The following is the review I wanted to post on goodreads.com, but the character limits forced me to dramatically cut it down there. Even before cutting it down, I didn't intend to write an exhaustive review because it was meant for goodreads.com. I could write an exhaustive review of the book here on my blog, but I'm too lazy to rewrite a thorough refutation.
At the beginning of the book Carrier wrote:
//If this is what Christianity is (and most Christians appear to believe so), then there are four reasons why I do not believe a word of it. And all four would have to be answered with a clear preponderance of evidence before I would ever change my mind. I’m serious about this, too. If all four points are ever refuted with solid, objective evidence, then any other quibbles I have beyond these four would not stop me from declaring faith in Christ. For surely any other problem I or anyone might find with the Christian worldview could easily be solved from within the faith itself—if it weren’t for the following four facts.//
I wonder if Carrier really means that, and why it is that [apparently] no Christian apologist has shown him how ridiculously easy it is to refute most of his objections to Christianity that he lists in THIS book. Admittedly, his other books would be MUCH more difficult to refute. Especially those on the historicity of Christ and his argument for Mythcism. However, this book presents general arguments against Christianity which are often based on unwarranted and inflexible theological assumptions. For that reason the book is a very poor case against Christianity, as I'll explain below.
It's shocking that this book was written in 2011. In one sense, Christian apologetics has advanced to such an extent since then that this book is obsolete just 9 years later when I read the book today. Maybe it was out-of-date even earlier. In any case, it would be unfair for us to expect it to address those advances that happened subsequent to 2011. Yet, in another sense, there was enough in the scholarly literature at the time of publication that Carrier should have made room for acknowledging deeper Christian responses. But he really makes no room for them to the detriment of his fulfilling the stated purpose of the book.
I and many other Christians have responses and refutations to virtually every sentence in this book. But if I were to type up all of them, this review would be way too long to post on GoodReads. So, I'll highlight just some of the problems. Admittedly this book explicitly states it's a quick and surface level critique of Christianity, So, I didn't expect it to be exhaustive. It would be natural for there to be some gaps in his argumentation which could be filled in using his other books or recommended resources. However, he's so dogmatic in his conclusions that that by itself makes it a terribly argued book. Carrier makes high promises, but fails to even coming close to delivering on them. He should have given his many conclusions in the book with greater epistemic modesty, and humbly stated them in probabilistic phraseology. Instead, he leaves no logical space for his arguments to be responded to with more nuanced Christian responses. As if nothing else could be said by Christians to show where his reasoning has gaps, leaps and non-sequiturs. At most [if I were being charitable], many of Carrier's arguments could possibly justify agnosticism toward Christianity. But that's still compatible with Christianity's truth. Yet, his book is explicitly subtitled "Four Conclusive Reasons to Reject the Faith". Meaning the Christian religion. Notice the word "CONCLUSIVE". The only out he could possibly have to this criticism of [virtually] claiming deductive proof that Christianity is false is by him pointing out that he actually did write, "When we stick with what Christianity usually means, there is simply not enough evidence to support believing it." The problem is that what he thinks as "what Christianity usually means" is too narrow a definition. Plus, he doesn't make that caveat often enough throughout the book to warrant that as an acceptable excuse for why he was as adamant as he was that he disproved Christianity.
