Customer Reviews

Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer

5 star:		(15)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Todd Gates' DIALOGUE WITH A CHRISTIAN PROSELYTIZER is the latest of several books that I've read recently dealing in one way or another with the topic of religious conviction. I'm sure that I did not purposely set out on a literary journey of religious exploration, and I'm somewhat bemused by the number of books that I've encountered lately that involve religion. On the other hand, perhaps that should not be surprising, for religious conviction has played a major role in the conduct of human affairs from, probably, pre-history to the present day, so it is hardly surprising to find it explored and analyzed by a great number of writers. Depending on one's purposes in reading such literature, the choice of material is indeed broad. To touch on only a few such purposes, I might offer these suggestions:

MISQUOTING JESUS: THE STORY BEHIND WHO CHANGED THE BIBLE AND WHY by Bart D. Ehrman is an excellent explanation of why we can scarcely trust any modern-day Bible to represent the original thought of either the Hebraic Old Testament or the Greek New Testament; too many translators have been at work over the ages, particularly the centuries before invention of printing when oral tradition and hand copying were the rule. WIDE AS THE WATERS: THE STORY OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE AND THE REVOLUTION IT INSPIRED by Benson Bobrick and GOD'S SECRET AGENTS: QUEEN ELIZABETH'S FORBIDDEN PRIESTS AND THE HATCHING OF THE GUNPOWDER PLOT by Alice Hogge offer intriguing insights into the continued molding of Christianity by social and political pressure. The damaging and destructive power of religious conviction is fervently denounced by Sam Harris in THE END OF FAITH. Richard Dawkins' THE GOD DELUSION does a superb job of demonstrating that religion is not necessary for providing humankind with a sense of wonder, and THE ANCESTOR'S TALE explains evolutionary progression so clearly that the concept of creationism seems a ludicrous simplicity by comparison.

But all of these works have something in common--they are the result of rational and critical thinking, of meticulous historical research, and of objective scientific experimentation, all of which may be rejected out of hand by the fervent religionist who substitutes unquestioning belief in the supernatural for intellectual inquiry. Enter DIALOGUE WITH A CHRISTIAN PROSELYTIZER.

In DIALOGUE, Gates' character of "Scott Crates" accepts "for the sake of argument" that a "Higher Power" exists, but he is troubled by the lack of proof thereof, and he questions "Chris Proselman" to explain his belief based on the accuracy of Christian writings, primarily the Bible but also including some of the tracts that Chris is handing out. Gates is essentially having Scott and Chris discuss whether the Bible is in fact the inerrant word of God. Scott frequently points out biblical stories which have their sources in pre-Christian myths and is very adept at pointing out biblical inconsistencies and contradictions. His point is not to disparage Chris' faith in the existence of a deity but to show that such ragged edges in biblical stories result from their being "ad-hoc collections of history, legend, and morality tales that have been gathered from regional folklore" (191) and that the "Scriptures did not come from One Divine Author, but from many different human authors--humans who didn't check one another's work for philosophical compatibility...." (197) Scott also points to many biblical "revelations" that are distinctly earth-based, revealing no more than is evident to mortal human senses and even perpetuating mistaken beliefs prevalent at the time they were written, a further indication of purely human authorship.

Chris comes off more as a foil for Scott's logic than as an erudite Christian apologist. About the best he can usually do is retort with phrases such as "the majesty of God's Story," the "beauty of God's Word," and the necessity of allowing the "Holy Spirit" to work within one. His replies are weak and devoid of substance. While a reader may be tempted to find fault with Gates for not developing his two characters more equally, it has been my experience that most street-corner proselytizers are in fact as devoid of substantive reasoning as is Chris, so perhaps his character is as fully developed as reality permits.

In brief, DIALOGUE takes the Bible as it exists today and asks the "true believer" to explain how it could be the inerrant word of God given the vast number of derivative stories, evidence of human limitations in the writings, and internal inconsistencies. The book is not written as an attack on the Christian god or any other deity but as a detailed and well-supported question as to the authorship and reliability of the Bible when it comes to explaining the nature of that deity and the requirements that he or she lays on humankind.

The use of an extended discussion between the characters of Scott and Chris (with their cutely symbolic names) is a rather novel approach to presenting the arguments against accepting the Bible as the inerrant word of God, although, as I've noted, the discussion is anything but equal since all of the factual data come from Scott. I find the use of Roman numerals for footnoting a peculiar practice, most likely because I'm accustomed to either MLA or APA methods of source citations, but that's a minor point. My only serious complaint about the book is its physical presentation. This edition is printed on rather large pages, and its size, combined with its soft covers, makes holding the book in one's lap quite awkward; its design makes reading at the desk or table almost a necessity. I would much prefer that the page size be reduced and that it have the rigidity afforded by a hard binding. The quality of the content deserves a richer physical presentation.

