Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 70% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now Shop now
Customer Review

89 of 119 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars John Lennox dissecting the arguments of the New Atheists, 29 Sept. 2011
By 
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are Missing the Target: A Critique of the New Atheism (Paperback)
I first met John Lennox through his two debates with Dawkins; he was OK but not brilliant. Then I got his book God's Undertaker which was excellent, in that book he deals with the science issues in the current debate with the New Atheists. Then he published a short but stinging critique of Stephen Hawking's book (The Grand Design), who has now thrown his hat in with the New Atheists.

In this book Lennox also deals with the arguments of the New Atheists. It is based on his lectures/debates in the past few years. This book will be hated by the New Atheists and loved by Theists. The New Atheists have very loud mouths; but very poor arguments. Lennox continues to dissect their arguments in this book. Chapter headings are:

1. Are God and faith enemies of reason and science?
2. Is religion poisonous?
3. Is Atheism poisonous?
4. Can we be good without God?
5. Is the God of the bible a despot?
6. Is the atonement morally repellent?
7. Are miracles pure fantasy?
8. Did Jesus rise from the dead?
9. Final reflections.

The book is also endorsed by Alvin Plantinga, a leading Christian philosopher.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines ">here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking on the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
  [Cancel]

Comments

Track comments by e-mail
Tracked by 6 customers

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-8 of 8 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 15 Dec 2011 12:12:29 GMT
Hello there,

I've spent my lunchbreak reading through some book reviews, and have found your exchanges with others very interesting. I have become interested in this debate of Theists and Atheists.

Can you reccomend this book to someone completely new to this debate, who has an open mind on it?

Many thanks, and thank you for all our contributions, very thought prokoving and interesting.

All the best,

Allan

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Dec 2011 22:21:28 GMT
Last edited by the author on 16 Dec 2011 01:08:29 GMT
rossuk says:
Hello Allan

Most of my reviews on this topic concern the arguments of the Theists vs. the New Atheists (i.e. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett) rather than the old atheists.

Probably the best summary/introduction to the arguments of the New Atheists is "Why God Won't Go Away: Engaging with the New Atheism" by Alister McGrath.

The John Lennox book "Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are Missing the Target: A Critique of the New Atheism" is the third in a trilogy of books that critique the arguments of the New Atheists. The others are:

God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?

God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design is it Anyway?

As the debate is so polarised you will not find a neutral book, although both Alister McGrath and John Lennox do their best to be fair.

Regards

Ross

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Mar 2012 17:23:39 GMT
Like Allan, I've also spent some time reading the reviews, particularly on *Gunning for God* and I appreciate them very much. I've just ordered the book, having come on Amazon just to buy pruning shears! Thanks all.

Posted on 11 Oct 2012 13:41:39 BDT
It's true that Lennox was "not brilliant" in the two Dawkins debates; I think that's rather the point. The fact that the rather ordinary Lennox simply wiped the floor with Dawkins in the first debate, and forced him to actually prepare for the second (which was a draw at most) shows that it doesn't take a genius to stand up for religion.

Posted on 27 Jun 2013 17:04:24 BDT
Bass says:
The table of contents doesn't actually give any insight into the content of the book or the validity of Lennox's arguments. Mentioning an endorsement by some christian philosopher is just an appeal to authority. Would be interesting to know at least if he defines this rather silly term "new atheism".

BTW: yes yes no yes yes yes yes no

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Sep 2013 17:39:43 BDT
Middle Earth says:
Nobel Laureate Richard Smalley, winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, rejected Darwinian evolution and accepted Old Earth creationism, shortly before he died in 2005:

'It was( Professor) Tour who persuaded Smalley to delve into the question of origins. After reading the books "Origins of Life" and "Who Was Adam?", written by Dr. Hugh Ross (an astrophysicist) and Dr. Fazale Rana (a biochemist).. Dr. Smalley explained his change of heart as follows:

Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading "Origins of Life", with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred. The new book, "Who Was Adam?", is the silver bullet that puts the evolutionary model to death.

Strong words indeed, for a Nobel scientist.'

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Oct 2013 11:21:31 BDT
A. Hawkins says:
What is your point about posting that against a review of gunning for God? Lennox believes in evolution and an old earth. (Although, you won't find him trying to converge the garden of Genesis and the fall of man with an old earth in this book.) Even in his book "Seven days that divide the World", he might only spend a paragraph or two trying to converge the Garden of Eden with evolution. It seems the subject is too difficult for him so he stays away from it.

Even Nobel scientists can be wrong, can't they? You are employing the appeal to authority fallacy rather than presenting arguments.

In my view creation science is not science. In science you don't start off with a known truth (the earth is six thousand years old) and then do all you can to try to find holes in the opposing arguments (the earth is six billion years old) that have been arrived at naturally by looking at the data. That is plainly not science, science is mostly a fact finding mission and then theories are constructed around those facts. You don't start with a conclusion and try to prove it. Also, why should the bible be correct? It is just a creation story from a pre-scientific culture. There are other creation stories from other pre-scientific cultures that date the earth as something different. Maybe we should be searching for scientific clues that give their creation story more validity over yours.

If creation science is true why isn't mainstream science in accordance with creation science? Surely, one would confirm the other. What is your explanation for such a discrepancy and why are mainstream scientists getting it so wrong? Let me guess: the devil has planted lies and only true believers get to uncover them.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Mar 2014 16:33:56 GMT
EMW says:
" In science you don't start off with a known truth "

That's what they've done with black holes and the big bang? Both just THEORIES, with nothing to prove them.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›