What Is Atheism? A Short Introduction

Authored by Douglas E. Krueger (Prometheus Books, 1998)

[The following serves as a review of Krueger's book]

Reviewed by Mark McFall

What is Atheism? How can Atheists have morals? How can Atheists have a purpose to their lives? Doesn’t the Bible show that God exists? Don’t reports of miracles prove that God exists? Aren’t there philosophical proofs which demonstrate that God exists? Wouldn’t someone have to know everything in order to say that there is no God? What’s wrong with believing on faith? These are the type of thought provoking questions that Douglas E. Krueger raises in his book What Is Atheism? A Short Introduction. But how does Krueger handle the thoughts that he provokes? After all, since Christians are his "target audience" (pg.12), shouldn’t the way in which he handles his arguments of persuasion be crucial if he hopes to be convincing? I would think so. But does Krueger’s book have what it takes? We shall see.

Before I begin this assessment, however, a few preliminary remarks are in order. Initially, I had purchased Krueger’s book for the purpose of getting a better grasp on the issue of Atheism. The book’s title, What Is Atheism? A Short Introduction, led me to think that it was going to cover philosophical issues related to Atheism, which, for the most part it did. However, because Krueger seeks to persuade the greater Christian public of Atheism, he also deals with biblical related issues from a critical perspective. In light of that approach, I thought I would offer my comments as a backdrop to what I considered transparent argumentation. Hence, the format for this review is by book chapter, and each chapter will consist of:

1) Accurately presenting Krueger’s view. 2) Present argumentative assessments. 3) Offer comments in relation to Krueger’s topical chapter question.

Given the nature of this format, there will be times when readers of this review will find themselves on brief excursions, however, an effort has been made to bring those brief excursions around to full circle in order to keep this assessment tight and coherent.

Structurally, I found Krueger’s book to be awkward on two levels. First, I noticed that Krueger has a tendency to play fast and loose with complex issues. Those who are acquainted with debate know that an accumulation of mini-assertions within a single book is a common strategy employed to overwhelm those who oppose. Why? Because the odds of somebody coming along to refute ALL of the assertions are next to nil. Indeed, what may take a few minutes of writing to assert is likely to take an opponent several weeks or even months to refute (per assertion). In that respect, one often overlooked element is the extra expenses of obtaining relevant material.[1] Secondly, it was extemely challenging, as a reviewer, to assess Krueger’s book without an index.  For that reason, I read each chapter of Krueger’s book several times in order to reflect and process all of his arguments for Atheism. I guess to some degree, this manual and thorough way of going about digesting his arguments may have enhanced this review.

By way of caveat, this review is not intended to prove the existence of God. Rather, the aim is to show readers the argumentative flaws throughout Krueger’s book. In my opinion, Krueger, with his arguments regarding the existence of God, reveals a closed mind.  Negativity towards Christianity drives Krueger's examination of religion, and consequently biased argumentation underlies his conclusions, as this review will show.  On that note, let the exposé begin!

What is Atheism? (Chapter 1)

In chapter one, "What Is Atheism?", Krueger informs readers that "there are two definitions of Atheism". In the broad sense, Krueger tells us, "an Atheist is simply one who does not agree with the theist that there is a God", and that, those who ascent to "agnosticism" (i.e. "someone who suspends judgment on the matter of God’s existence"{pg. 17}) still fall under the umbrella of Atheism. In the narrow sense, however, Krueger tells us, the "stronger definition of ‘Atheism’ is that of someone who asserts that there are no Gods". On this definition he says "an agnostic would not be considered an Atheist" (pg. 18). But what should we make of these semantic distinctions?

Well, I believe Krueger correctly identifies subdivisions within the philosophical view of Atheism; some may call this implicit and explicit Atheism, others may simply call it weak or strong Atheism, which ever version of Atheism is your definition of choice, at its basic level, Atheism is "the belief that there are no Gods" (pg. 19). Unfortunately, as we will see later, Krueger is unable to extend this same type of diversified grace to those who embrace Christianity.

