What do you think?
Rate this book
God Is Great, God Is Good: Why Believing in God Is Reasonable and Responsible
The days have passed when the goodness of God--indeed, the reality of God itself--could reasonably be called a consensus opinion. God's reputation has come under considerable review in recent days, with some going so far as to say that it's not we who've made a mess of things. Instead whatever it is we call God is to blame. But is such an opinion really a fair assessment? In this magisterial collection, the contemporary complaints against belief in God are addressed with intellectual passion and rigor by some of the most astute theological and philosophical minds of the Including an interview by Gary Habermas with noted convert to theism Antony Flew, and a direct critical response to Richard Dawkins's God Delusion by Alvin Plantinga, God Is Great, God Is Good offers convincing and compelling reassurance that though the world has changed, God has not.
265 pages, Paperback
First published October 15, 2009
About the author
William Lane Craig
139 books857 followersWilliam Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. He and his wife Jan have two grown children.
At the age of sixteen as a junior in high school, he first heard the message of the Christian gospel and yielded his life to Christ. Dr. Craig pursued his undergraduate studies at Wheaton College (B.A. 1971) and graduate studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (M.A. 1974; M.A. 1975), the University of Birmingham (England) (Ph.D. 1977), and the University of Munich (Germany) (D.Theol. 1984). From 1980-86 he taught Philosophy of Religion at Trinity, during which time he and Jan started their family. In 1987 they moved to Brussels, Belgium, where Dr. Craig pursued research at the University of Louvain until assuming his position at Talbot in 1994.
He has authored or edited over thirty books, including The Kalam Cosmological Argument; Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus; Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom; Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology; and God, Time and Eternity, as well as over a hundred articles in professional journals of philosophy and theology, including The Journal of Philosophy, New Testament Studies, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, American Philosophical Quarterly, Philosophical Studies, Philosophy, and British Journal for Philosophy of Science.
At the age of sixteen as a junior in high school, he first heard the message of the Christian gospel and yielded his life to Christ. Dr. Craig pursued his undergraduate studies at Wheaton College (B.A. 1971) and graduate studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (M.A. 1974; M.A. 1975), the University of Birmingham (England) (Ph.D. 1977), and the University of Munich (Germany) (D.Theol. 1984). From 1980-86 he taught Philosophy of Religion at Trinity, during which time he and Jan started their family. In 1987 they moved to Brussels, Belgium, where Dr. Craig pursued research at the University of Louvain until assuming his position at Talbot in 1994.
He has authored or edited over thirty books, including The Kalam Cosmological Argument; Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus; Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom; Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology; and God, Time and Eternity, as well as over a hundred articles in professional journals of philosophy and theology, including The Journal of Philosophy, New Testament Studies, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, American Philosophical Quarterly, Philosophical Studies, Philosophy, and British Journal for Philosophy of Science.
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
December 18, 2013
I LOVED THIS BOOK! William Lane Craig has changed my mind! I will now work to discredit those heretics who've misled me so long like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris etc. I really needed to understand the real tenets of the faithful. Life is truly meaningless and depressing without a God, a wonderful savior who loves each one of us individually and who designed us to join HIM in heaven. God almighty willing, I will champion his cause and devote my life to the word of the Lord... I am quitting metal, quitting Rotture and doing sound, and enrolling in the Seminary academy. I need to learn how best to spread the good work. Praise Jesus for this epiphany and William Lane Craig!
September 11, 2012
“New Atheism,” if you haven’t heard the term before then you are at least familiar with the concept. You would have to be (whether you are aware of it or not) if you have read a newspaper, blog or magazine in the past 5 years. New Atheism according to Dr. Albert Mohler is not merely an attempt to convince people to quit believing in God; it is an endeavor to make respect for belief in God socially unacceptable. Of these New Atheists there are four individuals who lead the charge in the attack not only against religion in general, but often Christianity in particular. Those men are Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. The purpose of this book is, “to answer the challenges advanced by the New Atheists and others raising objections to belief in God and the Christian faith.” More often than not that means responding to one of the four men I just mentioned. To that end editors Lane and Meister have arraigned this work into four parts. Part one addresses God’s existence, part two focuses on God’s creative design, part three considers God’s goodness, and part four centers specifically on Christianity.
This book is a collection of essays written to some degree in response to the various claims of the New Atheists. The authors are all recognized as leading thinkers in their fields of expertise, which ranges from cosmology and astrophysics to theology and philosophy. While written by studied experts this book is designed to be a tool for real world engagement of the issues separating those who believe in God and Christ and those who do not. Depending on where you fall within the spectrum from lay person to expert you might feel like the book is over your head or you might feel like it is too simplistic. That being said my suspicion is that most will find the book to be very much within their comprehension level without being either too technical or too simplistic.
There is a very direct progression in this book that moves from the idea of “god,” to god, to the God of the Bible, and finally God in flesh, Jesus Christ. The goal being to argue for not only the possibility and indeed the reality of a god, but to contend for the existence of the God of the Bible, and demonstrate the significance of Jesus Christ.
