The father of the intelligent design movement, Phillip Johnson, thinks the new atheists are right! How? They've put serious discussion about God back on the public agenda. Despite their conclusions, folks like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett are asking the right questions. They're making belief in any religion an issue again, especially in the university context where, for decades, questions about faith and reason have been taken off the table for serious discussion. Open debate is exactly what we need on the topics of God, evolution and creation. Together Johnson and John Mark Reynolds help us see the unique opportunity these vociferous and even evangelistic atheists are creating in their attempt to convert us to their unbelief. The authors show that we need not fear or react against these challenges. Rather they point to better ways to engage the opinions of this new, aggressive form of antireligious activity. With skill and insight they energetically take on the question of whether the evidence leads to a materialistic naturalism or points toward a creator God. Be informed. Be encouraged. Join the discussion.
Against All Gods
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
| |||||||||||||||
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Editorial Reviews
Review
"What a wonderful little book. Johnson and Reynolds offer a clear, readable and intelligent critique of the new atheism. But they offer something more: joy, hope and love. You get both the reason and the romance of the Christian story. So the new atheism comes across not so much as wrong, but as one-dimensional and childish, a sort of intellectual pornography claiming to be true love. Johnson and Reynolds's complementary combination of intellectual and theological virtues is a fire that both warms and purifies." (Francis J. Beckwith, professor of philosophy and church-state studies, Baylor University)
"Rather than engaging in specific critiques of the new atheism, Phil Johnson and John Mark Reynolds add their voices to the increasing scholarly chorus that decries the real oppressor in these and related discussions: unexamined naturalistic presuppositions that reject alternative ideas without a hearing. Declaring that uncritical attitudes and a lack of appreciation for ancient writings lie behind many recent criticisms of Christianity, the authors call for open discussion of the relevant issues. This volume is a treat to read, featuring a succinct, straightforward and easily digestible text that successfully treats issue after issue." (Gary R. Habermas, Distinguished Research Professor, Liberty University and Theological Seminary)
"This superb work by Phillip E. Johnson and John Mark Reynolds is both an informed response to the new atheism and simultaneously an invitation for ongoing conversation with those who question the truth claims of the Christian faith. I have longed to have a volume like this one to share with my colleagues in the world of higher education. Against All Gods is timely, convincing, readable and accessible; it is a privilege to recommend this little book to a wide audience, with the hope that it will find its way into the hands of university students across the land." (David S. Dockery, president, Union University)
"Johnson and Reynolds are provocateurs in the best sense of that word, and Against All Gods is sure to arouse considerable debate and reflection. This is not another apologetic response to the new atheists. It is a cultural analysis and critique of their claims. It reads like a detective novel and conveys powerful, important ideas to the reader. I couldn't put it down." (J. P. Moreland, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, Biola University, and author of The God Question)
"Rather than engaging in specific critiques of the new atheism, Phil Johnson and John Mark Reynolds add their voices to the increasing scholarly chorus that decries the real oppressor in these and related discussions: unexamined naturalistic presuppositions that reject alternative ideas without a hearing. Declaring that uncritical attitudes and a lack of appreciation for ancient writings lie behind many recent criticisms of Christianity, the authors call for open discussion of the relevant issues. This volume is a treat to read, featuring a succinct, straightforward and easily digestible text that successfully treats issue after issue." (Gary R. Habermas, Distinguished Research Professor, Liberty University and Theological Seminary)
"This superb work by Phillip E. Johnson and John Mark Reynolds is both an informed response to the new atheism and simultaneously an invitation for ongoing conversation with those who question the truth claims of the Christian faith. I have longed to have a volume like this one to share with my colleagues in the world of higher education. Against All Gods is timely, convincing, readable and accessible; it is a privilege to recommend this little book to a wide audience, with the hope that it will find its way into the hands of university students across the land." (David S. Dockery, president, Union University)
"Johnson and Reynolds are provocateurs in the best sense of that word, and Against All Gods is sure to arouse considerable debate and reflection. This is not another apologetic response to the new atheists. It is a cultural analysis and critique of their claims. It reads like a detective novel and conveys powerful, important ideas to the reader. I couldn't put it down." (J. P. Moreland, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, Biola University, and author of The God Question)
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
More About the Authors
Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
31 of 37 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase
Against All Gods: What's Right and Wrong About the New Atheism is a small book packed with big ideas. Co-authored by the eminent law professor, Philip E. Johnson (Darwin on Trial) and professor of philosophy, John Mark Reynolds (When Athens Met Jerusalem), this volume engages with the cultural influence of the so-called `New Atheists', folks like Richard Dawkins, Chris Hitchens and Daniel Dennett. It is the authors' contention that even though the New Atheists' attitude towards theism and Christianity in particular is overwhelmingly hostile and their conclusions incorrect, they are asking the right questions. Johnson and Reynolds happily point out that these attacks have made belief in any religion an issue again for public debate and so rather than be disheartened we Christians should seize this opportunity to present and defend the Gospels within the intellectual arena.
