Is God Just a Human Invention?: And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists

By Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow

Atheism is making a comeback. From bookstores to bus campaigns, the question of God is up for public debate--and well-known atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are leading the charge. While these authors, who have been dubbed "The New Atheists," argue against religion in general, they aim most of their criticisms and complaints at the world's largest religion--Christianity. Why are people reading books that bash God and ridicule faith? And how can Christians respond?

The writings of the New Atheists are especially challenging to the emerging generation who are skeptical of authority and have not been given answers to the hows and whys of faith's honest questions. For these readers especially, authors 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. Divided into two parts--the first addressing the scientific and philosophical challenges to belief in God and the second dealing with the moral and biblical challenges--Is God Just a Human Invention? will respond to each major argument in a way that is balanced, thorough, and easy to understand.

McDowell and Morrow believe that the current religious landscape is both an opportunity and a challenge for people of faith.Now is the time to respond.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Kregel Publications
• Release date: Mar 24, 2011
• ISBN: 9780825489655

Sean McDowell

Dr. Sean McDowell is a gifted communicator with a passion for equipping the church, especially young people, to make the case for the Christian faith. He connects with audiences through humor and stories while imparting hard evidence and logical support of a biblical worldview. Sean is an associate professor in Talbot School of Theology’s Christian Apologetics program at Biola University. Sean is an internationally recognized speaker and the author, co-author, or editor of numerous books. He has a popular YouTube channel in which he discusses apologetics, culture, and worldview issues and regularly hosts conversations with non-Christians. He blogs regularly at seanmcdowell.org and engages a range of different social media platforms.

Book preview

Authors

INTRODUCTION

A Tale of Two

Oxford Atheists

I therefore put to my former fellow-atheists the simple central question: What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute a reason for you to at least consider the existence of a superior Mind?

—Antony Flew

On March 26, 1941, little Clinton made his grand entrance into the world in Nairobi. The expansive Kenyan skies would be his first laboratory and would launch his investigation of a very big world. By the age of six, Clinton was already boring his sister with facts about the planets and how they worked.¹ Eight years later, his family moved back to England (his father joined the Allied Forces in Britain during World War II). It was the big questions of life—Why are we here? Where did we come from? What is our destiny?—that led Clinton to science. But around the age of sixteen, after encountering Darwinism for the first time, he lost his harmless Anglican faith and went off to Balliol College at Oxford University. Upon graduation in 1962, he decided to continue his studies at Oxford by pursuing a doctorate in zoology, specializing in ethology, under Niko Tinbergen. Then, following a brief stint lecturing at the University of California at Berkeley, Clinton returned to Oxford as a professor in 1970.

In 1953, young Alister made his grand entrance in the capital city of Belfast in picturesque Northern Ireland.² Like Clinton, Alister was fascinated by how the world worked. At the age of ten, he built a small reflecting telescope so that he could study the wonders of the heavens.³ As he would later put it, By the age of thirteen, I was hooked. There was no question what I would do with the rest of my life. I would study the marvels of nature.⁴ This passion for discovery fueled his study of chemistry and physics at the Methodist College in Belfast. But along the way and coming of age in war-torn Northern Ireland, it had become evident to him that the sciences had displaced God, making religious belief a rather pointless relic of a bygone age.⁵ So, in 1971, Alister was off to Oxford University to pursue a doctorate in chemistry, specializing in molecular biophysics. And after a season of teaching at Cambridge University and other professional opportunities, he joined the faculty at Oxford in the early 1990s.

Both Clinton and Alister cut their intellectual teeth on atheism. One of these boys would grow up to doubt his atheism; the other would fully embrace it. One would come to be known by such colorful titles as the Devil’s Chaplain and Darwin’s Rottweiler; the other would doubt the intellectual foundations of atheism and go on to earn a second doctorate—this time in theology. Both of them joined the faculty of Oxford, the oldest university in the English-speaking world.⁶

As you may have guessed, Clinton is the atheist and author of The God Delusion, the prominent evolutionary biologist Clinton Richard Dawkins. Alister is the Christian theist and author of A Fine-Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology, theologian Alister McGrath.

How can two intelligent, inquisitive, Oxford-trained scientists arrive at such different conclusions about God? We will return to that fascinating question later in the book.

THE NEW ATHEISM: COMING TO A BOOKSTORE OR BUS STATION NEAR YOU

Atheism is making a comeback. From bookstores to bus campaigns, the question of God’s existence is up for public debate.⁷  Perhaps you’ve seen some of these books topping the best-seller lists: The God Delusion (Dawkins), God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Christopher Hitchens), The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason (Sam Harris), and Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (Daniel C. Dennett). Yes, atheism of a certain flavor is making a comeback and Clinton Richard Dawkins is leading the charge with The God Delusion (which has now sold over 2 million copies). With evangelistic zeal he writes, If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.⁸ And these atheists are taking their newfound commitment seriously—some are even getting debaptized with a hair-dryer ceremony.⁹

If you peruse the books mentioned above, you will encounter some bold claims:

Religion has run out of justifications. Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of anything important.¹⁰

When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion.¹¹

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.¹²

I would be the first to admit that the prospects for eradicating religion in our time do not seem good. Still, the same could have been said about efforts to abolish slavery at the end of the eighteenth century…. The truth is, some of your [Christians’] most cherished beliefs are as embarrassing as those that sent the last slave ship sailing to America…. Clearly, it is time we learned to meet our needs without embracing the preposterous…. Only then will the practice of raising our children to believe that they are Christian, Muslim, or Jewish be widely recognized as the ludicrous obscenity that it is.¹³

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 and the almost two billion people who embrace it—Christianity. If you were to use their writings to create a New Atheist mission statement, it would read, Christianity isn’t just false; it’s dangerous and must be eliminated. The aim of this book is to respond to such claims.

