Skeptics Books

This book takes real determination to get thru. His philosophical aurguements are outrageously tough to follow. They reminded me of the proofs in my old college Calculus text. I never got a thing out of them either. And what's worse, he doesn't bother to define his specialized philosophy terms. As a Philosophy instructor, he should know that that's unacceptable. I think he's too emotionally tied to the topic. His desire to prove himself right overwhelms his duty to write a readable book.

However, I gave it 3 stars, because I still managed to get a lot out of it.

A much better alternative is Farewell to God: My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian Faith: by Charles Templeton, an ex-evangelist and friend of Billy Graham.

The summaries already written by other buyers pretty much cover what I want to say about this book. My only real qualms with it are some typos that occasionally pop up...

It's a great summary of all of the arguments one can muster against the Christian faith. Some astounding things about this book...

-Loftus still loves and respects most of his Christian friends despite being rejected by his community and accused of rape that he did not commit./
-Loftus has an incredibly rich source of material. Every paragraph is ridden with reference after reference after reference. The person most likely to read this kind of book will recognize many of the titles Loftus cites, but he's got a few dozen more up his sleeve! He recognizes that what he wants to say has already been said to a much more effective degree than how he might be able to say it, so he quotes a lot. No problem there! He's also got some great lines of his own: "If Christians want to maintain that God doesn't curtail our free human actions, then how does prayer get answered at all? When we pray for safety as we leave our house, how does that prayer have even a remote chance of being answered, if there is a predator out there who is going to meet up with us? If God does not stop this predator's free choices, or anyone else's for that matter, how can any prayer that involves free human choices have a remote chance to be answered?" He treatment of many topics like this is brilliant.
-Loftus does not get bogged down in a lot of the science one can mount against Creationism/YE Creationism/ID; one should read "Scientists Confront Creationism" for all the science they can take!


I'm only about halfway through and am very impressed.

John W. Loftus delivers a very in-depth, thoroughly researched account of why he left christianity. Loftus presents a very informative and detailed analysis of critical sections of the bible, both from the old and the new testament. There is no discernible anger or bitterness with regard to the author's rejection of christianity, he simply reached a point where he could no longer ignore his intellectual doubts. Overall, I found 'Why I rejected christianity' to be very interesting and insightful from beginning to end. Loftus corroborates his arguments with references to esteemed bible scholars like Bart Ehrman, and provides readers with suggested reading lists throughout the book. Similar in many ways to Dan Barker's book 'Losing faith in faith', 'Why I rejected christianity' is written from the perspective of somebody who spent years defending christianity from intellectual attack. All in all, I found the book to be very thought-provoking. This book is not written with the express purpose of making people reject their faith, rather it is intended to stimulate christian readers to critically reexamine traditional tenets of christianity. Recommended.

Excellent book. When I first ordered it, I was teeter-tottering on my faith, well leaning towards atheism truthfully, but he shreds the principals of Christianity so logically; this author is bound to leave anyone spellbound. I recommend this book to any Christian having doubts about their faith, or even a devout Christian to get another perspective. Shane Lindsley, author of Enemies Among Us.

***THE OUTSIDER TEST FOR FAITH (OTF) (pp. 40-46) [Updated: June 13, 2008]
(From `Why I Rejected Christianity' and soon to be `Why I Became an Atheist' by John Loftus)


The OTF may work on simpler things like investigating a murder case but not on religious issues, comparatively speaking. When it comes to religious inquiry, people (theists and non-theists alike) can never truly have the eye of the "outsider." Michael Shermer is right in saying that "the facts of the world come to us through the colored filters of the theories, hypotheses, hunches, biases, and prejudices... ALL of us do this" (p. 43, emphasis added).


We are all trapped in the world of presuppositions due to our individual world views, etc. that there is no way to truly detach ourselves from them and do an "outsider's eye" approach, without assuming a particular position (e.g., theism, agnosticism, or atheism).


Two responses follow.


[1]..........John Loftus wants us to put our religious beliefs aside and adopt what he calls "the assumption of skepticism." He argues that such presumption "is justified by the religious diversity around the globe" (p. 46).


How does one actually do the OTF without assuming agnosticism or atheism? Loftus suggests that using the OTF leads one to agnosticism and then onward to denial of his religious faith and an embracement of atheism, like it did Loftus. But, of course, if one starts out with the presumption of skepticism (which seems tantamount to agnosticism), then the end product is - - - Guess what? The presumption of skepticism!!!


As to the author's answer to a possible vicious circularity on his part, he says it is not, "For I have very good initial grounds for starting out with skepticism in the first place, given the RDVT and the RDPT" (p. 46). Is Loftus successful?


Notice that Loftus' initial grounds are not the data found in RDVT/RDPT per se; rather, it is his own skepticism in view of RDVT/RDPT (that is to say, his own INTERPRETATION of the data colored with his BENT TO AGNOSTICISM/ATHEISM). Here, Loftus fails to escape the vicious circularity, and it continues to haunt him. Why? Because, in his skepticism, he cannot detach himself from his bent to agnosticism/atheism.


[2].........Loftus admits that his own skepticism is not exempt from cultural conditioning. He writes, "I don't object to being skeptical of my own skepticism" (p. 46). Yet he claims that this does not undercut his point; rather, it supports it. Really?


The author does not seem to realize the fact that - - - the vicious circularity of his advancement of the OTF approach (namely, he interprets RDVT/RDPT data with his agnostic/atheist glasses on) - - - RENDERS his whole point as SELF-DEFEATING.


Norman Geisler rightfully points this out: "Loftus does not seem to be aware of their self-defeating nature... The truth is that the outsider test is self-defeating since by it every agnostic should be agnostic about his own agnosticism and every skeptic would be skeptical of his own skepticism" (Christian Apologetics Journal, Spring 2007, p. 105).


Loftus, in his debunkingchristianity site, complains, "But I had already acknowledged and dealt with this type of argument in that same chapter.... How Dr. Geisler can say that I'm not aware of this objection astounds me, even if in the end he disagrees with me." But Loftus did NOT even attempt to justify his agnostic view (masked with `presumption of skepticism'). He merely ASSUMES it to be true.


A contributor to Loftus' website, Former_Fundy, comes back with a critique of Geisler's review of the book. He says that people "should try to see their world view as someone outside of their particular belief system would see it. They should read those from opposing world views and talk to people from different cultures and religions. By doing so, it will shed light on the true weaknesses of their particular system of thought (whether that system be evangelical Christianity or atheism)." So far so good.


But Former_Fundy fumbles in his next footstep. For he continues, "Geisler seems to be arguing for assuming something to be true until it's proven false whereas Loftus is saying to assume something to be false until its proven true. In my opinion, more advances in human thought and understanding are made by following the latter methodology."


First of all, Former_Fundy misses Geisler's point. One can see this in the context of Geisler's writing. (By the way, the journal can be purchased at www.ses.edu.)


Second, the fact is, Loftus is going above and beyond the latter methodology. For he is ASSUMING, did you get that, ASSUMING agnosticism as THE TRUTH. In fact, he is advising religious people to do the same: "Since it's overwhelmingly true that the presumption you being with will be the one you will end up with, I suspect that if someone is wiling to take the challenge of the Outsider Test then her religious faith will be found defective and she will abandon it" (p. 44).


Third and finally, at best, the OTF allows us to question other people's points of view. The OTF does NOT logically allow us to arbitrarily start with the assumption that agnosticism or atheism is that which corresponds to reality.


Thus, John Loftus' "Outsider Test for Faith" does not work logically. One's attempt to apply the OTF will find himself making self-defeating and circular claims, as embodied in Loftus' arguments. If you, dear reader, wish to abandon Christianity via the OTF approach, that's your choice. But you are sorely mistaken for reasons provided above. And realize that you might be gambling your own soul; but that is a separate discussion altogether, of course.


I'd strongly recommend the book for Christian apologists to study and be familiar with and have fun in doing so!


P.S. - As soon as the updated version (being published by Prometheus) comes out, I'll update my comments here. Among others, it might have a better argument for the OTF. I might comment on other parts of the book when I find the time.

From a review of an earlier edition (rewritten here and there to aid in readability and correct some errors):

"It stands to reason that if an author presumes to correct the alleged errors presented in another work, one might actually use arguments of his own that are not specious and do not sidestep the questions being considered. It also doesn't seem unreasonable for a reader to expect that the author of a presumed rebuttal of that sort would possess the necessary training, qualifications, and expertise needed to address the problems as they are presented, rather than skirt the specific issues involved and resort to little more than question-begging and gain-saying. That sort of intellectual authority is missing here. There simply is nothing of value in this electronic, self-published book that provides a reasonable apologetic, which is generally understood as an intellectual defense of a given faith (in this case, Christianity and the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy). The material draws most of the volume of its contents from material not necessarily related to the topic at hand and is not original with the author. The 'Skeptic's Annotated Bible,' to which this is allegedly a rebuttal, is a web-based resource that is readily available at no cost to those who seek alternative viewpoints to and reasoned analysis of certain aspects of American fundamentalist Christianity. Such a work might draw the attention of qualified theologians intent on rebutting its contents, but we don't get that here. This 'rebuttal' feeds off of the popularity of the 'Skeptic's Annotated Bible' site and frequent references to it in newsgroups and other web-based discussion forums, but offers nothing of substance in return. For the unbiased intellectual attempting to examine the Christian viewpoint, the rebuttals lack substance and depth. Many of them are reminiscent of an exchange in Monty Python's 'The Life of Brian,' in which Brian asks his mother why women are not allowed to attend stonings. 'Because it's written, that's why,' snaps the mother. There are many of those kinds of 'corrections' and 'explanations' in this work and so many of them are the same sort of vacuous and inadequate arguments that have been provided so many times elsewhere that one is also struck by the lack of imagination, insight and originality that characterizes the whole of what comparatively little was actually written by the author (the majority of the content is not original with the presumed author). The history of Christian apologetics is long and distinguished; and there are many qualified contributors to the various debates on these issues through the publication of commentaries, histories, exegesis, and hermeneutics. By and large, these authors have possessed the requisite knowledge of history, culture, philosophy and ancient languages needed to provide sound, intellectual analysis, and they have added value and challenge to the debates. None of that is evident here; and none of the arguments will convince someone who is not already predisposed to fundamentalists beliefs or a belief in inerrancy. Far superior resources are quite readily available, many times at no cost via the World Wide Web, so we're left to wonder about the utility of 'The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained,' especially when it doesn't explain or correct anything. The serious student of these subjects would be better served by giving this one a pass."

Edited as it is, that was my original review. Since then, the author has presented the fourth edition, which allegedly adds another 1000 or so "corrections" and "explanations," but these are no more substantive than those found in the previous edition. Indeed, it appears that the additional content was simply added to "pad the list" of items allegedly rebutted. The fourth edition suffers from the same problems as the third, not the least of which is the tendency of the author to proceed from the conclusion, assume that the Bible is inerrant, and provide simplistic, badly-conceived rebuttals that do nothing to add to the discussion. In short, the author has given us "more of the same" and has not improved the intellectual quality of the previous edition, nor has he added any substance to the debate.

So if it's a bit much for me to simply add another paragraph to the previous review, after editing it for some errors here and there, it's due to the fact that there is no need to change the criticisms of that first review. They all remain valid. This is an amateurish, self-published, somewhat narcissistic, and anti-intellectual work that would, if it could, get a zero-star rating if that was possible.

There is a tendency to believe that vanity publishing allows for many good works to reach a potential audience that would not be reached were it not for vanity publishers. There's also a tendency to believe that this is true of Internet and electronic self-publishing, as well. The thinking is that a lot of very good work would never see the light of day were it not for these mechanisms, and the blame is laid squarely at the desks of legitimate publishers. But an objective analysis shows that the occasion when an independently-published work has any real value is rare, indeed. "The Skeptic's Annotated Bible, Corrected and Explained," shows that legitimate book publishers, in denying publication and, presumably, a level of professional legitimacy, to some works, know exactly what they're doing, after all.

