God Is Great, God Is Good: Why Believing in God Is Reasonable and Responsible

My complaint is not so much that the authors inconclusively try to formulate good arguments, but that they seem to envision themselves as unquestionably solid thinkers, uncovering unquestionable truths. Some of the writers indeed present sensible discussions, which prompts me to add at least one additional star. I find it difficult to add more, however, because the book hardly passes as one of insights as it is heralded to be.A chief illustration of this is the leading essay by William Lane Craig, which demonstrates the persistently flawed logic that the presumably expert community finds acceptable. I should note as elsewhere that I am not one of the atheists, targeted by the authors, but likewise a theist, who, however, is troubled by the various presumptions concerning the nature of God and related questions. It would be better if thinkers allowed themselves to perceive reality as it presents itself, and then decided what categories and names are applicable.Turning to the essay by Dr. Craig, we can examine his arguments. He starts right off with a blunder (p.14): "an argument must meet three conditions:(1) it obeys the rules of logic;(2) its premises are true;(3) its premises are more plausible than their opposites".But if the premises are true, by (2), they needn't be plausible, (3); they are irrefutable.Then, on that page, begins a Cosmological Argument with premise"(1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause."How so? The author alleges "the necessary truth that something cannot come into being from nothing". To suggest otherwise "is to quit doing serious philosophy..." and, "premise (1) is consistently confirmed in our experience".Our experience confirms that every physical event, not everything whatsoever, has a cause. And is "serious philosophy" a logical argument establishing "necessary truth"?The author continues similarly (p.16) by invoking Ockham's razor (that entities shouldn't be multiplied unnecessarily), which has no more justification than an advice, or stating flatly: "The only entities which can possess [timelessness and immateriality] are either minds or abstract objects, like numbers", without justifying this dichotomy. He by way of like suppositions concludes God is a first cause.A Moral Argument (pp.18-19) begins with premise"(1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist."This is justified as "powerful", because "people generally believe" it. That, of course, does not justify the premise. The author asserts it in contesting Dawkins "with his atheism, for under [Darwinian] naturalism we are just animals...and animals are not moral agents". Perhaps under such naturalism objective values do not exist. But can they under other understandings of nature without postulating God? One could say they are mandated by people's self-interests.The Teleological Argument focused on (p.19,ff) offers premise"(1) The fine-tuning of the universe [for intelligent life] is due to either physical necessity, chance or design."Why this trichotomy? No explanation is given; it is merely argued that the first two alternatives are wrong, and therefore the third is right. Let us examine those first two.A reason given for saying the fine-tuning is not due to physical necessity is that "The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for [physical] constants" like "the constant representing the force of gravity". The argument is that "These constants are not determined by the laws of nature", they could be different, and accordingly there is no physical necessity for the fine-tuning. But Dr. Craig, those constants, like anything whatsoever determined to be invariable, are thereby part of the laws! Nature appears to operate by certain fixed laws, be they causal ones, quantitative ones, or others, and accordingly it may be affirmed that whatever happens in it happens by necessity. (If exceptions exist, they may be in areas like free will.)For the chance alternative, it is considered what possible other universes might exist, here obviously taking into account what is conceivable rather than what is observed. The author says: "The problem with this alternative is that the odds against the universe's being life-permitting are so incomprehensibly great that they cannot be reasonably faced". What odds are these? Odds in this world are usually based on physical laws and statistics, making some possibilities prohibitively small. But conceivable worlds have no such limits, with any such world equally possible. That is, our life-permitting universe is one of those equal possibilities, and were there a different universe, it would be fine-tuned for whatever it is. Consequently the chance occurrence of our universe is admissible.The Ontological Argument is the last one represented by a "version" in the book (pp.28-30), and it rests on "possible worlds" similar to the preceding. "All possible worlds" is a phrase known in logic for the abode of deductive laws. The laws apply in any conceivable world. This conceivability then should be understood by possibility in the presented arguments:(1) It is possible that a maximally great being exists.(2) If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.(3) If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.We may stop here; what followed meant obviously to demonstrate that a maximally great being, understood as God, exists. Curiously, Dr. Craig says: "Most philosophers [contend]...The principle issue to be settled...is what warrant exists for [premise (1)]". The other premises "are relatively uncontroversial". Instead, it is (3) for which no warrant appears. Generally, in place of this unexplained version, the original argument by St. Anselm may have served the reader better. It is so clear and persuasive that philosophers have to this day failed to successfully refute it. (On this and more let me direct the reader to my own book, which I am not reluctant to publicize.)The presently reviewed book contains essays not like the preceding abounding in faulty logic, and which are informative, as are for instance those by scientists Behe and Polkinghorne. To that extent the book is recommended.

