe balanced, and that since biblical archelogy is discovering knew things about the Bible then the whole Bible must be true. He spends a lot of time explaining that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by a metorite and therefore all the Bible must be true, but he didn’t mention that Lot’s wife turned into a pillar of salt when she looked back.

I see Eric Metaxes as a danger and doesn’t help his own cause with all of his faulty reasoning. For example, he’ll say since most scientist in the 20th century were Christians that means atheism must be bad (‘democratic fallacy’), it would be as stupid as saying in 1642 that because most people think the earth is the center of the universe that means Galileo is wrong. BTW, Isaac Newton who Metaxes exemplifies for his piety was an anti-Trinitarian and his brand of Christianity is anathema to most of modern-day Catholics or Protestants, but of course that doesn’t mean anything to the Truth of the nature of God or atheism, but in the context of this book Metaxes just says Newton was a Christian and that means atheism is dead.

Only a simpleton would think these arguments connect to the God of the Bible and anyone who called into the Atheist Experience call-in show using anyone of these arguments would get demolished for not having connected the dots to God must exist because Metaxes never connects the dots. Metaxes is ultimately appealing to faith-based authority and special pleading for his own religion in this book, and he sublimates science into his peculiar brand of Truth by claiming the more we know the more we had to have had a fine tuner therefore his version of God is true and everyone else is wrong.

When we outsource Truth to faith-based authority, we get MAGA and nonsense like this book. That’s the reason I took the time to write my opinion about this book. A reliance on feelings over reason gives us books like this one, and opens the way for fascism (Nazis most certainly embraced Christian religions, German Catholics loved Spengler’s Decline of the West, Hitler spoke of the special nature of Germanness and Martin Luther was one of the three people he gave shout outs to in Mein Kampf, and it is just like today when Christian Nationalists embrace Trump, the white Christian evangelist adored their leader in 1933 despite what Metaxes believes). For fascism to succeed feelings must replace reason and this book is nothing but his feelings incoherently connecting facts to his flavor of God.

[Mark Wenz · Rating 2 out of 5]

After reading Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, I felt compelled to read something expressing an opposing view, so when I saw this book in the library under “New Nonfiction,” I checked it out. At first, I enjoyed this book as its first of three sections focuses on how religion actually aligns with science rather than refuting it. I found this section to be well-argued and -documented and the evidence to be compelling. However, I started losing interest in the second section, which focuses on Biblical archeology. In this section Metaxas’ tone becomes more pleading and strident, and his evidence seems weak. He almost histrionically claims that the evidence he picks and chooses, which comes from other believers, is accurate and indisputable, yet I found the evidence to be cherry-picked and unreliable at best. Metaxas never presents opposing views or counterevidence and, in fact, his references to atheists are angry and disdainful–which is precisely what he accuses the New Atheists of being. (In addition, there’s a series of color photos inserted into this section that shows the atheist Hitchens to look like a parody of the devil himself, with his bloodshot eyes, derisive sneer, and hunched shoulders.) Statements like this one abound in this section: “The way things work in determining the scholarly or popular consensus often has little to do with how such things should work. Logic and facts are rarely the only way we process things. [Really? I believe scientific conclusions are exclusively based on logic and facts.] So it was mostly Albright’s unparalleled authority as the ‘Father of Biblical Archaeology’--bolstered by the subsequent archaeological excavations following his initial identification–that settled most opinions on this issue, at least among those believing the cities [of Sodom and Gomorrah] and the story of their destruction was more than folklore and myth.” As one who expects reliable evidence to back up claims, I’m struck by the vagueness of “most opinions on this issue.” Again, really? Who else? Which sources in your meager bibliography (44 sources for a 400-plus page book) offer similar opinions? And although I appreciate the power of ethical appeal and understand that the “Father of Biblical Archaeology” does have a certain amount of credibility, I’d like to know how large of a group of archaeologists reside “among those believing the cities and the story of their destruction was more than folklore and myth.” In addition, the entire section on archaeology centers on proving the existence of places mentioned in the Bible such as Sodom and Gomorrah, the home of Joseph and Mary (and Jesus as a child) in Nazareth, the apostle Peter’s house, etc. This is all fine and good, but how does it relate to the title of the book? Jesus and Peter and Pilate and Herod all existed, but how does that corroborate the existence of a God who sent himself to earth incarnate to save the world? Therefore, by the end of Section Two I was trudging through the book and wasn’t much engaged with Metaxas’ argument. Section Three, entitled “What Is Truth?”, has additional problems. The beginning of this section rails on and on about the New Atheists–particularly Hitchens–and takes potshots at them but offers little or no evidence (although later in the section Metaxas at least quotes Hitchens and Dawkins occasionally). He employs some of the same tactics he accuses them of committing, particularly using disdainful language (“their rancorous campaign against religion’; “the exuberance and fury with which they condemned religious faith”; “they [the Four Horsemen: Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris] rather energetically denounced all religious expressions as irrational and as somehow ‘anti-science,’ and therefore as intolerably vile and imminently dangerous, and in need of forceful eradication by whatever means available”; “their cantankerous eruptions in many books and speeches and debates”; etc.) Metaxas goes on like this for several pages but never offers a single example: we don’t see any of their denouncements or “eruptions” and, I guess, have to take his word for it. Another issue I have with the book is its One Way or the Highway ethos. Metaxas has little or no use for other religions, arguing that Christianity is the one true religion, a position he most vehemently argues in the chapter “Christianity Begat Science.” Although he makes some good points and actually draws on multiple sources in this chapter, his dismissal of advancements made in mathematics and science by the Greeks, Egyptians, and Byzantine Muslims reveals an inexcusably subjective bias. This book isn’t a well-supported argument as much as a polemic and is thus very similar to Hitchens’ God is Not Great in its delivery but on the opposite polarity in its content. The multitudes of reviewers giving this book five stars are ignoring some of the book’s weaknesses, apparently because they are part of the choir to which Metaxas is preaching. At least you have to admire Metaxas’ passion. Grade: B-

[Barbara Landers · Rating 5 out of 5]

Eric Metaxas has done it again. This book should be read by everyone: By believers to reinforce their faith in God, and by non-believers to look honestly at some of the recent scientific and archeological evidence leading to the idea of Intelligent Design. The author makes the point that recent evidence is so clear and convincing that it would be hard for an atheist to honestly look at this evidence and remain an atheist. An agnostic, maybe? An atheist—not possible.
The title comes from a 1966 Time magazine cover—Is God Dead? This book seems to prove beyond any doubt that He is very much alive and active in our world.
Metaxas uses example after example of scientists who have made discoveries leading to the idea of Intelligent Design. The examples of the fine-tuning of the universe are staggering. The odds of our universe being in a steady state, or always having existed, are refuted with odds that include numbers in the trillions and even octillions. We simply shouldn’t be here; we should not exist at all. The more we learn, the clearer it is that everything is perfectly calibrated for life, from gravity to electromagnetic force.
Another example presented by the author is the knowledge we now have of the cell that is breathtakingly complex. The amazing moon and water have qualities which are remarkable.
He also presents examples of recent archeological discoveries that show beyond proof that Sodom existed and was burned by an extremely high heat for a short time. In 1993, a stele of King David was discovered, disproving the idea that King David was just a mythological character. How the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered is another fascinating story. Metaxas also tells stories of the well-known authors and philosophers who wrestled with the meaning of life. Sartre and Camus both struggled with the idea of a world without God. Both of those men came to believe in God before their deaths. This is a very significant fact, but even more so because the world doesn’t know this, or if it does, doesn’t write about it.
And the discoveries keep on coming, consistently uncovering things that are proof of our Scriptures. This is a must-read.

