What do you think?
Rate this book
MonoThreeism: An Absurdly Arrogant Attempt to Answer All the Problems of the Last 2000 Years in One Night at a Pub
What if God is as rational as our own existence? Sitting in a pub one Christmas Eve, two friends hash out their doubts and questions about God, the Trinity, and existence itself. They agree that the Christian Trinity does not make much sense, yet when they look at the origins of the universe, they realize it also does not make sense, and for exactly the same reasons. And if the enigma of the Trinity is the same one underlying the universe, then perhaps the Trinity is as rational to believe in as our own existence. Yet as the night goes on, they realize the same tact can be taken with lots of other mysteries as well, including free will, the soul, God, eternity, truth, and meaning. If such things were not real, then would we even exist to talk about it?
- GenresPhilosophyTheology
180 pages, Paperback
Published July 2, 2021
13 people are currently reading
58 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
February 23, 2024
I think a blurb on the back of the book sums the tone of this book up well:
“apologetic integrity cloaked in irreverent honesty. It reads like the Screwtape Letters baptized in the blood of Captain Jack Sparrow. This is a rare jewel that will make you laugh as hard as it will make you think.”
I’ve had this book on my shelf for almost a year but I finally got to it and I’m glad I did!
I really wasn’t sure what to expect with such a unique title. Is it possible to talk about the Trinity with humor? Well I guess there is modalism, Patrick…
And I was definitely intrigued to get all the answers I’ve ever needed in just a short 150 pages.
Lyonhart does not seek to necessarily prove anything as much as propose that the rationale of the Trinity makes as much sense as our existence. Then he carries this same logic through a series of other common objections to God/Christianity.
While philosophy is not for everyone, the formatting of this book is a brilliant way to keep the reader engaged and understanding (mostly) what he’s talking about.
The entire book is a dialogue between three characters— Vlad, Idi, and Mira— in a pub. Idi is questioning his faith and wants to throw in the towel because everything is meaningless. Vlad needs him to preach at the university in the morning so he makes a bet that if he can answer his questions then Idi has to follow through with his commitment. Mira is the barkeep who joins in and becomes the unofficial referee.
By using a dialogue format, it gives us small chunks at a time with someone else doing the questioning and being devil’s advocate for us, making us feel like we’re getting a full and honest explanation.
If you really don’t like philosophical musings, you probably won’t find this book particularly enjoyable, but if you are even a little interested, I’d give it a try. With the exception of chapter 4, I think you’d be surprised what you can understand. Or at the very least able follow his general logic.
For the very philosophical readers, the end notes provide extra information for your brain to grasp. Some were helpful to me and others I just accepted that I wasn’t going to get without more training in philosophical methods and histories and that’s okay!
There is wit and humor with the bantering of the friends. Some of it feels forced or over the top, but at the same time, I’m not too mature to enjoy a good pun or ‘your mom’ joke. Be forewarned, though, that irreverent is the appropriate term; there’s some allusion to improperness (some are movie quotes) and a couple uses of the word ‘bloody’ (as used in British slang).
I’ll give you the bare bones of his argument (partly for my own recollection later when I want to remember what this book was about), but I will offer the disclaimer that it is possible I’m explaining this poorly or incorrectly— sorry J.D. if I’m slaughtering your proposition— so the only way you will know is by reading the book…
Idi’s issue with the Trinity is that it doesn’t make sense. It is a contradiction. The Trinity can’t be both three and one.
So Vlad begins the discussion with the origins of the universe, giving us three possible options:
- Becoming : the universe (or the cause of the universe) is infinite, past and future, and has always existed; each cause continually causing the cause, etc; temporal
- Being : something that isn’t ‘becoming’ (changing) but simply ‘is’; an eternal creator created an eternal universe; outside of time (atemporal)
- Both : (see below)
While there are many other theories about the origins of the universe, they all basically fall into these three categories.
“It’s literally either A, non-A, or Both. Logically.”
The problem with just Becoming is that an infinite regression doesn’t make sense to our finite minds:
“If the universe had always existed, an infinite amount of time would have to have occurred before this moment. History would never have reached this point.”