As we read further along in chapter one, we find that Krueger addresses six common misconceptions Christians often have about Atheism:

1) People become Atheists so that they can do whatever they want. 2) An Atheist is one who hates god. 3) An Atheist is one who worships Satan. 4) Everyone worships something. An Atheist must have some god. 5) A person becomes an Atheist because of a fight with the priest, pastor, reverend, etc.  6) All Atheists believe the same thing--view ‘X.’

To Krueger’s credit, I believe that he did an adequate job at clearing up these type of basic misconceptions prevalent in uniformed circles. In my opinion, chapter one was generally good in its overall presentation of contemporary Atheism. Having said that, I would have liked to have seen some additional informative insight concerning the evolution of the meaning "Atheism". In that regard, readers may want to consult the resource, entitled, The Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome, where we learn that the Romans of long ago considered one to be an "Atheist" for "either a refusal to believe in any Gods or the refusal to believe in the traditional pantheon of Gods. Christians who refused to offer incense to the Emperor [on his birthday] were therefore accused of Atheism" (pg. 293[2]; see also, The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature, pg. 69-70). Obviously with that consideration, there’s more to the issue of "What is Atheism?" than what Krueger’s book covers.

How Can Atheists Have Morals? (Chapter 2)

In chapter two, Krueger states, "the view that Atheists cannot act according to a legitimate system of ethics is, while erroneous, quite common" (pg. 25). But what is the basis for this "legitimate system" of morality? Krueger’s response is to show that Christianity is "an inadequate foundation for morality" and comments that there are other "powerful systems of ethics which do not in any way require belief in a God" (pg. 25). What are these "powerful systems of ethics"? Krueger offers a series of philosophical dilemmas that he sees in the belief of the God of the Bible followed by alternative examples which attempt to portray the Bible as "an inadequate source for moral principles". In my opinion, however, Krueger’s comparative examples seem weak in light of the Bible’s overall scope.

Take for instance his interpretation of the Beatitudes. According to Krueger, "the Beatitudes explain that those who are poor, who weep, who go hungry, and so on, will be rewarded", but, "those who are rich, well-fed, laugh, and those of whom others speak well will be punished, even though the latter class make it possible for the former class to exist". In Krueger’s eyes, "this is a system of scheming for motives of self-interest at the expense of others, not a system of ethics" (pg. 30).

In light of that careless assessment, the careful Bible student who maturely examines the Beatitudes, will discover that Krueger’s hermeneutical insights have blurred the overall point of the passage. The overall point is not concerned with one’s social status as Krueger suggests, but it’s an examination of one’s heart and an awareness of proper stewardship with wealth. Moreover, I thought that Krueger should have mentioned to his readers that Luke alone gives the series of woes directed against those who are rich and full; a fact that hints at the different concerns of emphasis between the two Gospel writers for their own community to which they are writing.

Moving on, Krueger notes that "an example of a vague moral principle from the bible is: ‘Love they neighbor as thyself’". Krueger asks in that regard, "is this principle useful? Is it a good guide to conduct?" Krueger exemplifies his concern by presenting the analogy, "if my neighbor borrows my lawn mower and then does not return it after three years, should I let the neighbor keep it? Is that how I love myself? The principle is not clear" (pg. 31). For Krueger, who is apparently looking through the wrong end of the telescope, the outlook is narrow, while those who seek to understand this principle by broadening their understanding see that it’s a basic concern for humanity that transcends Christianity.

Unsurprisingly, Krueger also claims that the so-called "Golden Rule" principle is vague. This ethic, known for its moral legitimacy prior to the time of the writing of the Old Testament (Lev.19.18), was popularized by Jesus in the first century:

"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise"   (Matt 7.12; Luke 6:31).

According to Krueger, "it is not clear whether this rule really prohibits many immoral actions." He says of this, "the golden rule is so vague it allows one to act in ways which contradict intuitive notions of right and wrong". Krueger then goes on to exemplify his concern by reducing this ethical idea to precise rules of conduct which include such shortcomings as an out of control repair man in contrast to a responsible one, and the contrasting sexual activities of a homo and hetero sexual (see pg. 31-32). However when precise rules of conduct are mistaken for valuable principles of life, the experience can be limiting and confusing.