Now to be fair, not all atheists are cut from the same cloth and many do not employ or endorse the New Atheists’ shrill rhetoric. In fact, some of the strongest criticisms of the aforementioned books have come from professionally trained, atheistic philosophers. For example, New York University Professor of Philosophy Thomas Nagel found Dawkins’s attempts at philosophical argument particularly weak and the work of an amateur.* Unfortunately for Dawkins, the vast majority of The God Delusion is not the popularized scientific writing for which he has become famous, but philosophical arguments against God, religion, and Christianity. Nagel is not the first to point out that Dawkins is clearly out of his element. Prominent Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse went as far as to say that "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."¹⁴

* See Thomas Nagel, The Fear of Religion, review of The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, The New Republic (October 23, 2006). One of the leading theistic philosophers in the world, Alvin Plantinga, called Dawkins’s philosophical arguments sophomoric: You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class. This, combined with the arrogant, smarter-than-thou tone of the book, can be annoying. I shall put irritation aside, however and do my best to take Dawkins’ main argument seriously. The Dawkins Confusion, review of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, Books and Culture, March/April 2007, http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2007/marapr/1.21.html (accessed April 17, 2009). 

WHY ALL THE HOSTILITY AGAINST RELIGION?

It wasn’t too long ago that the idea of books like these becoming New York Times best-sellers would have been hard to imagine. So what happened? Why are people reading books bashing God and ridiculing the faithful? Well, that’s a complex question, but we think two reasons must be included in any answer.

First, we live in a post–9/11 world. The events of that terrible day, when three thousand people lost their lives, are seared in the collective memory of our nation, and Americans had front-row seats to see where religious fanaticism can lead. Until that point, such fanaticism had always been going on somewhere else. It is hard to overstate how drastically this event changed our world.

In the days that followed, the cultural conversation turned to the role and value of religion in the public square and in our global society. Such conversations are certainly legitimate and appropriate and can be healthy if done in the right way. But events like 9/11 helped create the cultural context in which the hyperaggressive claims of the New Atheists could actually be entertained by a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

Second, there is a growing undercurrent of unbelief in America. A Newsweek cover story, The End of Christian America, reported that the number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation has nearly doubled since 1990, rising from 8 to 15 percent.¹⁵ Why is this? While sociologists of religion have more than enough polling data to analyze, we think Timothy Keller offers a plausible explanation in his excellent book The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism:

Three generations ago, most people inherited rather than chose their religious faith. The great majority of people belonged to one of the historic mainline Protestant churches or the Roman Catholic Church. Today, however, the now dubbed old-line Protestant churches of cultural, inherited faith are aging and losing members rapidly. People are opting instead for a non-religious life, for non-institutional personally constructed spirituality, or for orthodox, high-commitment religious groups that expect members to have a conversion experience. Therefore the population is paradoxically growing both more religious and less religious at once.¹⁶

Behold the fruit of pluralism and secularization. It seems a growing number of people—on both sides of the God question—are no longer content to play church. Either what people believe is true and they are going to attempt to live out their faith in all areas of life, or it’s false and people shouldn’t waste their time going through the motions of their childhood faith if it really doesn’t make any difference.

So these two factors have generated a cultural conversation about faith and God in the twenty-first century. This is both an opportunity and a challenge for people of faith. But these phenomena also created space for a small yet well-publicized and increasingly vocal New Atheism, whose advocates tell anyone who will listen that if we simply get rid of religion, we can free ourselves from childish nonsense and be about the business of living. Or as the atheist bus campaign ad says, There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.

IS ATHEISM NEW?

Is atheism new? No, it isn’t. Atheism has been around for quite a while.¹⁷ It had its heyday in America during the God is dead movement of the 1960s.* What is new is the biting and powerful rhetoric, as well as the cultural visibility of the New Atheists due to the explosion of the Internet, blogs, and 24/7 coverage of anything and everything—the more controversial and polarizing the better.

* See the April 8, 1966, cover of Time. The God is dead movement so popular in philosophy departments during the 1960s is being reversed by the resurgence of contemporary philosophers who are theists. See the cutting-edge arguments for God’s existence in William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009). An intermediate work is Paul Copan and Paul K. Moser, The Rationality of Theism (London: Routledge, 2003). To begin exploring these questions, see Francis Beckwith, William Lane Craig, and J. P. Moreland, To Everyone an Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004).

Why engage the New Atheists? As we have already seen from the critiques of the New Atheists by fellow atheists, serious doubts have been raised as to whether their arguments are sound. But we must also remember that ours is a society driven by images and slogans, not carefully reasoned discourse or critical analysis. We like our updates in 140 characters or less. We don’t have time for the whole story—the sound bite will have to do. Let’s be honest: our attention span can handle Twitter, Facebook, and American Idol, but long, detailed explanations are, well … too long.

So in a world of sound bites and unexamined slogans, the New Atheists’ forceful rhetoric can seem emotionally compelling and disturbing to those who are unfamiliar with the solid evidence for God in general and Christianity in particular. This is especially true of the emerging generation, which is skeptical of authority and has not been given a compelling, whole-life vision of Christianity, including the hows and whys to faith’s honest questions.¹⁸

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.

ENGAGING THE CLAIMS OF NEW ATHEISTS

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. By the end of the book, we will have explored eighteen important questions raised by the New Atheists.

Before we outline where we are headed in this book, a quick word is needed regarding the New Atheists’ tactical approach in their writings and public debates (which thousands are watching on YouTube). Hoping that something hits the mark, the New Atheists tend to throw everything and the kitchen sink at people. They provide examples and anecdotes designed to appeal primarily to the emotions, and they skillfully use sarcasm and humor—this is especially true of Christopher Hitchens. But humor is not an argument; neither is ridicule (and neither is having a British accent). As with any issue, keep an eye out for whether the claims are actually supported by the evidence or if they are just eloquently communicated. In questions as important as these, you want to base your decisions on a firm foundation.

In part 1 we will deal more specifically with scientific and philosophical challenges to belief in God. Part 1 will include topics such as the nature of faith and its relationship to reason, the possibility of miracles, the origin of the universe, the existence of the soul, and whether Darwinian evolution is really the only game in town.

Part 2 will deal more specifically with moral and biblical challenges to belief in God. Some of the topics discussed will include whether religion is inherently dangerous, the nature of hell, whether the Bible endorses slavery and genocide, the problem of evil, and whether there is any relevant difference between believing in the flying spaghetti monster and believing in Jesus of Nazareth.

We will round out the book by sharing from our spiritual journeys before returning to our tale of two Oxford atheists to see how it is that they could end up at such different places on the question of God. At that point, it will be up to you to decide if the New Atheists have made their case or if the uncaricatured view of Christianity expressed in this book emerges as the most compelling worldview.

The vast amount of literature on these topics can be overwhelming. To help navigate through the literature, we have listed two books at the end of each chapter for further engagement. Also, be sure to check out the appendixes at the end of the book that cover a few other relevant issues (such as, how faith and doubt can coexist, and whether the Bible has been corrupted through the centuries).