[Terry Barton · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you are an open-minded person who doesn’t believe everything you hear, watch, or read, but likes to consider (and check) the facts before deciding, I highly recommend this book! In his newest work, “Is Atheism Dead?” Eric Metaxas masterfully builds the case for the existence of God with copious amounts of scientific evidence, archeological findings, and undeniable facts in a way that is logical and wonderfully readable. In fact, most of the scientific and historical data will astound you! Then he examines both the old and new atheists, their philosophies and arguments, and proceeds to their inevitable end. Eric Metaxas writes with unembellished clarity, leading us to the ultimate conclusion that faith and science are not mutually exclusive. Amazingly, science actually proves the opposite! A must-read!

[Jouni Valtatie · Rating 1 out of 5]

Did not go where the science takes us after all!

It seems that most of the readers here came to read this book to be convinced of what they already believe. This is evident by all the five star ratings which this book does not honestly deserve and I will explain why.
Eric Metaxas makes a promise that he will take us where the science takes us, but the further the book advances the more obvious it becomes, that he is not living up to his promise. I have no idea whether it is because he lacks the ability to do so, or because it does not matter as his audience already believes in what he has to say, so no need to try to keep an honest and balanced approach?
Let's talk about the fine tuning and improbability of life example - he is certain that it all points towards God and no other explanation is plausible. First of all, one might think that the millions of galaxies and billions of stars demonstrates how vast the universe is and therefore even though the probability of life emerging may be small (we have really no idea, how small it is, as so far this is the only planet we know of that sustains life) there is at least plenty of opportunities for this to happen. For example, it might very well turn out, that simple life forms are fairly common, but the real test may be to develop intelligent life. But no - for Metaxas this is an example of how precious we are for God - he created the whole vast universe just for us to marvel his creation! I mean, why create vast space that is completely inhabitable for human beings - so that we feel more important? My gut feeling is that for most of us the effect is just the opposite. The most honest answer of how universe came to be and why the physical laws are the way they are, is that we really don't know. We may never know, but this is not a reason for a real scientist to declare "God did it" and stop looking. And don't get me wrong - it is of course possible that behind this all is some kind of entity with vast powers - but where does it leave us? Does it prove that the whole universe was created for humans? Of course not. Does it mean that this being is personal, omnipotent and gave us souls and eternal life? Of course not. Does it mean that we even matter? Of course not. Even if we assumed such a being(s), it is very difficult to know, what to make with such knowledge, so from a scientific point of view, that assumption is quite pointless as it really gives no answers to anything. And Improbability of earth, moon, solar system…. everything that happened is so improbable that we should not exist – right? But this somewhat hindsight and trickery with improbabilities – of course we are product of the history of our solar system. It is like throwing a ball into a grass field and then declaring that the probability it hit the specific leaf of grass is close zero that it cannot be an accident – sure, but the probability it hits any grass is close to 100 %. Or, that what is the probability your father and mother ever meeting and that the exact two egg & sperm cells ended up coding precisely the genome that resulted in you? We might as well call that so improbable that you do not exist.
It is somewhat curious though that he did not use quantum mechanics as a proof of God, because there you have some very weird things going on that defy common sense.
Then we have the claim that because it has not been discovered how life started on earth, the scientists must be "embarrassed" and should stop looking and again – you guessed it – shout “God did it!”. Ok, so we have known about DNA and genes a few decades – the understanding of evolution has increased our knowledge by leaps and bounds – but everybody just should stop looking, because we have not discovered what happened in earth about 4 billion years ago? We may never know, simply because of the improbability of finding any kind of fossilized evidence of soft single cell lifeforms so far back. But science just does not work that way – there never is “the final” answer that would make scientists stop looking for more evidence. One might even think that Eric Metaxas is afraid of what will be discovered, if scientists keep looking? He is also surprisingly silent of the evolution that has happened after the life emerged. If you really want to go where science takes you, you must admit, that evolution of species and humans is true – there is so much independent evidence that fits perfectly in the theory of evolution and nothing that disproves it. Obviously Eric Metaxas knows this but does not want to dwell on that.
There is a long part of how the Bible gives accurate account of historical events. Metaxas seems to think that if some Bible stories can be proved accurate, it somehow proves that the rest of it is true as well? Divinity of Jesus and existence of God being the most important truths, of course. Sorry, but no. Logic just does not work that way. And the proof for resurrection of Jesus? Because the people cited in the gospels did not have a reason to lie? Anybody who knows anything about the trustworthiness of eyewitness stories knows that they are remarkably error prone. Not to mention that the gospels were written at best decades after the alleged death of Jesus. So they weren’t even eyewitness stories, but more like hearsay. Scientifically speaking it is the weakest kind of proof for anything. It is also difficult to know that why (according to Metaxas) some things in the Bible must be literally true (resurrection) and why some stories are clearly metaphorical? For me it is not clear why, for example, Adam and Eve need not to be actual people? If they were not, then what was the metaphorical crime human kind did to deserve banishment from Eden? The science tells us that human species evolved from previous hominids and there never was a point in time when there were only two humans, so the story cannot be literally true.
I do not understand why Metaxas scorns at other religions – he seems to think that Christianity is superior to all other religions – for average reader the reason is not as self-evident as he thinks. Scientifically speaking, which is more probable: That Christianity is the correct one out of many different religions or that some other or none of them is true?
It is remarkable how Metaxas changes the burden of proof the way it suits his purposes. I mean it is a well-established principle that the burden of proof is on whoever is making the claim. But somehow it turns so that for example the question of human soul is fired back at the doubters “you cannot prove there is no soul” – when normally it would be the one who makes the claim that there is a soul who should prove it. But so much for scientific integrity…
Then on and on continuing rambling of how new atheists are as bad as Hitler & Stalin… or at least Metaxas wants us to believe that this is the road atheism takes us. But is it really? Let’s think about it for a moment shall we? First of all – I am very tired of “atheists did that” and then the counter argument from the other camp “yes but the Christians did that!” (Funny enough Metaxas only gives examples of good deeds that Christians have done and bad deeds from atheists – wonder why?) . The history clearly tells us that despite the religion or atheism people are capable of and have done horrendous things – Christians killing other Christians over minute differences in the doctrine (Even though there is the “Thou shalt not kill”-commandment – go figure) Let’s just say that there is no scientific proof that atheism causes people to use violence – on the contrary – the studies show that the most secular countries are the most peaceful (for example Scandinavian countries). Even in the United States death penalty is supported more by Christians than by atheists.
Also Eric Metaxas clearly have no idea why people become atheists (or what it even means to be one) or that values and morals could come somewhere else than from religion. According to him, I, as an atheist, should be either putting bullet to my head or go around murdering and raping. But no – that is against my moral values as a member of society – and those values are lot older than Christianity – probably older than Homo sapiens as species. We do now that primates and many other animals living in groups have their own moral codes. The reward is not eternal life, but a functioning society that can co-operate and therefore survive.
An atheist is not necessarily someone who believes that he can prove nonexistence of God or absolutely certain that there is none. No, only lack of belief in any such deities is sufficient for somebody to identify themselves as an atheist.
Many people - at least in the western countries – start out as Christians by upbringing, but become later on to realize that evidence for God is weak at best and that the teachings of the church do not make all that much sense. They do not become atheists, because they hate God (that would be an oxymoron) or that they want to believe there is no God – it is just where the reasoning takes us. And once you see it – it is impossible to unsee it again, at least if you want to stay honest to yourself.
Yet another thing Eric Metaxas does not get is that why atheists become vocal about their beliefs – his incomprehensible view is that once you are an atheist, you should not talk about, because you do not have a religion so leave the playground to the ones who have. Sure – that might be a thing to do, if religions kept quiet and loved thy neighbors and did not force their beliefs onto others. However, it doesn’t really work that way does it? Religion is a source of a lot of injustice – plenty of religions condemn homosexuality, do not allow women priests, try to affect which laws pass and so on. And in most countries religions are so influential that their presence can be seen in everyday life. So it is only rational to advocate a society where decisions, laws and morals were based on common sense and science. As science is not about dogmatic unchanging truths, it means that things can be changed when our understanding increases. If we think about climate and environmental disasters – which ones should decide what is the best course of action – the ones who trust in science or the ones who believe that the end of the world is long due, the second coming is any day now and why bother as everything goes to hell anyway?
And finally a point about science and religion being compatible and his major argument to support this is that many scientists have been religious. And of all the people his main example is Sir Isaac Newton. He may very well be the most influential scientist ever – but he was also a complete asshole (look it up, how he treated his scientist contemporaries). Did not believe in human soul – had very peculiar beliefs in general – does Eric Metaxas believe everything Isaac Newton believed, because he was a great scientist? I am trying to say that a scientist may be extraordinary in his own field and at the same time mediocre or worse on other areas. And one can make an argument that their religion is in harmony with science, but it very much limits the things one can believe in. For starters – evolution is a well-established scientific fact.
Even if many scientists think that there is some sort of purpose or deity behind the world, it is usually hard to get any specifics about their belief – it is usually some sort of vague “something is there”, it is usually more like general spirituality than buying into any specific dogmas of a certain religion. Like Einstein’s “I believe in Spinoza's god, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a god who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.” That sort of religion can of course be consistent with science. But anyway scientists are far more likely to be atheists than the average person.
If anybody read this far – I salute you – I just needed to get this out of my system - there is more, but I'll stop here. Also, if you think I got something wrong or want comment otherwise – please do. Always eager to have constructive conversation.

