The God Debates: A 21st Century Guide for Atheists and Believers

by John R. Shook

The God Debates presents a comprehensive, non-technical survey of the quest for knowledge of God, allowing readers to participate in a debate about the existence of God and gain understanding and appreciation of religion?s conceptual foundations.

Genres: Religion, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Atheism

241 pages, Hardcover

First published July 13, 2010

About the author

John R. Shook teaches philosophy at Bowie State University in Maryland. He is coeditor of The Blackwell Companion to Pragmatism and Neuroscience, Neurophilosophy, and Pragmatism.

He is also an instructor of science education for the ‘Science and the Public’ EdM online program at the University at Buffalo. In recent years he has been Adjunct Instructor in Philosophy and Visiting Fellow at the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia; and Associate Fellow at the Center for Neurotechnology Studies in the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies in Arlington, Virginia. Since 2015 he has contributed research for the US Department of Defense (DoD) Strategic Multilayer Assessment (SMA) program. At Georgetown University, he works with James Giordano of the Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics, and has mentored students in its Medical Ethics course. Dr. Shook’s research areas include history and philosophy of science, philosophy and ethics of technology, neurophilosophy, ethics and moral psychology, bioethics and neuroethics, medical humanities, and science-religion dialogue.

Reviews

[Stefan Detrez · Rating 5 out of 5]

The God Debates is an advanced guide to the debates going on between believers and atheists. It is thorough and problably to believers an unwelcome addition to the growing corpus of religion-debunking literature. Less literally embellished as is with Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens, it might in the end be considered as an even sharper attack on religious convictions. It's sharpness come from its systematic approach of analysing and destroying the arguments advanced by religious apologists. Hopefully this book serves as an example and pioneer for the systematizing of an atheology which is not only centered on Judeo-Christian monotheism, but also on Islam and polytheisms like Hinduism and to some extent Buddhism.

[Steve · Rating 5 out of 5]

A brilliant book. Clear, articulate, and intelligently respectful. Author avoids the emotive and (often) naive rhetoric of Dawkins and Hitchens. A very fresh look at the state of the contemporary debates on g/God's existence with a very useful framework for organizing the incredible diversity of views. Primarily focuses on Christian theological perspectives but engages with non-Christian religions as well. Very potent critique of arguments for the existence of God. The author ultimately concludes that the only viable alternative in today's world is ethical humanism. This book will be a very challenging and confronting read for most Christians. And atheists need to read it to see a brilliant model of engagement.

[Timothy Finucane · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is the best thing I've read that outlines all of the major arguments and counter arguments in the ongoing debate on god(s). Well thought out. You will need to have a little background on philosophy and theology, or at least a willingness to look up some of the core concepts to get the most out of this book. This book will reside on my reference shelf for many years to come. The only critical thing I can say is that the editor did not do their best with this book; several grammatical errors were not edited out before printing.

[AH · Rating 4 out of 5]

"An atheist is a man who does not believe the existence of a God; now, no one can be certain of the existence of a being whom he does not conceive, and who is said to unite incompatible qualities."
Baron d'Holbach

The book is written clearly and includes a good deal of what is usually dismissed fast by Atheists during most of the debates -some of them rightly so- like Presuppositionalism or even highly fundamentally absurd ones ,which makes this book a good read for “in between”people as stated in title . While Science is providing an explanation that is usually used as counter arguments offered by the naturalists (like evolution against creation) ,it’s important to have additional reasons besides The scientific theories as well and that’s what I liked about this book the most .


Now The book :
The First Four chapters we’re really great and others... well it was pretty absurd, nonsensical and bOooooring Zzzzzz!( of course this isn't an objection to the book cause it’s written also for the “In between" too)

Good points made in each chapters :

Theology from scripture ,from The world and beyond the world

-------Theology and Science :
Offering an explanation for phenomena that have not been scientifically observed.
Refusing to deduce predictions from the supposed existence of the postulated entity.
Ensuring that any predictions are vague, unsurprising, impossible to test, or ignorable when false.
Modifying the hypothesis just enough to be able to afterwards predict a bad experimental result.


1. A natural phenomenon X has no scientific explanation now, and may
never get any scientific explanation.
2. X has a theological explanation that avoids PS1–PS6.
Conclusion. God exists.

… When the intellect rebels at any satisfying reduction or elimination of consciousness, religion can claim a false victory…
.. . Examples over the last ten centuries are assertions that science would never explain non-linear motion, the nature of stars, magnetism, light, how organisms use air, the age of the earth, the diversity of life, and the transmission of life in reproduction. Upon
these mysteries and many more, believers constructed elaborate philosophical and theological systems to do what they thought science could never do. But in time, physics, astronomy, chemistry, geology, biology, and genetics have satisfactorily explained all these things.
… It has always been a bad bet to bet against science. Ensuring that a theological explanation avoids pseudo-science is no easy task either. The two greatest obstacles are the temptations to appeal to what god would want to do, and to avoid making verifiable predictions about the future.

