Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion

David (moderator) has indicated he believes we as a group should read and discuss this book. I concur, and not because I already had it in my library. I'll start by saying this fills the bill as an apologetics book, but will probably appeal to no one in toto. The author's Geisler and Turek are old hands in the Religious publication game and have learned a few tricks along the way for shortcircuiting the normal avenues for burden of proof. I'll say what I like about this book, then critique their "proofs" later - probably over the weedend. The scope of this book is probably it's most eye-popping feature. It's like the Mall of America of evidenciary books proclaiming the doubtless existence of not only God, but a Christian God. For those of us who like our OT and NT as a unit without differentiating too much between the morality of the 2 testaments, this book is a Godsend (sorry, begging the question!) As a step by step refutation of the torturous logic required of atheism this book has few peers. Because it is so encyclopedic, it promises a good place to commence group book study. From here, we can branch off into areas in which we want enhanced concentration.

Robert wrote: " As a step by step refutation of the torturous logic required of atheism this book has few peers."

Sounds interesting, I'll have to read it.

Well, now, maybe we are getting somewhere - finally. I won't even take this oppotunity to poke a stick in Guillermo's eye and just say: "Ok, let's discuss this book as the intelligent but starting apart, critically thinking but open to persuasion, thoughtful religious seekers we've all claimed to be."

I'm on the fence about ordering. Reviews make it sound like the same old stuff, rehashed.

Anybody out there who finds Lee Strobel's arguments absurd but loves this book? That would be a selling point.

I ordered from Amazon a couple of hours ago. I should have it around the 28th.

Guillermo - I think you'll find it alternately ludicrous and poignant. It's a comprehensive study without doubt (which leaves the group PLENTY to discuss), but so far I've only commented upon what I like about the book. It's ellicited some negative fire from me, too.

I like Lee Strobel. Well, I liked the Case for Christ more than the others. But I think such books serve a purpose.

I have this book and haven't read it yet. I appreciate being alerted of this via the messaging system. A lot on my plate, but I'd love to keep pace.

Well, Jason, I'm not quite sure what you're asking me, but if your desire is to debate atheists then this book will be an aid to your quest. I would just comment that atheists are generally a long way from the cusp of Christianity. If yout goal is to attract lost sheep to the fold, your success rate will improve if you choose potentials who at least acknowledge there could be a Supreme Being.

An atheist safety group? What are they afraid of, militant Christians?

I'm confronted by a different sort of Atheist - the scientific sort. Because they are positive all matter is governed by the Laws of Physics, they simply have no room for a God in their concept of reality. Antimatter, the composition of black holes, and sub-atomic particles smaller than quarks that appear to neither have mass or occupy space have certainly put a damper on their certainty, though.

@Robert
I've heard you mention you were a scientist before. What field are you in?

@PB
I'm an atheist and in my entire life I've only met one other atheist in person, so I guess I'm not familiar with this safety group. I will just say that people who think alike tend to stick together, regardless of what that belief system is.

I'm a retired molecular biologist, Guillermo. Scientists don't necessarily stick together. They are very defensive about their research projects and tend to be very secretive about what they're working on lest someone steal it. About the only time they're collegial is at conferences we're they present their FINISHED projects.

I would say you have more than a few friends who are drug addicts.

I purchased the book. I think our discussion leader is on Sabbatical, but if y'all will wait for me to get it and read it, I'll participate.

I just got the book and so far I've only read the intro, but I already feel the need to make a few points.

"In America, truth in religion is considered an oxymoron. There is no truth in religion, we are told."

Since America is probably the most religious nation among developed nations, I find this statement to be very funny.

"To follow our analogy, atheists believe that what looks like a painting has always existed and no one painted it."

If the painting is supposed to be an analogy of our world than most atheists wouldn't believe the painting always existed. They say much the same thing in another part when they say many atheists believe the universe always existed. I haven't polled atheists, but the impression I get from most of the ones I've spoken to is that the universe came into existence through the big bang. It's also a loaded analogy since a painting obviously had a creator. A better analogy would be to look at a tree and ask, was it planted by someone or did the tree grow through natural causes.

But perhaps my biggest problem so far is their depiction of atheism as a religion when in truth it's the exact opposite of a religion. It's the rejection of religion so to use terms like "faith" I find to be disingenuous.

The best way I can find to describe it, and I'm sorry if my analogy offends anyone, is to imagine I believe in bigfoot. There are many people who believe bigfoot is real and they believe they have evidence to support it's existence. If you doubted the existence of bigfoot would it be fair for me to say, you have faith bigfoot is not real? No, you simply find the evidence unconvincing. Faith is a term used for believing something despite not being able to prove it. Faith is NOT being skeptical of something's existence.