[Justin · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5 stars

In terms of science the author pretty much says to the non-believing reader. Hey you can still have your naturalism, just add the God of the Bible into it. There was some very interesting elements in terms of arguments for the fine tuning of the earth/universe.

Regarding treating scripture as historical, the author allows from Abraham on up to be history. But Genesis 1-11 is a mix of poetry, legend and lore from long ago. To far back for it to be actual history. Might as well be cutting the roots from a tree and then expecting it to thrive.

The archeological section was wonderful. So fun to read about how things were discovered which time and time again confirm accounts in the Bible. Even down to the tiniest obscure detail in some areas.

Much of the other arguments felt way outdated. Taking on the "new atheist" is now, in the realm of apologetics, very old.

All in all this book boldly goes where many other apologetics books have gone before. There's some golden nuggets in it, but you'll need to travel far to find them. My advice would be to skim through the areas that might interest you. As a whole, it's just one of the weaker apologetics books I've ever read. I expected far better from this author.

[Aaron Witte · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is actually 3 books in one. The first part is about how unlikely it is that the universe would contain a planet like ours and that life would be present on it. The more we learn about our universe and discover about cellular biology, the more preposterous it becomes to believe we are here by random chance. The second part is about biblical archaeology and how there really is truth to the biblical account corroborated in ALL archaeological findings from that time period. The final portion of the book is about the fallacies and circular logic found in the arguments of well known atheists such as Dawkins and Hitchens as well as the accounts of 3 famous atheists who ended up rethinking their positions in the end: Camew, Flew, and Sartre.
This book is a fantastic read. It is honest and fair in it’s arguments and allows the copious and mind blowing facts and findings to firmly but cordially lead you to answer the question of the title. Spoiler alert, YES!!! Atheism is DEAD! Science has essentially proven God. Even top scientists hold this view, but somehow we don’t hear about their stories outside of books like this one. Buy it and read it! You won’t regret it.

[Benjamin Stahl · Rating 5 out of 5]

After First Reading - 2021 - 5 Stars

This was one of the countless free audiobooks I added to my Audible account after they released their absolutely wonderful Audible Plus catalogue. Going off the perhaps unnecessarily provoking title, I expected an enjoyably affirming book, but certainly not the thoughtful, erudite and engaging apologetic powerhouse it turned out to be. Eric Mataxas presents, at least in my perspective as a believer, one heck of a strong case against the claims of atheism (in effect, tying their arguments to the back of his truck and dragging them through the mud of archaeology, history, science and philosophy). I have no doubt there will be rebuttals against some, or many, of his conclusions (and I am not the perfectionist reader who will go and verify every single Bible-supporting discovery he writes about, as opposed to taking his word on trust, whilst retaining the awareness that while probably not lying, he may not always be completely correct).

Indeed, I confess I tend to roll my eyes at the earnest attempts of more creationist-minded Christians to deny all evidence of evolution (as if it is not quite easily compatible with faith), the likely real age of the earth, and the need for distinction between biblical history and biblical mythology.

However, I do readily accept Metaxas's assertion that science and its ongoing discoveries are not nearly as contradictory to the Bible as the prevailing cultural narratives maintained by modern secularists would have us believe. In short, I think it is unfortunate but inevitable that those entrenched in the need for God's non-existence will find ways of convincing themselves this book makes no compelling case for them to change their thinking. But for those who are more open-minded and willing to follow the facts and the evidence without prejudice - be they theists or otherwise - I think this book has got to be an important and worthwhile publication. And much credit to Audible, for making it freely available for its members.

I absolutely loved it.


After Second Reading - 2023 - 5 Stars

I loved this just as much the second time reading it. Along with Dinesh D'Souza's What's So Great about Christianity, it is probably the most impressive book of Christian apologetics I have read. A very fulfilling, affirming and thought-provoking read, though of course I say that as a believer. I really do feel like I owe it to myself and anyone that might read this review to actually express my own thoughts on the subjects raised more comprehensively, to really try and engage with the sometimes-difficult challenges atheists raise against our Christian hope. But not right now, it is too gargantuan a task, and ultimately I have none of the argumentative skills or coherence of communication to convey my reasoning and beliefs in a way that would do justice to the topic. Better just to leave it and say this book, as far as I can make out, raises some serious objections to the cultural narrative (in the Western world anyway) that God is dead, faith is irrational, and religion is an evil stain upon our otherwise oh-so-perfectible species.

[Gary · Rating 5 out of 5]

Is Atheism Dead?
By Eric Metaxas

If my advanced copy of Eric Metaxas’ latest work “Is Atheism Dead?” were an actual ink and paper book, it would lie dog-eared, underlined and annotated here next to my computer. “This is a book for us,” I said to myself. But who are us?

Eric writes for those of us so taken in by the selective reporting of our age that we have not even heard about the unimaginable advances in science that point to a Fine Tuning of the universe, one so precise as to make the God hypothesis an assurance. Eric writes for those of us untaught in the remarkable field of biblical archeology and how it affirms the historicity of the scriptures. Eric writes for those us who have been intimidated into silence before the onslaught of Atheism’s popular proponents. Eric writes for those of us who love to read, and love to discover new books through the ones we are reading. Eric writes for those of us who have forgotten how to fight, who need a Mickey Goldmill to spur us back into the fray. Eric writes for those of us addicted to words and word-smithing; like a poet he draws us into the realm of feeling, as well as thought. And finally, Eric writes for those of us who, in the dark and ugliness of this age, have lost touch with the mystery of beauty and its witness to the Divine. This is a book for all of us, even and especially for those who mourn the death of atheism and wonder, "What's next?"

