Customer Reviews

The End of Christianity

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

I was somewhat critical of the previous Loftus-edited collection of essays, The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails, mainly for its unevenness. I find "End" to be a more consistently excellent work, with several clear instances of lucid, original thinking, well-presented.

Carrier continues to distinguish himself in essays on intelligent design and non-relativistic morality (though I confess that I do not have the requisite training to understand fully the formal logic he employs in the morality essay), and Robert Price extends his tradition of advancing fresh ideas in punchy, accessible prose. Hector Avalos performs something of a miracle, making nearly as strong a case in his brief essay as he does in The End of Biblical Studies (though of course at great loss of the sort of supporting material a scholar would insist on reviewing before agreeing with his thesis).

Even Loftus, who I have not always accorded the highest respect, shines in his essays. I still think his "Outsider Test of Faith" has an "every problem looks like a nail/I have a hammer" quality to it, but I admit that he has demonstrated surprising versatility with this tool, and his prose continues to grow more acute and incisive, even as the language seems to flow better and better.

For those reasons and more, I hope that--despite this being termed the completion of a sort of "trilogy"--Loftus continues the good working of gathering interesting voices to criticize Christianity. Much of the literature coming out of New Atheism (and its relatives) comes from the sciences and philosophy), but while Carrier in particular touches on such issues, this is largely a work of theological and biblical criticism. As someone who himself deconverted mostly due to theological conflicts (my appreciation of science and atheistic philosophy came years later), I see a crucial place for this type of literature. In reading "End," I found it increasingly difficult to imagine any honest Christian engaging with the material and not coming away with serious doubts, if not outright skepticism regarding her faith.

I recently received John Loftus' The End of Christianity, an anthology of some of the most profound atheist writers that delivers a variety of convincing arguments for the abandonment of the Christian faith. In lieu of new content, I decided to go ahead and write up a detailed review for his book. There are 14 chapters, and while I want to avoid summarizing each and every one of them I'd like to call attention to what I feel are some of the more noteworthy arguments.

The first chapter is written by Dr. David Eller and titled Christianity Evolving: On the Origin of the Christian Species. It is an informative and compelling piece that focuses on the evolution of Christian theology. It shows that the view that Christianity has "stood the test of time" is completely debunked in virtue of Christianity's ever-evolving body of beliefs. It includes an especially intriguing section titled The Invention of Traditions in which Eller explores the idea of building up theological tradition to deal with the acquisition of new evidence, even when the evidence conflicts with the tradition they are trying to assimilate with. Eller continues to argue that Christianity is not a singular term that refers to a stagnate and unified tradition, but instead is a multitude of targets that are constantly being realigned and reinterpreted by Christians who do not wish to see their faith inundated by newer evidence. It seems that Eller's argument resounds with a theme that many atheist authors (myself included) have been continuing to insist upon, and that is the destruction of the religious landscape. That merely accumulating new evidence will not be the final blow to Christianity, that we will have to continue to vigilantly stamp out the religious apologists' special pleading and ever-moving target for the debunking of their personal brand of religious faith.

In chapter 3, Loftus adds his own material in a chapter entitled Christianity is Wildly Improbable. He sets out a litany of claims derived from Christian creeds and argues that the more of these that Christians accept, the less tenable their faith becomes. Although it is only a minor and passing argument in the chapter, I found Loftus' analysis of a spiritual being creating a material being intriguing. Essentially, Loftus is using the arguments leveled at Cartesian dualism and re-tooling them as an argument against the creation of a material universe by a spirtual God. Loftus questions "How does something that is spirit create something material, or interact with it, unless there is some point of contact between them that they both share?" This same reasoning was the beginning of the end for Cartesian dualism, and if this argument was to be expounded upon I think it's consequences for theism could be equally devastating. Loftus also argues that scholars who are otherwise intelligent often look ridiculous when defending the faith, and analyzes arguments presented by major Christian scholars (Platinga, Craig, etc.) and points out their religious special pleading that often goes unnoticed.