From an apologetics perspective I think there is much that can be gleaned from this book, even for a presuppositionalist like me. I found Michael Murray’s demonstration of science’s inability to account for religion to be helpful. I appreciate Paul Copan’s emphasis on God’s prerogatives over humans. He is not our equal. Mark Mittleberg’s chapter on, “Why Faith in Jesus Matters,” is perhaps the most important in the whole book. He is so right to call the reader’s attention to the need to see people converted to Christ not merely to theism. But Mittleberg’s chapter also serves to underscore a problem with this book that ultimately left me frustrated. That problem is the often time glaring contradictions from one chapter to the next.
Here are two examples of what I found frustrating. John Polkinghorne in his chapter, “God and Physics,” seems to advocate a type of theistic evolution. Even saying that, “the theist has no need to be worried about the widespread role of evolutionary process. God is the ordainer of nature, and God acts as much through natural processes as in any other way.” Michael Behe in the very next chapter, “God and Evolution,” argues against evolution in favor of “the purposeful design of life.”
In the last chapter of the book Mark Mittleberg explains the importance of including the Gospel message in our discussions of the existence of God. He concludes by saying, “It would be a tragedy if the only impact of this book was to help you become a more astute theist or better educated theologian. Some of the most miserable people in the world are religious men and women who fill their heads with information but don’t let it affect what they do or who they become.” So, Mittleberg’s contention is that we should not become theists, but rather that we should become Christians. If that is the goal of this book then why is the book’s postscript an interview with Antony Flew, a man who converted from atheism to theism? Why not end with an interview with someone who converted to atheism to Christ?
This is a helpful book, but at the same time is a frustrating book. I’ve wrestled with the notion of whether or not to recommend this book, and in the end I’ve landed squarely in the middle. I don’t recommend this book, but I don’t not recommend it either.
This book is a collection of essays written to some degree in response to the various claims of the New Atheists. The authors are all recognized as leading thinkers in their fields of expertise, which ranges from cosmology and astrophysics to theology and philosophy. While written by studied experts this book is designed to be a tool for real world engagement of the issues separating those who believe in God and Christ and those who do not. Depending on where you fall within the spectrum from lay person to expert you might feel like the book is over your head or you might feel like it is too simplistic. That being said my suspicion is that most will find the book to be very much within their comprehension level without being either too technical or too simplistic.
There is a very direct progression in this book that moves from the idea of “god,” to god, to the God of the Bible, and finally God in flesh, Jesus Christ. The goal being to argue for not only the possibility and indeed the reality of a god, but to contend for the existence of the God of the Bible, and demonstrate the significance of Jesus Christ.
From an apologetics perspective I think there is much that can be gleaned from this book, even for a presuppositionalist like me. I found Michael Murray’s demonstration of science’s inability to account for religion to be helpful. I appreciate Paul Copan’s emphasis on God’s prerogatives over humans. He is not our equal. Mark Mittleberg’s chapter on, “Why Faith in Jesus Matters,” is perhaps the most important in the whole book. He is so right to call the reader’s attention to the need to see people converted to Christ not merely to theism. But Mittleberg’s chapter also serves to underscore a problem with this book that ultimately left me frustrated. That problem is the often time glaring contradictions from one chapter to the next.
Here are two examples of what I found frustrating. John Polkinghorne in his chapter, “God and Physics,” seems to advocate a type of theistic evolution. Even saying that, “the theist has no need to be worried about the widespread role of evolutionary process. God is the ordainer of nature, and God acts as much through natural processes as in any other way.” Michael Behe in the very next chapter, “God and Evolution,” argues against evolution in favor of “the purposeful design of life.”
In the last chapter of the book Mark Mittleberg explains the importance of including the Gospel message in our discussions of the existence of God. He concludes by saying, “It would be a tragedy if the only impact of this book was to help you become a more astute theist or better educated theologian. Some of the most miserable people in the world are religious men and women who fill their heads with information but don’t let it affect what they do or who they become.” So, Mittleberg’s contention is that we should not become theists, but rather that we should become Christians. If that is the goal of this book then why is the book’s postscript an interview with Antony Flew, a man who converted from atheism to theism? Why not end with an interview with someone who converted to atheism to Christ?
This is a helpful book, but at the same time is a frustrating book. I’ve wrestled with the notion of whether or not to recommend this book, and in the end I’ve landed squarely in the middle. I don’t recommend this book, but I don’t not recommend it either.
December 8, 2015
Summary: This collection of essays provides thoughtfully reasoned responses to the leading challenges to Christianity posed by the New Atheism.
Since the time of the publication of this collection of essays, the attacks of the New Atheism upon Christianity have abated somewhat. Christopher Hitchens is no more upon this earth. Perhaps this movement has come to a growing self-awareness of its own hyper-fundamentalism and intolerance, and some of its own tendentious claims.
This book was written at the height of these attacks and provides intellectually rigorous responses helpful both for engaging conversations with atheists, and to bolster the faith of Christians who might have been shaken by some of the accusations of the New Atheists.
The first section of the book, "God Is", deals with responses that no reasonable person could believe in the existence of a God. William Lane Craig directly addresses the arguments of Richard Dawkins against the classic arguments for God's existence, pointing out weaknesses in all his arguments, and particularly in his argument against the teleological argument, evident in the fine-tuning of the universe. J. P. Moreland then proceeds to show how theism better explains the nature of human beings than a scientific atheism. And Paul K. Moser lays out the argument for the morally perfect God of Christian theism.