Its somewhat awkward size notwithstanding, DIALOGUE offers thought-provoking content and is yet another challenge to readers who are willing to allow thought and rationality to contend with uncritical faith in the supernatural as revealed in the Christian Bible. Unfortunately, those who stand to benefit the most from DIALOGUE, such as a military medical doctor recently quoted in the local newspaper as avowing the earth to be all of 6,000 years old--and not a day more, are the most unlikely to read it.

Todd Allen Gates uses the Socratic method here in an attempt to reconcile the ways of Christian proselytizers with the evidence of our senses and the conclusions of our rational minds. "Chris" speaks for Christianity and "Scott" speaks for the skeptic in our soul. Because Gates is a most thorough researcher and an incredibly patient man who has put his heart and soul into this project, the result is a slam dunk for...

Both sides!

Or so it might seem, depending upon your preconceptions and discernment. The thing that amazed me is how absolutely fair Gates is with both sides of the dialogue. Never before have I read the Christian position presented so well and so completely. Gates goes to extraordinary lengths to give the best arguments for both sides. He has read widely in the literature and he has interviewed a wide variety of people and incorporated their ideas into the arguments. His references include an eclectic selection of authorities from David Hume and Richard Dawkins to the Knights of Columbus and the Catholic Encyclopedia in addition to numerous Web sites. The book is beautifully and scrupulously edited by Kathleen D. Gallagher.

I have only one small fault to find with Mr. Gates and that is in allowing Scott to however tentatively accept the hoary "argument from design" that purports to prove the existence of God. I think it would have been better to just put that argument aside since it has been so thoroughly demolished.

Scott's strategy is to show that the contradictions that exist in all religions are similar to the contradictions that exist in Christianity. He gets Chris to assert that the contradictions in all other religions make it clear that such religions cannot be true. But when it comes to Christianity Chris will not admit the same. When cornered his final argument is that the word of God in the Bible must be read as guided by the Holy Spirit. When this is done all contradictions fade away; all inconsistencies are seen as aspects of a larger truth.

Chris argues that we must realize that "God is communicating in a way that draws the reader into the process of discovery for himself: a process that results in an instruction that's much more powerful than one in which everything is spelled out literally." (p. 194) He adds, "A proper contemplation means allowing the Holy Spirit to guide you, to dwell within as you immerse yourself in the beauty of God's Word." (p. 195)

Scott dryly replies, "I guess the Holy Spirit part is the element I'm missing..."

He goes on to point out that even within the Christian community (presumably possessed with the Holy Spirit) there is a great variance of interpretation. But of course Chris has no trouble countering that problem. Theologians have argued for centuries that humans are fallible and that misunderstandings (or even crimes committed) by Christians have nothing to do with Christianity per se, but only with wayward members of the flock.

I am reminded in this that Muslims contend that the Koran cannot be fully understood unless it is read in the original Arabic. I am also reminded of spoon-benders and other charlatans who have been exposed by scientists (and magicians) in rigorous settings. Their answer: the experiment failed because of the negative energy caused by the presence of unbelievers!

Occasionally Chris stumbles without knowing it. For example when Scott points out that it would seem a bit unfair of a just and righteous God to punish those people who did not follow the one true religion because they were never exposed to that religion, Chris replies: "True, but I imagine that God must be somewhat liberal in His judgment of all those who were unable to hear His word through no fault of their own." He then quotes Luke 12:48, "Anyone who is not aware that he is doing wrong will be punished only lightly."

Neither Chris nor Scott seems to notice that ANY punishment for something that cannot be helped is morally repugnant and unworthy of a just God. Scott does note elsewhere that God seems to be playing an unfair game by using "middlemen" like the writers of the Bible to spread his word when He could, with all His omnipotence, play fair and give everybody the Word in any number of ways, most directly by simply telling each and every person on earth what He expects of them. Instead we are reduced to interpreting a confusing and contradictory text augmented by arguments and interpretations from fallible mortals. Would God act in such an arbitrary and unconscionable way? Chris's final argument amounts to that old saw about not being able to fully explain the ways of God to man.

For anyone who has dialogued with Christians of an evangelical or fundamentalist stripe, it becomes clear after awhile that in the final analysis it is faith and faith alone that sustains their belief because belief in the literal expression of the Bible requires a repudiation of history, science and common sense.

Emily Dickinson wrote nearly 150 years ago: "Faith is a fine invention/When Gentlemen can see--/But Microscopes are prudent/In an Emergency." I want to add that there is a place for faith in this world. For many it is psychologically necessary to have faith in some sort of purpose in our lives even though all of science and most of philosophy point to a vast indifferent universe beyond our comprehension

Faith is also okay when we have no evidence one way or the other. So it is surely okay to believe or not believe in God since there is no evidence one way or the other. As to the Christian God who brings mischief into this world and who sends people to eternal damnation just because they can't see their way to follow John 3:16, that God is easily dismissed as a demonic projection of the malevolent side of human nature.