CHANGING THE TONE OF THIS CULTURAL CONVERSATION

The truth about God is too important not to be seriously investigated and honestly discussed. Unfortunately, it doesn’t take very long for friendly conversations to devolve into shouting matches—and this helps no one. The fact of the matter is that belief and unbelief are here to stay: neither one will be disappearing anytime soon. So it does no good to vilify the other side. If any real progress is to be made, we must change the tone of this conversation.

In his thought-provoking book No One Sees God: The Dark Night of Atheists and Believers, Michael Novak contends that unbelievers and believers need to learn a new habit of reasoned and mutually respectful conversation.¹⁹ We agree. And that is the spirit we hope found its way into the pages of this book.²⁰

FOR FURTHER ENGAGEMENT

Berlinski, David. The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions. New York: Basic Books, 2009.

Flew, Antony, and Roy Abraham Varghese. There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. New York: HarperOne, 2007.

Notes – Introduction A Tale of Two Oxford Atheists

Epigraph. Antony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: HarperOne, 2007), 88.

1. Simon Hattenstone, Darwin’s Child, The Guardian, February 10, 2003, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/10/religion.science andnature; and the God Delusion debate between Dawkins and Lennox, http://www.fixed-point.org/index.php/video/35-full-length/164-the-dawkins-lennox-debate (accessed December 7, 2009).

2. Alister McGrath, Biography, http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mcgrath/biography.html (accessed April 17, 2009).

3. Alister McGrath, Dawkins’ God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005), 2.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

6. A Brief History of the University, University of Oxford, http://www.ox.ac.uk/about_the_university/introducing_oxford/a_brief_history_of_the_university/index.html (accessed March 30, 2009).

7. See http://www.atheistbus.org.uk.

8. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2008), 5.

9. See the blog post by Darrel Ray (American Atheist Conference, April 12, 2009) on Atheist Nexus: A Community of Nontheists, http://www.atheistnexus.org/profiles/blogs/american-atheist-conference.

10. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (New York: Twelve, 2007), 282.

11. Dawkins, The God Delusion, 5.

12. Ibid., 31.

13. Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation (New York: Knopf, 2007), 87–88. 

14. From the cover of Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicut McGrath, The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007).

15. John Meacham, The End of Christian America, Newsweek, April 4, 2009, http://www.newsweek.com/id/192583 (accessed April 16, 2009). See Darrell Bock, "Making Sense of the Newsweek Article on the Decline and Fall of American Christianity," April 10, 2009, http://blog.bible.org/bock/node/459 (accessed April 17, 2009).

16. Timothy Keller, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (New York: Dutton, 2008), xv.

17. Alister McGrath, The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World, 1st ed. (New York: Doubleday, 2004).

18. An exceptional work detailing this research is David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons, UnChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity—and Why It Matters (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007).

19. Michael Novak, No One Sees God: The Dark Night of Atheists and Believers (New York: Doubleday, 2008), xxiii.

20. For more on changing the tone of the cultural conversation, see Sean McDowell, ed. Apologetics for a New Generation (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2009).

PART 1

Responding to Scientific and

Philosophical Challenges

CHAPTER 1

Is Faith Irrational?

Faith, which is belief without supportive evidence, should not be given the respect, even deference, it obtains in modern society. Faith is always foolish and leads to many of the evils of society.

—Victor Stenger

A distinct mark of the New Atheists is their belief that religion is blind, irrational, and stupid. This is evident in the title Richard Dawkins gave to one of his recent books—The God Delusion. The take-home message is clear: those who believe in God are fools who have been hoodwinked into believing something absurd. Dawkins thinks religious people are deluded.

What could possibly cause Dawkins—and the rest of the New Atheists—to be so staunchly opposed to religion? Why resort to attacking those whose lives are enriched by belief in God? One reason for Dawkins’s hostility seems to be his view that religious belief is not evidentially based: In all areas except religion, we believe what we believe as a result of evidence.¹ In other words, religious faith is blind but in other disciplines—and especially science—we demand evidence for what we believe. Thus, Dawkins concludes that religion is a nonsensical enterprise that poisons everything.²

The idea that faith is opposed to reason permeates the writings of the New Atheists. Dawkins calls faith a delusion, which he describes as persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence.³ Daniel Dennett claims that Christians are addicted to blind faith.⁴ According to Sam Harris, Faith is generally nothing more than the permission religious people give one another to believe things strongly without evidence.⁵ In The End of Faith, Harris writes,

Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever.⁶

If this were true, then we would happily abandon our religious faith and join the ranks of the New Atheism. And we would suggest that you do too. But on what basis can we conclude that religious faith is blind? Since the New Atheists claim to value beliefs that are evidentially supported, where is the evidence to support their belief that religious faith is blind? They cite no one who holds to the beliefs they reject.* The New Atheists regularly proclaim the irrationality of religious faith, and yet they offer no evidence to back it up.

* Perhaps they’ve met some people claiming to be Christians who fit this profile. As David Kinnaman, president of the Barna Research Group, has pointed out in his provocative book UnChristian, outsiders have a pretty low view of Christians: Our research shows that many of those outside of Christianity, especially younger adults, have little trust in the Christian faith, and esteem for the lifestyle of Christ followers is quickly fading among outsiders. David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons, UnChristian (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 11.

WHAT ABOUT DOUBTING THOMAS?

Not so fast, you might be thinking. What about doubting Thomas? Didn’t Jesus scold Thomas for demanding proof while praising those with simple faith? The story of doubting Thomas is frequently cited as proof that Christianity requires blind faith. When the other disciples reported that they had seen the risen Jesus, Thomas refused to believe until he could see the nail marks and put his hands where the nails had been and into Jesus’ side where he had been speared. A week later, Jesus showed up and gave him the very evidence he demanded. Then Jesus spoke these words to Thomas, Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.⁷

Dawkins cites this text in The Selfish Gene as proof that Christianity opposes reason. He writes, Thomas demanded evidence…. The other apostles, whose faith was so strong that they did not need evidence, are held up to us as worthy of imitation.⁸ If we isolate Thomas’s story from its context, then it could plausibly be interpreted as a repudiation of evidence-based faith, as Dawkins suggests. But there are several problems with taking this approach.