Johnson authors the first five essays along with the introduction and epilogue and Reynolds contributes the remaining three essays. I will not discuss all eight essays, but merely my five favorites (3 by Johnson, 2 by Reynolds) Johnson introduces the New Atheism as old arguments whose only new element is the evangelical fervor with which their advocates preach the gospel of disbelief, actively seeking converts. Not content with simply overthrowing belief in the existence of God, the New Atheists view theism as a malevolent force that ought to be stamped out entirely to make way for an atheistic utopia, founded according to the providences of secular reason and scientific naturalism. Ironically, Johnson welcomes such a blistering attack because for far too long, religion has been largely ignored within academia as a subject not worth talking about anymore. Johnson thinks it better by far to have religion again on the table, even if the atheists' intent is to prepare the body for burial.
Johnson's first essay, Introducing the New Atheists portrays them rather charitably as clear-eyed pugilists who have taken their gloves off and declared they have had enough of the scientific establishment's wimpy appeasement policy of assuring society that religion and science are compatible. They think the time has come to face reality and recognize that in light of the fact of Darwinian evolution, there is no longer any reason to go on believing in any God(s). The sooner we grow up and accept that the universe is a brute fact without purpose or design, that it is indifferent to humanity, that morality is an illusion, that love and compassion are merely chemical mixtures in the brain without any greater intrinsic significance, that the works of Bach and Shakespeare are merely noises and markings on a page; and that the human animal is nothing more than a genetically programmed, complex meat machines without free will or a soul - the sooner we accept all these facts about reality, the better off we will all be. Any more pandering to this dangerous God delusion is detrimental to scientific advancement and society as a whole.
We have to hand it to these self-proclaimed `Brights'. At least they are bold enough to state what they believe....well, sort of what they believe. The New Atheists tend to be rather inconsistent on the subject of morality. Given their absolute insistence that morality is merely an illusion foisted upon us by our genes to trick us into cooperating with each other, it is amusing to note the righteous contempt with which Dawkins and Hitchens repeatedly decry the `immoral' acts of the Christian God, whom they condemn as a genocidal tyrant.
Johnson points out that in fact, such vitriolic denouncements of religion by these atheist crusaders pose more of a threat to the reigning scientific institutional authorities than to Christianity. Christians are rather accustomed to attack, having been thrown to the lions or hurled from the Bastille for centuries. Rather, it is the `mandarins' of science that face a serious problem. If they endorse the New Atheists' campaign to persuade the public of Darwinism's necessarily atheistic metaphysics, it will look as though they have been lying to the public for decades with their constant assurances that science and nonfundamentalist religion are compatible. (page 22) Moreover, if enough scientists join the Atheistic Soul-less Train, the scientific establishment could not disavow the movement without facing a revolt in their own camp. (page 23)
Johnson welcomes the bold position adopted by the New Atheists because he would like to see the contested issues regarding the relationship between science and atheism analyzed fairly and thoroughly by our universities. Only by a genuine intellectual confrontation between competing viewpoints can we hope to arrive at the truth over whether Darwinian science and theistic religion are incompatible. Let us leave the conduct of such analysis to the scholars and students in the classroom, says Johnson, rather than leave it in the hands of some federal judge to rule that only one position may be considered (page 25).
