I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist

Rating:
Summary: I Agree, But This Book Didn't Convince Me
Review: I am a religious conservative, so this book was "preaching to the choir". And from the choir, I announce, "You're not making your case!"

For one thing, the authors neglect to take on the most insightful advocates of evolution, such as Stephen Pinker. For another, their reasons often must be accepted to be convincing; for instance, they assert that it is "more believable" that a Creator (who came out of nothing) made the universe than that it came out of nothing. To them, perhaps, but to many, both propositions seem equally improbable without support. They also claim that the scientific evidence for the Big Bang is "overwhelming", which it isn't; there are quite a few competing theories from respected scientists. The Big Bang is just the most popular among laymen.

Their attempt to explain evil is the least satisfactory. On the one hand, they claim that God couldn't just *create* us inherently good because that would deprive us of free will, but on the other, they assert that we were created inherently *bad*, which they apparently think doesn't interfere with free will.

The authors rightly point out that the atheist worldview is quite simplistic and that many (not all) who cling to it do so out of base motives. But they don't even do a very good job of this. Rather than read this book, I recommend "If God Is Good, Why Is The World So Bad?" by Benjamin Blech.

Rating:
Summary: Started Out Good But Quickly Derailed
Review: I have read several books trying to convert atheists. This is one of the better ones. It started out good with its look at philosophy, even though it missed the point of some of the philosophies it sought to discredit.

This book was interesting in that it tries to show that Christianity is good science while what most scientists arrive at is bad swcience. The book makes many science errors such as a misunderstanding of entrophy; mistatement of how scientists see life starting; and errors using the concept of time. For example, God is seen as eternal, which means He exists for all of time. However, the author notes that time starts with the Big Bang and thus the universe existed for all time as well (and should be considered eternal).

As mentioned, the author believes in the Big Bang as good science and believes that Genesis must be interpreted to accomodate this. However, such a slipper slope also makes it easy to say that God created by evolution and Genesis should be interpreted this way. Or there was a local flood and Genesis should be re-interpreted.

The author also uses a lot of easy attacks to try to discredit the atheist position. For example, while trying to justify evil in the world, the author states that God can not make someone be sinless and have freewill. However, God is acknowledged to have both. Also, the author states that life is meaningless without a creator. However, that implies that God's life is meaningless since He was not created.

There is also a lot of manipulation of data to try to push a point. For example, the author does a bad job of summarizing the atheist position about the evidence for Jesus. Basically, no one wrote about Jesus that ever saw him personally. The closest is the book of John and that is suspect since John would be referring to himself in the third person. There are also the problems of the Bible recording the Roman census incorrectly.

So overall, it is one of the better books out there defending the Christian position. It does at least recognize the good evidence for the Big Bang. However, it misses out on much more solid science out there.

Rating:
Summary: Fantastic and Well Organized Book
Review: I think most of the reviewers hit the nail on the head. Anther suggestion is to go to Geislers site and purchase the DVD. The DVD is a terrific supplement to the book.

Rating:
Summary: Let's Try to be Objective
Review: I've read several of the reviews about this book and I wanted to bring up a few points mentioned by some of the critics. First, realize that this book was written to a general audience. They wanted it to be readable on a level that could reach a large audience, not just those of us with PhD's in scientific fields. If "higher science" is your thing I highly recommend "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe. He is a well known molecular biologist and he presents some very strong arguments involving irreducible complexity among other things that have yet to be answered convicingly in the scientific community.

Secondly, I've noticed that among all the criticisms in this book there is no answer for the undeniably good arguments it raises. Einstein's theory of relativity has been proven mathematically correct to five decimal places, and it calls for a force outside of space and time (which is the definiton of a "supernatural force") to initiate the creation of the universe. How does something come from nothing. I'm still waiting for the atheist to answer that question. Reguarding evolution, aside from the recent findings that cells themselves are irreducibly complex, I am still waiting for an answer to the gaps in the fossil record. If there are so many transitional forms out there, why are we not up to our ears in them? Why do we find only fully developed species who suddenly appear and disappear? More importantly, how did the FIRST life come to be? If evolution is true, what about meaning and morality and how do I discern the difference in Hitler and Mother Teresa? (to use an example from the book).

The math itself should be enough to make anyone who doesn't believe in an intelligent designer to reconsider. As calculated by an athiest, the chances of life occuring naturally on any planet is 10x138. There are only 10x70 atoms in the universe. Think about it.

Rating:
Summary: Based on a distortion of what atheists believe.
Review: It might take more faith to be an atheist, IF atheism entailed belief in the things the authors claim it does. It doesn't. The authors of this book claim that scientists believe a "one-celled animal known as an amoeba (or something like it) came together by spontaneous generation..."