In that regard and for added measure, Krueger may want to consult homogeneous passages of non-biblical value that touch on the "Golden Rule" in other religious traditions like, Islam (Hadith of an-Nawawi 13), Jainism (Sutrakritanga 1.11:13, Acarangasutra 5.101-2), Confucianism (Mencius VII. A.4, Analects 15:23), Hinduism (Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva 113:8), Buddhism (Sutta Nipata 705, Samyutta Kikaya v.353), and main-line Judaism (Talmud, Shabbat 31a). Given today’s availability in light of the information age, it’s unfortunate that in Krueger’s zeal to debunk the Bible, he made no attempt to understand the "Golden Rule" the way the ancients understood it and Jesus most likely communicated it.

Nevertheless other prolific skeptics such as Richard Carrier, Editor Emeritus of the Secular Web, haven’t overlooked its value. In fact Carrier, in his work ironically entitled, What an Atheist Ought to Stand For, says:

"All atheist systems of morality seem to derive in various ways from this core principle [The Golden Rule], and so it would be appropriate to say that atheists stand for the Golden Rule in its fullest meaning and significance. I believe that any rule or belief which violates this principle is discarded by most atheists as immoral, and they live up to that ideal more than a great many believers do" ( http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/ought.html   ).

For Carrier, "the Golden Rule is merely an expression of a basic fact of human psychology: if we embody what we already hate, we will hate ourselves, and be hated by others, but if we embody what we love and respect, we will love and respect ourselves, and be loved and respected by others in turn" (Ibid.). Is that what Jesus was trying to communicate? I think it is.

What Krueger sees as a vague principle, Carrier grasps as a principle of transcendent value. In fact, Carrier confidently says, "I believe that when the reasons for these values are truly understood, any man would hold to them and keep them, even if God himself appeared and ended all dispute as to his existence". In that regard Carrier says, "indeed, I believe an Atheist ought to live her life so that she can say this: ‘even if God's existence were proven, I would change only my understanding of the facts, and not the values by which I guide my conduct and thought’" (Ibid.). Quite interesting wouldn’t you say? I'll say it is! Granted, Carrier is able to glean much of his insight from the way in which the ancients understood the Golden Rule: but that’s my point! Krueger is so intent on opposing everything that has to do with Christianity that his objective outlook on the basic value of the Golden Rule is blurred.

On page 33, Krueger asserts that "the Bible says that one should not resist evil", and cites Jesus as saying, "But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on they* [sic, should be "thy,*" Krueger’s typo, pg. 33] right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matt. 5:39). In regards to this passage, Krueger asks the following questions:

"Does anyone really think that it would be wise to allow evil to reign unchecked? Should we get rid of our police force and our criminal justice system? If someone is trying to rape your daughter should you not interfere? If someone is stabbing your father should you do nothing? Surely this is bad advice."

But, is that the type of advice intended by Jesus? Or, was Jesus’ advice intended to discourage revengeful actions? Bruce Metzger, a noted scholar considered by many in the Skeptical community to be generally objective, helps bring into focus, "it is clear that the principle which he [Jesus] inculcates in this crisp maxim is NON-RETALIATION for a malicious wrong inflicted by a personal enemy". Writes Metzger, "Jesus’ statement regarding non-resistance has to do with the motive and manner of the resistance"(Metzger, The New Testament, its background, growth, and content, pg. 138, emphasis mine). Indeed, Jesus was simply re-communicating a known moral principle that predated his own time as far back as Plato’s recordings of the Greek philosopher Socrates about four to five hundred years earlier:

"It is never right to do wrong and never right to take revenge; nor is it right to give evil, or in the case of one who has suffered some injury, to attempt to get even" (Plato, Crito, 49b-e).