In Chapter 6, Dr. Valerie Tarico examines the concept of emotions in relation to the Christian God. I haven't read any of Dr. Tarico's work before, but this was one of my favorite chapters in the book. In a likeable and humorous voice, Dr. Tarico examines God's various emotional reactions through out the Old Testament, using modern psychological analysis in order to demonstrate how unbelievably human God is at regulating His own emotions. She examines the idea of anthropomorphism and asks engaging questions about how we can tell the difference between which concepts of God are "something outside of us" versus "projections of our psyches". Drawing off of psychological and physiological research, Tarico argues that emotions are intricate and complex systems existing in our physical body, and then wonders how the authors of the Bible could possibly ascribe these attributes to an immaterial God.

In Chapter 8, Dr. Matt McCormick (a professor of mine, actually) argues against the historical case for the resurrection by using an analogous case of the Salem Witch Trials. After charitably summarizing the historical case for the resurrection (using Habermas, Wright, etc.), Dr. McCormick argues that we have more evidence (more quantity and better quality) of the Salem Witch Trials than we do for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This again reiterates the fallacy of special pleading. Unless Christians want to accept that there was indeed witchcraft in Salem (as one of his debate opponents has in the past), it seems that Christians ought to reject the resurrection for the same reasons they reject the Salem Witch Trials.

In chapter 13, Dr. Victor J. Stenger analyzes the evidence for life after death and especially examines the use of NDE (Near Death Experiences) in attempts to prove the existence of an immaterial soul, or consciousness existing after death. He uncovers the lack of objective historical data and makes a compelling case to dismiss anecdotal evidence in favor of controlled, recordable experiments. He also questions the consequences for believing in `cosmic justices' and makes the case that those who do believe it in have less vested interest in seeking justice here on Earth, and turns the table on many apologists who sing the praises of everyone "getting what they deserve" (in chapter 10, Dr. Keith Parsons provides an examination of Hell, which he calls "Christianity's Most Damnable Doctrine").

This book is an absolutely fascinating read and well worth your money to pick up a copy. I didn't include many of the brilliant articles in the book written by other thinkers like Dr. Hector Avalas, Dr. Richard Carrier, and Dr. Jaco Gericke. If you are a believer, this book contains many questions that ought to give you considerable pause, and if you are an atheist or skeptic, this book is likely to put the nail in Christianity's coffin.

Loftus and his distinguished colleagues have managed to produce yet another excellent and invaluable addition to the debate over the truth of Christianity.

In the introduction John reviews his "outsider test for faith" and considers some objections. Nothing new here. People are still trying to avoid testing their worldview without there biases towards that worldview, and John rightly shows that this is nothing more than special pleading.

In chapter 1, "Christianity Evolving", Dr. David Eller treats us to a fascinating anthropological look at how Christianity, like a species that evolves and adapts to its in enviroment, has managed to blossom into a large family of peculiar sects.

In chapter 2, "Christianity's Success was not Incredible", Dr. Richard Carrier gives a capsule summary of his book Not the Impossible Faith and then discusses some reasons that the facts about the origin of Christianity demonstrate that Christianity is not true. That may sound like "the genetic fallacy" but it isn't: he's saying that the claims Christianity makes about the nature of the universe (that there is an all powerful God who sent his son to die and that everyone must believe this in order to recieve eternal life, and that God wants all men to be saved) entails with some probability that God would make that message known to everyone all over the world, and thus Native Americans and the Chinese and everyone else ought to have been visited by God and told the truth. In past debates Carrier has had, Christians have responded that we don't know that God would actually do something like this, and maybe there are good reasons he wouldn't. But in this new chapter, Carrier sets up his argument in such a way that this objection is irrelevant. It involves Bayes' Theorem, and while I can't explain that here (Carrier himself explains it in a later chapter) more or less Bayes' theorem entails that when theory A predicts a piece of evidence with greater probability than theory B, that piece of evidence increases the probability of theory A. So, theory A (that Christianity is false) predicts with basically 100 percent certainty that Jesus would NOT have travelled all over the world after his death and explained the gospel to the Native Americans, chinese, and so forth. Theory B (Christianity is true) does not predict this information with 100 percent (or nearly 100 percent) certainty because if Christianity is true then there is a valid and non-neglible chance that God something like that would happen. Since the falsity of Christianity better predicts that piece of evidence than the truth of Christianity, then this raises the overall probability that Christianity is false to some degree.