The second section turns to the greatness of God, evident in the finely tuned universe of physics, according to John Polkinghorne, the complexity of biological life as described by Michael Behe, and not confuted by evolutionary explanations of religion. Those using the material by Behe may want to familiarize themselves with the criticism of Behe subsequent to this essay and his response.
The third part of the book considers the goodness of God, responding to New Atheist critiques of the goodness of God and the existence of evil (Meister), the contention that religion is evil (McGrath), that the Old Testament laws and its lawgiver are evil (Copan) and that the idea of God and the existence of hell are irreconcilable (Walls). For those who want a distilled version of Copan's lengthier treatment in Is God a Moral Monster?, his chapter in this book is a good, concise summary of his arguments.
The final section explores why all this matters. It begins with Charles Taliaferro's essay on revelation, and the reasons one might seek to look through the Bible to see what it reveals of God. Scot McKnight gives us an overview of the Jesus we might never have met. One of the most interesting essays is Gary Habermas on the resurrection and the evidences for the resurrection claims being well established within weeks or months of the event, as well as written down in Paul's letters within twenty-five years. Lastly, Mark Mittelberg speaks of the importance of a faith response to Christ.
The book closes with an interview between Gary Habermas and Anthony Flew, chronicling Flew's journey from atheism to theism and a review of The God Delusion by Alvin Plantinga, demonstrating that Dawkins never sustains his claim that belief in God is the result of delusion. These two pieces alone, along with Habermas on the resurrection, make this book worth the price of admission.
This is a useful resource for someone talking with an atheist friend posing substantive questions, or, as I mentioned above, for someone troubled by some of the challenges to faith (none of which are really "new") that the New Atheists have posed.
Since the time of the publication of this collection of essays, the attacks of the New Atheism upon Christianity have abated somewhat. Christopher Hitchens is no more upon this earth. Perhaps this movement has come to a growing self-awareness of its own hyper-fundamentalism and intolerance, and some of its own tendentious claims.
This book was written at the height of these attacks and provides intellectually rigorous responses helpful both for engaging conversations with atheists, and to bolster the faith of Christians who might have been shaken by some of the accusations of the New Atheists.
The first section of the book, "God Is", deals with responses that no reasonable person could believe in the existence of a God. William Lane Craig directly addresses the arguments of Richard Dawkins against the classic arguments for God's existence, pointing out weaknesses in all his arguments, and particularly in his argument against the teleological argument, evident in the fine-tuning of the universe. J. P. Moreland then proceeds to show how theism better explains the nature of human beings than a scientific atheism. And Paul K. Moser lays out the argument for the morally perfect God of Christian theism.
The second section turns to the greatness of God, evident in the finely tuned universe of physics, according to John Polkinghorne, the complexity of biological life as described by Michael Behe, and not confuted by evolutionary explanations of religion. Those using the material by Behe may want to familiarize themselves with the criticism of Behe subsequent to this essay and his response.
The third part of the book considers the goodness of God, responding to New Atheist critiques of the goodness of God and the existence of evil (Meister), the contention that religion is evil (McGrath), that the Old Testament laws and its lawgiver are evil (Copan) and that the idea of God and the existence of hell are irreconcilable (Walls). For those who want a distilled version of Copan's lengthier treatment in Is God a Moral Monster?, his chapter in this book is a good, concise summary of his arguments.
The final section explores why all this matters. It begins with Charles Taliaferro's essay on revelation, and the reasons one might seek to look through the Bible to see what it reveals of God. Scot McKnight gives us an overview of the Jesus we might never have met. One of the most interesting essays is Gary Habermas on the resurrection and the evidences for the resurrection claims being well established within weeks or months of the event, as well as written down in Paul's letters within twenty-five years. Lastly, Mark Mittelberg speaks of the importance of a faith response to Christ.
The book closes with an interview between Gary Habermas and Anthony Flew, chronicling Flew's journey from atheism to theism and a review of The God Delusion by Alvin Plantinga, demonstrating that Dawkins never sustains his claim that belief in God is the result of delusion. These two pieces alone, along with Habermas on the resurrection, make this book worth the price of admission.
This is a useful resource for someone talking with an atheist friend posing substantive questions, or, as I mentioned above, for someone troubled by some of the challenges to faith (none of which are really "new") that the New Atheists have posed.
August 11, 2011
The New Atheists have been getting a lot of attention lately; first from the general public because of their writings, and then from the Christian community because of the general public's interest. And just as the ideas of the Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennett have spawned several books, so the rebuttals of Christian academia have also been the fodder for many publications in the last year or so.
God Is Great, God Is Good is one of the finest examples of this mini-genre and it brings together some of the sharpest minds in Christian apologetics. Names like Michael Behe, Gary Habermas, and William Lane Craig offer their best defense for Christianity against the charges of the New Atheists. The diversity of authors in this book is perhaps both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness: strength because each author can focus on their respective field, and weakness because there is a noticeable absence of a clear train of thought from one chapter to the next.
