web site hit counter Gunning for God: A Critique of the New Atheism - Ebooks PDF Online
Hot Best Seller

Gunning for God: A Critique of the New Atheism

Availability: Ready to download

New ideas about the nature of God and Christianity that will give Dawkins' best friends and worst enemies alike some stimulating food for thought   Tackling Hawking, Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and a newcomer in the field—the French philosopher Michel Onfray—John Lennox points out some of the most glaring fallacies in the New Atheist approach in this insightful book. Since t New ideas about the nature of God and Christianity that will give Dawkins' best friends and worst enemies alike some stimulating food for thought   Tackling Hawking, Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and a newcomer in the field—the French philosopher Michel Onfray—John Lennox points out some of the most glaring fallacies in the New Atheist approach in this insightful book. Since the twin towers crashed to the ground on September 11, there has been no end to attacks on religion. Claims abound that religion is dangerous, that it kills, and that it poisons everything. And if religion is the problem with the world, say the New Atheists, the answer is simple—get rid of it. Of course, things aren’t quite so straightforward. Arguing that the New Athiests' irrational and unscientific methodology leaves them guilty of the very obstinate foolishness they criticize in dogmatic religious folks, this erudite and wide-ranging guide to religion in the modern age packs some debilitating punches and scores big for religious rationalism.


Compare

New ideas about the nature of God and Christianity that will give Dawkins' best friends and worst enemies alike some stimulating food for thought   Tackling Hawking, Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and a newcomer in the field—the French philosopher Michel Onfray—John Lennox points out some of the most glaring fallacies in the New Atheist approach in this insightful book. Since t New ideas about the nature of God and Christianity that will give Dawkins' best friends and worst enemies alike some stimulating food for thought   Tackling Hawking, Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and a newcomer in the field—the French philosopher Michel Onfray—John Lennox points out some of the most glaring fallacies in the New Atheist approach in this insightful book. Since the twin towers crashed to the ground on September 11, there has been no end to attacks on religion. Claims abound that religion is dangerous, that it kills, and that it poisons everything. And if religion is the problem with the world, say the New Atheists, the answer is simple—get rid of it. Of course, things aren’t quite so straightforward. Arguing that the New Athiests' irrational and unscientific methodology leaves them guilty of the very obstinate foolishness they criticize in dogmatic religious folks, this erudite and wide-ranging guide to religion in the modern age packs some debilitating punches and scores big for religious rationalism.

