Jagella

I recently finished reading Lee Stroble’s book, The Case for Faith in which Strobel interviews several fundamentalist Christian apologists to make a case that the Christian religion is true. Although I found almost all of the answers provided by these apologists to be either illogical or simply wrong, I was particularly disturbed by the comments made by Norman Geisler. Geisler isn’t simply wrong in many ways in a factual sense, but much of what he says I find morally abhorrent. After reading this chapter in Strobel’s work, I believe we can better understand why Christianity has led to so much bloodshed in the past.

After Strobel lists some Bible atrocities including descriptions of the slaughter of Amalekite women and children, Geisler responds by saying:

(page 118)

It appears that here Geisler evidently hopes that if he insists that God is “holy,� then he is. Moreover, what is holy about brutally and cruelly punishing “sin and rebellion�? One would think that a perfect God like Geisler says he believes in would come up with a better way to deal with those he objects to than to literally crush them.

Geisler describes the Amalekite people by stating:

(page 119)

I submit that Geisler’s comment here is blatantly racist. Whether Geisler realizes it or not, the Nazis used the same argument as the basis for the “final solution.� They too believed that their perceived enemies, the Jews, were “utterly and totally depraved.� I cannot help but to see the irony in that the same “solution� that the Hebrew Bible says the Jews inflicted on their enemies was used on the Jews thousands of years later!

I believe another comment here is appropriate.. Geisler’s basis for believing that the Amalekites were an evil race comes from the Bible which was written by the Jews, of course. Did Geisler ever hear of the old maxim, “history is written by the victors�? If the Amalekites had some documents that survived from this time, then would they have admitted to being depraved? Might they have written of the atrocities of the Jews committed against them? Geisler fails to take such an important observation into consideration.

When Strobel asks Geisler about the innocent children, Geisler responds:

(page 119)

Evidently Geisler believes that might is right. In other words, the God Geisler believes in can kill anybody he wishes, therefore it is right to do so! Obviously, I would disagree. My own feeling is that if God exists and creates human life, then it is his obligation to nurture life—not destroy it! Parents create their children, so do we believe they have the right to murder their own offspring?

Geisler then rationalizes the genocide of children by stating:

(page 120)

Geisler here is telling us that the Israelites did the Amalekite children a favor by killing them at a young age and thus ensuring they would never burn in hell. Similar thinking was implemented by Andrea Yates. She drowned her five children to keep them from the possibility of going to hell. Christian preachers are fond of telling us that beliefs have consequences. In the case of Christian beliefs, the tragic consequence sometimes is dead children.

In addition to Geisler’s defending the murder of children and his racist comments, he makes a few logical blunders as well. Regarding the “reliability� of the Bible, Geisler says:

(page 128)

For a man who’s educated in logic, I find it very odd that Geisler would not realize such a glaring fallacy in his argument above. Whether he realizes it or not, he’s committed the fallacy of composition by assuming that if the Bible is correct in some passages, then it’s right in them all!

I could go on into a very lengthy discussion of Geisler’s twisted view of morals as well as his tortured logic, but I hope that everybody here gets the idea. When intelligent, educated people insist that something is good and true contrary to the evidence, then the result is often very peculiar and sometimes even dangerous. I just hope that Geisler’s apologetics are never put into action or at least no more so than they already have been.

Jagella

Diogenes the Cynic

You're right. It's disgusting and shot through with fallacy.

Mageth

I'd note that Strobel's books are pretty much preachin'-to-the-choir. While they're touted as being "evangelical" works intended to persuade non-believers to Christianity (and thus, non-believers quite often get presented with one to read), in reality they are much more effective at bolstering the beliefs of those that already believe (and thus that tend to be blind to the poor, or just downright bad, arguments found therein). So, believers are their real audience, and the reason for their success (and for reports of their alleged effective arguments).

braces_for_impact

Agreed. We can see that kind of thinking here on IIb. Geisler sounds very much like Magus55 and other apologists we've all heard.

Jagella

I’m not sure why, but some apologists insist that their work is not intended to persuade unbelievers. Perhaps they prefer to think of their material as sober scholarship.

Yes. They might succeed at shoring up the weak faith of the believer. Strobel, as he explains in his book, has doubts of his own.

As for the “bad arguments� of apologists, I find no trouble in finding fault with these arguments. I always keep in mind that as an atheist and a former Christian I’m biased, but sheesh—what the apologists try to tell us sure looks like rubbish to me.

Many Christians attempt to persuade me to readopt their beliefs, and they often ask me to read some book or other written by an apologist. You can imagine their frustration when I inform them that I have already read the book they recommended. I’m hell fodder for sure.

Jagella

David Bowden

I've had similar reactions: I even own copies of Strobel and Josh McDowell and Ravi Zacharias and their ilk (in addition to much genuine apologetics and theology literature from my ministry training), but still some believers insist that I haven't really read them or thought about what these books say.

So in response I summarize the basic arguments from memory, asking them to correct me if I've got it wrong, and then I show them where I've marked up the relevant passages with "demonstrably false," "see Michael Martin p. X," "false dilemma," and "non sequitur," etc. (Sometimes I have to explain what a non sequitur is. Which probably indicates something about how critically they've examined the grounds for their beliefs.) And then I ask them which books they've read that are directly critical of their position. Since the answer is almost always "No," I offer them any of mine.

There is a certain "look" people get, when they realize that their nice neighbor has read up on a subject in considerably more depth than they ever have (or, sadly, probably ever will), but has, nevertheless, come to the scandalous conclusion that it's a load of baloney. It's a priceless experience to see this gradually replace the unfounded confidence that led them to confront you in the first place. The "look" typically lasts a couple of seconds, and is suddenly followed by, "Well, I'm really disappointed in you," or some other precious verbiage. And then they don't bring up the subject again except to say they're "praying for you."

I am convinced that the more people understand about archaeology, ancient texts, comparative religion and the history of myths and religions, logic, and human nature, the less likely they will be, on the whole, to believe that the Bible is somehow uniquely authoritative in matters of personal importance. Unfortunately I'm also convinced that most people will never seek deep understanding of those subjects, but will instead prefer to swallow the concoctions that Strobel and others create for them.

Even when it tastes like Geisler, whose apologetics' flavor is right up there with snake oil and hogwash.

Jagella

Apologists like to paint skeptics as having some ax to grind or some “sin� one doesn’t wish to give up resulting in some objection to Christianity that is in actuality a smoke screen. Apologists never provide evidence to support this view of skeptics, and I must wonder if they’ve ever heard of psychological studies.

A Christian or two has told me that he or she has read Smith’s Atheism: The Case Against God. It’s a powerful argument against the credibility of theism and is destined to be a classic.

I tend to feel that “praying for somebody� is a rather cheap way of trying to help that person. It’s a few quick words mumbled at the wall that doesn’t cost the believer a cent. How loving.

I first became acquainted with Norman Geisler when I saw him debate Paul Kurtz on the John Ankerberg show in the 1980s shortly after I lost my Christian indoctrination. Although Ankerberg and the audience along with Geisler ganged up on Kurtz and evidently felt that Geisler whooped Kurtz in that debate, I was impressed with Kurtz. Not long after I decided to subscribe to Free Inquiry magazine and read some of Kurtz’s books. He seems to be a fine gentleman.

Jagella

lpetrich

Normal Geisler's is only one of those who defend the genocidal massacres of the Old Testament, and I agree that there is something very troubling in such apologetics. In a way, it is worse than Nazism, because the Nazis had tried to conceal their genocidal mass murders, and because Nazi apologists continue to maintain that the Nazis never committed genocide.

When some of his fellow Nazi leaders expressed their concern that performing genocide would get them in deep trouble, Hitler allegedly asked who remembers the Turks' genocide of the Armenians.

Steven Carr

Both God and Hitler thought it was moral to kill whole groups of people that they believed to be evil.

What exactly is the difference in their morality?

A certain Mr. Negus recently wrote to me saying (in caps lock)
'WAS IT RIGHT TO BOMB HAMBURG AND DRESDEN? OR HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI? DID THOSE DECISIONS OVERALL KILL MORE PEOPLE THAN THEY SAVED? WE CAN HAVE OPINIONS BUT WE SHALL NEVER KNOW.
LIKEWISE WITH GOD'S APPARENTLY BRUTAL HANDLING OF THE UNBELIEVING TRIBES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

WHAT IF HE HADN'T HAVE ACTED IN THIS WAY? WOULD THE WORLD ULTIMATELY HAVE BEEN A BETTER PLACE?
WERE THE JEWS THE ONLY PEOPLE OF THE ANCIENT WORLD WHO WIPED OUT THEIR ENEMIES? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
BY THE STANDARDS OF THE DAY THEY WERE MORE MERCIFUL THAN MOST.

THE GOD WHO ORDERED THE SLAUGHTER OF THE AMALEKITES IS THE SAME GOD WHO ORDAINED AND ENDURED THE SLAUGHTER OF HIS ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON.

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING GOD HAS EVER DONE OR DOES, BUT I AM CERTAIN THAT THE 'GOD WHO SPARED NOT HIS OWN SON' CAN BE TRUSTED IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES

----------------------------

As can be seen, Christianity = Fascism.

Blind Faith in the Fuehrer or Il Duce.'

Didn't Goebbels kill his own son? Perhaps he was to be trusted in all circumstances?

Jagella

I have a copy of Geisler’s Christian Apologetics, but I never finished reading it. Not only is it very flawed in its misrepresentation of the facts, but it also has that “believe or go to hell� implication. So more than anything else, I quit reading it because I literally became sick to my stomach.

Jagella