While the flow of a single-author sort of book is missing, the structure of the book in the way the essays were grouped was quite appealing and seemed to address the general categories of challenges from the New Atheists well:
1.God Is (God's existence)
2.God Is Great (God's creative design)
3.God Is Good (God's goodness)
4.Why It Matters (A shift from theistic issues generally to Chrstianity specifically)
These authors certainly are nicer (and at times more academic) than the New Atheists have a reputation of being. Love them or hate them, however, the New Atheists seem to connect with something in their audience when they are at their most acerbic, sarcastic, and down-right nasty. There is a side of me that wishes that someone would sink to their level and deal with their charges in like form, but it is certainly to Christianity's credit that no one yet has done so.
All in all, God Is Great, God Is Good is a great book from many great writers addressing the challenges levelled by the New Atheists. While a few of these ideas and arguments may be over the heads of some, this book is a perfect introduction for someone who is ready to tackle the hot topics of the debate but is unfamiliar with the major players or where to get started.
God Is Great, God Is Good is one of the finest examples of this mini-genre and it brings together some of the sharpest minds in Christian apologetics. Names like Michael Behe, Gary Habermas, and William Lane Craig offer their best defense for Christianity against the charges of the New Atheists. The diversity of authors in this book is perhaps both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness: strength because each author can focus on their respective field, and weakness because there is a noticeable absence of a clear train of thought from one chapter to the next.
While the flow of a single-author sort of book is missing, the structure of the book in the way the essays were grouped was quite appealing and seemed to address the general categories of challenges from the New Atheists well:
1.God Is (God's existence)
2.God Is Great (God's creative design)
3.God Is Good (God's goodness)
4.Why It Matters (A shift from theistic issues generally to Chrstianity specifically)
These authors certainly are nicer (and at times more academic) than the New Atheists have a reputation of being. Love them or hate them, however, the New Atheists seem to connect with something in their audience when they are at their most acerbic, sarcastic, and down-right nasty. There is a side of me that wishes that someone would sink to their level and deal with their charges in like form, but it is certainly to Christianity's credit that no one yet has done so.
All in all, God Is Great, God Is Good is a great book from many great writers addressing the challenges levelled by the New Atheists. While a few of these ideas and arguments may be over the heads of some, this book is a perfect introduction for someone who is ready to tackle the hot topics of the debate but is unfamiliar with the major players or where to get started.
September 25, 2010
great apologetic - very meaty, answers well the objections raised by the new atheists
August 3, 2011
I'm currently reading as I have a chance. Dr. Craig attends my church and is one the the world's leading apologist.
July 13, 2012
Brilliant answers to new atheism from leading Christian thinkers
December 18, 2013
Such a great book that clearly lays out the major arguments about the moral goodness of God.
May 24, 2010
Chapter 1: William Lane Craig does a good job of responding to Dawkins on arguments for the existence of God. If you are under the false impression that "The God Delusion" adequately showed that theistic arguments fail, this chapter will help show that Dawkins' treatment was sometimes incompetent, and sometimes embarrassingly simplistic. Elsewhere Craig shows that Dawkins' central argument for atheism is a bad argument: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/N...
Chapter 2: J.P. Moreland makes some sort of an argument for Biblical theism based on the compatibility of that hypothesis with certain features of the human person that, he thinks, "scientific naturalism" has difficulties accounting for: (1) consciousness, (2) free will, (3) rationality, (4) unified selves, and (5) intrinsic, equal value and rights of humans. An interesting chapter, but barely seems to scratch the surface on the issue. I think there is a problem with the way he sets up his argument, and I think when the issue is properly framed it doesn't overwhelmingly support theism over naturalism.
Chapters 3-5: Relatively unnoteworthy. Paul Moser has a chapter in which he promotes a different approach to thinking about evidence for the existence of God, but the reasoning is difficult to follow and sometimes seems to be special pleading--e.g. if God is morally perfect, as he allegedly is, we should expect that he would give good convincing evidence to those who are willing to devote their lives and love to him. This would explain why the rest of us aren't given the convincing evidence that we require before we become believers. Then John Polkinghorne has a somewhat boring chapter on God and physics, in which he suggests that various aspects of what physics tells us points to something beyond the universe (i.e. a rational creator). The discussion was a bit dull, and the arguments were again hard to follow. One would think that if you are trying to argue for the existence of God based on good evidence, the line of reasoning that gets from point A to point B should be easy to follow, but it is apparently shrouded in rhetoric, if it's there at all. Then Michael Behe has a better chapter about God and evolution. The chapter is too short to really digest the argument he is trying to make, but essentially he argues that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection (which almost every professional biologist accepts) cannot account for things we know about the complexity of living organisms at the microscopic level. He briefly gives a bit of history of the issue, then quickly covers his irreducible complexity argument (from "Darwin's Black Box"), and then finishes the discussion by reviewing the main line of thinking that comes from his most recent book--"The Edge of Evolution." Only this chapter is really worth taking the time to read, though one would be better off just reading Behe's book rather than trying to learn the material from this all-too-short summary.
