 | | |
| I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist | 
 enlarge | List Price: $15.99
Buy New: $10.33
You Save: $5.66 (35%)
Buy New/Used/Collectible from $7.50
Avg. Customer Rating:  (based on 158 reviews)
Sales Rank: 5213
Category: Book
Authors: Norman L. Geisler, Frank Turek
Publisher: Crossway Books
Studio: Crossway Books
Manufacturer: Crossway Books
Label: Crossway Books
Languages: English (Original Language), English (Unknown), English (Published)
Media: Paperback
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 448
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.2
Dimensions (in): 8.3 x 5.4 x 1.1
ISBN: 1581345615
Dewey Decimal Number: 239
EAN: 9781581345612
ASIN: 1581345615
Publication Date: March 12, 2004
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist argues that Christianity requires the least faith of all worldviews because it is the most reasonable. The authors lay out the evidence for truth, God, and the Bible in logical order and in a readable, non-technical, engaging style. A valuable aid to those interested in examining the reasonableness of the Christian faith, Geisler and Turek provide a firm challenge to the prior beliefs of doubters and skeptics.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 153 more reviews...
Excellent Book January 4, 2009
I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Norman L. Geisler is a very good book. It covers most of the issues including evolution, the principles of morality and cosmology. Geisler builds a strong case for the existence of God. I will have to recommend reading this book along with the actual Bible as well for anyone on the fence.
There is a beautiful new book about God and faith entitled "The Enlightenment, What God Told Me After One Million Prayers: A Message for Everyone," by John H. Eagan. I just finished it. It's really great and deals with God, the creator, Jesus' teachings, and His Passion. It brought me to tears. I think the readers of Geisler's book will really enjoy The Enlightenment.
 Disappointing and dangerous December 25, 2008
0 out of 3 found this review helpful
I had hoped for something better from this book. In their introduction to "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist", Norman Geisler and Frank Turek promise an objective and unbiased evidential demonstration of the veracity of the Christian faith. In it, they present a twelve step syllogistic argument to show beyond all reasonable doubt not only the existence of God, but also that the Bible is His one true word, together with proof of the fact of Christianity as the only true religion in the world.
The problem with any syllogistic argument, of course, is that it only needs one of the steps of logic along the way to be shown to be fallacious for the entire edifice to collapse. Sadly, Giesler and Turek make so many false steps that even half way through this book their argument is so completely discredited at their own hands that there is nothing they can do to salvage it in the mind of any clear thinking individual by the end.
Guisler and Turek's "logic" is a veritable testimony to the power of rhetoric over inductive reasoning. They rely heavily, for instance, on countless false dichotomies, refusing at all times to see the world as anything other than a series of true or false statements; everything that is not black must be white, or vice versa. There is no room in their universe for the beauty of paradox and the lessons to be learned there from. They demonstrate a stunning ignorance of the nature of mathematics, especially the mathematics of infinity, and are clearly unaware of the incompleteness theorems of Kurt Goedel and their implications. (Anyone interested in understanding these issues better may care to read Douglas Hofstadter's "Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid" for an in-depth and rigorous explanation, or "The Science of Discworld" series ("Vol II: The Globe", "Vol III: Darwin's Watch") by Ian Stewart, Jack Cohen and Terry Pratchett for a more popular approach.) Guisler and Turek are also careful in their choice of the scientific "facts" which they present, using only those which support their case, whilst carefully eschewing any mention of those which do not. So, for instance, while their examination of the latest scientific thinking regarding the origins of the Universe is reasonably accurate, their dismissal of current evolutionary biology is pitifully naive and relies on nothing beyond 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' (maintaining a steadfast refusal to examine any actual scientific evidence) simply in order to maintain their (largely unnecessary) position of Man's supremacy in the biological order of things. (Anyone interested in just how far from reasonable their argument is here and how badly they misrepresent current scientific thinking as they set up their straw man of neo-Darwinism may wish to consult "What Is Life?" by Lynn Margulis & Dorion Sagan, "The Music of Life: Biology Beyond Genes" by Denis Noble or, once again, "The Science of Disc World III: Darwin's Watch".)
The section on Moral Law is equally flawed and descends to an almost child-like reliance on word-play to establish God as the sole moral law-giver of the Universe. (For an alternative view of moral law as a natural emergent property of complex systems, without the need of recourse to a just, creator God for its inception, readers may wish to read "Reinventing the Sacred" by Stuart A. Kauffman.)