Wow. I am really impressed. It's even taken me a few days to collect my thoughts on all of the things I found in the book in order to write an adequate review of it.

I attempted to find out something about the author himself and was surprised to find that there is very little available other than that he is a musician. I had expected a classicist, sociologist, anthropologist, historian, philosophy or biblical scholar. I would have believed almost any academic title, but Mr. Todd has no such credentials on his vita. From what I learned about him by reading his book, however, I would say his interests are centered on classics, history, philosophy, logic and archaeology. He is extremely well read in the fields that interest him and has an incredible mind for organization and for collating facts from diverse sources.

The book itself is an amazing example of the use of the Socratic Method as presented in Plato's Dialogues, a book that purports to be about the relationship between the Greek philosopher Socrates and his disciples. Hence here the author adopts as his character's nomen Scott Ocretes at the opening of the book.

Socrates taught by assuming the position that he actually knew nothing. He simply wanted to "learn" and asked for information from his students, usually about some social or other issue about which the student might feel confident of knowledge. Usually these were topics of "obvious" truth, but by asking more and more questions in a logical order and by giving examples that the student might agree to or refute, Socrates was able to reveal to the student just how unobvious and straight forward many of these issues actually were.

It was for his questioning of issues like social order, religion, civil authority, tyranny, justice, and other moorings of society that Socrates was brought to trial for leading the youth of Athens astray and was finally put to death for impiety. The real problem was not just that he lead any and all young men astray but those of some of the leading families in Athenian society and its political hierarchy, most notably Alcibiades a member of the very influential Alcmaeonidae clan. This was during the Peloponnesian War, one that would prove ultimate disaster for the Athenians, and these were the future leaders of the city. So far as the city fathers were concerned Socrates was a threat of the highest order.

Although Socrates did not survive the hemlock he was ordered to drink, thanks to Plato his dialectical style of teaching and thinking did. Alan Todd's book, Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer, is a wonderful example. The reader will benefit from just following the argument for its style, if nothing else. I found the periodic summations very instructive, because you could see the wheels turning behind the process.

The average Christian will be given a great deal to think about with respect to God, Christianity, Christ, and world religions. The information on these subjects is staggering, and it is wonderful to see it so comprehensively provided and in so compact and organized a manner. The more rigid religious extremist will find the book at least "acceptable," will probably even see the character Chris as "winning" the situation. Certainly the discussion is less argumentative or threatening than many confrontations between the doubter and the believer. In short, there is nothing that will put anyone's "back up."

The book is actually in two parts, the dialogue itself and a group of end notes. If the reader is inclined to skip this type of material, I would suggest that he/she not do so in this case, since much of the material presents in more economical form what is discussed in the book at various points. They are in fact elucidation of the text, footnotes that do not interrupt the flow of the argument.

The author's citations are culled from a diverse set of resources. Although I have read many of the classical, historical and archaeological sources, including some of the journal articles, I was amazed at how vast the literature on the Christian religion is. I have not really done any reading on the subject until recently. I was also impressed with the author's knowledge of many of the world's religions; to the extent of actually using the data in the context of his argument. The student of religion would definitely benefit from following up some of the author's bibliography, as would the student of history.

In the end I don't think that either doubter or believer will have changed their positions very much. The author rightly points this out at the end. Certainly although there is no concrete data that suggests God does not exist, neither is there any that suggests that he does. It really does come down to personal choice. Probably the clearest indication of how far apart the two are is that while Scott refers to definite information--whether from Biblical or extra-Biblical sources--Chris, when all else fails, falls back on faith, inspiration, belief, the Holy Sprit, in short a suspension of disbelief. This is almost like a left-brain vs right-brain approach to the subject. A PET scan of the participants might even prove it! Neither can persuade the other, because neither is speaking in the Koine of the other; they are simply not talking about the same thing.

One might be inclined to see that capacity to suspend disbelief as the product of a "weak" or "illogical" mind, but in fact it capitalizes on one of mankind's strongest features, its ability to think creatively by imagination alone. Almost every modern person is able to do so and does it frequently: watching TV, at the cinema, playing computer games. Probably the most obvious to the participant is the suspension of disbelief at live theater. The effort it requires--and therefore the amount of audience participation required in the play--is determined by the degree to which set, lighting and costume appear to be "real." For a play in a modern setting, no problem. For a period piece, like Shakespeare's Hamlet, a little more difficult. For a play like Our Town by Thornton Wilder, which uses a ladder for a house and high backed chairs for tombstones, the audience has a lot to do. And for the most part, they are quite capable of doing it, enjoying a striking play and understanding its message quite well.