In chapter 3, "Christianity is Wildly Improbable" John Loftus reviews a laundry list of weird and unlikely (and perhaps impossible) beliefs that Christians must defend, and concludes that the combination of all this things together results in Christianity having a negligible chance of being true.

Chapter 4, "Why Biblical Studies Must End" presents a capsule summary of Hector Avalos' book The End of Biblical Studies which shows how the bible is irrelevant to modern life and is not really special in anyway except as a testament to what some people thought and believed in the ancient past.

In chapter 5, "Can God Exist if Yahweh Doesn't?" Dr. Jaco Gericke takes a bottom-up approach to disproving the existence of God. I call it "bottom-up" because I would describe the arguments of most other atheists as being "top-down": that is, they argue that the God of the bible can't exist because the God of the philosophers does not. Gericke, on the other hand, argues that the concept of God that Christian philosophers hold to cannot exist because not only are these two not the same thing, but more importantly because the biblical God is an absurdity. The Old Testament God is just an ancient Hebrew Superman. While any of the passages that indicate this (that God was thought of as having a body, for example) might be disputed or interpreted differently, the cumulative case brought forth by so many passages argues that the god being described by the Old Testament very probably was an ancient Hebrew superman. In chapter 6 Valerie Tarico adds further weight to this case by arguing that an all-powerful and immaterial being like God would not, and could not, have emotions like anger, which the Biblical God is said to have had. This is because emotions serve a function that is only necessary in limited creatures like humans. For example, anger is there to allow you to prepare for situations of conflict, because in a situation of conflict you need to be more aggressive and alert, lest you lose the fight. All of that is obviously advantageous in evolutionary terms. But a God wouldn't really need any emotions. After all, how could an all-powerful being need to become more alert or more aggressive to ensure that it didn't "lose the fight" against some other entity? Though many might describe those passages on God's anger as metaphorical, that is not the most obvious or plain meaning of the text. I recall reading a story in the OT (Blast that I cannot remember the passage now) in which God had to keep a distance between himself and his people because God thought that if he dwelt among the people he might lose control of himself and lash out and kill them. I must find this passage, but in the meantime, suffice to say that if such a passage exists it supports the views of Tarico and Gericke and shows that the biblical God is an absurdity.

In chapter 7, "The Absurdity of the atonement" Dr. Ken Pulliam fully demonstrates that the evangelical theory of Jesus' death (that Jesus' death occurred as a substitute for our suffering for our sins) is indefensible. The knockout comes on page 185: "If man knows right from wrong as a a result of being made in the image of God, and if one of the things man knows from his being so created is that it is wrong to punish the innocent, then how can the central doctrine of Evangelical Christianity, namely penal substitution, be maintained?"

Matt McCormick argues in chapter 8 that there is more and better quality evidence for witchcraft going on in 18th century Salem, Massachusetts than there is for the resurrection of Jesus. This means that accepting Christianity means accepting that witchcraft also occurred in Salem. But adopting that position is obviously absurd and problematic. One point that I wish Matt had brought out is that if one adopted an epistemic standard that was so low that it allowed the acceptance of the Salem witchcraft, as well as the many millions of other miracle claims, then such a position would mean that the resurrection offered only negligible support for Christianity. Think about it: if you are a Christian who accepts the claims of witchcraft and the miracle claims of other religions, you would have to adopt the position that some of these miracles were worked by demons or were worked by your God and the people witnessing the miracle did not realize. But then who's to say the miracle of the resurrection wasn't performed by a demon or by someone else's God?