First, Jesus predicted his resurrection on multiple occasions in the presence of the disciples.⁹ Thomas should not have been surprised at the return of Jesus. Second, Thomas heard eyewitness testimony (evidence) from the rest of the disciples and yet still refused to believe. (The vast majority of scientific knowledge we possess depends upon trusting the conclusions of other scientists, which is true for virtually all disciplines.) Third, Jesus did many miracles during his ministry as proof of his identity. In fact, right after the story of Jesus scolding Thomas, John said the miracles of Jesus were recorded so that you may believe Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and by believing you may have life in His name.¹⁰

BIBLICAL FAITH

The fact that some Christians may have blind faith is not the same as Christianity itself valuing blind faith and irrationality. Mainstream Christianity has always emphasized that faith and reason go together. Indeed, biblical faith is trust in God because he has shown himself to be reliable and trustworthy. Faith is not belief in spite of the evidence, but belief in light of the evidence.

The New Atheists like to lump all religions together and to dismiss them with sweeping generalizations. But Christianity is unique in valuing the role of the mind which includes the proper use of reasoning and argumentation.¹¹ Jesus said to love God with all your heart, all your soul, and with all your mind.¹² The Lord said to the nation of Israel: Come now, let us reason together.¹³ An emphasis on the value of the mind pervades Scripture and church history.

In the Old Testament, God showered Egypt with miracles before inviting Israel to follow him into the wilderness.¹⁴ Rather than asking Israel for blind allegiance, God performed miracles through Moses so they could have reason to trust him. Exodus 14:31 makes this clear: "And when the Israelites saw the great power the L

ORD

displayed against the Egyptians, the people feared the L

ORD

and put their trust in him and in Moses his servant." Miracles preceded the call to belief and laid the foundation for a rational step of faith.

In the New Testament, Jesus specifically did miracles so that people would know who he was and, as a result, confidently place their faith in him. Jesus wanted his followers to exercise an intelligent faith, not a blind one. During a trip to Capernaum, Jesus stopped to preach in a packed house. In a desperate attempt to get their friend healed by Jesus, four men lowered a paralytic down through the roof. After forgiving the man’s sins, Jesus said to the crowd, But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins, and then to the paralytic himself, I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.¹⁵ Jesus healed the man so people would know he spoke with authority from above. Rather than calling people to exercise blind faith, Jesus provided evidence (miracles) so that people could exercise an intelligent faith in him.

Many religious leaders have asked for people to follow them, but Jesus uniquely showed himself to be a reliable and trustworthy object of faith. As David Clark reminds us, Faith derives its value not from the intensity of the believer but from the genuineness of the one she believes in. True faith is faith in the right object; faith in an unfaithful person is worthless or worse.¹⁶ In contrast to

Reviews for Is God Just a Human Invention?

[katkealy · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

Ugh... the review I read of this got me to even buy it, since the library didn't have it, but I hated it.

[amramey · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow, eds. Is God Just a Human Invention? And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists. Kregel, 2010. 304 pp. $16.99.As suggested by the book's subtitle, this book is a response to the New Atheists (e.g., Dawkins' The God Delusion; Hitchens' God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything; Harris' End of Faith and Dennett's Breaking the Spell). These New Atheist authors "are on a crusade against religion." McDowell and Morrow's book is a response to the writings mentioned above. The book employs 19 different authors in eighteen chapters, including apologists such as Greg Koukl and Paul Copan.Many of the chapters include the predictable subjects of evolution, science, miracles and hell. Some more unique topics include Christianity and sexual repression and the Bible and slavery. This book is college freshman level reading and serves as a good introduction to the field of apologetics. If you are looking to get your feet wet, here is a good place to begin.

[ashleighandjeremiah · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I was generally pleased with the book in that it moved relatively quickly and I found it to generally be quite entertaining. I found the breadth of topics covered to also be quite enjoyable, but even so the chapters were a bit terse in dealing with the subject matter. I understand that this is necessary to have broad appeal and reflects the intended audience of the book, but I generally prefer that apologetics books, especially those that appear to be geared towards the home crowd, be thorough in addressing atheist claims. The brevity of the articles undermines the usefulness of the text given that it is supposed to arm the reader with answers to the most common charges of the New Atheists. That said, I found myself rather annoyed by the way the book wastes time on non-essential issues. I realize that many Christians do not believe in evolution, but, given their statement that if they found the science compelling they would believe it too, wouldn't it have been more worthwhile to philosophically explore why evolution does not automatically preclude the existence of God than fight another uphill battle against it. As someone who finds the question of evolution unimportant, it disappoints me to see such time devoted to it. I was likewise disappointed by the discussion about the existence of the soul. There are many Christian philosophers who do not believe in a soul. This sounds crazy if you haven't been introduced to the arguments, but it is actually quite reasonable. The Old Testament has no concept of a soul that survives death. Such ideas find their root in Platonic thought. It would have been nice to have a genuine, Christian philosophical approach to the non-existence of the soul rather than an unnecessary defense based on near death experiences of all things. Talking about NDEs is a complete waste of time, and will only open up the faith to ridicule. Plenty of people are revived without ever experiencing anything of the sort. In short, I generally liked the book, but I was annoyed by its philosophical shortcomings. There are better and more logically consistent answers to some of these questions. I encourage the reader to seek them out. (For a good Christian discussion of the soul issue consider "Body, Soul, and Human Life" by Joel Green or "Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies" by Nancy Murphy both available on amazon)

[wkelly42 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

"New Atheism" is on the rise, apparently. With it's open hostility to theism in general and Christianity in particular, NA has gained a following among people who are disenchanted with Christians and looking for something different from organized (or disorganized) religion. And while there have been apologetic books written that deal with New Atheism (McGrath's Dawkins Delusion is one of the best in that group), there hasn't been a good overview to the subject until now.Sean McDowell has written a good, basic primer on New Atheism and evidentialist approaches to countering it. As other reviewers have mentioned, there is very little Scripture in this book; McDowell spends most of his time establishing the philosophical underpinnings to theistic belief. In a discussion with New Atheists, I think this type of approach is vital, since they will dismiss out of hand any evidence based on Scripture. If you remember this simple thing, and consider the audience the book is written for, then you may understand a bit better why there is a reliance on philosophy over revelation.Is God Just a Human Invention? is a good starting point for anyone wanting to look at modern apologetics, especially those who are having to cope with New Atheist attacks on faith. It certainly should not be the final resource, though.