The human advantage of imagining things as they would like them to be or as they might be with certain effort, has gotten us to the moon, may plant our feet on Mars, has solved some of mankind's health problems, etc., etc. If Chris wants to believe in God "just because," more power to him.

A brilliant book.

This is a book for people who already have doubts, however murky, about the "truth" of their religion, but simply can't give up on the idea of God: people who would never, for example, pick up books with titles such as "The End of Faith" or "The God Delusion" will find a fairer treatment of religion in "Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer". In it, "Chris", the Proselytizer, is no mere strawman who can't defend himself. He provides the best possible arguments Christianity has to offer, even though in the end they don't hold up to rigorous scrutiny.

The role model for Chris's antagonist, "Scott", is Socrates. As in Plato's dialogues, Scott feigns ignorance in spiritual matters, but through his questions gets Chris to contradict his own firmly held beliefs. For example, by addressing the argument of Intelligent Design, Scott gets Chris to define what makes a "man-made religion," and then turns the Christian's own arguments against him as the two characters read through the Bible. At one point in the Socratic dialogue, the modern Christian readily concedes that pagan myths reveal that their authors were clueless about the physical universe, as in the demonstrably false story that the god Helios pulls the sun across the sky in his chariot. By getting Chris to spell out the specifics of how we can tell when a supposedly divine religion was created by ignorant humans, we can apply the same logic to the Bible, using the Christian's own words as evidence for the prosecution.

Far from being mindless sophistry, introducing the element of doubt into religious beliefs is important because religions are most dangerous when their adherents claim that they know for certain the mind of God: that such and such a Divinity wants the adulteress stoned to death, or wants the Untouchables to abide by the caste rules, or hates homosexuals, or wants women covered from head-to-toe. As we have seen in recent years, for these fanatics, there is no punishment too extreme to be delivered to the infidels. That's why "Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer" serves as such welcome dose of reason in these dangerous times.

DWACP is a good effort, and I liked the format--including the oversized book itself, which made it easier to follow the "dialogue." It is a worthy read, and digests a good deal of material (fairly) that could be a burden for busy laypeople to grapple with. BUT. Parts of it a little tedious, it could have used a touch of humor (nothing goofy or overbearing--I hate that, too--but just enough to give the academic rustiness of the prose a shot of WD-40), and I was a little surprised to see the author complimented for being widely or deeply read. He definitely has exposed himself to some excellent resources on both sides of the debate, but an overreliance on, for example, Joseph Campbell and Norman Giesler could have been avoided by mixing it up a little. Not just variety for its own sake, but to broaden the perspective a little.

On the other hand, it is probably true that most of us argue from a rather limited set of experiences, facts, and expert opinions, and maybe the book was merely attempting to mirror this tendency to achieve greater realism. After all, two people meeting on consecutive Sundays to have a free-form conversation are unlikely to have all the resources of the Internet and Library of Congress at their disposal. Even so, I think a little more diversity would have made this a stronger book.

And a final point. Some Christian apologists have complained that the "New Atheists" have only gone after soft targets, like jihadists, Jim Jones, child-raping priests, Rev. Hagee, and the like. This book is respectful of intelligent believers and addresses the arguments of luminaries such as Giesler, Plantinga, Craig, C.S. Lewis, and so forth. That makes the book far more valuable for the average, intelligent reader. And it does not in any way game the fact that the religious position is shown to be very weak.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences -this is the central tenet of Todd Gates' book. While reading Todd's Dialogue, I came to respect the "Scott" character's objective and methodical study of all things religious. Time and time again, his systematic approach impressed me thanks to the application of logic and lucidity. The "Chris" character appeared apologetic to Scott's scrutinies and challenges. Chris' polemics were less persuasive in offering reasonable and logic persuasions to convince me why his particular brand of religious road map to God was the one and only to follow. Remember the principle of "Occam's Razor"? Indeed, my plea to anyone who may read this review is to keep in mind that: "the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct" -or: "all other things being equal, the simplest solution is generally the most plausible."

To be clear, I am writing this opinion review specifically from a scientific mindset -without passion or prejudice. I have always considered myself to be a person of faith. At present however, I am convinced that my religious beliefs should not be immune from objective scrutiny and scientific inquiries. From my own experience, it does take considerable courage to reevaluate the reasonableness of one's belief in supernatural characters and metaphysical stories.

