Geisler on DJ's book

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

His 2008 book, Why I became an atheist : a former apologist explains is found in four libraries .

In the UK it was supposed to have been released April 1st, currently Amazon says it's unavailable. I wonder what I should read into that.

[Amazing Rando]

In the UK it was supposed to have been released April 1st, currently Amazon says it's unavailable. I wonder what I should read into that.

I think there may be some confusion. From what I understand, it's basically a somewhat revised version of his previous book, Why I rejected Christianity : a former apologist explains. Perhaps the two versions were different enough to warrant separate listings on WorldCat, but not distinct enough for Amazon to sell them as two separate books?

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

I don't get it, why would Amazon be concerned about DJ's content?

The books have differing titles, and different publishers. I'd say that warrants two listings.

[sylas]

From sylas' link:

To claim to be a Christian and deny the virgin birth is a fairly major issue since the virgin birth is one of the proofs of Jesus' divinity. Without a virgin birth, he's just a man like any other. It almost sounds to me like you were following your own brand of Christianity, and when you were forced to reconcile it with orthodox Christianity, you noticed a disconnect and realized that you actually weren't a Christian at all.

At least that's how I read it.

Shrug. I was certainly a theologically liberal Christian by standards around here; but it's not that unusual.

It did not stop me from being passionate and dedicated; an elder and youth leader in my own church back home, regular in my own personal devotions and in small groups at Uni and associated with my church. I was then a member of the Uniting Church in Australia, the second largest protestant denomination formed as an ecumenical union of Presbyterian, Methodist and Congregational churches. Theologically, this church tends to be a lot less conservative than, say, Baptist or Church of Christ. Indeed, as a result of the union process, the Presbyterian church split in two: half went into union and half remained as a smaller continuing Presbyterian denomination. The continuing Presbyterians tended to be much more theologically conservative; as the more liberal leaders tended to go with the ecumenical union.

Union was an exciting time. I spoke as a teenager representative at one of the big church assemblies on the occasion of union.

From my perspective, my later apostasy was not simply realizing that I was actually not a Christian, but a real shift in belief; a loss of faith. I did believe in Jesus' divinity; and then over a period of some months I lost that belief. It was not a drastic overnight shift, but a kind of inexorable progress over time; a time in which I did a lot of reading and thinking.

The same loss of faith can occur for both theologically liberal and theological conservative believers. You can't be at all confident that your conservative co-religionists won't also lose their faith. Other atheists here have come from such a background. I only joined in here to suggest that generalizations from a sample of one or two don't work very well.

Cheers -- Sylas

[Mountain Man]

From my perspective, my later apostasy was not simply realizing that I was actually not a Christian, but a real shift in belief; a loss of faith.

As I said, this doesn't surprise me, actually, because I don't see how one could rationally accept Jesus as divine while denying one of the proofs of his divinity, i.e. his virgin birth. Sooner or later something had to give, you needed to either accept the virgin birth or reject the whole ball of wax. You chose the latter, obviously, but given your internally contradictory theology, it was an inevitable event one way or the other.

At any rate, I do understand what you're saying and that your "crisis of faith" was intellectual rather than emotional. May I submit, however, that you had already begun to doubt long before you became aware of it, and your "crisis of faith" was confirmatory rather than the first step?

[sylas]

As I said, this doesn't surprise me, actually, because I don't see how one could rationally accept Jesus as divine while denying one of the proofs of his divinity, i.e. his virgin birth. Sooner or later something had to give, you needed to either accept the virgin birth or reject the whole ball of wax. You chose the latter, obviously, but given your internally contradictory theology, it was an inevitable event one way or the other.

At any rate, I do understand what you're saying and that your "crisis of faith" was intellectual rather than emotional. May I submit, however, that you had already begun to doubt long before you became aware of it, and your "crisis of faith" was confirmatory rather than the first step?

Thanks!

I don't think you can generalize that easily about what is "inevitable". There are Christian who do not believe in the virgin birth, and remain Christians all their lives. It's really these kinds of generalizations that I am arguing against.

A good example would be the famous German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

In my opinion, there is no "first step". My life is a journey, and what happens at any time is potentially impacted by my whole history up to that point. Like any Christian (or so I've heard) I had times of doubt; but they often are times of emotion or trouble. The period of around six months or so where I actually lost my faith altogether was not really like that.

The actual loss of faith, for me, was not "confirmatory" in any way that makes sense to me. It was not a recognition or confirmation of an existing unbelief.

Cheers -- Sylas

[Doubting John]

For anyone truly interested I do not misquote Geisler. While it's true that on the one hand he thinks my arguments are old ones which have been refuted long before, he does endorse my book for the reasons stated. He said: "First it is an honest and open account of how a Christian became an atheist. Seldom are unbelievers so candid and open. Second, every Christian--let alone Christian apologists--can learn some valuable lessons from it on how to treat wayward believers. Third, it is a thoughtful and intellectually challenging work, presenting arguments that every honest theist and Christian should face. Indeed, some of his criticisms are valid. In particular I would single out his critique of the subjective argument from the alleged self-authenticating 'witness of the Holy Spirit' by Loftus' former teacher William Lane Craig." (pp. 93-94)

He and I carried on an email exchange for a few months. I like him. He likes me. He is a model example for other Christians to follow. Just because you disagree with someone does not mean you should belittle him.

[Mountain Man]

It just seems a little sneaky to say that he endorses your book without explaining exactly why he endorses it, i.e. as an argument against atheism.

[Doubting John]

He still wants the point to be sure. People become atheists not for rational reasons but for emotional ones.

The interesting thing to me was how Geisler tried to convert Former_Fundy and me, via email. I think he really thought he could do it, since he believes people leave the fold for emotional reasons. He thinks the reasons to believe are rational and overwhelming.

I think that's where he goes wrong; seriously wrong.

Just examine the reasons given by recent Christian converts in their testimonies and you'll know what I mean. They aren't much different than the testimonies of people who leave the fold. There is a divorce, or someone finds himself down on his luck, or he was raised to believe. Very few new converts in either direction can articulate and rationally defend what they believe. Why? Because we are not logic machines. Sometimes even scientists go with their gut. It's the human thing to do. We are emotional creatures and we cannot do otherwise. This is a gift from your God, BTW. He supposedly created us this way, so this should not surprise him. And so he cannot harshly judge us for following our gut, either.

[Doubting John]

It just seems a little sneaky to say that he endorses your book without explaining exactly why he endorses it, i.e. as an argument against atheism.

Now take a look at this paragraph, found on amazon:

This book of mine is an extensively revised edition of a previous self-published one which has been recommended by Christian apologists like Norman L. Geisler and James F. Sennett on the one side, and by atheists Daniel C. Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Paul Kurtz, Robert M. Price, John Beversluis, Richard Carrier, Eddie Tabash, Dan Barker and David Mills on the other side. Some people who have read it said it is the most complete and comprehensive one on the market today arguing against Christianity. It's written specifically to Christians by a former insider to the Christian faith, and geared to the average college student.

What should I say? Should I provide specific quotes and lengthen it? They all recommend it for different reasons, and I'm honest about those reasons when writing specifically about what they said. No, what you want me to say is everything bad he said about my book and skip the good.

Sheesh.

[Theostudent]

John, how have you been? we have not spoken in a while, I hope you are well.

[jpholding]

For anyone truly interested I do not misquote Geisler. While it's true that on the one hand he thinks my arguments are old ones which have been refuted long before, he does endorse my book for the reasons stated.

In essence, you're bragging that he slapped you with the back of his hand instead of punching you in the nose. Great endorsement there.

Maybe he felt sorry for you. We sure do. Sometimes. Once a year. Before we come to our senses.

The interesting thing to me was how Geisler tried to convert Former_Fundy and me, via email. I think he really thought he could do it, since he believes people leave the fold for emotional reasons. He thinks the reasons to believe are rational and overwhelming.

I think that's where he goes wrong; seriously wrong.

Just examine the reasons given by recent Christian converts in their testimonies and you'll know what I mean. They aren't much different than the testimonies of people who leave the fold. There is a divorce, or someone finds himself down on his luck, or he was raised to believe. Very few new converts in either direction can articulate and rationally defend what he believes. Why? Because we are not logic machines. Sometimes even scientists go with their gut. It's the human thing to do. We are emotional creatures and we cannot do otherwise.

Anyone else notice the contradiction here?

This is a gift from your God, BTW. He supposedly created us this way, so this should not surprise him. And so he cannot harshly judge us for following our gut, either.

No, DJ, what you're describing is an appalling manifestation of introspective and selfish individualism, not something God gave us. It's a modern, Western phenomenon of crybabies like you who blame God because He didn't stop you from leaping into bed with a stripper. Good grief. Get over yourself, Mr. Bellybutton.

Hey, Matt Green has sure gone down the tubes of mental health, hasn't he? You sure you want him in your camp? He might bite you on the butt someday.

[Mountain Man]

What should I say?

I think you should be honest about what Giesler said, good and bad, rather than implying that his endorsement was wholly positive.

[Doubting John]

John, how have you been? we have not spoken in a while, I hope you are well.

I'm doing well, thanks for asking. For my mental health I stay away from TWEB a good bit now.

[Doubting John]

I think you should be honest about what he said, good and bad, rather than implying that his endorsement was wholly positive.

An endorement is an endorsement. Get the point. I do not say in that paragraph why he liked it, or do I share what he didn't like about it. But he endoreses it just the same.