[kpjackson · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Overall this book is very good. I wasn't sure what to expect when I first picked it up; so many books on apologetics take the wrong tack and try to approach the problem from a worldly point of view. This book, overall, takes a fairly solid biblical perspective, although much of depends on the author of the particular section. This is one of the bigger complaints I have with the book. With so many authors contributing the overall effect is uneven, with some sections being very well written and solid and others not as much so.I would recommend this book for anyone looking to get a basic understanding of the way to answer questions from the "new atheists", but would warn you to be a Berean and check everything against the scriptures to make sure they are true.

[wisewoman_1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

In this book, authors Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow use the arguments of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and other prominent atheists as the jumping-off point to discuss questions of God's existence, Christian morality, science, evolution/creationism, history, Scripture, and more. The style is engaging and friendly, even when dealing with the kind of vicious statements that Dawkins in particular likes to make, and this is refreshing. And much of the evidence that McDowell and Morrow offer is compelling. You can probably sense the "but" coming up here shortly... we'll get there.At first I was enamored of the book. Look at all this amazing proof! The evidence for a Creator is astounding! The reasons for faith are powerful! How can anyone even argue? But as I read further, I began to bump into things that were problematic, little theological statements that weren't quite right or that told only a part of the truth. I understand not wanting to just cite Scripture to people who don't accept it as authoritative, but some things cannot be explained any other way. In short, this book approaches the question of God from an evidentialist perspective, which basically means that it relies on sources outside Scripture (such as our observations of life, common sense, reason, history, studies, science, etc.) to make its case.I think it can be very helpful to examine the evidence outside of Scripture for God's existence, and there is certainly a place for this type of apologetic approach when dialoguing with skeptics. But if we rely solely on an evidentialist argument, we've cut the ground from under our own feet, because our foundation is Christ as revealed in His Word. As Christians, we believe that the Bible is always relevant and always right. Our interpretations aren't always infallible, but we can trust God. A solely evidentialist approach discounts the power and perfection of Scripture in favor of human arguments — some of which may be right, but none of which is authoritative.There are some disappointing theological statements in the book. In particular, the chapter on Hell — while making some great points, such as Hell being relational — really falls down. The truth is, we can't postulate about Hell outside of Scripture because we simply don't know. We will never be able to justify Hell to skeptics, but our efforts are even more futile when we attempt to explain spiritual things in carnal language. We can't depart from divine revelation when we are explaining divine things; we will not arrive at a correct conclusion with only our own wisdom to guide us. I agreed with many things in this chapter, but on the whole it was a disappointment.Also the authors candidly admit that they wish God never told the Israelites to conquer the Canaanites and obliterate them completely. We may not like certain things in Scripture, but if God included it, it is His Word and we are to love it. It's okay to be honest about our reactions to things in the Bible, but we need to wrestle with those things and rest in the knowledge that God's wisdom is greater than ours. If it pleases Him to include it, it should please me to learn from it. Again, this is an area in which the authors try too hard to make sense to a skeptic. Some things just won't make sense until we are converted, and even then we may struggle with understanding God's purposes. It really does come back to faith in the end.Despite my overall sense of the book's faults, I learned much from it. The discussion of naturalism is particularly helpful. Naturalism is the belief that everything we are is a product of our physical bodies and environments, that personality and selfhood are myths we've created to comfort ourselves, and that ultimately we are nothing more than the sum of the atoms that comprise our physical selves. There is no spiritual component to man and when we die physically, we simply cease to exist. This is the root belief that atheism comes from. It isn't atheism versus Christianity; it is naturalism versus theism.I really appreciated the chapters on evolution and science and the supposed disconnect between science and creationism. Dawkins loves to say that no educated or intelligent person believes in creationism, but he is patently incorrect in this claim, as McDowell and Morrow demonstrate with quotes from many leading scientists. (As a side note, I would love to hear Dawkins' response to the consistent, verifiable refutations of his claims that McDowell and Morrow have gathered from various scholarly sources.) But we don't believe a thing because leading scientists and philosophers do; both sides can produce impressive lists of supporters. And this is where the evidentialist side of the argument is very valuable; Scripture says such-and-such, and look! here's a bunch of evidence that corresponds to what the Bible has been saying for centuries. It won't convince people who are determined to believe the opposite, but it may raise questions for those with open minds.I liked having galley proofs of this book because I felt free (and had room) to write in the margins, to underline and circle and star the important bits. I also engaged in some argumentative marginalia (always fun stuff) when McDowell and Morrow made statements I did not find Scripturally supportable.For atheists who enjoy being scornful of and belittling people who profess faith in God, this book will probably not hold much appeal. McDowell and Morrow aren't interested in getting nastily personal or in gleefully pointing out the stupidity of their opponents. Instead they try to take on real questions and provide viable answers from Christianity. They don't succeed perfectly, but there is much of value here to the person who is sincerely seeking.Overall, I think I'd recommend this book — to my atheist/skeptic friends as a discussion-starter (with a few caveats), and to fellow believers as encouragement in our faith. The empirical evidence we have for the existence of God is not conclusive, nor is it the whole story; I am thankful we have His Word to teach us to place our faith not in ourselves or our wisdom, but in the God who has revealed Himself to us in Scripture.

