The God Conclusion

De: John L. Leonard

Narrado por: Zac Aleman

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins has sold more than three million copies worldwide, making it one of the best-selling books promoting atheism of all time.

Now John Leonard systematically dismantles the argument in The God Delusion point by point, leaving the lstener iwith very few questions as to which worldview is more logical. After he has dispensed with Dawkins, Leonard makes a powerful argument for intelligent design that should eliminate any lingering doubts in the mind of the listener about whether supernatural intelligence exists.

The God Conclusion provides the most comprehensive and logical answer to our existential questions.

God exists.

©2022 John L Leonard (P)2022 John L Leonard

One of the best books on the failure of evolution I’ve read

The author writes in a simple factual manner. Yes he deals with incredibly complex topics and deals with the astronomical numbers against evolution and the books written by Dawkins.
I found it very readable and understandable
I appreciate his “you don’t have to agree with everything” statement.
I absolutely agree. He just presented data. It is on the reader to apply or not to apply the information.

Read this book.

This book is very well written. The research put into this book and how they are presented is done in expert fashion. I recommend this book to everyone.

Fact based rebuttal against Dawkins claims as well

If you go into this with an open mind, I feel there is a good case for intelligent design made within these covers. There were alot of points made that did cause me to reflect and rethink. Some of those points are topics like atheists and evolutionists trying to establish what they feel are morals by criteria that doesn't really offer much or a basis for such a code without a God and a black and white contrast of good versus evil. I feel the author did a good job of countering arguments and attacks from Richard Dawkins, like the basis for morals, as well as the chances for such things as the "Goldilocks Zone" right on down to the DNA makeup of living creatures on this planet. Dawkins refers to genetic code as being "like computer software coding" while denying there is an intelligent designer to even create that code and make it integrated into all lifeforms within our reality.

There are a few topics that I personally disagree with, like the possibility of reincarnation, but others like NDE's did lend support to the theory of duality of the human brain and the mind to counter Dawkins insistence that once we die, we are no more.

The author repeatedly reminds the audience to think for themselves and not just blindly believe what Dawkins or anyone else (including the author themselves) believes. He ends the book with the reminder that we all have a choice.

All in all, I feel this was worth the time to check out, and it was well written. I will admit that I am not a huge reader so I opted for the audio book. I also admit that I am not an expert on biology, physics, or any other scientific field, but I could follow along well enough to formulate my own hypothesis, which is what I believe this book is intended to do. I also am a Christian myself but came into this with an open mindset due to the little doubt that every Christian has pop up atleast once in their life. I can honestly say that as a believer, reflecting on the points within this book as well as some of the author's own personal experiences have helped reinforce my belief that there IS a God. I recommend taking the time to check this out and see what you conclude by the end.

This is an important book I disagree with

John L. Leonard and I have discussed, and disagreed on, the question of God's existence for years, while sharing an appreciation of critical and analytical thought. I know him as a diligent researcher and articulate writer. I promised him this review long ago, and I apologise to John for the unwarranted delay.

The Introduction offers important context and sketches some of the arguments to follow. Chapters 1-10 of the book constitute a nearly point-by-point response to "The God Delusion" by biologist Richard Dawkins, with chapters 11-15 forming a positive argument in favour of the author's own position, "The God Conclusion".

In his Introduction, Leonard recounts personal experiences that have led him to believe in the Christian God. This sets up the tone of the entire work - this is a book that mixes philosophy, science, and theology with personal thought. To my mind, that is what makes it worthwhile. He also sets up some of the themes he will return to later in the text, including that not believing in God is an act of free will rather than unbiased evaluation. He gives Dawkins credit where credit is due for intelligence and erudition, which is a notable thing contrasted to the generally toxic tone dominating the "God debate". He closes the introduction by pointing out that truth MATTERS. In our current age of "post-fact" discourse, this is also a worthy reminder.

Leonard offers responses to each chapter of Dawkins, which is no trivial task. In general, he gives as good as he gets. He correctly calls Dawkins out for some cheap shots at religion. While I disagree with much of the detail he presents, he consistently cites his sources, and generally works to maintain a civil, intellectual tone to his rhetoric.

At times he seems not to address the full force of the opposing argument, for example the so-called "Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit". This idea is a rebuttal of an older argument against evolution, Fred Hoyle's "junkyard tornado". Hoyle wrote that the emergence of the life we observe, via abiogenesis of a simple form from inanimate matter, then evolution to near-incomprehensible complexity, was as unlikely as a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and accidentally assembling a Boeing 747 aircraft. Hoyle was arguing in favour of life being designed by an intelligence. Dawkins' "Ultimate 747" rebuttal is that (as Hoyle implies) life's complexity demands an explanation because complexity is unlikely, and any entity capable of designing a complex product must itself be more complex than what it designs. Thus, an intelligent designer capable of designing life would have to be even more complex and unlikely, and demand an explanation even more strongly. The complexity of the 747 needs an explanation of origins, but the designer of life is the "ultimate 747" in demanding an explanation of origins.