Johnson's second essay, entitled, Harvard's Aborted Requirement in Reason and Faith, chronicles passionately Darwinist Harvard psychology professor and popular author Steven Pinker's successful campaign to block a proposed required course on the relationship of faith to reason. He claimed his objection on the basis that such a course would place superstition on the same level as reason as parallel and equivalent ways of pursuing knowledge. Pinker argued a university should be devoted to reason only and that faith belongs in religious institutions. (page 28)
Clearly, Pinker does not accept that there are any good reasons either in philosophy or science to believe that God exists and thus why he refers to religious belief as superstition. Johnson exposes the fact that Pinker has, in the typical fashion of naturalistic rationalists, oversimplified the subject. He has identified "faith' with religion, "thus wrongly assuming that the only faith of any importance is faith in a supernatural being" (page 32) and that some people rely on faith and some people rely solely on reason. Pinker fails to recognize that everybody has faith and everybody reasons. (page 34)
Naturalists, for example, have an absolute faith in a philosophical doctrine that says that our universe is a closed system of cause and effects in which every conceivable natural phenomenon is explicable on the basis of some combination of chemical laws and chance. (page 34) Such scientists believe that the successes of science fully justifies their holding these beliefs with absolute certainty such that they eliminate the idea of `faith' in naturalism entirely from their vocabulary, but instead view naturalism as a defining example of reason. (page 35)
For Johnson, the truth of the matter is that having the right kind of faith is not an alternative to reason, but an essential element of reason. Having faith is not wrong, so long as the object in which it is placed is worthy of such faith. Johnson argues that the total inability of science to even begin to explain the origins of life or the universe in purely naturalistic terms, whilst simultaneously refusing to countenance the compelling evidence for Intelligent Design, is evidence of a dogmatic faith in the truth of Darwinism that runs counter to reason and evidence.
"Darwinism may refer either to a specific theory of biology or to an episteme, a way of thinking about things in general," (page 49) When teaching the theory of evolution, the student must first adopt the `correct' worldview, which is to say, a purely naturalistic worldview. (page 50) Otherwise, the evidence for the theory will not be persuasive. The student must first be indoctrinated in the belief that science is the supreme and only arbiter of what is true and that the first great commandment of science is that the world is devoid of an Intelligent Creator, but rather is composed "only of material causes that act on each other according to physical laws or chance." (page 50) Scientific knowledge of the universe is incomplete but metaphysical certainty about the absence of a Designer is absolute. According to Darwinism, only when the student has fully converted to the naturalistic paradigm can she begin to learn about the world. (page 50)
Dawkins and Johnson agree on little but they are united in disparaging theistic evolution on the grounds that the theistic evolutionist does not understand the full implications of the Darwinian hypothesis. (page 51) The main spokesman for theistic evolutionism, Dr. Frances Collins, is essentially trying to have his cake and eat it too. He accepts Darwinian evolution in biology, yet appeals outside of biology, to cosmology and to a universal sense of morality, to try and reclaim the universe for theism. Johnson agrees with Dawkins that this "maneuver fails to explain how it can be consistent for a biologist to insist on employing only naturalistic reasoning in biology and then employ theistic reasoning in physics." (page 52) An unguided, Darwinian process cannot have a Designer guiding the process from behind the scenes. A guided, unguided process is simply a guided process and thus not Darwinian evolution.
If as Dawkins argues, the Darwinian hypothesis is correct, in other words, if natural selection "really does explain the whole of life, then we should expect it to explain the entire scope of life, including human behavior and human beliefs about God or anything else" (page 53) then Darwinism fully assimilated, "is a kind of philosophical `universal acid' that eats away...every traditional concept...including the container that was meant to hold it. Read more ›
Johnson authors the first five essays along with the introduction and epilogue and Reynolds contributes the remaining three essays. I will not discuss all eight essays, but merely my five favorites (3 by Johnson, 2 by Reynolds) Johnson introduces the New Atheism as old arguments whose only new element is the evangelical fervor with which their advocates preach the gospel of disbelief, actively seeking converts. Not content with simply overthrowing belief in the existence of God, the New Atheists view theism as a malevolent force that ought to be stamped out entirely to make way for an atheistic utopia, founded according to the providences of secular reason and scientific naturalism. Ironically, Johnson welcomes such a blistering attack because for far too long, religion has been largely ignored within academia as a subject not worth talking about anymore. Johnson thinks it better by far to have religion again on the table, even if the atheists' intent is to prepare the body for burial.