The problem with just Being is that it’s outside of time and we are clearly in time:
“it never begins or stops doing anything because that would require time, and so whatever it is doing it is just stuck doing eternally.”
We know we, and the universe, aren’t eternal so this can’t be the right theory either. We also know that we are doing and thinking things that happen in time, we are Becoming.
“So our universe of time cannot be eternal but must have been created. And whatever created our universe cannot stretch infinitely back but must be an eternal Being that is outside of time. And this timeless Being cannot be our universe itself, because we are clearly in time, so that would defy our mental lens of time. Thus, a timeless Being beyond our universe must have created our universe of time.”
But Being can’t “give birth” to Becoming because as soon as it starts to do something, it’s doing so in time.
“The third option is ‘Both’ of them. Both Being and Becoming teaming up to create the universe; an eternal Being that is also one with Becoming and so can begin to create in time. Something that is 100 percent Being, 100 percent Becoming, and 100 percent Both. Three and one… It would be outside of time and yet could create in time.”
A seeming contradiction, or paradox.
All three of these options for the origins of the universe “defy human understanding” yet we know one of them happened because we are here to talk about it.
Thus, it’s just as rational to believe in the seeming contradiction of the Trinity. The mystery of the universe is the same as the mystery of the Trinity.
“You cannot deny the Trinity for not making sense any more than you can deny your own existence.”
He then goes on to show how Jesus— the Son— is like the Becoming (temporal and transcendent), the Father is like the Being (atemporal and eternal), and the Spirit is the Both, somehow connecting the temporal to the atemporal, connecting our bodies with our souls.
We can look to verses like John 1:1-3 “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God…All things were made through him”
and John 14:6 “I am the Way the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
Being and Becoming. No one can come to the Being without the Becoming.
When he talks about the Spirit, the unifying of them all, we get a conversation about a bearpig so you’re just going to have to read that one for yourself.
“the Spirit precedes from Both into one union.”
Much of the rest of the book is spent addressing all the objections or ‘But what about that…’ devil’s advocate questions.
There’s also a chapter spent on using this same logic to answer Idi’s other grievances like: the Incarnation, free will, the soul, the problem of evil, other religions, theology only being anthropology, meaninglessness, lack of diversity, and lack of female representation in the Trinity.
There were a few things that were missing from the book, but I believe they were not included intentionally in order to maintain the premise and structure of the book.
For example, when talking about other religions, for me the most logical place to go is the historic person of Jesus, his death and resurrection. The C.S. Lewis Trilemma of Liar, Lunatic, or Lord. And Jesus can’t both be God and not be God so other major religions at their heart cannot all be true.
There was also no discussion of the Bible which is our source of Truth. But I understand this omission as Lyonhart was intending to stay in the philosophical, logic realm to defend his points.
So this book definitely has value but there are other things that need to be considered for a more wholistic look at the faith of Christianity and its doctrines.
J.D. Lyonhart is a professor at Lincoln Christian University and also co-hosts a podcast called Spiritually Incorrect which, from first impressions, seems to be conversations that combine spirituality, science, culture, and philosophy to ponder life’s questions.
Theologically, I don’t think I disagreed with anything presented in this book, but I’m not necessarily going to blanket endorse everything you might find on his channel. You’ll have to use your own discernment.
The one thing that I disagree with from this book was this statement:
“I just mean that if you wanted to start a religion in the middle East two thousand years ago, there was simply no way anyone was going to listen if Jesus was female. Now, Jesus radically elevated the status and treatment of women, but he was only able to do that and have others follow suit because he was a man. So is God literally male, or was that just the most effective way to communicate to a male-dominated culture?”
I agree that God is not gendered, but I think God coming in the form of man, Jesus, was an intentional choice by God who is not bound by ‘cultural limits’— after all, he is not just male in the Bible times, Jesus is eternally Jesus, resurrected in bodily form as a man. Plus it fits with the other language used throughout the Bible about male headship in the home and the church, as well as the church in general being the bride of Christ. I think there is intentionality there that we shouldn’t just write off as ‘well Jesus wouldn’t have been listened to if he was a woman so God had to be a man.’ I think that gives culture too much power over God’s ability to act and work.
