Skip to main content

Book: The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist

ImageToday’s book is The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist, or The Dreadful Consequences of Bad Arguments by Andy Bannister. The foreword is written by Ravi Zacharias, who is well-known in most Christian circles as an author/speaker on apologetics issues. I’ve enjoyed his material that I have read, but it would take a lot for me to buy a book just for the foreword. Zacharias’ words are good, but not that good.

Instead, I would suggest you buy this book for Bannister’s writing. Now, I must start with a caveat: I picked up this book already sharing most of Bannister’s beliefs about the universe: we are both theists of the Christian variety. As I have only examined the arguments of atheism from the outside, I am not qualified to say that Bannister’s work will tear down the logical edifice of New Atheism and earn him a spot on the Mt. Rushmore of Evangelism (alongside the Apostle Paul, the Venerable Bede, and John Bunyan.) He may be that persuasive, but I already agreed with him so finding that I continue to do so at the end of the book tells us nothing.

This highlights what is, perhaps, the main flaw of this book: what audience is it intended for? I am more thoroughly convinced atheism is wrong than when I started, but my belief in a providential God who got me safely through traffic to work today also supports that. The slightly jesting tone may annoy those who are the target of the jests more than enlighten them, so I’m not certain the work will persuade many atheists.

Perhaps the best guess at the audience is two groups of people. The first are those who are headed into atheism because they find some of the arguments of the “New Atheism” attractive but have not thought fully through them. Bannister’s work will drive at least a few people to think more clearly before they make the leap.

The other good audience for this book are those Christians who are intimidated by the vocal advocates of the New Atheism. The folks who see the Facebook threads or hear the rantings on television advocating that religions are always all bad. Many times, believers feel they are on the wrong end of the argument, holding on by a mere thread of faith. Bannister’s work should enlighten the timid to this reality: all philosophical viewpoints involve some rational leaps. And this includes those who assert that their belief isn’t really a belief.

In all, I’m pleased with this book. I would love to see the same rigor applied to some of the logical arguments for God that has been put onto the arguments for atheism. (Note that this book is as much about the arguments for a specific belief system that is atheism, not for or against the existence of God.) I have found that wanting another helping is often the best sign of a good meal, and likewise with writing: wanting another indicates that this one was pleasurable.

I think The Atheist who Didn’t Exist is worth your time to read.

I did receive a copy in exchange for the review.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Book Review: The Heart Mender by @andyandrews (Andy Andrews)

The Heart Mender: A Story of Second ChancesEver read a book that you just kind of wish is true?  That's my take on The Heart Mender by Andy Andrews.  It's a charming story of love and forgiveness, and it's woven into the historical setting of World War II America.  For the narrative alone, the book is worth the read, but the message it contains is well worth absorbing as well.However, let's drop back a minute.  This book was originally published under the title Island of Saints.  I read Island of Saints and enjoyed it greatly.  Now, Andrews has released it under a new title, with a few minor changes.  All of this is explained in the Author's Note at the beginning, but should be noted for purchaser's sake.  If you read Island of Saints, you're rereading when you read The Heart Mender.  Now, go ahead and reread it.  It will not hurt you one bit.Overall, the story is well-paced.  There are points where I'd like more detail, both in the history and the geog…

Abraham Lincoln Quoted by Jesus! Mark 3

Mark records a curious event in his third chapter (link). If you look at Mark 3:25, you'll see that Jesus quotes the sixteenth President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. After all, one of the highlights of the Lincoln years is his famous speech regarding slavery in the United States where he used the phrase that "a house divided against itself cannot stand." This speech was given in 1858 when he accepted the nomination to run against Stephen A. Douglas for Senate, but is still remembered as the defining speech regarding slaveholding in the United States. I recall being taught in school how brilliant and groundbreaking the speech was, how Lincoln had used such wise words to convey his thought. Yet the idea was not original to Lincoln. Rather, it was embedded in Lincoln from his time reading the Bible. Now, I have read varying reports about Lincoln's personal religious beliefs: some place him as a nearly completely committed Christian while others have him somewh…

Independence Day 2017

I don’t know if Thomas Paine will be aggrieved that I paste his thoughts from Common Sense here, from the electronic edition. It’s a Public Domain work at this point, so hopefully none will be bothered that I am not paying for it...I think there is value in seeing the underlying reasons of Independence. I find a couple of things noteworthy in his introduction:First, he speaks of those who disagree and, while calling those out, holds the strength of his affirmative argument will be enough to straighten them out. We could do well to think more like that.Second, his final sentence should be a required view: the influence of reason and principle. Not self-interest masquerading as principle. Not party propaganda disguised as reason.That being said, not everything Paine said is right. If he and I lived at the same time, we’d argue religion over a great deal. However, the idea of “natural rights of man” follows from the idea of humanity as a special creation—that all are created equal and en…