PDF Summary:I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek

Many people assume that belief in God requires a leap of faith unsupported by reason or evidence. In I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek argue the opposite: that atheism requires more faith than theism, and that belief in the Christian God is supported by logic, science, and historical evidence.

The authors present philosophical arguments for God's existence, including the Cosmological Argument (that the universe's beginning requires a cause), the Teleological Argument (that the universe's design points to an intelligent designer), and the Moral Argument (that objective moral values require a divine lawgiver). They then make the case for Christianity specifically, examining the reliability of the New Testament and the historical evidence for Jesus' miracles and resurrection. This guide explores their arguments for establishing truth, proving God's existence, and validating Christian beliefs.

(continued)...

Arguments for God's Existence: Cosmology, Teleology, and Morality

Geisler and Turek present three arguments to support the existence of God: the Cosmological Argument, the Teleological Argument, and the Moral Argument.

The Cosmological Argument contends that the universe's origin points to a cause. It shows that God is self-existing, eternal, beyond space, and non-material, with unfathomable power and a personal nature.

The Teleological Argument stems from the universe and life's design. It demonstrates that God possesses maximal wisdom and purpose.

The Moral Argument asserts that a Moral Law exists. This demonstrates that God is completely morally pure.

Can Arguments for God Prove the Existence of the Christian God?

In The Miracle of Theism, philosopher J. L. Mackie argues that no argument can justify the conclusion that a single, perfectly good personal deity exists. He explains that even if we accept that certain features of the world make it reasonable to posit some originating cause or designing intelligence, this would still fall far short of establishing the existence of a single personal deity endowed with unlimited power and knowledge and a perfectly good will, who brings the universe into being from nothing and orders every event in it according to a unified plan.

Let’s examine each of these arguments in detail.

The Cosmological Argument: From Creation to a Creator

Geisler and Turek explain that the Cosmological Argument suggests the cosmos was caused. This argument is logically valid because its premises are true: Every entity that began to exist was caused, and the universe has a point of origin. Therefore, something caused the cosmos. The foundational scientific principle is causality. The scientific method seeks causes, and this inquiry relies on the constant observation that all things with beginnings have causes. The universe began, so it follows that there was an initial Creator. This initial cause must transcend the spatial and temporal dimensions of the cosmos, existing independently and without material form.

(Shortform note: In The Big Picture, Sean Carroll argues that the statement “the foundational scientific principle is causality” is not true. He explains that in modern physics, the fundamental equations do not say that every individual event must be produced by a prior determining factor. Instead, they specify a space of possible outcomes with precise probabilities. The wave function evolves according to simple, local dynamical rules, but what we observe when a measurement is made is not fixed in advance by hidden causes in the traditional sense.)

The Argument for Design: Evidence of Intention in Our Universe

Geisler and Turek argue that the universe’s intricate nature suggests an intelligent creator. The Teleological Argument states that all designs come from a designer, the universe is highly complex, and therefore a designer must have created the universe. They say the universe is exactly engineered to establish the extremely limited conditions on earth that can support life. A tiny change in various environmental and physical variables would make our existence impossible.

Over a hundred highly specific constants suggest a Designer with intelligence. The likelihood of these constants existing by chance is one in 10^138. Essentially, there's no probability that any world in the cosmos would possess the life-sustaining conditions like ours unless it was all created by an intelligent Designer.

The Probability of Fine-Tuning

In The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, physicist Victor J. Stenger argues that the probability of the universe’s constants being fine-tuned for life is not a scientific fact. He says that the probability is based on arbitrary assumptions about the range of possible values for the constants and the probability distribution over that range. He explains that we have no data on other universes, no established measure on the space of possible parameters, and no good reason to treat the constants as freely and independently adjustable in the way these calculations require.

Geisler and Turek say the theory of multiple universes seeks to avoid acknowledging design. This concept proposes that an endless amount of universes exist, and we're simply fortunate to reside in the one with conditions suitable for life.

However, the authors identify several issues with this reasoning. First, there's nothing to support it. The evidence suggests all finite existence began with the Big Bang. If additional finite realities exist, we can't detect them. Second, infinite finite entities are impossible. Third, even if additional realities could be real, they'd require fine-tuning to originate just like ours did. Thus, the idea of numerous universes doesn't remove the necessity for a Designer; it actually increases it. Fourth, the Multiverse Theory is so expansive that it could account for any event.

The Origins of the Multiverse Theory

The idea of an endless amount of universes emerged in the late twentieth century as physicists tried to explain the seemingly random nature of cosmic inflation and quantum mechanics. In The Hidden Reality, Brian Greene explains that the multiverse didn’t enter physics because theorists were out looking for other universes; it emerged as an unexpected implication of theories developed to address specific puzzles in our own universe—such as the mechanisms behind cosmic inflation, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, and the enormous variety of solutions allowed by string theory—so that, when physicists in the late twentieth century pushed these frameworks to their logical conclusions, they found that what we traditionally call “the universe” was just one region of a much larger, more varied cosmic expanse.