30 review for Gunning for God: A Critique of the New Atheism

  1. 4 out of 5

    Paul Bryant

    Here then is a book arguing against some ill-mannered people who are making needlessly offensive remarks about something I don’t believe in but think we should all be polite about. I don’t like the New Brash Atheists but I don’t like John Lennox’s book either (but I'll give it a solid three stars, he really does try hard). This book is a refutation of a refutation. The “New Atheists” came out and refuted Christianity, so John C Lennox, Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University no less, is re Here then is a book arguing against some ill-mannered people who are making needlessly offensive remarks about something I don’t believe in but think we should all be polite about. I don’t like the New Brash Atheists but I don’t like John Lennox’s book either (but I'll give it a solid three stars, he really does try hard). This book is a refutation of a refutation. The “New Atheists” came out and refuted Christianity, so John C Lennox, Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University no less, is refuting their refutation. Dawkins says “yah! You Christians suck!” and Lennox says “oh yeah? Well you suck worse and you never wash your socks!” In fairness Lennox does acknowledge that Dawkins & his crew are not every atheist’s cup of tea, they sure ain’t mine: Atheists are clearly divided about the aggressive approach of the New Atheists, and some find it positively embarrassing WHAT IS FAITH? If scientific research is thought to be still worth pursuing, scientists have to believe in the rational intelligibility of the universe as their fundamental article of faith or basic assumption. …. You cannot begin to do physics without believing in that intelligibility. The concept of faith brings on one of my headaches – once again we are dragged into the semantic morass : is atheism a faith? Well, I’m still saying no. Prof Lennox says that I myself believe in loads of stuff I can’t prove – electricity, Goldilocks planets, black holes, Susan Boyle, subatomic particles. But I believe that people other than me can rigorously prove their existence. Not so with religious assertions. You have no proof, you only have revelation. A religious friend of mine says well, look here, for a couple of thousand years almost everybody has believed in this stuff, and you say they were all wrong. Brainy people, too. Isn’t that a leetle bit arrogant? And I say well, yes, I think they were all wrong. It’s a bit feeble. …AND JUSTICE FOR ALL Prof Lennox tries to say that religion is not just wish-fulfilment. But here he is on the subject of justice: At times I try to imagine what the glorious realm is like, and the question arises within me : if the veil which now separates the seen and the unseen world were to be parted for a moment, and we could see how God has treated, say, the myriads of innocent children who have suffered from horrendous evil… is it just possible that all our concerns about God’s handling of the situation would instantly dissolve? I fear the answer, from me anyway, would be no. Lennox’s idea of justice is different to mine – or perhaps, it’s the concept of “justice” itself which is offensive to me. If a great crime is committed – Lennox’s example is Josef Mengele’s horrible experiments on children at Auschwitz – he says that there will be a Judgement Day. So Mengele and all his accomplices will be judged and punished, we earnestly believe. And that is justice. No one will ever get away with anything, even if it looks like they do from our earthly perspective. But before my eyes there is still the great suffering which happened, and great suffering plus great punishment does not make it all good. The original grief, pain and misery cannot un-happen. The punishment of the offenders is a footnote and does not fix anything, ask the parents of any murdered child. WHAT HAS AN ATHEIST GOT THAT ANYONE WOULD WANT TO BUY? Nothing. Lennox gets this right, and atheists have to cough up. We offer no hope, no firm foundation of morality (although Lennox comes very close to saying in the crudest possible way that if you ditch religion there will be moral chaos – what, we don’t have moral chaos now? Of course we do.) Why anyone would want to abandon their faith and become an atheist is beyond me. I would never recommend that. It’s not a very cheery thing to be. Have you ever seen an Ingmar Bergman film? It's like that. WE SEE THINGS DIFFERENTLY The more I read Christian writers the more I have to rather sadly conclude that there is no talking to them, and, from their point of view, there is no talking to me. We have entirely different concepts of what evidence is, for instance, or what makes life meaningful – we are forever talking past each other. The visions which Christians find beautiful atheists consider horrific, such as Christ’s death on the cross and the concept of atonement, and such as the idea of heaven and hell. A GOD I COULD BELIEVE IN No one examines what God is much, in the Christian books I have read. The authors assume we all think the same thing about God, that he is omnipotent, eternal, creator of the universe and creator of himself. Oh and also, that he is completely interested in and involved with humanity. But I think differently. I think it’s very likely there was something we may as well call God for want of a better term – it’s what the astrophysicists try to explain about the big bang and the creation of the laws of physics and gravitational singularities and what-all. It happened, it was real, us non-astrophysicists will never understand it. It’s all way above our pay grade. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. That still sounds good to me. But why we need to assume that God continued to exist after the Big Bang is something I never quite got – God was a one time thing, a fleeting micro-moment. He only stuck around to create the universe, once that was done, and it didn’t take long, he was gone like snow on the water. Job done. OR MAYBE Or, okay, let’s go with the idea that God didn’t go away. I can imagine him getting lonely, like the Christian writers propose (they actually do say that), and wanting to create some creatures with free will to see what would happen. I imagine him not getting it right first time, having not done it before, so there would be various attempts at making a planet which could evolve human beings (God created evolution, I never saw any contradiction there). So, just like Windows, I think there would be several versions of the Humanity Experiment before he got it right. In this scenario I think the human race we have here on this planet is clearly an early version (2.1 maybe) - there’s so much wrong with it, you don’t need me to make a list. I imagine God occasionally remembering Planet Earth with a shudder. He thinks he should probably have deleted us a long time ago. Maybe he’ll get round to it soon, just after he fixes the bugs in Humanity 12.