Argument from Design
(read A.C Grayling and What’s Really Wrong with the Argument from Design? By by Mark F. Sharlow)

…To avoid begging questions and throwing out natural science, the theologian would have to point to something maximally complex in the natural world which science presumably cannot deal with.
… the greater the complexity, the greater the improbability. A supernatural being must be much more improbable than anything natural.
… to explain complexity biology remains loyal to scientific method, while theology is forced to abandon science.

religious experience
... Precisely because religious believers understand all these problems, they are tempted to resort to the additional un-justifiable claim that their own revelation is different as an exemption from such rules. Revelations taken collectively only lead to an inevitable skepticism about their ability to rationally support the existence of any god.
… . There is no good explanation why just this group’s set of similar experiences should count as the only valid revelations. ... If the group claims that no other experiences belong because they are too different from the basic set, this justification is fallaciously circular by first assuming the validity of the group.
…Without independent confirmations, can a revelation experience get validated as proof of god’s existence?
... something naturally real operated on perception to cause an illusion, or nothing was in fact perceived but only internally generated by a brain malfunction. By contrast, there is no ordinary method of showing that a strange experience is an actual revelation of an existing god.
... Some supernaturalists therefore claim that revelations do not need any verification. They don’t need verification if they have the special character of �self-verification� or �self-evidence� or veracity.�This tactic sounds like a way to avoid having to justify revelations, but that burden cannot be avoided. The supernaturalist must at least explain how to distinguish when an experience truly possesses this self-evident character and when an experience does not (for not all experiences, and not all claimed revelations, have it).
...Furthermore, no religion can rationally explain why its own scriptural testimony is good evidence for the existence of its own god while other religions’ scriptures are all bad testimony.
… Religions, including Christianity, notoriously refuse to try to reliably predict when, how, or why god may cause religious experiences. They also refuse to define exactly how god would or should reveal himself in religious experiences.

Arguments from morality

.... The theologian then reasons that, if that nature cannot make an absolute truth true, then something supernatural must be responsible instead. (false dilemma)
Even religious people are left without any absolute guarantees about morality either, if they have to depend on god to know them… This is Plato’s Euthyphro dilemma: supposed objective moral truths could still be different if god were different (if the divine mind changed its will, for example). Theologians may claim that god would not and could not change its will, but there seems to be no good reason to accept this claim.
… . The theologian could claim that god would want us to have moral responsibility and so would give us a supernatural free will, but that tactic only begs the question with pseudo-science. Even worse, this sort of supernatural free will would have some bizarre and counter-intuitive
characteristics. Consider the point of this sort of free will: when active, it momentarily suspends all natural causes that would have dictated one action, so that it can decide to go ahead and choose that action, or choose some other action instead. This free will cannot be influenced by any natural cause, including whatever is going on in a person’s brain. If such a free will existed, it would reveal itself in noticeable violations of the law of conservation of energy, but no such effect has ever been detected. Even worse for morality, such a free will would severely disrupt morality itself. All character, all knowledge, all moral habit laid down in the brain’s neural pathways is set aside for a split second while one’s free will does its work.

… Why should religious faith in ultimate victory deliver moral superiority? After all, who deserves higher approval – the person who does the right thing when the best outcome is already guaranteed, or the person who does the right thing even when the outcome appears hopeless? Righteousness even in the face of despair marks the genuinely moral person. Such a person is not unreasonable for their convictions.

Explanation for reason :
Reason depends on god - The fallacious trick of these arguments is to first depict organisms as made up of chaotically unpredictable and highly variable reactions of tiny particles that know nothing, and second to rashly assume that an entire human must be as uncaring and stupid as any of these tiny components. One might as well complain that a locomotive engine could not possibly move a train, since close scrutiny of its thousands of small parts fails to detect either the immense power or coordinated drive to pull a train… Having reached this desired conclusion against naturalism, the theologian quickly offers supernaturalism as the source of alternative explanations for these evidently unnatural truths.
… The ontological argument for god starts from the natural fact that humans can have a conception of god and humans can reason about logical connections between conceptions, and proceeds to argue that therefore a god must exist.
… Pure reasoning by itself knows nothing and yields no knowledge about the actual existence of
anything; it is just the manipulation of symbols according to arbitrary rules.

