Christian Apologetics and Apologists, Criticisms of
Apologetics in General
Beyond Born Again: Towards Evangelical Maturity (1993) by Robert Price
Review of Michael J. Murray’s Reason for the Hope Within (2005) by Graham Oppy
The anthology Reason for the Hope Within aims to mount a broad defense of the Christian faith, in part by explaining how it can be reasonable for Christians to accept puzzling or paradoxical Christian doctrines, and in part by persuading nonbelievers that all of the core claims of Christianity are true. Oppy explains why he thinks that the book utterly fails to accomplish one of these aims, and thus fails to do much to advance the standing of Christian apologetics.
Lynn Anderson
Objection #8: I Still Have Doubts, So I Can’t Be A Christian (2001) by Kyle Gerkin
Part of Gerkin’s comprehensive review of Lee Strobel’s The Case for Faith, Strobel’s interview with Lynn Anderson is analyzed and critiqued.
Objection #2: Since Miracles Contradict Science, They Cannot be True (5th ed., 2020) by Paul Doland
Part of Doland’s comprehensive review of Lee Strobel’s The Case for Faith, Strobel’s interview with Lynn Anderson is analyzed and critiqued.
Greg Bahnsen
Are There Really No Atheists? (1996) by Michael Martin
Martin refutes Greg Bahnsen’s argument that there are no atheists.
Atheism and Intraorganizational Free Speech (1996) by Michael Martin
Although Greg Bahnsen was careful to argue that the Bible allows atheists freedom of belief, he claimed that laws should be enacted making blasphemy a capital offense.
Does Induction Presume the Existence of the Christian God? (1997) by Michael Martin
Michael Martin describes and refutes the inductional form of the Transcendental Argument for God’s existence.
W. David Beck
Beck’s Argument for God (1999) by Richard Carrier
Refutes Beck’s inept deployment of the first cause, design, and objective morality arguments for the existence of God.
Francis Beckwith
Beckwith on Historiography (1999, 2005) by Richard Carrier
Compares Beckwith’s incompetent discussion of historical method in defense of miracles with the proper methods a historian should adopt, outlining what this means for attempts to prove miracles happened in history.
Michael Behe [ Index ]
E. Calvin Beisner
Preaching to the Choir (1997) by Robert McNally
Review of E. Calvin Beisner’s Answers for Atheists, Agnostics, and Other Thoughtful Skeptics : Dialogs About Christian Faith and Life.
Walter L. Bradley
Objection #3: Evolution Explains Life, So God Isn’t Needed (2001) by Kyle Gerkin
Part of Gerkin’s comprehensive review of Lee Strobel’s The Case for Faith, Strobel’s interview with Bradley is analyzed and critiqued.
Objection #3: Evolution Explains Life, So God Isn’t Needed (5th ed., 2020) by Paul Doland
Part of Doland’s comprehensive review of Lee Strobel’s The Case for Faith, Strobel’s interview with Bradley is analyzed and critiqued.
David Clark
Clark’s Survey of Other Religions (1999) by Richard Carrier
Criticises Clark’s argument that Christian miracles have better historical evidence than miracles in other religions.
Paul Copan
That Colossal Wreck (1997) by Doug Kreuger
Ravi Zacharias’s A Shattered Visage: The Real Face of Atheism is an unsuccessful attempt to refute or discredit atheism. He concentrates on some of the more prounounced problems with atheism, as he perceives them, and in the course of this review I will show why some of his approaches fail. I say ‘some’ because I will address only the most salient errors. A thorough refutation of all of the mistakes in his 200-page book would require another 300 pages or more, as these sorts of things are short in the telling and long in the refuting.”
Addressing Those Colossal Misunderstandings: A Response to Doug Krueger (1999) by Paul Copan
Paul Copan responds to Doug Krueger’s critique of Ravi Zacharias’ book A Shattered Visage: The Real Face of Atheism. Copan argues that Krueger’s own arguments regarding the book’s purported philosophical and theological shortcomings lack convincingness.
Copin’ with Copan (1999) by Doug Krueger
Doug Krueger reviewed A Shattered Visage: The Real Face of Atheism by Ravi Zacharias. Paul Copan, of the Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, wrote a defense of the book, and this is Krueger’s response. The extended discussions of the relevant subjects serve not only to reinforce the original review, but will also serve as valuable analyses in their own right. Subjects include the relation of Hitler to atheism, biblical reliability, ethics and atheism, and others.
Critical Review of Is God a Moral Monster? (2017) by Craig Vander Hart
In Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God, Paul Copan attempts a bold apologetic of the Judeo-Christian God’s moral status. The so-called new atheists see the biblical God as a promotor of genocide, slavery, murder, rape, and other immoral acts. But the only serious objections to the biblical God’s moral status are passages in which immoral acts are clearly done because of God’s will, or are explicitly approved of by God. Even with this caveat, however, the Bible clearly prescribes immoral behavior that Copan cannot explain away in this fashion. Premarital sex is explicit grounds for divorce or execution of a wife, but not of a husband; rape warrants punishment when a married woman is raped, but not when an unmarried one is violated; the fathers of female victims of rape can refuse marriage to their rapist, but not the victims themselves; peoples who simply do not accept the dominant theology of Israel should be executed in war, making exception for the traumatized adolescent girls of conquered nations, whom Israelite soldiers can “spare” for themselves; and so on. In order to maintain his belief that Yahweh is morally perfect, Copan must explain away any Old Testament evidence of God’s moral culpability in light of the more loving and inclusive New Testament passages. But this does not provide an objective examination of the biblical God’s moral status, and thus will only appeal to Christians who are worried the about possibility that their God might be a moral monster.
