Truth and the Devil

I consider myself an open-minded person. I try not to pre-judge things and I am willing to change my mind about my own opinions if I find new and compelling evidence. I am skeptical of the claims of all major religions, not based upon anything I might wish to be true about them, but rather what seems to be the case based on an objective analysis of the facts. However, some people might accuse me of not being as open-minded as I profess based upon my collection of books. Of the books that I have read, very few are from an explicitly Christian perspective, which might prompt some to claim that I am biased or only willing to read things that already reinforce my pre-concieved views.

However, the reason is that I find it quite rare that I can read through a purely Christian book without experiencing a great amount of incredulity, and being rather disappointed in the level of intellectual stimulation these books provide, as well as their level of writing skill. Either, they just can’t keep my attention, or they make claims about things that are backed by insufficient evidence or poor reasoning.

But, I have to add, because this is quite important, it’s not only Christian non-fiction books that I have problems reading. I also find many secular books poorly reasoned or poorly written. A good example is The Christ Conspiracy The Greatest Story Ever Sold by Acharya S. It’s a book that attempts to show the falsity of Christianity by reference to historical scholarship and the study of mythology. It’s a book that I might find interesting, it certainly reinforces my own worldview, however many of the argument claims presented in the book were rather weak or extrapolated from poor evidence. The feeling I got while reading it was that the author would use any means to attack Christianity without regard to the validity of her arguments.

So basically, I don’t like bad arguing, whether it’s for or against a position I already profess. I am a lover of truth, no matter where it leads. I’m sure some people might not consider those examples convincing, and that’s fine, but I wanted to try to dispell any accusation that the rest of the post is overly biased.

This brings me to my main point. Recently, I fell into reading another of these Christian books, The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. Normally, a cursory glance through the pages would’ve let me know what a disappointing read it might’ve been and I wouldn’t have started it, but I decided to this time. I’d really be open-minded and give this one a chance and I’ll read it all the way through. Maybe it wouldn’t be as bad as I thought. Certainly thousands of Christians find this book compelling, it can’t be that awful. Unfortunately, I was wrong.

Lee Strobel’s The Case for a Creator is a poor case indeed. I haven’t quite yet finished it, I’m on the second to last chapter, but I couldn’t hold back any longer from talking about it.

First, a description of the book. The Case for a Creator is one of many “The Case For…” books which include The Case for Christ, and The Case for Faith. In these books, Lee Strobel, a former journalist attempts to reinforce Christian beliefs by way of historical studies, philosophy and science. And after making my way through this one, I can see why they might seem compelling to many Christians. Strobel uses his journalistic style of writing as an attempt to make these topics more inviting to the lay reader. Some might find it inviting, but I find it dreadful. Instead of doing research, analyzing it, and then using his own voice to convey what he’s learned, he makes a pretense at objectivity by interviewing people who already agree with his position and basically letting them speak for themselves. He interjects into what they’re saying by lobbing softball questions at them so that they can easily dismiss criticisms of their position.

I believe this journalistic style is supposed to seem objective, but it doesn’t come off that way, nor do his chosen interviewees. They include Stephen Meyer, Jonathan Wells, William Lane Craig, Guillermo Gonzales, and Michael Behe. All of which are either members of the Discovery Institute or Christians. Actual objectivity might entail him interviewing some non-Christians, or even Christians who disagree with his views, but he doesn’t. This is not journalism.

Now, this isn’t my biggest complaint. I could get past the style of writing and interviewing; my hope was that perhaps the interviewees themselves could save the day and provide some insight. I was wrong.

One thing I enjoy about secular science writing is the sense of wonder I get from it. It always seems that the more questions we answer about the universe, the more questions are raised. There are always more mysteries left to solve, and each time, the universe gets larger and more wonderful upon reflection. This has always been compelling to me. This constant thirst for knowledge as well as respect for the mysteries of the universe is something you find in the best of science writers and I believe is inimitable.

The people interviewed in this book crush that sense of wonder. They proclaim in sweeping gestures that this or that question can never be answered, or is unassailable by science. That somehow, the grand history of human inquisitiveness is at an end, there is nothing left but for us all to acknowledge that ‘God did it’ so scientists can just pack their bags and go home. They speak with such arrogance, it’s almost painful to read.

One of the most frustrating claims made in the book in this regard, and the one that made me want to sit down and write this was from J.P. Moreland, a Christian apologist and fellow of the Discovery Institute. His interview was about human consciousness and he claimed, “There will never, ever be a scientific explanation for mind and consciousness.”

Modern neuroscience is still a relatively young field, and taking into account the advances that have been made in understanding the brain in just the last few years, why would anyone make the claim that this or that will never be discovered by science? It makes the person making the claims look foolish.

I am reminded of this wonderful quote by Darwin:

It has often and confidently been asserted, that man’s origin can never be known. But ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. It is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.

…which is just what he asserts only a few pages later: “There will never, ever be a scientific explanation for mind and consciousness.”

If you’re going to attempt to back up your religious beliefs with science, be prepared for the consequences. History seems to indicate that scientific claims made in the advancement of a particular dogma fall short.

I can’t, in good conscience, recommend this book to anyone. Even many Christians would disagree with its claims, and its arguments against evolution are particularly poor. There’s much more to the book, and though the arguments against these claims have been made many times over, I might return to The Case for a Creator for a future post or two.