It pains me that the faith in which I believe is so poorly defended. It hurts even more that probably the most popular and oft-quoted book on the subject is so weak and filled with inaccuracies and old, dull arguments, that have long ago been refuted, to boot With some seasoning, I believe I can make a better case for God's existence, and may yet do so. This book, at worst is incapable with nary an understanding of scientific principles or what sciense IS or DOES exactly. At best, it's just plain sloppy. I shall deconstruct each chapter to reveal the flaws:
Chapter 1: Atheism is irrational. He commits the same error in this chapter that Kenneth Miller did in "Finding Darwin's God." Namely, he comes to a swift conclusion about something without once mentioning a single position from the opposition to mull over and discuss. He creates a little branch of reasoning, that he concludes is final without presenting any opposing argument. It's a one-sided debate. Throughout the book, he also evinces sheer laziness by discussing certain scientific concepts without giving them their proper names. This is an incredibly dishonest maneuver.
Chapter 2: The moral approach: He says we wouldn't know if murder is wrong if God didn't say so, and again, he says it with a finality even though a different-opinioned reader may be objecting. No, I do NOT need God to tell me murder is wrong, neither does civilization. A planet-full of atheists would determine this for themselves in due course.
And he's lazy again, as this is the only example he offers. No other proofs are offered.
Chapter 3: The cosmological approach: He argues that the complexity of the universe show God by talking about lottery numbers and chances, when these tired, old, boring arguments have been eviscerated by science long ago, and very effectively, I might add. The tornado-in-a-junkyard metaphor? Been there. The monkeys on a typewriter? Done that. Then he argues that science cannot explain the origin of the universe, the pre-big bang. But science has admitted pause when discussing that. Science cannot discuss that which existed before time. Why? Because science can only study extant material, and pre-singularity discussions are purely religious discussions. It's as if this book is arguing with someone who's moved on to other matters.
Chapter 4: The teleological approach. The same comments I have to offer hear are reflected in my Chapter 3 comments above. The complexity of life gives me pause, specifically in many details of evolution. The problem is, evolution did happen and is no longer a theory and complexity is not an argument at all. The lotto argument comes into play. Sure, the lotto player has a 1 in 23,999,222,999 chance of winning, but the lotto organizer has a 1 in 1 chance of having a winner. Life as it is, may have been inevitable and what he fails to discuss is the size of the universe, which is so gargantuan as to allow for multiple solar systems to have one the lottery.
Infuriating is a single page where so many lies are written as to be offensive. He says things like "Science has never," when indeed it has, or "Science has not explained," when it has done so ad nauseaum. Was he covering his ears when science tried to explain each point?
Chapter 5: The Jewish history approach: He makes a bit of sense here, but the same argument I have concerning pre-big bang events stands here. This is not a discussion of the natural. We are discussing the supernatural. Science cannot explain why the Jews still exist. That is a mystical discussion, and science leaves such mysticisms to the mystics. Again, such mysteries behold me to my God, but science doesn't delve in this realm, so why does he keep bringing untestable claims to science? God is supernatural, science is not. He doesn't understand the difference.
He concludes by summarizing every chapter except one, as if he forgot in his continued laziness.
I believe in God, but I don't need this man's permission to believe.