Notice some of the dogmatic conclusions he makes in the book. When in actual fact many of them in context are non-sequiturs:
//Therefore, Christianity is false.//
//So either way, Christianity is false.//
//Which the Christian God would never in good conscience allow. So again, there can be no Christian God.//
//Christianity is simply refuted by the plain facts.//
//And since this is not what we observe, but in fact the exact opposite, the evidence quite soundly refutes Christianity.//
//Therefore, the fact that God hasn’t spoken to us directly, and hasn’t given us all the same, clear message, and the same, clear answers, is enough to prove Christianity false.//
//Therefore, no God exists who is even remotely like my father or my friends, or anyone at all who loves me. Therefore, Christianity is false.//
//That this is not the reality, yet it would be the reality if Christianity were true, is conclusive proof that Christianity is false.//
//Therefore, the fact that the Christian God does none of these things—in fact, nothing of any sort whatsoever—is proof positive that there is no Christian God.//
//For now, it’s enough to note that we do not observe God doing good deeds, therefore there is no God who can or wants to do good deeds—which means Christianity is false.//
//Therefore, once again, the Christian God does not exist.//
//The logic of this is again unassailable.//
//So the Christian theory is either empirically false, or self-contradictory and therefore logically false.//
//Once again, either way, Christianity is false.//
//The fact that he doesn’t proves he doesn’t exist.//
//That leaves no way to escape the conclusion: God’s inaction alone refutes Christianity.//
//Therefore, the absence of this evidence not only leaves Christianity without sufficient evidence to warrant our believing it, but it outright refutes Christianity, because Christianity entails the prediction that God would provide enough evidence to save us, to let us make an informed decision.//
//So there is no way to escape this conclusion. Christianity is fully refuted by its own dismal state of evidence.//
//Christianity is therefore refuted.//
//So the nature of the universe is another failed prediction, confirming our previous conclusion that Christianity is false. And like the three others, there isn’t any way to escape this conclusion.//
Most of his objections to Christianity are based on assumptions about what the Christian God is like and what He would CERTAINLY do [in his fallible opinion]. Yet, many of those assumptions are either not found in Christianity and/or the Bible, or if subscribed by some Christians, aren't subscribed by all. Even some major ones which he even mentions in the book. For example, by Calvinists like myself [whom he mentions twice]. According to Calvinism and its view of predestination, many of his assumptions are false [e.g. regarding God's supposed universal unconditional equally extended love, etc]. Yet, he uses those assumptions to critique Christianity. He often argues in this fashion: If God exists, X would be done. X is not being done. Therefore God doesn't exist. But that boils down to whether HIS narrow and specific conception of the Christian God existed....yada yada yada. Put another way, if I [Richard Carrier] were God, I would do X. X isn't being done. Therefore God doesn't exist. But all that proves is that he's not God. He makes much of God's alleged love, but he fails to balance that with the Bible's doctrine of God's sovereignty and of His being the righteous Governor and Judge of the world. This book exposes how theology is not Carrier's forte.
Not only does he set the bar too high for proving Christianity, Carrier's objections don't take into account other views which I myself don't necessarily hold, but which other professing Christians do. Views which have ramifications/reprecussions/consequences/entailments which undermine his case. For example, he doesn't factor into his critiques views like: inclusivism; universalism/apocatastasis; purgatory [even some Protestants like Jerry Walls are open to a version]; Soul & Character Building/Developing theodicies; Recompense theodicies whereby God ordains there be some epistemic & redemptive distance between humans and Himself in this present Age to allow for rewards and punishments in the afterlife; the concept of a God given conscience and innate knowledge; the sensus divinitatis; the doctrine of humanity's original Fall; the noetic effects of sin; the defense of Skeptical Theism which is [as SEP states] a "strategy for bringing human cognitive limitations to bear in reply to arguments from evil against the existence of God"; Molinistic middle knowledge; Reformed Epistemology; God's Greater Glory theodicy, et cetera. [Some of the things just listed I reject,while others I'm open to or positively hold]
He switches from internal critiques of Christianity to external critiques back and forth erratically. Something which muddles and weakens his argumentation. When doing an internal critique of a worldview, you're supposed to assume for the sake of argument everything that worldview includes in its system. Yet, he repeatedly only assumes only parts of the Christian position and then attacks that strawman representation.
He argues how his conception of a loving God would give everyone the same message and there wouldn't be disagreements in interpretation. That doesn't take into account how grace as unobligated toward ill-deserving sinners; the noetic effects of sin; cognitive biases; how traditions/presuppositions can interfere with interpretations; differences in intellectual aptitude; or even opportunity to investigate these issues, messages or claimed revelations [in terms of time and resources]; or even of intentional fraudulent claims of revelation [et cetera]. He writes:
//If everyone all over the world and throughout history, myself included, had the same religious experience, witnessing no other supernatural being—no other god, no other spirit—other than Jesus, and hearing no other message than the Gospel, I would believe.//
Such unianimity of religious experiences and/or testimony would be difficult to achieve if Christianity's claim that there exists deceiving evil spirits were true. Or, as I said above, if there were (outright) lying human con artists who have fabricated false religions based on false claims of received revelations. This is one of many examples where Carrier set's the bar too high in order to prove Christianity. Could God overcome such issues? Yes. But there are reasons why the Christian God possibily wouldn't always do so, and Carrier doesn't address those possibilities. Earlier I gave as examples the ramifications of Calvinism or Molinism [to mentioned just two of many others]. If I recall correctly, even in his debate with William Lane Craig, Craig presented Molinist options like God knowing via middle knowledge what would and wouldn't convince a person of the truth of Christianity and then God providentially placing people the appropriate places that would result in His plan being inexorably fulfilled. If Carrier didn't anticipate and respond inadvance to the milder view of predestination that Craig offered in this book, then all the more has he failed to respond to Calvinism. Yet Carrier confidently pounds his fists repeatedly saying his objections devastatingly destroy the possible truth of Christianity.