This book is a collection of essays by some of the world's best Christian scholars. The aim of the book is to answer the "new atheists" like Dawkins, Dennett, hitchens, and others. While some essays deal directly with the arguments put forth by the new atheists, other essays are focused on a particular topic and does not directly interact with the new atheists. Other than that, the book is excellent. The authors point out many of the problems in thinking and faulty logic put forth by the new atheists while avoiding name-calling (save the comment about Dawkins at the end of Craig's essay) and verbal rhetoric. Topics include arguments for the existence of God, arguments for the the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, and questions of morality. This last point is something that the new atheists are continually harping upon, and there are several essays devoted to the topic, including answering questions about the morality of the "God of the Old Testament." One very subtle aspect I appreciated in that chapter is that the author was careful to say that while Michael Ruse was an atheist, he is NOT a new atheist i.e. he is an atheist who is able to think and put forth rational arguments. I appreciate this honesty and distinction.Most importantly, the authors show that one of the main objections leveled against Christianity is totally unfounded; namely, that belief in God and in particular Jesus as the Son of God is irrational. This is a tremendous (and foolish) burden of proof that the new atheists have put on themselves because not only must they show why they think arguments in this book are flawed, but they also must show that it is IRRATIONAL to hold to the arguments. Craig's Kalam cosmological argument laid out in the first chapter of the book comes to mind as simply being impossible to show as irrational to hold. Indeed, I can see people not accepting it, but claiming that it is irrational requires tremendous proof. If you have heard this "irrational" argument leveled against you or your faith, this is the book for you.

Sometimes books that contain a variety of essay are judged on several that are outstanding. I think there is enough outstanding in this book, subtitled "Why Believing in God is Reasonable and Responsible," to make this purchase. As the introduction explains, the so-called New Atheists are doing their best to make theism socially unacceptable. To accomplish this task, they take shots at anyone and everyone who dares to believe that there is a God. Such a person must be either uneducated or intellectually dishonest. In addition, the claim is made how dangerous religion can be. My favorite articles were Craig's chapter 1 (going after The God Delusion), If you've ever heard Craig debate an atheist, these will not be new to you. But I find it amazing how the atheist debaters have to know what Craig is basically going to say and yet choose to ignore his points for two hours. For Pete's sake, at least go ahead and take a stab at attacking a cosmological or moral argument. Dawkins' attempt in The God Delusion is more slander than scholarly.Another excellent chapter is chapter 8 by Alister McGrath (Is Religion Evil?). When put side-by-side, give me Christianity every time over atheism. Even if there is no God, the social helps given to us by religion outweighs anything provided by atheistic systems. If so, perhaps moving to Cuba or North Korea ought to be what you're looking for.Honestly, there were a few snoozers in this list of essays--that's the danger with these types of books--but I think there's enough here to sift through and learn more about reasonable responses to arguments made by the New Atheists.

Great book for anyone interested in the question "Does God exist"

A good variety of informed artilces. One in particular gave me a great advance in understanding

The book is essentially a positive apologetic for belief in God. It is particularly aimed at those who have been taken in by the "new atheism" led by Dawkins and others. It tackles a range of topics from psychology to history and explains how these point to God. This is the first time I have read so many important thinkers in one book. Plantinga, Behe, McGrath and many others are represented. I particularly liked Pockinghorne's discussion on physics, especially the multi-verse theory and its flaw. I think what was missing were contributions on mathematics. Would have loved to see Poythress do that. A good read nevertheless. Strongly recommended!

This book is worthwhile reading for those who are concerned about the rising aggressive atheism present in the UK at the moment.