“I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be An Atheist” by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek is a surprisingly easy read given it’s size and attention to detail. Thumbing through the pages and scouting it’s contents, charts, and index, I expected to be hunkering down for some serious digestion. Despite this pleasant surprise, my overall reaction to this work was ambivalence.
On the one hand, Geisler and Turek serve up some incredible encouraging evidences for the Biblical account of creation. I loved boning up on my knowledge of the Laws of Thermodynamics, and the basic laws of logic, like the law of non-contradiction and the “excluded middle”. As a Christian, I find these things exciting because science does indeed point to a theistic God, and their defense of Scripture, the person of Christ, and especially the Resurrection are vital to my faith.
On the other hand, it is the application of these evidences by the authors that I can’t agree with. The use of evidences is great for the encouragement of Christians, but I find their belief that evidences (both scientific and philosophical) are crucial to evangelism to be contrary to passages like Romans 1:16, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” In the Forward the authors make several bold statements. Acknowledging that “Proof, of course, is no substitute for faith.” (p.7), they go on to say that evidences are instrumental in removing “intellectual obstacles” leaving them “naked to confront their real demons.” In the Preface, the authors jointly state: “We came to believe through evidences.”
In my opinion, Jesus closed the debate on this topic in the story of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16. When the rich man asks that Abraham send Lazarus back from his bosom to appear to his own family so that they would repent, Abraham says this: “But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ “But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ “But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’” (Luke 16:29-31.)
This is very hurtful of the authors’ argument. Though they correctly note that the Resurrection is the lynchpin of the Christian faith, they err in thinking that proving the Resurrection is grounds for belief. the problem faced by the unbeliever is not lack of information or argument, but spiritual death (Eph 2:1-3).
In this, their Arminiansim is evident, particularly in the closing chapter. Failing to see the real obstacle, the solution provided is faulty.
As a side note, I also tire of recounting arguments in which such-and-such the noted expert in his field, was cornered into admitting that his argument was false but still wouldn’t cave. There’s definitely a lot of that here. These two authors are obviously tapped into the debate circuit, and though it is often noteworthy, it gets old.
All that aside, believe it or not, I actually liked this book. The book drives home the point that everyone has faith. the question is, what is the object of your faith. God is rational, His creation is rational, and when we start with the right premise we can reach the correct conclusions. Faith is not blind, it is supremely reasonable. All other beliefs other than Christianity lack sufficient support for their assumptions, Geisler and Turek do a good job of impressing this upon the reader. While I wholeheartedly disagree with the authors’ intent to use the book as a tool for evangelism, it still remains a great tool for encouragement as Christians learn that their faith is valid.
Amen, Matt. That is preaty cool.