But that’s just one thing and not something Lyonhart hit hard or long in the book.
Last few comments:
The chapter titles were great and the ending threw me for a loop. Probably because I was dealing with my kid’s potty training accident when I was reading it and so I had to go back and make sure I read it right. It was a nice little wrap-up.
I liked that though Lyonhart was talking about serious and profound things he didn’t take himself too seriously so it made a complex subject more accessible to the masses who don’t have academic training in philosophy.
I learned that our body replaces 98% of its atoms every 5-7 years. So when we think philosophically about who we are, we have to be more than our physical bodies. There is something outside of our atomic structure that gives us identity…. a soul.
Oh and I like the book title as well.
You can tell every part of the book was creatively intentional and I appreciate this final product that I’m sure took awhile to put together and pare down to accomplish what he set out to do.
Recommendation
Overall, this was a fun brain exercise that made a lot of sense. And I like things that make sense.
I am new to philosophical debates and so I had never considered this form of logic (besides that which I read in the book Why God Makes Sense in a World that Doesn’t which I would also very much recommend) and to apply it to so many different things was really cool to see how it is all woven together.
The Trinity is always a complex topic, but this was a really great way to not necessarily need to ‘prove’ the Trinity’s existence but to acknowledge that its rationale is the same as our very existence.
Even though it was dense at times, it didn’t feel dense because of the dialogue structure and really felt like I was just joining a conversation at a pub with my friends.
To be honest, I was a bit surprised by my enjoyment of this book because I didn’t know what I was getting into reading a theological book by an author I had never heard of.
It’s a short read, depending on how many times you might have to re-read a sentence or two, and is definitely worth the philosophical journey!
Further Reading:
He quotes from a lot of William Lane Craig’s writings on apologetics, time, and the cosmological argument if you want to read up on more of that.
I would also recommend the book I already linked in the review:
Why God Makes Sense in a World that Doesn’t by Gavin Ortlund which focuses on Christianity vs Naturalism and exploring how people aren’t really asking, ‘is Christianity true?’, but ‘is it good?’ But there is a chapter dedicated to the origins of the universe.
**Received a copy from the author in exchange for an honest review**
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest | StoryGraph
“apologetic integrity cloaked in irreverent honesty. It reads like the Screwtape Letters baptized in the blood of Captain Jack Sparrow. This is a rare jewel that will make you laugh as hard as it will make you think.”
I’ve had this book on my shelf for almost a year but I finally got to it and I’m glad I did!
I really wasn’t sure what to expect with such a unique title. Is it possible to talk about the Trinity with humor? Well I guess there is modalism, Patrick…
And I was definitely intrigued to get all the answers I’ve ever needed in just a short 150 pages.
Lyonhart does not seek to necessarily prove anything as much as propose that the rationale of the Trinity makes as much sense as our existence. Then he carries this same logic through a series of other common objections to God/Christianity.
While philosophy is not for everyone, the formatting of this book is a brilliant way to keep the reader engaged and understanding (mostly) what he’s talking about.
The entire book is a dialogue between three characters— Vlad, Idi, and Mira— in a pub. Idi is questioning his faith and wants to throw in the towel because everything is meaningless. Vlad needs him to preach at the university in the morning so he makes a bet that if he can answer his questions then Idi has to follow through with his commitment. Mira is the barkeep who joins in and becomes the unofficial referee.
By using a dialogue format, it gives us small chunks at a time with someone else doing the questioning and being devil’s advocate for us, making us feel like we’re getting a full and honest explanation.
If you really don’t like philosophical musings, you probably won’t find this book particularly enjoyable, but if you are even a little interested, I’d give it a try. With the exception of chapter 4, I think you’d be surprised what you can understand. Or at the very least able follow his general logic.
For the very philosophical readers, the end notes provide extra information for your brain to grasp. Some were helpful to me and others I just accepted that I wasn’t going to get without more training in philosophical methods and histories and that’s okay!
