Book Review

Well, I finally finished reading, "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Athiest," by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. I was thoroughly impressed with the first 3/4 of the book, where the authors give detailed, historical, and scientific reasons that we can believe that God is real and that the Bible is true and accurate. They use evidence from astronomy, biology, genetics, and history to show that Chrisianity is believable beyond a reasonable doubt. I was impressed.

For example, when describing why creation makes more sense than evolution, they say, "As with a car engine, all the right parts must be in place in the right size at the same time for there to be any function at all....living systems quickly would become nonfunctional if they were modified piece by piece." (p.145) And, "The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle." p. 121

I also loved this quote, by Andy Stanley, "My high school science teacher once told me that much of Genesis is false. But since my high school science teacher did not prove he was God by rising from the dead, I'm going to believe Jesus instead."

There are several chapters on why we can trust the eye-witness testimony of Jesus' disciples and other early witnesses as recorded in the scriptures, and a good deal of evidence to dispute the various arguments against the resurrection account, such as, if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, why didn't someone present his dead body and clear up the confusion? Or, why would the disciples and early believers risk their lives to spread the gospel, if they were lying? Some very good points.

That being said, the authors, at the end of the book, leave their rational, relevant, and detailed arguments to go off on a tangent, teaching doctrine that is not biblically sound, and then not providing one iota of supportive reasoning or data. For example:

"You say, 'God will just annihilate those who don't believe.' No, he won't. Hell is real. In fact, Jesus spoke more of hell then he did of heaven. God will not annihilate unbelievers because he will not destroy creatures made in his own image. That would be an attack on himself. (What would you think of an earthly father who killed his son just because his son chose not to do what his father wanted him to do?) God is too loving to destroy those who don't want to be in his presence. His only choice is to quarantine those who reject him. That's what hell does--it quarantines evil, which is contagious." pp 385-386.

My response is: what??? God would rather have people suffer torture for eternity because he loves them so much??? Why would he not destroy them, as his word teaches, rather than cause them to suffer endlessly? Which seems more loving? (and more true to scriptural teaching?) (see Rev 20:9 & 21:8; 2 Peter 3:10; Matt 10:28 & 13:30, 40; Rom 6:23; Psalm 37:9, 20, 34 & 68:2 & 104:35 & 145:20; and Malachi 4:1 for just a few examples of the finality of the punishment)

And again, they say, on p. 393, "After all, God's justice demands that there will be degrees of rewards in heaven just like there will be degrees of punishment in hell."

So, where does he get this stuff? In Matthew chapter 20, the parable of the vinyard workers, Jesus appears to me to explain that we all get the same reward in heaven. And in several places, the Bible tells us that to be guilty of one sin is to be guilty of all, because all we have to do is break one part of the law to be a sinner, and we are all equally sinners in God's eyes. I see no evidence of any hierarchical sins or rewards in my reading of scripture. Maybe they were confused and got the Bible mixed up with Dante's "Inferno"?

So, my recommendations would be to read this book with an open mind, and accept only those segments that are well supported.