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
Customer Review

8 of 28 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars Presupposing materialism, 30 Dec. 2011
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: The End of Christianity (Paperback)
"The End of Christianity" is a compilation of hard-line, atheist-materialist polemics against - guess what - Christianity, brought to us by the indefatigable John W. Loftus, a recovering fundamentalist minister. Apparently, its part of Loftus' very own space trilogy, the other titles being "The Christian Delusion" and "Why I became an atheist". (I haven't read those, yet.)

Being neither a Christian nor a materialist, I'm of course eminently suited to give this book a fair hearing and perfectly objective review... And then, maybe not. :D

Frankly, "The End of Christianity" is a very mixed bag, but it veers strongly towards the "bad" end of the bag spectrum. For instance, John Loftus' Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) is obviously rigged so only atheist-materialists can pass it. Richard Carrier's moral philosophy is zany, to say the least, and other articles work only if you accept the exact theological notions being debunked. Thus, those who don't accept the particular version of the atonement attacked by Ken Pulliam will consider his article a shot in the dark. Likewise, only cessationists will be stung by Matt McCormick's article about the Salem witch trials. The undertone of the entire book is that science (or perhaps Science) can solve all problems, including those pertaining to morality, the meaning of life, etc. Some of the authors have an obsession with a certain kind of formal logic, as if that could prove anything (on this point, they share the pew with some Christian apologists). As somebody pointed out long ago: you can't use formal logic to prove the existence of whales.

Another weak argument goes like this: The empty grave doesn't prove that Jesus was resurrected, since a phoney story about a resurrection will - by definition - include a story of an empty grave. You can't use one part of a legend to "prove" the other part (there's even a funny comic to drive home this point). True, I suppose. But then, a *true* story about a resurrection would also include a story about an empty tomb, wouldn't it? In fact, I think I can prove that using formal logic! Thus, the argument of "Jesus and Mo" only works if materialism is presupposed from the outset.

And that, I think, is the main reason why I find this book so frustrating (a bit like Lee Strobel in reverse). The narrow materialism-positivism-scientism of the contributors is never really argued for, it's there from the outset. (The OTF is just the most glaring example.) Nothing "wrong" with that, I suppose, expect that it gives the book the quality of a monologue. A more native, American problem (already mentioned) is that the target of the polemic is assumed to be an equally narrow evangelical, perhaps a fundamentalist pure and simple. Those of us who aren't high on Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell or Billy Graham feel somewhat left out, guys!

The best articles are "Hell: Christianity's most damnable doctrine" by Keith Parsons and "Christianity's success is highly improbable" by Richard Carrier. The latter author attempts to prove that the ideas of Christianity weren't unique or unusual in the Jewish-Hellenistic context where they first emerged. In fact, there are many parallels between the Christian stories and various legends or expectations found in other religions. The mystery religions are mentioned, and Carrier also mentions that the resurrection of the body is originally a "pagan" idea, taken over by the Jews from Zoroastrianism. (I'm impressed, Richard! Few people notice that many "Biblical" ideas actually come from this Persian religious system.) Carrier's point is that the idea of a dying and resurrecting god-man could have evolved by purely natural means. No need to postulate any supernatural explanation. Of course, this argument also presupposes materialism. Here's an alternative explanation: What if all Hellenistic religions reflect objective spiritual truths, some better than others? Or what if Zoroaster was right? ;-)

The best atheist-materialist books are those which attempt to prove Neo-Darwinism and give it a strictly materialist spin, such as "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. If Dawkins is right, then all (or almost all) religions and pre-1859 philosophies are dead wrong. No need to argue the finer theological points about the atonement or the Trinity. In other words, the best books are those which somehow try to prove materialism, rather than simply postulate it.

But sure, I'm somewhat subjective on this point. We all have our "issues", I suppose. Maybe there are people who could be de-converted even by "The End of Christianity"...
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 2 customers

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-3 of 3 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 3 May 2012 10:05:54 BDT
T. Costick says:
Why does Ashtar Command place so much emphasis on "materialism" in this review? Is the intended implication that there is some weakness in perceiving the world as material?

Reading this review and others by the same person, the clear conclusion is that Ashtar Command has an inflated self opinion and is dogmatically opposed to scientific rational analysis of biblical era events, and has a tendency to latch onto crank ideas such as those of the author Peter James in his "Centuries of Darkness".

The review is clearly skewed and should be disregarded.

Posted on 17 Nov 2014 13:00:14 GMT
Geoff Benson says:
This seems the kind of review that typically is produced by believers though, in this instance, the reviewer clearly has another agenda. He seems to suggest that the book is going to appeal only to those who have a particular bias; well I agree to this extent, that I have a bias in favour of clarity, lucidity, and logic. On those criteria the book succeeds admirably, though I confess it is some while since I read it.

The comments about science are ill considered. Science, ultimately, is all we have, unless you really are a person of faith. Can it answer everything? Of course not, but it is the only way of knowing one is approaching a problem properly. And absolutely yes, science can indeed address issues of morality. Certainly there is no alternative approach that I can think of unless, again, you want to put your trust in a fictitious God; whose definition of morality is a lot lower than my own.

Posted on 12 Jun 2016 06:29:52 BDT
There is a rational approach to disproving Christianity. The Gnostics had the original mystic teachings, the same as taught today HERE: www.rssb.org, Sant Mat, the "Saints' Teachings." It is really very simple. Judas was James, the self-sacrifice of the REAL master, James. The Gospel of Judas proves it along with the obvious "Betrayal" precursor Apocalypses of James from Nag Hammadi. The NT was a scam from the start to hide James and start a new religion. It worked beyond anyone's wildest imagination...

http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-says-Saviors-ebook/dp/B00CFWE40I/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1378005590&sr=8-1&keywords=the+bible+says+saviors
‹ Previous 1 Next ›

Review Details

Item

Reviewer


Location: Sweden

Top Reviewer Ranking: 28,805