The ontological Argument ( Check out Peter Millican on ontological argument … he is great)

… The ontological argument for god starts from the natural fact that humans can have a conception of god and humans can reason about logical connections between conceptions, and proceeds to argue that therefore a god must exist.
… Pure reasoning by itself knows nothing and yields no knowledge about the actual existence of anything; it is just the manipulation of symbols according to arbitrary rules… if any ontological argument omits a person actually having a conception of the god that is supposed to exist, then even a valid conclusion that god exists accomplishes nothing. No one would know what god is argued for, and no one could gain knowledge of this god... It permits each person to have their own notion of what counts as a conception.
… Descartes may claim to perfectly conceive a necessarily perfect god, but how can he justify this claim? Not by any other fallible human way of sensing or knowing or thinking.

Argument from Pseudo Science :
…For them, god can easily explain everything that science cannot, and god’s existence cannot be scientifically tested.


Theology beyond the World :

theology has been driven to the very edge of nature itself and the extreme boundaries of scientific
knowledge. … Theology Beyond The World can degenerate into pseudo-cosmology.

Childish logic of course : … Everything that exists requires an explanation for its existence… Conclusion. Something supernatural exists to explain nature.

… the existence of a necessary thing. If god is postulated as a necessary being, this god would not require any further explanation. Once the supernatural explanation is postulated as a necessary being, two more disputes quickly break out. First, why should a god be postulated as a necessary being? Why couldn’t nature, taken as a whole, be similarly postulated as a necessary being, removing any need for a supernatural (or any other sort) of explanation? Second, … Only good explanations should be accepted, and not just any explanation, especially an extravagant ad hoc god. Theology has clearly strayed into pseudo-cosmology at this point. And it is no use for theology to try to prove that a postulated necessary god must necessarily exist, since calling something �necessary� can never logically imply that it actually exists.
… It is not necessary to postulate anything outside of nature while it is still sufficient that more and more explanations within nature can be achieved.

Argument from Ignorance

… If no one can know that god doesn’t exist, then we can know god exists. That’s a poor argument, right? Theologians rarely commit such a blatant fallacy, the argument from ignorance,� but it can be found in popular books for lay Christians. They take the general form, Christianity cannot be proven false, so therefore it is true.�(for example Craig debate with author)
…instead says that reasonable belief only requires no negative evidence. This premise violates common sense and sound inquiry, and could not be applied in any other area of life. Would you want your legal justice system of criminal trials based on premise 5? After no evidence could be
produced that you did not steal a car, you should be judged guilty of stealing a car?


-

… This entire plan is just an exercise in the fallacy of begging the question, a severe fallacy according to the Greek tradition. Assuming your desired conclusion should never be a persuasive move for anyone. Theology In The Know yet again is exposed as mere pseudo-theology.

… theologies which choose not to integrate scientific method and scientific knowledge. By locating god beyond all ordinary knowledge, and leaving science and reason with no way to criticize any religious symbolism, tight security for religion is built up.


Further reading list is great in this book

[Book Shark · Rating 5 out of 5]

The God Debates: A 21st Century Guide for Atheists and Believers (and Everyone in Between) by John R. Shook

"The God Debates" is the even-handed, accessible philosophical book about the quest of knowledge of God. Philosopher John R. Shook examines the key arguments for God's existence and the atheological responses. This 256-page book is composed of the following eight chapters: 1. Debating Religion, 2. Five Types of Theologies, 3. Theologies From The Scripture, 4. Theology From The World, 5. Theology Beyond The World, 6. Theology In The Know, 7. Theology Into The Myst, and 8. Reason and Faith.

Positives:
1. Well-researched, well-written book that takes a philosophical look at the arguments for the existence of God and the corresponding refutes.
2. Treats the topic with utmost care and respect. A professional book.
3. Great logical format. Breaks the topics out in a sensible manner.
4. Profound without being unintelligible. Thought-provoking.
5. The author does a good job of defining terms. Really lays the foundation early on for each worldview.
6. Great wisdom throughout, "There is no way to establish whether god exists by criticizing the conduct of believers or nonbelievers."
7. The author references well-known positions held by other authors and/or philosophers throughout the book.
8. All the well-known arguments for the existence of god are here and then some. Ontological, cosmological, teleological, etc...Excellent!
9. A great discussion on naturalism.
10. The best tools that leads to skepticism.
11. The book breaks out Christian theology into five types: Theology From The Scripture, Theology From The World, Theology Beyond The World, Theology In The Know, and Theology Into The Myst.
12. Thought-provoking questions and satisfactory answers.
13. In defense of science..."only scientific method advances science."
14. I've heard of the god of the gaps routine but "god of the surprises"...interesting.
15. A great section on scientific history.
16. A look at the gospels, are they trustworthy? Good stuff.
17. The impact of Paul on Christianity.
18. The supernatural in its proper place, "If hypotheses about the supernatural provide better explanations than any naturalistic hypotheses, then belief in the supernatural would be reasonable."
19. The divine designer debunked.
20. Really enjoyed the section on arguments from morality. The difference between objective moral truth and absolute moral truth.
21. Fine-tuning argument debunked.
22. Problem of evil.
23. Thought-provoking quotes, "The best explanation for the absence of convincing reasons for god's existence is god's nonexistence."
24. A good discussion on diverse worldviews. The author discusses twelve in particular.
25. A thorough references section.