Perhaps not surprisingly, the theological sections of the book are by far the strongest, although even here the authors demonstrate a singular ignorance of the actual teachings or practices of most other major belief systems and are just as selective in their choice of Biblical evidence (and coy about the existence of much of the evidence that contradicts their views) as in the earlier parts of the book.
By now, you probably have me branded as yet another of those atheist sceptics who refuses to see the wood of the obvious for the biased trees of my own preferences and prejudices. But you'd be wrong. I'm not sure whether this book disappointed me most in its ultimate message that the reader should consider Christianity as true simply because that is both the easiest and safest thing to do, or in its constant denigration of faith as an important cornerstone of religious belief. Far from providing me with any evidential basis for a belief in Christianity, a faith I currently practice, this book did nothing more than suggest to me that atheists are indeed worthy of rather more respect than they currently receive from many within the fundamental religious community. Furthermore, the authors' blatant disregard for any real honesty and open-mindedness in their approach discredits both them and Christianity in general. I found this book disappointing, depressing and dangerously damaging in the extreme.
 Way Beyond Apologetics December 25, 2008
3 out of 6 found this review helpful
I have serious concerns about major inaccuracies in this book; its not just a simple book of Apologetics, which by definition simply defends Christianity against criticism; it goes aggressively into ridiculing other religions and trying to eliminate them as baseless.
It starts with making an erroneous definition of the word agnostic: the authors say an agnostic is someone who is unsure about the question of God. That is quite incorrect: an agnostic states that it is not possible to either prove or disprove the existence of God. There is no uncertainty in that belief; an agnostic is certainly not "unsure; he is certain in his belief that it is impossible to prove God's presence."
The authors need to study other religions in more detail; they seem extremely ignorant about world religions. They classify Zen Buddhism in the category of Pantheism, or "God is All," as they put it. The fact is that Zen would not ever dream of talking about God in the first place. Zen is agnostic system of practice of meditation. Hinduism could perhaps be considered pantheistic, though even that is inaccurate; it has been called panentheistic by some scholars as it considers the Supreme One as pervading the universe, and yet being above and beyond it. The authors have no real idea about Hinduism. They state: "many Hindus believe that evil is a complete illusion, while Christians, Muslims and Jews believe that evil is real." What nonsense. Hindus are very determined to avoid evil in their actions, and are taught to fight evil to the best of their ability. Here's another untruth: "Christians believe that people are saved by Grace while all other religions, if they believe in salvation at all, teach some kind of salvation by good works." Islam believes in obtaining the grace of Allah as the way to paradise; no good works will obtain it. The Hindu Upanishads teach that it is either by surrender to God in devotion, or by the personal knowledge of God in meditation, that moksha, or salvation is obtained. Hindus believe that Brahma is the god of creation, whereas of the Supreme Brahman one of the Upanishads says: "So, when you meet the golden Lord, the creator, the universal spirit, the source of Brahma himself, then, knowing the highest, untainted by the opposites of good or evil, you will have reached the supreme." The Upanishad goes on: "This Lord can neither be realized by studying the scriptures, nor through the use of reason, nor from the words of others no matter what they say. By the grace of the Lord is the Lord known; The Lord reveals himself."
In their chapter concerning the origin of the universe, they seem to think the Bible has a unique claim to the idea that God created the universe. Long before the Bible was written, the Hindu Vedas proclaimed that the Supreme One, whom they called Brahman, created all of the visible universe. Brahman transformed himself into a golden dot, from which the universe came forth, like a spider that spins its web, and yet remained above and beyond the universe to stay in control. If there is any religion that is compatible with the Big Bang theory, it is Hinduism. The authors decry Hinduism as stating it believing that the Universe is eternal. Not so; Hinduism believes in cycling creation and dissolution of universes. The physicist authors of a remarkable new book, "Endless Universe," have given scientific evidence to the fact that the Big Bang was the beginning of our known universe, but that there was a universe prior to that, and likely one prior to that, in an endless fashion of birth and decay. That understanding bears out the teaching of Hinduism, which has taught for thousands of years that our universe had a beginning, and it will have an end, only to lead to the beginning of a new universe.
