As the title suggests, "God's Not Dead" was written to provide evidence for the existence of God. Of the several books I've read on the subject matter -- specifically, combating the "New Atheists" -- it is honestly one of the best. It is well-researched and carefully documented. Broocks cites not only the intelligent, well-respected Christian sources, including Stephen Jay Gould, Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, etc, but also the intelligent, well-respected atheist sources, including Bart Ehrman, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, etc.
ORGANIZATION AND LAYOUT: The book is basically laid out in three parts. Chapters 1-6 present the evidence for the existence of God. Chapters 7-8 deal primarily with the historicity and reliability of Jesus and the gospels. Finally, chapters 9-10 discuss the impact the existence of God and the presence of Christianity have on the world.
LIFE HAS MEANING AND PURPOSE: I think the best chapter of the book is #6: Life Has Meaning and Purpose. Broocks details early in the book the emptiness of the atheist and evolutionist position when it comes to the meaning of life. If life as we know it began as some primordial goo that exploded and expanded into what it is today, then nothing was behind it, and everything was one great big accident. Yet something that has no thought and no moral direction spontaneously brought forth life that thinks about thinking and has moral capacity to love, defend, and die for others. How could this be?
And if we are simply another kind of animal, as evolutionists would suggest, and if we are simply products of an amoral evolutionary cycle, then why do we experience outrage at various atrocities that negatively affect people around the globe? We do not watch the Discovery Channel and cry foul when we witness a leopard chasing down a gazelle, eating it for dinner. The animal kingdom could care less about equality and justice. Yet, we do, for some reason. And if we're just "another kind of animal", then why should we care about our "fellow animals" who are victimized?
COVER MARKETING: I was/am disappointed with the dust cover of "God's Not Dead" because it looks like a long-forgotten book from the 1970's that nobody wanted to buy. The busy photograph is set on an ugly yellow background, and it fails to capture attention. The reason it matters is because it doesn't have a modern look that is clever and edgy.
I think the advertisement design for the soon-to-be-released movie is catchier. It's plain, but it's bold. It yells: "Watch me!" The cover design for the book doesn't seem to do the same. It's weak
Unfortunately, I visited the PureFlix website and didn't find the movie listed there. Hopefully this movie's absence is only due to the book's early release.
RATING: I believe people with an interest in Christian apologetics and the defense of the existence of God will love this book. It is not merely plan and simple. Broocks put considerable thought into this one, and it will challenge the average reader to think much more deeply about the issue. It will be a good resource to share with skeptical friends and family.
Overall, I give "God's Not Dead" 4 stars. It didn't "blow me away", and there were a couple parts near the end that were not very captivating. I couldn't give it 5 stars in good conscience, but I give it a high 4 stars. It is well-written and mind-engaging.
Disclaimer: I received
this book free of charge from Booksneeze (Thomas Nelson Publishers) in
exchange for my unbiased review of it. All opinions are mine. I was not
threatened or coerced to provide a positive review.
"Broocks details early in the book the emptiness of the atheist and evolutionist position when it comes to the meaning of life."
ReplyDeleteI don't necessarily disagree with this statement as far as an "Ultimate Meaning of Life" sense of things, but those of us approaching things from the non-theistic perspective tend to have a different view on things that is far from the bleakness this portrayal by the author would seem to indicate. We find meaning and fulfillment in the things we do while alive that make a difference in our own lives and in the lives of others. This tends to be your standard humanist perspective, which most atheists and non-believers would probably feel comfortable classifying themselves as. I think the problem with this position, and it is a common argument I see, is that the desire for the Universe to be a certain way does not mean that it is that way. A position of, "A Universe without ultimate purpose and meaning is too depressing therefore it cannot be true" is not a solid reason to think that there is an ultimate purpose.
"Yet something that has no thought and no moral direction spontaneously brought forth life that thinks about thinking and has moral capacity to love, defend, and die for others. How could this be?"
This is what is known as "the argument from ignorance." "I don't know how it could happen - therefore it cannot be true." Cognitive neuroscience and evolutionary psychology are beginning to answer some of these questions, but even if there were no answers it would still not be an indication that therefore a deity is behind it.
I'd recommend picking up "The Language of God" by Francis Collins. While I don't agree with his theistic conclusions (he channels C.S. Lewis quite a bit), he's pretty spot on with the science and does a good job of explaining to fellow Christians why these types of arguments are not good, and why Christians do themselves, and their message a great disservice by arguing against the reality of the evolutionary process.
