40 of 48 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Horrible answers, horrible theology, June 11, 2006
This review is from: That's Just Your Interpretation: Responding to Skeptics Who Challenge Your Faith (Paperback)
I hate to say this about a Christian apologist like Paul Copan, who has put out some very good apologetic material, but this book was horrendous. I mean it was absolutely terrible. I can't even begin to describe how many poor conclusions were reached and how many poor answers were given to problems raised with Christianity. He had EXTREMELY simplistic and EXAGGERATED explanations of what other faiths held (especially Eastern Pantheism, which he completely misrepresented).
On pages 98-99 Copan discusses the problem of natural disasters. Copan’s explanations in the previous parts of this chapter seem to deal only with moral evils which result from human choices, so here he attempts to address the issue of evil which seems not to stem from human choices. He argues that natural disasters are actually necessary to keep life on this planet alive (98). For example, earthquakes are needed to recycle essential nutrients back into the continents (98). I personally do not find his argument very convincing. I think that any Christian would need to tie natural evils into the Fall as Schaffer does in Genesis in Space and Time, where he presents natural evils as stemming from a rift which developed between man and nature as a result of sin. If we do not do this, it does not make much sense for God to curse the ground as a result of Adam’s sin, for it would already have been cursed if nothing in nature changed as a result of the Fall. Further, as a philosophical objection, surely God could have created a world where natural disasters were not necessary to sustain the earth. Copan responds to this by saying that we cannot know that a world with this condition is possible (98-99), but does he really believe that there will be natural disasters on the new earth? I sincerely hope that he has better expectations than that.
Copan also claims that all three members of the Trinity got together before Jesus became incarnate and decided what Jesus self-limitations should be (135). He makes it sound like God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit had this little business meeting and voted on what Jesus should have to give up in becoming human. I cannot imagine what Copan could possibly use to support this view, as we hardly have access to the logs from the Trinity’s meetings, nor do I see why this was a necessary point to be thrown in with the rest.
Copan had some absolutely horrible theological implications spread all over the book. For example, he had a chapter discussing how it could be that Jesus was tempted, since the Bible says that God cannot be tempted. Copan’s idea that Jesus mistakenly thought that he could sin when he in reality could not is not a view that seems particularly attractive to me. Copan seems to be stretching things a bit too far when he claims that Jesus simply thought that he could sin, therefore the temptation was real to him (141). Copan decided beforehand that Jesus could not sin because God cannot sin (though he fails to address the problem which he opens the chapter with in saying “if God cannot sin, then it seems he is not really free or all-powerful” [138]), and is forced to reduce himself to pulling some strange stunts to make his ends meet. Unfortunately for Copan, I do not think that concluding that Jesus must have been mistaken in his beliefs is an adequate way of making his ends meet. If Jesus was mistaken about his ability to sin, why should he not be mistaken about other things as well? Copan’s solution seems to simply open up an even larger can of worms than the one he is attempting to close with his answer.
Some of his answers to problems raised with Christianity are simply rediculous. For example, in the chapter discussing the Cananite genoicide, Copan says that the Israelite soldiers did not go around raping and brutalizing the Canaanites, as the Crusaders did to the Muslims (165-166). They were not fighting (in theory) out of love for bloodshed, but in obedience to God, and they fought under God’s morality even in battle (165-166). While this is helpful information, I am not sure that it really alleviates the problem addressed in this chapter: “how could a loving God command genocide?” I am not sure that a skeptic interested in the Christian faith would be comforted if we told him “well, God may have commanded genocide and killed every man, woman, and child of Canaanite blood, but He had the Israelites do it kindly and they weren’t even cruel to the Canaanites when they killed them.” It just seems to me the objection raised is that God commanded genocide, not that God had them killed cruelly. The killing of the Canaanites is the main issue, not how they died.
I could go on and on. It was simply a poor book, and if one accepted all the answers and explanations that he gave, one would end up as a open theist who believes in contradictory ideas and is ill prepared to actually give an answer for his faith when challenged by a skeptic. I cannot imagine many skeptics stupid enough to accept most of the answers that Copan gives in this book. There are good answers to the questions he addresses, he just does not give them.
Overall grade: D-
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
20 of 24 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Accessible and clear presentation, January 22, 2003
This review is from: That's Just Your Interpretation: Responding to Skeptics Who Challenge Your Faith (Paperback)
Paul Copan does an admirable job of presenting arguments that will prove useful especially to the general reader. He strikes a nice balance between real substance and accessibility. It's true that here and there the author might have strengthened his premises and thus his conclusions. However, by doing this he would also have moved the treatment of relativism beyond the grasp of some general readers--those who would profit most from the book. In response to the Mormon reviewer below, I have to respectfully disagree with his criticism of Copan's treatment of the Trinity. There is no possible way that Copan can be construed as veering into polytheism--or, a plurality of gods. In line with historical Christian orthodoxy, he understands that there is no contradiction in the classical doctrine of the Trinity. And, emphatically to the contrary, St. Thomas Aquinas presented one of the most lucid and logical expositions Trinitarian doctrine. To say that there are three persons in one divine substance is no contradiction. The categories of "person" and "essence" (or "substance") are distinct. The doctrine of the Trinty does not say that there is one God who is three gods, nor that there are three persons who are one person. It accepts from biblical revelation that there is One God (one divine substance), and three persons or centers of consciousness. Logically, this is to say that there is one "A" and three "B"s--logically distinct, and thus coherent categories. What WOULD be irrational would be to claim that the "godhead" is comprised of three finite beings, with a mere unity of will but not of Being. Copan is not guilty of such a silly blunder, and it misrepresents his thought to suggest it. In short, the book will prove useful, because accessible, to a wide range of readers.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
16 of 20 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
An Extremely Good Concise Book of Answers for Skeptics Like Me, November 27, 2006
This review is from: That's Just Your Interpretation: Responding to Skeptics Who Challenge Your Faith (Paperback)
Paul is a friend of mine. We both graduated from TEDS under William Lane Craig, and we both attended Marquette University, but we did so at different times. We didn't meet until this year. I am one of the skeptics he argues against.
I have honestly learned a few things in this book, and yet, I am still unconvinced by his arguments. Nonetheless, I have to say that his book offers in a concise way the results of evangelical scholarship on the questions he addresses. When I am arguing with Christians about a topic he speaks of, I take another look at what he says to see what the best interpretation of that topic is from a evangelical Christian perspective, and that's saying a lot, coming from a skeptic like me.
Paul's arguments that there was animal pain and death before the Fall and that God created human beings as meat-eaters (on pages 150-152), plays into my argument against the existence of God from the horrible suffering caused by the law of predation in our world, so I refer readers of my book to his on that point.
In any case, even though I disagree with him, this is a great Christian apologetics book on the issues he speaks about. And as odd as this sounds, I want to read more of what he writes so I can see what is the best that can be said for evangelical Christianity, since he represents it so well.
-----------
I'm the author of "Why I Became an Atheist," and the edited book, "The Christian Delusion."
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
