What do you think?
Rate this book
Is God Just a Human Invention?: And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists
Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow have penned an accessible yet rigorous look at the arguments of the New Atheists. Writing from a distinctively Christian perspective, McDowell and Morrow lay out the facts so that the emerging generation can make up their own mind after considering all the evidence.
304 pages, Paperback
First published August 3, 2010
57 people are currently reading
403 people want to read
About the author
Sean McDowell
143 books178 followersDr. Sean McDowell is a gifted communicator with a passion for equipping the church, and in particular young people, to make the case for the Christian faith. He connects with audiences in a tangible way through humor and stories while imparting hard evidence and logical support for viewing all areas of life through a Biblical worldview. Sean is an Assistant Professor in the Christian Apologetics program at Biola University.
Sean still teaches one high school Bible class, which helps give him exceptional insight into the prevailing culture so he can impart his observations poignantly to fellow educators, pastors, and parents alike.
Read more about Sean on his website.
Connect with Sean on Facebook.
Sean still teaches one high school Bible class, which helps give him exceptional insight into the prevailing culture so he can impart his observations poignantly to fellow educators, pastors, and parents alike.
Read more about Sean on his website.
Connect with Sean on Facebook.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 37 reviews
December 2, 2010
This book was written as a rebuttal against the so-called "New Atheists", people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett. Christians will view this book as a substantial set of arguments in favor of their faith; it may even help to reinforce their faith, in the face of arguments from atheists. Non-believers will view this book as just one more attempt to buttress the arguments for the existence of God; I doubt that the book will change many minds.
Although I had a strong religious upbringing, I have become neutral with respect to the existence of God, as I've been reading numerous books about evolution, the origin of life, and of the universe. So--that is my bias. The book is filled with logical fallacies, and I will recount a few of them here.
The authors state that there is no conflict between science and religion; instead there is a conflict between science and naturalism. Naturalism is a "... worldview that denies the existence of God and the soul", that believes there is nothing beyond the natural physical world. The authors contend that a consequence of naturalism is our minds developed through a "... blind, irrational, and material process of Darwinian evolution...", so that our reasoning ability is not trustworthy. If the brain is the outcome of an accidental process, the authors conclude that we cannot be in touch with reality, and science cannot be trusted [p.39]. The authors feel that if the brain were designed by a God, instead of an accidental process, then our reasoning should be trustworthy [p.40]. Now, when the authors use the word "God", they do mean the Christian God, Jesus [p.248]. And central to this thesis, is the resurrection of Jesus [p.45]. So, putting their arguments together, we would have to conclude that if Jesus were not resurrected, then scientific reasoning is untrustworthy.
In Chapter 4, the authors mention that 52% of Americans believe in Intelligent Design. I've seen this poll, and America is second only to Turkey, in the percentage of people who believe in Intelligent Design. I guess we can aspire, someday, to be as religious as Turkey!
In Chapter 5, the authors love the "Big Bang" theory, because it implies that the universe had a sharp and demonstrable beginning. What caused the Big Bang? Who started it? It must be God. Well, in the book
The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking argues that the universe could have arisen spontaneously; energy would be conserved because the positive energy associated with the universe's mass would be balanced by the negative energy associated with the force of gravitation. Now, Hawking's hypothesis is not yet proven--but at least it is consistent with physical laws. Other hypotheses have been advanced, that explain all the observations and are consistent with physics, yet do not require a Big Bang. So why require a supernatural concept like God, when natural concepts can do the job? Scientists like to apply Occam's Razor when they weigh different hypotheses; the simplest one, the one that requires the fewest number of assumptions, is the one that is usually favored.
In Chapter 6, the authors discuss the probability that primitive life could evolve naturally into something as truly complex as a cell. They claim that the chance of naturally producing a functional cell is 1 in 10^40000 (i.e., 1 followed by 40,000 zeros). This calculation shows that the authors are truly ignorant of how natural selection works. In evolution by natural selection, mutations are random but sequential. After each mutation, natural selection works and is far from random.
Likewise, the authors discuss the "theory" of Intelligent Design. But wait a moment, Intelligent Design does not qualify as a scientific theory. In order to be a theory, it must pass through two criteria: A theory must explain all careful observations made so far; a theory must make predictions and be falsifiable. Well, Intelligent Design does account for all the observations we have made, because according to the concept, the world was designed in such a way as to generate the observations. But it does not make predictions; a believer cannot conceive of an experiment that, if it turned out to give a specific result, would disprove Intelligent Design. No, Intelligent Design is a hypothesis, and is still awaiting for more work before it can graduate to become "a theory". On the other hand, Evolution by Natural Selection is a scientific theory; it makes many predictions, and every one of them has been borne out.
In Chapter 9, the authors argue that if people desire something, then the object of that desire probably exists. Billions of people on earth believe in God; therefore, God exists. What a wonderful argument!
In Chapter 16, the authors rationalize why God allows evil. They say that in order to give humans free will, God has to allow them the option to do evil. If this is true, then why does God allow "natural" evil, that is, terrible calamities that are not caused by people, such as disease, famine, and natural catastrophes. These calamities cause a enormous suffering, and usually humans are not responsible for them. Why does this suffering have to accompany God's gift of free will?
I will stop here with the counting of the book's logical fallacies. On the bright side, I was happy that the authors did not revert to examples of the "God of the gaps", that is, gaps in the fossil records between primates and humans. But on the dark side, the authors did pursue a different type of "gapology"; they wrote a number of chapters on subjects that are on the frontier of science. They used our less than perfect scientific understanding of the world to justify belief in God. But, science will always have a frontier. To say that we don't have proven theories at the frontier does not allow one to forget to apply Occam's Razor, and pick a supernatural explanation when natural explanations are just around the corner.
Although I had a strong religious upbringing, I have become neutral with respect to the existence of God, as I've been reading numerous books about evolution, the origin of life, and of the universe. So--that is my bias. The book is filled with logical fallacies, and I will recount a few of them here.
The authors state that there is no conflict between science and religion; instead there is a conflict between science and naturalism. Naturalism is a "... worldview that denies the existence of God and the soul", that believes there is nothing beyond the natural physical world. The authors contend that a consequence of naturalism is our minds developed through a "... blind, irrational, and material process of Darwinian evolution...", so that our reasoning ability is not trustworthy. If the brain is the outcome of an accidental process, the authors conclude that we cannot be in touch with reality, and science cannot be trusted [p.39]. The authors feel that if the brain were designed by a God, instead of an accidental process, then our reasoning should be trustworthy [p.40]. Now, when the authors use the word "God", they do mean the Christian God, Jesus [p.248]. And central to this thesis, is the resurrection of Jesus [p.45]. So, putting their arguments together, we would have to conclude that if Jesus were not resurrected, then scientific reasoning is untrustworthy.
In Chapter 4, the authors mention that 52% of Americans believe in Intelligent Design. I've seen this poll, and America is second only to Turkey, in the percentage of people who believe in Intelligent Design. I guess we can aspire, someday, to be as religious as Turkey!
In Chapter 5, the authors love the "Big Bang" theory, because it implies that the universe had a sharp and demonstrable beginning. What caused the Big Bang? Who started it? It must be God. Well, in the book
The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking argues that the universe could have arisen spontaneously; energy would be conserved because the positive energy associated with the universe's mass would be balanced by the negative energy associated with the force of gravitation. Now, Hawking's hypothesis is not yet proven--but at least it is consistent with physical laws. Other hypotheses have been advanced, that explain all the observations and are consistent with physics, yet do not require a Big Bang. So why require a supernatural concept like God, when natural concepts can do the job? Scientists like to apply Occam's Razor when they weigh different hypotheses; the simplest one, the one that requires the fewest number of assumptions, is the one that is usually favored.
In Chapter 6, the authors discuss the probability that primitive life could evolve naturally into something as truly complex as a cell. They claim that the chance of naturally producing a functional cell is 1 in 10^40000 (i.e., 1 followed by 40,000 zeros). This calculation shows that the authors are truly ignorant of how natural selection works. In evolution by natural selection, mutations are random but sequential. After each mutation, natural selection works and is far from random.