The Moral Argument for God’s Existence, the Natural Moral Law, and Conservative Metaphysical Naturalism (2020) by Arnold T. Guminski
Some Christian philosophers and apologists have vigorously mounted a moral argument for God’s existence made apart from the standard nonmoral grounds. The moral argument is based upon the idea of natural moral law (fundamental moral principles and norms apprehended as such by persons of good will as universally binding and not based upon supernatural revelation or divine positive law). In this expanded version of a talk given to the University of Colorado Theology Forum, Arnold T. Guminski aims to show why those naturalists and theists who hold that the natural moral law obtains should conclude that the moral argument for the existence of God is unsound. Particular attention is given to the writings of J. P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, and Paul Copan.
Winfried Corduan
The Problem with Miracles: the Shaky Groundwork of Corduan and Purtill (1999) by Richard Carrier
William Lane Craig [ Index ]
Stephen T. Davis
The Great Mars Hill Resurrection Debate (2012) (PDF) by Robert Greg Cavin and Carlos A. Colombetti
In these slides for his opening statement in his debate with Michael Licona on July 1, 2012 at Antioch Temecula Church in Temecula, California, Robert Greg Cavin presents one of the strongest cases against the resurrection of Jesus ever presented, decisively refuting arguments for the Resurrection by prominent Christian apologists Timothy McGrew, Lydia McGrew, Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, Stephen T. Davis, Gary Habermas, Michael Licona, Norman Geisler, Josh McDowell, and Lee Strobel. Cavin makes three main contentions: (1) the prior probability of a supernatural resurrection of Jesus by God is so astronomically low that it has virtually no plausibility; (2) theorizing such a resurrection to explain the empty tomb and postmortem appearances of Jesus is ad hoc and devoid of nearly any explanatory power and scope; and (3) a far superior alternative theory can account for the empty tomb and postmortem appearances. In defending these three contentions, Cavin refutes sixteen myths perpetuated by Christians apologists about critics’ objections to the Resurrection.
Hume’s Maxim: How a “Trivial Truth” is Too Strong for Christian Apologetics (2017) by Aron Lucas
In Hume’s Abject Failure, philosopher John Earman argues that David Hume’s famous maxim that no testimony is sufficient to establish that a miracle has occurred unless its falsehood would be more miraculous than the miracle itself is just a trivial tautology, namely that we should not believe a miracle claim unless the evidence makes it more probable than not. But even if this interpretation is correct, contemporary Christian apologists fail to satisfy Hume’s purportedly obvious condition that it must be more probable that a miracle occurred than that it did not occur when they argue that the miraculous resurrection of Jesus probably occurred.
An Inquiry into Davis’ Account of the Possibility of Rational Belief and Rational Scepticism in the Resurrection of Jesus (1998) by Tyler Wunder
An interesting consideration of the central thesis of Davis’s book, that “both the supernaturalist’s belief and the naturalist’s doubt in the resurrection can be rational given an awareness of the best cases for both sides.”
William Dembski [ Index ]
Phil Fernandes
The Fernandes-Martin Debate on the Existence of God (1997)
The transcript of the lively 1997 Internet debate between Phil Fernandes and Michael Martin on the existence of God.
Review of The God Who Sits Enthroned (1998) by James Still
“Whatever opinion the reader takes of the author’s work, he is to be commended for enthusiastically approaching such a broad range of topics in so few pages. In discussions of this sort, brevity and clarity are often lost in the fray. Atheists and theists alike should find much to consider within Dr. Fernandes’s book.”
Norman L. Geisler
The Great Mars Hill Resurrection Debate (2012) (PDF) by Robert Greg Cavin and Carlos A. Colombetti
In these slides for his opening statement in his debate with Michael Licona on July 1, 2012 at Antioch Temecula Church in Temecula, California, Robert Greg Cavin presents one of the strongest cases against the resurrection of Jesus ever presented, decisively refuting arguments for the Resurrection by prominent Christian apologists Timothy McGrew, Lydia McGrew, Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, Stephen T. Davis, Gary Habermas, Michael Licona, Norman Geisler, Josh McDowell, and Lee Strobel. Cavin makes three main contentions: (1) the prior probability of a supernatural resurrection of Jesus by God is so astronomically low that it has virtually no plausibility; (2) theorizing such a resurrection to explain the empty tomb and postmortem appearances of Jesus is ad hoc and devoid of nearly any explanatory power and scope; and (3) a far superior alternative theory can account for the empty tomb and postmortem appearances. In defending these three contentions, Cavin refutes sixteen myths perpetuated by Christians apologists about critics’ objections to the Resurrection.
Objection #4: God Isn’t Worthy of Worship If He Kills Innocent Children (2001) by Kyle Gerkin
Part of Gerkin’s comprehensive review of Lee Strobel’s The Case for Faith, Strobel’s interview with Geisler is analyzed and critiqued.
Objection #4: God Isn’t Worthy of Worship If He Kills Innocent Children (5th ed., 2020) by Paul Doland
Part of Doland’s comprehensive review of Lee Strobel’s The Case for Faith, Strobel’s interview with Geisler is analyzed and critiqued.
R. Douglas Geivett
Geivett’s Exercise in Hyperbole (1999) by Richard Carrier
Criticises Geivett’s shameless abuse of historical method in his defense of the resurrection of Jesus as miracle.