Chapter 6: Better than the previous few chapters. Michael Murray gives a pretty helpful summary of the basic positions that sociologists of religion have taken regarding the ultimate cause of religious belief in human beings. He explains some basic terminology and outlines the reasoning of those who argue that religion is an adaptation (or a byproduct of an adaptation) of natural processes. Of course the chapter is yet again too short for him to get into the problems he alludes to that all of these views have, but his other work is cited in a footnote, so the reader can explore the information there. Dawkins and Dennett (in "The God Delusion" and "Breaking the Spell" respectively) both endorse one of these accounts, and both of them think that it does something damaging to religious belief to point out how religious belief got started in the first place. Murray does a good job briefly responding to that idea.
Chapter 7: Chad Meister turns the table on the atheist. Many atheists are fond of the problem of evil as an argument against the existence of God. Meister argues that atheists themselves need to come up with a foundation for objective morality. This is essentially the same material covered by Craig when he discusses the moral argument for the existence of God, and Paul Copan, who similarly argues that atheism does not allow for objective morality. Meister does a good job of discussing this familiar issue, and he claims (probably correctly) that the New Atheists (Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens) do not adequately outline a moral theory. (Harris will release a book in the fall of 2010 which will hopefully address this issue.) I should note that even if the New Atheists themselves fail to addrses this criticism, there are others who have. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong's book "Morality Without God" is an example, as is the more sophisticated "Atheism, Morality, and Meaning" by Michael Martin.
Chapter 8: Alister McGrath argues against the New Atheist contention that "religion is evil." Just what does the atheist mean when he talks about "religion" as a universal category? There is no clear definition, which makes the claim "religion is evil" a bit naive. Also, McGrath argues that there is something more fundamental about the evils in the world--they don't need religion, but can express themselves in forms of political extremisim as well. Fanaticism of any type can be dangerous; even the fanaticism of atheist regimes (such as Stalin's Soviet Union) does not always lead to a peaceful enlightenment, but can instead be quite evil.
Chapter 9: Paul Copan takes on the New Atheist claim that "Yahweh is a moral monster." The Old Testament is full of divinely sanctioned laws and moral rules that today we think are outrageous. God commands his people to kill homosexuals, to kill every man, woman, child, and animal in a certain region, etc. In response, Copan agrees that this is not the pinnacle of moral wisdom, but he claims that it does not need to be. God could not dramatically change the moral context of the Ancient Near East, but these rules are a clear improvement and helped guide the way toward the ultimate goal that God had in mind. I think Copan did a pretty good job of making that point, though I'm a bit skeptical of the content of this chapter right now because I know that Hector Avalos has a rebuttal chapter in the recently released boko "The Christian Delusion," so I'll have to see if he makes a good case there. When Copan gives his concluding remarks he makes a bunch of unsubstantiated claims (but, of course, he didn't have the room to substantiate them). For example, the claim already discussed in earlier chapters that naturalism does not allow for value (or objective morality). He also claims that Western civilization owes many of its advances to Christianity, though he doesn't get into any details about what contributions he has in mind. He mentions the rise of science as something motivated by Christian theology, but Richard Carrier has a chapter on this in "The Christian Delusion" also.
Chapter 10: Jerry Walls has a well-written chapter on how it is that God could have created hell. One of the first stumbling blocks I encountered when I was a believer was the apparent incompatibility of a loving God sending people to hell for eternity. Walls does not think of hell as a place of actual fire and brimstone, but he does think that the people there will be miserable. The reason God allows it is simply because he gave us free will, and some of us freely choose to reject him. And rejecting God is akin to rejecting love, joy, and happiness, which means that we build a hell of our own and lock the door from the inside, so to speak. This chapter was enjoyable to read, but it did not convince me. How, for example, am I rejecting God if I simply do not have the requisite evidence to believe that he exists? If I seek the evidence by reading books such as this one, and I'm not convinced by the arguments (because, for example, I think they are flawed), how does that constitute a rejection of a loving God worthy of damnation? Of course he could follow a number of other Christians in claiming that my reasons for rejecting God are not intellectual after all, but are simply psychological--I don't want there to be a God, for example. But as soon as he tries to take that path he has insultingly ended the conversation. I think there are other worries about hell also, but there is further reading listed at the end of the chapter so maybe I'll have to read one or more of those books to get some answers.
Chapter 11: Charles Taliaferro has a decent chapter about how it is reasonable to recognize divine revelation in the Bible. There were some interesting points in the chapter, but nothing I care to really talk much about.
Chapter 12: Scot McKnight's chapter simply sketches certain characteristics of the Biblical Jesus: he was free, confident, a "lightning rod", an activist, preachy, charismatic, spiritual, etc. With each of these characteristics, the author presents some scriptural evidence. To be honest, there's not much more to the chapter than this.
Chapter 13: Gary Habermas has a good, clear chapter outlining the historical case for the claim that Jesus' followers were proclaiming the resurrection shortly after his death. This combats the notion that the stories of Jesus' resurrection were legendary developments that came years later. Instead, Habermas argues that very shortly after Jesus died, people were already claiming to have seen him risen from the dead. He argues for this based on things that Paul writes in some of his New Testament epistles. This argument (whether you read this particular chapter, or read Habermas' treatment of the issue elsewhere) is necessary reading for those who wish to combat resurrection apologetics. I recall listening to an internet radio show which was essentially an hour long debate between Habermas and skeptic Robert Price about this very issue, so readers should keep in mind that there is a response to the argument that they should take into consideration.