[bluewoad_1 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

I've been looking for quite some time for a good book that takes the 'New Atheists' head on from a good, Biblical perspective. Dawkins and his ilk attack the Bible and Christian belief from a purely secularist point of view that often gets the thinking wrong. All they're really proving is that their point of view does not understand -- and cannot understand -- the things of God. To date, the books I've read that are a response to the New Atheists do not start from the Bible, but from as much a secular idea of what is right and wrong as the New Atheists themselves! 'Is God Just a Human Invention?' is just one more such book.Perhaps the best way to see this is to look at one sample chapter. The one that stuck out to me as the most infuriating in their inability to give God His due was chapter 12, 'Is Hell a Divine Torture Chamber?' The contention the New Atheists put forward is that a 'loving God' cannot and would not create a place where He purposefully sends His own creation in order to torture and torment them for eternity. The authors respond by making hell out to be a place where we choose to go. They build their argument around C.S. Lewis's idea that 'everyone is becoming something' and that thus, in the end, if we have become someone worthy of hell, then God is off the hook.However, the Bible clearly teaches that hell is where those who sin against God and do not repent are sent. (See Shedd's 'The Doctrine of Endless Punishment' for more.) There is no sense of 'becoming' in the Biblical doctrine of hell. Rather, our sinfulness is something that we have from our mother's womb (Psalm 51:5). If there is any 'becoming' that the Bible speaks of, it is that of becoming repentant before God against Whom we have sinned (2 Peter 3:9). Hell is the right and proper destination of those who have lived their lives in open rebellion against God; it is not a place that people gradually work their way towards. Instead of focusing on this idea of 'becoming,' the authors would have been much better in pointing out the truly Biblical doctrine of divine punishment. What the reader gets, then, is just another man-made idea of how to explain hell. Is it any better than the New Atheist description? A bit. But is it Biblical? Not really.And that's how the whole book is: one chapter after another that do not give a theological/Biblical response but a philosophical response. Of course, the New Atheists are not known for being very deep in their philosophical musings, but providing just more philosophical musings is not the answer that should be provided. Rather, what is needed is a putting forth of God's truth. We should not be ashamed of His truth, but should declare it. If ungodly man doesn't like it, then glory to God for His truth! If they repent when faced with His truth, then glory to God! But no glory is brought when we try to explain God apart from His divine revelation.

[torrey23 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

The authors seek to offer arguments against atheism. Throughout the first part of the book they do a good job. The first part deals with science and philosophy. The second part of the book is less valuable. The second part deals with biblical and moral issues. The authors reject a literal interpretation of the Bible at points throughout the second section. For example, they argue that the Bible is not being literal when it describes Hell as a place of fiery torment. The flames are not real, or so the authors contend. This rejection of biblical literalism is disappointing to me. I found their arguments in the second section to be much weaker than those in the first section. Either way, it is an easy read, and I would reccomen it to anyone interested in the topic.

[amcole_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I received a free, advanced copy of Is God Just a Human Invention? And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists by Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow through LibraryThing. The copy I have is not ready for publication-it is 8.5 x 11, has a very confusing reference scheme, and still has editorial remarks in the text. Because of that, I'll focus primarily on the writing and not on physical features.The authors have used a popular style, so the book is not a difficult read. They divide the book into two parts. The first deals with scientific and philosophical objections; the second addresses charges against Christian morality and the Bible's trustworthiness. The book consists of 18 chapters and 3 appendices making a total of 195 pages (in my copy). To my chagrin they use endnotes.The chapters are short (usually fewer than 10 pages) and well-written. A special "Why it Matters" feature follows each chapter. These features are one-page essays written by contributing authors including Gregory Koukl, John Warwick Montgomery, Randy Alcorn, and Darrell Bock. A full list of the chapter titles is provided at the end of the review.I profited from reading the book. The authors include helpful quotations from both believing and non-believing sources to make the case that the New Atheists (Dawkins, Hitchins, and Harris primarily) make insupportable assertions about Christianity. I also like that the book addresses current accusations one by one, showing that Christianity is untouched when the charges are thoroughly thought through. Several statements stuck out, but I especially appreciated that the authors emphasize the fact that we people are the problem since evil exists in every worldview. These authors also repeatedly invite readers to believe the veracity of Jesus' claims.Some may think the book gives too much ground when it comes to the origin of the world (Chapters 1-4) or that the authors don't hold a literal enough view of hell (chapter 12). But readers should remember that the book is an answer to critics (intended of course to encourage believing readers), so they may just concede some points for the sake of their argument. I though the discussions on the morality of Christianity were helpful. The book carefully addresses the topics of slavery (chapter 11), war (13), sexuality (14), and evil (16).The book begins and ends with interesting biographies. The first pages contrast the lives of Alistar McGrath and Richard Dawkins. The end of the book carries the personal accounts of how Morrow and McDowell struggled through their doubts about the veracity of Christianity. This book is a careful, congenial record of what they learned. I think you'll enjoy and benefit from it.Chapters: (1) If Faith Irrational?; (2) Are Science and Christianity at Odds?; (3) Are Miracles Possible; (4) Is Darwinian Evolution the Only Game in Town?; (5) How Did the Universe Begin?; (6) How Did Life Begin?; (7) Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life?; (8) Has Science Shown There Is No Soul?; (9) Is God Just a Human Invention?; (10) Is Religion Dangerous; (11) Does God Intend for Us to Keep Slaves?; (12) Is Hell a Divine Torture Chamber?; (13) Is God a Genocidal Bully?; (14) Is Christianity the Cause of Dangerous Sexual Repression?; (15) Can People Be Good Without God?; (16) Is Evil Only a Problem for Christians?; (17) What Good is Christianity?; (18) Why Jesus Instead of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?The Appendices are: (A) Resources for Engaging the New Atheism and Thinking About God; (B) Dealing with Doubt on the Journey of Faith; (C) Is the New Testament Filled with Contradictions and Corrupted Texts?

[jstamp26 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Atheism has taken a more aggressive turn in recent years, due in large part to the communication skills of some of its leading proponents. Men like Richard Dawkins and Christiopher Hitchens are gifted thinkers and skilled authors who have challenged the nominal faith of many. Naturally, their salvos have been met by leading Christian thinkers who have argued skillfully that Theism is entirely reasonable; however, the majority of this battle has taken place in the halls of the academy. McDowell and Morrow offer a layman's response to the New Atheism. They deal with it point by point, trying to understand the opposing argument and then offering a reasonable counter. In most instances, they are successful. They provide a thoughtful defense of the Theism in general and the God of the Bible in particular. They have examined the atheists' arguments, understood them, and disproven them. That is not to say the work is perfect. In several cases, they have talked past their opponents rather than with them. Furthermore, they occasionally miss the force of the atheistic argument. However, these are exceptions rather than the rule. Overall, this work succeeds in its task of introducing the reader to the reasonableness of the Christian faith.