Duane Gish [ Index ]
Gary Habermas
Criticism of “Immortality” (1993) by Jim Lippard
The Great Mars Hill Resurrection Debate (2012) (PDF) by Robert Greg Cavin and Carlos A. Colombetti
In these slides for his opening statement in his debate with Michael Licona on July 1, 2012 at Antioch Temecula Church in Temecula, California, Robert Greg Cavin presents one of the strongest cases against the resurrection of Jesus ever presented, decisively refuting arguments for the Resurrection by prominent Christian apologists Timothy McGrew, Lydia McGrew, Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, Stephen T. Davis, Gary Habermas, Michael Licona, Norman Geisler, Josh McDowell, and Lee Strobel. Cavin makes three main contentions: (1) the prior probability of a supernatural resurrection of Jesus by God is so astronomically low that it has virtually no plausibility; (2) theorizing such a resurrection to explain the empty tomb and postmortem appearances of Jesus is ad hoc and devoid of nearly any explanatory power and scope; and (3) a far superior alternative theory can account for the empty tomb and postmortem appearances. In defending these three contentions, Cavin refutes sixteen myths perpetuated by Christians apologists about critics’ objections to the Resurrection.
Review of Habermas’ chapter in In Defense of Miracles (1995, 2005) by Richard Carrier
Hank Hanegraaff
Is Atheism Logical? (1996) by Mark I. Vuletic
Response to Hank Hanegraaff’s claim that atheism is incoherent.
Kent Hovind
“How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?” (1995) by Dave Matson
Philip Johnson [ Index ]
D. James Kennedy
Commentary on D. James Kennedy’s “Why I Believe” by Anachronist
John Koster
The Koster-Zindler Debate (1990) with annotations by Frank Zindler
Peter Kreeft
A Response to “The Skeptic’s Prayer” by Robby Berry
Objection #1: Since Evil & Suffering Exist, A Loving God Cannot (2001) by Kyle Gerkin
Part of Gerkin’s comprehensive review of Lee Strobel’s The Case for Faith, Strobel’s interview with Kreeft is analyzed and critiqued.
Objection #1: Since Evil & Suffering Exist, A Loving God Cannot (5th ed., 2020) by Paul Doland
Part of Doland’s comprehensive review of Lee Strobel’s The Case for Faith, Strobel’s interview with Kreeft is analyzed and critiqued.
Why I Am Not a Christian (2000) by Keith Parsons
In this explanation of why he is not a Christian, Keith Parsons discusses the role that Christianity has played in perpetuating suffering throughout human history, the bizarre doctrine of inflicting eternal punishment on persons for having the wrong beliefs, the composition, inconsistencies, and absurdities of the New Testament Gospels, William Lane Craig’s flawed case for the resurrection of Jesus, the role of legendary development and hallucinations in early Christianity, and C. S. Lewis’ weak justifications for the Christian prohibition on premarital sex.
C. S. Lewis
The Argument from Reason (1998) by Victor Reppert
Reppert argues that the existence of human reason gives us good reason to suppose that God exists. If the world were as the materialist supposes, then we would be unable to reason to this conclusion. This contention is often challenged by the claim that mental and physical explanations can be given for the same event. But a close examination of the question of explanatory compatibility reveals that the sort of explanation that would have to be given for the events of inferring that atheism is true, for example, is incompatible with the event being explicable as a purely physical product of a physical universe.
The Argument from Reason: C. S. Lewis’ Fundamental Mistakes (2020) by David Kyle Johnson
C. S. Lewis’ argument from reason is perhaps his most famous argument because of the legendary debate that it inspired. In a response to it at Oxford University’s Socratic Club, G. E. M. Anscombe reputedly demolished the argument, causing Lewis to withdraw from contributing to apologetics ever again. Many disagree that Anscombe actually demolished Lewis’ central point, but grant that the encounter destroyed Lewis’ confidence as a philosopher. In this paper (originally presented as a talk) David Kyle Johnson argues that Lewis’ encounter with Anscombe should have reduced his confidence as an apologist because his argument rests on an embarrassing fundamental misunderstanding. In particular, after outlining the exchange between Lewis and Anscombe, Johnson aims to show that Lewis severely misunderstood both naturalism and evolution, and that this misunderstanding permeated Lewis’ argument from reason.
Critical Review of Victor Reppert’s Defense of the Argument from Reason (2004) by Richard Carrier
“In C. S. Lewis’s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason (InterVarsity: 2003), Victor Reppert has contributed what is surely the most extensive defense of the so-called ‘Argument from Reason’ yet to appear in print. In this critique, I will point out what I believe are the most important conceptual flaws in his arguments, and explain in detail how his arguments are ineffective against my own personal worldview.”
A Response to Richard Carrier’s Review of C. S. Lewis’s Dangerous Idea (2007) by Darek Barefoot
C. S. Lewis’s argument from reason (AfR) claims that the process of inference by which consideration of premises causes us to adopt a conclusion cannot be coherently conceived of in terms of physical cause-and-effect alone. In C. S. Lewis’s Dangerous Idea, Victor Reppert maintains that the argument still poses a strong challenge to naturalism. However, Richard Carrier has attempted to refute Reppert’s version of the AfR by invoking developments in cognitive science and computational theory. In this essay Darek Barefoot argues that advances in cognitive science do not affect the AfR since there is an absolute conceptual divide between rational mental causes and physical computational ones. Furthermore, if the AfR is successful, it reveals that rationality is fundamental to the universe, not simply a by-product of physical cause-and-effect; and this, in turn, is readily explicable on theism, but problematic for naturalism.
A Critique of Miracles (2000) by Nicholas Tattersall
Lewis tackles “the philosophical question” of miracles by concluding that naturalism suffers from “cardinal difficulties” and that supernaturalism is therefore the only reasonable position. Tattersall argues, however, that the prior probability of an unexplained event being a miracle is very low, even if we were to suppose that supernaturalism is true. Even if Lewis were successful in his arguments for supernaturalism, he would not have established that Christian miracles are at all likely.
