Are you looking for a book that will present a serious challenge to the worldview of atheistic, naturalistic, evidentialistic, unbelievers - a book that takes a Biblical approach to defending the Christian worldview against vain philosophy, empty deceit, persuasive words, or plausible, and well crafted arguments (Colossians 2:2-3)? If so, I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek is NOT the book that you're looking for.
About a year ago, I would have proclaimed this book as one of the best books written on Christian apologetics. Today, it ranks 2nd to worst on my reading list - only championed by Evidence For Faith 101 by Bruce Bickel and Stan Jantz... yuck. So what changed what I would have thought about this book to what I think about it now? Well, I picked up 3 other books over the past year dealing with Christian apologetics. One of them was The Ultimate Proof of Creation by Jason Lisle. The other two books were great also and echo Jason's points on an even deeper level, but Jason's book in it's clear and simple manner is what really got me thinking about why I trust the Bible as my ultimate authority. So here are two books, written on the same subject - one of them I love and one of them is horrible. What could possibly be so different about them you might ask? The answer: They "prove" God's Word by two different authorities. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek use scientific evidence to DEFEND and PROVE the Bible. They've made this clear. Jason Lisle uses man's reasoning capabilities which the Bible justifies to ATTACK the atheistic worldview and PROVE the Bible. This is evidentialism vs. presuppositionalism.
So what's the problem with evidentialism and why do I favor presuppositionalism. First of all, evidentialism places science above God's word. If it didn't, then those who favor it wouldn't use the interpretations of science (interpretations are subject to change) to prove the Bible, (which is not subject to change at all). Read these quotes from Norman and Frank's book:
"The second aspect of this objection is the charge that intelligent design people don't have any evidence for their view - they're simply parroting what the Bible says. This objection doesn't work either. Intelligent Design beliefs may be consistent with the Bible, but they are not based on the Bible. As we have seen, Intelligent design is a conclusion based on empirically detectable evidence, not sacred texts." (pg. 159)
Basically, Norman and Frank are saying that we only believe in God because science says so. This is not at all the Biblical approach to apologetics. Here's another quote. This one is from Michael Behe to which they completely agree:
"The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself - not from sacred texts or sectarian beliefs" (pg. 160)
This quote embraces the "myth of neutrality" - that we can interpret scientific evidence neutrally. Although that sounds fair and nice, this isn't the case. Everyone brings their worldview to the table. A person's worldview is what tints the observable evidence. a person's worldview is why atheists and Christians can reach different conclusions while staring at the same evidence. Here is another quote from I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist:
"In short, regardless of what the Bible may say about the topic, Darwinism is rejected because it doesn't fit the scientific data, and Intelligent Design is accepted because it does."
This is evidentialism, and it is not Biblical or even rational. The Bible says, "In all thy ways acknowledge him (Jesus), and he shall direct thy paths." (Proverbs 3:6) Not science, but Jesus. In presuppositionalism, reasoning precedes, but is not preeminent over, the Bible. Reasoning leads us to the Bible, and the Bible justifies our reasoning capabilities. Once we trust the Bible as the Word of God, our reasoning no longer takes preeminence over the Bible. If it did, Christians would be denying the resurrection which is not scientifically possible! So we see that evidentialists are inconsistent in their worldview. Science is their ultimate authority, yet they believe in the resurrection. Of course I believe that evidentialists like Norman Geisler, Frank Turek, William Lane Craig, Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, Paul Little and Ray Comfort are Christians, but their Christian worldview is inconsistent with their commitment to evidentialism. Here's another quote from the book,
"Second, Intelligent Design scientists are open to both natural and intelligent causes. They are not opposed to continued research into a natural explanation for the first life." (pg. 157)
Yes we are! We are committed to our worldviews.
It's possible that many people have already come to faith in Christ through I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, but that doesn't mean the book is taking a Biblical approach to reaching out to the lost. Geisler and Turek's compilation of evidence is great, but it is not proof for Christianity, only interpretation of the evidence. Their worldview filters how they interpret the evidence. Unbelievers can read this book and justify every piece of evidence by some other reinterpretation (even if it is a bizarre explanation). In pressuppositional apologetics, the only way to continue in unbelief is to continue to be irrational, not just reinterpret the evidence as critics of Christian evidentialism do. I want to make it clear that I am not against siting scientific evidence that SUPPORTS the Bible - that's great that science agrees with the Bible. What I am against is siting scientific evidence to PROVE the Bible. Things can only be proven by our ultimate authorities. How can Christians accept an ultimate authority other than the Bible (like subjective human observation that changes - science). The unchanging Word of God is my ultimate authority by which I accept by faith. In summary, I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be an Atheist offers abundant SUPPORTIVE scientific evidence but takes an unbiblical approach to PROVING the Christian faith. We are not to answer the fool according to his own folly, but in Christ truth is found. (Proverbs 26:4-5)
6 comments:
Amen Bobby!
"In presuppositionalism, reasoning precedes, but is not preeminent over, the Bible."
Very good. There is a place for scientific or logical evidence in evangelism, but it's not proof. Even if it were proof, it could only lead to dead religion. Only God can save (i.e. can grant repentance, faith, and regenerate a sinner).
I think the biggest misuse of evidential apologetics (including the modern prophecy fulfillment type) is the immature believer using it to build up his faith. Much of today's Christianity is only about acknowledging which doctrines are true or false. But this is dead religion without knowing the living Lord Jesus Christ through faith (not reason), and submission and obedience to His commands. If you want to know the truth, remain in His word (John 7:17, 8:31-32, 14:23).
Pretty bold assumptions Andrew. Doctrine plays a huge role in the Judeo-Christian belief systems. I think it is both faith and reason. Commonly I have this discussion that the heart is connected to the mind you cannot live without both.
This is a recycled discussion as well. Why even entertain discussions regarding logic or scientific evidence with religion?
I wasn't saying doctrine or apologetics is bad or unimportant - I find it very important. I have a doctrinal/apologetics section on my website. But all the reasoning in the world will not convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced. No matter how good the argument, someone can always come up with a counter-argument.
I personally know someone who has heard all the arguments for belief, and still chooses to remain agnostic. God has to change his will and heart. If God does this, it will happen through whatever means He chooses, whether scientific evidence, logical arguments, his wife' witness, seeing answers to prayer, a direct revelation from God, or whatever.
What I meant by "dead religion" is that of the mind only, i.e. an acknowledgement of true doctrine without Christ-relationship: trust in, love for, submission and obedience to, and becoming like Christ, and regeneration and filling with the Holy Spirit, etc. There are many who believe the facts of scripture, yet are unsaved. I read of a Jewish rabbi who believed Jesus rose from the dead, yet he still didn't believe in Jesus! His was a mental assent only. As James said, "Even the demons believe, and tremble."
Have you ever read anything by Cornelius Van Til? I think you'd appreciate it.
I've read one of Van Tils books. Most of it I didn't understand, but His main concepts I did understand and agree with. It's amazing how Biblically based pressupostional apologetics is!
Thanks for commenting!
Post a Comment