There is wit and humor with the bantering of the friends. Some of it feels forced or over the top, but at the same time, I’m not too mature to enjoy a good pun or ‘your mom’ joke. Be forewarned, though, that irreverent is the appropriate term; there’s some allusion to improperness (some are movie quotes) and a couple uses of the word ‘bloody’ (as used in British slang).
I’ll give you the bare bones of his argument (partly for my own recollection later when I want to remember what this book was about), but I will offer the disclaimer that it is possible I’m explaining this poorly or incorrectly— sorry J.D. if I’m slaughtering your proposition— so the only way you will know is by reading the book…
Idi’s issue with the Trinity is that it doesn’t make sense. It is a contradiction. The Trinity can’t be both three and one.
So Vlad begins the discussion with the origins of the universe, giving us three possible options:
- Becoming : the universe (or the cause of the universe) is infinite, past and future, and has always existed; each cause continually causing the cause, etc; temporal
- Being : something that isn’t ‘becoming’ (changing) but simply ‘is’; an eternal creator created an eternal universe; outside of time (atemporal)
- Both : (see below)
While there are many other theories about the origins of the universe, they all basically fall into these three categories.
“It’s literally either A, non-A, or Both. Logically.”
The problem with just Becoming is that an infinite regression doesn’t make sense to our finite minds:
“If the universe had always existed, an infinite amount of time would have to have occurred before this moment. History would never have reached this point.”
The problem with just Being is that it’s outside of time and we are clearly in time:
“it never begins or stops doing anything because that would require time, and so whatever it is doing it is just stuck doing eternally.”
We know we, and the universe, aren’t eternal so this can’t be the right theory either. We also know that we are doing and thinking things that happen in time, we are Becoming.
“So our universe of time cannot be eternal but must have been created. And whatever created our universe cannot stretch infinitely back but must be an eternal Being that is outside of time. And this timeless Being cannot be our universe itself, because we are clearly in time, so that would defy our mental lens of time. Thus, a timeless Being beyond our universe must have created our universe of time.”
But Being can’t “give birth” to Becoming because as soon as it starts to do something, it’s doing so in time.
“The third option is ‘Both’ of them. Both Being and Becoming teaming up to create the universe; an eternal Being that is also one with Becoming and so can begin to create in time. Something that is 100 percent Being, 100 percent Becoming, and 100 percent Both. Three and one… It would be outside of time and yet could create in time.”
A seeming contradiction, or paradox.
All three of these options for the origins of the universe “defy human understanding” yet we know one of them happened because we are here to talk about it.
Thus, it’s just as rational to believe in the seeming contradiction of the Trinity. The mystery of the universe is the same as the mystery of the Trinity.
“You cannot deny the Trinity for not making sense any more than you can deny your own existence.”
He then goes on to show how Jesus— the Son— is like the Becoming (temporal and transcendent), the Father is like the Being (atemporal and eternal), and the Spirit is the Both, somehow connecting the temporal to the atemporal, connecting our bodies with our souls.
We can look to verses like John 1:1-3 “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God…All things were made through him”
and John 14:6 “I am the Way the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
Being and Becoming. No one can come to the Being without the Becoming.
When he talks about the Spirit, the unifying of them all, we get a conversation about a bearpig so you’re just going to have to read that one for yourself.
“the Spirit precedes from Both into one union.”
Much of the rest of the book is spent addressing all the objections or ‘But what about that…’ devil’s advocate questions.
There’s also a chapter spent on using this same logic to answer Idi’s other grievances like: the Incarnation, free will, the soul, the problem of evil, other religions, theology only being anthropology, meaninglessness, lack of diversity, and lack of female representation in the Trinity.
There were a few things that were missing from the book, but I believe they were not included intentionally in order to maintain the premise and structure of the book.
For example, when talking about other religions, for me the most logical place to go is the historic person of Jesus, his death and resurrection. The C.S. Lewis Trilemma of Liar, Lunatic, or Lord. And Jesus can’t both be God and not be God so other major religions at their heart cannot all be true.
There was also no discussion of the Bible which is our source of Truth. But I understand this omission as Lyonhart was intending to stay in the philosophical, logic realm to defend his points.
So this book definitely has value but there are other things that need to be considered for a more wholistic look at the faith of Christianity and its doctrines.
