What do you think?
Rate this book
Unreasonable Faith: How William Lane Craig Overstates the Case for Christianity
He has written or edited more than 30 books, his arguments for God and Jesus are frequently cited by Christian apologists around the world, and he has severely overstated his case through a series of blatant mischaracterizations and philosophical blunders.
You may have heard of William Lane Craig, a professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology who is known for debating atheists, but even if you haven't you have probably heard his arguments through followers and fans. He is known for painting faith as the"reasonable" road, and falsely claiming that he can prove the validity of his religion.
From his work attempting to show evidence for Jesus' resurrection to his development of the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God, Craig is respected among his peers on the Christian side of the religious spectrum. But is that deserved? What's at the core of these arguments? Are they philosophically sound? More importantly, is this Unreasonable Faith?
You may have heard of William Lane Craig, a professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology who is known for debating atheists, but even if you haven't you have probably heard his arguments through followers and fans. He is known for painting faith as the"reasonable" road, and falsely claiming that he can prove the validity of his religion.
From his work attempting to show evidence for Jesus' resurrection to his development of the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God, Craig is respected among his peers on the Christian side of the religious spectrum. But is that deserved? What's at the core of these arguments? Are they philosophically sound? More importantly, is this Unreasonable Faith?
412 pages, Kindle Edition
Published September 16, 2019
39 people are currently reading
152 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
May 2, 2021
Summary: This is an impressive critique of William Lane Craig's arguments for the existence of God and resurrection of Jesus from a young scientist.
Contents:
Most of Fodor's critique is naturally centred on the Kalam Cosmological argument and the resurrection of Jesus, the topics of Craig's two doctoral theses. He also addresses the panoply of other arguments Craig puts forward for God's existence, including the fine-tuning argument, the moral argument, the argument from intentionality, the Leibnizian cosmological argument, the ontological argument, and the argument from the applicability of mathematics to the Universe.
Some Highlights/What I Liked:
Fodor has definitely filled a gap in the market of pop-philosophy of religion books by exploring Craig's arguments one-by-one. There are a number of reasons why I think this is an important book:
1) Craig is certainly the most prominent philosopher-apologist of our time, and so many Christians like myself will have been introduced to apologetics/philosophy of religion through Craig's arguments; many apologists have also been influenced by Craig, so even if you are not familiar with Craig's version of the arguments, there is something here for everyone.
2) I don't know of another book like it, which brings together such a wide range of sources and distils academic critiques of Craig's corpus. Due to its wide-ranging nature, I really think it's an education in and of itself- it’s worth the money.
3) Craig is a terrific debater and usually wins his debates (as both Christians and sceptics acknowledge). One of the reasons why Craig for God's existence is so successful is because he fires off a series of arguments in quick succession. What I found helpful about this book is that it slows down and pick apart Craig's arguments in a lot of depth, which is naturally impossible to do in a debate.
4) Fodor didn’t overstate his case, or do too much. He acknowledges the strength of certain arguments (e.g. the resurrection of Jesus, the Leibnizian cosmological argument) over others (the Kalam). I also liked the fact that he would frequently present the strongest form of Craig's arguments, and that he stuck to his aim, which was not to argue that God does not exist/Jesus did not rise from the dead, but simply to critique *Craig's* arguments for these contentions.
5) As a PhD student in NT studies/Christian Origins, I found Fodor's naturalistic hypothesis for the resurrection fascinating. He calls it the 'RHBS' hypothesis, which stands for 'reburial, hallucination, bias, and socialisation.' Without spoiling it for any readers, what is particularly intriguing about this hypothesis is that it *grants* the minimal facts put forward by Craig. I also think it is a good illustration of one of the threads running throughout the book, which has been extremely thought-provoking: Craig does not always consider in enough depth the *alternatives* to the God-hypothesis. (I should say that this is a problem which plagues the whole dialectic of apologetics, which often set things up as an atheism/Christianity debate.)
What could have been better (i.e. why it's not 4 or 5 stars):
1) One tiny little bug-bear is that the book could have done with another proof-read. I noticed a larger number of typos and errors than usual in the book. The footnoting was also rather bizarre (placing the footnotes *before* punctuation), which may have been an editorial mistake.
2) Although on the whole Fodor structures his chapters and explains his concepts very clearly, I do wonder whether he will have lost many readers early on in his discussion of the tensed and tenseless theories time. As a pure layman who has not invested much time in the philosophy of religion, I must admit I was scratching my head for much of the first chapter.
3) In the chapter on the resurrection, it would have been good to see a bit more direct engagement with NT scholarship, which may have added some flesh to the bones of Fodor's general argument. At a few places I thought there was a debt to be shown and places to refer readers that weren't cited. (Fodor may not have wanted to bog us down with footnotes, fair enough.) And when discussing the relevant psychological/sociological literature, I felt the analysis of the literature was a little sparse.