Likewise, the authors discuss the "theory" of Intelligent Design. But wait a moment, Intelligent Design does not qualify as a scientific theory. In order to be a theory, it must pass through two criteria: A theory must explain all careful observations made so far; a theory must make predictions and be falsifiable. Well, Intelligent Design does account for all the observations we have made, because according to the concept, the world was designed in such a way as to generate the observations. But it does not make predictions; a believer cannot conceive of an experiment that, if it turned out to give a specific result, would disprove Intelligent Design. No, Intelligent Design is a hypothesis, and is still awaiting for more work before it can graduate to become "a theory". On the other hand, Evolution by Natural Selection is a scientific theory; it makes many predictions, and every one of them has been borne out.
In Chapter 9, the authors argue that if people desire something, then the object of that desire probably exists. Billions of people on earth believe in God; therefore, God exists. What a wonderful argument!
In Chapter 16, the authors rationalize why God allows evil. They say that in order to give humans free will, God has to allow them the option to do evil. If this is true, then why does God allow "natural" evil, that is, terrible calamities that are not caused by people, such as disease, famine, and natural catastrophes. These calamities cause a enormous suffering, and usually humans are not responsible for them. Why does this suffering have to accompany God's gift of free will?
I will stop here with the counting of the book's logical fallacies. On the bright side, I was happy that the authors did not revert to examples of the "God of the gaps", that is, gaps in the fossil records between primates and humans. But on the dark side, the authors did pursue a different type of "gapology"; they wrote a number of chapters on subjects that are on the frontier of science. They used our less than perfect scientific understanding of the world to justify belief in God. But, science will always have a frontier. To say that we don't have proven theories at the frontier does not allow one to forget to apply Occam's Razor, and pick a supernatural explanation when natural explanations are just around the corner.
July 24, 2012
I received this as a Goodreads first read. I waited so long to review it, because honestly I really hate giving such bad reviews to free books, but I've never received a more shockingly misleading book. The problem is the title of the book. It should have read "for born again christians" at the end. I'm an Agnostic Free Thinker at best days/Atheist at worst days. So when I signed up for this book, I saw "Questions raised by New Atheists" and I thought that meant a book for me. Not as such. This booked was for people targeting me, therefore I have to give it a one star based on that alone.
Unfortunately, the misleading title and targeting is not the only reason to give this book one star. I actually read a great deal of this book, at least the parts I could stomach. And it's ridiculous. Atheists pride themselves on fact, what we can see, what we can prove, and what we know about this universe. We pride ourselves on love, and doing no harm. If you are going to try to convert or at least argue with an Atheist, you must do it in a way that will get through to them. So here is a news flash for you:
QUOTING FROM THE BIBLE AS A SOURCE OF FACT DOES NOT HOLD ANY CLOUT WITH THESE "NEW ATHEISTS"!!!!
Every single chapter in this book had incredibly weak arguments like "the bible says this, and the bible says that." The problem is that to argue those points with an Atheist, you would first need to argue the bible into being a credible source. Therefore I cannot even recommend this book to any Christians trying to convert Atheists, because using the arguments in this book would be like running a marathon on a treadmill. You will be going nowhere fast.
Unfortunately, the misleading title and targeting is not the only reason to give this book one star. I actually read a great deal of this book, at least the parts I could stomach. And it's ridiculous. Atheists pride themselves on fact, what we can see, what we can prove, and what we know about this universe. We pride ourselves on love, and doing no harm. If you are going to try to convert or at least argue with an Atheist, you must do it in a way that will get through to them. So here is a news flash for you:
QUOTING FROM THE BIBLE AS A SOURCE OF FACT DOES NOT HOLD ANY CLOUT WITH THESE "NEW ATHEISTS"!!!!
Every single chapter in this book had incredibly weak arguments like "the bible says this, and the bible says that." The problem is that to argue those points with an Atheist, you would first need to argue the bible into being a credible source. Therefore I cannot even recommend this book to any Christians trying to convert Atheists, because using the arguments in this book would be like running a marathon on a treadmill. You will be going nowhere fast.
February 14, 2011
I won this book off Goodreads and it definitely fell into the disappointment category. Through the whole thing McDowell is trying to convince me that God exists, that he is an actual thing and not just something that mankind created to comfort themselves.
Now, this is the point that I probably need to tell you my own religious views. It's a necessary evil with a book as weighted as this one. I am not a big fan of any religion. However, that does not mean I am not a spiritual person. I believe in a God and an afterlife, I just don't think a person needs religion for that sort of thing.
My first problem with McDowell was that he was writing this book for the sole purpose to counter act Dawkins The God Delusion but really, it comes off more like a smear fest than a theological debate. I wanted the debate. I understand that The God Delusion might have offended McDowell but Is God Just A Human Invention really did nothing more than make me want to go read The God Delusion, which I'm fairly certain wasn't the point.
I'm not saying that McDowell didn't make valid points in his book but it was so bogged down by anti-atheistic views that it turned me off to anything valid he might of had to say. The proper response to another book was to take an analytical, non-religious view to the God question and McDowell just couldn't do that. He made it way too personal.
Overall, it was a terrible book. McDowell did the very things he was accusing the Atheists of but from the non-Atheist point of view. The point of a debate is not to smear the other side but to use what facts you have to disprove their facts. McDowell did not do this. I don't recommend this book to anyone.
Now, this is the point that I probably need to tell you my own religious views. It's a necessary evil with a book as weighted as this one. I am not a big fan of any religion. However, that does not mean I am not a spiritual person. I believe in a God and an afterlife, I just don't think a person needs religion for that sort of thing.
My first problem with McDowell was that he was writing this book for the sole purpose to counter act Dawkins The God Delusion but really, it comes off more like a smear fest than a theological debate. I wanted the debate. I understand that The God Delusion might have offended McDowell but Is God Just A Human Invention really did nothing more than make me want to go read The God Delusion, which I'm fairly certain wasn't the point.
I'm not saying that McDowell didn't make valid points in his book but it was so bogged down by anti-atheistic views that it turned me off to anything valid he might of had to say. The proper response to another book was to take an analytical, non-religious view to the God question and McDowell just couldn't do that. He made it way too personal.
Overall, it was a terrible book. McDowell did the very things he was accusing the Atheists of but from the non-Atheist point of view. The point of a debate is not to smear the other side but to use what facts you have to disprove their facts. McDowell did not do this. I don't recommend this book to anyone.
December 27, 2010
I won this book here on goodreads. I'll be upfront and honest - I am an athiest. However, I feel that I am open minded to debate and discussion. I was hoping that this book would provide insight into the logic and reasoning behind Christian believers. In my own experience with Christians, they were raised in the church and the bible alone was enough proof for them, however I assumed that there are deeper reasons for believing for some people. I tried to read through this book but only managed a couple of chapters when I just couldn't keep going. The book has a series of questions that athiests pose, and provides answers that are suppose to be good retaliation for the questions. Most of the answers are simply quotes from the bible. For athiests, a bible quote isn't proof, and if a Christian were in a debate with a non-believer, and had the questions posed in this book asked to them, and used the books responses, they would certainly lose the debate. The answers are probably sufficient for Christians who accept the bible as proof, but for those do not it wouldn't be anywhere near sufficient.
Overall, I felt that this book is designed to reel Christians back in, if they are beginning to question their faith. For this, it could be useful if they are still accepting the bible as proof. However, it's not a good guide for Christians who are seeking to provide answers for nonbelievers who ask them questions.
Overall, I felt that this book is designed to reel Christians back in, if they are beginning to question their faith. For this, it could be useful if they are still accepting the bible as proof. However, it's not a good guide for Christians who are seeking to provide answers for nonbelievers who ask them questions.
March 29, 2016
I wish I would have read this book 25 years ago. It's a wonderful introduction to Christian apologetics and the numerous issues it confronts. I enjoyed every chapter. The problem is that i've read a hundred books just like this - I guess keep them coming, they are insightful, but folks need to explore deeply the major issues that come between them and God. This book will give them ideas about where to start. A few years ago Lee Strobel's books got me in the game. Wonderful stuff!
It seems to be getting to the point that people want to do apologetics without Jesus. It has become an intellectual religious exercise. Many don't know that most religions have apologetics groups. It is very easy to play with and manipulate facts and data. This does not lead to Salvation or truth.
I am thankful for this book Sean & Jonathan - you put all the cards on the table. Well done!
There is no book that will appeal to New atheists. This is not a mission field of logic, science and literature. They want what they want and nothing will convince them otherwise - maybe they should stop fooling themselves by reading these things - they actually assume they are open minded. Baha!