J.D. Lyonhart is a professor at Lincoln Christian University and also co-hosts a podcast called Spiritually Incorrect which, from first impressions, seems to be conversations that combine spirituality, science, culture, and philosophy to ponder life’s questions.
Theologically, I don’t think I disagreed with anything presented in this book, but I’m not necessarily going to blanket endorse everything you might find on his channel. You’ll have to use your own discernment.
The one thing that I disagree with from this book was this statement:
“I just mean that if you wanted to start a religion in the middle East two thousand years ago, there was simply no way anyone was going to listen if Jesus was female. Now, Jesus radically elevated the status and treatment of women, but he was only able to do that and have others follow suit because he was a man. So is God literally male, or was that just the most effective way to communicate to a male-dominated culture?”
I agree that God is not gendered, but I think God coming in the form of man, Jesus, was an intentional choice by God who is not bound by ‘cultural limits’— after all, he is not just male in the Bible times, Jesus is eternally Jesus, resurrected in bodily form as a man. Plus it fits with the other language used throughout the Bible about male headship in the home and the church, as well as the church in general being the bride of Christ. I think there is intentionality there that we shouldn’t just write off as ‘well Jesus wouldn’t have been listened to if he was a woman so God had to be a man.’ I think that gives culture too much power over God’s ability to act and work.
But that’s just one thing and not something Lyonhart hit hard or long in the book.
Last few comments:
The chapter titles were great and the ending threw me for a loop. Probably because I was dealing with my kid’s potty training accident when I was reading it and so I had to go back and make sure I read it right. It was a nice little wrap-up.
I liked that though Lyonhart was talking about serious and profound things he didn’t take himself too seriously so it made a complex subject more accessible to the masses who don’t have academic training in philosophy.
I learned that our body replaces 98% of its atoms every 5-7 years. So when we think philosophically about who we are, we have to be more than our physical bodies. There is something outside of our atomic structure that gives us identity…. a soul.
Oh and I like the book title as well.
You can tell every part of the book was creatively intentional and I appreciate this final product that I’m sure took awhile to put together and pare down to accomplish what he set out to do.
Recommendation
Overall, this was a fun brain exercise that made a lot of sense. And I like things that make sense.
I am new to philosophical debates and so I had never considered this form of logic (besides that which I read in the book Why God Makes Sense in a World that Doesn’t which I would also very much recommend) and to apply it to so many different things was really cool to see how it is all woven together.
The Trinity is always a complex topic, but this was a really great way to not necessarily need to ‘prove’ the Trinity’s existence but to acknowledge that its rationale is the same as our very existence.
Even though it was dense at times, it didn’t feel dense because of the dialogue structure and really felt like I was just joining a conversation at a pub with my friends.
To be honest, I was a bit surprised by my enjoyment of this book because I didn’t know what I was getting into reading a theological book by an author I had never heard of.
It’s a short read, depending on how many times you might have to re-read a sentence or two, and is definitely worth the philosophical journey!
Further Reading:
He quotes from a lot of William Lane Craig’s writings on apologetics, time, and the cosmological argument if you want to read up on more of that.
I would also recommend the book I already linked in the review:
Why God Makes Sense in a World that Doesn’t by Gavin Ortlund which focuses on Christianity vs Naturalism and exploring how people aren’t really asking, ‘is Christianity true?’, but ‘is it good?’ But there is a chapter dedicated to the origins of the universe.
**Received a copy from the author in exchange for an honest review**
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest | StoryGraph
May 5, 2022
This is such a fun read. Whether you are going in with questions about life/Christianity or just wanting to find enjoyment, there’s something for you. Jonathan writes with an abundance of intelligence as well as humor. He discusses the subject matter with an obvious passion and love for the topic along with his great wealth of knowledge. Highly recommend.
Read
March 30, 2024Quite a bit went over my head, but it gave me a new appreciation for the trinity. The first part is long, but there’s a ton of pay off in the second half. Will definitely be reading more books on the trinity.
