Has anyone used "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist?

[albeto.]

This seems to me to potentially be an important consideration. While the book does make well structured arguments to support their conclusions, it can easily be torn to pieces by attacking their premisses.

An argument created to make a point without considering logic and reason is never well structured, no matter how successfully and triumphantly it knocks down its own created straw men.

 

 

What IS useful in this book are some ways of thinking and arguing (techniques) which are used with respect to the subject of the existence of God, however these same tools may be better acquired, in my view, my studying logic and rhetoric independently of the subject matter. The student would then be better equipped to argue for their own beliefs, instead of parroting back a indoctrinated response.

I only skimmed the first chapter of the book, but the premise of the argument is illogical at its very foundation. Logical fallacies are best exposed as fallacies, not as useful techniques of thinking and arguing. I don't know any advice to offer the OP with regard to arguing on the subject of the existence of God, as it all boils down to personal faith.

[Pen]

I just want to make sure I wasn't missing some super secret atheist curriculum or something.

 

 

Well, I was only able to read a look inside type sample, But I gather the reason the author of the book is so against higher education is that he sees it as an atheist curriculum. Similarly, I guess he takes anything that disagrees with the Bible as a literal "Truth" to be atheist curriculum, so that, I guess most secular biology or chemistry or astronomy or earth science etc. materials, would be things he would take to be an actively atheist curriculum.

 

But I disagree with that premise, those premises.

 

I guess that if a family for whom this book makes sense was about to have a child go off to university, that they might think the book would be a helpful protection against what the child would then be learning at the university, perhaps. But if a family were as negative about current university studies as the sample of the book sounded, I think they would be better off having their child go to a Bible College.

 

Incidentally, this is from an X-post, and I think OP already had her question answered long ago on the thread on the HighSchool board and probably is not reading this anymore, but I think some of this is an interesting discussion, nonetheless.

[Pen]

An argument created to make a point without considering logic and reason is never well structured, no matter how successfully and triumphantly it knocks down its own created straw men.

 

 

I only skimmed the first chapter of the book, but the premise of the argument is illogical at its very foundation. Logical fallacies are best exposed as fallacies, not as useful techniques of thinking and arguing. I don't know any advice to offer the OP with regard to arguing on the subject of the existence of God, as it all boils down to personal faith.

 

 

That was how it seemed to me also.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Norm Geisler is anti higher education?  He has started two seminaries - which give out master's degrees and higher.  He has a PhD.  

[JDoe]

An argument created to make a point without considering logic and reason is never well structured, no matter how successfully and triumphantly it knocks down its own created straw men.

 

 

I disagree. The author seems very much to have considered, and to be using logic and reasoning. There is very little I agree with this author about, but I do not find his arguments poorly structured. About the reported strawmen I am in no position to opine since I have neither been quoted by the author as a source for what he knocks down (where source has been mentioned),  nor do I find those opinions where no source have been quoted to be of such a nature that nobody could possibly hold them. Now, I could ofcourse claim that the arguments he knocks down are strawmen versions of my own opinions, but I find it unreasonable to expect the author to have any knowledge of my opinions and to respond to those, as I have a rather unique set of opinions (just as everybody else). 

[Jean in Newcastle]

Isn't the book by Frank Turek ?

 

He has another book called Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make their Case.

 

These arguments are befuzzling to me.

The book is by Turek and Geisler.  I know nothing of Turek.  Geisler I know (not personally) but by his academic reputation.  

[Pen]

Norm Geisler is anti higher education?  He has started two seminaries - which give out master's degrees and higher.  He has a PhD.  

 

 

I don't know. There seem to be two authors and also there was a forward, I think by someone else. I do not know who wrote the part I was reading. It was what I could see of the book from the Look Inside view on Amazon.com. I think it gave everything from the cover page through to maybe the end of the first chapter, but I am not sure. Something there looked to be like a diatribe railing against university education. Maybe you would experience it differently. And I cannot see that from home where I am now, only from the library. So I cannot look again and see if I get another impression on a second look.

 

What I saw looked extremely anti-university, yes. But  I would not expect that whoever wrote that part (maybe Geisler, maybe his co-author, maybe the forward author) would necessarily include a Christian seminary in what he is against. 

 

If you can get the Look Inside on Amazon, maybe you can look now and report on what you see and how you experience it from your perspective.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I looked at the Amazon "look Inside" pages as you suggested.  I read the foreward (ok - I skimmed it).  I didn't find anything anti- higher education there.  I read the parts of the actual body of the book that were given (which obviously was a small selection and is not the entire book).  There was an example from a secular religion class which was not anti- higher education but could be construed as anti secular religion class.  They are making the point that Christian views are not given the same tolerance in a secular university that other ideas/ viewpoints are.  I don't think that is anti- higher education.  That's pointing out a bias in the system that Christians might have to deal with.  I skimmed to about p. 92 in the Amazon supplied "look inside" but had to stop because it is already 10 pm and I'm going to be up past midnight now planning for next weeks's lessons and can't waste any more time on this.  (Not that discussing this is frivolous but in terms of my priorities at the moment it can't be number 1).  

[albeto.]

I looked at the Amazon "look Inside" pages as you suggested.  I read the foreward (ok - I skimmed it).  I didn't find anything anti- higher education there.  I read the parts of the actual body of the book that were given (which obviously was a small selection and is not the entire book).  There was an example from a secular religion class which was not anti- higher education but could be construed as anti secular religion class.  They are making the point that Christian views are not given the same tolerance in a secular university that other ideas/ viewpoints are.  I don't think that is anti- higher education.  That's pointing out a bias in the system that Christians might have to deal with.  I skimmed to about p. 92 in the Amazon supplied "look inside" but had to stop because it is already 10 pm and I'm going to be up past midnight now planning for next weeks's lessons and can't waste any more time on this.  (Not that discussing this is frivolous but in terms of my priorities at the moment it can't be number 1).  

 

This isn't bias, it's just not validating unfounded claims. There are lots of unfounded claims that colleges and universities don't spend time on. The point of college and university is to share information and knowledge, and to provide the tools for continued exploration and the practical application of knowledge of our world. That's not a bias, that's the featured purpose of higher education.

[JDoe]

 

“Professor,†I said, after waiting until just about everyone else had left, “thanks for the class. I think I’ve learned a new perspective. But I still have one huge question.â€

“Sure, go ahead,†he said.

“I enrolled in this class to find out if there really is a God or not. Well . . . is there?â€

Without a moment’s hesitation he snapped, “I don’t know.â€
“You don’t know?â€
“No, I have no idea.â€
I was stunned. I felt like scolding him by saying, “Wait a minute,

you’re teaching that the Old Testament is false, and you don’t know whether there’s a God or not? The Old Testament could be true if God

actually exists!†But since final grades were not in, I thought better of it. Instead, I simply walked out, frustrated with the entire semester. I could have respected a qualified “yes†or “no†with some reasons given, but not “I don’t knowâ€â€”I could get that from an uninformed man on the street. I expected a lot more from a university religion professor.

I later learned that my expectations were too high for the modern university. The term “university†is actually a composite of the words “unity†and “diversity.†When one attends a university, he is supposed to be guided in the quest to find unity in diversity—namely, how all the diverse fields of knowledge (the arts, philosophy, the physical sciences, mathematics, etc.) fit together to provide a unified picture of life. A tall task indeed, but one that the modern university has not only abandoned but reversed. Instead of universities, we now have pluraversities, insti- tutions that deem every viewpoint, no matter how ridiculous, just as valid as any other—that is, except the viewpoint that just one religion or worldview could be true. That’s the one viewpoint considered intolerant and bigoted on most college campuses. 

 

 

 

I have difficulty seeing this as anti-university albeit critical of the status quo, however obviously the book is anti-secular.

[JDoe]

It's obviously anti mainstream university.

 

Given the number of anti mainstream schooling posters on this board it seems a moot point. ;)

[Jean in Newcastle]

 

 

 

 

I have difficulty seeing this as anti-university albeit critical of the status quo, however obviously the book is anti-secular.

 

Precisely.  And yes, it is unabashedly anti-secular thinking.  The sort of Christian worldview that this book is from, sees Christianity as primarily a different way of thinking - ie. thinking from God's perspective as much as finite human beings could do such a thing.   And no, most people with a secular worldview aren't going to understand it.  Why would they?  There is a reason why the conversion experience is comprised of changing your thinking.  This is why I'm a little bit surprised and confused that atheists would really want to discuss this book.  Like I said somewhere (I can't remember if it was in this thread or the other) that this book really is written for Christians and possibly people who are having serious doubts about secularism.  

 

It is not anti-math, or anti-science or anti-humanities though it may be anti some philosophies and theories within those disciplines.  If you draw a venn diagram there is a huge swath of thinking in many disciplines and parts of life that are shared by Christians and non-Christians.  But some of the underlying ways of viewing the world are fundamentally different between a Christian and non-Christian and especially between a religious person and a non-religious person.  This book is trying to address those fundamental differences in thinking (though again, I haven't gotten the book yet to really see how they go about it so I feel funny discussing it in any sort of depth).  You might not even be aware of some of these ways of thinking as a choice because it is so common and so fundamental to how you see things.  But the Christian sees it differently and their way of thinking is just as fundamental to their thinking.  They are more aware of it being a choice though because Christians don't start out as Christians - we start out secular and then are converted.  I did get a sense from what I read that this book was written in part so that Christians can have a dialog with atheists about some of these fundamentals by being aware of them and knowing how to address them.  This is going to highly offend some of you, probably even more than the title, but it is designed in part to help Christians proselytize atheists or agnostics.  Of course that doesn't mean that people can't tell the Christian to buzz off.  

[JDoe]

Precisely.  And yes, it is unabashedly anti-secular thinking.  The sort of Christian worldview that this book is from, sees Christianity as primarily a different way of thinking - ie. thinking from God's perspective as much as finite human beings could do such a thing.   And no, most people with a secular worldview aren't going to understand it.  Why would they?  There is a reason why the conversion experience is comprised of changing your thinking.  This is why I'm a little bit surprised and confused that atheists would really want to discuss this book.  Like I said somewhere (I can't remember if it was in this thread or the other) that this book really is written for Christians and possibly people who are having serious doubts about secularism.    

 

Hmm, I am a secular atheist (lack of belief -type) [aka sceptical agnostic by my own definition] and while I shall make no claim to understanding content of the book until read (if ever), the purpose of the book seems pretty straightforward and I would be extremely surprised it the content is not very much lined up with the purpose. 

 

I should also observe that I do not find the arguments very convincing, but they do have a good structure and even at times an ironic quality to them which provide some amusement. 

 

The problems I have with the arguments are several, e.g. the big bang as the beginning of time does not even mention the possibility of a pulsating universe going through cycles of explosion and implosions ad infinitum. There is also a certain problem with calling the Big Bang for science, as opposed to a possible explanation that is consistent (or coherent) with current state of science. [Though this is a common practice]

[Jean in Newcastle]

We will ( tell them to buzz off! ) if they try to evangelise. Nothing personal.

 

And there are, imo, MUCH better ways of starting dialogue with an atheist if the goal is mutual understanding.

 

However, if the goal is defence/conversion, then I guess things are different. I'm puzzled why the goal wouldn't be mutual understanding though ? Is mutual understanding not a thing in the Christian world view ? If it isn't, wow, do I feel like a fool, for I have spent many an hour trying to develop an understanding of my Christian friends' beliefs....

 

I see why we are talking at cross purposes about this book though, as the goal is not to have an accurate picture of how the atheist sees her atheism, but to defeat atheism as the Christian sees it.

 

It's kind of sad that university could be seen as a battleground. I also resent being co-opted in as a warrior on the side of 'deception'.

 

This explanation, while helpful, makes me feel a distinct lack of trust in Christian friendship.

One of the tenets of Christianity is to be able to make a defense of your faith.  I am of the opinion that  you wait to be asked to make one instead of buttonholing people, but not everyone shares that opinion.  

[Pen]

 

nm

[PineFarmMom]

nm

 

 

[JDoe]

 

Quote

 

So far as I know, this is false. Thus once again he/they is/are setting up a straw man to tear down. University does not mean "unity" and "diversity," nor do the universities at which I had experience deem every viewpoint just as valid as any other. I attended Princeton --which has a Theological Seminary--there was not a bad attitude toward things Christian, and my expectation would be that the majority of people at the Theological Seminary did believe in God, nonetheless the education as a whole was scientific and / or secular. Which in my opinion is as it should be.

 

 

It would seem that his explanation of the word University is wrong

 

 

university (n.)  c.1300, "institution of higher learning," also "body of persons constituting a university," from Anglo-French université, Old French universite "universality; academic community" (13c.), from Medieval Latin universitatem (nominative universitas), "the whole, aggregate," in Late Latin "corporation, society," from universus "whole, entire" (see universe). In the academic sense, a shortening of universitas magistrorum et scholarium "community of masters and scholars;" superseded studium as the word for this. The Latin word also is the source of Spanish universidad, German universität, Russian universitetÅ­, etc.

 

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=university&allowed_in_frame=0

 

However if this is setting up a straw man, or an honest mistake is uncertain.

 

 

 

Quote

 

 So, you'd see it as pro what exact university? Can you name any that fit?

 

The only thing I can see will fit what I read (just the front parts as I said) would be Fundamentalist Christian Bible Colleges or Theological Seminaries...and probably not all Theological Seminaries at that.  Fuller?  I'm not sure. Yale School of Divinity? I think maybe not.

 

Indeed he seem to would like to see the universities drop secularism, and become Christians, most likely integrating religion into any and all subjects taught, much the same as you find in a large number textsbooks aimed at the homeschool market. While I try to avoid this material, I have used Cochran's Logic, and other material from Memoria Press, IEW writing, etc that include many religious references where these do not at all add anything, except continual reinforcement of faith, to the subject being taught.

 

I also find it somewhat ironic that some textbooks written by very religious people in the 19th century are entirely devoid of religious references [see Whately's (Bishop) book on Logic], my guess would be that Christians today feel like a species in threat of extinction and thus feel a need for all the "help" they can get.

[Pen]

It would seem that his explanation of the word University is wrong

...

 

I also find it somewhat ironic that some textbooks written by very religious people in the 19th century are entirely devoid of religious references [see Whately's (Bishop) book on Logic], my guess would be that Christians today feel like a species in threat of extinction and thus feel a need for all the "help" they can get.

 

nm

[JDoe]

nm

 

Edited March 3, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer
Pretty sure that violates several different board policies.