They say they're going to present evidence, and I'm curious to see what evidence they present, but so far all I've gotten is the usual "God of the gaps" argument. Here's something we don't know about or can't explain so God must be the answer. In my opinion that's a poor argument. Just because we don't yet know the answer for some things doesn't mean that God must by default be the answer. All it means is that we don't yet know, but those gaps get smaller and smaller every day. I even just finished a book called, "Universe From Nothing. Why There is Something From Nothing" by Lawrence M. Krauss. In it he explains how a universe could have come from nothing. It's not proof the universe didn't have a creator, but it shows how it's at least possible it didn't have a creator.

Guillermo, my experience with atheists is that they DO have a belief. Their belief is that there was no creator. I had a failed debate in an atheist forum a while back (failed because we could not agree on basic logic or definitions) about whether it is logical to believe there was no creator.

As an agnostic, perhaps even I have a belief ... you could say I believe it is illogical to believe one way or the other. I feel comfortable arguing, from a mathematical standpoint, that we simply lack even the basic information needed to provide a reasonable guess.

So I DO feel most atheists (perhaps not you) have beliefs. If you truly do not have a belief in the matter, you should probably couch your atheism in specific terms, carefully stating that you are rejecting only a particular form of theism as regards the creation. Then you should join me as an agnostic, lol.

I think caricaturing atheists is, sadly, what some Christians do.

Perhaps what the author should say, and what Lee is getting at, is that atheists still have a belief/beliefs. Calling it a religion may go too far. But it makes me think of bias: Christians have biases and presuppositions and beliefs. Rejecting Christianity does not automatically make one objective; you still have biases.

Or to put it another way, none of us stand above the world in an objective stance. We all view things from somewhere.

As far as the universe coming from nothing...how does Krauss define nothing? Because "nothing" is literally "nothing", not a singularity or any sort of thing. I find it hard to believe something could come from literally nothing.

@Lee
I actually did get into a discussion not too long ago with an agnostic who was trying to convince me I'm really an agnostic as well. I think there isn't a God or some higher power because I don't find the evidence for the existence of God convincing, however I don't really claim to know one way or the other, and I'm not sure it's really even possible to know. I think a lot of atheist feel the same way and I've even heard some discribe themselves as agnostic atheists. I guess that would be the best description of my beliefs. I don't really know and I don't claim to know but since I don't think there's a God, I call myself an atheist.

Ah, thanks, G.

"God" is such a squishy word. I like nailing things down: "Creator," "source of love," "being who answers prayers," etc., since I just can't see the logic in assuming all of these things are the same being. Then we can discuss which portions we believe in and which we don't. However, I have no problem in lumping all these under a single generic term ("God" is fine) which sort of means "wow, that's awesome, I want some too."

@David
It's funny you say that about nothing because he starts the book with a lengthy discussion of what "nothing" actually is. Honestly, after reading the book I felt like I knew less on the subject than I did before. What I mean by that is it let me know just how much I really didn't know and still don't fully understand. I've already made up my mind to go through it a second time.

In regards to how something could come from nothing he points to how positrons and electrons pop in and out of existence on the molecular level all the time. He goes a lot into dark matter and dark energy and how there are elementary particles we know about because of the evidence of their existence, but we still haven't been able to detect them.

If you're really interested here's a lecture he gave that will explain it a lot better than I ever could:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaB-zq...

OK, guys, I might have some time now to go through this book chapter by chapter if anyone has the interest. Let me state my position and biases so you know from whence I come. I'm a devout Christian who holds that the Bible is inerrant. That doesn't mean it doesn't need explanation or that gaps don't need to be filled in by careful research, but within it's words lays the Word of God. My primary area of experise lies within the realm of the Sciences, so, it follows I'm going to take great interest in Genesis, evolutionary arguments, recent DNA and cellular findings, etc. I can hold my own with lengthy Liberal Arts style logic, but am a concrete evidence sort of a guy. A built in bias I have against Apologetics would be that Faith is a very personal experience, not generally subject to frothy appeals to logic nor rhetorical trickery, and can only be made by an individual (who isn't saved at a tender age) who has probably gone through great trials and desperately needs Christ's mercy. On the other hand, a case can be made that the barbarians are storming the gates and the faithful better step up and defend their faith zealously (proapologetics)or all will be darkness soon.
I welcome a free-for-all because if you can't get emotional about your ultimate roots and raison d'etr, why be alive at all. Do keep your language appropriate as I'm a bit of an old fuddy duddy when it comes to chivalry towards women whom I hope will participate. Any opening salvos? I'll add my 2 cents worth of summary of introductory remarks probably tomorrow.

