Customer Reviews

A Reasonable God: Engaging the New Face of Atheism

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

 

 

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.

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.

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'.

A reasonable God.
The author declares that his intentions are to counter the arguments of the new atheists. He acknowledges that the book takes a defensive tone and does not claim to be the all-in-all apologetics study. What he does is examine the arguments of the new atheists and determine whether they stand muster or not.
Folks such as Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris have written books that are hits among many who don't want God. Ganssle examines the arguments put forth by these writers and deals with them. While he is defensive in posture, he is not offensive in tone. I think that is a good thing.
Ganssle, in examining these arguments, is fair. He is also honest. His honesty is such that there are a few times in which he acknowledges the weaknesses of certain arguments for theism.
What I truly like about this book is the fact that it is not over the head of the average reader, though the author takes pains to carefully examine arguments and build counter arguments.
I think that I will find myself pulling this book off the shelf in the future for the purpose of revisiting particular issues discussed in it.
A worthwhile read for the person interested in the reasonable nature of theism.
This review copy provided freely by Baylor University Press. There was no demand or expectation of a positive review.

readers of all backgrounds will learn much from this engaging and accessible volume -- an excellent book!