Review of Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (Wheaton: Crossway, 2004).

Like all apologetics books, both Christian and non-Christian, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist book takes a partisan approach to the philosophy of religion. Of course, by itself, the fact that it is a partisan book isn’t a problem. The existence or non-existence of God is an important topic; it’s appropriate for people who’ve reached a conclusion to try to persuade others of their position.

The fundamental problem with this book is the particular way it takes a partisan approach: there are partisan books and then there are obnoxiously partisan books. Like many (but not all) of those other books in the apologetics genre, the basic approach seems to be the following.

Present and defend the author’s preferred view as favorably as possible. Represent opposing views as unfavorably as possible. Reach the remarkable conclusion that–surprise, surprise–the author’s view is true. Suggest that anyone who disagrees is ignorant, irrational, or has ulterior (non-rational) motives.

The problem with obnoxious apologetics, which seems to afflict as many atheist apologists as theist apologists, is that it’s a fatally flawed way to search for truth. If our goal is the sincere pursuit of truth–and it should be–then the above approach is what not to do. Rather, if our goal is the sincere pursuit of truth, then our basic approach should be to represent opposing views fairly, in the best possible light, and interact with the best arguments both for and against the different viewpoints.

The philosopher George H. Smith once wrote, “We have nothing to fear and everything to gain from the honest pursuit of truth.”[1] Along the same lines, obnoxious apologetics is in no one’s self-interest. First, it clearly is not in the best interest of the community who feels their position has been slandered by the straw men created (and then torn down) by apologists.

Second, it’s not in the self-interest of the obnoxious apologist, since in the long-run it can backfire. Think of the last time you read or listened to something which you felt misrepresented one of your beliefs (or your arguments for your beliefs). Did you change your mind and drop the belief? Of course not! Did you start thinking of objections and rebuttals as you were reading or listening? Probably! Indeed, if the misrepresentation was made by someone in the public eye, such as a well-known author, it runs the real risk of inviting corrective reviews (like this one) and damaging the author’s credibility.

Third, it’s not in the self-interest of undecided, sincere seekers who truly want to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Following the evidence wherever it leads requires that all of the available relevant evidence be presented and presented fairly. As we shall see later in this review, Geisler and Turek (hereafter, G&T) fail to do this—over and over again.

This failure not only has a practical cost, but a logical cost as well. As G&T admit, their goal is to show that Christianity is highly probable through the use of inductive arguments based upon empirical evidence. But inductive arguments succeed only when they satisfy the Total Evidence Requirement, viz., that their premises embody all of the available relevant evidence. As I show below, however, G&T’s inductive arguments fail to do this–both individually and collectively. Accordingly, even if all of G&T’s evidence were accurate, which it isn’t, G&T’s case still wouldn’t succeed in showing that Christianity is probably true.

In order to support this verdict on the book’s approach, I’m going to provide a fairly detailed review of the book’s contents, divided into sections according to the table of contents.

Here is the table of contents for the book:

Foreword by David Limbaugh

Preface: How Much Faith Do You Need to Believe This Book?

Acknowledgements

Introduction: Finding the Box Top to the Puzzle of Life

1 Can We Handle the Truth?

2 Why Should Anyone Believe Anything At All?

3 In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE

4 Divine Design

5 The First Life: Natural Law or Divine Awe?

6 New Life Forms: From the Goo to You via the Zoo?

7 Mother Theresa vs. Hitler



9 Do We Have Early Testimony About Jesus? ( Part 1 10 Do We Have Eyewitness Testimony About Jesus?11 The Top Ten Reasons We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth12 Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?13 Who is Jesus: God? Or Just a Great Moral Teacher?14 What Did Jesus Teach about the Bible?15 Conclusion: The Judge, The Servant, and the Box TopAppendix 1: If God, Why Evil?Appendix 2: Isn’t That Just Your Interpretation?Appendix 3: Why the Jesus Seminar Doesn’t Speak for JesusNotes

[1] George H. Smith, “Atheism: The Case Against God,” speech delivered to the Society of Separationists, 1976. Transcript published as “How to Defend Atheism,” The Secular Web (1976), http://infidels.org/library/modern/george_smith/defending.html.