I was pleasantly surprised by the book, after having to be talked into reading it. Which is not to say that I agree with it, of course. It has a horrible reputation among atheists, mostly for the title, who sneer it under the table. I gave it five stars for its logical approach.

My review is here:

http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2013/0...

Lee - I'm glad you've read the book; we're sure to have different takes on a number of points and if they turn into clashes that's OK, too. I've read your review and have a mental note of your observations; I'll just say they're fair and balanced and leave it at that for the time being as I don't want to tip my hand.
The title is just a tease. The authors are more ambitious than to just address the atheist's belief system - they firmly believe the triune God of Christianity takes less faith (definition coming) than any of the world's religions or concepts of God. Thus, atheists just become a straw man to knock down now and then.
The author's definition of faith is arrived at by subtracting the absolute certainty of any given position from the value of the arbitrary Absolute Truth based at 1. Thus if one is 80% (.8) certain that Evolution is absolutely correct, then it takes 20% (.2) faith for you to adopt this credo as your own (1.-.8=.2).
Now I don't define faith that way and you probably don't either, but that's the author's measuring stick so if we're going to critique the book properly, we've got to be mindful of their definitions. Anybody aboard?

Atheism is specifically not having faith, the title sounds rather silly. However I have not read the book, so am not sneering and I guess it would be better to deal with arguments per sé etc.

Peter - the author's contend it takes a certain type of faith to have no faith (atheism). I would encourage you to read the book regardless of your religious stance. As both Lee and I have pointed out, the authors. at the very least. are logical and thorough so try to get past the cover.

In a nonfiction book, the foreward is written by someone who is 100% in the author's corner. It is done by someone with celebrity or is a household name in the genre. David Limbaugh fulfills his task admirably, but, because he is the "choir" his take begs the question as to whether this book succeeds in its intentions or not.
The preface is an interesting little piece on whether authors clearly inclined to one side of a subject can provide an unvarnished outlook or are so hopelessly wedded to their beliefs as to be unable to function logically.
The introduction could lead us to discussions in any number of areas, all of which are proper fodder as far as I'm concerned. Most crucial to the authors is an establishment there is a knowable, defineable truth and that it's not a moving target. Thus, truth is the subject of Chapter 1. If the authors can't establish truth with a value of 1, then their whole equation of P (proof) + F (faith) = T (truth) 1.0, falls apart and their principle hypothesis goes down with it. That wouldn't make the book an abject failure as there is a lot to learn and digest in here, but it would be a sizable and hurtful "thud".

So I gotta start out with a couple complaints, Does everyone agree with this definition from the introduction? It seems pretty restrictive to me.

"A theist is someone who believes in a personal God who created the universe but is not part of the universe."

I also question this statement: "God has provided enough evidence in this life to convince anyone willing to believe, yet he has also left some ambiguity so as not to compel the unwilling." My frustration is this business of being willing. So we just "will" ourselves into belief, like good little self-brainwashed followers? If we can "will" ourselves into believers, why would we need this book?

Thank you, Lee, for firing an opening salvo. Readers?

Depends Robert, I would agree if one were to actively believe that there are no god's or make a claim that absolutely there are no god's, my stance is closer to Marcus Aurelius quote ( at least attributed to him) of be a good person regardless, of there be god's then yay etc. I did check the local,library but the book isn't in there .

I would argue perhaps that the same way it might not take faith for you to disbelieve I the african creation god Fidi Mukulu etc, fwiw I am not entirely sure, ie maybe it does of does not require faith, i dont think so but I might be wrong , I will get to read this eventually. IMO regardless of whether or not faith is required to believe or not, my primary interest is rather whether there be gods or not. Methinks the faith issue is a distractor.

What would you call it when apologists claim that person x loses their faith in god and then tadaa not having faith
. . . is now a faith position etc?

Perfect, Peter - you almost make the author's point immediately. Because you claim no absolute truth (1 in their equation), you're in search mode. Without a constant in P (proof) + F (faith) = T (truth) all your numbers are variables which switch from day to day. Welcome to the wonderful world of French existentialism! The moment you commit absolutely to something (like atheism), you set your truth bar at 1. Depending upon how much evidence you accumulate for your position determines how high your proof number is, which leaves the remainder to faith. The higher the proof, the lower the faith needed to attain your absolute truth.