[Allie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredible. Eric Metaxas has gone to the experts and delivers the most current and mind-blowing evidence for faith. Like a good friend who is excited to share amazing news, Metaxas shares what is known but rarely popularized in today’s culture. Everyone should become aware of these facts, especially those asking life’s important questions, such as “why are we here”, or “how did we get here?”

[James · Rating 1 out of 5]

I'll begin with an acknowledgement that this book was obviously not intended as a deep or academic exploration of atheism or religious belief, and that any attempt to pick it apart in detail (as I shall attempt to do shortly) is probably fated to come across as a little excessive and self-indulgent. Plainly this book was intended as a kind of spiritual bromide for people who already consider themselves to be Christians, and there is probably little that I or anyone else could say which is capable of undermining its effect in that regard. Neither this book nor this review is going to change anyone's mind about anything, and so I sympathise with anyone who comes to the conclusion that I'm wasting my time by attempting to engage with it at such length. Nonetheless, the fact that this book has received glowing reviews and plentiful across conservative media outlets, and the fact that it currently has an average rating of 4.57 on goodreads, was enough to motivate me to read it and to contribute, in my own small way, to a discussion which until now appears to be dominated by people who happened to join this site at around the same time this book was published.

To start with the obvious, this is not a good book. At its absolute best this book is bland and inoffensive, at its absolute worst it is mendacious to an extent that I can only describe as shocking, but for the most part it is most aptly described as shallow and lazy. Anyone who has been exposed to conservative, Evangelical apologetics will doubtless already be familiar with most of the arguments in this book, and Metaxas is not skilled enough as an author or nimble enough as a thinker to present or elaborate upon these arguments in any meaningful or interesting way. Rhetorically, Metaxas depends heavily on implicature and question-begging, assuming (perhaps correctly) that since the bulk of his readers already share his mindset, there is little reason to bring any of his arguments to full term, leaving the book littered with ideas that can most charitably be described as ill-formed and underdeveloped. This frequently takes the form of using rhetorical questions in lieu of any explicit argumentation, as exemplified by the following barrage addressed to his mental construct of Richard Dawkins in chapter 25:

On the one hand he says we are essentially robots, amazingly constructed by chance through natural selection. On the other hand we are able to create and appreciate things of ineffable beauty and mystery. But if scientific knowledge is the only kind of knowledge, how are we to appreciate the aforementioned artists? What is art that Dawkins should be mindful of it? And the creators of that art, that he should praise them? And what is Socrates’s much-vaunted ideal of “self-knowledge” but unscientific fluff borne to us by Zephyrus from the myth-filled world of pagan antiquity? And what is that invisible thing called “wisdom,” hailed by millennia of human beings, if not a mere hardware glitch yet to be naturally selected by some genetic Mengele for death? Shall not such things be reckoned worthless and disposable because they dare to exist beyond the gleaming palisades of “science”?

The tacit logic appears to be that these questions are so incisive that they can permit no coherent answer at all, but it speaks volumes to Metaxas' lack of intellectual curiosity that he does not appear at all interested in pursuing how atheists can and have addressed such topics throughout history, and to address himself to those specific claims instead. At no point does Metaxas exhibit even the most cursory knowledge of the ideas and philosophies that atheists have espoused over the centuries, much less does he attempt to seriously or sincerely engage with them. In fact, despite devoting long, indignant swathes of his book to "the New Atheists", he appears to be distinctly uninterested in what any of them have actually had to say. At no point, to my knowledge, does he ever directly reference any of the major works produced by the so-called "Four Horsemen" (God is Not Great by Hitchens, The End of Faith by Sam Harris, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, or Breaking the Spell by Dennett) and his chapter-long denouncement of Dawkins appears to be based entirely on a 14-page essay written by Dawkins in 2007. That is not to say that "the New Atheist" literature is particularly enlightening or challenging fare, nor that it should be taken as representative of atheistic thought, merely to say that if you're going to spend a third of a book explicitly attacking the ideas of certain people, you should at the very minimum be familiar with what those people have actually said.

Consequent to his lack of intellectual curiosity and egregious lack of research (which we will get into shortly), we should not be surprised to find that most of his arguments appear to be addressed to a vague and amorphous "they", a loose collective of ideological opponents who appear to lack any distinctive purposes or convictions. Across all three parts of the book, those authorities - archaeologists, scientists, philosophers etc. - who do not share Metaxas' view that there exists overwhelming evidence for the existence of God are conflated into a single hive-mind marching under the banner of 'New Atheism'. He, for instance, hand-waves away cosmological speculations about the existence of the multiverse as being motivated by the conviction that "the idea of a world fine-tuned by some Creator was simply too unpleasant to consider", resulting in "the New Atheists... [fleeing] into that realm of pseudo-philosophy we call wishful thinking" (chapter 3), as though string theory and brane cosmology were just invented by Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris on a whim one day.

On the other hand, he predictably cites sympathetic authorities with unbounded credulity and an often deceptive lack of transparency about their credentials. Those 'authorities' whom he cites as brave, independently-thinking experts invariably turn out to be unqualified ideologues upon even the most cursory of examinations. For example, most of his arguments from Chapter 7 - which is focused primarily on the supposed 'impossibility' of non-theistic origins of life - are taken from the work of Dr. James Tour, a supposedly well-credentialed scientific authority on the subject. It should surprise none to find out that Dr. Tour is an Evangelical Christian who is intimately involved with the Discovery Institute (an organisation founded to advance the cause of creationism and its various offshoots), and whose scientific work - so far as I have been able to establish - has nothing to do with biology, or even with organic chemistry.

Similarly, in chapter 18 he presents the case for what he sees as the historic destruction of Sodom at the hands of God, with all of his evidence for this claim coming from the work of a single 'archaeologist', Dr. Steven Collins. What he of course fails to mention here is that his intrepid 'archaeologist' received his doctorate from an unaccredited Evangelical institution of higher education, and that he is currently the dean of another unaccredited Evangelical insitution of higher education. Metaxas also fails to mention that Collins' theories have won virtually no support from other archaeologists, and that he has been accused of a number of malpractices, including photoshopping images from the sites and operating without proper permits. My point is not to suggest that ideologically committed people cannot be right about anything ever, merely to highlight the double-standard that Metaxas repeatedly succumbs to: people who agree with him are all ideologically compromised sheep who only say what they do out of hatred God, whereas all of those who agree with him are unimpeachable, clear-thinking authorities who have been unfairly sidelined in scientific discourse.

The book itself is divided into three parts. The first part covers 'scientific' evidence for the existence of God (primarily devoted to so-called 'fine-tuning' arguments), the second part covers 'archaeological' evidence for the veracity of the Bible, and the third part is a grab-bag of resentment and innuendo directed loosely at 'atheists', where this book really begins to plumb the depths of sleaze. I will not attempt to 'debunk' the arguments he presents here (though some debunking is unavoidable), but rather attempt to restrict myself to critiquing the kinds of arguments and strategies that Metaxas employs.

(Unfortunately, my review is far too long for goodreads. You can read the rest, where I address all three parts of his book, on my blog here.

[Thomas J · Rating 2 out of 5]

A few years ago I read The God Delusion by noted atheist Richard Dawkins and I came away thinking that it was as good an argument for the existence of a god/supreme being/intelligent designer as it was for the non-existence. Basically Dawkins talked about how incredibly complicated the universe and life is, and how even the slightest difference in the force of gravity, or electromagnetic attraction, or behaviour of various chemicals would mean that stars wouldn't form, elements wouldn't be created or combine, and life wouldn't happen.