Many people of faith often accept otherworldly truths without requiring a shred of objective substantiation in empirical reality. Strange actually, since these same individuals most often require -even demand, objective proofs for just about anything else before they choose to accept a premise as 'true'. Truth-claims are usually only accepted to the extent that they can be proven, except... in religious orthodoxies. For some reason, religion has been made unilaterally exempt from skeptical incredulity, critical inquiry and evidential verification. What happened, for example, with the reasonable appeal to demand access to impartial secondary witness accounts before we even consider to accept claims worthy of 'believing' or as divinely inspired? And what about applying critical thinking or burden of proof before we allow ourselves to believe that nature's laws have been abrogated? This is especially relevant when we choose to descend in the realm of religious truth or faith claims. Gates argues that critical thinking should never be abandoned, especially when the opposite is demanded or implied.

Gates argues that even though certain beliefs satisfy a deep psychological need in us, provide consolation, comfort us in times of need, offer a purpose to life, etc. does not imply that they are therefore true -this is a complete non sequitur. Gates' observation that so many people have found religious stories to be consoling should give us additional pause to accept them at face value -are we swapping rationality for mere emotionally comforting passions? Gates also observes that many Believers desperately want to believe these narratives and deliberately dissuade themselves from explaining them from a non-miraculous source of origin.

Gates also points out foundational and historical skeletons Christianity hides in its dogmatic closets. Examples such as the doctrines of the Virgin birth, the divinity of Jesus and his resurrection are examined with a refreshing dispassion in Gates' treatise. I thought that these events were unique to Christianity. However, Gates points out that prior to Christianity, various supernatural virgin births had already been described and that beings conceived in such manner had been worshiped by various pagan religions long before the advent of Christianity. Resurrection stories of assorted (demi)gods were also rather plentiful in ancient lores. As a person of faith, I was not aware of these facts. Gates argues that the Keepers of the Faiths are not too much inclined to teach these minor details because objectivity does not tend to encourage winning or keeping souls in the flock. The similarities between ancient myths and Christian traditions are truly remarkable.

Gates explains that the fledgling Jesus movement was hijacked by an unholy hierarchy which purged the Faith from competing Christian theologies. Significant numbers of early Christians did not believe, for example, that Jesus was literally the Son of God or accepted his literal resurrection. A ruling body of clergymen decided in those formative years which doctrines were to "define" Christianity, often through bloody and violent means. Gates questions that what we read in the Bible (especially the New Testament) is not a faithful representation of the original text as intended by the authors. Our holy books are apparently riddled with omissions, alterations and scribal additions in order to embellish Jesus' divinity, miracle works and the suppression of the role of women.

The scope of Gates' exploration of comparative religious attempts to make sense of the insensible and to try to define the unknowns is truly fascinating and a real eye opener. However, it also reveals a rather sobering image of mankind's preponderance for superstitious beliefs especially in light of our modern scientific understanding of cause and effect. Gates suggests that religious apologists who are cloaked with the respectability or masquerade as real scholars, are particularly egregious examples of practitioners of pseudo intellectual endeavors in Gates' view. These individuals attempt to provide cover for the wider body of believers who are only interested to be immunized and protected from unbiased scholarship and objective reality. Gates argues that truth is an early and convenient victim to be sacrificed on the altar of religious dogmas. As a person of faith, the only argument against this perspective is that private spiritual experiences are difficult to ignore.

Perhaps there is no wrathful God causing devastating earthquakes or pandemics? Could it be that plate tectonics move inexorably without conscience or passion, and could it be that incidental random mutations in microorganisms cause pathogenic super bugs? And could it be that global climatic changes have been affected by cyclical changes and the anthropic oxidation of fossil fuels?

Gates describes a continuous and relentless retreat in all manner of faith-based truth claims. The so-called God-of-the-Scientific-Gaps (or Holes) is ever decreasing. The realm of natural phenomena previously explained through faith-based religions is shrinking precipitously, consequently theistic explanations for any natural phenomenon is becoming less persuasive or causally necessary. Gates makes an argument that this is driven largely because of continuous advances in our scientific understanding of the physical, biological and chemical processes of our world. In addition, our secular intellectual philosophical enlightenment has surpassed, in many instances, the 'morality' taught in the Bible. One of the best examples is the abolition of the evil institution of slavery. Gates observes that the pro-slavery passages found in both the Old or New Testament did not persuade moral men and women to conclude to eradicate this barbaric practice.

Gates holds that our religious beliefs more often than not have very little to do with objective reality, but more to do with fuzzy emotions: "this feels good and comfortable, therefore God is telling me that it is true". The Believer conveniently screens out the negative and elevates perceived faith-promoting events as living evidence that their particular faith-system "works." In addition, the Believer is often part of a fellow shipping community which further consolidates and rewards a particular belief structure. The Believer is actively encouraged to focus solely on Faith approved sources, deviation from which is frowned upon. Indeed, objective and critical study takes a mandatory back seat. As a person of faith, I must admit that I have felt caught between the forces of rationalism and my own innate need for something perhaps less rational.