Mere Assertions (1992) (Off Site) by Dan Barker
Review of Mere Christianity (1979) by Gaunilo II
Why I Am Not a Christian (2000) by Keith Parsons
In this explanation of why he is not a Christian, Keith Parsons discusses the role that Christianity has played in perpetuating suffering throughout human history, the bizarre doctrine of inflicting eternal punishment on persons for having the wrong beliefs, the composition, inconsistencies, and absurdities of the New Testament Gospels, William Lane Craig’s flawed case for the resurrection of Jesus, the role of legendary development and hallucinations in early Christianity, and C. S. Lewis’ weak justifications for the Christian prohibition on premarital sex.
Hal Lindsey
Review of The Late Great Planet Earth (1980) by Gaunilo II
Eric Lyons
To Galilee or Jerusalem? A Response to Apologetics Press (2019) by J. C. Jackson
There’s a discrepancy between the Gospel of Luke on the one hand, and the Gospels of Mark and Matthew on the other, as to where Jesus’ disciples were instructed to stay after Jesus’ resurrection. Luke has the post-Resurrection Jesus instructing them to stay in Jerusalem, whereas Mark and Matthew have him telling them to stay in Galilee. In an article for Apologetics Press, Eric Lyons attempts to explain away this discrepancy by positing that Jesus’ post-Resurrection instructions to his disciples in Luke didn’t necessarily happen on Easter Sunday, but could have happened on a subsequent day. In this response to Apologetics Press, however, J. C. Jackson points out that this interpretation is flatly inconsistent with the conclusions of innumerable Christian scholars and theologians. Worse still, it’s inconsistent with the understanding of early Christians themselves, who were willing to simply remove references to an event in Luke’s Gospel altogether in order to smooth over the timeline problems that keeping them would lay bare. But most damning of all, Jackson’s direct analysis of the context clearly demonstrates that Apologetics Press’ rationalization of the discrepancy immediately falls apart.
John Maisel
Criticism of “Is Jesus God?” (1993) by Jim Lippard
Josh McDowell
Answers to Tough Questions (1982) by Gordon Stein
Evidence That Demands a Verdict (1995-2004) edited by Jeffery Jay Lowder
The Great Mars Hill Resurrection Debate (2012) (PDF) by Robert Greg Cavin and Carlos A. Colombetti
In these slides for his opening statement in his debate with Michael Licona on July 1, 2012 at Antioch Temecula Church in Temecula, California, Robert Greg Cavin presents one of the strongest cases against the resurrection of Jesus ever presented, decisively refuting arguments for the Resurrection by prominent Christian apologists Timothy McGrew, Lydia McGrew, Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, Stephen T. Davis, Gary Habermas, Michael Licona, Norman Geisler, Josh McDowell, and Lee Strobel. Cavin makes three main contentions: (1) the prior probability of a supernatural resurrection of Jesus by God is so astronomically low that it has virtually no plausibility; (2) theorizing such a resurrection to explain the empty tomb and postmortem appearances of Jesus is ad hoc and devoid of nearly any explanatory power and scope; and (3) a far superior alternative theory can account for the empty tomb and postmortem appearances. In defending these three contentions, Cavin refutes sixteen myths perpetuated by Christians apologists about critics’ objections to the Resurrection.
The Great Preposterous (1997) by Robert M. Price
“Apologetics as practiced by Josh McDowell is merely an exercise in after-the-fact rationalization of beliefs held on prior emotional grounds … The more seriously one takes him as a representative of his faith, the more seriously one will be tempted to thrust Christianity aside as a tissue of grotesque absurdities capable of commending itself only to fools and bigots.”
The Jesus of History: A Reply to Josh McDowell (1982) by Gordon Stein
Josh McDowell’s Charade (1982) by Gordon Stein
More Than a Carpenter (1980) by Gaunilo II
New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, The (2001) reviewed by Jeffery Jay Lowder
Prophecy: Fact or Fiction (1982) by Bernard Katz
Reason Skeptics Should Consider Christianity by James Still
The Resurrection Factor (1982) by Jerry Borchandt
Skepticism and McDowell’s “Proof” (1982) by Jerry Wayne Borchardt
Thallus and Phlegon (1999) by Richard Carrier
Were Not 1st Century Witnesses to the Gospel Tradition as Josh McDowell Claims in Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Richard Carrier
A Verdict on Josh McDowell (1999-2000) (Off Site) by Gordon B. Hazen
A detailed rebuttal to some of McDowell’s specific claims in chapter 4 in Evidence That Demands a Verdict.
Alister McGrath
Atheism: Twilight or Dawn? (2007) by Keith Parsons
According to Alister McGrath, the early 21st century marks the decline of atheism. In this critique of McGrath’s arguments, Keith Parsons considers whether the intellectual clout, stature, or influence of atheism has in fact declined in recent years, concluding that McGrath does not even begin to address the real intellectual case for atheism. That disbelief in God is just as much a matter of faith as belief in God can only be a stale platitude from McGrath given his failure to even superficially survey the best arguments for atheism. McGrath does address, however, four charges made by Richard Dawkins against religion, including the charge that evolution makes God unnecessary as an explanation and that religion is a source of much of the misery in the world. Parsons concludes that once one appropriately qualifies or refines Dawkins’ accusations, McGrath’s critique fails to adequately address the underlying problems for religion that inspire them. Moreover, to the extent that the influence of inherently controversial and divisive religions on people’s lives grows, a corresponding dawn of the popularity of atheism is inevitable.