Then coming to chapter 9. On to Jesus. It is difficult to believe that the authors accept the paragraph from Josephus in his book "Antiquities of the Jews" as authentic, when it has been proved to be a forgery. Josephus in the forged paragraph spoke of Jesus, a wise man, condemned to death on the cross, and rose from the dead three days later. A famous historian only allocates only a small paragraph to someone who rose from the dead? Extremely unlikely; a historian would have written volumes about such a miraculous event.
The rest of the book goes on to try and prove the Jesus is indeed the Son of God, and that the New Testament is inerrant, and absolutely true, in a typical apologetic manner. The fact that the New Testament is littered with contradictions and inconsistencies does not of course bother them a bit. The Bible cannot even keep a consistent account of the death of Judas, one of its main figures. Each gospel has its own version of what happened to Judas. Its not just Judas; the four gospels are so inconsistent, that Bart Ehrman, (chair of the dept of religion, UNC) in his excellent book "Misquoting Jesus" states that it is absolutely impossible to trust anything in the gospels as being authentic. The last part of Mark after the crucifixion was added by someone else. The story of the adulteress and Jesus asking the ones without sin to cast the first stone...was forged by someone other than the author of the gospel.
All said and done, the book is a major disappointment for anyone interested in the truth. Indeed, I found the book highly offensive to followers of other religions, because of its glib dismissal of them, though it likely will provide solace and comfort for Christians desperately searching for something to cling to. It is not a scholarly work; it is simply a crude collection of apologist thought. But above all, it goes to the extreme of religious paranoia. In the old days, non-Christians had to face torture or burning at the stake. Now they have to deal with books such as these. Looks like the clamor will never end.
 Not Enough Faith to be an Atheist December 22, 2008
1 out of 2 found this review helpful
This is an excellent book for non-Christians and Christians alike. Anyone wanting to explore some heavy evidence and understand the truth should read this book.
This is a great book, but people misunderstand it December 18, 2008
1 out of 2 found this review helpful
First, I would like to say that I thoroughly enjoyed this book and that it was a very thought-provoking and persuasive work. I recommend that everyone alive should read it. But if you have the wrong idea about what the book is trying to accomplish, you will probably get upset about it and write an indignant review on Amazon.
The main point of this review is to address certain objections to it put forth by many of its critics. The objections to which I refer chiefly consist of saying that this book does not "prove" anything and specifically, that it assumes intelligent design without "proving" it.
THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT. The point of this book is NOT TO "PROVE" ANYTHING beyond a shadow of a doubt as some people claim or expect. The authors only purport to show that given the data of experience, Christianity is MORE LIKELY TO BE TRUE than alternative explanations such as materialism.
The authors hold that nothing empirical can be proven beyond all doubt (as I think is the hallmark of any reasonable person), but that the truth of explanations are made more or less likely by the amount and quality of evidence for a given position. They continue on to say that we should believe the explanation that is MOST LIKELY given the data. Demanding "absolute" proof for everything you believe would prevent a person who is logically consistent from doing ANYTHING.
Also, believing in the most likely explanation for a phenomenon rather than requiring "absolute" proof IS PERFECTLY CONSISTENT with the methodology of empirical science, as it is always seeking to perfect its understanding of the world by seeking new data and better explanations for the phenomena with which it is concerned. If things in science were taken to be proven beyond an absolute doubt, then science would cease to exist because no new explanations could be allowed or sought after.
A good example of this is the great delay in medical advancement by unquestioning, dogmatic adherence to the Aristotelian biological theory of the four humors. People were not allowed to question these premises for centuries, and thus medical progress in the West was stifled until the Renaissance.
Using presuppositional logic as the authors do is perfectly fine, because the authors' goal is to show that Christianity fits the facts of existence better than alternatives, not to prove it or any of its components beyond any possible doubt. Presuppositional logic is especially useful in this instance, because if flaws can be found in a system's presuppositions, then the system has no chance of being true. However, if a system's presuppositions do not of themselves lead to any contradictions or absurdities, then it must accepted as possible and in need of further investigation.
In sum, requiring that the authors demonstrate their claims beyond any doubt is not only intellectually dishonest, it is impossible. They are merely showing that GIVEN THE DATA OF EXISTENCE, Christianity is the best explanation for everything.
|
|
|
 Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| | |