Leonard dismisses this argument already in his Introduction with a nonchalant "so what?"; and in Chapter 3 calls it "gibberish" and "word salad". This is unfortunate, as this is a central piece of reasoning of the book he intends to refute.

There are some relatively minor points where Leonard may lose a few readers. For example, he consistently refers to the evolutionary idea of common descent as all living things being related through "sexual reproduction". This is inaccurate - many living things either must or can reproduce without sex; however, this is easily corrected by simply substituting "reproduction" when "sex" is too specific.

In Chapters 11 - 15, having diligently dealt with all of Dawkins' book, Leonard turns to his own reasoning in favour of the existence of God. This review has no scope to evaluate all his individual points - I shall leave that to those who read the book.

Chapter 11 marshals evidence against an unintelligent process in the Big Bang, in cosmic tuning, and in the content of DNA. The arguments presented here are arguments for intelligent design. The only implied attributes of the designer are intelligence and creative power at the time of creation. The connection to the other attributes of God: benevolence, omniscience, eternality or omnipotence, is missing. These may seem like obvious extensions of creation to theists, but are certainly not logical entailments of it.

Chapter 12 goes through evidence for supernatural phenomena, including reincarnation, near-death experiences with reported supernatural content and miracles. Accepting the supernatural is a prerequisite for belief in most monotheisms, which makes this information relevant; yet, this also lacks a straight line to God. A naturally unexplainable aspect of our universe is conceivable without a super-intelligence having the attributes of God.

Chapter 13 builds positive evidence for intelligent design, both at the level of species (including oddities like the anglerfish and the platypus), as well as on the scale of whole ecosystems (describing the effects of the local extinction and later reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone Park). The final line is telling:

"The question becomes, can intelligence be created by random chance?"

It is unfortunate phrasing, but common in the creationist/intelligent design movement. The very core of Darwinian evolution is that selection is not random chance, but consistent with stable circumstances. The real question is whether mutation (random) in combination with selection (non-random) can create intelligence.

Chapter 14 turns to the moral argument, essentially that without God, there could be no morality. Leonard argues that without an ultimate source of moral rules, there is no justification for condemning even the worst behaviour as evil (his example is a cannibalistic serial killer):

"It might be unfair to me and evil to you, but it wasn't to Jeffrey Dahmer, and that's what matters."

I dispute the phrase, "that's what matters". Morality is both a question of "should I do this" AND a question of "should I let YOU do this". To the second question, Jeffrey Dahmer's feelings are irrelevant. We all have a moral instinct of some things being OK and others not (even Dahmer, as shown by a quote included in the book). This instinct may be because of God's influence - however, it would have been a good addition here to address the proposed plausible evolutionary mechanisms for recognisably moral behaviour in animal groups.

In Chapter 15, Leonard wraps things up, and leads into his conclusion. He refers to points raised in chapters 11 and 13 for intelligent design, and chapter 12 for the existence of the supernatural. Unfortunately, he doesn't refer to chapter 14, so morality is not well connected here. His reasoning comes to a central point:

"There really is only one good reason to become an atheist: you simply don't want to believe in God. We all have free will. You can simply choose to reject logic and common sense and become an atheist."

If I granted the truth of every bit of chapters 11-14, I could still conceivably believe in the supernatural and be a deist holding to an intelligent designer who was also the source of our universal moral instincts. The eternal, personal, miracle-causing, omniscient and omnipotent God is not a conclusion from those chapters. Leonard disagrees:

"…But God exists. That is the only reasonable conclusion based on the vast body of evidence we have at our disposal. You don't have to like it, but you should accept it."

Very well, let's go one step further, and grant that the book presents evidence for God as advocated by Leonard, and it cannot be reasonably refuted. We then need to decide what to make of the following, from his Introduction:

"…I believe I can answer Dawkins' question about why God took pains to hide irrefutable evidence of His existence, and my answer is free will."

We cannot have it both ways - either the evidence is available and not reasonably refutable, and atheism is a personal, irrational and arbitrary choice (with consequences); or the irrefutable evidence has been hidden so that believers are making a leap of faith.

This is an important book. There are many texts on both sides of the "God Divide" that adopt (or aspire to) a tone of Truth with a capital T, while hiding the author's personal reflections, and they are less persuasive as a result. Leonard does not commit that mistake. He is personable and persuasive throughout, and the text reads like a good conversation with an intelligent friend who had really done their homework, over relaxing drinks.

Whether the reader is a believer or not, Leonard's parting quote is one that I value highly. I can think of few better expressions of benevolence toward your interlocutor, agreeable or not:

"May the LORD bless you and keep you. May the LORD make his face shine upon you and be gracious unto you. May the LORD lift his countenance upon you and give you peace."

so many assumptions

the author has a strong bias towards god existing and he's makes that perfectly clear. much of the evidence given is accounts from the bible that have never been proven and things that the author thinks sound good. many of the atheist arguments are misrepresented or ignored.