So here we are with Metaxas making the same arguments in part I of this book. And they're good arguments. He points out that science, by embracing the Big Bang as the source of the universe, supports belief in Creation. i.e. the Universe had a start, therefore somebody started it. Of course he embraces science when it supports his beliefs, and tears it apart when it doesn't. Also his examples, while compelling, are a bit hard to swallow. OK, so some mathematician proved that if the total mass of matter in the universe was different by the equivalent of the mass of a dime, stars wouldn't have coalesced, galaxies wouldn't have formed, presumably no elements other than hydrogen would exist. All this shows to me is that the math is wrong. Probably calculated by the same guy who proved that bumblebees can't fly. Also, as other reviewers have noted, his definition of evolution is very narrow and self serving. And he believes the Earth may be unique in the universe in having "life" since in his view to support life a planet must be exactly the right size, the right distance from its star, have a moon of a size and distance that exactly blocks out the sun during an eclipse, and have a big brother named Jupiter to sweep comets and other debris out of the sky so it doesn't get hit. Basically he seems to figure that there is life on Earth, here are the conditions that it developed in, therefore these are the conditions that must exist for life to develop. Sort of confusing cause and effect in my view. Also he never discusses the nature of this God person, who presumably is "alive" and existed 14.5 billion years ago and clearly therefore didn't develop on Earth.

The second part of the book mates bible history with archaeology in the holy land, and it's quite interesting. Metaxas seems to think that everyone who disagrees with the idea of God also considers the bible to be mythology, which is not true. I don't think that anyone really doubts that there is real history represented there.

And then there's Part III - tearing apart the principal atheists, the four horsemen as Metaxas calls them: Dawkins, Hitchens, and two others. I made it about halfway through part III and finally got too bored with it. The only thing I found interesting was Metaxas accusing Hitchens of "spittle flecked invective" in his attacks on religion. (I put that in quotes although it might not be the exact wording and I returned the book to the library so I can't check it.) Well, all I can say is that Metaxas' attacks on the atheists in Part III are every bit as spittle flecked as - well I've never read Hitchens - probably anything Hitchens has said.

Oh and one other thing: most of the chapters have a quote at the start - apparently called an epigraph (just looked it up)(did I already know that?) - sometimes a passage from the bible, or some pithy quote from another source. Somewhere around Chapter 26, Metaxas actually begins a chapter by quoting himself. Makes me think of the expression :"Legend in his Own Mind."

I'll have to say his writing is good, with lots of teasers "more on this later.." etc., and I found the first two parts interesting and easy to read.

[Georgina Johnson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Once again Eric delivers a first-rate read. As he said in a recent Q&A session, this is a book geared to thinkers and readers—there is nothing political in the book. The focus is on faith, science and archaeology.

[Laine Burns · Rating 5 out of 5]

Is Atheism Dead? is for any free thinking person who is sincerely looking for the truth. Logical, well researched and entertaining.

[Gary Moreau · Rating 3 out of 5]

Eric Metaxas is a world-renowned author, speaker, and commentator. It is a well-deserved reputation. He is a superb writer, has an apparently photographic mind, and has a deep grasp of logic and argument.

In this case, however, I found the book far too long, inappropriately titled, and in many cases it employs the same rhetorical trickery that he accuses his critics of using.

Overall, the book is an ardent defense of Christianity and the God of the Bible. In the first two sections he uses advances in science and biblical archaeology to build his case that atheism is surely dead (or should be). In the third he goes for the jugular of those who would disagree with him, often exhibiting the same lack of open-mindedness that he accuses his detractors of in the first two sections.

In the first section he uses recent discoveries in science to promote the “Fine-Tuning Argument” for the existence of God, often referred to as the argument of intelligent design. It has its roots in the work of William Paley (1743-1805), an Anglican priest, philosopher and author who built on the work of previous philosophers and theologians, including John Ray (1628-1705), who is generally considered the father of natural history in Great Britain.

Paley built his argument for the existence of an intelligent designer on the philosophical truth that “There cannot be design without a designer…” He then took it one step further and introduced one of the most famous metaphors in the philosophy of science – the watch. When we see a watch we know with a great deal of certainly that it didn’t just crawl out of the ocean. There was a watchmaker.

The more we study the universe the more we find “facts” and precision much more complicated and exacting than a watch, thus appearing just too exact to be random. “It is simply that there are certain things about our universe – and about our planet – that seem to be so extremely perfectly calibrated that they can hardly be coincidental.” (e.g., the size of Earth, that nature of water, the existence and positioning of Jupiter and Saturn)

Fair enough. But these do not prove that this is the handiwork of the biblical God or some comparable designer. I don’t believe you can walk in nature or look into the eyes of your child and not believe in something. That doesn’t mean we have figured out what that something looks like.

Science is not a body of knowledge. It is a methodology for understanding reality by finding patterns. It is no surprise then that the more scientific discovery we undertake the more patterns we will find. But patterns are only patterns, not absolute truth.

In fact, there are very few things that are absolutely true because all truth exists in context and context is effectively infinite in its variability. This is exactly why so many scientific “discoveries” are ultimately proven to be wrong, or at least incomplete. The discovery that counts is the discovery of context and that often changes as scientific methodologies evolve.

He also assumes that if any variation in the “fine-tuning” he refers to as fact would make life impossible if it were only changed by a tiny, tiny degree. He never quite explains why, however. He may be right, but if these great coincidences had been off by only a small degree we might simply have evolved in a slightly different way or something else might have happened to “fill in the gap” if you will. Again, everything is context and context is infinite.

The one point the author does make which is large indisputable. No scientist has yet shown how non-life became life. Evolution is largely indisputable. Evolution, however, requires life and given the complexity of cells and the human body it is practically inconceivable that cells emerged as a result of random forces (or intelligent designers), even over long periods of time.

He cites Dr. James Tour, “widely regarded as the greatest nanochemist on the planet.” He notes Tour wrote, “that just the protein interactions in a single yeast cell are 10 to the 79 billion combinations.” Tour goes on to say, “We should defund all further research in this direction [explaining the origin of life] because we know now for sure that it’s like looking for a pot of gold at the end of each rainbow. It’s demonstrably a fool’s errand, and now it’s a gigantic waste of money that could be put to better use.”

In fact, I don’t believe we will ever prove how life began beyond any doubt. Never. And if anything this book has further convinced me of that. So why do we spend billions and billions of dollars attempting to discover something that will never be discovered. Not in a billion years – to the power of 100 even. Why don’t we spend that money on scientific advances that can impact the world – e.g. climate change, disease, medical advances, etc?

I believe the origins of life can be best explained by a metaphor concerning a painting by George Seurat (1859-1891) entitled Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte. I’m sure you’ve seen the picture. It is a very pleasant painting of a crowd of French gentlemen and ladies strolling about a park, all gussied up, parasols in hand, in the late 1800s. It was painted in the pointillist tradition which Seurat founded using tiny dots of pigment rather than brush strokes.

Think of the dots as observable facts. The image is truth. And when the dots are all in place the truth is easy to observe and understand. The image is obvious and cannot be mistaken for anything other than what it is.

What if ten percent of the dots were randomly removed, however? Fifty percent? Ninety percent? It is at that point that we slide from knowledge to conjecture. Who knows what the artist has in mind?