Of course the writer of Isaiah was communicating this same principle around the same time (Isaiah 50:4-8) and, moreover, this principle can also be detected in the religious traditions of Buddhism (Dhammapada 201; Digha Nikaya i.3; Majjhima Nikaya i.129; Lotus Sutra 20; Sutra of Forty-two Sections 7), Confucianism (MenciusAnalects 12.19; 14.11), Judaism (Baba Kamma 93a; Yoma 23a), Islam (Forty Hadith of an-Nawawi 32), and Sikhism (Adi Granth, Shalok, Farid, p. 1379). Given these considerations, it’s unfortunate that Krueger has missed the mark on the value of this transcendent teaching in spite of its wide popularity. IV.A.14;

On page 34, Krueger correctly identifies a number of pro-slavery verses in the Old Testament. He states, "Exodus 21:7 explains how a father is allowed to sell a daughter into slavery", and writes, "Exodus 21:20 states explicitly that it is permissible to beat a slave to death as long as the slave does not die from the beating immediately", and, "Leviticus 25:44 explains where to get slaves" and so forth. Krueger then cascades the torrent of his argument to include the New Testament without the mention of a reformulation found between the relationships of the slave and the master.

For instance, Krueger asserts that "Ephesians 6:5 tells slaves to obey their earthly masters as they would Christ, with sincerity of heart". But Krueger doesn’t mention the extended context which goes on to include that both the slave and master are equally accountable to God (Eph. 6:5-9). Moreover, the crux of Krueger’s argumentation in relation to the New Testament seems to lie with the book of Philemon. According to Krueger, "the entire book called Philemon is a letter from Paul to a slave owner", he writes, "Paul encountered the runaway slave Onesimus and was sending him back to his owner!, and comments, "Paul, of course, was aware that, upon receipt, the slave owner was legally obligated to either kill the slave or brand his forehead with an ‘F’ for Fugitivus--‘Fugitive’". In Krueger’s words, "was Paul doing to another what he would have wanted done to himself?" (pg. 34).

Well, let me put that in a more positive tone if I may. The entire letter of Philemon was written that Philemon may know he ought to receive Onesimus as a brother "both in the flesh and in the Lord" even "as you would welcome me [Paul]" (Philem. 16-17); and Paul says to Philemon that anything that Onesimus may have damaged or stolen, "charge that to my account" (verse 18). Paul even goes on to hint Philemon should release Onesimus from slavery: "Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say" (verse, 21). A reflection on Krueger’s comments show, with clarity, the general negative attitude in which he approaches the Bible.

Furthermore, other passages which imply a type of reformulation between the slave and the master in the New Testament are Galatians 3.28, 1Corinthians 12.13, and Colossians 3.11. An examination of those passage will show that Krueger, like many of his skeptical predecessors, confuses the cultural socioeconomic institution (or practice) of slavery which make up the historical nature of the Bible with its basic religious and transcendent message of God’s redemptive concern for His people. In view of that confusion, it’s unfortunate that Krueger is not aware of the mixture of co-existing literary impulsive genres throughout the Bible.

On page 35, Krueger explains that "when a foreign woman asked Jesus for help, he initially refused to help, or even to speak to her, because of her race". Krueger says that Jesus "explained this by referring to Gentiles as ‘dogs’ (Matt. 15.21-28, Mark 7.25-30), and comments, "Jesus also initially told his disciples not to go among the Gentiles (Matt. 10:5), and "he made it clear that he was only here for the ‘lost sheep of the house of Israel’ (Matt. 15.24). Of this, Krueger asks: "was Jesus loving his neighbor as he loved himself when he was being racist? Was he doing to them what he wanted done to himself?"

Here, Krueger neglects to mention the bigger picture. The Gospels tell us Jesus openly interacted with Gentiles, of which most notably, the centurion, the sick servant, the Syrophoenician woman (an important encounter discussed later), and her possessed daughter. If Jesus was a "racist", surely these other encounters would have reflected, or at least hinted at, such a charge!