Negatives:
1. No Kindle links.
2. Some of the topics covered here have been covered in more depth from other books. As an example, Victor Stenger has an entire book dedicated to debunking the fine-tuning argument.
3. The use of acronyms sometimes muddles the discussion.

In summary, I was reluctant to purchase the book because of the price but I'm glad that I did. Philosopher John R. Shook does a wonderful job of presenting the best reasoned justifications for the existence of god as well as the best counter arguments. The use of sound reason and logic that is accessible to the masses is the book's greatest strength. It also does a wonderful job of treating the subject with respect. It's a book that can be recommended to all without concern of personal attacks. I highly recommend this book.

Further suggestions: "God? A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist" William Lane Craig, "God and the Burden of Proof" Keith M. Parsons, "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George H. Smith, "Sense and Goodness Without God" by Richard Carrier, "God's Defenders" by S.T. Joshi, "50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God" by Guy P. Harrison, and "The Cambridge Companion to Atheism" by Michael Martin.

[Cassandra Kay Silva · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a good short overview of a lot of the problems with typical Christian thinking that is easy to gloss over when you are one. He takes some direct quotes from the bible and takes kind of a philosophical approach to the whole notion of god. Overall fairly comprehensive for the size.

[Jerry Wall · Rating 2 out of 5]

Overly argued on positions taken by believers in God.
There are those of us who are educated up to a grade school level (my parents), a high school level
(my sister and brother), an associates degree in college, a bachelors degree, a masters degree and a doctoral degree and beyond. At each level one can understand anyone person at that level or below generally. When you get to a certain level you are trained to talk at that level to others who have similar training and interests. The author of this book can talk and listen at the doctoral level and
has a rip roaring time of it, complete with charts, diagrams, logical syllogisms, etc.
What is clear is that once someone explained the mysteries of life and our confrontation with those mysteries in terms of God, the question was open to expansion and permutation.
Why was joe killed by lightning or drowning or whatever. It was the will of God. Where do children come from, again, God. With each generation the secrets of God are revealed more and more as people develop the capacity to think more deliberately and with more sophistication.
So, the definition of the supernatural controller is more and more elaborately tuned and polished.and God is more convincing as more thought is given to the gaps or mysteries, our need for answers, our distaste for lack of understanding. We like to complexify even simple things but when we get into the
more involved questions we can really go to town on talking through things even if there is nothing to talk about.
This book is one of the more elaborate explanations of the thicket of arguments relating to religious faith questions.

[John Michael Strubhart · Rating 5 out of 5]

Theologies are interesting, because there are so many of them and they form the foundation for the worldview (i.e. religions) of most people. The problem with trying to understand them is that most writings on the subject are very technical and dry and not very accessible. John Shook does a wonderful job of making the subject accessible, yet comprehensive enough that any layperson can understand the fundamentals of the theologies presented. Furthermore, John Shook presents the subject without being dismissive of any particular theology. Shook presents the arguments of various theologies and points out the strengths and weaknesses of each. Each chapter deals with a particular theology. Comparisons are made across chapters. The final chapters of the book look at how theologies influence society over time and using historical trends he suggests how they might affect society in the future. This is a book that a person can read regardless of his or her worldview. Even if you are absolutely convinced that your worldview is correct and any different worldview is wrong, you live in a world among other people who don't agree with you, and gaining an understanding of their point of view is critical is fostering a society that works for the betterment of all.

[Justin Powell · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book could be great for someone new to the topic, but that just isn't me at this point. Shook used an interesting way of organizing the topics of discussion, but the lack of notation was odd, and the rather dry tone was hard to push through. I should note that he does have a slight form of notation, but this consists of nothing but giving the date of the work quoted with the authors name in quotations as well. The "notes" can be found at the end of the sentence(s) quoted.

[Pedro Bonilla · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a good place to start reading up on the debates between christians and atheists. Dr. Shook covers common apologetic stances including arguments from scripture. The chapter on presuppositional arguments is worth the price of the book alone.

[Mauro · Rating 4 out of 5]

7.5/10

[Nick · Rating 5 out of 5]

An objective, logical, comprehensive and exhaustive examination and refutation of the evidentiary and philosophical proofs of an interventionist God.