On the whole, this is a must-read for anyone interested in Craig's work. From my limited perspective, it seems to achieve what Fodor sets out to do: demonstrating that Craig (at least sometimes) *overstates* the case for Christianity, and also to encourage others to look more into these issues for themselves. If ever Fodor was able to meet Craig in a debate, it would be one I'd pay to watch!
Contents:
Most of Fodor's critique is naturally centred on the Kalam Cosmological argument and the resurrection of Jesus, the topics of Craig's two doctoral theses. He also addresses the panoply of other arguments Craig puts forward for God's existence, including the fine-tuning argument, the moral argument, the argument from intentionality, the Leibnizian cosmological argument, the ontological argument, and the argument from the applicability of mathematics to the Universe.
Some Highlights/What I Liked:
Fodor has definitely filled a gap in the market of pop-philosophy of religion books by exploring Craig's arguments one-by-one. There are a number of reasons why I think this is an important book:
1) Craig is certainly the most prominent philosopher-apologist of our time, and so many Christians like myself will have been introduced to apologetics/philosophy of religion through Craig's arguments; many apologists have also been influenced by Craig, so even if you are not familiar with Craig's version of the arguments, there is something here for everyone.
2) I don't know of another book like it, which brings together such a wide range of sources and distils academic critiques of Craig's corpus. Due to its wide-ranging nature, I really think it's an education in and of itself- it’s worth the money.
3) Craig is a terrific debater and usually wins his debates (as both Christians and sceptics acknowledge). One of the reasons why Craig for God's existence is so successful is because he fires off a series of arguments in quick succession. What I found helpful about this book is that it slows down and pick apart Craig's arguments in a lot of depth, which is naturally impossible to do in a debate.
4) Fodor didn’t overstate his case, or do too much. He acknowledges the strength of certain arguments (e.g. the resurrection of Jesus, the Leibnizian cosmological argument) over others (the Kalam). I also liked the fact that he would frequently present the strongest form of Craig's arguments, and that he stuck to his aim, which was not to argue that God does not exist/Jesus did not rise from the dead, but simply to critique *Craig's* arguments for these contentions.
5) As a PhD student in NT studies/Christian Origins, I found Fodor's naturalistic hypothesis for the resurrection fascinating. He calls it the 'RHBS' hypothesis, which stands for 'reburial, hallucination, bias, and socialisation.' Without spoiling it for any readers, what is particularly intriguing about this hypothesis is that it *grants* the minimal facts put forward by Craig. I also think it is a good illustration of one of the threads running throughout the book, which has been extremely thought-provoking: Craig does not always consider in enough depth the *alternatives* to the God-hypothesis. (I should say that this is a problem which plagues the whole dialectic of apologetics, which often set things up as an atheism/Christianity debate.)
What could have been better (i.e. why it's not 4 or 5 stars):
1) One tiny little bug-bear is that the book could have done with another proof-read. I noticed a larger number of typos and errors than usual in the book. The footnoting was also rather bizarre (placing the footnotes *before* punctuation), which may have been an editorial mistake.
2) Although on the whole Fodor structures his chapters and explains his concepts very clearly, I do wonder whether he will have lost many readers early on in his discussion of the tensed and tenseless theories time. As a pure layman who has not invested much time in the philosophy of religion, I must admit I was scratching my head for much of the first chapter.
3) In the chapter on the resurrection, it would have been good to see a bit more direct engagement with NT scholarship, which may have added some flesh to the bones of Fodor's general argument. At a few places I thought there was a debt to be shown and places to refer readers that weren't cited. (Fodor may not have wanted to bog us down with footnotes, fair enough.) And when discussing the relevant psychological/sociological literature, I felt the analysis of the literature was a little sparse.
On the whole, this is a must-read for anyone interested in Craig's work. From my limited perspective, it seems to achieve what Fodor sets out to do: demonstrating that Craig (at least sometimes) *overstates* the case for Christianity, and also to encourage others to look more into these issues for themselves. If ever Fodor was able to meet Craig in a debate, it would be one I'd pay to watch!
January 28, 2019
Brilliant! William Lane Craig is one of the most prominent Christian apologists. And because he has a philosophical background, his arguments supporting Christianity are complex and it is easy to be persuaded by them because they sound so convincing. But James Fodor, in this book, provides a very detailed analysis of the arguments presented by Craig in his writings and public speeches and debates and shows how they don't stand up to careful critique. A bit of a warning, though: the first few chapters of the book are hard going as the philosophical concepts are pretty darn hard to understand! But they do show, perhaps, how desperate Craig is to defend his point of view and Fodor, being the meticulous philosopher and thinker he obviously is, wades his way through these ideas. That aside, for anyone interested in Christian apologetics, and particularly in the arguments that William Lane Craig is well known for, this is a must-read.
