Skip to main content
Customer Review
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on October 9, 2007
Mr. Marshall writes an entertaining polemic and he is a skilled author of sophistry. But he doesn't introduce anything new to the discussion, except specific attacks on Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. These are the same old arguments always used by Christian apologists, dressed up in new sophistry. There's not much truth to be found here.
I had hopes that Mr. Marshall would provide something new with his book, which claims to "[provide] substantial answers to hard questions about God and science, the reliability of Scripture, and Christianity's positive influence in the world" (back cover.) He begins well in the Introduction, using simple declarative sentences including: "But I, too, prefer brute facts. I'll concentrate my response on earthbound evidence for rationality and value of Christian faith." (p.11) We'll see what he means by evidence.
"How should a Christian respond? An answer to such 'notable infidels' needs, I think, to find a middle path between two errors. On the one hand, a mocking or sarcastic response would feed the Us Vs. Them mimesis, giving readers something to cheer or jeer ... but not persuade anyone." (p. 10) We'll see how temperate Mr. Marshall is.
Here are the main points of the book as I read it:
A, Christians (and presumably other religious folk) are completely rational in their faith and beliefs, because:
1. The statements of "reliable" authorities are considered good evidence. In this case, the pronouncements of theologians.
2, The Bible is good evidence.
3. "There's quite a lot of [evidence for God]" (p. 19, quoting Richard Swinburne)
4. Faith is useful. Pascal was on to something with his wager.
B. God exists because:
1. People all over the world have always believed in a supreme God.
2. Theologians say so.
3. The Bible says so.
4. There's heaps of evidence for it (which he never presents.)
5. William Lane Craig and other theologians are still trying to prove God's existence through logical argument. (Arguments he also does not present.)
6. You can't explain the findings of science without invoking God.
C. Science is untrustworthy, because:
1. Even though biologists agree that evolution by natural selection (EBNS) is a fact (p. 61) and the DNA evidence is clear on it (p. 58), with EBNS, such as: mutations just aren't believable as the source of variation for EBNS. And besides, Genesis seems to match the data about as well as EBNS. (p. 77)
2. Even though: Christians invented science and the university,
3. Scientists aren't trustworthy: "there is no scientific test to prove your colleagues honest, reliable, and competent." (p. 29)
4. Those scientists don't know everything.
5. You have to let God into things to really understand the universe. "If anyone is confident that this strange story was told without a bard, I wonder how he knows it" (p. 77)
D. Scientists are evil: "'Brights' cheerfully midwifed the birth of every modern form of barbarism. Hardly any travesty of justice, any 'boot stamping on a human face forever,' has not been instituted in the name of science: Social Darwinism, eugenics, abortion, the new infanticide, free love, LSD, gas chambers, the Gulag. Slave ships were a technological advance." (p. 219)
E. Atheists are not moral people. All REAL morality derives from the Christian God. Given half a chance, they will rampage: "Or does the 'death of God' mean, as Dostoevsky warned, that 'everything is lawful'?" (p. 190) They tolerate (and maybe even like!) gay people. "Of course atheists can and usually do choose to embrace moral rules of one sort or another. But murder also came fast and hard upon the death of God." (p. 200)
F. Dawkins misrepresents religion:
1. The God he disbelieves isn't the Christian God. [Marshall doesn't define the Christian God, to clear this up.]
2. The faith he portrays is a false one. [Marshall quotes McGrath quoting W.H. Griffiths-Thomas, who Marshall calls Griffith Thomas, neither of which gives a recognizable definition.]
3. He picks fringe characters for his examples of religious folk. [and Marshall picks fringe Atheists.]
If you were to read Mr. Marshall uncritically, you'd be led to believe that all the good things in the world originated from Christianity and that every atheist will behave like Joe Stalin or Adolf Hitler, given half a chance.
I had hopes that Mr. Marshall would provide something new with his book, which claims to "[provide] substantial answers to hard questions about God and science, the reliability of Scripture, and Christianity's positive influence in the world" (back cover.) He begins well in the Introduction, using simple declarative sentences including: "But I, too, prefer brute facts. I'll concentrate my response on earthbound evidence for rationality and value of Christian faith." (p.11) We'll see what he means by evidence.
"How should a Christian respond? An answer to such 'notable infidels' needs, I think, to find a middle path between two errors. On the one hand, a mocking or sarcastic response would feed the Us Vs. Them mimesis, giving readers something to cheer or jeer ... but not persuade anyone." (p. 10) We'll see how temperate Mr. Marshall is.
Here are the main points of the book as I read it:
A, Christians (and presumably other religious folk) are completely rational in their faith and beliefs, because:
1. The statements of "reliable" authorities are considered good evidence. In this case, the pronouncements of theologians.
2, The Bible is good evidence.
3. "There's quite a lot of [evidence for God]" (p. 19, quoting Richard Swinburne)
4. Faith is useful. Pascal was on to something with his wager.
B. God exists because:
1. People all over the world have always believed in a supreme God.
2. Theologians say so.
3. The Bible says so.
4. There's heaps of evidence for it (which he never presents.)
5. William Lane Craig and other theologians are still trying to prove God's existence through logical argument. (Arguments he also does not present.)
6. You can't explain the findings of science without invoking God.
C. Science is untrustworthy, because:
1. Even though biologists agree that evolution by natural selection (EBNS) is a fact (p. 61) and the DNA evidence is clear on it (p. 58), with EBNS, such as: mutations just aren't believable as the source of variation for EBNS. And besides, Genesis seems to match the data about as well as EBNS. (p. 77)
2. Even though: Christians invented science and the university,
3. Scientists aren't trustworthy: "there is no scientific test to prove your colleagues honest, reliable, and competent." (p. 29)
4. Those scientists don't know everything.
5. You have to let God into things to really understand the universe. "If anyone is confident that this strange story was told without a bard, I wonder how he knows it" (p. 77)
D. Scientists are evil: "'Brights' cheerfully midwifed the birth of every modern form of barbarism. Hardly any travesty of justice, any 'boot stamping on a human face forever,' has not been instituted in the name of science: Social Darwinism, eugenics, abortion, the new infanticide, free love, LSD, gas chambers, the Gulag. Slave ships were a technological advance." (p. 219)
E. Atheists are not moral people. All REAL morality derives from the Christian God. Given half a chance, they will rampage: "Or does the 'death of God' mean, as Dostoevsky warned, that 'everything is lawful'?" (p. 190) They tolerate (and maybe even like!) gay people. "Of course atheists can and usually do choose to embrace moral rules of one sort or another. But murder also came fast and hard upon the death of God." (p. 200)
F. Dawkins misrepresents religion:
1. The God he disbelieves isn't the Christian God. [Marshall doesn't define the Christian God, to clear this up.]
2. The faith he portrays is a false one. [Marshall quotes McGrath quoting W.H. Griffiths-Thomas, who Marshall calls Griffith Thomas, neither of which gives a recognizable definition.]
3. He picks fringe characters for his examples of religious folk. [and Marshall picks fringe Atheists.]
If you were to read Mr. Marshall uncritically, you'd be led to believe that all the good things in the world originated from Christianity and that every atheist will behave like Joe Stalin or Adolf Hitler, given half a chance.