Although Matt.15.21-28/Mark 7.25-30 hint at the common ideology of the day (i.e. that Jews were first-rate citizens second to none), Jesus did in fact heal the foreign woman’s daughter (Matt. 15.28). In contrast to Krueger's reluctance to mention this beyond what he terms "initially" (see above), I find this incident rather interesting. Given what is known of Jesus, are these the actions of a racist? I don’t think so. On the one hand, it is unclear (I say "unclear" because Acts 4.43 depicts Jesus’ apparent willingness to extend His message to non-Jews) how Jesus regarded Gentiles throughout the different stages of his ministry (a fact noted in Krueger’s citations). However, Jesus’ message was open to "as many as received Him" (John 1.12) - a concept communicated by ALL New Testament writers.

On page 38, Krueger comments, "those who oppress women have long been able to rely on the bible as a sanction". He states, "in addition to the example of biblical passages which approve of the kidnapping and raping of young women, there are other verses which also disparage women". But where are those passages that seem to "approve of the kidnapping and raping of young women"? Krueger doesn’t tell us!

Although, I think we can safely assume he has Genesis 19:8, Judges 11, and Judges 19:22-30, (etc..) in mind here. However, as any biblically mature reader can see, Krueger, in keeping with his theme, confuses yet again the narration of cultural history with the central message of the Bible. In other words, it is true that the Bible contains degrading scenes scattered throughout its pages. However, a reflection on the way in which the biblical writers handle these scenes suggests care in their approach to how they are using those scenes. In short, personal degrading expressions that reflect the attitudes of biblical writers are simply foreign in the text. Instead, you find these writers recording degrading events in their own cultural environment as they happened without emphasizing or imposing their particular view on women (see the present writers essay entitled, Women In Biblical Times ).

On pages 40-46, Krueger’s approach then changes to show that "the bible contains contradictory ethical views" throughout its pages. However, many of the examples that Krueger presents as being clear to his point are in fact surrounded with complexity. For instance, on page 43 we read concerning the assertion that Jesus lied:

"Having been invited to go to the Feast of the Tabernacles in Jerusalem, he told his followers, 'You go up to this feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come' (John 7:8 [NKJ]). But after his followers left Jesus went up to the feast 'not openly, but as it were, in secret' (John 7:10). This caused people there to complain about Jesus and say that he 'deceives the people' (John 7:12), which, according to the bible, was true. Note that some versions of the bible insert the word 'yet' between 'not' and 'going' in John 7:8 to suggest that Jesus was actually saying that he was 'not yet going' to the feast, with the possibility that he would go later. The word 'yet' was added by a copyist sometime long after the writing of John to try to make it seem that Jesus was not lying. The word is missing from early manuscripts of the book, so scholars know that it does not belong there. Some of the more scholarly versions of the bible will concede this in a footnote. Clearly, Jesus was not always honest."

Here, Krueger's exemplified argument (that Jesus was a liar) is based on the assumption that "yet" was inserted between "not" and "going", and informs us that this word "was added by a copyist sometime long after the writing of John to try to make it seem that Jesus was not lying". Krueger then rests his case by informing readers that "yet" (oupo, tr. not yet) "is missing from early manuscripts", consequently, "scholars know that it does not belong there". But how truthful are Krueger’s own comments?

Well, according to Bruce Metzger, oupo (tr. not yet) is attested by two "EARLY" Papyri manuscripts known as P66 and P75 (see: A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pg. 185). These are dated to the "middle" (P66) to the "late" (P75) "second century" (see: Comfort/Barrett, The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts, pg. 366/491). In addition to those two early manuscripts, and to which Krueger probably refers, we have a host of other manuscripts dating from the fourth century on that support the inclusion of "yet" (for instance, B L T W TH PS 070. 0105. 0250 f1.13 Majority, and so fourth are noted in the Nestle-Aland 27th Edition of the Greek-English New Testament, pg. 269).

So, in view of P66 and P75, how does the documentary evidence compare to the alternative reading that seemingly supports Krueger's charge that Jesus lied? According to the Nestle-Aland critical apparatus, the texts (or manuscripts) which support Krueger's preferred reading are:

1) Sinaiticus, dated to fourth century.