William Lane Craig has said in response to the question of why God didn't make His existence rationally coercive: "Indeed, I could well imagine that in such a world, after a while, people would begin to chafe under such brazen advertisements of their Creator. And in time, eventually come to resent His effrontery for such brazen advertisements of His existence." Elsewhere Craig invited people to imagine a situation in which God consistently interrupted us whenever we were about to do something that would be displeasing to Him.
Or take for example 17th century Augustinian Catholic apologist Blaise Pascal's statements in his Pensées:
////Willing to appear openly to those who seek him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from him with all their heart, God so regulates the knowledge of himself that he has given indications [or "signs"] of himself which are visible to those who seek him and not to those who do not seek him. There is enough light for those to see who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.
Elsewhere in his Pensées he wrote:
The prophecies, the very miracles and proofs of our religion, are not of such a nature that they can be said to be absolutely convincing. But they are also of such a kind that it cannot be said that it is unreasonable to believe them. Thus there is both evidence and obscurity to enlighten some and confuse others. But the evidence is such that it surpasses, or at least equals, the evidence to the contrary; so that it is not reason which can determine men not to follow it, and thus it can only be lust or malice of heart. And by this means there is sufficient evidence to condemn, and insufficient to convince; so that it appears in those who follow it, that it is grace, and not reason, which makes them follow it; and in those who shun it, that it is lust, not reason, which makes them shun it. ////
I myself believe God provides different levels of evidence at different times and places for His sovereign purposes. Sometimes they are undeniable and rationally coercive, other times they are balanced so as to afford an opportunity for us to express our bent and preference.
Elsewhere Pascal makes high predestinarian statements that some Calvinists might agree with:
////577 There is sufficient clearness to enlighten the elect, and sufficient obscurity to humble them. There is sufficient obscurity to blind the reprobate, and sufficient clearness to condemn them, and make them inexcusable.—Saint Augustine, Montaigne, Sébond.
574 All things work together for good to the elect, even the obscurities of Scripture; for they honour them because of what is divinely clear. And all things work together for evil to the rest of the world, even what is clear; for they revile such, because of the obscurities which they do not understand.
562 It will be one of the confusions of the damned to see that they are condemned by their own reason, by which they claimed to condemn the Christian religion.
576 God has made the blindness of this people subservient to the good of the elect.////////
Carrier's book doesn't come close to addressing Molinist, or Augustinian or Calvinist counter-arguments.
Carrier has gone on record saying he's no less a philosopher than Aristotle himself [wow, what a boast!]. I've watched many YouTube videos of Carrier, but not until reading this book did I realize just how woefully ignorant of Christian theology and philosophy Carrier seems to be. Whether it be systematic theology, philosophical theology, historical theology, pastoral theology, biblical theology etc. It just goes to show that knowing the Bible well, as Carrier does, is not the same thing as understanding the Bible or its implications.