It seems to be getting to the point that people want to do apologetics without Jesus. It has become an intellectual religious exercise. Many don't know that most religions have apologetics groups. It is very easy to play with and manipulate facts and data. This does not lead to Salvation or truth.
I am thankful for this book Sean & Jonathan - you put all the cards on the table. Well done!
There is no book that will appeal to New atheists. This is not a mission field of logic, science and literature. They want what they want and nothing will convince them otherwise - maybe they should stop fooling themselves by reading these things - they actually assume they are open minded. Baha!
December 12, 2011
I found this book to be clear, concise, and full of valid points concerning the reality of God, His Word, and His character.
I read several of the other reviews here and find them typical in the sense that (1) most Christians find the book helpful while (2) most agnotstics/atheists/skeptics do not.
I also see that many who reject the book do not reject it because of its content, but merely because of its basic premise (I mean, one reveiwer I read hadn't even read the book...she just pronounced it a bad book since it didn't conform to her worldview). How is any honest dialogue supposed to take place when the basis of many reviews are simply uninformed emotional outbursts?
The book is filled with valid, vital information which reveals the sand upon which atheism is built. The message of the book is put forth in a sensible way and DOES NOT simply attempt make light of the atheistic/agnostic worldview.
The book is well worth a read for anyone concerned with their spiritual life and eternal destiny.
Yours in Christ,
Robert
I read several of the other reviews here and find them typical in the sense that (1) most Christians find the book helpful while (2) most agnotstics/atheists/skeptics do not.
I also see that many who reject the book do not reject it because of its content, but merely because of its basic premise (I mean, one reveiwer I read hadn't even read the book...she just pronounced it a bad book since it didn't conform to her worldview). How is any honest dialogue supposed to take place when the basis of many reviews are simply uninformed emotional outbursts?
The book is filled with valid, vital information which reveals the sand upon which atheism is built. The message of the book is put forth in a sensible way and DOES NOT simply attempt make light of the atheistic/agnostic worldview.
The book is well worth a read for anyone concerned with their spiritual life and eternal destiny.
Yours in Christ,
Robert
December 8, 2010
Is God Just a Human Invention is poorly written from a severely slanted view of the Christian apologetics, not just Christians in general. If the aim of this book was to discuss several questions that new atheists have brought up, they missed this mark. It is actually written in a way that you can not doubt they are trying to refute each question and attempt to argue their point of view. I feel it fell short of even this mark because the tone of the book ranges from boredom to “nu-uh” finger pointing to smugness depending on what part of the chapter you are reading. Thus, even if it was a discussion it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
Each chapter is titled with the question the Apologetics are attempting to refute. The introduction to each question is very brief and not very informative to those that do not know any side of the debate. The tone of this section is usually disinterest to boredom.
The introduction transitions into a single example of the atheist argument. While the tone of this part is generally “nu-uh”, it does give a little insight as to the atheist side of the debate. However, it leaves a lingering feeling that the example is taken out of context and you are not sure if you are getting the full story.
The presentation of the atheist argument segues seamlessly into the apologetics counter-argument. This counter-argument has the smug tone throughout. The apologetic's side of the debate is just as glossed over as the atheist side of the debate, so there is not a whole lot to learn. Just at the end of this section are two books for further reading on the topic presented in the chapter. I did not have the opportunity to look at all of the books mentioned, but it would seem as if all of the further reading books are to further present the apologetic's argument.
The final part of a chapter was a relatively short, page and a half essay from a Christian that had something to say on the topic of the question. I found these the most enlightening part, though I can't really place my finger on why. Perhaps because these essays are from the heart and feel more honest and real.
It was during the presentation of the apologetic side of the debate where I became increasingly uneasy with what the authors presented. Their counter-argument had several flaws in it that some might be able to see past, and, I hope, a great many will note.
For one, their citations mainly come from biased sources or are not fully explored from every angle. In other words, they mostly looked for citations that supported their view. Many times the authors used sources I'm not sure would qualify in a scholarly work. I'm not fully convinced the authors read and understood what the atheist's point of view was on the topic either, but that shows through in their glossed over introduction to the other side of the debate.
Secondly, and most annoying to me, was the smug “we are better than everyone, and if you don't agree, you are as bad as THEM” tone. The way certain things implied that the only answer to believing in a deity is Christianity, and everything else should not exist. Coming from a background of anthropology and sociology, this left me ill at ease because I was thinking of all the non-Christians that are inadvertently denied a credible existence in the minds of the authors. I also thought of the different sects of Christianity that seemed to have been carelessly denied credibility due to their acceptance of evolution.
And, thirdly, their counter-argument sometimes supported what the atheists brought up. I'm not sure if it was simply a wording issue, but whenever the authors would expound upon any Bible quote that was used by the atheists to refute Christianity, they would not do a very good job of persuading that they quote was out of context and showed a good side to Christianity.
To get a good idea of both sides of the debate between atheists and Christian apologetics though, this is not a good book to read. While this book may fall short of the intended mark, it is good for getting to know the mind and argument patterns of the apologetic. It is also has potential as a good starting point for finding resources on the apologetic's views of the topics presented in this book.
Each chapter is titled with the question the Apologetics are attempting to refute. The introduction to each question is very brief and not very informative to those that do not know any side of the debate. The tone of this section is usually disinterest to boredom.
The introduction transitions into a single example of the atheist argument. While the tone of this part is generally “nu-uh”, it does give a little insight as to the atheist side of the debate. However, it leaves a lingering feeling that the example is taken out of context and you are not sure if you are getting the full story.
The presentation of the atheist argument segues seamlessly into the apologetics counter-argument. This counter-argument has the smug tone throughout. The apologetic's side of the debate is just as glossed over as the atheist side of the debate, so there is not a whole lot to learn. Just at the end of this section are two books for further reading on the topic presented in the chapter. I did not have the opportunity to look at all of the books mentioned, but it would seem as if all of the further reading books are to further present the apologetic's argument.
The final part of a chapter was a relatively short, page and a half essay from a Christian that had something to say on the topic of the question. I found these the most enlightening part, though I can't really place my finger on why. Perhaps because these essays are from the heart and feel more honest and real.
It was during the presentation of the apologetic side of the debate where I became increasingly uneasy with what the authors presented. Their counter-argument had several flaws in it that some might be able to see past, and, I hope, a great many will note.
For one, their citations mainly come from biased sources or are not fully explored from every angle. In other words, they mostly looked for citations that supported their view. Many times the authors used sources I'm not sure would qualify in a scholarly work. I'm not fully convinced the authors read and understood what the atheist's point of view was on the topic either, but that shows through in their glossed over introduction to the other side of the debate.
Secondly, and most annoying to me, was the smug “we are better than everyone, and if you don't agree, you are as bad as THEM” tone. The way certain things implied that the only answer to believing in a deity is Christianity, and everything else should not exist. Coming from a background of anthropology and sociology, this left me ill at ease because I was thinking of all the non-Christians that are inadvertently denied a credible existence in the minds of the authors. I also thought of the different sects of Christianity that seemed to have been carelessly denied credibility due to their acceptance of evolution.
And, thirdly, their counter-argument sometimes supported what the atheists brought up. I'm not sure if it was simply a wording issue, but whenever the authors would expound upon any Bible quote that was used by the atheists to refute Christianity, they would not do a very good job of persuading that they quote was out of context and showed a good side to Christianity.
To get a good idea of both sides of the debate between atheists and Christian apologetics though, this is not a good book to read. While this book may fall short of the intended mark, it is good for getting to know the mind and argument patterns of the apologetic. It is also has potential as a good starting point for finding resources on the apologetic's views of the topics presented in this book.