2) Beza Cantabrig., dated to sixth century.

3) Cyprius, dated to the 9th century.

4) 1241, dated to the twelfth century, and so fourth.

Here, we discover, Krueger's charge that the word "yet" is "missing from early manuscripts" is not only inaccurate in light of the available evidence but it is also down right dishonest. In fact, we learn, Krueger's preferred reading is the one actually dated LATER than the alternative reading. Hence, Krueger's argument, in this case at least, is deceptive.

But does Krueger stop there? No, he also incriminates "scholars" under his missing-word-manuscript scenario which is a misnomer. The scholars that do favor Krueger's reading base their assumptions NOT on the missing-word-manuscript scenario, nor ironically on "the documentary evidence that strongly favors the inclusions of 'yet'", but on "intrinsic probability" (Comfort, Early Manuscripts & Modern Translations of the NT, pg. 113). In other words, scholars often (but not always) migrate to the more difficult reading in spite of any good documentary evidence (like we have here) based on the assumption that a scribe is more likely to alter or amend a text to fit his understanding of the context. In short, Krueger has appealed to scholars that support his theory for the wrong reasons. There’s simply too much uncertainty surrounding John 7.8 to use as an example of Jesus lying.

In considering Krueger’s approach and ideas in relation to the topical chapter question "How Can Atheists Have Morals?", I believe that many of the principles and values taught by Jesus transcend the debate on God’s existence. Indeed, one does not have to believe in Jesus as Lord to recognized him as a good moral teacher. Skeptical readers who are familiar with ex-Christian and hard-core critic Charles Templeton, the late author of the book Farewell to God - My reasons for rejecting the Christian faith (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, Inc.), may remember what he revealed in an interview with Lee Strobel shortly before his death:

"[Jesus] was the greatest human being who has ever lived. He was a moral genius. His ethical sense was unique. He was the intrinsically wisest person that I’ve ever encountered in my life or in my reading. His commitment was total and led to his own death, much to the detriment of the world....Everything good I know, everything decent I know, everything pure I know, I learned from Jesus" (The Case For Faith, pg.17).

Though Templeton denied belief in Jesus Christ, "there’s no question", in his mind, Jesus "had the highest moral standard, the least duplicity, the greatest compassion, of any human being in history", he says of this, "there have been many other wonderful people, but Jesus is Jesus...the world would do well to emulate him" (Ibid. pg.18). Wait a second, did Templeton just say that "the world would do well to emulate him"? I wonder what Krueger thinks about this.

In view of both Templeton’s and Carrier’s remarks (note: my use of Carrier's remarks do not imply that he believes Jesus' philosophies exceeded that of other ancient moral teachers, e.g. Epicurus, Epictetus, Musonius, Seneca. [3] ) as well as my own understanding of Jesus’ moral teachings, I can see no reason to abandon the Christian faith based on Krueger’s arguments against the moral teachings of Jesus. Indeed, even if the concept of God was removed from Jesus’ teachings, His teaching as a whole would still offer a powerful system of ethics unparalleled by Krueger's so-called "powerful alternative."

How Can Atheists Have a Purpose to Their Lives? (Chapter 3)

In this chapter, Krueger first hopes to "show that theism" is not an "adequate basis for providing a ‘purpose’ to life; and, second, there are good reasons to believe that one’s life can be filled with purpose without belief in god" (pg. 67). According to Krueger, since Christians wildly disagree about the will of god on such issues as the "permissibility of abortion, the morality of euthanasia, the equality of women, the doctrine of predestination, original sin, the inerrancy of the bible, the existence of hell, and other fundamental issues" (pg. 73), it is "impossible" to live a fulfilling and purposeful life in light of the many uncertainties surrounding God’s will. But if a "uniform" theological response is Krueger’s answer to having a fulfilling and purposeful life. Then, doesn’t Atheism suffer from the same flaw? After all, Atheists also have system of thought rich in diversity.