I am a biblical scholar and inerrantist (in the tradition of B.B. Warfield, not necessarily in the understanding of inerrancy current among some fundamentalists). So why did I give this work one star instead of four or five?

Because it's an embarrassment to anyone who is interested in in-depth scholarship, whether an inerrantist or a skeptic or somewhere in-between.

The author's sources are suspect, his writing and exposition are abysmal, and his grasp of the larger issues of biblical scholarship is nonexistent. This is a case-study in what happens when someone views the Bible as a clustering of scientific and historical facts instead of seeing the Scriptures as a story that is vast, paradoxical, beautiful ... and true. Please don't base your view of Scripture on the pathetic research found in this book--whatever position you take when it comes to the Bible, the best position for this book is in the garbage.

This CD-ROM was excellent. It was a great rebuttal to The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. It thoroughly answered every question or assertion it needed to answer.

I actually have the 4th edition and it is even better than the 3rd edition, but I see the 4th edition is not offered on Amazon.com.

I give this CD-ROM two thumbs up!

Dr. Gastrich did a very good job with this CD-ROM. His rebuttal to the SAB was excellent. He wrote everything at a very appropriate level and was right on the money.

For instance, when the author of the SAB wrote something like:

Genesis 24:16 - "And the damsel was fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her." (Oh boy!)

. . . which was his actual entry for this passage, Dr. Gastrich responded in like kind:

This is not a contradiction or problem.

Instead of blasting the author for being a jerk or just a plain fool, Dr. Gastrich always took the high road and answered in love, while avoiding high-minded talk and wasting words.

Here's an example where Dr. Gastrich used more words when a longer response was required.

The SAB author wrote:

Genesis 24:2, 9 - Abraham makes his servant put his hand under his thigh while swearing to God. Weird. Of course "putting his hand under his thigh" is just a polite euphemism for "holding his testicles in his hand." Come to think of it, maybe it isn't so weird at all -- coming as it does from a god that is completely obsessed with male genitalia. (See Ex.4:25, Lev.15:16-18,32, and Dt.23:1) for just a few examples.) I guess it's sort of like swearing on the bible. But all forms of swearing are forbidden in Mt.5:34-37 and Jas.5:12.

Dr. Gastrich replied:

* This ancient custom for securing an oath may or may not be what you mentioned. Some scholars think Abraham's servant put his hand on the circumcised part of his body - representing an important covenant. 

* This Hebrew word for "swear" means "to take an oath." In other words, Abraham made a promise. Don't confuse this with swearing (like using profanity), cursing, or taking God's name in vain.

* In Matthew 5:34-37 and James 5:12, we are told to be trustworthy. "Let your 'Yes' be 'Yes' and your 'No' be 'No,'" is Jesus' way of saying that we shouldn't need to swear for someone to take us seriously. Be an honorable person of your word, then you simply have to say "Yes" or "No" and you will be believed and trusted.

As you can tell, Dr. Gastrich wrote a reasoned and complete response. These sorts of responses are par for the course and representative of his answers in the rest of the book. Very, very good.

Jason needs to work on his website.

Everytime my Jornada 720 (www.hpcfactor.com) access it, I get a crash.

Take out the Java Jason!

H.L.M. was one of the greater journalists who ever lived in America. More so than almost anyone, he lifted an intellectual class up from the chains of religious orthodoxy. He had an amazing gift for epigrams, penses, and bon mots. He also promoted several authors we take for granted today into the limelight which first shone upon them. Finally, he wrote some of the best books (e.g., Happy Days) about turn of the century life.

However, he was also an anti-Semite (although he had many close Jewish friends) and was utterly blind to the evils of Hitler. As he gets older, his grasp of world begins to weaken.

Today I'm sure the politically correct crowd writes him off without thought as 'a dead, white, male', little appreciating the high irony that H.L.M. created virtually single handedly the liberal atmosphere of discourse on which they depend.

Teachout has done a superb job of updating his life from numerous sources which have only become available recently. It is a tale rich in period detail and interesting characters. Dreiser, Sinclair, Knopf, Bryan, Twain and others walk through this narrative and each leaves a memorable wake behind them.

You should read this book for the quotes from H.L.M. alone. The period details and the famous personages in the narrative will significantly compound the reward you get for reading this book.

I already knew a lot about Mencken when I bought this book. I learned a lot from reading it. I think it does a great job of compressing a large life into a workable package without missing much of the important events and people.

On the otherhand the reading is a bit tedious. The introduction was marvelous, though. Mencken's diaries are tedious reading, too.

The book is a nice addition to my Mencken collection.

Terry Teachout, who writes for the New York Times, the National Review, and others has written a very short but enjoyable biography of H.L. Mencken. It was only when I read another Mencken biography that puts some episodes of Mencken's life into a very different light that I began to reconsider my assessment of this biography.

One problem is that this book gets facts wrong. In his later years Mencken claimed that he came by his first job as a journalist by applying for it every day until he got it. In earlier years, his story was completely different he got it at the first try; it "improved with time," without Teachout catching on. Teachout also writes that "Mencken did not pay well enough to consistently attract established talent... Forced to search for new faces...necessity also inspired him to look in places where others feared to tread. He reveled, for example, in printing the work of black writers." Another biography reveals that Mencken had long been extremely keen to promote African-American writers, to the extent that he tried to establish up a magazine devoted solely to African-American writers and culture, but couldn't raise the funds. He also was vociferous in speaking out against lynching at a time when this made him few friends, and cost his employer quite a bit of money. Teachout and other biographers seem to describe completely different people. Mencken's exact views could be hard to pin down; on some issues he contradicted himself in word and deed, sadly Teachout doesn't adequately reflect on this ambiguity.