June 3, 2024
RESPONSES TO THE CHALLENGES RAISED BY THE “NEW ATHEISTS”
Sean McDowell is a professor of apologetics at Biola University, and a popular speaker and author (as well as the son of the famed apologist, Josh McDowell). ’
They wrote in the Introduction to this 2010 book, “Atheism is making a comeback. From bookstores to bus campaigns, the question of God’s existence is up for public debate. Perhaps you’re seen some of these books topping the bestseller lists… One thing is crystal clear from reading these books: these authors---who are leaders of a group the media has dubbed the New Atheists---are on a crusade against religion. And while they are against religion in general, they aim most of their criticisms and complaints at the fastest growing religion in the world… Christianity… The aim of this book is to respond to such claims.” (Pg. 8-10)
They continue, “We have talked to enough people under the age of thirty to know that these books are causing some to walk away from their faith. We felt it was important to speak to the issues raised by the New Atheists in an accessible yet rigorous manner and from a distinctively Christian perspective so that people can make up their own mind after considering the evidence… Our task will be responding to the major arguments and complaints raised against Christianity. The New Atheists support their central thesis that ‘Christianity isn’t just false; it’s dangerous’ by appealing to two main lines of evidence---scientific/philosophical and moral/biblical. Accordingly, we have divided our book into two parts addressing each of these in turn.” (Pg. 13-14)
They clarify, “The theory of intelligent design does not challenge the definition of evolution as change over time, or even common ancestry. But it does challenge the Darwinian claim that all life’s complexity and diversity can emerge through a blind, undirected process. Intelligent design finds design in the natural world, which leads to the question of who the designer could be. A designer’s existence has further implications for the value and purpose of life.” (Pg. 60) Later, they add, “if the universe can theoretically be eternal and uncaused, then why can’t God? Both theists and atheist agree that there is nothing unreasonable about something being eternal and uncaused. However, what is unreasonable is to suppose that a universe arose, uncaused, from nothing.” (Pg. 77)
They state, “[Richard] Dawkins believes the multiverse theory holds the greatest promise for answering the fine-tuning argument… Does this mean that multiple universes, if they were ever discovered, would undermine God? Absolutely not! We would still be left with the question as to what generated our fine-tuned universe, and any system that generates a habitable universe must itself be fine-tuned. The multiverse hypothesis simply moves the fine-tuning problem up one level.” (Pg. 100)
They point out, “The question of how mind could come from matter is a seemingly insuperable dilemma confronting atheists… It’s difficult to see how a mind could arise from nonmind through the purposeless, material, mindless process of evolution. It’s much easier to see how a Conscious Mind could produce the human consciousness.” (Pg. 116)
They suggest, “the projection theory cuts both ways. If it can be argued that humans created God out of a need for security or a father figure, then it can just as easily be argued that atheism is a response to the human desire for the freedom to do whatever one wants without moral constraints or obligations. Perhaps atheists don’t want a God to exist because they would be morally accountable to a deity. Or maybe atheists had particularly tragic relationships with their own fathers growing up, projected that on God, and then spent most of their adult lives trying to kill a ‘Divine Father Figure.’” (Pg. 123)
They note, “Sam Harris claims, ‘There is no place in the New Testament where Jesus objects to slavery.’ Actually, Jesus did speak to the issue of slavery, but he went after the root of physical slavery: spiritual slavery. Spiritual slavery has led to and continues to lead to immense misery. When Jesus began his public ministry, he stood in the synagogue to read the following passage: ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me… He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed.’ What a mission statement!... Jesus knew the best way to end slavery was first to liberate the hearts and minds of humanity.” (Pg. 153-154)
They explain, “Contrary to what some may think, taking the Bible literally is not code for reading a passage in the most ignorant way possible. Scholars who propose nuanced and sophisticate interpretations of biblical passages are not automatically guilty of special pleading. Certainly interpreting an ancient document comes with its share of challenges when you take into consideration distance in time, culture, and language. But we can discover the meaning of ancient texts if we follow reliable and responsible methods.” (Pg. 179)
They acknowledge, “Few have suffered like Job. He lost everything----family, wealth, and finally his health. He challenged God and demanded to know why---what had he done to deserve this? In Job 38-42, God responded with no answers but lots of questions. The point was clear: God is God and Job is not… Job was asking why evil and suffering had been allowed in his life. But if Job could not make sense of natural events, then how would God’s answer of why evil exists make any sense at all? God was in essence saying, ‘I am God and you are just going to have to trust me.’ Although ‘why’ may be unknowable, God is knowable and he is good.” (Pg. 217-218)
They observe, “In recent history, Christians were responsible for the banning of three despicable practices inflicted upon women around the world. Christian missionaries pressured the Chinese government to abolish foot binding in 1912… In 1829 the English outlawed the Indian practice of ‘suttee,’ in which widows were burned alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands… Finally, Western countries influenced by a Christian view … have condemned clitoridectomy… a gruesome practice that is still common in Muslim countries in Africa and the Middle East.” (Pg. 231)
This book will be of great interest to those studying Christian Apologetics, and particularly Atheism.
Sean McDowell is a professor of apologetics at Biola University, and a popular speaker and author (as well as the son of the famed apologist, Josh McDowell). ’
They wrote in the Introduction to this 2010 book, “Atheism is making a comeback. From bookstores to bus campaigns, the question of God’s existence is up for public debate. Perhaps you’re seen some of these books topping the bestseller lists… One thing is crystal clear from reading these books: these authors---who are leaders of a group the media has dubbed the New Atheists---are on a crusade against religion. And while they are against religion in general, they aim most of their criticisms and complaints at the fastest growing religion in the world… Christianity… The aim of this book is to respond to such claims.” (Pg. 8-10)
They continue, “We have talked to enough people under the age of thirty to know that these books are causing some to walk away from their faith. We felt it was important to speak to the issues raised by the New Atheists in an accessible yet rigorous manner and from a distinctively Christian perspective so that people can make up their own mind after considering the evidence… Our task will be responding to the major arguments and complaints raised against Christianity. The New Atheists support their central thesis that ‘Christianity isn’t just false; it’s dangerous’ by appealing to two main lines of evidence---scientific/philosophical and moral/biblical. Accordingly, we have divided our book into two parts addressing each of these in turn.” (Pg. 13-14)
They clarify, “The theory of intelligent design does not challenge the definition of evolution as change over time, or even common ancestry. But it does challenge the Darwinian claim that all life’s complexity and diversity can emerge through a blind, undirected process. Intelligent design finds design in the natural world, which leads to the question of who the designer could be. A designer’s existence has further implications for the value and purpose of life.” (Pg. 60) Later, they add, “if the universe can theoretically be eternal and uncaused, then why can’t God? Both theists and atheist agree that there is nothing unreasonable about something being eternal and uncaused. However, what is unreasonable is to suppose that a universe arose, uncaused, from nothing.” (Pg. 77)
They state, “[Richard] Dawkins believes the multiverse theory holds the greatest promise for answering the fine-tuning argument… Does this mean that multiple universes, if they were ever discovered, would undermine God? Absolutely not! We would still be left with the question as to what generated our fine-tuned universe, and any system that generates a habitable universe must itself be fine-tuned. The multiverse hypothesis simply moves the fine-tuning problem up one level.” (Pg. 100)
They point out, “The question of how mind could come from matter is a seemingly insuperable dilemma confronting atheists… It’s difficult to see how a mind could arise from nonmind through the purposeless, material, mindless process of evolution. It’s much easier to see how a Conscious Mind could produce the human consciousness.” (Pg. 116)
They suggest, “the projection theory cuts both ways. If it can be argued that humans created God out of a need for security or a father figure, then it can just as easily be argued that atheism is a response to the human desire for the freedom to do whatever one wants without moral constraints or obligations. Perhaps atheists don’t want a God to exist because they would be morally accountable to a deity. Or maybe atheists had particularly tragic relationships with their own fathers growing up, projected that on God, and then spent most of their adult lives trying to kill a ‘Divine Father Figure.’” (Pg. 123)
They note, “Sam Harris claims, ‘There is no place in the New Testament where Jesus objects to slavery.’ Actually, Jesus did speak to the issue of slavery, but he went after the root of physical slavery: spiritual slavery. Spiritual slavery has led to and continues to lead to immense misery. When Jesus began his public ministry, he stood in the synagogue to read the following passage: ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me… He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed.’ What a mission statement!... Jesus knew the best way to end slavery was first to liberate the hearts and minds of humanity.” (Pg. 153-154)
They explain, “Contrary to what some may think, taking the Bible literally is not code for reading a passage in the most ignorant way possible. Scholars who propose nuanced and sophisticate interpretations of biblical passages are not automatically guilty of special pleading. Certainly interpreting an ancient document comes with its share of challenges when you take into consideration distance in time, culture, and language. But we can discover the meaning of ancient texts if we follow reliable and responsible methods.” (Pg. 179)
They acknowledge, “Few have suffered like Job. He lost everything----family, wealth, and finally his health. He challenged God and demanded to know why---what had he done to deserve this? In Job 38-42, God responded with no answers but lots of questions. The point was clear: God is God and Job is not… Job was asking why evil and suffering had been allowed in his life. But if Job could not make sense of natural events, then how would God’s answer of why evil exists make any sense at all? God was in essence saying, ‘I am God and you are just going to have to trust me.’ Although ‘why’ may be unknowable, God is knowable and he is good.” (Pg. 217-218)
They observe, “In recent history, Christians were responsible for the banning of three despicable practices inflicted upon women around the world. Christian missionaries pressured the Chinese government to abolish foot binding in 1912… In 1829 the English outlawed the Indian practice of ‘suttee,’ in which widows were burned alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands… Finally, Western countries influenced by a Christian view … have condemned clitoridectomy… a gruesome practice that is still common in Muslim countries in Africa and the Middle East.” (Pg. 231)
This book will be of great interest to those studying Christian Apologetics, and particularly Atheism.
