12 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Refreshingly Respectful Critique of the New Atheists Case Against God, November 11, 2009
This review is from: A Reasonable God: Engaging the New Face of Atheism (Paperback)
In "A Reasonable God" Ganssle addresses many of the arguments put forth by today's so-called "New Atheists" -- particularly Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens -- from a philosopher's perspective. His goal is modest: he is not making a comprehensive case *for* the existence of God. Rather, he is offering a critique of the claims made by the New Atheists for the non-existence of God. In so doing, his tone is refreshingly respectful as he treats these authors and their arguments fairly and honestly.
After carefully laying out his critique, Ganssle concludes that the case against God as presented by the New Atheists is not strong enough to worry one who already believes in God, nor ought it be persuasive enough to convince one who is first considering belief in God. The modest goal of showing that belief in God is reasonable has been met.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
7 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Clear, Accessible, and Fair Critique of the New Face of Atheism, June 9, 2010
This review is from: A Reasonable God: Engaging the New Face of Atheism (Paperback)
Greg Ganssle, a philosopher affiliated with Yale University and the Rivendell Institute, has produced a careful, accessible, and fair critique of the arguments offered by the "new atheists": Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens. One virtue of the book is that it seeks "...to take a cooler, more reflective approach in engaging the nature of the case they offer for the truth of atheism (p. 177)." Ganssle successfully accomplishes this task. My favorite portion of the book is the final three chapters, which cover Darwinian stories of religion, three arguments for atheism offered by the new atheists which pretty clearly fail, and one which is, according to Ganssle, the strongest argument on offer from this group of authors.
Ganssle reconstructs this strongest argument, from Dawkins, in the following way:
(1) A theistic universe would be different than an atheistic universe.
(2) Our universe fits better with an atheistic universe than with a theistic universe.
(3) Therefore, our universe is more likely to be an atheistic universe than it is to be a theistic universe.
(1) seems to be on solid ground, and Dawkins argues that the long and slow development of complex biological life supports (2). Ganssle agrees, which means that this particular feature of our world fits better within an atheistic universe than a theistic one. However, he then argues that there are 4 other major elements of our universe that undermine (2) and fit better within a theistic universe:
i. The universe is ordered and susceptible to rational investigation.
ii. The existence of conscious beings with intentional mental states.
iii. The existence of beings with significant, libertarian, free agency.
iv. The existence of objective moral obligations.
He points out that there are numerous philosophers who would reject the very existence of one or more of these elements, and others that seek to give purely naturalistic accounts of them. But if these elements exist, they fit better within a theistic universe even if naturalistic accounts can be given. To see why this is the case, read this book. It is worth the time, even for someone familiar with many of these arguments.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Does what he says he will do, April 4, 2011
This review is from: A Reasonable God: Engaging the New Face of Atheism (Paperback)
I agree with all the other reviewers here. What's refreshing about Ganssle is that he takes a measured, irenic tone. He does not yell at the New Atheists, even when they do a fair bit of yelling themselves. He even agrees with them where he thinks their arguments have merit. I found John Haught's book responding to the New Atheists to be just the opposite.
Two important points for prospective readers:
G. does not claim to be arguing for the existence of God. He's quite clear about this. What's he's doing is showing that the arguments AGAINST the existence of God are not that strong.
Secondly, you do need a bit of philosophical background to enjoy the book. If you've never heard of Anselm's ontological argument, you probably will be mystified by the philosophical twists and turns here.
I have used this book with an undergraduate class, and they found it a bit dry. Just sayin'.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No