And our knowledge of the origins of life and the universe are far less than 10% of the dots needed for a complete understanding of the universe. (Probably less than 1%) We haven’t even scratched the surface, which is why the scientists of the world will never, ever be without something to do.

The author’s second argument is even less convincing than the fine-tuning argument. He argues that advances in biblical archeology have greatly increased the chances that the Bible is not myth, but an accurate historical account, except for the first several chapters that he excuses as being told in the story-telling format of fantasy and fable in keeping with the times in which they were written.

It is true that biblical archeology has come a long way in recent decades. And I have no problem accepting it as a generally accurate historical account. But does that prove the God of the Bible and the story of Jesus? We have found the home in which Jesus lived. Does that prove that he was God incarnate sent here to bring us back to the bosom of God. I don’t see how one “proves” the other except in the most superficial way.

In the final section of the gook Metaxas goes after the “zero-tolerance” atheists like Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens. I have read some of their work, largely out of intellectual curiosity, and he is correct that they can be arrogant, crude, and unwilling to concede anything. I am not a fan of any of them, but what happened to the Bible and Jesus’ exhortation of forgiveness and tolerance?

He also goes after Communism as being the ultimate atheism. Stalin and his ilk have done many atrocious things (He lists Hitler among the group but Hitler was, in fact, not a Communist. He was just deranged.), but so too have many who have claimed to be of faith and was Stalin’s evil a function of his politics or just who he was?

And I do take great exception with his depiction of China as a faithless and godless state. The Chinese Constitution is not draped in religion in the way that the US Constitution is but having lived there I can assure you that it is not a faithless state. You can easily go to church there. The Catholic Church in China even has bishops and cardinals and they aren’t in hiding. And, of course, Buddhist temples and monks are everywhere.

To the Chinese communism is merely the name of their political system. They are a deeply faithful people. But instead of directing their faith to the God of the Bible they devote their faith to their family, their ancestors, and the mysteries of nature and the universe.

Authors like Metaxas often dismiss China as a ruthless authoritarian state. In fact, I would describe it as one of the freest states on the planet. Drive a car just one time on the streets of China and you will see that. I am an obvious foreigner – American of European decent - so I am easy to pick out. But I have never once been stopped by a policeman for any reason. And I have never seen a policeman with a weapon, much less military assault rifles and body armor.

There is only one rule in China: Don’t threaten the stability of the state. But that’s not where most people live anyway. Few of us get up each day and think to ourselves that we should spend the day disrupting the state. And even Jesus told his followers to pay Caesar his due.

In the end, I honestly can’t tell you whether to read this book or not. It all depends what you currently believe. This book will not change your mind either way.

[BJ Richardson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Is Atheism Dead?

This is the question Eric Metaxas asks in this book. The answer is that it should be, but humanists, materialists, and the New Atheists are too ignorant, hard-headed, and anti-science to acknowledge it. All of creation points to its Creator, and the further we advance in our learning, the more obvious this truth is.

This book is broken down into three parts. The first part is a cosmological examination of the theistic argumentation for the fine-tuning of the universe. The second part is an examination of how archaeology time and time again has proven the historical reliability of the Bible. The third is a refutation of some of the arguments and statements from the New Atheists (Harris, Hitchins, Dawkins, and Dennet). If I were to rate each part separately:
Part 1 - 5 stars
Part 2 - 3 stars
Part 3 - 4.5 stars.

My biggest complaint with part 2 is that Metaxas wants the archaeological record to say more than it does. For example, there is an archaeological site of a house in Nazareth with consecutive churches from different time periods built over it. Yes, we have a preserved house from the time Jesus would have lived in the town. Yes, tradition claims this house to be Christ's. But we have absolutely no way of verifying the veracity of this claim. Metaxas' claim that scholarly articles about the site are intentionally burying the truth is unfounded. They are just professionals being professionals. Also, most other traditional sites (his tomb, his birthplace, etc) date back no further than to Flavius Julia Helena, Constantine's mom, and her archaeological tour in the late third century. Metaxas takes her "discoveries" and claims at face value. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't the right locations. Tradition says they are, but it is currently impossible to say both now, and probably for always, that they are. What is true is that archaeology has not once done is disproven anything from scripture. That alone is a beautiful and amazing truth. Eric Metaxas would have been better served to let that fact stand on its own rather than trying to make it more than it is.

In all, this is a great read. The first part is probably the best short layman's examination of the fine-tuning argument that I have ever seen. I would strongly recommend this book to anyone and everyone. Better yet, grab a few extra copies. Then next time your atheist friend tries to get you to read the latest Dawkins or Harris book, offer to trade. "I'll read that one if you read this one. Then let's do lunch and we can have a good talk about both."

[Stephanie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not an easy read, but definitely worth the effort. Eric Metaxas is very brilliant and bold in his take down of atheism and more specifically, the “Four Horsemen of the New Atheism “ , a foursome who have done more damage in recent history that just about anything other than terrorism and abortion. This book is heavily researched and should satisfy even the staunchest critic and scholar. He hits the critiques of the case from a Creator from all angles including historical and scientific and proves that science and faith are compatible. My only gripe is that he is an old earth creationists and doesn’t even mention the possibility of a young earth position, meaning his is a forgone conclusion. A glaring omission in such a comprehensive book on the topic of creation.

[Khari · Rating 1 out of 5]

This review is for the audio version, read by the author himself.

Here I am again, disagreeing with everyone else on Goodreads...sigh...

Whatever you do, do not listen to this book. If you simply must engage with it, read it, do not listen to him read it. He is infatuated with the sound of his own voice, and thoroughly believes in inserting pauses for dramatic effect, forgetting that only works if it's used strategically. Since he inserts a dramatic pause in every single sentence, it is no longer dramatic and becomes simply a really annoying habit. A incredibly annoying habit. Listening to this book increased my stress level substantially, I could only bear it for 30 minutes or so before I had to go and purify my brain with something else. This coming from someone who regularly listens to podcasts that are 3 hours long. I cannot stand this man's voice.

Honestly, though, don't even read this book. There's no point to it. It's so basic. It's an overview of every stream of Christian thought in the past 20 centuries and doesn't go into depth about any of it. I learned precisely one thing from this book, that Copernicus wasn't fighting the church of his time, that the idea of the heliocentric universe being anti-religion was something created later (discussed here in a much more coherent way https://historyforatheists.com/2018/0...). Other than that the only value this book has is in the bibliography: pick it up, flip to the back, write down all of the books there and go read those, trust me, you'll get a lot more out of reading the original texts than you will get out of this.

Metaxas falls into the same trap that I had to crawl out of when I got into graduate school. Those of us who have been trained in the humanities are taught to write very mellifluously. We are drilled on metaphor, simile, metonymy, allegory, alliteration, rhetorical strategies, hyperbole, allusion, symbolism, and purposeful grammatical construction. This is our bread and butter, and we use it. Indeed, every time we insert a little allusion to Shakespeare, Milton, Chaucer, or Seneca we get a little surge of joy and all of our readers oh and ah in appreciation at our ability to weave what we have read into what we write. That's what the humanities does to you. It's not bad, exactly, it's just a specific way to write and interact with knowledge.

But it is not scientific.

I discovered this in my very first class at the graduate level, in the comparative linguistics course where we had an essay test, and I wrote a beautiful essay. It would have passed any AP exam or GRE exam with flying colors, I would have gotten an A+ in any English class with it. In linguistics? I got an F. Why? Because it was all beauty and fluff and no meat. My teacher didn't care if I could allude to Shakespeare's iambic pentameter, she wanted me to show that I had understood what the class was about, by including specific examples and explicating what was going on in those examples. By including facts, and not just including facts, but explaining what effects those facts had and how to apply those facts to future study in comparative linguistics.