The Ethical Argument: Objective Morality Indicates a Divine Lawgiver

Geisler and Turek argue that objective moral values' existence suggests a divine lawgiver. If such values exist, they need to originate from somewhere. Since humans didn't create them, they must come from a higher source, which is God.

The reality of universal ethical values is evident in the fact that people justify their unethical actions, which suggests that they know morality exists. Also, the fact that people struggle with moral dilemmas indicates their awareness of a right answer. If moral principles were relative, there would be no dilemma.

Moral Dilemmas and Relativism

This may not be true. Even if moral principles are relative, people can still face moral dilemmas. For example, in cultural relativism, people can face conflicts between their own culture's values and those of another culture. In individual relativism, people can struggle with competing personal values. In situational relativism, people can face dilemmas when different circumstances call for different moral responses. In all these cases, the existence of moral dilemmas doesn't necessarily prove the existence of objective moral values. Instead, it shows that even within a relativistic framework, people can still face complex moral choices.

Evidence for Christian Beliefs: Miracles, Scripture, and Jesus' Words

Geisler and Turek argue that scripture provides evidence for Jesus’ miracles and resurrection. They claim that the New Testament authors had every reason to reject its events, rather than fabricate or embellish them. The majority of these authors were deeply committed Jews who believed Judaism was the sole true faith. Something significant must have occurred to disrupt their beliefs and prompt them toward a new paradigm that only guaranteed earthly suffering.

(Shortform note: Historian Candida Moss challenges the idea that the New Testament authors had every reason to reject its events and only earthly suffering to gain. In The Myth of Persecution, Moss argues that the early Christian community’s persecution was exaggerated and that the stories of martyrdom were often fabricated or embellished. She explains that later Christian communities expanded and stylized these stories to promote their theological agendas, rather than to provide neutral testimony.)

The New Testament texts were crafted by people who either witnessed the events firsthand or were alive at the same time, within two generations of the occurrences, and the story is supported by authors outside of Christianity. The texts reference a minimum of 30 historical individuals, whose existence is validated by external sources. The authors added distinct and potentially embarrassing details, as well as sayings that are challenging and demanding, and they were careful to separate their own words from Jesus' words.

(Shortform note: In Jesus, Interrupted, New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman challenges the idea that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts that carefully preserve Jesus’ words. He argues that the Gospels were written decades after Jesus’ death by Greek-speaking Christians who were not eyewitnesses. He explains that these authors inherited stories and sayings that had circulated by word of mouth and in written sources, and they altered, arranged, and sometimes created material to fit their own theological perspectives and the needs of their communities.)

They also referenced evidence and witnesses familiar to their readers or verifiable by them. They encouraged readers and well-known adversaries from that period to verify their statements. These witnesses were persecuted and killed for asserting that they saw, heard, and touched Jesus after his resurrection, even though they could have avoided this fate by merely denying their testimony. The authors also argue that those who composed the New Testament displayed precise accuracy, as proven by more than 140 confirmed historical details. They documented miracles in those same narratives, seemingly without embellishment or notable theological commentary. The authors must have encountered powerful proof to abandon those centuries-old traditions that had shaped their identities and their ancestors' for almost two millennia.

Oral Traditions as Historical Evidence

The authors’ claim that the New Testament writers were highly accurate is historically plausible. In Oral Tradition as History, Jan Vansina argues that oral traditions can preserve accurate historical information for centuries, especially in tightly knit communities where the traditions serve important social functions. He explains that in many societies, oral traditions are not casual stories but are instead carefully maintained records of the past. These traditions are often entrusted to specific individuals or groups who are responsible for their accurate transmission. The community enforces this accuracy through social mechanisms, such as public recitation and correction by knowledgeable listeners. Vansina’s research shows that while details may change over time, the core sequence of events can remain stable for centuries, especially when the traditions are tied to the community’s identity and legal or religious practices.

The authors also argue that Jesus stated he was divine, both directly and indirectly. He made a direct claim to divinity when he answered "I am" to the question "Are you the Christ, God's Son?" He also asserted his divinity with the statement, "Before Abraham existed, I am!" In this statement, he was citing the name God revealed to Moses at the burning bush.

He additionally made indirect remarks concerning his divinity. He said, "Now, Father, give me honor and the glory I shared with you before creation." He proclaimed, "I'm the Alpha and Omega." He proclaimed himself the benevolent shepherd. He claimed he would judge everyone and stated, “I am the world’s light.”

Geisler and Turek conclude that Jesus' crucifixion is only explainable if he professed divinity. The Jews understood that he professed to be God and began stoning him for blasphemy.

Why Did the Jews Want to Kill Jesus?

In the first century, the Jewish people were monotheistic, believing in one God. They believed that God was the only one who could forgive sins, and that he was the only one who could judge the world. They also believed that God was the only one who could give life and that he was the only one who could take it away. When Jesus said, "I am," he was claiming to be God. He was also claiming to have the power to forgive sins, to judge the world, and to give life. This was a direct challenge to the Jewish belief in one God. The Jewish leaders saw this as blasphemy, and they wanted to kill him for it.