[atimco-1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

In this book, authors Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow use the arguments of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and other prominent atheists as the jumping-off point to discuss questions of God's existence, Christian morality, science, evolution/creationism, history, Scripture, and more. The style is engaging and friendly, even when dealing with the kind of vicious statements that Dawkins in particular likes to make, and this is refreshing. And much of the evidence that McDowell and Morrow offer is compelling. You can probably sense the "but" coming up here shortly... we'll get there.At first I was enamored of the book. Look at all this amazing proof! The evidence for a Creator is astounding! The reasons for faith are powerful! How can anyone even argue? But as I read further, I began to bump into things that were problematic, little theological statements that weren't quite right or that told only a part of the truth. I understand not wanting to just cite Scripture to people who don't accept it as authoritative, but some things cannot be explained any other way. In short, this book approaches the question of God from an evidentialist perspective, which basically means that it relies on sources outside Scripture (such as our observations of life, common sense, reason, history, studies, science, etc.) to make its case.I think it can be very helpful to examine the evidence outside of Scripture for God's existence, and there is certainly a place for this type of apologetic approach when dialoguing with skeptics. But if we rely solely on an evidentialist argument, we've cut the ground from under our own feet, because our foundation is Christ as revealed in His Word. As Christians, we believe that the Bible is always relevant and always right. Our interpretations aren't always infallible, but we can trust God. A solely evidentialist approach discounts the power and perfection of Scripture in favor of human arguments — some of which may be right, but none of which is authoritative.There are some disappointing theological statements in the book. In particular, the chapter on Hell — while making some great points, such as Hell being relational — really falls down. The truth is, we can't postulate about Hell outside of Scripture because we simply don't know. We will never be able to justify Hell to skeptics, but our efforts are even more futile when we attempt to explain spiritual things in carnal language. We can't depart from divine revelation when we are explaining divine things; we will not arrive at a correct conclusion with only our own wisdom to guide us. I agreed with many things in this chapter, but on the whole it was a disappointment.Also the authors candidly admit that they wish God never told the Israelites to conquer the Canaanites and obliterate them completely. We may not like certain things in Scripture, but if God included it, it is His Word and we are to love it. It's okay to be honest about our reactions to things in the Bible, but we need to wrestle with those things and rest in the knowledge that God's wisdom is greater than ours. If it pleases Him to include it, it should please me to learn from it. Again, this is an area in which the authors try too hard to make sense to a skeptic. Some things just won't make sense until we are converted, and even then we may struggle with understanding God's purposes. It really does come back to faith in the end.Despite my overall sense of the book's faults, I learned much from it. The discussion of naturalism is particularly helpful. Naturalism is the belief that everything we are is a product of our physical bodies and environments, that personality and selfhood are myths we've created to comfort ourselves, and that ultimately we are nothing more than the sum of the atoms that comprise our physical selves. There is no spiritual component to man and when we die physically, we simply cease to exist. This is the root belief that atheism comes from. It isn't atheism versus Christianity; it is naturalism versus theism.I really appreciated the chapters on evolution and science and the supposed disconnect between science and creationism. Dawkins loves to say that no educated or intelligent person believes in creationism, but he is patently incorrect in this claim, as McDowell and Morrow demonstrate with quotes from many leading scientists. (As a side note, I would love to hear Dawkins' response to the consistent, verifiable refutations of his claims that McDowell and Morrow have gathered from various scholarly sources.) But we don't believe a thing because leading scientists and philosophers do; both sides can produce impressive lists of supporters. And this is where the evidentialist side of the argument is very valuable; Scripture says such-and-such, and look! here's a bunch of evidence that corresponds to what the Bible has been saying for centuries. It won't convince people who are determined to believe the opposite, but it may raise questions for those with open minds.I liked having galley proofs of this book because I felt free (and had room) to write in the margins, to underline and circle and star the important bits. I also engaged in some argumentative marginalia (always fun stuff) when McDowell and Morrow made statements I did not find Scripturally supportable.For atheists who enjoy being scornful of and belittling people who profess faith in God, this book will probably not hold much appeal. McDowell and Morrow aren't interested in getting nastily personal or in gleefully pointing out the stupidity of their opponents. Instead they try to take on real questions and provide viable answers from Christianity. They don't succeed perfectly, but there is much of value here to the person who is sincerely seeking.Overall, I think I'd recommend this book — to my atheist/skeptic friends as a discussion-starter (with a few caveats), and to fellow believers as encouragement in our faith. The empirical evidence we have for the existence of God is not conclusive, nor is it the whole story; I am thankful we have His Word to teach us to place our faith not in ourselves or our wisdom, but in the God who has revealed Himself to us in Scripture.

[moses917_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Atheism has recently seen a resurgence in this generation, reestablishing its presence in the public square of thoughts and ideas. Its popularity has also been driven by its rise in its newest spokesmen like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and others. Many of these authors have been dubbed “The New Atheists”. They aim there arguments against religion in general but their main attacks are against Christianity.Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow in there new book "Is God Just a Human Invention? And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists" give a ready defense to questions thrown at Christianity. The book is divided into two parts, with the first addressing the scientific and philosophical challenges to belief in God such as (1) Is faith irrational? (2) Are science and Christianity at odds? (3) Are miracles possible? (4) Is Darwinian evolution the only game in town? (5) How did the universe begin? (6) How did life begin? (7) Why is the universe just right for life? (8) Has science shown there is no soul? (9) Is God just a human invention?The second part of this work deals with the moral and biblical challenges like (10) Is religion dangerous? (11) Does God intend for us to keep slaves? (12) Is Hell a divine torture chamber? (13) Is God a genocidal bully? (14) Is Christianity the cause of dangerous sexual repression? (15) Can people be good without God? (16) Is evil only a problem for Christians? (17) What good is Christianity? (18) Why Jesus instead of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster?"These so called new atheists live by one presupposition which is there central thesis. That Christianity isn't just false but it's dangerous and must be eliminated. The new atheisms desire is to completely remove Christianity and its voice from the public square. The funny thing is this new atheism is really a lot of old news. Many of the present day arguments mentioned by the new atheists are nothing but refrabrications of old refutations from previous atheists like Friedrich Nietzsche and Karl Marx. These new atheists do not have an new information or data to attest to their claims that Christianity is delusional myth. What I loved about the book also is as each chapter answers one of the questions of the new atheism, a brief but concise postscript section called “Why It Matters” follows each chapter. These postscripts offer additional info from other great apologetic thinkers like William Dembski, Randy Alcorn, Greg Koukl, Darrell L. Bock, Paul Copan, Frank Turek, and many others. I most definitely recommend this book at a perfect reference for those who want to understand and be familiar with the arguments. A great read for a believer or a skeptic.