In chapter 9 Bob Price offers a list of natural explanations for the gospel material on the resurrection, assuming that the gospel accounts themselves are basically correct, and he defends these as plausible. I agree, but incidentally I don't think anyone needs to concede that the material in the is that reliable.

Chapter 10 is a discussion of how the doctrine of Hell is a damnable and indefensible doctrine. Excellent material, and good food for thought: how can anyone be a Christian (or at least, an evangelical Christian) if it means defending a demonstrably immoral doctrine?

The remaining chapters I have no comment on, except for Richard Carrier's two excellent chapters. One is on whether the universe is intelligently-designed, and while I'm in agreement, I am not completely sure if his refutations of the fine-tuning aregument are totally sound.

Overall, this is an excellent book, and every open minded Christian ought to have a copy on their bookshelf right next to The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails. I doubt that any rational person could remain a Christian after being informed of the arguments in these two books. At least, I can't imagine and have never seen a reasonable response to the points in these books. Highly recommended.

This book is superb. Dealing with some of the core deficiencies of Christianity and religion in general, clearly showing them for what they are. Explaining how and why people of a particular faith ignore or purposely misconstrue the truth to maintain the "appearance" of adherence to there particular abusive faith.

Is a collection of 14 Essays written by different writers. All the writers are PhDs therefore, well educated and credentialed individuals. In each of the essay a single argument for religion is discussed. The writer presents all the proof in favor and all against it with the purpose of expunge all mistic belief that a person could have. The book is an excellent book with an over abundance of proof against Christianity.

However, the book will not change anyone because as in the book (God) After Auschwitz there is a small tale that after the hanging of a young kid the Jews began making a judgment against God because he permitted the execution of the boy. The verdict was that God did not exist. The prayer time was coming so the Rabi said,"OK, prayer time!"and everybody went to pray... Sad but real!

The book is an excellent read and since is written en short essays there are no cumbersome chapters.

This is an outstanding follow-up to John's previous book, The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails. In fact, as good as that one was, this one's even better in terms of the offerings presented by various authors. The articles by Richard Carrier and Hector Avalos especially stand out among the group. As an atheist, it's all very much "preaching to the choir" (pun intended) when it comes to my own views, but I think that the facts and arguments contained in this book should at the very least give any believer with an open mind a lot to consider.

This is easily the best book of its type I've ever read. In fact, although I own roughly a dozen works of atheist literature, this is only the second that I feel compelled to share with my Christian friends. The first was Dan Barker's Godless, which was compelling chiefly as an incredibly humane, warm, and lucid memoir about leaving Christianity but had only modest "debunking Christianity" ambitions. Loftus, on the other hand, shares no such modesty. In fact, this book is the third in a series from him advocating atheism. I certainly enjoyed his previous two works, but ultimately only in a mostly academic sense; that is, they were interesting, engaging, and informative to this evangelical-turned-atheist reader, but rarely did I come across a passage that I felt would shake the faith of a committed Christian. As Loftus himself often points out, evangelical Christianity entails several absurdly irrational beliefs that Christians have wholeheartedly embraced. Given that, it is unlikely that fairly esoteric errors such as discrepancies with date and location of Jesus' birth are likely to be of particular concern for believers. Pointing out these types of errors was generally the main thrust of the last collection of essays published by Loftus. This is emphatically not the case with this collection. In fact, amused as I was by Loftus' boast on the first page that he feels this book "closes the case" on Christianity, I now fully endorse it. It is difficult to see how Christian apologists, as inventive a bunch as they are, can possibly refute the general rhetorical and argumentative thrust of four essays in particular.

1. "Can God Exist if Yahweh doesn't?"/ 2. "God's Emotions"
"Can God Exist If Yahweh doesn't?" is my personal favorite essay from the collection, and the following essay "God's Emotions" is a complement to it. As often noted by atheists, Christians(as well as as everybody else) have absolutely no qualms with summarily dismissing the existence of literally thousands of Gods espoused by various cultures at various points throughout history, the example most often proffered being Zeus, along with others such as Apollo, Baal etc. Unlike these gods, however, name of the Judeo-Christian god is most often rendered simply as a capitalized form of the generic word "god". Equivocation therefore arises in debates between Christians and atheists over the existence of "God". Most atheists, while emphatically denying the existence of the Judeo-Christian "God", are candid that the possibility, however improbable, that the universe is the the result of some vague, transcendent entity called "God" can never be definitively ruled out; even Richard Dawkins concedes that he is not a full "seven" on his own atheist scale, but rather a six point nine. Because of the equivocation of the term "god" as deployed by both the Christian and atheist, an observer might therefore reasonably conclude that even atheists concede that the existence of "God" isn't as clearly irrational notion as the existence of "Zeus". This is unfortunate but in fact easily rectified. By simply rendering the Judeo-Christian "God" by his common name in the Hebrew text "Yahweh", his existence suddenly becomes every bit as irrational as the existence of the Gods of the ancient Greeks. If we take the the Hebrew scriptures seriously, as they enjoin us to do, we find out that

"Yahweh" has:
a human face, backside, hands and feet.

"Yahweh" thinks that:
the universe was created in six literal days, by himself, no less.
there is an ocean above the stars from which rainwater falls.

"Yahweh" demands that his chosen people, the Israelites:
worship him
kill certain of his creations to nourish him and remove guilt
not create garments made from two different kinds of materials

"Yahweh" has profound affinities for:
horse-drawn chariots
swords as the ideal weapon in combat
intelligence services that spy on subjects to ascertain their loyalty

This is, of course, merely a fraction of the specific hilariously absurd qualities ascribed to "Yahweh" in the Hebrew Bible, which make him as easy to dismiss out of hand as Zeus. The author astutely points out that even Christians, in their assertion that the Old Testament laws are "outdated", are tacitly conceding the irrelevance of Yahweh. Derivative of that(and usually left unexplored by Christians) is that central to Christian doctrine is that Jesus *is* Yahweh. Needles to say, this leaves Christians in quite a bind. The rest of the essay, as well as the one that follow it, "God's Emotions", go on to explain why the qualities ascribed to Yahweh are clearly projections of human concepts. For example, God speaks in Hebrew to no one in particular "Let there be light," but the existence of dental consonants is contingent upon the existence of teeth, which are for eating, which raises obvious theological conundrums. Likewise, Yahweh as depicted in the Bible is a firebrand of emotion, but emotions are merely tools conducive to survival of biological agents. Why would all-powerful Yahweh have them? Each of these piercing questions about Yahweh demands an answer. Even on a question-by-question basis, the notion that there exists some incredibly nuanced, perhaps "unknowable" theological answer requires quite a stretch of imagination; when all are stacked upon one another, the idea that Yahweh *actually exists* as opposed to being merely a human literary creation is risible.

So, yes, there certainly *might* exist a "God" who created the universe. When atheists concede as much, are they conceding that the petty, vindictive, and outright bizarre "Yahweh" is this God? Only insofar as they are conceding, along with Christians, that Zeus might be this God. Which is merely another way of saying not at all.

3. "Christianity Is Wildly Improbable"
The absurdities of Christian doctrine don't end with Yahweh, of course. Modern evangelical Christianity entails the central doctrines of the trinity, resurrection, and other bizarre narrative details(Satan's rebellion). Loftus quite rightly points out that when a Christian becomes a Christian, he generally does so based upon the emotional appeal of the Gospel message. After that self-confirming experience(which is, indeed, very powerful, as I, Loftus, and other former Christians know), the other central doctrines to Christianity are added piecemeal along the way. The acceptance of each individual notion might not be such a leap of faith, but when stacked upon one another, they form of a narrative of breathtaking irrationality and absurdity. As part of his Outsider Test of Faith, Loftus asks believers to take a step back and think about what they actually believe, which he lists in cold, clear language and then enjoins them to consider whether this is any more irrational than belief systems they emphatically reject, such as Islam. The unavoidable answer is that it is in fact, far moreso. Especially in light of what was learned about "Yahweh" aka "God" aka "Jesus" in the previous essays, it is difficult to imagine an adequate rejoinder from a Christian.

4. "Christianity's Success Was Not Incredible"
Although the patent absurdity of Christian doctrine is now established, it is certainly beyond dispute to even the most ardent atheist that Christianity has been an incredibly influential, perhaps the most influential, ideology in modern human history. An oft-heard argument from Christian apologists is that this success somehow attests to the validity of Christianity's central truth claims. The prevalence of Islam alone, whose doctrines Christians explicitly reject as false(as they, indeed, must) would seem to nullify conclusively any supernatural interpretation of the data, but for good measure, the author of this essay provides a set of conditions we would expect to find if Christianity were true, and a set of conditions we would expect to find if Christianity were false. Without exception, the realities of Christian doctrine correspond perfectly to those we would expect to find if Christianity were false.

Case closed. Mission accomplished, Mr. Loftus.

There are ten other essays in this book, mostly of academic interest to those who have already rejected Christianity. Which is certainly not to say they are of no interest at all. David Eller's "Is Religion Compatible With Science" is the best treatment of an oft-written-about subject I have yet read, contributions from Victor Stenger and Richard Carrier on the afterlife and cosmology, respectively, are a joy to read and Hector Avalos provides an interesting piece on the state of Biblical disciplines in academia. While these won't be of much practical use in debates with evangelical Christians, they are certainly informative in their own respective disciplines.

While absentmindedly scanning radio stations yesterday, I found myself listening to a program entitled "Pastor's Perspective", in which a pastor provided Biblical and theological answers to inquiries submitted by callers. These are grown, and often very intelligent, adults who believe, as I too once did, with every fiber of their being that Satan and the archangel Michael fought over custody of Moses' body after he died on Mount Nebo, and that every problem on Earth today(hunger, poverty, terrorism) is merely ancillary to the central conflict of the human experience, and indeed, the entire Universe; namely, that homo sapiens commit their life to a fictional character that belongs on the literary shelf alongside the Tin Woodsman of Oz. These people are so blissfully entangled in the thicket of religious irrationality that it is difficult to imagine them ever getting out. Several years ago, I somehow extricated myself from this dangerous web of irrationality. More than any other book of its type, I believe that this book can ensure that many more will too.

End of Christianity by John W. Loftus

"End of Christianity is a diverse collection of interesting essays put together by the excellent author John W. Loftus. The essays are about matters that should lead reasonable Christians to end their religious faith based on compelling and sound arguments. This book includes some of the best atheist authors of our time and is the third of the excellent anthology by Mr. Loftus. This 435-page book is broken out into the following four parts: I. Why Two Thousand Years are Enough, II. Putting an Ancient Myth to Rest, III. Living on Borrowed Tim, and IV. Science Puts an End to Christianity.

Positives:
1. Mr. Loftus has set a high standard of quality. This anthology is well written and well researched.
2. Great contributions from some of the best atheist authors of our time. There is conviction and passion behind these essays."I do not choose not to believe the Christian story; I cannot."
3. Always thought-provoking. So many interesting takes and diverse opinions based on sound logic and grounded on reality. As an example, "How does something that is spirit create something material, or interact with it, unless there is some point of contact between them that they both share?" Hmmm...
4. Hits on so many fascinating religious topics. The format of the book makes it so that you can jump from one essay to another. As an example, I jumped directly to Dr. Stenger's mesmerizing essay about life after death.
5. You are guaranteed to learn something new. A gift to all who seek knowledge.
6. The natural evolution of Christianity...or shall I say Christianities.
7. The improbability of Christianity a recurring theme that is soundly defended. Many different angles are taken that soundly debunk it.
8. So what does it take to defend Christianity? Find out. Great stuff!
9. So should the Bible be relevant today? Dr. Avalos provides answers. Really interesting perspectives.
10. Polytheism? Gods? Sons of Gods? And other religious matters that make no sense.
11. The emotions of God. Many examples provided of such. Also, provides scientific reasons what emotions are for.
12. I'm always fascinated by Descartes's great error...mind and body as two separate entities.
13. The late Dr. Pulliam provides a very good essay on the absurdity of atonement.
14. Thought-provoking look at hell. "Why is everlasting torture a just punishment for a sin of limited duration?" What I liked about this essay is that it takes the best from apologists and debunks it soundly.
15. Does a good job of taking a critical look at the Bible.
16. A look at different theories regarding the compatibility of science with religion. A methodical approach, including sound definitions of the topics of inquiry. Excellent.
17. A great discussion on the differences between science and religion.
18. Dr. Carrier methodically destroys the claim of an intelligently designed universe. Using Bayes' theorem he destroys the "God Hypothesis". As always, he provides some very unique and persuasive arguments backed by sound logic.
19. Let me share one of Dr. Carrier's comments that exemplify his ability to convey thoughts in a lucid manner, "The universe clearly was made for neither us nor life in general. We barely arrived in it, and barely survive it. And life was clearly not made for humankind, as we appeared only billions of years after life had already been thriving without us. We gained dominance only through our own initiative and only against great and ceaseless opposition from the forces of nature and its nonhuman inhabitants." Music to my ears...
20. Everyone one will have a favorite topic or essay. My favorite was "Life after Death" by Dr. Stenger. This essay revolves around debunking Dinesh D'Souza's book titled, "Life after Death: The Evidence?" Dr. Stenger takes a scientific approach and fairly dismantles D'Souza's claims. A fun read indeed and so much good stuff here, bravo! Just get the book already!
21. Dr. Carrier provides the last essay, "Moral Facts Naturally Exist (And Science Could Find Them)." He provides an interesting take on morality. The basic claim is that morality is empirically discoverable. Controversial, intellectually challenging, thought-provoking, are just some of the adjectives to describe this essay. Dr. Carrier never disappoints.
22. Comprehensive notes that is a testament to the depth of research.
23. The links worked great on the Kindle!
24. Impressive list of contributors.

Negatives:
1. Having to wait for the Kindle version of this excellent book.
2. Some essays are intellectually challenging. Dr. Carrier for instance out of necessity uses Bayes' theorem as a tool to debunk the "God Hypothesis". Worthwhile, but it will test the focus of some readers.
3. If you have read some of the material of these authors some of the essays will be more like a refresher than new material.

In summary, I love this series and enjoyed this book. Like going to a great Tapas restaurant, the reader is presented with many appetizing dishes that lead to a satisfying experience. Some dishes will be more of your liking than others but there is plenty here for all to enjoy. John Loftus has yet another winner and we the readers get to enjoy another intellectual treat. I highly recommended this book!

Further suggestions: "Why I Became an Atheist" and "The Christian Delusion" by John Loftus, "Sense and Goodness Without God " and "Why I'm Not a Christian" by Richard Carrier, "Natural Atheism", "Atheism Advanced" and "Cruel Creeds" by Dr. David Eller, "Man Made God" by Barbara G. Walker, "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris, "The Invention of the Jewish People" by Shlomo Sand, "The Portable Atheist" by Christopher Hitchens, "The End of Biblical Studies" by Hector Avalos, "Forged..." by Bart Ehrman, "God: The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor J. Stenger, "Godless" by Dan Barker, "Christian No More" by Jeffrey Mark, and "The Invention of God" by Bill Lauritzen.

Devastates the christian superstition. this book should really make you think if you are still a Christian . If you want to remain a christain, seriously don't buy this book , it may make you question your beliefs more than any other book ( series ) I have ever read . The one star reviewer thinks the authors have not read the bible? wow! Ignorant trolling at it's worst. Some are theologians, scholars professors etc.

"The End of Christianity" is a compilation of hard-line, atheist-materialist polemics against - guess what - Christianity, brought to us by the indefatigable John W. Loftus, a recovering fundamentalist minister. Apparently, its part of Loftus' very own space trilogy, the other titles being "The Christian Delusion" and "Why I became an atheist". (I haven't read those, yet.)

Being neither a Christian nor a materialist, I'm of course eminently suited to give this book a fair hearing and perfectly objective review... And then, maybe not. :D

Frankly, "The End of Christianity" is a very mixed bag, but it veers strongly towards the "bad" end of the bag spectrum. For instance, John Loftus' Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) is obviously rigged so only atheist-materialists can pass it. Richard Carrier's moral philosophy is zany, to say the least, and other articles work only if you accept the exact theological notions being debunked. Thus, those who don't accept the particular version of the atonement attacked by Ken Pulliam will consider his article a shot in the dark. Likewise, only cessationists will be stung by Matt McCormick's article about the Salem witch trials. The undertone of the entire book is that science (or perhaps Science) can solve all problems, including those pertaining to morality, the meaning of life, etc. Some of the authors have an obsession with a certain kind of formal logic, as if that could prove anything (on this point, they share the pew with some Christian apologists). As somebody pointed out long ago: you can't use formal logic to prove the existence of whales.

Another weak argument goes like this: The empty grave doesn't prove that Jesus was resurrected, since a phoney story about a resurrection will - by definition - include a story of an empty grave. You can't use one part of a legend to "prove" the other part (there's even a funny comic to drive home this point). True, I suppose. But then, a *true* story about a resurrection would also include a story about an empty tomb, wouldn't it? In fact, I think I can prove that using formal logic! Thus, the argument of "Jesus and Mo" only works if materialism is presupposed from the outset.

And that, I think, is the main reason why I find this book so frustrating (a bit like Lee Strobel in reverse). The narrow materialism-positivism-scientism of the contributors is never really argued for, it's there from the outset. (The OTF is just the most glaring example.) Nothing "wrong" with that, I suppose, expect that it gives the book the quality of a monologue. A more native, American problem (already mentioned) is that the target of the polemic is assumed to be an equally narrow evangelical, perhaps a fundamentalist pure and simple. Those of us who aren't high on Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell or Billy Graham feel somewhat left out, guys!

The best articles are "Hell: Christianity's most damnable doctrine" by Keith Parsons and "Christianity's success is highly improbable" by Richard Carrier. The latter author attempts to prove that the ideas of Christianity weren't unique or unusual in the Jewish-Hellenistic context where they first emerged. In fact, there are many parallels between the Christian stories and various legends or expectations found in other religions. The mystery religions are mentioned, and Carrier also mentions that the resurrection of the body is originally a "pagan" idea, taken over by the Jews from Zoroastrianism. (I'm impressed, Richard! Few people notice that many "Biblical" ideas actually come from this Persian religious system.) Carrier's point is that the idea of a dying and resurrecting god-man could have evolved by purely natural means. No need to postulate any supernatural explanation. Of course, this argument also presupposes materialism. Here's an alternative explanation: What if all Hellenistic religions reflect objective spiritual truths, some better than others? Or what if Zoroaster was right? ;-)

The best atheist-materialist books are those which attempt to prove Neo-Darwinism and give it a strictly materialist spin, such as "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. If Dawkins is right, then all (or almost all) religions and pre-1859 philosophies are dead wrong. No need to argue the finer theological points about the atonement or the Trinity. In other words, the best books are those which somehow try to prove materialism, rather than simply postulate it.

But sure, I'm somewhat subjective on this point. We all have our "issues", I suppose. Maybe there are people who could be de-converted even by "The End of Christianity"...