October 12, 2022
I'm not an intellectual. I've never been much of a deep thinker. So picking up this book by a friend from college was a little intimidating. I'd seen reviews saying it was great, but they were all from people way smarter than me. But let me tell you...it's SO GOOD! Jonathan takes a complex topic, the Trinity, and weaves it through a bunch of other questions about God, and existence, and the universe, and it's not only easy to follow, but it's so entertaining! So if you want to feel smart, be challenged in your faith and in your thinking, and laugh a bunch, then buy this book TODAY.
February 27, 2024
That ending was worth the whole book.
July 10, 2023
From the opening page of this book I felt seen. Which is always a good sign when it comes to a worthwhile read. Why did I feel seen, or in what way? That comes down to the structure of the book. Lyonhart is using both theology and philosophy to dig into some key and necessary questions about existence, and more importantly how the concept of God fits into that equation. But he explores these questions by way of a fictional "conversation" between three people at a bar. In some ways it functions as a joke: a barista, a believer and a skeptic walk into a pub. In another way this structure becomes a way of seeing ourselves in each of these persons depending on where we find ourselves in relationship to the questions.
While I found myself a mix of all three, the way the skeptic walks into the room and has the conversation naturally consumed by existential matters in a matter of seconds felt instantly familiar. Anyone who knows me knows that I am adverse to small talk and am prone to turning any gathering into one big theological or philosophical disccussion. I am who I am for better and for worse, which of course is a statement I can make part of the philosophical/theological equation.
Beyond that, does the structure work? It probably won't for everyone of course, but I think it does help to break down complicated ideas into bite size segments. It at least makes it an entertaing read anyways, even if it does earn a few eye rolls along the way. More importantly, I think the substance is good.
On the substance front. Whats up with the title? It's an obvious reference to the idea of the trinity. Maybe a bit misleading since the book is actually about the question of existence. One of the key premises of the book is that the trinity is not so much a theology or doctrine but rather language that forms from the bigger questions and concerns behind it relating to existence. The central conceipt is this:
1. The use of science to explain the origins of the universe presents us with a conundrum
2. The idea of God as a way to explain the origins of the universe presents us with a conundrum.
3. Recognizing that the origins of the universe is a conundrum is a necessary foundation for engaging the question fairly.
What is this conundrum? Lyonhart boils it down to the simple tension that exists between Being, defined as something without a beginning and an end, that wasn't created, and was not caused, and Becomming, something that is created and has a cause and occurs in time and space.
A portion of the discussion that occurs in the book, and the arguments made by each character, are given to fleshing out if and why and how Being and Becomming present a necessary conundrum. This is explored on the macro level (how can Being engage in an act of creation without being bound by Becoming in time and space, and if Becoming is how we understand this world and our experiernces in space and time how is it that we can lay claim to Being without falling into the trappings of infinte regress, meaning that infinity gets stuck in a never ending cyle of progressions when bound to space and time), and on the micro level (how do we relate to Being, be it God or concepts and ideas in a world where Becoming can be messy erratic, senseless, aimless). Most of the questions that speak to our existential crisis float between the macro and the micro. If there is one hugely important note to make about Lyonhart's approach it would be this; he is upfront that the arguments the book is making between the different characters are not about proofs, they are about problems and the way we seek possible solutions to them. And we cannot attend to the problem unless we are willing to admit the problem exists first. Its not about answers, its about how we navigate (reason or live) within those problems.
Everything for Lyonhart comes back to this important foundation: the conundrum of the origins of the universes. And perhaps its there that he moves us towards the idea that what matters most to most people is not the macro but the micro. What philosophy and theology does is it reminds us that how we navigate and respond to problems in the everyday, be it relationships, struggles, joys and aspirations, have their root in assumptions we make at the macro level, often without even knowing or understanding it. In this way the book is at least helpful in teaching us why the complex ideas do matter, and even how they have the power, when grappled with, to shift and shape how we live on the micro level.