On Christian Theology: An Introduction (2014) by Michael Reynolds
Theology professor Alister McGrath’s Christian Theology: An Introduction is a clear and comprehensive theology textbook that is balanced, at least, when presenting conflicting Christian opinions. This review by Michael Reynolds from the perspective of a nonbeliever is not intended to be comprehensive, but focuses on McGrath’s treatment of issues found to be incomplete or misleading, or otherwise his omissions of discussion (or even mention) of large and important topics within Christianity. Some of these topics include the pernicious effects of Christian theology on social progress (such as equal rights for men and women), the conflict between science and religion, Christianity’s history of suppression of thought by imprisonment, torture, and murder, religious wars, and rationalization of the conquest of non-Christian cultures. In short, McGrath neglects a large swath of issues close to the heart of Christianity in a way that suggests that Christian theology is taught in order to promote a set of fictions.
Glen Miller
He Commends Me–He Commends Me Not (2001) by Tim Simmons
Faults are found in Miller’s attempt to reconcile an apparent contradiction between God’s commending of Jehu for the killings at Jezreel (2 Kings 10:30) and condemning his actions one hundred years later via the prophet Hosea (Hosea 1:4).
John Warwick Montgomery
Critique of John Warwick Montgomery’s Legal Evidences for Christianity (1998) by Richard Packham
Montgomery asserts that Christianity’s claims survive examination using the legal tests for evidence. He does this only by misstating and twisting the rules of evidence and the facts.
First of All, Let’s Laugh at All the Lawyers (Or, Cheap Legal Thrills at the Expense of Justice) (Off Site) by James Patrick Holding
Holding criticises Packham’s argument in the above essay.
Response to “Packham Refuted” (2001) (Off Site) by Richard Packham
Packham responds to Holding’s critique above.
Faith And History (c. 1986) by Mark Hutchins
A Critique of John Warwick Montgomery’s Apologetics in such works as his History and Christianity.
J. P. Moreland
Criticism of “Immortality” (1993) by Jim Lippard
Criticism of “Scaling the Secular City” (1990) by Jim Lippard
Does the Christian Theism Advocated by J. P. Moreland Provide a Better Reason to be Moral than Secular Humanism? (1998) by Richard Carrier
Carrier refutes Moreland’s claim that theism offers more and better reasons to live a moral life than atheism or secular humanism.
Hume’s Maxim: How a “Trivial Truth” is Too Strong for Christian Apologetics (2017) by Aron Lucas
In Hume’s Abject Failure, philosopher John Earman argues that David Hume’s famous maxim that no testimony is sufficient to establish that a miracle has occurred unless its falsehood would be more miraculous than the miracle itself is just a trivial tautology, namely that we should not believe a miracle claim unless the evidence makes it more probable than not. But even if this interpretation is correct, contemporary Christian apologists fail to satisfy Hume’s purportedly obvious condition that it must be more probable that a miracle occurred than that it did not occur when they argue that the miraculous resurrection of Jesus probably occurred.
The Moral Argument for God’s Existence, the Natural Moral Law, and Conservative Metaphysical Naturalism (2020) by Arnold T. Guminski
Some Christian philosophers and apologists have vigorously mounted a moral argument for God’s existence made apart from the standard nonmoral grounds. The moral argument is based upon the idea of natural moral law (fundamental moral principles and norms apprehended as such by persons of good will as universally binding and not based upon supernatural revelation or divine positive law). In this expanded version of a talk given to the University of Colorado Theology Forum, Arnold T. Guminski aims to show why those naturalists and theists who hold that the natural moral law obtains should conclude that the moral argument for the existence of God is unsound. Particular attention is given to the writings of J. P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, and Paul Copan.
Moreland’s “Christian Science” (1999) by Richard Carrier
Carrier challenges Moreland’s claim that science can prove Christianity true, as well as his arguments for a ‘libertarian’ conception of freewill.
Objection #6: A Loving God Would Never Torture People In Hell (2001) by Kyle Gerkin
Part of Gerkin’s comprehensive review of Lee Strobel’s The Case for Faith, Strobel’s interview with Moreland is analyzed and critiqued.
Objection #6: A Loving God Would Never Torture People In Hell (5th ed., 2020) by Paul Doland
Part of Doland’s comprehensive review of Lee Strobel’s The Case for Faith, Strobel’s interview with Moreland is analyzed and critiqued.
Review of The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (2018) by Aron Lucas
The massive Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology aims to be the standard reference work supplying the best reasons to believe that God exists from the foremost experts on various arguments for the existence of God. It is not recommended for readers without some background knowledge of the philosophy of religion, modal logic, and Bayesian confirmation theory. Nevertheless, it cannot be ignored by anyone who wishes to argue that belief in God is irrational or intellectually bankrupt. In this review, Aron Lucas focuses on its chapters on the kalam cosmological argument, the fine-tuning argument, the moral argument, and the argument from miracles. Despite some valuable novel contributions, the volume focuses too heavily on defending some premises while ignoring others, and is highly technical even for advanced readers, with one argument presented in 87 steps purely using symbolic logic. One can only wonder why God would make the evidence for his existence accessible only to a select handful of professional academics, let alone punish people with eternal torment because they failed to properly apply Bayesian reasoning to little known historical data. The very fact that the volume needs to dig so deep in order to make its case is, in a way, evidence against the existence of God.
Review of J. P. Moreland (ed.) The Creation Hypothesis (1998) by Graham Oppy
Secular Humanism, Christian Theism, and the Meaning of Life (2000) by J. Wesley Robbins
Robbins refutes J. P. Moreland’s claim that, so far as the meaning of life is concerned, the best way to live one’s life is in terms of Christian theism.
Michael J. Murray
Review of Michael J. Murray’s Reason for the Hope Within (2005) by Graham Oppy
The anthology Reason for the Hope Within aims to mount a broad defense of the Christian faith, in part by explaining how it can be reasonable for Christians to accept puzzling or paradoxical Christian doctrines, and in part by persuading nonbelievers that all of the core claims of Christianity are true. Oppy explains why he thinks that the book utterly fails to accomplish one of these aims, and thus fails to do much to advance the standing of Christian apologetics.