Lee - well, I agree with your point about a theist God being too restrictive. OT is chock full of a hands-on, meddlesome God and the earthbounding of Jesus probably wasn't Jesus' idea nor preference.
Willing and "the will" have separate meanings. Willing implies not erecting artificial barriers to stand in the way of the truth, "the will" implies charging through barriers wherever they exist whether truthfully or deceitfully. (Are we gonna get any action here? - David seems about ready to punt on God or Godless, too!)

I find the wording to be a turn-off, Kaleb. I don't share his beliefs, but he directly implies that if only I were willing, I WOULD believe like he does.

It doesn't work like that. Not for me. Try as I will, I cannot believe what I have disproven, and it has nothing to do with willingness.

Liberals, French intellectuals, and anyone who lives within a 3 mile radius of a college or university regards the truth as a nuisance which could spoil an otherwise perfect day. The authors, for purposes of their book, can't quite be so cavalier. It's imperative they establish that truth is knowable, defineable, and communicable (like a disease - you could break out in the Truth!) How well do they accomplish this in Chapter 1? It's your forum, you tell me!

I don't think modernism is really as rampant as the authors believe. For example, they say "Tolerance now means that you're suppose to accept every belief as true." Who really thinks that? Tolerance is the acceptance of other beliefs, perhaps recognizing that there exists an element of truth, and a great deal of mystery and uncertainty, in all beliefs.

Perhaps the authors are correct that truth is absolute and exclusive. But they go too far in saying it is knowable, as we'll see when we get into the book ... what they think they know is based on shaky ground.

Finally, they argue that major world religions do not "all teach the same things." But who on earth says they do? My observation, for example, is that they all have compassion and brotherly love at their core (which is hardly a "superficial agreement" as the authors claim!!), but they definitely have different beliefs.

So, from an agnostic, pluralistic, and Christian (follower of Jesus) perspective, right away I can say that the authors are going to lead us in the wrong direction: trying to prove one belief set is better than others, rather than zeroing in the knowable truths found at the core of all of them. My bias poking through, I know.

Kaleb wrote: "A modernist would happily regard particular cultural or religious beliefs as definitively false. What the authors are here attempting to guard against is postmodernism. And it shouldn't surprise us..."

Kaleb, I wanted to commend you on a well-written, thoughtful response. I found it very helpful.

Kaleb wrote: "And your inconsistency, I'm afraid. Are you not yourself attempting to elevate your own "agnostic, pluralistic, and Christian (defined in the most minimalistic way possible)" belief set over the author's conservative, proof-based system?"

Of course, I don't see it that way. I see it as elevating none over another, even as it is reasonable to elevate certain traditions over others. For example, the Old Testament seems to elevate deception in many cases, but we as Christians tend to elevate honesty. This is not a matter of choosing Christianity over Judaism, but taking the better facet of Christianity.

Who gets to decide what is the "core" of all religions? The postmodernist? The early 21st century minimalist "Christian"?

This is a very good question. No one person should decide, of course. I admit my hope is that we find compassion and brotherly love at the core of Christianity. I know some Christians do not; some, for example, consider the core to be faith in a wonderful afterlife.

However, the core of the teachings of Jesus is crystal clear, even when we as Christians stray. If we can agree on this, should we then discuss with Muslims the core of Islamic teachings, and with eastern religions the core of their teachings? Or do we trust someone who has adequately studied all major religions?

Thanks for the commentary, guys. You are out there ahead of the book trying to establish what the truth IS while the authors are still in the stage of convincing truth even exists. Carry on, this commentator really doesn't care where the discussion goes, but I'll try to remind you where we are in the book. Lee has a good point about some truth not being knowable in our mortal state. That, of course, is where faith comes in the author's equation. But many truths are knowable. If the hypotenuse of a right triangle is 5 and one other side is 3, then the remaining side better be 4 or I'm not walking in any houses with pitched roofs anymore.

At this point I'm tempted to go on to the next chapter, but need some feedback. I agree with Kaleb that this book is conservative and proof-based, therefore Guisler and Turek are not going to belabor the "core" issues of various religions. But a disturbing trend begins to emerge and Lee has noticed it as I did. The authors seem to make a valid point, then weaken or destroy it with poorly chosen examples. Is this evidence of sloppy thinking, inadequate research, or just an egoist perspective that "my examples don't matter too much" because my overwhelming proofs will carry the day. I get more upset when this appears in their science then right now, but maybe we should just halt progress immediately, go example by example and determine if they actually demonstrate the author's point.