Personally, If found Lyonharts arguments to be at their strongest when he is fleshing out the conundrum of Being and Becoming. Even formulating those words as a way of capturing the central and most important ideas concerning the necessary tension of our existence was extremely helpful. I find myself using those words all the time now in discussions elsewhere. The weakest argument is the moral one. But I also think that arguing towards the idea of God as a possible and/or necessary answer is most difficult within the moral equation, probably because it relies too much on necessary caricatures and too convenient defintions of reallity. Its simply not true that relgion can claim a moral-less society can reason us towards the idea of God, at least not effectively, and when employed can often create more harm than good. Part of the issue of course is that morality is confined to time and space. It is, by its nature, something that necessitates becoming to be true and real. Yes, its true that we can come up with all sorts of examples concerning the conundrum that happens when you try and pair this with Being, and those are all fair and good ways of reasoning within the problem. But the problem itself is not whether a society could or would ever emerge as a moral one in any equation we can present. I think logically speaking it always would, at least in degrees. The real conundrum belongs further back in the question of meaning and truth concerning our existence. For example, attaching moral Becoming to Being can turn time and space into an illusion. Science can demonstarte how beliving that reality is an illusion (meaning not bound to space and time) leads to certain outcomes of apathy and cynicism as a necessary implication. The given is morality, the problem reaches back further into questions of meaning and source.
Taken as a whole, I think the foundaiton the book explores is storng, some of the questions it addresses from that foundation have more or less merit. and interest. But for me, I find discussions like this to be highly enjoyable and challenging regardless, and this book finds a creative way to engage it.
While I found myself a mix of all three, the way the skeptic walks into the room and has the conversation naturally consumed by existential matters in a matter of seconds felt instantly familiar. Anyone who knows me knows that I am adverse to small talk and am prone to turning any gathering into one big theological or philosophical disccussion. I am who I am for better and for worse, which of course is a statement I can make part of the philosophical/theological equation.
Beyond that, does the structure work? It probably won't for everyone of course, but I think it does help to break down complicated ideas into bite size segments. It at least makes it an entertaing read anyways, even if it does earn a few eye rolls along the way. More importantly, I think the substance is good.
On the substance front. Whats up with the title? It's an obvious reference to the idea of the trinity. Maybe a bit misleading since the book is actually about the question of existence. One of the key premises of the book is that the trinity is not so much a theology or doctrine but rather language that forms from the bigger questions and concerns behind it relating to existence. The central conceipt is this:
1. The use of science to explain the origins of the universe presents us with a conundrum
2. The idea of God as a way to explain the origins of the universe presents us with a conundrum.
3. Recognizing that the origins of the universe is a conundrum is a necessary foundation for engaging the question fairly.
What is this conundrum? Lyonhart boils it down to the simple tension that exists between Being, defined as something without a beginning and an end, that wasn't created, and was not caused, and Becomming, something that is created and has a cause and occurs in time and space.
A portion of the discussion that occurs in the book, and the arguments made by each character, are given to fleshing out if and why and how Being and Becomming present a necessary conundrum. This is explored on the macro level (how can Being engage in an act of creation without being bound by Becoming in time and space, and if Becoming is how we understand this world and our experiernces in space and time how is it that we can lay claim to Being without falling into the trappings of infinte regress, meaning that infinity gets stuck in a never ending cyle of progressions when bound to space and time), and on the micro level (how do we relate to Being, be it God or concepts and ideas in a world where Becoming can be messy erratic, senseless, aimless). Most of the questions that speak to our existential crisis float between the macro and the micro. If there is one hugely important note to make about Lyonhart's approach it would be this; he is upfront that the arguments the book is making between the different characters are not about proofs, they are about problems and the way we seek possible solutions to them. And we cannot attend to the problem unless we are willing to admit the problem exists first. Its not about answers, its about how we navigate (reason or live) within those problems.
Everything for Lyonhart comes back to this important foundation: the conundrum of the origins of the universes. And perhaps its there that he moves us towards the idea that what matters most to most people is not the macro but the micro. What philosophy and theology does is it reminds us that how we navigate and respond to problems in the everyday, be it relationships, struggles, joys and aspirations, have their root in assumptions we make at the macro level, often without even knowing or understanding it. In this way the book is at least helpful in teaching us why the complex ideas do matter, and even how they have the power, when grappled with, to shift and shape how we live on the micro level.