Further on, we come to a section where Krueger comments that "theists tend to mistakenly believe that the lives of Atheists are depressing or emotionally barren", and states, "while this may be true of some Atheists, it is not true of any I have met"; according to Krueger, "it is true, however, of many Christians I know" (pg. 84). Though Krueger presents this comparison in a negative tone, he unwittingly identifies a common human emotion present in ALL human beings that can be variously triggered no matter what we believe.

In quoting a passage from Bertrand Russell’s three-volume autobiography, Krueger tells his readers that, "the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind" are purpose filled elements that make life worth living as an Atheist/Agnostic. To this, I can only agree. In regards to love, I have seen those on the verge of suicidal death be persuaded by trained negotiators to continue to live life by reminding them of loved ones. In my opinion when love is not denied, it serves as the basis for living. Moreover, I believe that by building on the foundation of love there are other benefits which can create a further drive for life. Indeed, an Atheist who leaves a legacy that others can benefit from is an example of the underlining energy that I speak of.

Having said that, love is also of preeminent importance in the Bible. In fact, according to the Bible, God in His very essence is love (1Jn.4:8,16). As Dr. James A. Garrison, author of God’s Purpose-Your Joy, eloquently remarks, "He [God] is the source of all genuine love, grace, kindness, goodness, mercy, joy, pleasure and goodwill. God is the source of everything that satisfies all the longing and yearning of the human soul."

In regards to love with Christian in mind, I have seen those who are contemplating suicidal death be persuaded from getting to the point where they even need a negotiator by hearing God’s message of concern for them (of course, there are exceptions). Like the secular version of love, when not denied, I believe that Christian love serves as the basis for living and has many side benefits as well (for further reflection see: Matt. 22.37-40; Mk. 12:29-31).

Unsurprisingly, love is at the core of both Atheistic and Christian philosophies. The difference, however, lies in their personal extended value. Though both the individual Christian and Atheist can leave legacies in their wake, only the Christian, if indeed there is a God as identified in the Bible (which I believe there is), can experience eternal joy in love.

Doesn’t the Bible Show That God Exists? (Chapter 4)

In this chapter, Krueger attempts to demonstrate that, "(A) arguments that the bible is evidence for god’s existence fail, and (B) there is good evidence that the bible is unreliable". According to Krueger, "both (A) and (B) show that arguments for god’s existence which rely on the bible are worthless" (pg. 92). As I said in the introduction, however, it is not my aim to prove the existence of God, therefore, a response to "(A)" serves no purpose here. Nevertheless, in "(B)", Krueger offers some pretty far fetched "alternative explanations" (pg. 95) for what Christians see as fulfilled biblical prophecies. Put your seat belt on Star Trek fans, you’re about to be transported through the Krueger-transporter:

"Although not circular, the argument from bible prophecy can be dismissed. Even if the bible did contain a prophecy of an event which later came to pass, this would not prove the existence of god. There are always alternative explanations for prophecy which do not involve gods. For example, a race of extraterrestrials could have told someone, in a technologically advanced manner, a manner which would seem miraculous, that a certain event would happen. Then these being could have brought about that event, again using advanced technology. The clever alien scenario shows that the hypothesis that a god exists is not the only possible explanation for the fulfillment of prophesies. In order to conclude that a god must have been responsible for a supposed instance of prophecy, all other possible explanations must first be ruled out as impossible or as far less likely than the god hypothesis. Given the extraordinarily strong claim about the nature of the theistic god, however, it would seem that almost any other explanation would be more likely than that of theism. Time-traveling human beings, amazing coincidences, carefully planned hoaxes, all would be more likely explanations for the supposed fulfillment of a prophecy than the god hypothesis because these claims are weaker than the theistic claim. The nontheistic claims are less extraordinary and thus more likely to be true, so it is unlikely that the theist could ever eliminate these other possible explanations." (pg. 95)

To this, I can only identify with Spock: "Fascinating is a word I use for the unexpected, in this case, I should think ‘interesting’ would suffice" (The Squire of Goths). It would seem (to me at least) that "amazing coincidences" and "carefully planned hoaxes" are of a different categorical order than "time-traveling human beings" or "a race of extraterrestrial aliens". Yet Krueger doesn’t make this obvious distinction for his readers.