Johnson's first essay, Introducing the New Atheists portrays them rather charitably as clear-eyed pugilists who have taken their gloves off and declared they have had enough of the scientific establishment's wimpy appeasement policy of assuring society that religion and science are compatible. They think the time has come to face reality and recognize that in light of the fact of Darwinian evolution, there is no longer any reason to go on believing in any God(s). The sooner we grow up and accept that the universe is a brute fact without purpose or design, that it is indifferent to humanity, that morality is an illusion, that love and compassion are merely chemical mixtures in the brain without any greater intrinsic significance, that the works of Bach and Shakespeare are merely noises and markings on a page; and that the human animal is nothing more than a genetically programmed, complex meat machines without free will or a soul - the sooner we accept all these facts about reality, the better off we will all be. Any more pandering to this dangerous God delusion is detrimental to scientific advancement and society as a whole.
We have to hand it to these self-proclaimed `Brights'. At least they are bold enough to state what they believe....well, sort of what they believe. The New Atheists tend to be rather inconsistent on the subject of morality. Given their absolute insistence that morality is merely an illusion foisted upon us by our genes to trick us into cooperating with each other, it is amusing to note the righteous contempt with which Dawkins and Hitchens repeatedly decry the `immoral' acts of the Christian God, whom they condemn as a genocidal tyrant.
Johnson points out that in fact, such vitriolic denouncements of religion by these atheist crusaders pose more of a threat to the reigning scientific institutional authorities than to Christianity. Christians are rather accustomed to attack, having been thrown to the lions or hurled from the Bastille for centuries. Rather, it is the `mandarins' of science that face a serious problem. If they endorse the New Atheists' campaign to persuade the public of Darwinism's necessarily atheistic metaphysics, it will look as though they have been lying to the public for decades with their constant assurances that science and nonfundamentalist religion are compatible. (page 22) Moreover, if enough scientists join the Atheistic Soul-less Train, the scientific establishment could not disavow the movement without facing a revolt in their own camp. (page 23)
Johnson welcomes the bold position adopted by the New Atheists because he would like to see the contested issues regarding the relationship between science and atheism analyzed fairly and thoroughly by our universities. Only by a genuine intellectual confrontation between competing viewpoints can we hope to arrive at the truth over whether Darwinian science and theistic religion are incompatible. Let us leave the conduct of such analysis to the scholars and students in the classroom, says Johnson, rather than leave it in the hands of some federal judge to rule that only one position may be considered (page 25).
Johnson's second essay, entitled, Harvard's Aborted Requirement in Reason and Faith, chronicles passionately Darwinist Harvard psychology professor and popular author Steven Pinker's successful campaign to block a proposed required course on the relationship of faith to reason. He claimed his objection on the basis that such a course would place superstition on the same level as reason as parallel and equivalent ways of pursuing knowledge. Pinker argued a university should be devoted to reason only and that faith belongs in religious institutions. (page 28)
Clearly, Pinker does not accept that there are any good reasons either in philosophy or science to believe that God exists and thus why he refers to religious belief as superstition. Johnson exposes the fact that Pinker has, in the typical fashion of naturalistic rationalists, oversimplified the subject. He has identified "faith' with religion, "thus wrongly assuming that the only faith of any importance is faith in a supernatural being" (page 32) and that some people rely on faith and some people rely solely on reason. Pinker fails to recognize that everybody has faith and everybody reasons. (page 34)
Naturalists, for example, have an absolute faith in a philosophical doctrine that says that our universe is a closed system of cause and effects in which every conceivable natural phenomenon is explicable on the basis of some combination of chemical laws and chance. (page 34) Such scientists believe that the successes of science fully justifies their holding these beliefs with absolute certainty such that they eliminate the idea of `faith' in naturalism entirely from their vocabulary, but instead view naturalism as a defining example of reason. (page 35)
For Johnson, the truth of the matter is that having the right kind of faith is not an alternative to reason, but an essential element of reason. Having faith is not wrong, so long as the object in which it is placed is worthy of such faith. Johnson argues that the total inability of science to even begin to explain the origins of life or the universe in purely naturalistic terms, whilst simultaneously refusing to countenance the compelling evidence for Intelligent Design, is evidence of a dogmatic faith in the truth of Darwinism that runs counter to reason and evidence.