  2. 4 out of 5

    Joseph Sverker

    This is one of the best, of probably actually the best, apologetic book dealing with the New Atheism that I have read. Lennox writes with huge authenticity and authority, yet remaining a very humble tone throughout (even though he cannot resist the temptation of hitting some jibes against Dawkins' and Hitchen's (unbelievable) ignorance about mainstream Christianity and biblical scholarship.) I know that people in the atheism camp probably will not read it and if they do they will say that it is This is one of the best, of probably actually the best, apologetic book dealing with the New Atheism that I have read. Lennox writes with huge authenticity and authority, yet remaining a very humble tone throughout (even though he cannot resist the temptation of hitting some jibes against Dawkins' and Hitchen's (unbelievable) ignorance about mainstream Christianity and biblical scholarship.) I know that people in the atheism camp probably will not read it and if they do they will say that it is simply the same answers as Christians always give and as such it can be brushed under the carpet. But if it is the same answers it is themselves that are to blame because the atheists hasn't really brought anything new since Lucretius, except for perhaps Darwin and how his theory of evolution has been used. The ending is an absolutely excellent summary of the main Christian beliefs and if someone wants to read a very short introduction to contemporary evangelical view of the historicity and importance of the Gospels and resurrection then is is a great place to start. One argument that I would like to hear a response to is Lennox's response to Hakwins theory that the theory of gravity explains everything, even the creation of the universe. Lennox states that the theory is one thing, but the creation of matter is a completely different one. It is so simple yet profound, and I suppose this question was the reason why Aristotle argued that matter was eternal (which many scientist seemed to have believed up until the mid 20th century), because where does the stuff come from? Can a theory create matter - no it can't according to Lennox and I am ready to agree with him. Anyway, I'm sure that there will be responses and that there will be much walking around in circles in the Atheism-Theism debate, but to my mind this is a very credible inclusion to the debate!

  3. 4 out of 5

    Kris

    Great specifics organized in a reader-friendly style. I kept picking this one up and putting it down, and every time it always held great ideas for me. I don't agree with Lennox on some details, but for most of this book I was right there with him. And I always love his dry humor! Great specifics organized in a reader-friendly style. I kept picking this one up and putting it down, and every time it always held great ideas for me. I don't agree with Lennox on some details, but for most of this book I was right there with him. And I always love his dry humor!

  4. 4 out of 5

    David Haines

    This book would be considered a work of general apologetics. The Author responds to a number of accusations that are brought against Christianity by the New Atheists. In the course of responding to them we are brought through a number of different domains of research, including psychology, physics, biology, history, archeology, higher criticism, philosophy and theology. The author interacts with each of the domains with ease, and renders them understandable for the lay-man. I have not read a boo This book would be considered a work of general apologetics. The Author responds to a number of accusations that are brought against Christianity by the New Atheists. In the course of responding to them we are brought through a number of different domains of research, including psychology, physics, biology, history, archeology, higher criticism, philosophy and theology. The author interacts with each of the domains with ease, and renders them understandable for the lay-man. I have not read a book that is purely apologetic in years, but I must say that this book is a pleasure to read. I think that it is relatively just to say that John Lennox is the C.S. Lewis of this generation. With an amazing eloquence, and respect he points out the logical errors and incoherencies in the feeble war-cries of the New Atheists. This book is a must read for anyone who is interested in Christian apologetics, whether or not one is a christian or an atheist.

  5. 5 out of 5

    Adrian Hart

    Although some of the author's critiques of the New Atheist movement are spot-on (i.e. mere disbelief in God does not automatically make you Bright), the final chapters border on the inane as he tries to "prove" such things as miracles and the divinity of Christ. You get the sense that he's preaching to the converted in the second half of the book. I didn't believe in Christianity before I read this book, and I still don't believe in it now Although some of the author's critiques of the New Atheist movement are spot-on (i.e. mere disbelief in God does not automatically make you Bright), the final chapters border on the inane as he tries to "prove" such things as miracles and the divinity of Christ. You get the sense that he's preaching to the converted in the second half of the book. I didn't believe in Christianity before I read this book, and I still don't believe in it now

  6. 5 out of 5

    Martin

    It's been almost 10 years from the publication of this book and the so called New Atheists are nowhere to be found. This speaks for itself. Yet, this book has still so much to offer. Well researched, with a good Notes section, the most persuasive thing about it is author using other sceptics' and atheists' arguments to dismantle the New Atheism. Brilliant! It's been almost 10 years from the publication of this book and the so called New Atheists are nowhere to be found. This speaks for itself. Yet, this book has still so much to offer. Well researched, with a good Notes section, the most persuasive thing about it is author using other sceptics' and atheists' arguments to dismantle the New Atheism. Brilliant!