Small problem. Real scientists DON'T believe that. You will not find any reputable scientist, anywhere, making such a claim. This is not how life originated according to the currently accepted scientific theory of abiogenesis. It simply is not. This is a blatant distortion of how scientists actually think life originated. This tactic is well known fallacy - the straw man fallacy. You attack a distorted, misrepresented (and therefore weaker) version of your opponent's argument, rather than the argument itself. It's like building a straw man, and knocking that down instead of your actual opponent, because knocking down a straw man is easier than knocking down a real one. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on that straw effigy to hurt the man it's made in the image of.

But Geisler and Turek keep pressing this argument, going on to say: "The message found in just the cell nucleus of a tiny amoeba is more than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica combined, and the entire amoeba has as much information in its DNA as 1,000 complete sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica."

They would have you think that scientists believe this incredible level of complexity was generated suddenly by a random chemical process, and point to the astronomical improbability that any such event could ever occur as proof that atheism requires more faith than Christians have in the so-called "intelligent designer". Well as I said, maybe it would require more faith if atheists actually believed these straw man distortions of scientific theories. They don't.

If one bothers to read up on the relevant theories of abiogenesis and evolution, one will find they are solidly based on empirical evidence, and entail no such incredible violations of the laws of probability.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent commonsense presentation of logic and good science
Review: Just as some of the previous negative reviews prove...desperate people will not be swayed by any amount of evidence. They believe what they want to believe, even in the rubble of their defunct circular logic and self-defeating assertions. They are a fine example of the blind faith precisely described in this book.

I DON'T HAVE THAT MUCH FAITH ;)

Rating:
Summary: I have faith, but not that much
Review: Never beleiving in the way of Atheism, I always 'believed' that Atheism was wrong, but yet had trouble proving it. With this book, the authors go into scientifical, logical, and historical evidence, evidence that is NOT dependent on religon.

This book has shown myself, and many others why Atheism simply takes too much faith. In 12 steps, the authors of this book explain and prove beyond reasonable doubt why there is simply no proof of Atheism. If you want to know those 12 steps, get the book!

Rating:
Summary: Excellent Summary of the Evidence for Christianity
Review: Norman Geisler and Frank Turek have managed to pack an incredible amount of evidence for the Christian faith into this highly accessible 448-page book. They have succeeded in crafting a persuasive and powerful case, first, for the existence of God, and, second, for the deity of Jesus Christ. Along the way, they deal with truth, logic, miracles, morality, Intelligent Design, biblical interpretation, and even the age-old question, "If God, why evil?"

As I said in my endorsement of the book, this is a clear, complete, and compelling resource that I wish had been available when I was an atheist. It sure would have made my spiritual investigation a lot easier!

If you're looking for razor-sharp thinking and a one-stop overview of the historical and scientific data that undergird Christianity, then you'll find this book to be an invaluable investment. -- Lee Strobel

Rating:
Summary: Many Questions Answered
Review: Several years ago, I read 'Legislating Morality,' the first book co-authored by Dr. Geisler and Mr. Turek. That most impressive tome dealt with a number of extremely sensitive subjects, including abortion, homosexuality, and euthanasia. With all the topics addressed, the authors' opinions were based upon indepth scholarly research, and their viewpoints were presented rationally and unemotionally. Interestingly, the references cited by these Christian authors were quite diverse, and included the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, the New England Journal of Medicine, and the New York Times.

In their latest collaboration, the authors once again address a most complicated subject, and again they present a well reasoned, extensively researched, explanation as to how they came to their conclusions. After reading the book, one will become convinced that it truly does take more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian. In what would seemingly be a contradictory approach, the authors use science to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the existence of an infinite Creator. Using well accepted scientific research, such as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and an expanding universe, the authors come to what, even for skeptics, is a logical conclusion; that there was indeed a "Big Bang," and it was a supernatural act of God. They give argument as to the impossibility, and illogical belief, that the universe was created out of nothing, by nothing. The book also addresses, and successfully refutes, topics such as macroevolution and Darwinism. Among many other topics covered, a rational explanation as to how miracles truly did, and can, occur is also presented. Using many non-biblical sources, including well researched and accepted historical detail, the authors also lead us to the conclusion that the New Testament, including the Resurrection, is indeed historical fact.

I believe this book will not only have a great impact on the lives of agnostics and atheists, it will also prove to be an incredible resource for Christians as well. In consideration of what is commonly taught as scientific and historical fact, Christians are often asked to defend their beliefs. Now there is a book that helps to answer the difficult questions frequently asked by skeptics, as well as by those who are searching for the truth. No doubt, 'I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist' will become a teaching tool and a guide in Bible Studies, and Churches around the world.

Rating:
Summary: A Flawed Case
Review: This book is flawed for many reasons, but most of all because the authors have no idea how to think like an atheist. If theists were to start from a blank slate thinking about the world they see, most of the smart ones would arrive at the same conclusion millions of atheists arrived before: no evidence, no need to believe, no need for a god, much less proof of the Christian religion. It does not take faith to believe that; all that exists, exists in the natural world. The proof and reality is all around you. This book and the theists are living in a fantasy world.