"A position of, "A Universe without ultimate purpose and meaning is too depressing therefore it cannot be true" is not a solid reason to think that there is an ultimate purpose."
DeleteThat's not even close to what he suggested. He never implied, "It's too depressing, so it cannot be true." He expanded the point of atheism's emptiness further in the book, and it had nothing to do with its depression.
"This is what is known as "the argument from ignorance." "I don't know how it could happen - therefore it cannot be true."
No, this is what's known as a "rhetorical question", a question in which the answer is not expected to be given because it is plainly obvious. If something cannot come from nothing, then certainly moral capacity cannot come from nothing, either. That says nothing of the sort that, "Because I don't understand it, it cannot be true."
Mike, I think you give the word "depressing" a little too much attention. Let's just go with his word: "emptiness." Whether depressing is used, or emptiness the result is still the same... "A Universe without ultimate purpose and meaning leads to emptiness and therefore it cannot be true." We cannot base reality on what we would like to be true, or because the alternative to our preferred reality strikes us as "empty."
ReplyDeleteA question can be rhetorical and still commit a logical fallacy. The fact that it is rhetorical doesn't exempt the implications of the question from the rules of logic. The fallacy is still being committed. In addition, if something absolutely cannot come from nothing, does God not exist as a something? If he is a something (or a someone), which cannot come from nothing - where did he come from?
1) I gave the word "depressing" no more attention than did you.
Delete2) A question in itself is not an argument, so how does it commit a logical fallacy? It is a question that implies an answer. It may be a leading question or a loaded question, but it is not a fallacy.
A fallacy that you suggest would likly sound something like this:
"I've read humming birds can flap their wings 40-80 times per second;
I don't understand how that's possible;
Therefore, I do not believe it."
I have not (nor has the author) made that "argument from ignorance" in saying that moral, thinking creatures can not come from non-moral gobbledy-goo.
3) Ahhhh, the ol' infinite regress. If God made you, who made God....then who made the who who made God, and who made the who who made the who who made....?
I used the word depressing because depressing and emptiness are often synonymous with each other. Either word you use, the results are the same.
ReplyDeleteA loaded question actually is a logical fallacy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question), though in the particular case it's not being used. The problem in this particular case is that the author asks the question, "Yet something that has no thought and no moral direction spontaneously brought forth life that thinks about thinking and has moral capacity to love, defend, and die for others. How could this be?" Yes, this is a rhetorical device, but it is designed to elicit responses along the following lines: "I don't know." "It's impossible." "It cannot happen." etc. This is presumably the same answer that the author has come up with, which is why he uses this question. The problem is that this translates into an argument from personal incredulity (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity). Just because one finds it difficult to understand, or doesn't know how such a process could occur through naturalistic means - it does not mean therefore that a supernatural explanation is the reasonable conclusion.
In the case of the examples given (love, sacrifice, etc.), much of these can be tied back to the issue of empathy - for which there is a strong evidence that this occurs due to the work of mirror neurons in the frontal cortex of the brain. It is not uncommon for individuals who suffer damage to their frontal cortex to lose all empathy and concern for others. There is a short 10 minute TED talk by the Neuroscientist VS Ramachandran that explains the relationship between empathy and mirror neurons (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0pwKzTRG5E). Another TED Talk by Frans de Waal explores moral behavior in other animals which offer a glimpse into the evolution of our own moral sense (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcJxRqTs5nk).
Christians like to wave off the question of "Where did God come from?" as though it were some sort of trivial worthless question, but it is anything but. The argument given is that something as complex and intricate as the Universe and humans must have a creator because they are too complex to have come about on their own. If this is the case, then the creator would be even more infinitely complex than the creation, and would need a creator as well. It is not an unreasonable question.
No, I'm not waving off the "where did God come from?" question. I simply raised the issue of it being a question of infinite regress because I fully recognize no answer given will ever suffice an atheistic worldview, just like no answer about where the very first atom/molecule/space-dust came from that supplied the Big Bang with all of our universe's matter will ever suffice within the context of my worldview. I'm simply reasonable enough to recognize its a lose-lose Q&A to have.
DeleteOkay, that's understandable. I just misread your intention in the reply.
ReplyDelete