  7. 4 out of 5

    Peter

    Surprised by Ridicule Apologetic double speak , nonsense on stilts Etc Some useful criticism of excesses of some " new atheists " , dated and narrowly focused on either straw manning or some good criticism of some actual OTT positions held by some atheists . Biased in the extreme , labels atheists as caricaturing the bible by saying it talks of a God that sees everything when, ahem, it actually does . Lennox moves effortlessly between literal and metaphorical views as it suits him. Cheekily crit Surprised by Ridicule Apologetic double speak , nonsense on stilts Etc Some useful criticism of excesses of some " new atheists " , dated and narrowly focused on either straw manning or some good criticism of some actual OTT positions held by some atheists . Biased in the extreme , labels atheists as caricaturing the bible by saying it talks of a God that sees everything when, ahem, it actually does . Lennox moves effortlessly between literal and metaphorical views as it suits him. Cheekily criticises atheists for saying " probably no god" yet is quite happy to state that various god "events " are unquestionably real. Read it critically, some good insights but alas embedded in layers of superstitious drivel that it's probably not worth try buying . In terms of his previous books, it's very similar in style and tone. A few new opinions but little to add from his " god's undertaker" etc

  8. 4 out of 5

    Bram

    Honest, coherent, logically convincing. If you are impressed by Hawkings, Hitchens et all, and you do't want to change opinions, stay away from this book. His explanation on the resurrection and theories around that are very convincing reading. Disarming the New Atheists as intellectually sloppy on their own terms; quite a feat! Honest, coherent, logically convincing. If you are impressed by Hawkings, Hitchens et all, and you do't want to change opinions, stay away from this book. His explanation on the resurrection and theories around that are very convincing reading. Disarming the New Atheists as intellectually sloppy on their own terms; quite a feat!