January 7, 2019
James Fodor combines a variety of fields to dissect four of William Lane Craig's arguments for the truth of God and Christianity, including statistics, sociology, history, philosophy, cosmology, and others. It was a welcome challenge to read a book that was both comprehensive and deep in its analysis, especially of such important issues. This is afforded by the narrow focus of the book; it addresses Craig's specific articulation of the four arguments: the kalam cosmological argument, the argument from intelligent design (fine tuning), the moral argument, and the Christological argument (for the resurrection of Jesus).
I confess a few things went over my head, mostly regarding tensed and tenseless theories of time with the cosmological argument, but I'm very happy to give it a closer look after doing more research! The structure of the book, the diagrams and clear writing all helped to solidify my understanding on some of these issues. I found the book doesn't tell you what to believe, but only seeks to further the debate in the pursuit of truth.
I confess a few things went over my head, mostly regarding tensed and tenseless theories of time with the cosmological argument, but I'm very happy to give it a closer look after doing more research! The structure of the book, the diagrams and clear writing all helped to solidify my understanding on some of these issues. I found the book doesn't tell you what to believe, but only seeks to further the debate in the pursuit of truth.
January 10, 2022
Weak
Weak ill considered and ultimately unconvincing. Mr Fodor appears to want to provide a way for atheists to weasel out of the compelling case for theism. No doubt, for the faithful atheist, he makes his case. However, no one with an open mind on the subject would be convinced by this book. Don't read if you are wishing to discover any true new insights. Just the same old naturalist clap trap that is tedious as always.
Weak ill considered and ultimately unconvincing. Mr Fodor appears to want to provide a way for atheists to weasel out of the compelling case for theism. No doubt, for the faithful atheist, he makes his case. However, no one with an open mind on the subject would be convinced by this book. Don't read if you are wishing to discover any true new insights. Just the same old naturalist clap trap that is tedious as always.
January 11, 2023
Well, it's certainly comprehensive!
I have to admire James Fodor for taking what must have been a withering amount of time going through the corpus of Christian philosopher-apologist William Lane Craig. I got to ask Craig a question once re: his moral argument for the existence of God - "Couldn't there be natural moral facts like there are natural physical facts?" - and got a patented Craigism: "Well, I don't see how that could be the case," and moving on. One of Fodor's stronger points is in highlighting when and how Craig falls back on pure "seems to me"-ness even in support of some pretty strong claims.
That said, this cannot possibly be a book for everyone. Honestly, the fewer people who are forced to encounter Craig (in his apologetics mode, at least) the better. The fewer people who encounter the Christian apologetics industrial complex, the better!
Also, in the ebook version I noticed quite a few formatting errors and typos. Some of these are perhaps forgivable as publisher limitation (the lack of proper headings, e.g.) or file conversion error, but some are just copyediting oversights. Kind of a shame.
2.5 stars, rounded up by me because I'm a sicko for apologetics/counterapologetics I guess.
I have to admire James Fodor for taking what must have been a withering amount of time going through the corpus of Christian philosopher-apologist William Lane Craig. I got to ask Craig a question once re: his moral argument for the existence of God - "Couldn't there be natural moral facts like there are natural physical facts?" - and got a patented Craigism: "Well, I don't see how that could be the case," and moving on. One of Fodor's stronger points is in highlighting when and how Craig falls back on pure "seems to me"-ness even in support of some pretty strong claims.
That said, this cannot possibly be a book for everyone. Honestly, the fewer people who are forced to encounter Craig (in his apologetics mode, at least) the better. The fewer people who encounter the Christian apologetics industrial complex, the better!
Also, in the ebook version I noticed quite a few formatting errors and typos. Some of these are perhaps forgivable as publisher limitation (the lack of proper headings, e.g.) or file conversion error, but some are just copyediting oversights. Kind of a shame.
2.5 stars, rounded up by me because I'm a sicko for apologetics/counterapologetics I guess.
February 24, 2024
This is a phenomenal take-down of William Lane Craig's arguments. Honestly, Fodor has done such a thorough job dismantling Craig's obfuscatory apologetics arguments, that WLC should really hang it up and be proud he gave a good fight. In the end though, Fodor gets the win. So why only 4 stars? Well, honestly, it's because the book is often quite a slog to read through, many times getting buried in drawn out technical explanations (which granted, are probably needed to counter WLC's similarly encumbered arguments) and sometimes taking us too far into the philosophical weeds and esoteric concepts. I'm not criticizing per se, just noting that this book isn't a casual read for the fan of counter-apologetics, and will require a concentrated effort to grasp and pull together ideas that are many pages apart, but together form the barrage against the huge flow of WLC's wordy arguments. Still, an excellent book for a deep analysis of, and counter to, WLC's work.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews