The Godless Delusion: A Catholic Challenge to Modern Atheism [Paperback]

As this is a book on the general subject of apologetics, it should be understood that this is not a book on apologetic methodology. Its aim, and strength, is a presentation and analysis of the landscape, of the comparative relationship between believers and atheists, as it is understood by presuppositionalists. This understanding is, essentially, that the Christian (presumably, Catholic Christian) worldview can account for and justify reasoning and ethics while the atheist worldview, with its necessary commitment to materialist Naturalism, cannot. This is the point of the book and it is well argued by the authors.

As a Catholic presuppositionalist myself who highly values the apologetic work of Dr Greg Bahnsen, I view this book as a valuable compliment to Dr. Bahnsen's discussions of technical issues and methodology. This is not to imply that the distinction between the relative emphasis' taken by Bahnsen vs. Madrid-Hensley was total and exhaustive. But while Dr Bahnsen's emphasis was to argue forcefully that, as Christians, we must presuppose the truth of the Christian worldview, "The Godless Delusion" elaborates in detail the composition of that worldview and HOW it provides the preconditions necessary for man to have certainty in knowledge and confidence in moral judgment. It does this both directly and indirectly by examining the shortcomings of current atheistic thought on the matter.

Regarding some of the criticisms raised by previous reviewers:

1. Circularity: Argument over one's foundational epistemological commitments, one's presuppositions, always entails circularity of a kind. If one claims to be committed to X as the only and ultimately valid way of knowing truth (X = `Reason', `God's relevation', `Oprah's revelation', `tossing dice', etc) it makes no sense to then go on to say that this claim is known with utter certainty due to Y. Presuppositional circularity is a circularity of logical necessity - not a circularity of logical fallacy.

2. Presuppositionlism is Reformed Protestant methodology: This is largely true in an historical sense - but not an epistemologically necessary one. In fact, and though it would cause him grief to hear it, I credit the presuppositionalism taught to me by the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen with eventually compelling me to enter the Roman Catholic Church as a convert from a Reformed Baptist perspective. Of course, I couldn't abandon my presuppositionalism at the Church gates. Catholic presuppositionalists are out there and hopefully this book will contribute to growth in our ranks.

3. If A. Tierney actually read the book, he did so in an all-too-superficial manner and didn't really make an effort to understand the arguments it contained so as to better refute them. This is evidenced by how many of them are mis-stated in his review. As one example, his claim that the authors' reference to the examples of Hitler/Mao/Stalin somehow "means that the three examples of Atheists leaders must show what Atheism always leads to. Not a strong point." But the authors' point was clearly that atheism has no foundation from which to hold a valid critique of the actions of Hitler/Mao/Stalin and infer that this might explain why, in the previous century alone, national leaders committed to atheism (Castro/Pot/Il Sung) have been responsible for the greatest bloodbath known to mankind.

4. PJ Porvaznik wrote: "The authors should have no problem then with the scientific theory of evolution, taken within its limits. Cardinal Schonborn ... and Pope Benedict XVI ... agree there is no problem with Catholic dogma and evolution. But it seems the authors have reservations with the science ... which they mistakenly call `random chance' (natural selection is not random, and is `the opposite of chance,' as Dawkins has frequently pointed out)." However, the authors would have no reservations with "the science" that attends a Catholic conception of God driving evolution according to His purpose. But this later idea, of course, is not what Dawkins means when he says that natural selection is the `opposite of chance'. To treat their critique of the latter as a pronouncement in ignorance on the former is not really fair to the authors and their actual argument.

This is a book written in response to the onslaught of the "new" atheism. Nothing new, right? Well, not exactly. This is a book critiquing atheism from a Catholic presuppositional point of view. Presuppositionalism is a theory of apologetics created by Reformed theologian Cornelius Van til which roughly speaking argues according to how one's worldview fits with teh data. Presuppositional apologetics has mostly been relegated only to reformed circles, so the fact that this book is Catholic presuppositional makes it very intriguing.

Now admittedly, presuppostional apologetics puts a tremendous burden of proof on the one using it. For you must be able to articulate carefully the opponent's worldview and be able to show that it is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile their worldview with reality. The problem is that anyone can always come up with some other way to mold the data to fit their worldview, so it becomes difficult to definitively demonstrate your claim with presuppositional apologetics. However, the aim of this book is the new atheists, not classic or intellectual atheists. When this is considered, I think presuppositional apologetics is the perfect way to go about refuting their claims.

The authors look at things like morality, meaning, knowledge, love, free will, and a host of other things that we all admit exist and are real. They then show that naturalism can not account for the existence of these things. That is the basic idea of presuppositional apologetics. For example, if naturalism is true, in what are objective moral values grounded? If it is evolutionary survival, then it is not objective. The authors look at other possibilities, such as theories of harm or consent, and they show that these theroies fall short in a naturalistic world. One thing I was particularily impressed by was the argument against reason and knowledge given naturalism. Essentially, naturalism implies that thoughts or ideas that we have are simply neurons firing in the brain. Fair enough. However, consider the following two statements. 1) If A, then B. 2) A. Now statements 1 and 2 are simply neurons firing in teh brain. But according to the rules of logic, the truth of B is guranteed. Yet B is simply a third neuron firing in our brains. Why is it the case that two neurons firing automatically imply that a third neuron must fire? In other words, how do those two neurons firing necessitate the firing of the third? Because there is no reality to those statements other than the firing of neurons. They don't mean anything; they're just neurons firing. I thought this was a brilliant way to illustrate the non-material aspect of not only logic, but our thoughts as well.

My one dissipointment with the book was the lack of any presuppositional apologetics that were specifically Catholic. True, the book does contain many quotes from teh Catechism, but these are things that all our Christian brothers and sisters can agree with. In particular, I was hoping for a discussion of suffering. Catholic theology has a deep and rich tehology of suffering which perfectly incorporates it into our worldview. Yet I can not think of anything that is so pointless to the naturalist than suffering. It seems that the naturalist would not even attempt to make any meaning out of suffering.

Otherwise, this is an excellent, well written, and easy to read book critiquing new atheism. It will give you new tools to discuss with your naturalist friends, as well as give teh naturalist new questions that they most likely have not pondered.

I enjoyed how this book lays out how Atheism is irrational when you take it to its logical ends. I did not appreciate though the many times the authors kept saying "if the new atheism continues to spread our society is doomed!". The name calling and cheap shots were uncalled for. If I were an Atheist I would have set the book down. The first 40 pages aren't even worth reading. Once I got past the first 40 pages though, the authors actually begin to write about what the book should have been about all along; the illogical conclusions of atheism.

› Go to Amazon.com to see all 29 reviews  3.8 out of 5 stars