A strong point of this biography is that Teachout correctly describes how Mencken had a legendarily acidulous and humorous pen, and how many of the frauds he took on - quacks, cult leaders, faith healers, politicians against evolution, superpatriots, Prohibitionists, and more - deserved every diatribe he sent their way. As Teachout mentions, Mencken unfortunately he didn't only lampoon fashions people adopted and careers people chose, but also ethnic groups, in tracts that do not make for too pleasant reading.

Another trifle is Teachout's version of Mencken's romance with Marion Bloom. In his account, the relationship foundered because Mencken was unwilling to marry a woman born in poverty. Another biography, however, describes how Mencken viscerally disliked Christian Science, which he deemed to be quackery. When she tried convert him to Christian Science, to which she had converted after the romance began, he would go into purple rages. And yet she couldn't stop. Having known people with persistent and idiosyncratic religious beliefs, Mencken's version strikes me as painfully believable. In Teachout's book, however, Christian Science is described as Mencken's fig leaf to avoid admitting that the relationship foundered over her having poor origins. Mencken eventually married an ailing woman only expected to live for three years and unable to have children; this is not the mark of a complete egoist and snob.

Biographers are free to - even expected to - add their interpretations to the facts of their subject's life. But readers shouldn't come to realize that the facts and insinuations in different biographies cannot be reconciled.

There have been many biographies written about H. L. Mencken. This is the best. Elegantly written and succinct, readers can learn much from this idiosyncratic man of letters. Unlike other biographies, you can glean much without knowing every minute detail.

_The Skeptic: A Life of H. L. Mencken_ by critic Terry Teachout is an interesting biography of the Baltimore newspaperman, iconoclast, and cynic H. L. Mencken. Mencken (1880 - 1956) was a journalist and writer who lived in Baltimore throughout most of his life. He is perhaps best known for his sarcastic and abrasive style in which he pilloried the dominating viewpoints of his day. Mencken was an atheist and materialist largely influenced by German thinkers such as Nietzsche as well as the Social Darwinists of his era. Politically, Mencken's views may be described as libertarian and he remained an opponent of "puritanism" (particularly concerning alcohol during the Prohibition period) and the entry of the United States into the world wars. Mencken also was a fervent opponent of F.D.R., whose policies he firmly disagreed with. In addition, Mencken frequently directed his rage at such figures as William Jennings Bryan and others who sought to disallow the teaching of Darwinian evolution. Mencken also frequently attacked what he sarcastically termed "quakery" in medicine, as well as Christian Science which was a particular dislike of his. This book provides a fascinating account of this man whose writings remain an essential part of American literature. As an ardent enemy of the political correctness of his day, Mencken can be profitably read both for his humorous style and for his profound commentary.

The book begins with Mencken's early life growing up in Baltimore. To understand Mencken fully, one must understand the Baltimore of his era. Early on Mencken joined organizations such as the Y.M.C.A. but found it not to his taste when they began preaching Christianity to him. Mencken became a lifelong skeptic as his father had been. Mencken's father owned a cigar factory which Mencken soon began work for. His father's bourgeois views were reflected in Mencken's later writings. However, Mencken soon grew dissatisfied with his job at the cigar factory and when his father died he sought work as a newspaper writer. Mencken had a knack for newspaper work and quickly grew in the ranks of writers. He also developed as an abrasive critic of the American "booboisie" (the middle classes). Mencken also had broader aesthetic interests and early on took an interest in the philosophy of Nietzsche (at the time regarded as a dangerous thinker). Mencken, whose own ancestry was largely German, admired German culture and this may have led to his love for Nietzsche. Mencken wrote books on both Nietzsche and Shaw which have become minor classics. Mencken also was heavily influenced by Mark Twain, whose works he read as a young boy. Early on, Mencken became friends with and took an active interest in such writers as Theodore Dreiser and Sinclair Lewis, both of whom he admired. Mencken had a lifelong hatred for puritanism and in President Wilson he perceived the policies of a puritan. Given Mencken's love for Germany and German culture it is understandable that he would oppose Anglo-Saxon dominance and the entry of the United States into World War I. Mencken also greatly enjoyed drinking alcohol, so during the time of Prohibition his hatred for puritanism grew to enormity. Mencken also continued to write pieces critical of religion as well as an interesting essay on women, which is sure to provoke the ire of latter-day feminists. Although Mencken is rumored to have been anti-semitic, he had many Jewish friends including Alfred J. Knopf and together with George Nathan published _The American Mercury_. In addition to commenting on the political scene, Mencken also commented on such things as medicine and "quack cures" and the teaching of Darwinism at the Scopes trial where he served as a reporter. Mencken developed a lifelong aversion to F.D.R. and firmly opposed his policies. However, it was the entry of the United States into World War II which particularly enraged Mencken. Mencken married but towards the end of his life developed an intense hypochondria. This led to a stroke which effectively ended his writing carrier, although he continued to collect his papers after it.

This book provides an excellent biographical account of H. L. Mencken and his life and times. It is the account of a fascinating figure who remains highly important for American letters.

The techniques outlined in this book are good when you are arguing against yahoos and troglodytes. If taken to heart, this book can help you can vanquish almost everyone you encounter in day-to-day life. Do NOT use these techniques against more skillful opponents or against sincere, intelligent questioners seeking real answers to important questions. These are powerful debater's tricks, not tools for getting to the bottom of honest inquiries. Caveat emptor.

I appreciate what the author was trying to do: teach logic and rhetoric in a fun how-to-succeed format. I don't think it works very well, though. It's too disjointed to be helpful to the beginner and too familiar to be interesting to more advanced students.

For the beginner: To learn logic, start out with David Kelley's "The Art of Reasoning" and Irving Copi's "Introduction to Logic". To learn rhetoric and argumentation, try David Zarefsky's audiotape course on "Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning" and his books on public speaking.

More advanced students will want to check out Chaim Perelman's books on rhetoric and Douglas N. Walton's studies of informal fallacies. An excellent but out-of-print book is William J. Brandt's "The Rhetoric of Argumentation" which gives detailed analyses of effective and ineffective rhetorical strategies in essay-writing.

The book mainly promotes the use of deception over reason. I know you're thinking, duh. But this is contrary to what the author says in the introduction. The deception is supposed to be used as a device to aid in learning informal logic, not as a tool to crush others. The author has a very aggressive and pretentious tone. Capaldi, the author, encourages people to be stubborn and uncompromising rather than problem solving. This book is classic sophism. I think the most valuable part of this book is the appendix. The practice problems are nice to look over. This book is effective at being uncompromising, but that is incompatible with being a good communicator. I should have borrowed this one. Since, I want my money back. -laughs- Also, the references to the "Great Books" by the author were interesting, but extraneous in my opinion.

If you have ever been told that your arguments lack facts, structure, or logic, then this book is for you. Learning the skills to challenge and defend anything and everything is an art indeed. Highly recommend it for partisan zealots.

PenetratingArmenian
A Self Certified Blogspot Blogger

Exactly as Dr. Schweinsberg said. This text was a magnificent accomplishment. Reading some of the reviews, I was dismayed. I of course believed that there was some sort of miscommunication, or perhaps that the readers knew nothing of the subject, or that they simply didn't know what they were getting when they purchased the book. Whatever the case, I would suggest to anybody to read Dr. Michel Schweinsberg's brilliant review. His comical yet serious review offers advice to the argumentation student in words I can't achieve. With a playful attitude, he has delivered valuable information in the same spirit with which one should "weild" the tools in the text; that is, as a serious weapon, but done mostly for enjoyment and clarity of thought. READ DR. SCHWEINSBERG'S REVIEW, AND FOLLOW HIS ADVICE!

This is not a Skeptics approach, it is based on faulty logic and does not use any of the tools of skepticism. The author may have been a cinic or an unbeliever, but should not have lied about being a skeptic.

Like others have said here. This is a great book. His story is interesting to say the least. The information (plenty) is amazing. Propechy plays a big part of this as well as it led him on his journey of research. It is also pretty technical in certain areas. He has a video/dvd that is also good and a great companion to this book I think.

Awesome read. It skirts on getting a bit technical, but leaves the heavier science to another of his books - "Examine the Evidence"

Ralph Muncaster was a strong skeptic. Upon taking a challenge he tries to see if there is evidence for God. What he finds is that the world is an extremely complex place with many components necessary for life to exit. He finds that the probability for all of these factors to even intitate life on earth would be statistically impossible. He compares life evolving by chance to winning the lottery 270 times in a row , with buying one ticket each time. He also addresses biblical profacy. All of the prophacy in the bible has come true, especially the prophacies concerning Jesus. I am, however, skeptical as to how he came up with the statistical probabiltiy that these prophacies can be fullfilled. But, the probability that all of these fazctors comming together by chance cannot be ignored.

People really do not understand how evolution and natural selection works. A trait does not appear just because the organism needs it. Biological traits occur by chance. Natural selection is based on reproductive fitness. If a trait is present in an indivisual that makes it more reproductively fit then that indivisual will have a higher chance of contributing that trait to the next generation of offspring. Traits do not appear in some indivisuals just because they are "needed". If the environment changes to the point that requires a more adaptive trait, then those with that trait will have a higher reproductive fitness. If that trait is not present in the population then the population can eventually become extict.

The conditions on this planet are just right for life. We are not too far or too close to the sun. We get just the right amount of solar radiation. Even the tilt of the earth's axis is necessary for life. Ralph Munchaster gives a list of all of these factors.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book and could see why it took the author years to do his own methodical research. Many of the points about historical, archaeological and scientific evidence I've read in other books, but I still learned a lot. I would have to recommend it to anyone seeking for reasons to believe in Jesus.

I chose not to let my children read this. The book is very down on any kind of belief in the supernatural (soul, spirit, etc) and seems to encourage belittling those that believe in anything unseen.
I had hoped this was a book describing peoples' various views on god(s) and perhaps a brief overview of the development of religious belief. I was disappointed.

I liked the book and the message and it will come in handy with my daughter - in several years. Was looking for something a little more simplified geared towards a pre-schooler.

Nevertheless, your child might decide on a certain path, one taken by her friends, etc. In the long run, it is good to give them this exposure at an early age. Personally, I can't imagine imparting to my children that one or more of our neighbors (their trusted friends) has the wrong idea about religon. After all, for immediate neighbors we have: Hindi, Lutheran, Muslim, Catholic, Protestant, Buddist, and Morman to name a few. One of my daughters believes this book is inherently evil, while the other rejoices in the idea that we all have common needs. Judge it for yourself -- it is not confrontational.

I wish there were more books like this. "What About Gods" really walks children through a simplified version of what gods are and why people believe in them. This books needs to be read under adult guidance for children under nine or ten (maybe older), because it is still a complicated subject matter.

"What About Gods" really walks a parent through the difficult task of explaining religion to kids, and gives kids the confidence to know that there is no reason for them to conform to a religious society.

I found the book magnificient in that not only was I able to stand by with my wife as my children read the book out loud witout any help, but I was able to expand on what Dan Barker covered. If you don't plan to live 1 million years, or have a will with specific instructions on what your children should learn, then begin by teaching them how to think on their own by using their logic, understanding and reason, not yours, their neighbors, teachers, friends, televisions, history, unfounded believes, etc. The world will eat them up and swallow them in pieces if we don't teach them how to think and be freethinkers.

After reading Apostlebird's review, I can't add much. The book is written for believers to fortify what they already believe. But if you want to argue with athiests...this book won't show you how. It is full of objections that Christians think an athiest would come up with. But as an athiest myself, I promise you that 1) None of these objections would be raised by a critical thinker. and 2) The arguments to answer these "objections" wouldn't convince ANY critical thinker.

The book itself is well written in that it gives a believer a strong sense that they now have ammunition to fight the evil "non-believers".
And for the intended audience, it serves well...as evidenced by the glowing review from Christians.

I am going to have to admit that I only read the first 2/3 of the book. The circular logic, and "proving the Bible is really the word of God....by quoting the Bible" was giving me a headache. So I'm really only reviewing the first 2/3 of the book. Maybe the brilliant answers are in the last third of the book.But after a few hours, I gave up.

At some point in a Christian's faith, he/she will be asked to defend their beliefs. Ron Rhodes offers logical answers with sound support. Recently, I have read several books that claimed to assist Christians in answering such questions. Answering The Objections of Atheistic, Agnostics, and Skeptics is well-written. Rhodes states the questions and discusses the answers in an easy-to-understand format. His vast experience and expertise add to this topic. Christians will benefit from Answering The Objections of Atheistic, Agnostics, and Skeptics.

Im surprized to see that it has such bad reviews. I think it is nearly the perfect introduction to apologetics there is out there. Everything is simple and formatted well. It helped me get into the frame of mind to look at other authors such a CS Lewis and Dinesh D'zousa.

The purpose of this book is not really to convince atheists, agnostics and sceptics to become Christians. Rather, the purpose is to explain to Christians what bad people atheists are. In other words, the books is defensive in character, not offensive. The author often charicatures the atheist position. Often, he starts quoting the Bible as proof, even before he reaches the point where he ostensibly proves the Bible. No well-grounded atheist will be convinced by this book, nor is that the intention. The authors' point is to preach to the choir, hopefully keeping them in check.

Going through every argument would be tedious, so I stick to the main methodological flaws in the book.

First, Rhodes places heavy emphasis on a kind of philosophical paradoxes, such as "The claim that everything is relative is itself absolute and hence self-refuting" or "The claim that only the empirically verifiable is true cannot be empirically verified itself, and is hence false". He even mentions something called "the kalam argument", apparently a Muslim version of Zeno's Paradox with Achilles and the tortoise. I'm not a philosopher, so perhaps that's why I am singularly unimpressed! Even if this or that statement is paradoxical according to some criterion of formal logic, so what? Zeno's Paradox isn't taken seriously by anyone. Empirically verifiable claims are still more certain than non-verifiable ones. And if everything is in constant flux ("relative"), pointing this out "absolutely" doesn't make it any less true. Perhaps the authors intended audience at some evangelical Bible seminary in Texas are impressed by these arguments. Well, I'm not. Besides, even Ron Rhodes accepts empirical verifiability when it suits his purposes. He attempts to prove the Bible by appeals to archeology and claims that Intelligent Design is...well, empirically verifiable. As for the truth being relative, atheists do *not* say that truth is relative. For instance, atheists are reasonably sure that God doesn't exist, that Darwin was right, and that a Bronze Age document decreeing genocide (aka the Book of Joshua) contradicts modern principles of morality.

I already pointed out that the book isn't really intended for an atheist audience, which may explain why some of Rhodes arguments strikes the sceptical reader as very odd. For instance, he asserts that Peter cannot have lied about the Resurrection, since he was trained since childhood in the Ten Commandments, which prohibits false witness! Come again? A sceptic might point out that Peter may have been mistaken, that the Resurrection stories may have been embellished by later tradition, or that he may indeed have been - dare I say it - lying. New religions are founded as we speak, they can be studied by scholars, and often their origins are an amazing melange of subjectively honest spiritual experiences, half-truths due to politic, and out-right lies. Why should we believe that Christianity was any different?

But the main problem with the book is that it's methodologically disingenious. In one chapter, Rhodes uses the Big Bang to "prove" that God exists. BUT IN A FOOTNOTE HE ADMITS OF BEING A YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST!!! He therefore doesn't believe in the Big Bang himself!!!

How can a non-believer in an old universe and the Big Bang nevertheless concoct a chapter using the Big Bang as an apologetic tool? Personal dishonesty may be one explanation, but I think the rabbit hole goes deeper. I come across this problem in other "fundamentalist" texts as well. A real classic in this field is "When Critics Ask" by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, a book that can be paraphrased thus: "The Bible is absolutely free from errors and contradictions, because it says so. If the Bible contradicts modern science, either modern science is wrong, or the Bible has been misunderstood. Either way, the Bible is right. The solution to Bible contradiction X is either Y, or maybe Z, or maybe Y and Z combined. No matter what, the Bible is true. And if we cannot explain away something, just blame it on scribal error. After all, only the original manuscripts were inspired". (If you don't believe me, please obtain this book for yourself. It's very funny.)

The problem, clearly, is this. Rhodes have already made up his mind about the Bible being inerrant in all its (original?) paragraphs. He reached that conclusion WITHOUT the help of apologetics. Presumably he reached it for some kind of psychological or sociological reasons. Only then, AFTER his conversion, did he started to look around for apologetical arguments. He found the Big Bang here, some philosophical paradoxes there, and decided to use it. In the end, the veracity of each tool, taken by itself, doesn't really matter, since he already "knows" that the Bible is correct. And this approach is not peculiar to Rhodes himself, but typical of the fundamentalist approach in general. I found it in Norman Geisler, publications by the ICR and Answers in Genesis, etc.

But it's precisely this method, this dogmatism, that smacks "atheists, agnostics, and sceptics" as a very bad answer to their objections.

This is not a book of Christian apologetics at all. Rather, it is a basic and at all not comprehensive compendium of popular Christian thought. Rhodes has really no arguments to defend his points. Like many apologetic Christians (and atheists, for that matter) he limits himself to stating the points in a way you would hear at Bible study groups or in Sunday school. The few justifications he has, for example against evolution, are a joke, along the lines of the old creationist mantra, "what good is half a wing?"

I bought this book expecting some sort of philosophical or even theological discourse on "the objections of atheists, agnostics, and skeptics," but it's merely a propagandistic book of Christian-like indoctrination (complete with invitation to prayer and 1-800 prayer hotline... yeah) that has no bearing whatsoever on the constructive dialogue that some Christians and some atheists/agnostics/skeptics wish to start with each other.