Chapter 14: Mark Mittelberg brings the main section of the book to a close with his chapter "Why Faith in Jesus Matters." First, he argues that everyone has faith in something--of course supported by a particular definition of "faith". Then he seems to equivocate, because he says that since everyone has faith in something, you might as well have faith in Jesus. But for many people, the kind of faith we'd have to have in Jesus would be a "blind leap" as opposed to the more mundane kind of faith that he began his chapter discussing--trust in something which you can't prove or know in an absolute sense. In a footnote Mittelberg tells us that there is overwhelming evidence that the Bible is historically reliable, and even that it is a supernaturally inspired book. On this basis, he argues that faith in Jesus makes good sense, since Jesus was powerful (he controlled nature according to the Gospel stories), he was knowledgeable (he could read minds according to the stories), he was eternal (Jesus made a vague claim in the Gospel of John that suggests he thought of himself as eternal), and he is a paradigm of goodness. The author claims that the things we fill our lives with to give us happiness are fleeting, and that we need Jesus to give us true meaning and lasting joy. The chapter ends with a plea to come to a relationship with Jesus.
The appendix consists of two items. First is an interesting interview between Gary Habermas and the late atheist-turned-deist Antony Flew. Flew was a very influential atheist philosopher during the course of the second half of the twentieth century, but early in the 2000s he apparently became convinced that God does exist after all. Habermas, a longtime friend of Flew, interviewed him to pick his mind about this and related issues. This does help a bit to understand what his state of mind was. It is bizarre how he seems to avoid answering questions at times; skeptics may take this as more confirming evidence that his mental health was in decline in his later years. The controversy over Flew's conversion, and his book "There Is A God" has been detailed by Mark Oppenheimer (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/mag...) and Richard Carrier (http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/20...).
The final item in the appendix is Alvin Plantinga's review of "The God Delusion." Plantinga is a notable philosopher, often considered the greatest Christian philosopher of the second half of the twentieth century (or longer)--though the same has been said, I think, of Oxford's Richard Swinburne. Plantinga's review of Dawkins' book is a very good read.
Overall, the collection was a mixed bag. Some of the chapters are worthy of recommendation, and some aren't. Craig, Moreland, Murray, Meister, Copan, Walls, and Habermas all wrote some interesting chapters. However, some of it can be found elsewhere. Craig says the same things he's always said--the trouble is that Dawkins (and Dawkins' apologists) don't even bother listening. He also has a paper up online somewhere which is basically the same material as the chapter in this book. Moreland covered some interesting ground, so it's worth reading and thinking about. Murray is good at explaining the issues, and made a good point in his chapter. Meister's discussion of objective morality is a relief to read when all you ever hear is Craig's repetitive coverage of that material. Copan's chapter was informative, but should be supplemented with the chapter by Avalos I mentioned above. Walls' chapter was just fun to read, and Habermas presented a clear argument. The appendix was also a bonus. The rest of it was not so great. Behe's chapter was somewhere between the good chapters listed above and the rest of them.
Chapter 2: J.P. Moreland makes some sort of an argument for Biblical theism based on the compatibility of that hypothesis with certain features of the human person that, he thinks, "scientific naturalism" has difficulties accounting for: (1) consciousness, (2) free will, (3) rationality, (4) unified selves, and (5) intrinsic, equal value and rights of humans. An interesting chapter, but barely seems to scratch the surface on the issue. I think there is a problem with the way he sets up his argument, and I think when the issue is properly framed it doesn't overwhelmingly support theism over naturalism.
Chapters 3-5: Relatively unnoteworthy. Paul Moser has a chapter in which he promotes a different approach to thinking about evidence for the existence of God, but the reasoning is difficult to follow and sometimes seems to be special pleading--e.g. if God is morally perfect, as he allegedly is, we should expect that he would give good convincing evidence to those who are willing to devote their lives and love to him. This would explain why the rest of us aren't given the convincing evidence that we require before we become believers. Then John Polkinghorne has a somewhat boring chapter on God and physics, in which he suggests that various aspects of what physics tells us points to something beyond the universe (i.e. a rational creator). The discussion was a bit dull, and the arguments were again hard to follow. One would think that if you are trying to argue for the existence of God based on good evidence, the line of reasoning that gets from point A to point B should be easy to follow, but it is apparently shrouded in rhetoric, if it's there at all. Then Michael Behe has a better chapter about God and evolution. The chapter is too short to really digest the argument he is trying to make, but essentially he argues that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection (which almost every professional biologist accepts) cannot account for things we know about the complexity of living organisms at the microscopic level. He briefly gives a bit of history of the issue, then quickly covers his irreducible complexity argument (from "Darwin's Black Box"), and then finishes the discussion by reviewing the main line of thinking that comes from his most recent book--"The Edge of Evolution." Only this chapter is really worth taking the time to read, though one would be better off just reading Behe's book rather than trying to learn the material from this all-too-short summary.