"Darwinism may refer either to a specific theory of biology or to an episteme, a way of thinking about things in general," (page 49) When teaching the theory of evolution, the student must first adopt the `correct' worldview, which is to say, a purely naturalistic worldview. (page 50) Otherwise, the evidence for the theory will not be persuasive. The student must first be indoctrinated in the belief that science is the supreme and only arbiter of what is true and that the first great commandment of science is that the world is devoid of an Intelligent Creator, but rather is composed "only of material causes that act on each other according to physical laws or chance." (page 50) Scientific knowledge of the universe is incomplete but metaphysical certainty about the absence of a Designer is absolute. According to Darwinism, only when the student has fully converted to the naturalistic paradigm can she begin to learn about the world. (page 50)
Dawkins and Johnson agree on little but they are united in disparaging theistic evolution on the grounds that the theistic evolutionist does not understand the full implications of the Darwinian hypothesis. (page 51) The main spokesman for theistic evolutionism, Dr. Frances Collins, is essentially trying to have his cake and eat it too. He accepts Darwinian evolution in biology, yet appeals outside of biology, to cosmology and to a universal sense of morality, to try and reclaim the universe for theism. Johnson agrees with Dawkins that this "maneuver fails to explain how it can be consistent for a biologist to insist on employing only naturalistic reasoning in biology and then employ theistic reasoning in physics." (page 52) An unguided, Darwinian process cannot have a Designer guiding the process from behind the scenes. A guided, unguided process is simply a guided process and thus not Darwinian evolution.
If as Dawkins argues, the Darwinian hypothesis is correct, in other words, if natural selection "really does explain the whole of life, then we should expect it to explain the entire scope of life, including human behavior and human beliefs about God or anything else" (page 53) then Darwinism fully assimilated, "is a kind of philosophical `universal acid' that eats away...every traditional concept...including the container that was meant to hold it. Read more ›
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase
The authors make frank admissions of their restricted knowledge, but a good case for reliance on faith in all life's endeavors where knowledge is absent.
Phillip Johnson writes (p.33): "Scientists in particular have to be men and women of faith... To be successful, scientists have to learn not to allow difficulties to destroy their confidence... Yet there is a limit. Sometimes repeated failure is a sign that reaching a goal by the means one has been using truly is impossible... Alchemists had faith that they could transform base metals to gold, but their persistence after lifetimes of failure made them seem ridiculous rather than heroic. I sometimes think of alchemy when reading of the constantly unsuccessful efforts of modern scientists to determine how nonliving chemicals combined by natural means on the early Earth to form the first living cells."
Correspondingly, he writes (p.34): "many scientists today have an absolute faith in naturalism". "On this assumption every natural phenomenon, like the origin of life, for example, is securely known to be explicable on the basis of natural causes accessible to scientific investigation--some combination of chemical laws and chance, to be more specific."
I may add further thoughts here. "[C]ombination of chemical laws and chance" is itself confusing, inasmuch as "chance" is equally the expression of such laws. However, science's presumption of "natural" causes as confined to physical or chemical laws consists of an enormous oversight. The very subject of life concerned here exhibits a natural phenomenon unexplained by only physical or chemical laws, which are understood as undirected and therefore excluding the possibility of goal-directedness, purpose, in nature. That phenomenon, which in fact distinguishes life, is the property of being directed at the goal of self-preservation, in contrast to the lifeless. It is a characteristic totally overlooked in the disputes, perhaps because it is right under our noses, and I have been trying to call attention to it though it remains a blind spot.