The same is true of Eric, he's so lost in the beauty of what he's writing that he writes a bunch of fluff. People go into this book thinking that they are going to be prepared to take on the arguments of atheists and show that God really does exist, that they will be made experts by reading this book. That is not the case. Nothing is gone into in any depth. If it was, you could not have a single book that covers everything from: physics, archaeology, philosophy, history, ontology, theology, biology, chemistry, astronomy, and logic, etc. He's not producing anything new, he's regurgitating what others have written in a superficial way. Barnes and Noble's blurb is that this book is 'impressively wide-ranging', it's not impressively wide ranging it's 7 miles wide and half an inch deep.

For being written to combat the new atheists it utterly fails. At one point in the book Metaxas admits that he never even finished reading Hitchens' book (or was it Dawkins?, I can't even remember). He spends an entire chapter debunking a person whose books he never read.

Let that sink in just a minute.

How, pray tell, is that any different from what the atheists do? They yell about the Bible and write copiously to debunk something they have never read. Actually, I dare say that at least some of them have read the Bible, obviously with bias and only intending to find material with which to ridicule it, but at least they went through the effort of reading it. Metaxas couldn't even be bothered to do that.

He complains in various sections that the atheists cherry pick their examples, that you cannot chose the worst examples of Christianity in the last 2000 years and then extrapolate it out to the rest of the Christian movement. He is correct, you can't do that. Such strategies contain a logical fallacy or three. But, then, he does the same thing. The soviet union and the Khmer Rouge and Nazi Germany were all atheistic regimes, so all atheists are purveyors of genocide.

No. A bad argument doesn't become a suddenly good argument just because it's used against someone you dislike. If it's a bad argument when it's used against you, it's a bad argument when used against anyone. It's so senseless, because you don't even have to make it. You could just say, every regime, whether Christian or atheistic, is guilty of horrors, the difference is in matters of degree.

Take, oh, I don't know, concentration camps. If we take the US and England as representative of somewhat Christian governments, they together had a couple hundred (depending on your definition) such as: Japanese camps, native American camps, POW camps, Jewish refugee camps, Irish camps, Boer camps, etc.,. Taking the Soviet Union and Germany as representative of somewhat atheistic governments, they together represent a couple hundred (depending on your definition) such as: labor camps, political detainee camps, extermination camps, etc.,. But, wait, what if we talk about the numbers of deaths associated? Some back of the envelope calculation using Wikipedia in a rush leads to 10,000 deaths (on the high end, Wikipedia only mentions about 5,000) in American camps and about 70,000 in British camps (on the high end, Wikipedia only mentions about 50,000). You can compare that to the Soviet Union responsible for...millions of deaths, we don't even know how many, because we're still digging up the bones and finding more mass graves. Or, you know, the 6 million dead in Germany.

This is a much better argument, because it's based on facts, and presents both sides while still making a point. It acknowledges the fact that historically people who have called themselves Christians have done horrible things, but it also makes the point that historically, people who have called themselves atheists have done equally horrible things, and actually, when comparing sheer numbers, have done those horrible things to a greater extent. This is not the same thing as saying that Hitchens and Hitler are similar people. Yes, they both share an atheistic worldview, but one built a system to murder people and exulted in it, and one did not. And how do we get off comparing Hitchens to the September 11th bombers?! They don't even share the one thing this book is ostensibly about! Have Islamic fundamentalist fanatics suddenly turned into deniers in the existence of God?

Metaxas gets lost in attacking the person when he should be attacking the belief system.

To be honest, I'm not sure what he's trying to do with this book. Who is the intended audience? Who is he trying to convince? For all that it's written to debunk atheists, I can guarantee that no atheist will be convinced to leave their atheism by reading this book, they would be up in arms in offense at how cavalierly they are treated. I am up in arms at how cavalierly they are treated, and I'm not even an atheist. Whatever happened to love thy enemy? You don't see Daniel railing against Nebuchadnezzar and tearing him apart in the Bible, you see him loving him and serving him. No, this book isn't written to try and convert atheists to Christ, despite it being billed as a book of apologetics. This book is written to a Christian audience to read and feel superior.

Even in that it fails. For all that this is supposedly a book written from and in defense of a Christian worldview, it does a fantastic job of belittling God.

I think that Metaxas would acknowledge that he believes in an omnisicent, omipresent, omipowerful God that stands outside of time and his own creation, but then he places God inside a box created by scientific explanations. Yeah, so God did this awesome miraculous thing of creating the universe, and then he went hands off and didn't do anything else miraculous. In fact, the miracles of the Bible all have naturalistic explanations. I'm not sure how that is helping his argument. Is he a Deist or something? Why should God limit himself to only working within the physics that he created?

I'm not even sure what Christian audience he is writing to. The fundamentalists and those that interpret the Bible literally are going to be mad because he's accepted as given that the universe is billions and billions of years old. The ones that interpret the Bible symbolically or metaphorically, don't need explanations debunking evolution, because they already believe in evolution. So who is this targeting?

[Deb Cheatham · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love historical drama and non fiction. This is a gripping history of the world that begs to be told and told…why doesn’t everyone know this already??? They should! Please read and share…and share…and share…a game changer for us all!

[Ryan · Rating 1 out of 5]

Pseudo-intellectual horse hockey of the highest degree. Metaxas feebly tries to bridge absurd gaps between astrophysics and archaeological findings and the supernatural elements of the bible. His "evidence" of biblical history still does not equate to proof of the existence of God, as much as he's trying to sell it as such.

He then goes on to attack the new atheist movement and atheists at large, mostly by generalizing, misrepresenting, and demonizing them (especially by comparing them to literal nazis, the cheapest and most dishonest trick that theists could possibly employ). He especially digs into and mischaracterizes the views and works of the "Four Horsemen" of the new atheist movement, making little point beyond slandering them. It's clear that he has not actually cared to consider what they've said, and is no doubt betting on the likelihood that his audience hasn't read them and never would. He scarcely mentions any of their actual arguments, and instead passes his own unsubstantiated opinions off as the facts of this book. It's also curious that he chooses to single out Christopher Hitchens, the only one of the philosophers he smears here who is no longer alive to defend his work or his reputation.

What this book amounts to is an exercise in cowardice, hypocrisy, and intellectual dishonesty. Everything that Metaxas rails against in the atheists in his arguments (insults, obfuscation, scapegoating, whataboutism) is exactly what he employs to fill the space of this vapid and deceitful dive into the ideas of atheism. The irony that he misses in that is almost hilariously unbelievable. This book seems to slowly devolve into more childish, less informative, and more ignorant assertions as it goes on. There's no way he intended intelligent readers to actually absorb this work, and his audience then must be Christians ready to spend their money on things they know they'll agree with and therefore do not actually have to read and explore after buying. Eric Metaxas is a grifter, and one whose views seem to only have grown more dangerous and disconnected from reality as his career has progressed (see the premise of his newest book). If you have read this book, you have been lied to. If you liked this book, it's almost certainly because he is saying things you already wanted to hear and have reinforced, as on its own merit it is a desolate wasteland devoid of even the smallest crumb of knowledge and honest truth.

[Phoebe Lucker · Rating 5 out of 5]

I just started diving into this book last week and I am finding it more interesting with each passing page I read. I have read several other books by Eric Metaxas and he provides information in an easy-to-read format. I'm not a scientist but the scientific concepts that he writes about are written in such a way that it's easy to comprehend.
I can't wait until I read the other items discussed in this book. I'll have to provide an update once I've finished!