Does it matter that our holy books are packed with glaring contradictions and logical improbabilities? Gates argues that it does. And what to think of the amount of gratuitous violence, sanctioned -even mandated by God? Ethnic cleansing, infanticide, genocide, sexual slavery, etc. etc. all sanctified and absolved in the name of God? Gates reminds us that examples of these acts are found in such books as Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, 2nd Samuel, Numbers, the Books of Kings and Zechariah. By our moral standards, half of the kings of Israel and the prophets of Israel would be detained and prosecuted for crimes committed against humanity. These individuals, including Moses for slaughtering the Medinites, Joshua for exterminating the Malachites and Elijah for butchering the prophets of Baal, would be classified, to our modern standards, as utter psychopaths for the crimes they committed. Gates alludes to a missing scriptural chapter on mathematics or physics or astronomy -proof of Divine Authorship- so sublime, that it has passed the test of ages. Instead, Gates points out that a literal interpretation of the Creation story demands that the Earth (indeed, the entire observable universe) is less than six thousand years old and that the whole Earth was flooded a mere four thousand years ago.

Gates suggests how sublime our holy books could have been if the Creator of the Universe was indeed the actual Author. Instead, Gates asserts that the scriptural narratives belie their human origin by conveying tyrannical, hateful, homophobic, ignorant and racist world views and faulty cosmologies.

As a person of faith, I have struggled for many years how to reconcile the prehistoric record of early lifeforms and hominids with religious doctrines. It dawned on me some decades ago that the unmistakable immense age of the Earth and the unfolding of the fossil record -including newly discovered transition life forms- does matter because it stubbornly and seemingly contradicts the Creation Story and the Fall of mankind, among other Judeo-Christian beliefs. Where, for example, do the Cro-Magnons and the Neanderthals fit in? Gates continually argues that we are indeed free to choose to believe in whatever it is that we perceived as comforting or as revealed truths, but that it is intellectually dishonest to ignore or reject objective realities which contradict our private convictions.

Gates makes a compelling argument that religion and religious claims can -and should- be objectively scrutinized and be subjected to the principle of applying workable scientific hypotheses. However, in Gates' book, the Chris character appears to accept the least plausible explanations.

Gates' book is a fascinating example of applying pure rationality and objectivity to the subject of Faith. That is why I could appreciate it from a scientific mindset. His book is a well-balanced, fair, and objective masterpiece. Gates' book even garnered praise from people of faith who conclude that the Chris character actually won the argument. Of course, this may not matter to the fundamentalist true believer. Any deviation or detraction from scripture is rejected categorically.

Do we honestly believe that an omniscient Creator placed us here in this mortality and blessed us with a wonderful intellect and with powers of discernment, only to make it a liability when we use it for critical inquiries? Is it logical or rational to rely solely on faith and emotional validations of gospel claims regarding the purpose of life? Or should we, with our minds and hearts wide open, seek to learn, to investigate, to question, to search out for ourselves what rational, non-dogmatic scholarship has to teach us? Gates' book presents a compelling case to adhere to this point of view.

Respectfully,

Cas Knies

We've all had them - the polite, pamphlet-bearing, and ferociously certain people appearing at our front door. They want us to be like them, secure in faith, determined to guide us to it and utterly impervious to reason. Gates, who says he's had many such encounters, has wrapped them all into one individual, "Chris Proselman", and invited him for a dialogue. He's researching a book and wants "Chris" to provide him with the rationales Christianity offers. As "Scott Crates", Gates examines the various arguements with an open mind. He doesn't challenge the idea of a Universal God, but wants to see all the evidence. In an outstanding display of erudition, Gates stacks Chris' claims against a wide array of evidence.

The Platonic Dialogue is a long-established technique to examine philosophical issues. In what might appear as an oversimplification, Gates boils down the issues into three major themes: "Design and First Cause", "The Scriptures", and "Faith". Within the themes, "Chris" offers reasons why "Scott" should accept his depictions of the god. Some of these are derived from "the Bible" while others are simply Chris' declarations of belief. Scott then examines each of the arguments, refuting none, but showing either alternatives or the failure of sources to justify Chris' claims. Scott is careful to accept Chris' assertions, not to simply demolish them. He maintains a positive attitude throughout the exchanges. However, Scott often asks why Christianity should claim a monopoly on the declarations when so many of them are postulated by so many other religious teachings around the world.

