I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist argues that Christianity requires the least faith of all worldviews because it is the most reasonable. The authors lay out the evidence for truth, God, and the Bible in logical order and in a readable, non-technical, engaging style. A valuable aid to those interested in examining the reasonableness of the Christian faith, Geisler and Turek provide a firm challenge to the prior beliefs of doubters and skeptics.
©2002 Norman L. Geisler; (P)2002 christianaudio.com
I believe there are 4 types of people in the world; those who believe in a creator, those who do not, those who are open to the possibility and a large apathetic group who don't care enough to invest time in answering the question. This book will solidify the beliefs of the first group, especially those who have committed their life Jesus. The second group will probably not finish listening because of the discomfort at having their world view called into question. Those in the third group will be fascinated to find that faith in God, and particularly in Jesus, is not actually a leap of faith or a simply a matter of personal preference. The apathetic group does not require discussion in these brief comments. They will probably not listen to the book or read this review. I am solidly in the group who make sense of the world around me through the lens of both creation and the cross. In short, I want there to be an all powerful, loving God who cares that I exist and can offer the hope of something better. From that perspective, this book is among my top 5 of all time. I've read the paper version several times & very much enjoyed the audible version as well. I think the narrator did a good job of reading but occasionally she reads information which, in the written version, is presented as tables. These can be hard to follow. The logic employed by Geisler and Turek is well reasoned and sound. Their employment of logic, rational thought and the knowledge compiled by many disciplines within the greater scientific and academic communities over many years to be without error. Having said that, this book is intended to be read by someone with a competent high school level of knowledge and thought capability. It is not an exhaustive treatise on every topic and issue which would require a vast document significantly diminishing the number of readers. I highly recommend investing the time and book credit in finding out why I don't have enough faith to be an atheist either.
yes ... beneficial I believe that I learned much from it and I recommend it to everybody
There's a lot of clever philosophical points in his book. The authors deftly and handily point out errors in basic logic that many popular philosophies exhibit. As the authors do so they begin to make a compelling case for theism. However, the science material in this book is so deeply flawed that it is hard to listen to.
This book does a disservice to Christianity. It purports to be written to convince skeptics and atheists that theism is a serious hypothesis worth considering. And, when they are dealing with material on which they are qualified to write about, namely philosophy and theology, the authors do a good job of making a case for theism. But as soon as they begin to talk science, the book takes a steep nosedive. The authors are woefully ignorant and incorrect on a number of points, big and small. They ignore evidence, whether willfully or out of ignorance, that prove their claims incorrect. They obfuscate simple matters to make them seem more complex, and they continuously get little but important details incorrect.
I found this book deeply disappointing. If you are an atheist or agnostic looking for a fair explanation of the real good evidence for the theistic hypothesis don't listen to this book. Check out "The Language of God" by Francis Collins instead; he's actually a scientist, so he's actually qualified to talk about science.
The authors do make very good philosophical arguments, but the junk science in this book risks sinking the philosophical work just by guilt by association. "If their science is so bad, maybe their philosophy is too" one may think. I don't think so, I think the philosophy is generally good. However, the authors have a narrow interpretation of Christianity and willfully distort scientific evidence to fit that predetermined outlook, which is very sad. I can't recommend this book.
Drs Geisler and Zacharias have done a first rate job in providing the evidences for the Christian faith. The reader does a nice job too of presenting their work. You will no be disappointed in the information provided from these great intellectuals. The faith, you see has legs that support the body of beliefs. You will not be dissapointed if you purchase this audiobook.
While the author does make some valid points, they are heavily outweighed by his lack of understanding of many of the concepts he tries to use in his argument. For example:
*He claims that the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is just an attempt by atheists to discount the anthropic principle. While doing so, he manages to not even mention that it has anything to do with quantum mechanics.
*He repeatedly claims that Watson & Crick discovered DNA.
*He implies that proponents of abiogenesis believe that something akin to an amoeba randomly came together as the first life form; some kind of RNA or another relatively simple, self-replicating molecule is usually used as the starting point.
*He essentially completely discounts quantum mechanics by implying that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle does not reflect any true probabilistic nature, but rather a simple inability to measure the properties of small particles.
*He discounts punctuated equilibrium with as little explanation as he provides for his acceptance of overwhelming irreducible complexity in nature.
*He claims that macroevolution is not falsifiable.
*He demonstrates a severe lack of understanding of basic probability theory in his discussion of the odds of red, white and blue confetti dropped from a plane forming the shape of an American flag on the ground.
*He does not understand the reason for the a priori assumption of non-supernatural causes in the scientific method.
*He repeatedly discusses flaws in the idea that chance and natural selection can lead to macroevolution. He never mentions that it's actually natural selection acting upon random mutations, and chance only comes into the matter because the mutations are random.
In short, if you would like to attain an objective view of the matters he discusses, don't take his descriptions of the evidence at face value.
This is a book with a lot of information that will either increase your faith or help you see that you do not have faith but have no reason not to have faith. The authors lay out the information very well. It is easy to understand. The reading by Kate Reading is done very well.
I was looking for a book to make a compelling case against atheism. Sadly this is not that book. To be fair, that wasn't this book's intention, so take the following with that in mind.
The main problem with this book is the weak arguments it constantly makes. It tells the listener what atheists believe (as if they believe all the same things) and then attempts to refute those beliefs. Two problems with this, the initial arguments are total straw men, I personally don't know or have even heard of any atheists believing most of what this book claims they believe, and even with those straw men the refutes are quite week.
I'll give a singular example that explains what I mean. The book attempts to refute the claim that The Bible has inaccuracies or contradictions due to copies being made and the original manuscripts being lost. It claims (and I swear this is true) that any contradictions or mistakes are easy to resolve because the only way you could have mistake with the phrase "I think" is to have it say "It hink", "Ith ink", "Ithi nk" or "Ithin k". So all you have to do is compare some texts and you can easily see what the original intent was.
This passage was almost enough to make me stop listening. Apparently in the authors' world, intentional changes, mistranslations, and homonyms do not exist.
The book is riddled with such simplistic arguments. I'm sure it's a nice reinforcement for believers if they don't want to think about it too much, but the case is far from compelling.
Very logically presented discussion of why the Bible is a reliable historical document.
Not really a story, but a very detailed and well thought out argument about why it is reasonable that Christianity is valid.
Easy to listen to, understand, and process.
Some valid and interesting arguements, but there are also some major loopholes. Stick with Lee Strobel for some scientific points of views, and C.S. Lewis for philosophical arguements. In my opinion, they do a more tidy job on a subject that should still be something that to which you draw your own conclusions. The book does get one thinking, however...especially when "people", mainly "intellectuals" tell everyone how it is...investigate for yourself, research and weigh the options.
Yes I would, but I would really like to read it and put the information to a test. This book is full of information,some needs to be tested, just listening to it is exciting.
Charactors? are you serious, there are no charactors.
Never even heard of Kate Reading before this listen
The part that really moved me, and this is why I want to read the book, is the numerous references between the Old Testament where God say he will do something,like forgive sins, and the New Testament references where Christ makes similar statements, thus claiming to be God.
Look I have known this relationship existed, just never heard of anyone actually documenting this relationship. I could not image this relationship had never been laid out, just never run into someone who laid it out.
This book has a lot of information, I have to get the book.
There are no listener reviews for this title yet.
Report Inappropriate Content