  9. 4 out of 5

    Rodney Harvill

    In this apologetic work, Dr. Lennox takes aim at the rhetoric of militant atheists such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins and skillfully demonstrates that, while they may be quick on the draw, they are not the crack shots they think they are. In his apologetic, Dr. Lennox plays both defense and offense with the following questions, each one addressed in a separate chapter: 1. Are god and faith enemies of reason and science? 2. Is religion poisonous? 3. Is atheism poisonous? 4. Can we be go In this apologetic work, Dr. Lennox takes aim at the rhetoric of militant atheists such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins and skillfully demonstrates that, while they may be quick on the draw, they are not the crack shots they think they are. In his apologetic, Dr. Lennox plays both defense and offense with the following questions, each one addressed in a separate chapter: 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? Regarding the first question (Are god and faith enemies of reason and science?), Dr. Lennox confronts and debunks various popular perceptions of faith that imply that it is belief without or in opposition to evidence. There is also a section in which he articulates some of the arguments he develops in much greater detail in his book God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design Is It Anyway? My review of that work can be accessed via this link. https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... Regarding the second question (Is religion poisonous?), Dr. Lennox addresses allegations that Christianity is a source of evil in the world. Often atheists cite evils perpetrated by Christians, such as the Crusades and Inquisition, and convict all of Christianity of these “evils,” implying that without Christianity, these “evils” would not have happened. Dr. Lennox’s response to this is to agree with the atheists’ criticism of these “evils” and then point out the good that Christianity has accomplished in the world. Likewise, without Christianity, these “goods” would not have happened, either. While I agree with the second part of this approach, I am uncomfortable with Dr. Lennox’s seemingly uncritical acceptance of the atheists’ generalizations of these historical events. For example, the First Crusade was prompted by wildly successful expansion of Muslim-controlled territory by the Seljuk Turks. All of Anatolia, much of it still Christian, was under their control, and they were poised to cross Bosporus into Europe and attack Constantinople. Pope Urban II called for the First Crusade on the basis of Christian charity. Christians were under threat of Muslim domination, and Christians from Western Europe travelled to Constantinople to work with the Byzantine army to drive back the Turks, liberating Christians and taking the pressure of Constantinople. How different is this from crossing the English Channel into Normandy on D-Day? There are reasons why that offensive was called a crusade. I will grant that the crusaders perpetrated some evils in the name of Christ, but the atheists have overgeneralized these evils to the entirety of the Crusades just as they have overgeneralized them to the entirety of Christianity. I am disappointed that Dr. Lennox, as brilliant as he is, missed the opportunity to expose another example of atheist overgeneralization. I am also concerned that he may have inadvertently acquiesced to the mantra of modern secularism that religious views must not be the basis for actions in the public sphere. Regarding the third question (Is atheism poisonous?), Dr. Lennox goes on the offensive, holding the atheists to their own standard. If Christianity is guilty because of evils perpetrated by Christians, then is atheism not equally guilty on account of evils perpetrated by atheists? Here Dr. Lennox brings up the atrocities of Hitler’s NSDAP and communist regimes that killed tens of millions of people. He could have gone further back, such as the anti-clericalism of the French Revolution, in which thousands of clergy were executed, but he already made his point, quite well. Regarding the fourth question (Can we be good without God?), Dr. Lennox argues that without timeless moral and ethical standards from God, we are left with human conventions that are anchored to nothing but human preferences. This chapter is a good follow-up for the previous one, linking the atrocities of atheistic regimes to their human conventions. For the record, the argument that without God, there is no basis for morals or ethics, does not mean that atheists and agnostics cannot be moral or ethical; rather, it points out that their morals and ethics are borrowing their basis from theism. Regarding the fifth question (Is the God of the Bible a despot?), Dr. Lennox faces atheist challenges to the morality of the Israelite conquest of Canaan, in which God commanded them to annihilate the Canaanites. This has been an issue with which modern Christians have been uncomfortable ever since the genocide of Jews in Europe by Hitler’s NSDAP, and I appreciate that Dr. Lennox didn’t shy away from it. Then again, the atheists he opposes probably wouldn’t let him get away with it if he tried. In this chapter, he points out that the conquest of Canaan wasn’t an ethnic cleansing. Other passages in the Torah provide for just treatment of foreigners as well as war prisoners. What was different about the Canaanites was a judgment of God for their sins. Furthermore, this judgment wasn’t a temper tantrum, either. God gave them at least four centuries from the time of Abraham to repent, and they never did. God’s command to annihilate the Canaanites puts on display both is judgment and his mercy. He executed judgment only after a prolonged opportunity for repentance had been spurned. The sixth question (Is the atonement morally repellent?) challenges the morality of substitutionary atonement. In this chapter, Dr. Lennox must necessarily build his case starting with the doctrine of sin; for without original sin and without the consequences of sin there would be no need for substitutionary atonement. If there are no consequences for sin, morality dies and is replaced by license. What judge does not understand this? For that matter, what loving God would allow His creation to descend into licentious chaos? No, sin must necessarily have consequences. I have been well aware that many find the doctrine of sin offensive because it asserts that they are not as good as they think they are. In this chapter, Dr. Lennox answers a powerful objection to the concept of divine forgiveness of sins of which I was unaware. Specifically, if I sin against another human, what right does God have to absolve me of my responsibilities to my fellow man incurred on account of my sin. In other words, is it right for person A to forgive person B for what he has done to person C? It is a worthy question that should not be dismissed out of hand, and Dr. Lennox confronts it head on, pointing out that all sin, even those against our fellow man, are ultimately against God. Since most modern objections to the idea of miracles are built on the foundation of David Hume’s argument against miracles, Dr. Lennox’s response to the seventh question (Are miracles pure fantasy?) focuses on Hume and his argument. This is a topic worthy of an entire book. For example, David Beckwith critiqued Hume in his book David Hume's Argument Against Miracles: A Critical Analysis. My review of that work can be accessed via this link. https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... Although Dr. Lennox addresses the topic of miracles in a single chapter, his arguments are quite cogent. In answering the eighth and final question (Did Jesus rise from the dead?), Dr. Lennox takes a two-pronged approach, answering two sub-questions: 1. Have the accounts of the resurrection available to us been accurately transmitted to us? 2. Were the original accounts of the resurrection accurate? Until the invention of the printing press, all manuscripts of the New Testament, whether whole or in part, had to be copied by hand, a process that necessarily introduces transcription errors. People are well justified in asking how confident we are that the New Testament we have is an accurate representation of the original autographs. Dr. Lennox approaches this question by appealing to the manuscript evidence for the New Testament in comparison to the scanty manuscript evidence for other ancient works before moving on into a brief discussion of the science of textual criticism. This is an entire field of study, and entire books have been written about it. Hence, Dr. Lennox cannot do justice to it in a mere few pages but what he does write serves to make his point about the accuracy of the New Testament we have. Regarding the accuracy of the resurrection accounts in the New Testament, Dr. Lennox surveys the evidence for the death of Jesus (no death, no resurrection) as described in the New Testament and for the empty tomb. Because all the eyewitnesses are long dead and all we have is their testimony, he evaluates the validity of their testimony just as attorneys would do in a courtroom. For its relatively small size, this book covers a lot of ground. A brilliant and rational thinker, Dr. Lennox makes his points incisively and effectively. Furthermore, unlike the atheists he opposes, he treats with respect those with whom he disagrees. This is an example we need to follow.