//The logic of this is again unassailable. So Christians feel compelled to contrive more ad hoc excuses to explain away the evidence—more speculations about free will, or “mysterious plans,” or a desire to test us or increase opportunities for us to do good, and a whole line of stuff like that. And yet Christians again have no evidence any of these excuses are actually true. They simply “make them up” in order to explain away the failure of their theory.//
//In fact, all the ad hoc excuses for God’s total and utter inaction amount to the same thing: claiming that different rules apply to God than to us. But this is not allowed by the terms of the theory, which hold that God is good—which must necessarily mean that God is “good” in the same sense that God expects us to be good. Otherwise, calling God “good” means something different than calling anyone else “good,” and therefore calling God “good” is essentially meaningless.//
Carrier doesn't blink an eye when making such blanket statements. He's apparently ignorant of the following and their implications to his basic objections: classical theism or neo-classical theism [with respect to the omni-attributes and divine simplicity, immutability, impassibility, timelessness], Thomism, analogical language in theology, perfect being theology etc. While I accept Divine Simplicity, I myself reject Thomism and ABSOLUTE Divine Simplicity. Carrier again fails to leave logical room for these topics which, if he factored in, would weaken the force of his critiques.
Believe it or not, at one point Carrier requires Christians to prove that Christians have eternal life [LOL!]. Presumably empirically. That's an unreasonablely high requirement. He sets the bar unreasonably high multiple times in the book. He doesn't seem to be self-aware enough to realize how ridiculous some of his requirements are. Are Christians expected to be able to empirically prove that upon death the immaterial soul of a Christian goes to heaven? Seriously? By definition the soul is immaterial. In which case it cannot be empirically detected. He writes:
//Right from the start, Christians can offer no evidence at all for their most important claim, that faith in Jesus Christ procures eternal life. Christians can’t point to a single proven case of this prediction coming true. They cannot show a single believer in Jesus actually enjoying eternal life, nor can they demonstrate the probability of such a fortunate outcome arising from any choice we make today. Even if they could prove God exists and created the universe, it still would not follow that belief in Jesus saves us. Even if they could prove Jesus performed miracles, claimed to speak for God, and rose from the dead, it still would not follow that belief in Jesus saves us.
Therefore, such a claim must itself be proven. Christians have yet to do that. We simply have no evidence that any believer ever has or ever will enjoy eternal life, or even that any unbeliever won’t.//
He writes:
//As many a good Christian will tell you, only God knows who will receive his grace. So the Christian cannot claim to know whether it’s true that “faith in Christ procures eternal life.” They have to admit there is no guarantee a believer will be saved, or that an unbeliever won’t be. God will do whatever he wants. And no one really knows what that is. At best, they propose that faith in Christ will “up your chances,” but they have no evidence of even that.//
This seems to contradict what he wrote earlier in the book where he seems to hinge the truth of Christianity on God having to make salvation and the knowledge of salvation equally available to all so that all can make an informed decision to submit to Him. Yet, here he seems to admit that at least some Christians believe that it might be possible to be saved irrespective of one's conscious faith in. and choice of, Christ in this life [cf. inclusivism, universalism, post-mortem evangelism, purgatory etc.]. This later admission completely undermines much of his argumentation in the earlier chapters.
//...until such time as every required element of that theory has been independently confirmed by empirical evidence.//
//This is a serious problem for the Christian religion as an actual theory capable of test and therefore of warranted belief.//
These statements verge on going past empiricism to scientism, and/or logical positivism, and/or verificationism. The latter three have hit hard times in the philosophical community. They are dead programs in the guild. He stipulates, "...until such time as EVERY required element of that theory has been independently confirmed..." Really? That's you're requirement? Setting the bar that high he might as well require Christians to also prove that King David was ruddy, Zacchaeus was short, Ehud was left-handed, and Timothy was circumcised.
//We have never observed anyone who had magical powers, or any evidence that such powers even exist in principle (what stories we do have of such people are always too dubious to trust, and always remain unconfirmed in practice). //
//No one has observed a real act of God, or any real evidence of his inhabiting or observing the universe. //
//We have no good evidence that we have death-surviving souls or that anyone can or will resurrect our bodies.......We have never observed anyone performing anything confirmed to be miraculous, much less rising from graves or any comparable ability. //
//As for those who claim to have “seen” or “spoken” to God, it turns out on close examination (when we even have the required access to find out) that they are lying, insane, or only imagining what they saw or heard.//
I'd invite people to examine the evidence for themselves and not take the word of skeptics as the final authority. For starters, read for example Craig Keener's two volume Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts; Rex Gardner's Healing Miracles: A Doctor Investigates; and the appendices in Robert Larmer's The Legitimacy of Miracle as well as his book Dialogues on Miracle.
//The most popular—and really, the only evidence people have for God’s existence and role as Creator—is the apparent “fine tuning” of the universe to produce life. That’s at least something remarkable, requiring an explanation better than mere chance. As it turns out, there are godless explanations that make more sense of the actual universe we find ourselves in than Christianity does—but we shall examine this point in the next chapter (pp. 66-80).//
I'm glad to see that Carrier does acknowledge that fine-tuning is prima facie evidence for a cosmic designer. In the end he doesn't find it convincing. But fine-tuning could be one data point of many evidences and arguments that Christian apologists can provide which could be used in a cummulative case that makes theism, even Christianity, the more (or most) plausible worldview. The converging lines of evidence for Christianity are there if one will do the research.
//Therefore, the Christian theory has insufficient support to justify believing it. And this remains so even if Christianity is true. For even if it is true, we still don’t have enough evidence to know it is true.//
But even wholly apart from rigorous apologetical evidences and arguments for God, one can be justified in believing in the existence of God. Here Carrier completely side steps the insights of Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology and its appeal to properly basic beliefs, the sensus divinitaris, the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit, &c.
With respect to the origin of life and biological evolution, while I don't positively subscribe to it, macro-evolution is compatible with Christianity. I would recommend Stephen Meyer's books, "Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design", "Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design". Also the upcoming book, "The Return of the God Hypothesis". Along with the other books/resources recommended by the Discovery Institute [e.g. Michael Denton's books], and Hugh Ross' apologetical ministry Reasons to Believe.
//After all, what need does an intelligent engineer have of billions of years and trillions of galaxies filled with billions of stars apiece? That tremendous waste is only needed if life had to arise by natural accident.//
There's a long history in both non-Christian & Christian theology/philosophy of the concept of the "principle of plenitude" whereby God wants to express His infinite creativity by producing the maximal [or nearly so] diversity of kinds of existences of everything that's possible. A concern for efficiency is only needed with limited time, power and resources. God is infinite on those areas. Moreover, according to the Bible the vastness and the innumerable number of stars is meant to manifest the glory, greatness, wisdom and transcendence of God.
//Because if there is no God, then life could have arisen only in a world that large and old. So that would be the only world we would ever see around us. And lo and behold, that’s exactly the world we see around us.//
That's just not true. As William Lane Craig has written, "Roger Penrose has calculated that the odds of our solar system’s forming instantaneously through the random collision of particles is incomprehensibly more probable that the universe’s being fine-tuned, as it is. So if we were a random member of a World Ensemble, we should be observing a patch of order no larger than our solar system in a sea of chaos. Worlds like that are simply incomprehensibly more plentiful in the World Ensemble than worlds like ours and so ought to be observed by us if we were but a random member of such an ensemble." Moreover, Hugh Ross has, rightly or wrongly, argued in his books that the size of our universe was needed for our benefit given God's plan and methods.
//There is no good reason God would need any of these things to create and sustain life. He could, and almost certainly would, use an infallible spiritual essence to accomplish the same ends—exactly as all Christians thought for nearly two thousand years.//
Yet even Augustine [who lived in the 4th & 5th centuries] believed God could have created the world with certain potentialities that would develop and unfold through time. So, it's not the case that biological evolution was incompatible with Christianity and was exposed to be such with the coming of Darwin in the 19th century. Think again of the plenitude principle.
//At most a very minimal brain would be needed to provide interaction between the senses, nerves, and soul.//
This doesn't take into account the many cases in the scientific literature where people who apparently had little to virtually no brain who nevertheless had average levels of intelligence, or higher than would be expected. See, InspiringPhilosophy's [i.e. Michael Jones'] videos on the soul, consciousness, and related topics.
//Even the Christian proposal that God designed the universe, indeed “finely tuned” it to be the perfect mechanism for producing life, fails to predict the universe we see. //
This statement doesn't take into account the spiritual Fall of mankind and the effects on the world. It may have even had retroactive effects [as argued by William Dembski]. Also, how did Carrier conclude that Christianity and/or the Bible teaches "it to be the perfect mechanism for producing life"? As far as I can tell, that can't be deduced or induced from Scripture.
//Instead, almost the entire universe is lethal to life—in fact, if we put all the lethal vacuum of outer space swamped with deadly radiation into an area the size of a house, you would never find the submicroscopic speck of area that sustains life.//
Imagine the following thought experiement where life was abundant in every nook and cranny of the universe. In such a situation humans could possibly think it was a such a natural and universal state of reality that we might not consider the need a c/Creator. However, by contrast a tiny amount of life in an inhospitable universe where life would be very difficult to develop or be sustained, and was probabilistically unlikely to produce life, could point to a c/Creator without necessarily coercing a rational belief in God. It's easy to take for granted things in abudance. Often it takes losing those things or their being rare that we can appreciate how special they are. The fact that SETI has failed to detect other civilizations of sentient life highlights how special and precious human life on planet earth is.
//The fact that the universe is actually very poorly designed to sustain and benefit life is already a refutation of the Christian theory, which entails the purpose of the universe is to sustain and benefit life—human life in particular.//
//This is exactly what we are facing when we look at the universe: it is not very well designed for life, though life is an inevitable byproduct of what the universe was more obviously designed for: black holes. So if the universe was intelligently designed, it clearly was not designed for us.//
Even the writers of the movie Contact [with Jodie Foster] knew that super-intelligent beings could have multivalent purposes. Yet, Carrier can't seem to think that God might have various purposes for why He created our universe the way that He did. Even human makers consider both form AND function when designing things. Even human artists don't create all their art for everyone to see. Sometimes even human artists will create pieces of art for only herself or a select few to enjoy. Or enjoyed in a given context. For example, a statue that's displayed in a washroom, or a painting in a library, or a poem to only family members. The beauty of fractals was only discovered with the invention of the computer. Who knows what other mathematical and/or other aspects of our physical universe God alone can enjoy. Or which He made for angels to enjoy. Blackholes by themselves, or in conjunction with other things may be pleasing to God. Think of the underside of a rug. It may seem chaotic, but when one looks at the other side, the chaos evidently has purpose [literally] behind it. Or think of the dots of a newspaper. Up close, the dots seem random, but when see at the right distance, they can produce meaning in words and pictures. According to the Bible the existence of human beings, and their welfare aren't the sole reasons why God created the physical universe. Without the false assumption that humans are the only reason for creation, Carrier's objections crumble.
//The natural world is like an autistic idiot savant, a marvelous machine wholly uncomprehending of itself or others.//
See Robin Collins papers and videos on fine-tuning, scientific discovery and the discovery OF DISCOVERY. Also, the book and documentary Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards which shows a serendipitous correllation between scientific discovery and human flourishing that smacks of intelligent design.
//Conversely, all the causes whose existence we have confirmed are unintelligent, immutable forces and objects. //
See the videos by InspiringPhilosophy on quantum mechanics. Experiments in QM has demonstrated conscious observation affects the physical world. That suggests that mind is as fundamental, if not more so, than matter.
//And the fact that Christianity is identical in all these respects to other religions—like Hinduism or Islam, which every Christian must agree are false faiths yet are nevertheless just as firmly believed, on essentially the same force of evidence, and defended with essentially the same excuses—should finally shake anyone out of their complacency and compel them to ask whether they, too, are as blind as all those other people with false religions. //
The case for Christianity is vastly superior to those other faiths. See Nabeel Qureshi's books and David Wood's YouTube videos which refute Islam. See J. Isamu Yamamoto's books and Vishal Mangalwadi's books on Hinduism.
This review has gotten too lengthy, so I'll end it here. In fine, Carrier's "Four Conclusive Reasons to Reject the Faith" are NOT AT ALL CONCLUSIVE. He's overly confident that his simplistic and introductory criticisms refute Christianity. At most they might possibly justify agnosticism with respect to Christianity. But there is a range of balance with respect to the evidence "for" and "against" Christianity that's compatible with Christianity still being true. For example, 50/50 is compatible. In my fallible opinion, when one takes a more comprehensive look at the overall evidence, the case for the Christian worldview way better than 50/50, and beats all other competing alternative worldviews out of the water. Though, admittedly, I barely touched on that postive evidence. The focus of this review was to examine the case Carrier made against Christianity. Like Belshazzar in the Old Testament, it has been weighed in the balances and "found wanting".
No comments:
Post a Comment