Ronald Nash
Nash on naturalism v. Christian Theism (1999) by Richard Carrier
Robert Newman
Newman on Prophecy as Miracle (1999) by Richard Carrier
Discusses the criteria that must actually be met to believe a prophecy miraculous, then demonstrates that there is nothing miraculous about the prophecies in Hosea 3:4-5 and Isaiah 40-56, the “seventy sevens” prophecy in Daniel 9:24-6, or various “twin cities” arguments (Tyre and Sidon, Babylon and Nineveh, Memphis and Thebes, and Ekron and Ashkelon).
David Noebel
David Noebel on Atheism and Biological Evolution (2000) by Jeffery Jay Lowder
A critical notice of David Noebel’s book, Understanding the Times. I assess in detail Noebel’s objections to atheism and biological evolution. Along the way I discuss such diverse topics as the argument from reasonable nonbelief, cosmic vs. personal meaning, methodological naturalism, abiogenesis and the origin of life, whether natural selection is a tautology, beneficial mutations, the fossil record, and punctuated equilibrium.
Review of Clergy in the Classroom (2000) by Sally Morem
A review of Clergy in the Classroom: The Religion of Secular Humanism by David A. Noebel, J.F. Bladwin, and Kevin Bywater.
Rod Parsley
Review of Silent No More (2006) by Kenneth Krause
The latest release from the senior pastor of the World Harvest Church might not inspire great thoughts, but it certainly invites a great deal of criticism. A litany of deficiencies could be ennumerated: citing the founding fathers only when it suits him; glossing over the Bible’s endorsement of slavery and the Christian Crusaders’ brutality; showing little sign of compassion for the poor; demonizing entire segments of society because he dislikes their “lifestyle”; and so on. After noting the irony of Parsley’s characterization of Islam as a violent superstition, Krause supplements Parsley’s chapter on education with a history of Christian attitudes to public education. Peddling the standard fare in evangelical circles on abortion and the media, Parsley leaves little doubt that he intends Silent No More to do nothing more than play off its audience’s fears as a vehicle for his own (unreflective) ideas.
Alvin Plantinga [ Index ]
Richard Purtill
The Problem with Miracles: the Shaky Groundwork of Corduan and Purtill (1999) by Richard Carrier
Hugh Ross [ Index ]
R. C. Sproul
God is Either the Efficient or Final Cause of Evil (2020) by Edouard Tahmizian
Where did evil in the world come from? In this article Edouard Tahmizian considers God’s causal influence on the origin of evil. He aims to show that, if biblical hard determinism is true, God would be the efficient cause of Adam and Eve’s transgression—the original sin that the rest of humanity inherited when the first humans, Adam and Eve, purportedly ate fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil according to the Book of Genesis. Moreover, he argues, even if biblical hard determinism is not true and all events could have turned out differently, God would still be the final cause of Adam and Eve’s sin, making him at least somewhat causally responsible for the sin of Adam and Eve that we all purportedly inherited. In the end, Tahmizian’s analysis implies that God is ultimately the source of all evil.
Review of R. C. Sproul’s Not a Chance (2000) by Graham Oppy
Oppy reviews Sproul’s book about the role of causation and chance in modern science, and, in particular, in modern cosmology.
Lee Strobel
Another Case Not Made: A Critique of Lee Strobel’s The Case for a Creator (2005) by Paul Doland
In this chapter-by-chapter critique of Lee Strobel’s The Case for a Creator, Paul Doland comments on the general direction of the book before analyzing Strobel’s interviews with his various experts on specific topics. Topics include the origin of life, evolution, the relationship between science and religion, the origin of the universe, the alleged fine-tuning of the universe, whether there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, intelligent design, information theory, the origin and nature of consciousness, and whether consciousness can survive the death of the brain. Particularly noteworthy is Strobel’s silence when his experts make conflicting claims (e.g., Wells and Dembski on evolution).
The Case Against Faith: A Critical Look at Lee Strobel’s The Case for Faith (5th ed., 2020) by Paul Doland
Lee Strobel’s The Case for Faith aims to answer the “toughest objections to Christianity” through interviews with well-known Christian apologists. In the introduction, Strobel lists what he calls Christianity’s “Big Eight Conundrums”–including many of the questions that I continually asked myself when I was still a Christian. Though Strobel generally does a good job of explaining the objections, the more I contemplated his interviewees’ responses, the less satisfying I found those responses to be. This point-by-point critique aims to explain why I found each of these responses to be weak at best or preposterous at worst, and I am consequently forced to conclude that Strobel may have actually produced a case against faith.
Commentary on Paul Doland’s Critique of Strobel’s Case for Faith (n.d.) by Avue (Off Site)
While Paul Doland’s critique of Lee Strobel’s The Case for Faith shows a decent understanding of current issues within the Christian Church and the socio-religious issues surrounding the Church, he does not show a good understanding of Christianity itself. He shows this, for example, in his discussions of God as heavenly father, original sin, and salvation.
No Better than Strobel: A Reply to God and Science’s Case for Faith (2020) by Paul Doland
In his earlier Secular Web critique of Lee Strobel’s The Case for Faith, Paul Doland concluded that by raising tough questions for Christianity but failing to adequately respond to them, Strobel (and his interviewees) inadvertently ending up producing a strong case against faith. A rejoinder to Doland’s critique was subsequently published on the God and Science website. In this response to that rejoinder, Doland defends his original conclusion that neither The Case for Faith in particular, nor Christianity in general, provide believable and coherent answers to the sorts of questions that Strobel originally raised. Nor, for that matter, does the attempt by the God and Science website to rehabilitate Strobel’s answers to Christianity’s toughest questions.