January 1, 2011
Yes, the title sounds like a book about atheist views but it's not. I really wanted to root for this book and like it but I feel it just talks in circles. The book take a look at atheist views and is supposed to combat them with proof on God's existence and why Christianity is worth believing in. I wanted to hear some fact or reasons why we can't doubt things in the Bible but this book did a poor job at it if I'm being honest. The book seemed to go round and round and never really brought any of the hard evidence that they claimed that they would. I was disappointed and thought this would have been an interesting read. I'd like to read a book that had similar views but brought more convincing evidence to back up biblical events.
January 30, 2020
This may be an unpopular opinion, but in my view the "new Atheists" have been solidly overrated. If I am in general critical of many of the religious trends of the contemporary world, a lot of these changes tend to most strongly affect both those who are strong on biblical religion as well as those who are most stridently atheist, with a great number of people who might have been attracted to atheism in the past (or who might have remained tepid and lukewarm Christians in the pews) adopting an a la carte faith that is heavy on new age spiritualism and inflated claims of self-importance. That said, the questions and problems that New Atheism brings up are helpful to deal with as people of faith and this book does a good job at providing answers for common questions and objections raised by atheists. In many ways it is a catechism of sorts when it comes to apologetics with atheists, and as such it is the sort of book that is easy to recommend to those who like reading apologetics literature in general as I do.
This book is a bit more than 250 pages and is divided into two parts. The book begins with an introduction of two Oxford Atheists, one of whom became a notable Christian theologian and the other of whom became a noted New Atheist. After that the first part of the book consists of a variety of authors including William Dembski, Jay Richards, and Gary Habermas dealing with the following questions from atheists: Is faith irrational? Are Science and Christianity at odds? Are miracles possible? Is Darwinian Evolution the only game in town? How did the universe begin? How did life begin? Why is the universe just right for life? Has science shown there is no soul? Is God just a human invention? After that a different group of authors including Randy Alcorn and Douglas Groothuis deal with various moral and biblical challenges presented to Christianity by the New Atheists, such as: Is religion dangerous? Does God intend for us to keep slaves? Is hell a divine torture chamber? Is God a genocidal bully? Is Christianity the cause of dangerous sexual repression? Can people be good without God? Is evil only a problem for Christians? What good is Christianity? Why Jesus instead of the flying spaghetti monster? After that the authors give a conclusion about two ordinary believers, namely themselves, and then there are appendices that include resources for engaging the new atheism and thinking about God (i), dealing with doubt on the journey to faith (ii), and the question of contradiction and corruption of the biblical texts (iii), as well as notes and some information about the authors.
In truth, I have never met an atheist or ever encountered one at all in the course of my existence, and you never have either. The reason for this is that everyone views something as the highest authority and whatever that is is their God. And while this book deals very well with logical questions and the questions of the intellect when it comes to apologetics, it misses the real darkness of the hearts of humanity when it comes to why people act or persist in unbelief. This is the sort of book that is best for believers, to demonstrate the intellectual validity of a belief in a higher power in general as well as the God of the Bible in particular. And that is in general the case for apologetics works as a whole. Those who have shut their minds to God will get little out of it. Like most books that are made, and a great many I happen to enjoy, this book is preaching the choir, taking the intellectual objections of the New Atheists as the real reason for their professed unbelief and not really hitting them in the darkness of their hearts and in their rebellion against godly moral authority that lies at the basis of so much contemporary problems. But to address those matters this would have to be a far different book, one not written by philosophers but by those willing to tackle the real objections that people have to God and His authority over creation, including ourselves.
This book is a bit more than 250 pages and is divided into two parts. The book begins with an introduction of two Oxford Atheists, one of whom became a notable Christian theologian and the other of whom became a noted New Atheist. After that the first part of the book consists of a variety of authors including William Dembski, Jay Richards, and Gary Habermas dealing with the following questions from atheists: Is faith irrational? Are Science and Christianity at odds? Are miracles possible? Is Darwinian Evolution the only game in town? How did the universe begin? How did life begin? Why is the universe just right for life? Has science shown there is no soul? Is God just a human invention? After that a different group of authors including Randy Alcorn and Douglas Groothuis deal with various moral and biblical challenges presented to Christianity by the New Atheists, such as: Is religion dangerous? Does God intend for us to keep slaves? Is hell a divine torture chamber? Is God a genocidal bully? Is Christianity the cause of dangerous sexual repression? Can people be good without God? Is evil only a problem for Christians? What good is Christianity? Why Jesus instead of the flying spaghetti monster? After that the authors give a conclusion about two ordinary believers, namely themselves, and then there are appendices that include resources for engaging the new atheism and thinking about God (i), dealing with doubt on the journey to faith (ii), and the question of contradiction and corruption of the biblical texts (iii), as well as notes and some information about the authors.
In truth, I have never met an atheist or ever encountered one at all in the course of my existence, and you never have either. The reason for this is that everyone views something as the highest authority and whatever that is is their God. And while this book deals very well with logical questions and the questions of the intellect when it comes to apologetics, it misses the real darkness of the hearts of humanity when it comes to why people act or persist in unbelief. This is the sort of book that is best for believers, to demonstrate the intellectual validity of a belief in a higher power in general as well as the God of the Bible in particular. And that is in general the case for apologetics works as a whole. Those who have shut their minds to God will get little out of it. Like most books that are made, and a great many I happen to enjoy, this book is preaching the choir, taking the intellectual objections of the New Atheists as the real reason for their professed unbelief and not really hitting them in the darkness of their hearts and in their rebellion against godly moral authority that lies at the basis of so much contemporary problems. But to address those matters this would have to be a far different book, one not written by philosophers but by those willing to tackle the real objections that people have to God and His authority over creation, including ourselves.
January 14, 2012
Is atheism making a comeback? Authors Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow say it is and seek to respond to this very vocal movement in their new book, Is God Just a Human Invention?: And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists. The proliferation of recent books by contemporary atheists with titles like The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, Breaking the Spell by Daniel Dennett, god is not Great by Christopher Hitchens and Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris, speak to the reality that atheism is back – with a vengeance. These four vocal atheists have been duly named “The Four Horseman” by Al Mohler. To say that atheism is back in somewhat misleading. Atheism has been around since after the Fall in Genesis 3. Throughout history there have been moments of intense efforts by atheists. This is one of those intense moments in atheistic history. There is no denying that these New Atheists are making a public scene in their quest to rid the world of religion(s) and, in particular, Christianity and its belief in God.
As a result of the atheistic outcry against Christianity in particular, there has been an enormous response among the vast ranks of evangelicals. Notable apologists like Ravi Zacharias (author of The End of Reason) and president of SBTS Al Mohler (Atheism Remix) have written more popular level books in response to the New Atheism. Theologians like Alister McGrath (The Dawkins Delusion) and biblical scholars like Paul Copan (Is God A Moral Monster) have given their noteworthy contributions. Pastors like Doug Wilson (Is Christianity Good for the World) and Tim Keller (The Reason for God) have responded to the New Atheism with theological rigor and pastoral care. More philosophical responses have come from the likes of David Berlinski (The Devil’s Delusion) and famed William Lane Craig (God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist) who have shown that the Biblical claims of Christianity can hold their own and more among philosophical doubters. Further, scientists like John Lennox (God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?), Stephen C. Meyer (Signature in the Cell) and Francis Collins (The Language of God) have approached atheist’s attacks from their own world.
