Scan barcode
hannahcheung's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
3.25
alexcoleridge's review against another edition
3.0
This book has had a strange effect on me. In many ways, I find it to be very bad. It's full of strawmen and bad arguments, it isn't very well written at times, and it makes laughable mistakes about evolution. But, I have to commend the book. It's the first book that has given me insight into what it is like to be a theist. Previously, all arguments for theism were like someone trying to convince you that we're living in a simulation. They may have some good arguments, but am I really supposed to believe that? The theist is always on the back foot, having to desperately try to justify their claims against the more rational position of atheism. But this book made me see that there's much more complexity to it than that. It may be, that in some ways, atheism is irrational.
I have to be honest, this is the first book or piece of Christian apologia I have read/seen that has genuinely made me think, just for a few moments, "It is possible I will convert to Christianity."
But here, I would like to write some of my thoughts on the arguments of the book.
I do find his presentation of the Kalam and the argument from reason quite strong. I do wish the book, or some theist, would actually defend free will. They point out its absurdity on naturalism, but don't actually argue for free will on theism (I don't believe it can exist in any framework). I suppose it is just taken as read to exist.
But I think his argument that evil proves atheism doesn't hold. The problem of evil could be laid out in an argument against god's existence like this:
P1: If God exists, he has certain moral standards that he must observe in his acts.
P2: A perfect observation of these standards would entail some state of the world X.
P3: But, the world is not X.
Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist.
Now Turek misunderstands the first premise. He accuses atheists of presupposing God's existence in the first premise. To say that God must act in a just way is to assume objective justice, which can only exist on theism (something I agree with). Thus, you are presupposing the falsity of your conclusion in order to arrive at your conclusion. Invalid!
But this is not what the first premise does. It is somewhat understandable how Turek and C.S. Lewis get that idea. The first premise is "*If God exists*, he has certain moral standards that he must observe in his acts". This does not actually assume that there is objective goodness. It is saying that this is true if God's existence is granted for the moment. The problem of evil is essentially a consistency check with the claims of Christianity (that there is an all-loving, all-powerful God) with the external world (which is replete with suffering). So, in a way, we are presupposing God when we make that claim in P1, but *that is what you are supposed to do in an argument*. You are saying 'Well, if this was true, what world would we expect to see?'
So the problem of evil doesn't presuppose the truth of God's existence to deny him, it just assumes for the sake of argument that God exists, denies the consistency of this with the world, and concludes that he doesn't.
As for the chapter on hell, oh boy. I couldn't contain myself. It was such stupid reasoning I considered lowering my rating an entire star. I could try and rebut them here, but I would be better to refer you to David Bentley Hart's brilliant book: That All Shall Be Saved: Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation.
I have to be honest, this is the first book or piece of Christian apologia I have read/seen that has genuinely made me think, just for a few moments, "It is possible I will convert to Christianity."
But here, I would like to write some of my thoughts on the arguments of the book.
I do find his presentation of the Kalam and the argument from reason quite strong. I do wish the book, or some theist, would actually defend free will. They point out its absurdity on naturalism, but don't actually argue for free will on theism (I don't believe it can exist in any framework). I suppose it is just taken as read to exist.
But I think his argument that evil proves atheism doesn't hold. The problem of evil could be laid out in an argument against god's existence like this:
P1: If God exists, he has certain moral standards that he must observe in his acts.
P2: A perfect observation of these standards would entail some state of the world X.
P3: But, the world is not X.
Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist.
Now Turek misunderstands the first premise. He accuses atheists of presupposing God's existence in the first premise. To say that God must act in a just way is to assume objective justice, which can only exist on theism (something I agree with). Thus, you are presupposing the falsity of your conclusion in order to arrive at your conclusion. Invalid!
But this is not what the first premise does. It is somewhat understandable how Turek and C.S. Lewis get that idea. The first premise is "*If God exists*, he has certain moral standards that he must observe in his acts". This does not actually assume that there is objective goodness. It is saying that this is true if God's existence is granted for the moment. The problem of evil is essentially a consistency check with the claims of Christianity (that there is an all-loving, all-powerful God) with the external world (which is replete with suffering). So, in a way, we are presupposing God when we make that claim in P1, but *that is what you are supposed to do in an argument*. You are saying 'Well, if this was true, what world would we expect to see?'
So the problem of evil doesn't presuppose the truth of God's existence to deny him, it just assumes for the sake of argument that God exists, denies the consistency of this with the world, and concludes that he doesn't.
As for the chapter on hell, oh boy. I couldn't contain myself. It was such stupid reasoning I considered lowering my rating an entire star. I could try and rebut them here, but I would be better to refer you to David Bentley Hart's brilliant book: That All Shall Be Saved: Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation.
jacksezerhga's review against another edition
fast-paced
2.75
Frank has sadly sold out to the alt right nationalist in the Christian sphere. Frank used to be my biggest inspiration, now he is someone I consistently disagree with. His arguments are elementary and deliberately misinterpret his opponents. If you want a good intro to apologetics, read William lane Craig!
kitkatmichelle's review against another edition
5.0
If, as a Christian, you've ever felt overwhelmed or even just a little bit discouraged by the confidence atheists seem to have in their widely accepted worldview, I HIGHLY encourage you to read this book. You'll never have doubts about the credibility of their arguments again. The evidence presented so clearly and logically in these chapters has strengthened the intellectual side of my faith, and it will strengthen yours too.
This book is just amazing.
This book is just amazing.
schmidtmark56's review against another edition
4.0
Extremely logical and very well laid out, albeit quite repetetive at times and tedious like the belaboring over intelligent design, which I didn't see as necessary to his point and comprised merely of quotes of others, since I'm pretty sure he doesn't have expertise in that area. Albeit, a very thorough and chronological argument which was well done.
samuelblakey's review against another edition
4.0
Turek presents a strong argument that much of what atheists take for granted would not exist if their worldview was correct. The fundamental workings of the universe can only be explained by a Designer who is wholly distinct from His creation. By walking through six different categories where atheists blunder in their logic, Turek gives a sound defense of the Christian faith by debunking atheistic and materialistic assertions.