Free Advertising Isn’t the Point (2000) by Jeffery Jay Lowder
Lowder responds to Strobel’s comments about Lowder’s review on the “Bible Answer Man” radio show.
The Great Mars Hill Resurrection Debate (2012) (PDF) by Robert Greg Cavin and Carlos A. Colombetti
In these slides for his opening statement in his debate with Michael Licona on July 1, 2012 at Antioch Temecula Church in Temecula, California, Robert Greg Cavin presents one of the strongest cases against the resurrection of Jesus ever presented, decisively refuting arguments for the Resurrection by prominent Christian apologists Timothy McGrew, Lydia McGrew, Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, Stephen T. Davis, Gary Habermas, Michael Licona, Norman Geisler, Josh McDowell, and Lee Strobel. Cavin makes three main contentions: (1) the prior probability of a supernatural resurrection of Jesus by God is so astronomically low that it has virtually no plausibility; (2) theorizing such a resurrection to explain the empty tomb and postmortem appearances of Jesus is ad hoc and devoid of nearly any explanatory power and scope; and (3) a far superior alternative theory can account for the empty tomb and postmortem appearances. In defending these three contentions, Cavin refutes sixteen myths perpetuated by Christians apologists about critics’ objections to the Resurrection.
Objections Sustained! (2001) by Kyle J. Gerkin
A thorough and detailed critique of Lee Strobel’s The Case For Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity. This review actually ranges across almost all the issues between Christians and atheists, and Gerkin directs readers to all the relevant sections of the Secular Web, making this an excellent introduction to our website and arguments for unbelief.
Still Failing the Bar Exam (2002) by J. P. Holding (Off Site)
J. P. Holding (aka Robert Turkel) responds to Gerkin’s critique of Lee Strobel’s The Case for Faith.
Holding Overruled! (2002) by Kyle J. Gerkin
Gerkin responds to Holding’s critique, “Still Failing the Bar Exam.”
Objection Dismissed on Appeal (2006) by James Hannam
Though Kyle J. Gerkin’s critique of Lee Strobel’s The Case for Faith has a great deal to recommend it, and probably even represents the conventional wisdom in skeptical circles, his reply to objection #7 contains a number of factual errors. While earlier historians would have agreed with many of Gerkin’s points, current research in the history of science and religion that has yet to percolate into the public consciousness casts doubt upon much of what he says. In this essay Hannam outlines Gerkin’s various errors of fact, distinguishing his own views from the relatively uncontroversial conclusions of historians.
The Rest of the Story (1999) by Jeffery Jay Lowder
I review Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ. I conclude that “Strobel did not interview any critics of Evangelical apologetics. He sometimes refutes at great length objections not made by the critics (e.g., the claim that Jesus was mentally insane); more often, he doesn’t address objections the critics do make (e.g., the unreliability of human memory, that non-Christian historians do not provide any independent confirmation for the deity of Jesus, etc.) Perhaps this will be a welcome feature to people who already believe Christianity but have no idea why they believe it. For those of us who are primarily interested in the truth, however, we want to hear both sides of the story.”
Review of The Case Against Miracles (2020) by Gregory Michna
In The Case Against Miracles, John Loftus continues his counterapologetic project by focusing on miracle claims. Although ostensibly a multicontributor response to Lee Strobel’s work, it passes over the point-by-point response format and instead provides a range of arguments that miracle claims should be met with incredulity. David Corner argues that apologists cannot even meet the basic criteria of showing that an alleged miracle has occurred, that it cannot be explained by natural causes, and that it is not simply a natural anomaly to established facts. Matt McCormick argues that the performance of miracles is inconsistent with God’s traditional divine attributes. John Loftus argues that alleged miracles must be demonstrably impossible on naturalistic grounds while simultaneously meeting a high bar of evidence that they actually occurred. Darren Slade notes a major shortcoming in Craig S. Keener’s overt enthusiasm for recording miracle stories without being able to verify them independently. Slade recommends that miracle investigators instead employ forensic and law enforcement methods like Criteria-Based Content Analysis and the ADVOKATE criteria for assessing eyewitness testimony. Other pieces argue that since the New Testament suggested an imminent return of Christ, the absence of Christ’s return is evidence for the prophetic failure of the text; that the Bible is not an accurate source of history; and that specific miraculous claims within the biblical text contradict scientific discoveries. Loftus’ penultimate chapter primarily serves as a response to Michael Licona’s recent apologetic monograph on the resurrection of Jesus.
Richard Swinburne [ Index ]
Robert Turkel (aka J. P. Holding)
Skeptical Reviews Regarding Robert Turkel’s Tekton Apologetic Ministry (Off Site)
This site, devoted to critiques of Turkel’s work, hosts or links to approximately three dozen articles of interest.
Holding Overruled! (2002) by Kyle Gerkin
Gerkin responds to Holding’s critique, “Still Failing the Bar Exam.”
The Not-So-Impossible Faith (2002) by Brian Holtz
Holtz dissects Christian apologist Robert Turkel’s “The Impossible Faith: Or How Not to Start an Ancient Religion” wherein Turkel attempts to “explain why Christianity succeeded where it should have clearly failed or died out.” Holtz concludes that Turkel’s argument ultimately fails, that the ability of Christianity to overcome the “disadvantages” which Turkel lists is entirely consistent with Jesus being a merely human preacher, faith healer, and apocalyptic prophet whose followers transformed a belief in his spiritual resurrection into the myth of his physical resurrection.
Turkel and the Trilemma (2002) by Brian Holtz
This essay summarizes a long debate between Brian Holtz and Christian apologist Robert Turkel (aka J. P. Holding). Here, Holtz effectively rebuts the Trilemma argument (“Was Jesus Lord, liar, or lunatic?”). As Holtz puts it, Robert Turkel’s latest response contains no less than 137 polemical blunders, each categorized and separately identified here.