With all of these responses from varied fields of Christian Biblical defenders, there is no doubt that Christianity can hold up against charges from any front. All of these books are helpful in their own way and there are many more that provide solid answers to the bold claims of atheists. Whether atheism is actually making a measured comeback or not is an issue that will have to be addressed in the years to come. For now, there is no doubt that many Christians have heard the boisterous claims of the New Atheists and have themselves been asking questions about their own faith and the Bible. For the Christian who may not be able to determine where to begin in their quest to chew through some of the above-mentioned books, the task can feel daunting. There is so much to read and so much material and information to process that it can be easy to take the fideist approach and just believe in God anyways. In step McDowell and Morrow. Amidst all of the beneficial books that are both readable and highly technical, McDowell and Morrow have taken eighteen of the most hotly debated issues among Christians and Atheists. With remarkable ability, they have condensed these eighteen issues in an easy to understand way without being overly simplistic. They have brought out the salient points of contention within each issue and have responded with clarity and forthrightness. No chapter is longer than 15-16 pages and some are as short as 9-10.
McDowell and Morrow state that the central thesis claimed by the New Atheists is that “Christianity isn’t just false; it’s dangerous (p. 14). It is this claim that the authors seek to respond to through the eighteen chosen topics. However, the authors are not alone. The body of each chapter is written by the authors. At the end of each chapter an expert is brought in from the relevant field of study to wrap things up. If that were not enough to make the book well rounded, at the end of each chapter there is a short list of related books the reader can use in order to go deeper into the subject matter of each particular chapter. As stated before, there is a large body of good books out there and McDowell and Morrow have done a great service to the reader on directing them to the best ones to go to next.
Is God Just a Human Invention is broken into two sections. The first section deals with atheistic claims that fall under the scientific/philosophical category. The first issue that is dealt with is the question of whether or not faith is rational. Much of the discussion by atheists that faith is irrational is due to a misunderstanding of the nature and content of faith. Thus they believe that faith is “blind, irrational and stupid (p. 19).” Whether they realize it or not, atheist attacks on the validity and rationality of faith seem to be more aimed at fideism (the belief that faith is independent of reason). “Biblical faith is trust in God because He has shown Himself to be reliable and trustworthy. It is not belief in spite of the evidence, but belief in light of the evidence (p. 21).”
Moving from the rationality of faith they tackle the claim that faith and science are at odds. From the world of science they move on to defend the high possibility of miracles and summarize their claim by saying, “In short, the possibility of miracles depends upon the existence of God. If God exists, miracles are possible (p. 46).” Issues of origins are discussed in terms of the origins of the universe and human life as well as the Christian answer as to why the universe is just right for life. When God is cited by Christians as the original source of all things atheists always bite back with the question, “But who made God!?” To this classic question the authors rightly respond by saying, “The claim is not that everything has a cause. Rather, everything that begins to exist has a cause (p. 78).”
One of the most intriguing and thought provoking chapters of the book is chapter eight in which the debate over whether or not humans have souls is discussed. Daniel Dennett wants us to believe that the mind is not and is merely “an illusion created by the brain (p. 109).” To this claim the authors offer several arguments:
If there is no soul, then free will does not exist…….if materialism is true, you do not have any genuine ability to choose your actions……if you were solely your body, then your identity would be constantly changing (p. 112-13)
Part two of the book deals with moral and biblical challenges. First up the authors respond to the harsh claims of Christopher Hitches that religion is dangerous. Hitchens sees all the major evils of the world stemming not from people but their religions. The authors state, “Upon reflection, most would agree that people are the problem, not religion. There are deeper issues at work. The human heart is corrupt (p. 137).”
Specific issues within the Bible that are addressed include the ethics of slavery, whether the idea of hell is moral, how do we understand Israel’s conquests in the book of Joshua, does Christianity suppress human sexuality and why should one believe in Jesus over the flying spaghetti monster? All of these issues and more are dealt with clarity and honesty.
The only real criticism I have of the book is the undefined frequent appeal to the freedom of man and how certain atheistic claims would take it away. I would have liked to see the authors at least their definition and understanding of it given how often they appealed to it.
McDowell and Morrow have done a great service to those wanting answers to the above claims but who don’t know where to turn first to find them. I would recommend this book to new and seasoned believers who are unfamiliar with these issues.
As a result of the atheistic outcry against Christianity in particular, there has been an enormous response among the vast ranks of evangelicals. Notable apologists like Ravi Zacharias (author of The End of Reason) and president of SBTS Al Mohler (Atheism Remix) have written more popular level books in response to the New Atheism. Theologians like Alister McGrath (The Dawkins Delusion) and biblical scholars like Paul Copan (Is God A Moral Monster) have given their noteworthy contributions. Pastors like Doug Wilson (Is Christianity Good for the World) and Tim Keller (The Reason for God) have responded to the New Atheism with theological rigor and pastoral care. More philosophical responses have come from the likes of David Berlinski (The Devil’s Delusion) and famed William Lane Craig (God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist) who have shown that the Biblical claims of Christianity can hold their own and more among philosophical doubters. Further, scientists like John Lennox (God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?), Stephen C. Meyer (Signature in the Cell) and Francis Collins (The Language of God) have approached atheist’s attacks from their own world.
With all of these responses from varied fields of Christian Biblical defenders, there is no doubt that Christianity can hold up against charges from any front. All of these books are helpful in their own way and there are many more that provide solid answers to the bold claims of atheists. Whether atheism is actually making a measured comeback or not is an issue that will have to be addressed in the years to come. For now, there is no doubt that many Christians have heard the boisterous claims of the New Atheists and have themselves been asking questions about their own faith and the Bible. For the Christian who may not be able to determine where to begin in their quest to chew through some of the above-mentioned books, the task can feel daunting. There is so much to read and so much material and information to process that it can be easy to take the fideist approach and just believe in God anyways. In step McDowell and Morrow. Amidst all of the beneficial books that are both readable and highly technical, McDowell and Morrow have taken eighteen of the most hotly debated issues among Christians and Atheists. With remarkable ability, they have condensed these eighteen issues in an easy to understand way without being overly simplistic. They have brought out the salient points of contention within each issue and have responded with clarity and forthrightness. No chapter is longer than 15-16 pages and some are as short as 9-10.
McDowell and Morrow state that the central thesis claimed by the New Atheists is that “Christianity isn’t just false; it’s dangerous (p. 14). It is this claim that the authors seek to respond to through the eighteen chosen topics. However, the authors are not alone. The body of each chapter is written by the authors. At the end of each chapter an expert is brought in from the relevant field of study to wrap things up. If that were not enough to make the book well rounded, at the end of each chapter there is a short list of related books the reader can use in order to go deeper into the subject matter of each particular chapter. As stated before, there is a large body of good books out there and McDowell and Morrow have done a great service to the reader on directing them to the best ones to go to next.
Is God Just a Human Invention is broken into two sections. The first section deals with atheistic claims that fall under the scientific/philosophical category. The first issue that is dealt with is the question of whether or not faith is rational. Much of the discussion by atheists that faith is irrational is due to a misunderstanding of the nature and content of faith. Thus they believe that faith is “blind, irrational and stupid (p. 19).” Whether they realize it or not, atheist attacks on the validity and rationality of faith seem to be more aimed at fideism (the belief that faith is independent of reason). “Biblical faith is trust in God because He has shown Himself to be reliable and trustworthy. It is not belief in spite of the evidence, but belief in light of the evidence (p. 21).”
Moving from the rationality of faith they tackle the claim that faith and science are at odds. From the world of science they move on to defend the high possibility of miracles and summarize their claim by saying, “In short, the possibility of miracles depends upon the existence of God. If God exists, miracles are possible (p. 46).” Issues of origins are discussed in terms of the origins of the universe and human life as well as the Christian answer as to why the universe is just right for life. When God is cited by Christians as the original source of all things atheists always bite back with the question, “But who made God!?” To this classic question the authors rightly respond by saying, “The claim is not that everything has a cause. Rather, everything that begins to exist has a cause (p. 78).”
One of the most intriguing and thought provoking chapters of the book is chapter eight in which the debate over whether or not humans have souls is discussed. Daniel Dennett wants us to believe that the mind is not and is merely “an illusion created by the brain (p. 109).” To this claim the authors offer several arguments:
If there is no soul, then free will does not exist…….if materialism is true, you do not have any genuine ability to choose your actions……if you were solely your body, then your identity would be constantly changing (p. 112-13)
Part two of the book deals with moral and biblical challenges. First up the authors respond to the harsh claims of Christopher Hitches that religion is dangerous. Hitchens sees all the major evils of the world stemming not from people but their religions. The authors state, “Upon reflection, most would agree that people are the problem, not religion. There are deeper issues at work. The human heart is corrupt (p. 137).”