  10. 4 out of 5

    Steve

    There is much to like about this book. But there are also some significant problems which means it doesn't really pack the 'debilitating punches' that the description on the book suggests. Firstly, I love a fiery debate. And, while GUNNING FOR GOD does not contain contributions by the so-called "New Atheists", John Lennox has been involved in debates with a number of them. And Lennox's rhetoric in the book is fiery and witty. I enjoyed that aspect of the book. Secondly, many of the points the au There is much to like about this book. But there are also some significant problems which means it doesn't really pack the 'debilitating punches' that the description on the book suggests. Firstly, I love a fiery debate. And, while GUNNING FOR GOD does not contain contributions by the so-called "New Atheists", John Lennox has been involved in debates with a number of them. And Lennox's rhetoric in the book is fiery and witty. I enjoyed that aspect of the book. Secondly, many of the points the author makes about the arguments of some of the atheists he is responding to are good. Polemicists like Richard Dawkins and (the late) Christopher Hitchens often offer arguments that are not evidence-based and, particularly in Dawkins' case, appear ignorant of some of the nuances, range and complexity of some Christian beliefs. There are areas, however, where the book is inadequate. One of these is in the chapter entitled "Can we be good without God?". The answer is obviously "yes". Millions of people live ethical lives without believing in the Christian god (which is what Lennox is debating). The problem with Lennox's approach is that he argues over whether it is possible to have ABSOLUTE moral standards without God. The focus on absolute morality is really a straw man argument because no atheist I know of wants to argue for absolute morality. Most atheist arguments around morality promote the idea of a more pragmatic approach to morality, suggesting that ethical guidelines are required for humanity to live together in ways that promote their well being. So, in some ways, Lennox's focus on absolute moral standards misses the point. The last third or so of the book becomes an apologetic for miracles and Christ's resurrection. The best part of this section is Lennox's critique of Hume's arguments against miracles. Very insightful and worthy of consideration. The chapter on the reliability of the New Testament text, the historical reliability of the New Testament Gospels, and the evidence for the resurrection of Christ are pretty much traditional arguments offered by most Christian apologetics and not entirely convincing. So GUNNING FOR GOD is uneven in its quality from my perspective. It's worth reading for those interested in the contemporary debates going on between high-profile atheists and high-profile Christian apologetics. But the average reader who is unaware of, or doesn't much care for this debate, probably won't find it of much value.

  11. 5 out of 5

    Naomi

    I like John Lennox and enjoyed this book as like his others it's very concise and well written. My specific gripes are that A) in places he seemed a little too smug and personal about even the smallest flaw in Dawkins / Hitchens arguments. It made me feel a bit uncomfortable as in the spoken debates he cites, the content is not designed to be pulled apart word by word. That's the very nature of spoken debate. It's not an academic paper where every word is considered before selection. B) it would I like John Lennox and enjoyed this book as like his others it's very concise and well written. My specific gripes are that A) in places he seemed a little too smug and personal about even the smallest flaw in Dawkins / Hitchens arguments. It made me feel a bit uncomfortable as in the spoken debates he cites, the content is not designed to be pulled apart word by word. That's the very nature of spoken debate. It's not an academic paper where every word is considered before selection. B) it would have been nice to see some other views on miracles and science other than Hume and C S Lewis. Lennox seemed to have read a lot on Hume and spent a lot of time rebutting his popularist argument that miracles are against nature. Maybe no one else has any different arguments other than Hume's but I don't believe that. Other than that I felt the book was well reasoned and strongly presented. Disclaimer: I am already a Christian.

  12. 5 out of 5

    Matt Lee

    Being a big fan of Lennox in debates with Dawkins et al. already, I was interested to see how his arguments and rhetoric would be shaped to fit the written word. Whilst I prefer his oratory skills, his apologetic arguments are still excellent in prose. Lennox does a good job for the vast majority of the book to precisely and confidently refute the New Atheists' absurd claims; from contradictory pseudo-scientific statements to ridiculous notions that totally atheist regimes have been 'more moral' Being a big fan of Lennox in debates with Dawkins et al. already, I was interested to see how his arguments and rhetoric would be shaped to fit the written word. Whilst I prefer his oratory skills, his apologetic arguments are still excellent in prose. Lennox does a good job for the vast majority of the book to precisely and confidently refute the New Atheists' absurd claims; from contradictory pseudo-scientific statements to ridiculous notions that totally atheist regimes have been 'more moral' on the whole. However, the one thing that prevents this book from getting a 5-star review is that some of his latter points are overly-reliant on the free-will (i.e. sovereign will) of man and a defence overly based on human decision. Whilst the book is not written as a systematic theology on the sovereignty of God and fee-will (and perhaps I have mis-interpreted some of Lennox's statements), I still think correct refutations of atheistic logic require correct theology.

  13. 4 out of 5

    Joe Oaster

    My second book I have read by Dr. Lennox. I have actually seen in live doing a presentation and he is among the smartest people I have ever met. I have watched his debates on you tube and he is a brilliant man and scholar. To Dr. Lennox credit as smart as he is, he is able to present and layout his thesis in clear and readable fashion. Great book laying out a great defense of Christianity. Recommended read by even those not of the faith who want an honest intellectual look at both sides of the a My second book I have read by Dr. Lennox. I have actually seen in live doing a presentation and he is among the smartest people I have ever met. I have watched his debates on you tube and he is a brilliant man and scholar. To Dr. Lennox credit as smart as he is, he is able to present and layout his thesis in clear and readable fashion. Great book laying out a great defense of Christianity. Recommended read by even those not of the faith who want an honest intellectual look at both sides of the argument.

  14. 5 out of 5

    Mark

    Dr Lennox hits the Long Ball! It can be hazardous to expect to much from a book written by some one you have heard speak once or twice. I expected this book to be an exceptional one based on hearing Dr Lennox speak a couple times. He exceeded my expectation considerably. This book is well worth the time to read and I will likely reread it in the near future.

  15. 4 out of 5

    Bob

    There are many books on apologetics, & most are well done. However, after reading “Gunning For God” by John Lennox, I confess I like his writing & presentation more than most. His book is very profitable, laid out well, difficult subjects are explained well & illustrated superbly.

  16. 4 out of 5

    Leandro Couto

    John Lennox is witty and insightful, and he's not afraid to engage the most shrill opposition to Christianity with precise diagnostics throughout. I thought the ending with evidence for Jesus' ressurrection was very strong and touching. John Lennox is witty and insightful, and he's not afraid to engage the most shrill opposition to Christianity with precise diagnostics throughout. I thought the ending with evidence for Jesus' ressurrection was very strong and touching.

  17. 5 out of 5

    Marty Taylor

    A nice, concise rebuttal to some of the New Atheists most common attacks on Christianity. Lennox shows the fallacies in their arguments and then uses their standards of proof against them in his defense of miracles. A nice bit of apologetics.

  18. 4 out of 5

    Joseph Fischer

    Best book I've read this year, thus far. Great writing and clear, thorough thinking. Highly recommend. Best book I've read this year, thus far. Great writing and clear, thorough thinking. Highly recommend.

  19. 4 out of 5

    Boyd

    Excellent I recommend this book. I also recommend these related books : "Miracles" by Eric Metaxas and "Improbable Planet" by Hugh Ross. Excellent I recommend this book. I also recommend these related books : "Miracles" by Eric Metaxas and "Improbable Planet" by Hugh Ross.

  20. 5 out of 5

    David Hitchcock

    What we need is a clear presentation of evidence, detail of how that justifies Lennox's conclusions, followed by at least an addressing of the well-publicised atheist criticisms of what is claimed as evidence. Instead we get a succession of approvingly-quoted soundbites, misrepresentation, strawmanning and semantic games wrapped up with enough incessant gratuitous ridicule of atheists to put off all but the most ardent Lennox fan. Particularly hypocritical, as Lennox's main beef with atheists is What we need is a clear presentation of evidence, detail of how that justifies Lennox's conclusions, followed by at least an addressing of the well-publicised atheist criticisms of what is claimed as evidence. Instead we get a succession of approvingly-quoted soundbites, misrepresentation, strawmanning and semantic games wrapped up with enough incessant gratuitous ridicule of atheists to put off all but the most ardent Lennox fan. Particularly hypocritical, as Lennox's main beef with atheists is their supposed "aggression", a meme repeated ad nauseam without bothering to address the fact that it just sounds like that to someone who thinks their faith is entitled to a free ride. There's so much irrelevance to wade through (maybe some studies show Christians to be "happier" on some measure, that is irrelevant to whether their faith is true) that it's hard to pick out what Lennox considers to be his key arguments. At one point he mocks Julian Baggini for claiming that the Bible encourages belief without evidence - yet the "evidence" Lennox points to is simply another Bible story! Lennox's understanding of evidence seems highly suspect, yet he never sees the need to explain or defend how he tries to wield it. Problems acknowledged as serious by theologians such as the problem of evil are sidestepped altogether. It's hard to see what this book adds to his previous effort "God's Undertaker", itself deeply flawed with special pleading - it appears that in frustration he has given up trying to engage and prefers to play to the gallery. The glowing reviews here are depressing.

  21. 4 out of 5

    Mark Lewis

    I discovered Lennox by watching his debates with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. Based on how well he handled himself, I figured he'd be worth reading. This book, (my first by Lennox) was little more than an apologetic that hit the same topics almost all apologetic works do, and not really adding much to the debate than quoting a bunch of other people who would probably be more rewarding to just read directly. I discovered Lennox by watching his debates with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. Based on how well he handled himself, I figured he'd be worth reading. This book, (my first by Lennox) was little more than an apologetic that hit the same topics almost all apologetic works do, and not really adding much to the debate than quoting a bunch of other people who would probably be more rewarding to just read directly.

  22. 5 out of 5

    Liam Chilton

    Lennox pokes holes in (and pokes fun at) the New Atheists naturalistic arguments. He then explains miracles, the reliability of the New Testament and the resurrection of Jesus comprehensively. “The empty tomb, then, forms a veritable rock on which all rationalistic theories of the resurrection dash themselves in vain.”

  23. 5 out of 5

    Dino Bojadzievski

    The book was a decent read. The author's mathematical thinking does, indeed, make its appearance, and his argumentation is clear. Unfortunately, his lack of oratory abilities gets its appearance, also. The book was a decent read. The author's mathematical thinking does, indeed, make its appearance, and his argumentation is clear. Unfortunately, his lack of oratory abilities gets its appearance, also.

  24. 4 out of 5

    Jonathan Downing

    Yeah it's alright. Great and thorough answers to difficult questions. What holds it back for me is its lack of accessibility - it's written as an academic text and that makes it hard to read in your spare time, in stark contrast to something like More Than a Carpenter or even The Case for Christ. Yeah it's alright. Great and thorough answers to difficult questions. What holds it back for me is its lack of accessibility - it's written as an academic text and that makes it hard to read in your spare time, in stark contrast to something like More Than a Carpenter or even The Case for Christ.

  25. 5 out of 5

    Ann

    John Lennox exposes the many glaring fallacies in the thinking of many of today's well known atheists. A definite faith building book. John Lennox exposes the many glaring fallacies in the thinking of many of today's well known atheists. A definite faith building book.

  26. 4 out of 5

    Curby Graham

    This is a short, but excellent takedown of the New Atheists. If you know anyone who has been influenced by them or thinks they are a serious challenge to Christianity I highly recommend this book.

  27. 4 out of 5

    Geoff

    wow

  28. 4 out of 5

    Nathan Nadeau

    Read Lennox way back in University, always great

  29. 4 out of 5

    Ahaan Thakker

    This was great .valuable information written in a concise manner that makes a good case for christainity !

  30. 4 out of 5

    Josh

    The same tired old arguments that haven't sufficed for the past few hundred years and continue to frustrate anyone with a brain. The same tired old arguments that haven't sufficed for the past few hundred years and continue to frustrate anyone with a brain.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.