[mrjack_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This is a review of an advance reading copy (unedited galley proof) of Is God Just a Human Invention? And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists (2010) by Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow.A few decades ago there were only a few atheists who were out of the closet, the most famous of whom was Madalyn Murray O'Hair. Then the Internet happened. Atheists found out about each other, communicated with each other, formed organizations, and established their presence on the World Wide Web. New atheist leaders emerged and new books promoting atheism were written. The "new atheists" are the writers of a series of six best-selling books by five authors that appeared in the period 2004–2008. These authors are Sam Harris, Daniel C. Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Victor J. Stenger, and Christopher Hitchens. Other fresh new faces in their camp, such as Michael Newdow, are taking up the battle in court to get "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God we trust" off of our money. The time is ripe for a new crop of Christians to take up the banner for God in their campaign against these forces of ungodliness. Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow are two who have joined that campaign by authoring this book, Is God Just a Human Invention? (Incidentally, Sean McDowell is the son of the elder apologist, Josh McDowell.)The title of the McDowell/Morrow book is one of eighteen questions raised by the new atheists. Nine of the questions can be classified as scientific and philosophical challenges to faith: (1) Is faith irrational? (2) Are science and Christianity at odds? (3) Are miracles possible? (4) Is Darwinian evolution the only game in town? (5) How did the universe begin? (6) How did life begin? (7) Why is the universe just right for life? (8) Has science shown there is no soul? (9) Is God just a human invention?The remaining nine questions can be classified as moral and biblical challenges to faith: (10) Is religion dangerous? (11) Does God intend for us to keep slaves? (12) Is Hell a divine torture chamber? (13) Is God a genocidal bully? (14) Is Christianity the cause of dangerous sexual repression? (15) Can people be good without God? (16) Is evil only a problem for Christians? (17) What good is Christianity? (18) Why Jesus instead of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster?" (According to Wikipedia, "The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is the deity of the parody religion the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Pastafarianism.")The foolish proposition that "there is no God," Psalm 14:1, is as old as theism. Only the atheists have changed from old to new. The new atheists have but one new thing to say about atheism as set forth in their central thesis: "Christianity isn't just false; it's dangerous and must be eliminated!" In other words, the aim of the new atheists is not simply to repudiate God, but to completely eradicate Christianity from public and private life. According to McDowell and Morrow, none of the new atheists has uncovered any fresh scientific, philosophical, or historical evidence that weakens the claims of Christianity. It's all old news. In fact, according to McDowell, most of the arguments used by the new atheists are recycled from earlier generations of atheists, such as, Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud.Although McDowell and Marrow have little new to say in defense of God and Christianity, their answers to the eighteen questions raised by the new atheists have a compelling freshness about them, providing a rational basis for the Christian faith for this generation. Their book is a lively defense of four famous arguments that have been espoused by Christian apologists since the 2nd century AD. First, there is the contingency argument arising from the question of why there is anything at all, if not for God. Second, there is the cosmological argument that whatever begins to exist must have a cause, a first cause, God. Third, there is the teleological argument or the argument from design that demands a designer, God. And, fourth, there is the moral argument arising from the presence and expectation of good behavior in all cultures, a presence and expectation originating from the giver of all good things, God Above.Bottom Line: This book would make an excellent study resource and guide for a church group of older adolescents or young adults.

[mtolosa_27 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

A book addressing the questions and accusations raised in the public sector by the New Athiests is nothing brand new. What is unique about this book is its ability to be accessible to the theologian, as well as, the church member. McDowell and Morrow divide the book into two sections: Scientific and Philosophical challenges and Moral and Biblical Challenges.The first section of the book is the more informative for this reader. The authors specifically look at nine questions/accusations that are being launched at those who believe in God. The authors particularly engage with three prominent New Athiests: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. Almost every chapter begins with a quote from one these three men that are related to the topic at hand. In addressing the first section of the book, the authors challenge these men’s mindsets that there is no possibility of God, Christian or not. It is obvious from engaging with the New Athiests that blanket statements concerning their position or contrary to the religious position, are considered the only logical conclusion. McDowell and Morrow seek to respond intellectually to their positions, and do so quite effectively.While the first section of the book is working out the evidences, per se’, the second section is dealing with the anti-Christian/religion rhetoric that New Athiesm is aggressively attacking. As I was reading this section, I was also reading Reason for God by Tim Keller. Having these two resources alongside of each other was beneficial in not just having a response to New Athiesm, but also how to respond on a personal level in everyday life with those who are inundated with New Athiesm’s philosophy. For a Christian, the second section of the book has a feeling of preaching to the choir. Not that this is wrong, but this reader felt that McDowell and Morrow were attempting for this book to be a tool in the hands of a non-Christian. The arguments raised and dissected in this section were not anything new. However, if a new Christian was in an arena where he did not have proper understanding concerning these elements, I would encourage him/her to pick up this resource for public engagement. Overall, I was very happy with the book and would recommend it to others to be prepared for the questions/accusations that they will undoubtedly encounter. An well-done apologetic work.

[mdkalbach · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Atheism has turned rather militant recently. They do not seem to be content with just personally rejecting the idea of the existence of a Supreme Being, and never darkening the door of a church. They seem to want to abolish all references to any faith. Some even equate religious instruction to child abuse! We are being inundated constantly, these days, with the most ridiculous attacks on Christianity. The constant denigration and ridicule of every mention of faith and the endless repetition of bald-faced lies being passed off as truth is getting to be about as annoying as being pecked to death by a duck! You can hardly get through a day, any more, without hearing of some atheistic attack on Christianity.This book directly addresses many of the arguments made by the self appointed high priests of the “religion of atheism” such as Christopher Hitchens & Richard Dawkins. I refer to it as a religion because it has the majority of the characteristics of a religion and is definitely being promoted with “evangelical fervor”. Apologies to all Evangelicals.I enjoyed reading this book for a variety of reasons. I recently read “evidence that demands a verdict” by Josh McDowell, and I just love the subject of Christian Apologetics!This book even covers such absurdities as the flying spaghetti monster! This book is easy to read and understand. It will help you counter many of the arguments that atheists will throw at you. No one book can address all the specious arguments they come up with. I think this book should be a part of every Christian's library because, we need to be able to defend our faith. 1 Peter 3:15-17 When we remain silent because we don't know how to refute some attack on our faith, the atheist will assume that our silence is tacit agreement. We need to have Reasonable & Logical arguments that will prove that we have thought this through and are not just “parroting our parents”, as well as, give them reason to do some honest research instead of, simply, regurgitating cutesy sound-bytes from their favorite pseudo-intellectual celebrity atheist!