Author Reynolds is exceptionally candid in saying about themselves as authors (p.113): "Both of us have our doubts..." Perhaps their arguments are too narrow, by concerning Christians versus atheists. It would be more inclusive to speak about theism opposite atheism. Then there is no need to defend a particular faith, but a general concept of God as one who has goals, purposes, for his creatures. The preceding should help in this direction.
Phillip Johnson writes (p.33): "Scientists in particular have to be men and women of faith... To be successful, scientists have to learn not to allow difficulties to destroy their confidence... Yet there is a limit. Sometimes repeated failure is a sign that reaching a goal by the means one has been using truly is impossible... Alchemists had faith that they could transform base metals to gold, but their persistence after lifetimes of failure made them seem ridiculous rather than heroic. I sometimes think of alchemy when reading of the constantly unsuccessful efforts of modern scientists to determine how nonliving chemicals combined by natural means on the early Earth to form the first living cells."
Correspondingly, he writes (p.34): "many scientists today have an absolute faith in naturalism". "On this assumption every natural phenomenon, like the origin of life, for example, is securely known to be explicable on the basis of natural causes accessible to scientific investigation--some combination of chemical laws and chance, to be more specific."
I may add further thoughts here. "[C]ombination of chemical laws and chance" is itself confusing, inasmuch as "chance" is equally the expression of such laws. However, science's presumption of "natural" causes as confined to physical or chemical laws consists of an enormous oversight. The very subject of life concerned here exhibits a natural phenomenon unexplained by only physical or chemical laws, which are understood as undirected and therefore excluding the possibility of goal-directedness, purpose, in nature. That phenomenon, which in fact distinguishes life, is the property of being directed at the goal of self-preservation, in contrast to the lifeless. It is a characteristic totally overlooked in the disputes, perhaps because it is right under our noses, and I have been trying to call attention to it though it remains a blind spot.
Author Reynolds is exceptionally candid in saying about themselves as authors (p.113): "Both of us have our doubts..." Perhaps their arguments are too narrow, by concerning Christians versus atheists. It would be more inclusive to speak about theism opposite atheism. Then there is no need to defend a particular faith, but a general concept of God as one who has goals, purposes, for his creatures. The preceding should help in this direction.
17 of 23 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
Toward the end of Against All Gods, Phillip Johnson writes this: "[E]very position about the nature of life and its origin has difficulties. Therefore, the question is not whether we can find a position that has no difficulties, but rather, which set of difficulties we prefer to embrace."
For several years now, the "New Atheists" have highlighted what they believe are the "difficulties" in theistic worldviews, especially the Christian theistic worldview. For many of them, rationality is more or less identical to the deliverances of science, and what science delivers most clearly is evolution. Since evolution explains the biological complexity of the universe without reference to God, God is an unnecessary hypothesis. Continuing belief in him, then, is an exercise of irrational faith.
Johnson and Reynolds push back against these conclusions by pointing out several difficulties within the "Darwinian worldview" itself. Among other things, they point out that faith is not irrational. Rather, it is human, a necessary component for all human intellectual endeavors. Further, the deliverances of science cannot determine once for all the nonexistence of God since those deliverances shift over time. Also, if the Darwinian worldview acts as a "universal acid" on traditional beliefs - the phrase is Daniel Dennett's - then it acts as a universal acid on all beliefs. If there is an evolutionary explanation for belief in God, then there is also an evolutionary explanation for belief in evolution. If the evolutionary explanation invalidates the former, it invalidates the latter as well.
One needn't agree with Johnson and Reynolds' Christian theism, as I do, to appreciate the difficulties with atheism they raise in this small book. But surely at least one of the goals of a liberal arts education should be self-criticism: knowing what's doubtful about one's own position. For years, criticism of theism has been an implicit and explicit part of a liberal arts education on many college campuses. Taking the first steps toward criticism of atheism in the same way would be a sign of educational progress.
For several years now, the "New Atheists" have highlighted what they believe are the "difficulties" in theistic worldviews, especially the Christian theistic worldview. For many of them, rationality is more or less identical to the deliverances of science, and what science delivers most clearly is evolution. Since evolution explains the biological complexity of the universe without reference to God, God is an unnecessary hypothesis. Continuing belief in him, then, is an exercise of irrational faith.
Johnson and Reynolds push back against these conclusions by pointing out several difficulties within the "Darwinian worldview" itself. Among other things, they point out that faith is not irrational. Rather, it is human, a necessary component for all human intellectual endeavors. Further, the deliverances of science cannot determine once for all the nonexistence of God since those deliverances shift over time. Also, if the Darwinian worldview acts as a "universal acid" on traditional beliefs - the phrase is Daniel Dennett's - then it acts as a universal acid on all beliefs. If there is an evolutionary explanation for belief in God, then there is also an evolutionary explanation for belief in evolution. If the evolutionary explanation invalidates the former, it invalidates the latter as well.
One needn't agree with Johnson and Reynolds' Christian theism, as I do, to appreciate the difficulties with atheism they raise in this small book. But surely at least one of the goals of a liberal arts education should be self-criticism: knowing what's doubtful about one's own position. For years, criticism of theism has been an implicit and explicit part of a liberal arts education on many college campuses. Taking the first steps toward criticism of atheism in the same way would be a sign of educational progress.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
4.0 out of 5 stars
Opening the way for a more intelligent discussion
As far as acting goes I've always thought Steve McQueen was a bit overrated, even so I like watching his movies because he sure was cool. Read more
Published 1 month ago by Paul & Miranda
5.0 out of 5 stars
Honestly addresses atheists' questions, and their shortcomings
This is not a dry nor harsh apologetic, shooting down questions many honest people ask with quick quips and unpersuasive brow beating. Read more
Published 2 months ago by Eric Holloway
5.0 out of 5 stars
Challenging Writer
Ever start to read a book and find yourself highlighting so much that the whole page looks pink or yellow? That's what i started doing here (fortunately on the kindle edition :) ). Read more
Published on December 10, 2010 by Reviewer
3.0 out of 5 stars
My Review of this book in Books and Culture
The following article is located at: [...]
Against All Gods
How best to respond to the New Atheists.
Benjamin B. Read more
Against All Gods
How best to respond to the New Atheists.
Benjamin B. Read more
Published on October 5, 2010 by Benjamin B. DeVan
3.0 out of 5 stars
Tends to reinforce exactly what religion is criticized for
First off, the book is certainly worth reading. If you are certain your "side" is right and the other is wrong do not read this - regardless of what "side" you are on. Read more
Published on September 26, 2010 by R. Eason
5.0 out of 5 stars
I Like Surprising Ideas, Don't You?
"Against All Gods" deals with questions which are raised by the "New Atheists" and in particular it deals with the naturalistic presuppositions at the root of their bold... Read more
Published on July 31, 2010 by Daniel L. Marler
1.0 out of 5 stars
The most biased book I've ever read.
This is the most biased book I've ever read. It is like a very cheap trick on Christian philosophy.
I could not finish reading it.
I could not finish reading it.
Published on July 15, 2010 by Jose Tercero
5.0 out of 5 stars
review from [...]
What's right and wrong about the new #atheism.
I've gotta be honest... I was a little surprised by this title (and subtitle) on a Christian book. Read more
I've gotta be honest... I was a little surprised by this title (and subtitle) on a Christian book. Read more
Published on July 14, 2010 by D. King
5.0 out of 5 stars
A top pick for any intrigued with the modern religious debate
In railing against faith, some atheists become the very thing they speak out against. "Against All Gods: What's Right and Wrong about the New Atheism" discusses the modern atheist... Read more
Published on June 12, 2010 by Midwest Book Review
5.0 out of 5 stars
Let the Light of Reason Shine on Non-theism
Don't hate Phillip Johnson because he's a persuasive intellectual: There are ample and more legitimate grounds to have an aversion to him.
Of course I'm just kidding. Read more
Of course I'm just kidding. Read more
Published on May 21, 2010 by Mike Robinson