Specific issues within the Bible that are addressed include the ethics of slavery, whether the idea of hell is moral, how do we understand Israel’s conquests in the book of Joshua, does Christianity suppress human sexuality and why should one believe in Jesus over the flying spaghetti monster? All of these issues and more are dealt with clarity and honesty.
The only real criticism I have of the book is the undefined frequent appeal to the freedom of man and how certain atheistic claims would take it away. I would have liked to see the authors at least their definition and understanding of it given how often they appealed to it.
McDowell and Morrow have done a great service to those wanting answers to the above claims but who don’t know where to turn first to find them. I would recommend this book to new and seasoned believers who are unfamiliar with these issues.
August 4, 2017
I had read several very negative critiques of this book that were written by atheists and skeptics, so I had pretty low expectations for the book when I picked it up. However, the book is substantive, interesting, and challenging. So, I went back and re-read some of the critiques. The negative critiques had almost no serious interaction with the material in the book; they seemed to be almost entirely the result of readers coming to the book who were predisposed to disagree with its premises and who were not really interested in having their preconceived atheistic "beliefs" questioned.
As I said earlier, the book is substantive, interesting, and challenging. It is a popularization of the more serious work that has been done by authors such as Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, Ronald Nash, Darrel Bock, and others, but that is not a bad thing. As such, it is more readable than some of the works from which it draws and such a format makes it possible for it to cover more material.
Read the book, give it a fair shake, and then let's hear what you think about some specifics of the content.
As I said earlier, the book is substantive, interesting, and challenging. It is a popularization of the more serious work that has been done by authors such as Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, Ronald Nash, Darrel Bock, and others, but that is not a bad thing. As such, it is more readable than some of the works from which it draws and such a format makes it possible for it to cover more material.
Read the book, give it a fair shake, and then let's hear what you think about some specifics of the content.
February 17, 2024
Overall, pretty good. I found the chapter aiming to prove the possibility of miracles weak, which was disappointing.
Topics which were covered but could have been discussed in much more detail included the seeming events of genocide in the Bible and how Christians view/how biblical characters viewed women. I agree with the authors' discussions on all of these topics; their writing just seemed a bit lacking in these areas.
One chapter I think they did a really good job on was the one on hell; I am not sure I agree with all of their conclusions, but the chapter was very well written. :)
Topics which were covered but could have been discussed in much more detail included the seeming events of genocide in the Bible and how Christians view/how biblical characters viewed women. I agree with the authors' discussions on all of these topics; their writing just seemed a bit lacking in these areas.
One chapter I think they did a really good job on was the one on hell; I am not sure I agree with all of their conclusions, but the chapter was very well written. :)
February 9, 2020
Very good book! Studies like this that delve into questions of what is true help strengthen my faith when I think through the logical and scientific reasons to believe in God. Thanks to Sean and Jonathan!
July 24, 2017
A excellent book for all those who have questions about God.
April 13, 2018
Excellent primer to understand the major objections to the Christian faith. Plenty of resources referenced to dig deeper.
February 2, 2019
Unlike books typical in this genre in that it is highly applicable, especially for parents of teens.
May 3, 2019
It is a good material for anybody who is battling with the God question. A well-researched and honestly-presented work. My quest for the truth was satisfied.
August 7, 2023
The content was really really good. This was a challenging read though - it took some intense focus to stay engaged.
July 9, 2024
Been a while since I read but had some good information. Was not my favorite theology book ever but it was not the worst either.
February 26, 2017
I had trouble keeping my interest with this book and abandon it after a few chapters.
June 13, 2013
Never before have I encountered a more spurious piece of intellectual chicanery, than what was posited by this book.
I read this from cover to cover, and almost openly wept over my inability to give it a 'Zero Stars' rating.
Within the first 20 pages, I found myself motivated to list all of the logical flaws I found -- this thought dwindled the further I read. Upon finishing the book, I realized that listing the flaws would be a waste of time, for the following reasons:
1. If you find yourself motivated to read this book, and you are able to do so with a skeptical mind--or at least, without the desire to suspend your critical thinking skills--you will quickly find flaws large enough to conceal a Mack truck. In a way, I should thank the authors: because I am interested in improving my abilities at logical assessment, it proved an invaluable tool due to presenting _so many_ flawed justifications (which wasn't what the authors' intended, I'm sure).
One might counter that it was the authors' desire to make their stance more accessible -- I object to that being suggested: it seems to beg a concession. If your stance is logically sound, it shouldn't suffer any loss to its structural integrity, by breaking down said stance to a 'more accessible' form.
In a way, that insults the reader, by passive-aggressively suggesting that we couldn't follow along _unless_ we had to have the subject matter presented in some of post-masticated form...
2. If you are on the Christian side of the aisle, you hold it as a point of pride to have surrendered your desire to think critically (or, if you will, prefer to take things 'by faith') -- at least, in regards to this subject. As that is the case, it is pointless for me to list flaws that will be ignored, glossed over, discounted, or just plain misrepresented.
3. There are plenty of others who present the logical objections
more eloquently than I -- reading George Smith's 'Atheism: The Case Against God' would be an excellent start, if you prefer your logic sans the polemical panache of Christopher Hitchens.
I may change my mind in the future -- but, until I can obtain a free copy (so sue me: I'm not a fan of wasting money), I wouldn't advise holding one's breath.
I read this from cover to cover, and almost openly wept over my inability to give it a 'Zero Stars' rating.
Within the first 20 pages, I found myself motivated to list all of the logical flaws I found -- this thought dwindled the further I read. Upon finishing the book, I realized that listing the flaws would be a waste of time, for the following reasons:
1. If you find yourself motivated to read this book, and you are able to do so with a skeptical mind--or at least, without the desire to suspend your critical thinking skills--you will quickly find flaws large enough to conceal a Mack truck. In a way, I should thank the authors: because I am interested in improving my abilities at logical assessment, it proved an invaluable tool due to presenting _so many_ flawed justifications (which wasn't what the authors' intended, I'm sure).
One might counter that it was the authors' desire to make their stance more accessible -- I object to that being suggested: it seems to beg a concession. If your stance is logically sound, it shouldn't suffer any loss to its structural integrity, by breaking down said stance to a 'more accessible' form.
In a way, that insults the reader, by passive-aggressively suggesting that we couldn't follow along _unless_ we had to have the subject matter presented in some of post-masticated form...
2. If you are on the Christian side of the aisle, you hold it as a point of pride to have surrendered your desire to think critically (or, if you will, prefer to take things 'by faith') -- at least, in regards to this subject. As that is the case, it is pointless for me to list flaws that will be ignored, glossed over, discounted, or just plain misrepresented.
3. There are plenty of others who present the logical objections
more eloquently than I -- reading George Smith's 'Atheism: The Case Against God' would be an excellent start, if you prefer your logic sans the polemical panache of Christopher Hitchens.
I may change my mind in the future -- but, until I can obtain a free copy (so sue me: I'm not a fan of wasting money), I wouldn't advise holding one's breath.
August 11, 2011
Atheism has seen a resurgence in the last decade or so in its publicity—if not also its popularity—due in large part to the New Atheism (names like Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett and Harris) and most recently Stephen Hawking with his argument against the existence of God in The Grand Design. Yet for every volley leveled at theism in general and Christianity in particular, there is are equally capable minds ready to pick up the gauntlet and offer return fire.
Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow aren't charting new territory in this book. Far from being a criticism, however, I found this to be one of the greatest strengths of the book. These two authors are thoroughly well versed in the arguments and works of other Christian thinkers and quote liberally from writers like C.S. Lewis, Timothy Keller, Dinesh D'souza, Alister McGrath and Paul Copan. A brief postscript section called "Why It Matters" follows each chapter and features other such thinkers as Gary Habermas, William Dembski, Randy Alcorn and Greg Koukl.
The book is broken up into two sections: "Responding to Scientific and Philosophical Challenges" and "Responding to Moral and Biblical Challenges". Each chapter is imminently accessible to even those unfamiliar with the topics at hand. For this reason, none of the arguments get very in depth, but the authors have done the heavy lifting and offer a couple titles at the end of each chapter if you feel up to the challenge as well.
