What do you think?
Rate this book
Greater Than You Think: A Theologian Answers the Atheists About God
The runaway bestsellers God Is Not Great and The God Delusion left Christians feeling defensive but not necessarily equipped to refute the accusations of nonbelievers. The bestsellers have also provoked those who are the fence about whether God exists, and if so, whether He's good. In his trademark elegant prose, Dr Thomas Williams provides accessible but intellectually rich answers for both groups. Questions include "Isn't religion just another name for superstition (or magic or myth)?" "If God is all-good and all-powerful, how can evil exist in the world?" and "Hasn't science disproved God's existence?" For believers and those searching for something to believe in, Dr. Williams offers an easy-to-use resource for building up one's own faith and igniting others'.
192 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 2008
7 people are currently reading
29 people want to read
About the author
Thomas D. Williams
26 books8 followersTHOMAS D. WILLIAMS, LC, is dean of the theology school at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University in Rome. He has also worked extensively for Sky News in Britain covering church and ethical issues. For both NBC and Sky News, Williams covered the final illness and death of Pope John Paul II, the 2005 papal conclave, and the election of Pope Benedict XVI. Williams has appeared as analyst on church affairs for CNN, CBS, ABC, and Fox News and now serves as consultant on Vatican affairs for NBC News and MSNBC.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
January 3, 2015
I'm giving him two stars instead of one star for sincerity, but as an atheist I did not find this book convincing in the least. For one thing, he starts off on a bad foot by saying that all the atheists he knows are angry at or outright hate God. This is ridiculous – most atheists are not angry at God, they simply don't believe in him – it would make as much sense to say that they are angry at purple penguins. He also says that most atheists either have a sin that they don't think will ever be forgiven or they've suffered some kind of horrible loss that is made in atheists. He does not seem to accept the fact that an intelligent person could look at the evidence and come to a different conclusion that he does, i.e., the conclusionthat God does not exist. So this irritated me from the beginning
the rest of his arguments were unoriginal and uninspiring. He gives the issues very surface treatment, and doesn't back up anything he says. He mentioned studies where atheists are supposedly shown to be unhappier than Christians, but never cites the studies or names them so there is no way to follow up and do more research. He also cites another study that says that nonreligious people give less to charity and volunteer less, I read a study that says the opposite, and again he doesn't tell us what the study is so we can verify what he's saying.
He misrepresents the book of Genesis, claiming that evolution puts the same events in order that Genesis does – ignoring the fact that there are actually two creation account in Genesis that are both different from one another. It's a common myth that Genesis gets the same order right as evolutionists do – and the author of this book makes no reference to actual Bible verses to back himself up anyway.
He criticizes a lot of things that were written in Dawkins and Hitchens, but takes a tone of condescension. I suppose this is understandable because these books really didn't hold back on criticism of Christianity and other religions, but it's not very enlightening or encouraging or unbiased. And worse, some of his facts are flat out wrong – scholars still believe that the books of the Bible were written much later than during Jesus's lifetime, not by eyewitnesses or the actual apostles – he sort of admits this, that a chapter later claims that the Bibles were written by eyewitnesses. Also, the historians that he cites were writing much later than Christ's life, and while he admits that the Josephus passage is "controversial" he does not reveal that the vast majority of biblical scholars feel that it is a forgery.
To recap, I did not find this book convincing in the least and it does not challenge me as an atheist. I think it was written more for believers than for atheists, believers that want pat answers to comfort themselves and who don't want to examine atheist arguments too carefully. It's meant to reassure those who are wondering about atheism but want to stay Christian. I don't believe the target audience was atheists at all, and most atheists I know would quickly see through it.
the rest of his arguments were unoriginal and uninspiring. He gives the issues very surface treatment, and doesn't back up anything he says. He mentioned studies where atheists are supposedly shown to be unhappier than Christians, but never cites the studies or names them so there is no way to follow up and do more research. He also cites another study that says that nonreligious people give less to charity and volunteer less, I read a study that says the opposite, and again he doesn't tell us what the study is so we can verify what he's saying.
He misrepresents the book of Genesis, claiming that evolution puts the same events in order that Genesis does – ignoring the fact that there are actually two creation account in Genesis that are both different from one another. It's a common myth that Genesis gets the same order right as evolutionists do – and the author of this book makes no reference to actual Bible verses to back himself up anyway.
He criticizes a lot of things that were written in Dawkins and Hitchens, but takes a tone of condescension. I suppose this is understandable because these books really didn't hold back on criticism of Christianity and other religions, but it's not very enlightening or encouraging or unbiased. And worse, some of his facts are flat out wrong – scholars still believe that the books of the Bible were written much later than during Jesus's lifetime, not by eyewitnesses or the actual apostles – he sort of admits this, that a chapter later claims that the Bibles were written by eyewitnesses. Also, the historians that he cites were writing much later than Christ's life, and while he admits that the Josephus passage is "controversial" he does not reveal that the vast majority of biblical scholars feel that it is a forgery.