I recommend, instead, "Mere Christianity" and "A Layman's Introduction to Christian Thought." I disagree with the content of both, but they are at least sound and very well thought-out and written.

It is unfortunate that an apologetic work lauded by one of my faves, RC Sproul, should fare so poorly at providing an effective grounding in apologetics. Story misconstrues the presuppositional method so completely, and provides no supporting material or footnote for his fallacious interpretation of the presuppositional approach, that it appears he has never read Cornelius Van Til. He criticizes presuppositionalism as assuming that "the Holy Spirit is unable to minister and convict through Christian evidences" (as if there were any other kind of evidence). Van Til and (even more strenuously) Greg Bahnsen flatly deny this and reveal how evidences can be successfully used in an apologetic. Further, Story claims presuppositionalism "limits God to working only subjectively in the lives of believers." ?? I can not make sense of this, as I can not fathom any other way in which God works in the lives of individuals since his work in mine is not the same as it is in anyone elses -other than in the generic sense of assuring salvation. But soteriology cannot be his difference with presuppositionalism since presuppositionalism does not extend itself (any more than evidentialism does) to formulate a soteriological position other than to rely on that posited by the Reformers (even Sproul respects Van Til as a theologian!). Yet he goes on to say on page 151 in the chapter "How Do We Know Miracles Really Happen?" "...the answer to the question of whether the Bible miracles are true alone determines the authenticity of the Christian faith?". Really? What about the Bible being true? Or the gospel being true? He states "...the incarnation and the resurrection of Jesus Christ encompass the entire fabric of Christianity. If these two ...miracles did not occur, Christianity crumbles." But one might ask, if moral absolutes do not stand, does Christianity? If the laws of logic lapse, does Christianity hold together? If the uniformity of nature does not exist, as a worldview of chance matter in motion must dictate, can Christianity? Arguing the way Story proposes is defeated simply with "Oh, I believe in the incarnation and the resurrection. I just think there are natural explanations for them." Story's evidentialist approach leaves him down in the mud with the unbeliever working brick by brick to build a Christian house. I have to conclude that this is book is good evidence....that evidentialism is not the strongest apologetic for the faith. It's not even a good one. Can God work through evidentialism? Can he work even through our fumbling errors? Of course. But shoot for higher. Try "Always Ready" by Greg Bahnsen instead and if you feel gutsy go straight to "Defending the Faith" by Van Til. It appears Story never did.

Dan Story handles the topic of presuppositions versus evidence, in a unique way. Christianity is based on facts that are tangible. Story says, "look at the evidence and make a decision." The questions of evil, reincarnation, the fate of those who never heard of Christ and the trinity are handled very well. Laymen and theologians will both love this book. Buy it now!!

Dan Story does a fine job of sharing tips on how to share your story and your faith. It was excellent that he showed in the beginning when and when not to use Apologetics. Chapter 4 on Offensive apologetics was fatastic and has affected my approach in sharing with many people.
He could have perhaps said more on the use of the Gifts of the sprit while witnessing (I have found healing and the word of knowlege to be very effective in such cases) but that was not perhaps the intention of his book and I realize that some of those who believe the gifts kicked the bucket with the original apostles might not have read all that he had to say.

Good book. Get it and Put it into practice.

is covered in this book. You could spend your time pouring over a lot of lengthy works written to defend the faith, or you could read this. It is consice and practical in its approach to apologetics. I value this book far more than some of the massive tomes I've accumulated over the years. If you understand the reasons for Biblical Christianity given in "Defending Your Faith," you will not only be able to "refute those who contradict" (Titus 1:9) but your faith will be built up as well.

The two main schools of apologetics among evangelicals are presuppositionalism and evidentialism. Story makes it clear from the first chapter that he is an evidentialist and attempts to explain the superiority of his chosen school. Unfortunately he totally distorts and misrepresents the presuppositionalist viewpoint without citing a single advocate of that school! He only cites critics of presuppositionalism. It seems obvious that he was careless in his research here. The irony is that he ends the book by using a presuppositionalist argument! This betrays his lack of understanding of the school he belittles.

Another problem is in the section where he defends the Protestant 66 book canon over against the Catholic canon which includes seven more books called deuterocanonicals. Again Story betrays his bias and poor scholarship. He makes the erroneous assertion that the Catholic Church officially added these books in the seventeenth century to counter the Protesta! nts and to bolster Catholic distinctives. He seems unaware that those same Catholic distinctives can be found in many accepted books as well. One argument he uses to support this silly thesis is that the Church fathers rejected those books. This is true Protestant form - putting words into the mouths of the fathers, none of whom were Protestant. He claims Athanasius and Jerome rejected the "Apocrypha," but as usual fails to give any citations. In fact, Jerome and Athanasius accepted those books and all other Catholic distinctives. I hope Story will be more careful in his research in the future as he is only embarrassing himself and slandering others. My opinion is that he simply parroted the popular views held by his favorite teachers. On the bright side, Story does offer some good arguments concerning other topics, but since tehy have been covered better in other works, this work is a waste of money in the long run.

Very simplistic, faith promoting account of a not-so-skeptical skeptic's journey into Mormonism. This is a book that will make Mormons feel good, but offers very little in the way of answers to the tough questions that plague the Mormon Church.

I found this book to be very well-organized, reasoned and researched. It is written from the point of view of an initial skeptic who doubts his way to belief. The book takes you through every personal and intellectual struggle the author went through as he spent a year and a half investigating Mormonism before finally converting to the faith. He has many conversations with clergy of different faiths as well as experts on Mormonism from various religious backgrounds and shares those in the book. The book follows chronologically each roadblock he comes to as he studies the LDS and other faiths simultaneously, and how he overcomes each roadblock. He converted at around the age of 26, and this book is apparently written at least a couple decades later. It's a very effective book that draws on many different sources (all documented) which will help anyone better understand LDS practices and beliefs through one man's road to conversion.