Christian apologists have well-reasoned responses to the New Atheists' charges and this book is as good an introduction as one could want. McDowell and Morrow are standing on the shoulders of many brilliant minds and have made a substantial offering in their own right. This book is a perfect reference for those familiar with the arguments, a perfect primer for those who are not, and a perfect loaner for the believer and skeptic alike.
Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow aren't charting new territory in this book. Far from being a criticism, however, I found this to be one of the greatest strengths of the book. These two authors are thoroughly well versed in the arguments and works of other Christian thinkers and quote liberally from writers like C.S. Lewis, Timothy Keller, Dinesh D'souza, Alister McGrath and Paul Copan. A brief postscript section called "Why It Matters" follows each chapter and features other such thinkers as Gary Habermas, William Dembski, Randy Alcorn and Greg Koukl.
The book is broken up into two sections: "Responding to Scientific and Philosophical Challenges" and "Responding to Moral and Biblical Challenges". Each chapter is imminently accessible to even those unfamiliar with the topics at hand. For this reason, none of the arguments get very in depth, but the authors have done the heavy lifting and offer a couple titles at the end of each chapter if you feel up to the challenge as well.
Christian apologists have well-reasoned responses to the New Atheists' charges and this book is as good an introduction as one could want. McDowell and Morrow are standing on the shoulders of many brilliant minds and have made a substantial offering in their own right. This book is a perfect reference for those familiar with the arguments, a perfect primer for those who are not, and a perfect loaner for the believer and skeptic alike.
April 2, 2011
I won this book on goodreads last November. Honestly, I thought the book was going to be seventeen questions ANSWERED by atheists. So, I got the book and read on the back cover that the authors, "know that the SOLID EVIDENCE for God and Christianity can withstand the New Atheists' emotionally compelling and sometimes disturbing attacks. The truth about God is too important not to be seriously investigated and honestly discussed." I quickly put the book on my bookshelf where is has remained for the past 5 months.
I am not the intended audience so maybe it is unfair of me to rate this book. It could be very valuable to someone else who finds religion to be necessary (and I don't say that in a mean way because I think religion is necessary for some people). I believe the audience is only Christians who believe the Bible to be evidence. I am Agnostic and do not believe the Bible was written by God or that religion was created by God. And, I don’t need to be converted back to religion. It took so much hard work to shrug off that burden. I am actually okay with whatever happens when I die. If I go to heaven, great! If Im reincarnated, great! If nothing happens, great! I cannot control that and NOT ONE PERSON ON EARTH knows the truth of it anyway (or the answers to the questions in this book). I wonder why we can't just admit this and move on with our lives. Why is it too uncomfortable to admit we dont have ANY answers? I believe that God wants us to love each other. That's it.
I am not the intended audience so maybe it is unfair of me to rate this book. It could be very valuable to someone else who finds religion to be necessary (and I don't say that in a mean way because I think religion is necessary for some people). I believe the audience is only Christians who believe the Bible to be evidence. I am Agnostic and do not believe the Bible was written by God or that religion was created by God. And, I don’t need to be converted back to religion. It took so much hard work to shrug off that burden. I am actually okay with whatever happens when I die. If I go to heaven, great! If Im reincarnated, great! If nothing happens, great! I cannot control that and NOT ONE PERSON ON EARTH knows the truth of it anyway (or the answers to the questions in this book). I wonder why we can't just admit this and move on with our lives. Why is it too uncomfortable to admit we dont have ANY answers? I believe that God wants us to love each other. That's it.
April 22, 2013
==Christian faith and historical facts presented to confront disbelief==
With their co-authored book, Morrow and McDowell have launched an intellectual and scholastic--as well as the unavoidably theological--defence of God, Jesus, the Church and the Bible in reply to the attacks against religion (especially against Christianity) by the aggressive New Atheist crowd, mainly Hitchens, Stenger, Harris, and--especially--Dawkins. Each chapter also has a postscripted comment by a different Christian apologist. Dozens of other books as well as websites are referenced.
This is a carefully crafted, well rounded, intellectually stimulating and convincingly sincere effort to state orthodox Christian (Protestant) positions on questions and issues raised by atheists and agnostics. The targeted readership of this book is non-believing academics but it is also written for believers who need the ammunition to logically and reasonably defend their beliefs against the onslaught of doubters (and, at times, their own doubts). It probably succeeds as well as can be accomplished on all counts. It is an excellent resource for all participants and observers in the debates surrounding modern faith. Incredibly, with all this effort attended to the contents, I thought the book's cover was irrelevant and artistically lame: a composite of a blurred out traveler at an airport with a Univac-like computer in the background and the book's title on a stark illuminated sign in the foreground.
With their co-authored book, Morrow and McDowell have launched an intellectual and scholastic--as well as the unavoidably theological--defence of God, Jesus, the Church and the Bible in reply to the attacks against religion (especially against Christianity) by the aggressive New Atheist crowd, mainly Hitchens, Stenger, Harris, and--especially--Dawkins. Each chapter also has a postscripted comment by a different Christian apologist. Dozens of other books as well as websites are referenced.
This is a carefully crafted, well rounded, intellectually stimulating and convincingly sincere effort to state orthodox Christian (Protestant) positions on questions and issues raised by atheists and agnostics. The targeted readership of this book is non-believing academics but it is also written for believers who need the ammunition to logically and reasonably defend their beliefs against the onslaught of doubters (and, at times, their own doubts). It probably succeeds as well as can be accomplished on all counts. It is an excellent resource for all participants and observers in the debates surrounding modern faith. Incredibly, with all this effort attended to the contents, I thought the book's cover was irrelevant and artistically lame: a composite of a blurred out traveler at an airport with a Univac-like computer in the background and the book's title on a stark illuminated sign in the foreground.
December 22, 2010
This book is interesting and it made me think about my views. I find it strange that we seem to be working so hard to take God/Christianity out of our society. It seems non-chritians feel christianity infringes on thier rights so it has to be ridiculed, mocked, and somehow removed from the public consciousness. I don't understand why it is so important for many that don't belive in God to be so controlling over those that do. It is almost like "I don't belive in God and your belief in God violates my right to not belive. So you must stop." Does this book answer all my questions, no, but I am glad I read it. For me it still comes down to "Faith", without it all the other questions don't matter. I think this book will help those who belive in God and strenghten their sprituality and if you have that faith and it makes you happy thats a good thing. I dont think it will change the minds of most atheists, for them it is like trying to prove a negative.
July 10, 2012
Very much an introductory text. They really gloss over things and if you've done any reading around the subject, they won't be offering much you haven't already encountered (probably in significantly more depth) and they don't take anything far enough to be at all compelling. It offers a decent starting place as a kind of annotated bibliography, however, and the discussions seem to get better as the book goes on. If you're an agnostic or a Christian who has never engaged with any critical examination of the reasonableness of faith or you've been shattered by the sweeping rhetoric of the "new atheists", this is probably a decent way to get your feet wet. It's not so good if you're looking for the intellectual meat of the issues raised.
December 22, 2010
This was a First Reads book. I hoped it would be an enjoyable debate. It fell short for several reasons. I felt like I was reading a text from a college class and it was a bit dry at times. I thought the authors were slanted and weren't able to present their information without their opinions coming through. I also felt more lectured than informed. I did get a few nuggets of information to ponder, but overall the information was too dry and full of opinions.
July 15, 2012
A very informative read. Authors Morrow and McDowell present common arguments against Christianity raised by the New Atheists and offer the Christian side. I loved that the authors used scientific, historical, and logical arguments to offer a rebuttal, not just spouting bible verses. I highly recommend this book to anyone, but especially Christians looking to find answers to questions about the validity of what they believe in.
January 1, 2025
4.5⭐️
I really enjoyed this book! It was rich with so much knowledge, a lot to think about. I honestly think it would be a great book not only for Christian’s to help strengthen their faith, and to help them deal with some atheists claims, but also for anyone who is in a very questioning stage and not sure what to think on Christianity as a whole.
Really enjoyed it & 100% would recommend.
I really enjoyed this book! It was rich with so much knowledge, a lot to think about. I honestly think it would be a great book not only for Christian’s to help strengthen their faith, and to help them deal with some atheists claims, but also for anyone who is in a very questioning stage and not sure what to think on Christianity as a whole.
Really enjoyed it & 100% would recommend.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 37 reviews