The "Argument from Design" is readily disposed of. Chris uses Paley's "Natural Theology" to assert that the wonders of Nature, no matter how far back in time one scans, testify to some kind of "designer". Even in accepting the Big Bang as a point of origin for the Cosmos, the Christian asserts that his deity is the force behind it. Scott notes in response that there's nothing in the design argument that grants the Christian deity any special role. There are too many competitive, and more ancient creators. The number of competing deities and their supporting organisations lead Scott to examine several of these. Today's "New Age" philosophy contends that humans tend to think alike, but express themselves in different ways. So, too, do religions form in different societies with similar themes. The variations are minimal and the modern concept says "all religions were created equal". Judeo-Christianity, and later, Islam, rejects this, claiming unique status for their god. In some cases, as Scott notes, elements of two or more of these religions were merged to create a new one. Sikhism is a case in point, being derived from Islam and Hinduism.

Reliance on Scripture as a valid source for declaring Christianity a special place lacks validity, according to Scott. Many elements were adopted to establish Judaism and its theological offspring, Christianity. Scott provides many examples of these, while Chris contends there was no need to "borrow" anything as the Hebrew god established all these thing as part of the creative process. The evidence for that, Chris argues, lies in the Scriptures, and the pair examine numerous passages in validating or modifying that claim. With many resources at his disposal, Scott points out how the inconsistencies and contradictions, not to mention the outright errors, make Scripture a poor guide to divine declarations and commands. The character of the Judeo-Christian deity therefore comes under scrutiny, and inevitably, it's the story of Job that becomes the focal point. The question of faith under challenge becomes the highlight of the chapter - which Gates later expands in an "Endnote" at the back of the book.

With reason and evidence having proven to have little influence on Chris' views, the pair turns to the concept of faith. Offering a pair of definitions of "faith", one which is imprecise and the other unreasoning acceptance - in this case that of the Judeo-Christian deity - discussion centres on whether faith is "given" by the deity or must be an act of "free will". What aspect of this deity is to earn/command faith then follows. Since Scriptural declarations are so contradictory or weak, Scott contends, he expresses his inability to accept it as an inspirational source. Beyond the words alone, in the various claims Christianity has made of its special role in offering solace, Scott offers many parallel circumstances. Christianity's claim of unique value has no validity. There are, he argues, too many "middlemen" following too many routes to the same goal to substantiate any privileged status. As a "persuader", faith proves a poor foundation for making decisions about accepting divine guidance in life.

Each chapter contains a summation of Chris' claims and Scott's responses. These should be reviewed again as they provide an effective resource. As noted, Gates offers a series of "Endnotes" to conclude the book. Most of these are enlargement of points made in the main text, but which would have cluttered the flow of the dialogue. The references in the main text and the Endnotes are testimony to the care Gates has taken in creating this volume. He even makes an effort to compare some of the variations in the plethora of "bibles" available. In all, this book is a superb source of information, thoughtfully constructed and presented. It should be in the lobby of every church establishment, on the desk of every legislator and no school should be without a copy. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

This isn't a five star book as some of the reviewers have claimed. It rises to a level of simply honest which, sadly, is more than can be said for most other books currently being published on the atheist/agnostic/Christian debate.

First, the good things. Gates makes a decent attempt at presenting all points of view. He works hard to find valid explanations from the Christian side of the discussion without misrepresentation. This is definitely commendable. In addition, he clearly elucidates the points usually raised by atheists/agnostics against Christianity. Because of this the book makes a good overview of the atheist/agnostic/humanistic arguments against Christianity and the standard run of the mill answers to them. For this reason alone the book is worth the price.

Now for where the book falls short. One of the critical reasons why the Socratic method is so useful is that it (theoretically) brings together two people who have different points of view and they work through the differences through questioning. The problem with this book is that it does not do this, it is not truly a dialogue. It pretends to be a dialogue between two people, but with all of the discussion written by a single man with a single point of view. Despite his honest attempts to do this well he makes mistakes in presenting the Christian argument. At times the explanations provided by Chris (the Christian) are too "pat" and are obviously pulled from standard apologetic works without an understanding of some of the underlying reasoning behind the necessarily short answers in those wide-ranging works. In other places his use of scripture and his interpretation of the Bible are clearly insufficient. For instance, he uses Joshua 10:13 as an argument that the Bible states that the sun moves around the earth. However, the text does not say that. It simply says that "the sun stood still". There is nothing wrong with describing things from the point of reference of the actors within a narrative. Even in today's scientific world we accept the terms "sunrise" and "sunset". Albeit, he does use other passages that might seem to indicate the earth is stationary and the sun moves, but that's really not the issue - it's the fact that he used the Joshua passage at all that shows a weakness. The problem is that Gates is unable to properly answer that point from the Christian perspective because he does not have a Christian perspective to answer from. As such, this is not a dialogue. It's a soliloquy. Gates does well in his attempt, but he does not quite reach the mark.

As I said earlier, the book is valuable because it is a decent introduction to the discussion as seen from an atheist or agnostic world view. It is not useful as a deciding factor on the overall issue or to present a sufficient Christian apologetic to the questions raised.