I found this book to be very well-organized, reasoned and researched. It is written from the point of view of an initial skeptic who doubts his way to belief. The book takes you through every personal and intellectual struggle the author went through as he spent a year and a half investigating Mormonism before finally converting to the faith. He has many conversations with clergy of different faiths as well as experts on Mormonism from various religious backgrounds and shares those in the book. The book follows chronologically each roadblock he comes to as he studies the LDS and other faiths simultaneously, and how he overcomes each roadblock. He converted at around the age of 26, and this book is apparently written at least a couple decades later. It's a very effective book that draws on many different sources (all documented) which will help anyone better understand LDS practices and beliefs through one man's road to conversion.

I've written a number of reviews critical of the LDS Church. I'm also the author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and science." Because of this exposure I'm blessed with frequent email from faithful Mormons, bent on helping me see the error of my ways. A recent Latter-day Saint, upon seeing my reviews, wrote to assure me that there are "thousands" of critics who, yearly, accept Mormonism, presumably because it's the only logical thing to do. He referred me to this book, so I took the suggestion.

My first impression with this book is that the title is wrong. There seems to be an undercurrent of cultural envy among Mormons (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) regarding secular humanism. On the one hand, Mormonism is firmly established as a superstitious/emotional/spiritual philosophy. On the other hand, the church seems self-conscious over this legacy, desiring to be viewed as more rational and critical than they really are. It seems this dichotomy is largely behind the title of Morgan's book. You'd expect, from Morgan's title, that the book would have at least a token example of actual critical thinking in it.

According to the dictionary, a critic as "one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter especially involving a judgment of its value, truth, righteousness, beauty, or technique b: one who engages often professionally in the analysis, evaluation, or appreciation of works of art or artistic performances."

The problem is, Willard Morgan is (and was) no "skeptic." Instead, Morgan's book is a rather transparent attempt to remake the story of an average Mormon convert into something more significant than it really is.

Given the inappropriate title, the most remarkable thing about Morgan's book is the manner in which he fails totally to adequately address (or even mention, in most cases) any of the major intellectual and scientific issues facing Mormonism. Take, for example, the Book of Mormon. Mormons claim that the Book of Mormon was written by and about the ancient Americans, and yet it describes the ancient Americans smelting steel, using domesticated horses, and cultivating Old World crops like wheat and barley. All these claims are patently false. Scientists consider the Book of Mormon's description of ancient American to be fantasy, and yet Morgan claims to be a "critic" while utterly failing to address the fraudulent nature of the Book of Mormon within a scientific context. This seems the antithesis of a "reasoned opinion."

Mormonism's problems with science are legion. Joseph Smith's amusing statements about astronomy and his failed attempts at "translating" Egyptian expose him as one of the more notorious (although highly successful) con men of the 19th century. For Morgan to claim to have been a "skeptic" in his investigation of Mormonism while ignoring most (and failing to adequately deal with any) of these issues leaves his book with an air of desperation. Are there really no skeptical converts to Mormonism? Is Morgan's story - the story of a non-skeptic dressed up as one - the best the church can find? I'm not sure if Willard's book illustrates just how devoid of critical thought Mormonism is (by virtue of the fact that Morgan - a non critic - is touted as a one) or if this book simply represents the low bar for critical and logical thought that's set within the LDS community. My best guess is that it's a little of both.

This isn't a book for intellectuals, but rather a book written by a "believer" for "believers." Morgan wasn't a "skeptic." He was a young man searching for god (a self-described "prayerful agnostic"). His story isn't so much about dealing skeptically with the many real and pressing intellectual problems within Mormonism (especially those relating to science) as it is about someone with a penchant for religion who chooses Mormonism over the religious objections of other preachers and ministers. Skeptics and thinkers will find the arguments either boring or embarrassing for their lack of logical rigor, while the true believers will, no doubt, be swept up in waves of emotional bliss at the thought of their "testimonies" having been certified by one of the world's own "critics."

Rife with appeals to emotionalism, spiritualism, and scriptural arguments that only fellow Bible thumpers could appreciate (or care about), this is strictly a religious book, with (as near as I could tell) nary a drop of skepticism found between the two covers.

The author takes you with him as he searches for the correct church. With each new question that he has for the LDS missionaries he learns so much truth that is shared in this book. I learned alot just reading it. There are MANY answers to his questions about the faith that he finds answers right in the bible. A must for anyone who wants to see WHERE to find these answers in the bible. I had trouble putting the book down.

The Original Skeptics Annotated Bible (SAB) lists many problems with the Bible, but is by no means authoritative. Then came the Skeptics annotated Bible Corrected and Explained (SABCE) which markets itself as the final proof of the accuracy of the Bible by having refuted the SAB. In truth, it was a poor attempt. The quality of that work was that of a High School Thesis, and most of the refutations are of the "It is not" variety.

This workbook is based on the SABCE, and the errors in the SABCE carry over to this workbook.

Now we have the Skeptics Annotated Bible Corrected and Explained, the collegiate Workbook (SABCECW). The best thing that can be said about this is that it is short. At 54 pages it is far less damaging to the cause of apologetics than the thousands of pages of the companion volume SABCE on CD. However, for this workbook to be useful, you still need to buy the CD.

It is highly unlikely that any college would consider using this, [...] because this is not college level work.

The information contained in this book has been helpful in preparing lessons for bible studies. I have used it extensively and appreciate the years of research and knowledge that have gone into it. Jason has provided a "faithwork" book. Thank you, Jason, for the insights, so that we can build a more understanding relationship with Jesus Christ.

I really enjoyed going through this workbook. It has 300 questions in it and the answers are in the back. I used it as a Bible study and tested myself. I knew some of the answers, but I had to do some research to find most of them. Quite exciting!

The CD-ROM helped me find the answers. You don't have to get the CD-ROM to be able to answer the questions in the workbook, but it certainly helps!

I think this was an excellent workbook and I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to study apologetics and supposed Bible errors.