Chapter 6: Better than the previous few chapters. Michael Murray gives a pretty helpful summary of the basic positions that sociologists of religion have taken regarding the ultimate cause of religious belief in human beings. He explains some basic terminology and outlines the reasoning of those who argue that religion is an adaptation (or a byproduct of an adaptation) of natural processes. Of course the chapter is yet again too short for him to get into the problems he alludes to that all of these views have, but his other work is cited in a footnote, so the reader can explore the information there. Dawkins and Dennett (in "The God Delusion" and "Breaking the Spell" respectively) both endorse one of these accounts, and both of them think that it does something damaging to religious belief to point out how religious belief got started in the first place. Murray does a good job briefly responding to that idea.
Chapter 7: Chad Meister turns the table on the atheist. Many atheists are fond of the problem of evil as an argument against the existence of God. Meister argues that atheists themselves need to come up with a foundation for objective morality. This is essentially the same material covered by Craig when he discusses the moral argument for the existence of God, and Paul Copan, who similarly argues that atheism does not allow for objective morality. Meister does a good job of discussing this familiar issue, and he claims (probably correctly) that the New Atheists (Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens) do not adequately outline a moral theory. (Harris will release a book in the fall of 2010 which will hopefully address this issue.) I should note that even if the New Atheists themselves fail to addrses this criticism, there are others who have. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong's book "Morality Without God" is an example, as is the more sophisticated "Atheism, Morality, and Meaning" by Michael Martin.
Chapter 8: Alister McGrath argues against the New Atheist contention that "religion is evil." Just what does the atheist mean when he talks about "religion" as a universal category? There is no clear definition, which makes the claim "religion is evil" a bit naive. Also, McGrath argues that there is something more fundamental about the evils in the world--they don't need religion, but can express themselves in forms of political extremisim as well. Fanaticism of any type can be dangerous; even the fanaticism of atheist regimes (such as Stalin's Soviet Union) does not always lead to a peaceful enlightenment, but can instead be quite evil.
Chapter 9: Paul Copan takes on the New Atheist claim that "Yahweh is a moral monster." The Old Testament is full of divinely sanctioned laws and moral rules that today we think are outrageous. God commands his people to kill homosexuals, to kill every man, woman, child, and animal in a certain region, etc. In response, Copan agrees that this is not the pinnacle of moral wisdom, but he claims that it does not need to be. God could not dramatically change the moral context of the Ancient Near East, but these rules are a clear improvement and helped guide the way toward the ultimate goal that God had in mind. I think Copan did a pretty good job of making that point, though I'm a bit skeptical of the content of this chapter right now because I know that Hector Avalos has a rebuttal chapter in the recently released boko "The Christian Delusion," so I'll have to see if he makes a good case there. When Copan gives his concluding remarks he makes a bunch of unsubstantiated claims (but, of course, he didn't have the room to substantiate them). For example, the claim already discussed in earlier chapters that naturalism does not allow for value (or objective morality). He also claims that Western civilization owes many of its advances to Christianity, though he doesn't get into any details about what contributions he has in mind. He mentions the rise of science as something motivated by Christian theology, but Richard Carrier has a chapter on this in "The Christian Delusion" also.
Chapter 10: Jerry Walls has a well-written chapter on how it is that God could have created hell. One of the first stumbling blocks I encountered when I was a believer was the apparent incompatibility of a loving God sending people to hell for eternity. Walls does not think of hell as a place of actual fire and brimstone, but he does think that the people there will be miserable. The reason God allows it is simply because he gave us free will, and some of us freely choose to reject him. And rejecting God is akin to rejecting love, joy, and happiness, which means that we build a hell of our own and lock the door from the inside, so to speak. This chapter was enjoyable to read, but it did not convince me. How, for example, am I rejecting God if I simply do not have the requisite evidence to believe that he exists? If I seek the evidence by reading books such as this one, and I'm not convinced by the arguments (because, for example, I think they are flawed), how does that constitute a rejection of a loving God worthy of damnation? Of course he could follow a number of other Christians in claiming that my reasons for rejecting God are not intellectual after all, but are simply psychological--I don't want there to be a God, for example. But as soon as he tries to take that path he has insultingly ended the conversation. I think there are other worries about hell also, but there is further reading listed at the end of the chapter so maybe I'll have to read one or more of those books to get some answers.
Chapter 11: Charles Taliaferro has a decent chapter about how it is reasonable to recognize divine revelation in the Bible. There were some interesting points in the chapter, but nothing I care to really talk much about.
Chapter 12: Scot McKnight's chapter simply sketches certain characteristics of the Biblical Jesus: he was free, confident, a "lightning rod", an activist, preachy, charismatic, spiritual, etc. With each of these characteristics, the author presents some scriptural evidence. To be honest, there's not much more to the chapter than this.
Chapter 13: Gary Habermas has a good, clear chapter outlining the historical case for the claim that Jesus' followers were proclaiming the resurrection shortly after his death. This combats the notion that the stories of Jesus' resurrection were legendary developments that came years later. Instead, Habermas argues that very shortly after Jesus died, people were already claiming to have seen him risen from the dead. He argues for this based on things that Paul writes in some of his New Testament epistles. This argument (whether you read this particular chapter, or read Habermas' treatment of the issue elsewhere) is necessary reading for those who wish to combat resurrection apologetics. I recall listening to an internet radio show which was essentially an hour long debate between Habermas and skeptic Robert Price about this very issue, so readers should keep in mind that there is a response to the argument that they should take into consideration.