Personally, If found Lyonharts arguments to be at their strongest when he is fleshing out the conundrum of Being and Becoming. Even formulating those words as a way of capturing the central and most important ideas concerning the necessary tension of our existence was extremely helpful. I find myself using those words all the time now in discussions elsewhere. The weakest argument is the moral one. But I also think that arguing towards the idea of God as a possible and/or necessary answer is most difficult within the moral equation, probably because it relies too much on necessary caricatures and too convenient defintions of reallity. Its simply not true that relgion can claim a moral-less society can reason us towards the idea of God, at least not effectively, and when employed can often create more harm than good. Part of the issue of course is that morality is confined to time and space. It is, by its nature, something that necessitates becoming to be true and real. Yes, its true that we can come up with all sorts of examples concerning the conundrum that happens when you try and pair this with Being, and those are all fair and good ways of reasoning within the problem. But the problem itself is not whether a society could or would ever emerge as a moral one in any equation we can present. I think logically speaking it always would, at least in degrees. The real conundrum belongs further back in the question of meaning and truth concerning our existence. For example, attaching moral Becoming to Being can turn time and space into an illusion. Science can demonstarte how beliving that reality is an illusion (meaning not bound to space and time) leads to certain outcomes of apathy and cynicism as a necessary implication. The given is morality, the problem reaches back further into questions of meaning and source.
Taken as a whole, I think the foundaiton the book explores is storng, some of the questions it addresses from that foundation have more or less merit. and interest. But for me, I find discussions like this to be highly enjoyable and challenging regardless, and this book finds a creative way to engage it.
December 8, 2022
If you've never done any work in philosophy or theology you *might* get a little lost in some of the argumentation this book makes. The thrust of the book is that belief in God makes as much sense as our own existence. There is a degree of paradox inherent in the universe that is best paralleled in the triune Christian God. It is a humorous and compelling read which takes the form of a short-play/dialogue between a couple professors in a pub. Worth a look!
June 22, 2023
I did not realize I needed a fictional dialogue defending classical metaphysics and historic trinitarian doctrine set in a pub. But wow, I am glad JD Lyonhart didn't care about what I thought I needed and wrote this anyways. It's outstanding. Rock solid and accessible description of the philosophy and theology he is defending, and balanced nicely with humor that is right up my alley.
And the ending is just....*chef's kiss*
And the ending is just....*chef's kiss*
July 3, 2023
Funny and entertaining for some big wrinkly brain thoughts
The overall format of three people debating philosophy in a bar is both entertaining and didactically effective, but sometimes the strength of the book (one big idea like the Trinity explains lots of others) can also be its weakness (once you get the point, you get it re-explained 11 count em 11 more times). Still, this never quite gets too dull because it's actually pretty funny.
The overall format of three people debating philosophy in a bar is both entertaining and didactically effective, but sometimes the strength of the book (one big idea like the Trinity explains lots of others) can also be its weakness (once you get the point, you get it re-explained 11 count em 11 more times). Still, this never quite gets too dull because it's actually pretty funny.
October 17, 2023
Thought provoking and entertaining take on the topic of origins, the trinity, and other related ideas. Some of the chapters became tedious as many ideas were repeated throughout, though this repetition was helpful in getting the author's point across. The dialogue throughout was cheesy at times, but well written and relatable. Good read.
July 3, 2023
A brilliant, creative and entertaining philosophical defense of the Trinity. Using a socratic method, Lyonhart demonstrates how the paradox and mystery of Trinity helps us to make sense of all the other most important questions of life.
January 9, 2026
This sounded like a great idea for a book, and I looked forward to it with pleasure. Alas, to quote Tom Waits, "The world is a hellish place, and bad writing is destroying the quality of our suffering."
I gave up somewhere around the halfway point.
I gave up somewhere around the halfway point.
June 14, 2023
Its a great book, the format of a conversation just didn't suit me.
March 24, 2024
The theatrics of a bar debate between three friends helps break down some of the toughest existential questions about God with stunning clarity! Thank you !
June 4, 2024
Thought about letting the very off-putting and unnecessary ending ruin it for me, but have decided not to. 9/10. Make theology weird again.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews