John's Reviews > God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?

God's Undertaker by John C. Lennox
Rate this book
Clear rating

's review
Apr 18, 2009

did not like it
Read in March, 2009

I decided to read Richard Dawkins' “The God Delusion” and John Lennox's “God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?” after listening to part of their debate (found at on the radio while running errands one weekend morning.

Overall, I was underwhelmed by both books, but I'll discuss each individually.

The God Delusion (
Dawkins spends the first half of the book making his case against the existence of God. Throughout this section, I felt like he was writing for his friends who follow his escapades on a regular basis and I didn't find it useful. Often he cuts his arguments short by essentially saying this is a well documented argument so I'm not going to bother with the details in this book. Yet, he has plenty of space dedicated to the spats he's had with creationists and defending his honor. Mostly he attacks the weaker of the creationists' arguments. Bottom-line, I found this section disappointing.

The latter half of the book is focused on the morality of the three major religions-- pointing out that they are not very moral. For instance, it's bad for men to have sex but okay to offer your daughters up for rape (as told in Genesis 19). Or thou shall not kill unless you're killing a non-Jew (as in the battle of Jericho). Etc. He also makes some comparisons to the Taliban radicals and the religious-right radicals in America. This section of the book is more compelling and it was these arguments in the debate with Lennox that drew me in that Sunday morning while I was listening to the radio.

God's Undertaker (
First, I found this book to be annoying in its format. The print size was small. He uses many quotes without indention so its easier to lose track of when he's quoting someone or making his own arguments. And, probably due to the nature of his topic, he's forced to use many quotes which I do not find as compelling; I was often thinking that there are probably just as many quotes saying the exact opposite.

That being said, he essentially attacks Dawkins weakest arguments. He lays out arguments for why science alone is not proof of the absence of a God. Through science, he lays out the Intelligent Design argument.

What I Took Away From the Two Books
There are people in this world who see the amazing world around them and say “God created this” while others see the same thing and say “Chemistry, and biology, and physics explains all that is here.” Both take a leap of faith as neither is provable (at this time).

On the question of creation, I found that both often rely on silly simple analogies that I don't find convincing (a man made watch or an aunt made cake, etc.). So neither book convinced me that God does/ does not exist.

On the question of morality, which Lennox does not address, I agreed with Dawkins' view that regardless of whether there is a God, organized religion is nor morally superior and should be watched carefully as it can be misused.

Bottom-line, I wouldn't recommend either book as I found them both aggravating in their weak arguments. And frankly, we can talk until we're blue in the face and we won't have any answer on God's existence. Though, check out the debate; at least I found part of that interesting enough to waste money on these books.
4 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read God's Undertaker.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

03/12 marked as: read

No comments have been added yet.