The Turkey Challenge (Off Site) by Farrell Till
“If Turkel refuses this challenge, people are going to wonder why his mouth is so big but the courage of his convictions is so small.”
Was Christianity Too Improbable to Be False? (2006) by Richard Carrier
Was the success of Christianity too improbable for Christianity to have been false? According to James Holding’s “Impossible Faith,” no one would have accepted early Christianity if it were not true. In particular, he offers seventeen hostile conditions, plus an additional critical assumption about the role of luck, that he claims would have made it impossible for Christianity to succeed–unless it was true. In this remarkably extensive chapter-by-chapter critique, Richard Carrier evaluates Holding’s arguments in light of historical scholarship and identifies several troubling fallacies in Holding’s reasoning.
Why I Don’t Buy the Resurrection Story 6th ed. (2006) [ Index ]
There are many reasons that I am not a Christian. I am an atheist for reasons more fundamental than anything to do with particular religions, but the arguments in favor of the Christian creed as opposed to any other are ubiquitous and always center around the historical claim that Jesus was raised from the dead. As an historian with a good knowledge of Greek, I am now very qualified to make a professional judgement in the matter. This essay explains why I find the Resurrection to be an unconvincing argument for becoming Christian.
Julie’s River Run: On Comparing the Rubicon to the Resurrection (2005) by Robert Turkel (Off Site)
Turkel discusses an analogy used by some apologists to compare the resurrection of Jesus to the crossing of the Rubicon by Caesar as well as skeptical critiques of that analogy, including Carrier’s critique. Turkel contends that “the evidence for the Resurrection is as good as, or better than, that for Caesar crossing the Rubicon.”
The Rubicon Analogy (2006) by Richard C. Carrier
Against Carrier’s argument in the Main Argument of Why I Don’t Buy the Resurrection Story, James Holding claims (in “Julie’s River Run: On Comparing the Rubicon to the Resurrection“) that we have as much evidence that Jesus rose from his grave as we have that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon. There are numerous errors in Holding’s argument. Carrier’s rebuttal responds briefly to the most important issues. In the end, Carrier’s claim remains unchallenged: we have more evidence that Caesar crossed the Rubicon than we have that Jesus rose from the grave. Therefore, the claim that this resurrection is “as well attested” as the Rubicon crossing is still false.
Dallas Willard
Same Old, Same Old: Dallas Willard and the Unending Quest to Prove the Existence of God (2020) by Keith Parsons
As skeptics see it, recent theistic arguments are pretty much old hat. Their basic modus operandi has always been the same: represent some aspect of the universe as requiring an explanation that no naturalistic hypothesis can provide, and then propose God as the only possible or most satisfactory solution. Skeptics retort that either no explanation is required, naturalistic accounts suffice, or God provides no uniquely satisfactory explanation. The details may change, but the pattern remains the same. The theistic pattern is exemplified in the work of Dallas Willard, particularly his three-stage argument for the existence of God. Willard argues that God is needed because the natural universe is not enough. In this response, Keith Parsons provides the standard retort: naturalism suffices to answer all legitimate questions, and the appeal to God is either useless or obscurantist.
John D. Woodbridge
Objection #7: Church History Is Littered with Oppression and Violence (2001) by Kyle Gerkin
Part of Gerkin’s comprehensive review of Lee Strobel’s The Case for Faith, Strobel’s interview with Woodbridge is analyzed and critiqued.
Objection Dismissed on Appeal (2006) by James Hannam
Though Kyle J. Gerkin’s critique of Lee Strobel’s The Case for Faith has a great deal to recommend it, and probably even represents the conventional wisdom in skeptical circles, his reply to objection #7 contains a number of factual errors. While earlier historians would have agreed with many of Gerkin’s points, current research in the history of science and religion that has yet to percolate into the public consciousness casts doubt upon much of what he says. In this essay Hannam outlines Gerkin’s various errors of fact, distinguishing his own views from the relatively uncontroversial conclusions of historians.
Objection #7: Church History Is Littered with Oppression and Violence (5th ed., 2020) by Paul Doland
Part of Doland’s comprehensive review of Lee Strobel’s The Case for Faith, Strobel’s interview with Woodbridge is analyzed and critiqued.
Ravi Zacharias
An Emotional Tirade Against Atheism (1999) by Jeffery Jay Lowder
Ravi Zacharias’s book, Can Man Live Without God?, is reviewed. I comment on the book’s treatment of the following issues: the evidentialist challenge; the Lack of Evidence argument; the problem of evil; various versions of the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments; historical evidence for the reliability of the Bible; Pascal’s wager; and Bertrand Russell’s ethical theory.
That Colossal Wreck (1997) by Doug Krueger
Ravi “Zacharias’s A Shattered Visage: The Real Face of Atheism is an unsuccessful attempt to refute or discredit atheism. He concentrates on some of the more prounounced problems with atheism, as he perceives them, and in the course of this review I will show why some of his approaches fail. I say ‘some’ because I will address only the most salient errors. A thorough refutation of all of the mistakes in his 200-page book would require another 300 pages or more, as these sorts of things are short in the telling and long in the refuting.”
Objection #5: It’s Offensive To Claim Jesus Is the Only Way to God (2001) by Kyle Gerkin
Part of Gerkin’s comprehensive review of Lee Strobel’s The Case for Faith, Strobel’s interview with Zacharias is analyzed and critiqued.
Objection #5: It’s Offensive To Claim Jesus Is the Only Way to God (5th ed., 2020) by Paul Doland
Part of doland’s comprehensive review of Lee Strobel’s The Case for Faith, Strobel’s interview with Zacharias is analyzed and critiqued.