Kaleb, I'm happy with definition 1 or 2. Bear in mind, however, that we have only human testimony as regards divine communication. It seems utterly impossible from my perspective to prove that one inspiration comes from the One True God, while another comes from a delusional or dishonest mind. But then, I guess that's why we're reading this book together.

Definition number 2 is helpful if we agree that belief is involved; that is, participants believe they have been given instruction from God. Now, I have no problem interviewing militant Muslims and militant Christians as well as the peaceful sort to try to reach a general consensus. Nor do I have a problem with searching scripture. Christian scripture, for example, indicates from its founder that everything revolves around two laws: Love God, and love your neighbor.

Let's get away from the word "core," since I think that is where you're getting hung up ... the idea that one, and only one, doctrine is central to a religion. Instead, I can point to a number of books comparing the teachings of all major religions, and when you do such a comparison, you invariably zero in on one set of teachings that is common and exalted among all: "be kind to one another." Is it not logical, then, that we should consider this the most likely divine instruction of all? Even if you pedantically argue against it being a central tenet? Consider three studied scholars of religion:

person x: I believe A, B and C and have disproven D.
person y: I believe A, C and D and have disproven B.
person z: I believe A, B and D and have disproven C.

Suppose we desire absolute truth. Our approach should be:

1. Consider A as the foundation of our search.
2. Examine the disproofs for validity, recognizing that no proof is likely to be completely convincing, but determining how much credence we can give to the "disproven" articles.
3. As an example, if you're a numbers guy (I am) perhaps you can conclude A is 90% likely to be true, B is 30%, C is 35%, D is 40%.
4. Resist the temptation to choose, and instead embrace the divine mystery which remains.

lol ... I've been called worse than "inclusivist humanist" ... and you haven't heard the half of it, as regards my speculations about the commonality of religions. For example, I also suspect the study of religion will make progress only when we manage to scrape off all these "great differences" that are really only superficial paradigms. But this isn't the place for that discussion.

Let's see what we dig out of the book about why this one particular paradigm is more special than others. On to chapter 2?

Great discussion guy, I've been enjoying it, and have some questions of my own, but will reserve then 'till the proper chapter. I'll dash some thoughts off on Chapter 2 tomorrow when I have some time. Anyone, however, should feel free to start without me should they feel the urge.

Kaleb wrote: "Back to making sloppy generalizations already, eh? The blending of arrogance with naïveté here displayed is amazing"

A little cranky today, are we, Kaleb? Shall we compare hairlines or girlfriends next? Or just trade juvenile insults at 20 paces?

Apology accepted, and since "arrogant and naive" is apparently not an insult, I wish you to know that I have built the same high opinion of you. Now that pleasantries have been exchanged, maybe we can continue.

Alright, no offense taken. And you may rest assured that I have seen the light; it is no longer you that I consider arrogant and naive, it is only the things you say.

Whew, glad we got that settled. ;)

Ha! Ha! I'll have to remember that one, Lee. for one of my insults to some unsuspecting dolt down the way. I don't consider you supid and insipid, only the things you say. Chapter 2 pending.

In an admittedly unscientific observation, I find logic in modern America to be on life support. The authors in Chapter 2 walk us through various first principles and demonstrate well known errors. So what? You or I say, career trajectory doesn't depend on the where, why and how of the treatment of facts or evidence anymore, it's all about image. As we on this board are in the religious (theology or apologetics) game it would seem more than image matters. But what? I would contend, but Lee wouldn't, that the Truth is vitally important because of eternal consequences. Comments?

Well, if knowledge of a particular truth has serious eternal consequences, that's sort of disgusting. We should all turn into gnostics I guess, where knowledge trumps practice. But anyway...

This was a wasted chapter for me; I just wanted to get on with it. I've lived on logic my entire life, from gaming to my university degree (mathematics) to my approach to religion. But this "roadrunner" self-defeating stuff seems slight-of-hand, sort of like ontological arguments. You know there's something fishy there, but can't seem to find the energy to bother going down a rabbit trail of logic when common sense says otherwise. It makes me (a logician!) want to abandon logic as a lost cause.

Thankfully, I think the authors make a much better case when they quit trying to ridicule other thinkers and stick to the thesis. Some real logic is coming.

If I've missed any meaningful points in the chapter, my apologies ... remind me.

Once again, I must remind you that to the authors case, a proof that a system of irrefutable logic at least exists in principle if not in practice, is paramount. Without it, their "proofs" of God's existence in coming chapters just go "poof". Of course, to scientists and mathmeticians, this sounds a bit hokey and won't win any philosophical prizes, but, as a table setter, it suffices.