To recap, I did not find this book convincing in the least and it does not challenge me as an atheist. I think it was written more for believers than for atheists, believers that want pat answers to comfort themselves and who don't want to examine atheist arguments too carefully. It's meant to reassure those who are wondering about atheism but want to stay Christian. I don't believe the target audience was atheists at all, and most atheists I know would quickly see through it.
January 22, 2022
While I am not an athiest nor consider myself religious, I wanted to read this book to open my worldview. Unfortunately, this book takes on the valid questions posed to Christianity in general and responds with "well athiests are worse than Christians, trust me." There are a few references to external studies, but no critical details on the populations of those studies and no considerations for biases.
The author clearly does not have a sense of self and identity outside of his religion which is why he believes so firmly that Christians are good *because* they are Christians. He notes that their choices to be good people are driven by their faith, but in his feeble explanation, shows that it is fear of not being accepted into heaven or being judged by God that makes them do good things, not the fact that they are good to begin with. Since the author's identity and view of himself is so deeply tied to his religion he makes the mistake of assuming that athiests are the antithesis of this and that their choices are based on their disbelief in God. It seems he cannot fathom that they have identity and morals outside of faith.
The author also brings up some of the horrific things that are known in the history of the Catholic church, but he belittles them or mentions them only to completely overlook them. "The ethnic cleansing and sadomasochism are one thing, but a control freak? Come on!" The author notes as a rebuttal against the writer of a book he is critiquing when the actions of God are called into question. His response shows his acceptance of enthic cleansing and sadomasochism, but his intolerance of the idea that God is a "control freak". This set of priorities is unsettling, and to further it, the author does not return to the flaws or violence that is brought up previously. Similarly, the author mentions in passing the sexual assault that has been reported against priests in the Catholic church, but does not speak on it. Instead he focuses on other lesser areas of criticism.
No where in the book does the author acknowledge the faults and damage done over the history of Christianity.
Finally, many of the authors thoughts are incomplete and unconvincing making this book read more like someone having a small defensive tantrum that they are being questioned for things they stand for.
The author clearly does not have a sense of self and identity outside of his religion which is why he believes so firmly that Christians are good *because* they are Christians. He notes that their choices to be good people are driven by their faith, but in his feeble explanation, shows that it is fear of not being accepted into heaven or being judged by God that makes them do good things, not the fact that they are good to begin with. Since the author's identity and view of himself is so deeply tied to his religion he makes the mistake of assuming that athiests are the antithesis of this and that their choices are based on their disbelief in God. It seems he cannot fathom that they have identity and morals outside of faith.
The author also brings up some of the horrific things that are known in the history of the Catholic church, but he belittles them or mentions them only to completely overlook them. "The ethnic cleansing and sadomasochism are one thing, but a control freak? Come on!" The author notes as a rebuttal against the writer of a book he is critiquing when the actions of God are called into question. His response shows his acceptance of enthic cleansing and sadomasochism, but his intolerance of the idea that God is a "control freak". This set of priorities is unsettling, and to further it, the author does not return to the flaws or violence that is brought up previously. Similarly, the author mentions in passing the sexual assault that has been reported against priests in the Catholic church, but does not speak on it. Instead he focuses on other lesser areas of criticism.
No where in the book does the author acknowledge the faults and damage done over the history of Christianity.
Finally, many of the authors thoughts are incomplete and unconvincing making this book read more like someone having a small defensive tantrum that they are being questioned for things they stand for.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 3, 2019
Williams makes some good points. I appreciated the broad scope of this book as well. It certainly leaves you with a lot to think about. Most of the book is disappointingly superficial though. A good introduction to refuting new atheism (is that even a thing now that it's 2019?), but please don't stop here. You'll be doing yourself a disservice - and atheists, I suppose (as most atheists probably won't be fully convinced by these arguments).
September 2, 2008
This book was written as a rebuttal to the pro-atheist books written by Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris. The book was written by a Catholic priest and is an excellent book written in a very straight foreword style. It helps if you have read the other writers above but not necessary. I think anyone would enjoy this book.
June 2, 2011
Gotta admit -- I just love the title. It's a reply to Christopher Hitchens' 2007 book "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything". I think it's such a great understated response to Hitchens' ridiculous title. Anyway, the book was good and very accessible -- it was funny as well. It had the typical reasonable answers to the typical bizarre atheistic assumptions.
December 8, 2008
Despite the fact that the book is marketed as a fluffy, feel-good inspirational tract, Williams's argument is incredibly keen. I was blown away by the brilliance and brevity with which he refutes Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris. A fantastic short response to the militant atheists.
Want to read
June 23, 2008This one sounds so exciting --- I can hardly wait to get started!
October 4, 2010
A great example of critical thinking and structuring of arguments. I found it dry and uninspiration but that is not what the author was going for.
February 25, 2011
Convincing, at least to this lapsed Catholic.
August 30, 2012
Clear and easy-to-read book. Used some of the arguments for my Logic class. Now I just need to read God is not Great.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews