Customer Reviews

A Friendly Letter to Skeptics and Atheists: Musings on Why God Is Good and Faith Isn't Evil

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Dr. David Myers easily could rest on his laurels as the author of the most widely studied psychology text on college campuses. In fact, much of his time is consumed, these days, researching the cutting edge of psychological research to prepare future editions of his textbooks.

But, in his mid-60s, his lifetime as a scholar, a teacher and a man of deep faith has driven him toward another vocation: Building bridges that may help millions of us to cross over the social chasms of our age.

This includes his work on improving conditions in public places for hearing-impaired people and encouraging a fresh discussion between gay and heterosexual people over faith. If you're interested in those themes, take a look at his earlier books, "A Quiet World: Living with Hearing Loss" and "What God Has Joined Together: The Christian Case for Gay Marriage."

Dr. Myers is an equal-opportunity bridge builder. His eye, his mind and his heart all are focused on the timeless promise of compassionate community that lies at the heart of nearly all of our faith traditions. What fuels his work, year after year, is his vision of what he calls "human flourishing by making sense of the universe, giving meaning to life, connecting us in supportive communities, mandating altruism and offering hope in the face of adversity and death."

That's a pretty good summary of the purpose of faith, right? He's really preaching a message that's universal. Who could disagree with these goals?

And yet -we do find so many issues around which we want to hunker down and dig deep trenches between "us" and "them."

What's so fascinating in recent years is that people of faith suddenly discovered that an influential group of best-selling writers, commonly called "the new atheists," had completely outflanked the religious community. These elite writers are digging their own trenches to separate their new circle of voices from the religious community they seem to despise.

One thing you must understand about Dr. Myers -- and I know this from talking with him and occasionally interviewing him in depth over the years -- is that he's got a boundless, constructive optimism in the way he approaches all questions. In short, think of Mister Rogers.

About the same time as the release of Myers' book, Michael Novak released "No One Sees God: The Dark Night of Atheists and Believers," a book with a similar purpose -- a full-scale response to the new atheists. Novak's book also is a good read on these issues, raising fresh examples and arguments that are different in a number of ways from Myers' own approaches. But the central difference here, I think, is that Novak's book is more muscular, more strident, more the voice of a debater in a TV studio. Novak's book is more Catholic in its cultural references; Myers' is more mainline Protestant.

Both books are good choices, if you're an individual reader wanting to weigh both sides in this fascinating debate. If you're looking for material to read in a small discussion group and you're making a choice between Novak and Myers, then you'll probably find Myers' book, as the title says, more "Friendly."

An impressive book written by a humble, respectful religious moderate. Myers makes little effort to convince the reader that miracles are true or that there have been virgin births; he focuses on the usefulness of religious belief. He shows, through empirical data, that believers have better marriages, are happier, and give much more to charity than secularists. While conceding the harm religion has done through the ages, he believes strongly that it has done more good than harm. Being a nonbeliever, it gives me no pleasure to say this, but Myers makes a strong case for faith. I would love for Dawkins, Harris, or Hitchens to read this book and respond to its arguments.

I'll be honest; I had a hard time getting through this book. Not because it was boring, or poorly written, or non-thought provoking, but because I had to pause every so often to write margin notes. And there are many, many, of them.

I first heard Mr. Myers speak on the Reasonable Doubts podcast, and was very impressed by his calm, easygoing demeanor, as was the host. I immediately had the urge to read his book, and ordered it soon thereafter. Other than Francis Collins' "The Language of God", I have not read any other titles by a Christian apologist, but once you know the main arguments, everyone else is simply saying the same thing in so many ways (I suppose most atheist literature is guilty of this as well).

I didn't even get past page one of the preface before I started my margin notes. Myers writes, "The faith tradition that has nurtured me shares considerable common ground with the new atheists. It encourages the humility and curiosity that underlies free-spirited science...And it does not view God as a celestial vending machine controlled by our prayers."

Mr. Myers is certainly liberal in his perspective of Christian theology, as is Mr. Collins, though I'd venture to say such perspectives are the exception rather than the rule. The passages Mr. Myers utilizes to justify his interpretation of his faith are from the very same book Fred Phelps uses to justify his point of view. Where Mr. Myers may see humility, another may see superiority. Where Mr. Myers sees curiosity, another sees the devil's handiwork. And where Mr. Myers sees commonality between science and religion, another sees the former quickly impinging on the latter.

Throughout the book, my most often used margin note was "picking and choosing." The sheer fact that the Bible has spawned so many thousands of sects, each with their own interpretation of scripture, is a testament unto itself, one which I feel undermines every argument put forth by the author. If Mr. Myers feels justified in his position based on scripture, as I'm sure does Fred Phelps, and the two are diametrically opposed, who's right? You got it; they both are! And if these two positions can coexist on the same platform (the Bible), how can anyone determine right from wrong utilizing the book as a guiding light? The answer? The individual determines what they will and won't take to heart. If each person reading the book gleans different lessons from the same stories, then of what use is it in the first place?

My biggest dissapointment in the book was Mr. Myers' continual use of thoroughly debunked lines of argument; Pascal's wager, Albert Eistein quotes, and the association between atheism and crimes against humanity (Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, et. al.).

Ultimately though, I appreciate Mr. Myers religious position, and should Christianity's god stick around for another couple thousand years (and not go the way of Zeus, or Ra, or countless other deities), I would hope more followers would be led to the same conclusions as he. But if the current state of Christianity is any indication of its future, I won't hold my breath.

The author, a psychologist, responds briefly but well to the "new atheist" wave of Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins et al. At first I thought his approach was, frankly too "friendly," to the point of seeming timid and insubstantial, but as this brief book goes on it gets more impressive. What's really neat is the way Meyers seems to address just about every controversial subject imaginable--evolution, intelligent design, gays, the mind-body connection--without being dishonestly reductive. None of the sections are meant to be thorough explorations of the particular topic: they only offer more inclusive ways to think about each topic so as to allow for faith.

Myers respectfully defends his faith to skeptical scientists as only a fellow empiricist could. Through a series of short chapters Myers takes up the critical points of the neoatheists with an engaging "Yes, but have you thought about this?" approach. Faithheads will welcome the clarity with which Myers comes to their rescue. However, they too will find themselves challenged, reexamining their beliefs, assumptions and even their practices.

An elegantly written and argued book, focusing on finding common ground between skeptics and believers. It argues convincingly that some belief in God is not disproved by science, and that there is room for belief in the modern world.
Myers' religious views are hard for even a skeptic to find very offensive, for they are mild and life-affirming But to make this argument, he cedes a lot of ground (rightfully I think) to the skeptics, dismissing religious views that deny evolution and the like as admittedly beyond the pale of reasonable discourse.(But this dismissal is undercut by his own admission that 43 percent of Americans believe the world is only about 10,000 years old.)
He then argues eloquently that people who hold
religious views of this sort (himself included) are generally happier and enjoy a more fully realized life, so then why shouldn't we just agree to disagree on these points?
Myers' book is a good start towards a rational discussion on religion and whether it makes sense. I would think in the end he might well lose this argument, but at least he sets out reasonable ground rules and provides a good first round of arguments for consideration by agnostics and skeptics of a more reasoned approach to whether or not there is a God. It's a discussion, not a rant.

I just finished David Myers' latest book in his never ending quest to write enough to fill a book shelf in my basement. I think this is his 17th book. He has earned the trust of readers with his careful scholarship and willingness to share his personal beliefs and biases so that we know where he stands on issues so that we can formulate our own interpretation. If only more authors did this.

Its brief, extremely readable, and as only David can do, he burrows through the nuances between people who are religious and people who don't believe in a supernatural, higher power with gentleness and humility to uncover common ground. If read with a receptive, open mind by enough people, I suspect this book can make a real difference. From my reading, the goal is not to change anyone's belief system. Whether you believe that religious works were written by excellent human storytellers or whether you believe that freethinkers are missing out on the big picture, this book provides a case for why there is no reason for animosity and hatred to spillover between these groups.

Sure, there are plenty of things I disagree with but as Myers points out, it is only from arguments between friends that hatred will dissipate.

good stuff. if only this level of discourse could play out on the larger stage of politics and policy makers. If only people could say what they really think and be respectful and curious about the other side (resisting labels, categories, and preconceived notions).

I am glad he has the courage to tackle the difficult, hot button issues. As long as we play it safe with our articles, books, and discussions, the
impact of any writer, thinker, and public figure will be unnecessarily capped. Hearty skepticism, debate, arguments, and questioning have to be part of our toolbox. Still not enough of it.

I hope people read this as a complement to the other excellent books out there by evolutionary psychologists (The Moral Animal) and philosophers (Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Shermer, etc.).

It's not a long march to finish "A Friendly Letter to Skeptics and Atheists," David Myers' brisk, concise, and fascinating apologetic work. Myers is a social psychologist and he delivers a book that "suggests that faith can be reasonable, science-affirming, and humane." The author aims to influence an audience of both skeptics and believers using patience, understanding, and clear argumentation.

Each chapter is brief and succinct; including topics on:

- Religion: False and Dangerous?
- My Assumptions
- Mea Culpa
- Simplistic stereotypes
- Big ideas and Biblical wisdom
- Godliness and goodliness.

Considering the chapters are short and engaging, the writing is reader-friendly, Myers has provided the worldview interlocutors with a profound and persuasive book.

Numerous diverse and dissimilar scholars have offered their endorsement of this work; comprising:

- Michael Shermer
- Francis Collins
- Alister McGrath
- Owen Gingerich


Religion is often unacceptable to a person with skeptical leanings who is concerned about troubling religious expressions. This volume is an attempt to remove moral and rational barriers to faith as it helps lead philosophical enemies to reason and peace. Myers writes for people willing to analyze or reexamine deeply held emotional pre-commitments and attitudes. He does a splendid job at gently pressing the reader to examine his assumptions and attitudes. I prefer a deeper analysis of skeptical presuppositions, but that is not the author's overarching goal.

This is an intriguing book that advances communication and understanding in place of anti-theistic/theistic polemics.
Letter to an Atheist Nation: Presupositional Apologetics Responds To: Letter to a Christian

This is a very pleasant and gentle book. It offers the dogmatic atheists a chance to consider that, "there may be more than this" and "there may be a different way of seeing these issues."

It's well written and covers a large number of topics that can divide atheists from Christians. This book is a warm hand stretched out across these divides, inviting atheists to come and see how things look from the other side. It's not asking them to convert, just to reconsider their views, or to acknowledge that there are other valid viewpoints.

There's an element that you may be able to lead a horse to water, but not be able to get them to drink, even if the peanuts are well salted and the horse thirsty.

This book is a gentle invitation, but I suspect some reactions to it may not be as gentle and considered.

I recommend this book to atheists as a generous invitation to explore other ways of viewing things, and to see that there may be more in theism than you realise.

A balanced, thought provoking book,and an easy read at the same time. Dr. Myers addresses with equal clarity those for who faith is an illusion, and those for whom it is a cudgel. A wonderful book for the those who choose to think rather than adhere to doctrinaire rigidity on either side of the faith question.