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.
©2002 Norman L. Geisler; (P)2002 christianaudio.com
I've listened to this 5 times on an almost repeated loop! It is complex, in a totally credible way. Easy to follow and understand.
I like the premise: if the book and how they conclude each section that they evaluate with: "We don't have enough faith to believe in…" and in many instances it's true.
I read all of the reviews on this book, including the ones on Amazon. I've never encountered a book that is so polarised in its reviews!
My opinion? You're obviously intrigued and interested in the topic otherwise you wouldn't be browsing through the reviews. I think that it is worth hearing what they have to say. I love reading work done by converted Agnostics or Atheists because I believe that they, more than anyone else, go to a lot of time, effort and trouble to disprove Theism, that they uncover some amazing facts!
Judge for yourself. Don't let our reviews turn you away. What do we know? What do they (authors) know? What do you know?
"Funny and compelling, I really enjoyed it."
This is one of the most entertaining apologetics books I have ever read. It was not only compelling but it kept my interest.
"Facts on Faith"
Yes the book provides a plethora of supporting information on each contention or observation. Most people don't need all that data, but it is wonderful to have it all handy in one book when you do.
The book, "How A Rocket Scientist Can Believe In God" actually covers all the same information in 10% of the space. It provides the logical arguments primarily, without as much of the other supporting evidence
Her narration was excellent and easy to listen too. She provided the proper accent and emphasis to get the message across.
I just enjoyed all the detail the authors provided to support their claims
Two areas were deficient but they were not part of the primary thesis:
The comment that the Apostles changed the 7th day Sabbath to Sunday, was without any proof. However, clearly there is no proof of this, so the comment should have been left out. Also the discussion of the "Trinity" was no better than most other explanations in that it was clearly not at all convincing. Instead, I was impressed by the simple and in fact, bulletproof explanation of the Trinity elaborated on in the other book I mentioned above, "How A Rocket Scientist Can Believe In God". That is the only place I've seen a worthy explanation in print.
They referred to atheists but referenced few if none of atheists' works. I've been reading atheist books alongside this one and their friction with published atheists is a straw man.
This book has the feel of a textbook for 12th grade homeschoolers but for an adult who is synthesizing, it's got plenty of condescending wrist-slapping and repetitive Christian "gotcha" statements. The last part of the book is a medical description of Jesus' crucifixion and a survey of hell that puts the blame for ending up in hell on you. As they said, those in hell don't want it but they will it. It's self-inflicted and the doors are locked from the inside. God loves us so much He wouldn't force heaven upon us if worshiping him for an hour on Sunday morning deters us. These are the things they say with a humble, "I wish it weren't so," but they don't grapple with how awful they sound. It's as if they don't hear themselves. They don't describe hell in its medical implications. They simply say God has to quarantine evil. If hell is simply quarantine, and Heaven is an extension of Sunday morning worship, they haven't begun to scratch the surface of humanity's fears and hopes. But some 12th grade homeschooler somewhere is gonna feel equipped against those skeptics of Christianity he's never had the chance to meet.
"Good Read Even for The Calvinists...."
This was an excellent book. I've been cautioned to stay away from Norman Geisler by my Reformed friends. I finally got around to reading this book and its excellent. I am slightly annoyed that Geisler acts as though all of his arguments hinge on "Free Will". He goes out of God way to argue against Calvinistic doctrine which hurts his cause in this book.
I'm a fan of this book overall. Thank You for writing a beneficial book that will equip the saints for years to come!
I Loved the simplicity of the explanations and the clear arguments. The narrator was pleasant and easy to listen to. I recommend this audio book to anyone studying apologetics.
"Great great great!! A must read!"
This book is one of the best, most comprehensive books on Christian apologetics I've ever read. Well written, logical, persuasive, great! Thanks so much!
My only complaint is the chapter on miracles. They do a wonderful job proving miracles, however they don't believe miracles still happen, they believe they could happen but most likely don't. I have personally experienced miracles in my life. Other than that, outstanding book!
"Faith of an Atheist?"