Took me a while to finish this bc I get distracted so easily but I finally finished this book. It’s like 3 books in one. A section discussing scientific support for a designer God. There is a section on interesting archeological discoveries that further affirm what is written in the Bible (Sodom & Gomorrah). The final section provides some really great information concerning the arguments of the atheists and even some renowned atheists who acknowledged God and came to faith later in life!

Thought provoking book.

[Judy · Rating 5 out of 5]

I like this book because it is so readable and it intersects my favorite subjects-science and my faith. Eric Metaxas captures the drama scientists face if they truly follow the "science" data and the conclusion goes against long held personal views. Many new discoveries are leading to surprising conclusions. The book is a discussion starter! It will be a great gift idea.

[Nancy Bond · Rating 5 out of 5]

Are you a critical thinker and reader? Is Atheism Dead? will answer many questions. The author interviewed and quotes famous scientists. He gives and documents archaeological history. Tis a must read!!! You will not be disappointed. The author reads the audio version.

[Melissa · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was blessed to read an early copy of this book. I finished before it releases next week on 10/19. Eric Metaxas is one of my favorite authors so I was super excited to read this! Wow, was I blown away by this book. I love learning about the past so I hoped I would find this interesting…and I sure did. Loved every chapter. This book doesn’t leave anything out. He covers all the questions. Leaves you with no doubts. Mr. Metaxas knows how to write a great book! You always get a sense of the time and research he puts into all his books. I thank him for that! Any true book lover will want a copy on your bookshelf!

[Mark Chew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Eric Metaxas has done us all a great favor by compiling the information in this book and presenting it in such a readable and, in fact, entertaining style. Is atheism dead? Undoubtedly. And the irony is that science-the very hook that that side of the argument was hanging their hat on-has settled the argument once and for all.

[Terence Tan · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Is Atheism Dead?” has many great stories that are simple enough to be told over family meals and deep enough to get you exploring science and archaeology with the many books Metaxas cites and recommends.

With regards to his tone, I see it as Metaxas getting tired of seeing Christians on the retreat when Christians are the ones with the winning positions. He is going down the line kicking soldiers out of the ditches, shouting, “We have the guns, the tanks, the enemy has nothing. They are cock-eyed and shooting blanks. So come on!” Which stirs up the troops at the expense of the other side.

You see, not all atheists are worked up like Dawkins or Hitchens. And for them, a respectful yet convicted tone as found in “The Faith of Christopher Hitchens” by Larry Alex Taunton or “The Dawkins Letters” by David Robertson, would be more welcome.

Ultimately, I don’t think the tone detracts from what the book offers and Metaxas does achieve his aims. The question, “Is Atheism Dead?” is deliberately provocative and rallies Christians to confront atheists with the knowledge that life is not a happy accident, archeology has proven the biblical record over and over again and atheists simply have no ground to stand on.

Full 3886-word review: https://readingandreaders.com/podcast...

[Sarah · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book first came to my attention while listening to an interview of Eric Metaxas by Sean McDowell. Though I have listened to lots of apologetics broadcasts and have read a good number of books in my life, this book seemed to take a different approach. The goal, I learned in the introductory chapter to the book, is not to prove the God of the Bible so much as it is to evaluate the rationality of atheism in our day and age. Intriguing. Thus, there is not a focus on the resurrection or evidence for Biblical manuscripts, etc. Rather, just a simple evaluation of whether atheism is actually even a viable worldview, given the evidence and discoveries of our day and age. As always, Metaxas's writing style is beautiful and thought-provoking. He stirs my mind to think with every page, both because of the content and his word choice. His choice of stories makes the book far from dry or textbook-like. I thoroughly enjoy this book, and I am now looking at picking up other texts he has written. Highly recommend it.

[Nathan Woll · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ok I'll address each section as it comes up I guess.
1: the universe is not eternal (had a beginning) therefore atheism is dead.

Eh, this isn't that convincing. The argument is basically that an eternal universe rules out a theist point if view so because of the discovery of the big bang now theism is more likely. My understanding of cosmology and astrophysics isn't strong enough to object much to this point other than to point out that before the big bang there wasn't nothing. So I think you are equivocating the term "universe" when you say that the universe began at the big bang. Scientists that claim this are using a different meaning of universe than "all of reality".

2: The fine-tuning of earth for life implies a creator.

Does it though? There are so many things humans can do to improve on this "design" that it only implies an incompetent creator. And while the author specifically uses the term "anthomorphic principle" to make it clear he is only talking about human life, I just want to point out that the fact of millions of extinct species is pretty strong evidence against this planet being fine-tuned for life.

Also I had to laugh at the illustration of eclipses being an example of fine-tuning. The author explains that because of the way we get eclipses this has helped scientists discover facts about Earth's rotation, gravity, solar pull, etc. (which is all true). As if some cosmic being thought that the most effective way to get humans to discover these things was to construct an elaborate orbiting ritual in which the sun and moon are the exact perfect distance from earth so as to lead scientists over 10,000 years after humans arrived in the planet to discover them. Instead of, you know, sticking those facts right in our brain or something.

3. The universe is fine-tuned for life which implies a designer.

Ok, this whole section was the author basically saying if x constant in the universe were different by a tiny amount then life wouldn't exist. Which is partly true. More accurately would be to say that if x constant were different by a tiny amount then life as we know it wouldn't exist. But of course there's no reason to assume a completely different form of life couldn't have arisen in a completely different form of universe. There's no way to know.

Another point is that if some cosmic being wanted life in the universe there's millions of easier ways to do it. All of these "constants" were in place for billions of years before life came about. So is that really a plan?

4. More fine-tuning stuff
This section covered more general stuff that didn't fit the other two fine-tuning sections. Still not convincing. Though the science is super cool, at least I'm learning interesting science facts.

But I'm struggling to see what a universe that wasn't fine-tuned would look like to the author. I don't think it's possible for any universe not to appear fine-tuned.

5. Only a god can explain how life originated.

This section mostly deals with the Miller-Urey experiment but laughably acts like that's the only experiment ever done that relates to abiogenesis. Actual quote "But it's a fact that we are hardly any further along than we were in 1952." a statement that is just a bold lie. The author must not be aware of all the scientific progress through experimentation that has been done in the last century regarding abiogenesis.

The next two sections continue on this topic pointing out supposed problems with the current abiogenesis hypothesis.

In all three sections dealing with "life from non-life" there is ZERO explanation of how a god could have done it. No evidence, no theory, no hypothesis, no mechanism suggested at all. The entire argument is just "I don't think it was done that way so my way wins by default" which is not how science works.

5. Archeology supports the biblical story therefore the bible is true.

This section is kind of silly. First of all, the author mentions Jericho as an example, despite the fact that archeologists know that Jericho had no walls at the supposed time of conquest.

But the bigger issue is that archeological evidence is useless. All it confirms is that the authors of second sections of the Bible knew about the lands included. Like, so what if the Hittites were real people, the English are real people too and that doesn't make Harry Potter real. I'm not sure that the author really thought through this point

There's several chapters about archeology that try to make the point that the scriptures we have today are pretty close to early manuscripts. Which, once again isn't an argument. The copies we have of Harry Potter are pretty close to the originals as well.





The next section deals with athiest vs Christianity as world views. It's not really making an argument for which is true, just which one the author prefers.


The last section has some other arguments that didn't fit in previous sections that are mostly just "god of the gaps" (consciousness, meaning, etc)