A better way to see the Socratic method employed between atheists and Christians is to review past debates at the Oxford Socratic Club and current debates at the Samford Socratic Club. In those instances the Socratic ideal is upheld as both sides present their cases and attempt to follow truth wherever it may lead. The true value is found in the divergent worldviews and philosophies coming from some of the finest minds on both sides presenting and defending their own cases face-to-face. While this too is not a true "dialogue" it's much more preferable for those wishing a balanced view of the discussion.

All of that being said, I would recommend adding this book to your library. It's a primer (and a good one) for those who are truly interested in engaging in the debate without the rancor of the all-too-often acrimonious books, articles, and blogs that seem to be plaguing us today.

I found this book to be an excellent discussion of the many discrepencies in the Old and New Testament. Having done a great deal of research on the origins of the Bible and Christianity in general, I have come to the conclusion reinforced by this book that there is no arguing with a true believer. They will always resort to Faith and the necessity of finding the Holy Spirit to justify what seems to most of us a totally illogical position that they take from reading selected and I emphasize selected passages in the Bible.

Suppose that it was your task to teach an intelligent man or woman suffering amnesia all about religion, and you had to start from scratch, as well as teach him or her about the nature of "your" Christian faith, perhaps even persuade this person about the righteousness of your faith in your Christian god. Author Todd Gates captures how such a dialogue might go in a very readable and enjoyable way.

In one dialogue the Christian, Chris, states to Scott, the amnesiac, that, "Faith, my friend, is the way we make our choices. It honestly takes faith to believe anything--it even takes a certain measure of faith to believe that Abraham Lincoln existed, and did what people say he did." Scott, grappling with the concepts of faith and God then asks Chris a series of questions concerning the use of reason over faith. Before spending our twenty bucks on a book, for example, we read a few book reviews. And we most certainly check out a house before we buy it, even paying for an independent inspection typically. In fact, Scott goes on, the more serious the matter is, the more research we do. Shouldn't we then research, he asks, which of the thousands of religions, all of which purport to be THE ONE true religion, before accepting a particular version? To this end using reason, Scott cites Proverbs 18:13, 4:5-6; 3:13-18, and 1 John 4:1. Chris gives in to a point. When it comes to secular matters, he admits, reason is more useful than faith, but when it comes to God, Chris insists, there are profound mysteries about God beyond the reaches of our five senses.

The conversation moves to asking if reason can be used as a tool to eliminate false religions. Scott cites the connection between the seasons and the Greek goddess Demeter, goddess of agriculture. When Persephone, Demeter's daughter, would spend part of her time in the world of the dead visiting her ex-husband, Demeter would get depressed and winter would set in killing off Earth's plants--winter. When Persephone would return, spring would arrive. This is nutty to be sure, especially given that when it's winter in the northern hemisphere, it's summer in the southern hemisphere. This leads to a discussion about defining truth. For a belief system to be "true", it must a) accurately describe a large class of observations, and b) make predictions that agree with future, as yet unobserved facts--this is the scientific method that is. The Demeter system fails because it is inconsistent with the facts. It is the same with the Greek theory that the sun and planets orbit the earth. On the other hand, the Renaissance theory that earth and the planets orbit the sun didn't fail when, using telescopes, we discovered many centuries later a collection of planets each orbiting the sun. So it would seem that reason can be used to falsify religions. Once we discover that an allegedly divine message contains "facts" which contradict a wide set of observations, the message must be inaccurate. Goodbye Zeus, Thor, Blogorg,..., an many others.

In yet another delightful dialogue, Chris and Scott discuss the variations of the relatively modern theory that all religions are true. A lake has several bathing places. At one the Hindus take water and call it jal, at another place the Muslims call it pani, and at yet another place the Christians call it water. By analogy, God is one, only under different names, with attributes attributable to different climates, temperaments and so forth. Chris and Scott discuss whether it is logical to conclude that there are different religions for different needs, or whether there was one true religion which got corrupted by mankind with the passage of time, or whether there should be lots of alternative religions, each of which captures a different portion of God's message so that we may learn something from each religion. Each theory, is, in turn, found lacking for various reasons by both Chris and Scott.

The bottom line to me is that it's too easy to be sloppy, or give offense when discussing religion and faith with others. Whatever belief system you have, you should expect good, hard, honest questions from genuinely interested peoples of other faiths and/or religions, and you should also be able to give these people a reasonable accounting of your belief system. It's arguably better than getting into an "Is so," "Is not," argument which may lead to a lost opportunity to possibly persuade a person to your point of view, if not actually declaring holy war or perpetrating acts of terror. If you care about your belief system, then Gates' book is a must read.

Sincerely,

Alex Alaniz, Ph.D.