I believe there are 4 types of people in the world; those who believe in a creator, those who do not, those who are open to the possibility and a large apathetic group who don't care enough to invest time in answering the question. This book will solidify the beliefs of the first group, especially those who have committed their life Jesus. The second group will probably not finish listening because of the discomfort at having their world view called into question. Those in the third group will be fascinated to find that faith in God, and particularly in Jesus, is not actually a leap of faith or a simply a matter of personal preference. The apathetic group does not require discussion in these brief comments. They will probably not listen to the book or read this review. I am solidly in the group who make sense of the world around me through the lens of both creation and the cross. In short, I want there to be an all powerful, loving God who cares that I exist and can offer the hope of something better. From that perspective, this book is among my top 5 of all time. I've read the paper version several times & very much enjoyed the audible version as well. I think the narrator did a good job of reading but occasionally she reads information which, in the written version, is presented as tables. These can be hard to follow. The logic employed by Geisler and Turek is well reasoned and sound. Their employment of logic, rational thought and the knowledge compiled by many disciplines within the greater scientific and academic communities over many years to be without error. Having said that, this book is intended to be read by someone with a competent high school level of knowledge and thought capability. It is not an exhaustive treatise on every topic and issue which would require a vast document significantly diminishing the number of readers. I highly recommend investing the time and book credit in finding out why I don't have enough faith to be an atheist either.
"Preaching to the choir"
I was looking for a book to make a compelling case against atheism. Sadly this is not that book. To be fair, that wasn't this book's intention, so take the following with that in mind.
The main problem with this book is the weak arguments it constantly makes. It tells the listener what atheists believe (as if they believe all the same things) and then attempts to refute those beliefs. Two problems with this, the initial arguments are total straw men, I personally don't know or have even heard of any atheists believing most of what this book claims they believe, and even with those straw men the refutes are quite week.
I'll give a singular example that explains what I mean. The book attempts to refute the claim that The Bible has inaccuracies or contradictions due to copies being made and the original manuscripts being lost. It claims (and I swear this is true) that any contradictions or mistakes are easy to resolve because the only way you could have mistake with the phrase "I think" is to have it say "It hink", "Ith ink", "Ithi nk" or "Ithin k". So all you have to do is compare some texts and you can easily see what the original intent was.
This passage was almost enough to make me stop listening. Apparently in the authors' world, intentional changes, mistranslations, and homonyms do not exist.
The book is riddled with such simplistic arguments. I'm sure it's a nice reinforcement for believers if they don't want to think about it too much, but the case is far from compelling.
"Clever philosophy, terrible science"
There's a lot of clever philosophical points in his book. The authors deftly and handily point out errors in basic logic that many popular philosophies exhibit. As the authors do so they begin to make a compelling case for theism. However, the science material in this book is so deeply flawed that it is hard to listen to.
This book does a disservice to Christianity. It purports to be written to convince skeptics and atheists that theism is a serious hypothesis worth considering. And, when they are dealing with material on which they are qualified to write about, namely philosophy and theology, the authors do a good job of making a case for theism. But as soon as they begin to talk science, the book takes a steep nosedive. The authors are woefully ignorant and incorrect on a number of points, big and small. They ignore evidence, whether willfully or out of ignorance, that prove their claims incorrect. They obfuscate simple matters to make them seem more complex, and they continuously get little but important details incorrect.
I found this book deeply disappointing. If you are an atheist or agnostic looking for a fair explanation of the real good evidence for the theistic hypothesis don't listen to this book. Check out "The Language of God" by Francis Collins instead; he's actually a scientist, so he's actually qualified to talk about science.
The authors do make very good philosophical arguments, but the junk science in this book risks sinking the philosophical work just by guilt by association. "If their science is so bad, maybe their philosophy is too" one may think. I don't think so, I think the philosophy is generally good. However, the authors have a narrow interpretation of Christianity and willfully distort scientific evidence to fit that predetermined outlook, which is very sad. I can't recommend this book.
Report Inappropriate Content