Chapter 14: Mark Mittelberg brings the main section of the book to a close with his chapter "Why Faith in Jesus Matters." First, he argues that everyone has faith in something--of course supported by a particular definition of "faith". Then he seems to equivocate, because he says that since everyone has faith in something, you might as well have faith in Jesus. But for many people, the kind of faith we'd have to have in Jesus would be a "blind leap" as opposed to the more mundane kind of faith that he began his chapter discussing--trust in something which you can't prove or know in an absolute sense. In a footnote Mittelberg tells us that there is overwhelming evidence that the Bible is historically reliable, and even that it is a supernaturally inspired book. On this basis, he argues that faith in Jesus makes good sense, since Jesus was powerful (he controlled nature according to the Gospel stories), he was knowledgeable (he could read minds according to the stories), he was eternal (Jesus made a vague claim in the Gospel of John that suggests he thought of himself as eternal), and he is a paradigm of goodness. The author claims that the things we fill our lives with to give us happiness are fleeting, and that we need Jesus to give us true meaning and lasting joy. The chapter ends with a plea to come to a relationship with Jesus.
The appendix consists of two items. First is an interesting interview between Gary Habermas and the late atheist-turned-deist Antony Flew. Flew was a very influential atheist philosopher during the course of the second half of the twentieth century, but early in the 2000s he apparently became convinced that God does exist after all. Habermas, a longtime friend of Flew, interviewed him to pick his mind about this and related issues. This does help a bit to understand what his state of mind was. It is bizarre how he seems to avoid answering questions at times; skeptics may take this as more confirming evidence that his mental health was in decline in his later years. The controversy over Flew's conversion, and his book "There Is A God" has been detailed by Mark Oppenheimer (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/mag...) and Richard Carrier (http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/20...).
The final item in the appendix is Alvin Plantinga's review of "The God Delusion." Plantinga is a notable philosopher, often considered the greatest Christian philosopher of the second half of the twentieth century (or longer)--though the same has been said, I think, of Oxford's Richard Swinburne. Plantinga's review of Dawkins' book is a very good read.
Overall, the collection was a mixed bag. Some of the chapters are worthy of recommendation, and some aren't. Craig, Moreland, Murray, Meister, Copan, Walls, and Habermas all wrote some interesting chapters. However, some of it can be found elsewhere. Craig says the same things he's always said--the trouble is that Dawkins (and Dawkins' apologists) don't even bother listening. He also has a paper up online somewhere which is basically the same material as the chapter in this book. Moreland covered some interesting ground, so it's worth reading and thinking about. Murray is good at explaining the issues, and made a good point in his chapter. Meister's discussion of objective morality is a relief to read when all you ever hear is Craig's repetitive coverage of that material. Copan's chapter was informative, but should be supplemented with the chapter by Avalos I mentioned above. Walls' chapter was just fun to read, and Habermas presented a clear argument. The appendix was also a bonus. The rest of it was not so great. Behe's chapter was somewhere between the good chapters listed above and the rest of them.
January 31, 2019
This book is a response to the wave of "new atheism" publications that hit in the early 2000s. It is a collection of essays, most good, a few decent, and a couple very good. The responses to Richard Dawkins from William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga (two of the premier apologists of today) are spot-on. Paul Copan is also helpful on why the OT laws are not evil, though I believe he posits too much discontinuity between then and now. And don't miss Chad Meister on God and morality.
As usual, Scot McKnight can be safely skipped. In fact, I'd recommend it. In fact, most of Part 4 is oddly dull. But the volume itself (published a decade ago by IVP) is well worth your while.
As usual, Scot McKnight can be safely skipped. In fact, I'd recommend it. In fact, most of Part 4 is oddly dull. But the volume itself (published a decade ago by IVP) is well worth your while.
January 19, 2020
I am not sure exactly what I was expecting when I picked up this book, but it definitely felt like reading a textbook. The book was broken up into different essays regarding various important aspects of theology and Christian belief. While these are important and interesting ideas to think through and discuss, the essays seemed like they were written for high-level/highly-educated individuals rather than for the common Christian. I got through the first few essays but found myself struggling and didn't actually end up finishing the book.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 8, 2013
I really enjoyed this book. It provides a good overview of several different approaches to Christian apologetics.
I must say, all chapters are not equal: some were a little above my intellectual pay grade, but that’s OK, it was a good exercise.
Bottom line, I’d recommend this book as an excellent primer for those interested in learning how to better understand and defend their faith.
I must say, all chapters are not equal: some were a little above my intellectual pay grade, but that’s OK, it was a good exercise.
Bottom line, I’d recommend this book as an excellent primer for those interested in learning how to better understand and defend their faith.
October 12, 2011
Great book, but some of the articles are past my ability. Good book for answering the questions people might have about the new atheists, and the final chapter by Mitt;eberg was fantastic!
Christ's peace,
Pastor Don Haselhuhn
Christ's peace,
Pastor Don Haselhuhn
August 22, 2010
Just got this for my birthday. It's awesome!
August 25, 2016
A collection of articles on the goodness of God.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews