God is Great, God is Good

Today I just finished reading God is Great, God is Good: Why Believing in God is Reasonable and Responsible, edited by William Lane Craig and Chad Meister. This book is a collection of essays by Christian academics in a variety of disciplines responding to the claims and writings of the so-called New Atheists. 14 different essays, each by a different Christian thinker on a variety of topics, constitutes the text of the book. I was interested in reading this book, particularly because I greatly respect the work of a number of the contributors to this volume. With chapters from Alister McGrath, Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, John Polkinghore, Michael Murray, J.P. Moreland, Paul Moser, Paul Copan and others, the list of contributors contains many prominent names in philosophy, science, and religion. (Note: the following paragraphs I also posted, with a few small changes, as a review of the book on Amazon).

The essays that I enjoyed most from this book were the ones by Moser, Polkinghorne, McGrath, and Copan. Paul Moser's article makes the important point that the moral dimension of God has important bearing on what we should expect to find as evidence for God's existence. By looking for the "God of the Philosophers" as a first cause, unmoved mover, etc., Moser argues that we have acted as if the question of God being good, amoral, or malevolent has no bearing on whether or not God exists. He makes an interesting case for highlighting the moral nature of God, particularly the belief that God is love, should be central to the question of God's existence. Polkinghorne's chapter, entitled "God and Physics," shows how a Christian viewpoint not only accommodates but illuminates the understanding of physics that has developed in the twentieth and early twenty-first century. Alister McGrath does an excellent job of taking to task the view that religion is inherently violent, pointing out that the all of the dangers that are identified in religion are inherent to political movements. The use of religion to motivate violence points to features of human nature and not of religion. Thus, atheism, religion, politics, or any system or ideology is vulnerable to being co-opted for violent purposes, a point that is often lost or ignored by Christians and atheists alike. Paul Copan offers a thoughtful analysis of Old Testament law and ethics (which is far more nuanced than the response of Hector Avalos would lead one to believe, and Copan specifically responds to Avalos in a number of footnotes). Copan's essay, particularly what it is and is not saying, deserves some sustained reflection, which I may do at some point.

There were a few essays that I found to be somewhat lacking, either in quality of argument or in organization. While Craig is a clear writer, no matter how many times he formulates the ontological argument I still think it looks like witchcraft. Some people think its a powerful argument, but I think it is riddled with (probably insurmountable) problems. The same goes for Michael Behe's essay. I am not terribly impressed with the whole Intelligent Design movement, and Discovery Institute protestations aside, I still think its an example of a god-of-the-gaps defense. I do give Behe credit for helping me to better understand the project of ID, which is usually mischaracterized. For Behe at least, the question is not whether evolution is an adequate explanation, but whether the most widely supported mechanisms for evolution are able to account for the biological and genetic diversity we see. I'm not so sure that this distinction helps his project any more, but it at least shows that it does not reject things like fossil and DNA evidence for evolution. I was also disappointed with Michael Murray's essay on evolutionary explanations for religion. Murray had a number of excellent points, but the essay was poorly organized and frequently involved raising a number of points and then declaring that he did not have the space to address them here (of course followed by a footnote pointing to other works of his). I am interested in reading more of Murray's work, particularly The Believing Primate, but this particular essay was poorly executed.

The choice to give the last chapter to Mark Mittelberg also didn't sit so well with me. I was not familiar with Mittelberg so I had to look him up. Apparently he is a popular speaker and writer, but as far as I can tell isn't an academic by training. His chapter was essentially an altar call to the end the book, which is all good and well, but its lack of philosophical sophistication by comparison to the rest of the essays in the book was noticeable (references to non-scholars like Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel seem out of place by comparison to the sources referenced by the other contributors). It was frustrating to see the lack of theological precision in the article. For example, Mittelberg seems to presuppose some form of penal-substitution view of the atonement, which many of the New Atheists have (in my opinion rightly) attacked. In fact, the book would have benefited with a chapter specifically devoted to just that subject. Mittelberg doesn't explicitly defend such a position, but the language he uses seems to imply it. Again, not a terrible chapter, but in comparison with the other essays it was ending the book on a low note.

Overall, I give high marks to this book. While I do not agree with all of the points and perspectives raised, I was able to find much of value that helps clarify and deepen my understanding and thoughts on a number of topics. In fact, many of the authors in this book would disagree strongly with each other (I think specifically of Polkinghorne and Behe). This is a strength of the book, in my opinion, because it shows the diversity of opinions that make up the body of Christ. There is no one uniform Christian opinion on these issues, and it is heartening to see thoughtful and intelligent Christians of different backgrounds and perspectives come together to show the unity in diversity that Christianity represents. While the book is aimed at a broad audience so many of the essays reflect the strains of their author's attempt to cram a lifetime of thought and work into 15 pages (though this may not be as obvious to readers who have not read any of the other works by the contributors), there is still a good deal of philosophical and theological meat. It is a good starting point for those who may not have much of a background with Christian philosophy or the New Atheism and provides much fodder for reflection and discussion.