At any rate, as crazy as the technically advanced extraterrestrial scenario is which apparently Krueger thinks is a more likely "alternative explanation", even if it were true, it too would fail his own test due to the same flaw. After all, could Krueger rule out the possibility that God wasn’t behind it? I think not! As Spock would say, "that sir is [an] illogical" argument, "without facts the decision cannot be made logically, you must rely on your human intuition" (Assignment: Earth, Episode 55). Spock does indeed have a point!

In the context of a mature Christian mind, reasoning should first compel us to rule out possible naturalistic explanations like, "amazing coincidences" and "carefully planned hoaxes", etc. It may be more reasonable to examine the particular prophecy to see if it is consistent with the Bible’s overall context. One should consider whether or not it appears to be a fulfillment when observing what we would consider other more technical criteria surrounding the various known uses (or devises) of ancient literature in retrospect. Then based on that research, and admittedly within a cautious theistic world view, it would seem that the believer has every reasonable and intellectual right to think that God is behind it. Indeed, despite what many skeptics say, the cautious Christian thinker does have legitimate competing rights to intellectualism! To quote, again, Editor Emeritus of the Secular Web, Richard Carrier, "the Christian worldview is our leading contender, intellectually and culturally, and certainly deserves a large focus" ("Defining Our Mission"{ http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/mission.shtml }).

As we move on, Krueger, without looking into matters, writes on pg. 100-101, that:

"Regarding his [Jesus’] resurrection, Jesus supposedly stated ‘so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth’ (Matt. 12.40). Compare Matthew 17.23, 27.62; Mark 8.31, 9.31; Luke 24.46; and 1Cor. 15.4, which insist on at least three days. If Jesus were correct about his own schedule, three days and three nights contain a total of seventy-two hours, and he would have to remain dead for that period of time. Yet the bible account says otherwise. Jesus was said to have been crucified, died, and been buried on a Friday afternoon. Mark 15.26 says Jesus was crucified at the third hour, at nine o’clock, but John 19.14 has Jesus still at his trial at noon. In any event, Jesus was reportedly crucified on Friday. The gospels agree that he rose on Sunday morning, the first day of the week (Matt. 28.1, Mark 16.2, Luke 24.1, and John 20.1). That’s not three days and three nights. Even if Jesus had been dead and buried by one o’clock in the afternoon on Friday, which is unlikely, given the text of John, if he rose by six in the morning on Sunday, that’s forty-one hours, which is more than a full day short of the seventy-two hours he prophesied. Christians who insist on counting the partial Friday and the sliver of Sunday as full days may get Jesus his three prophesied days, but no such calendar juggling will be able to squeeze three nights out of this brief time, so Matthew 12.40 is a failed prophecy."

Amazing! Krueger’s got it all figured out! He’s apparently so intent on finding fault with this passage that he has overlooked the very real possibility that Matthew 12.40 is likely a Hebrew expression. Indeed, according to the ancient extra-biblical authors, Rabbi Ismael and Rabbi Eliezar ben Azariah, who’s writings refer to Jewish traditions around and prior to the time when Jesus lived, "a day and a night are an Onah ['a portion of time'] and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it" (J.Talmud, Shabbath 9.3 and b.Talmud, Pesahim 4a). Here we learn from Jewish customs that, "a day and a night" in certain contexts means the smallest part of a day and night. Interesting wouldn’t you say? Think about it! The New Testament writers used various expressions like: "after three days", "on the third day", and "three days and three nights" to communicate the timing of Jesus’ resurrection. It would make sense, given what we have just learned, Matthew 12.40 is a general expression in apropos. In addition, there are other examples of this same type of general usage for readers to assess in other places of the Bible (Gen. 42:16, 1Kings 20:29, Esth. 4:16, Matt. 27:63).

On pages 101-102, Krueger brings up the 2000 year old debate surrounding Isaiah 7:14. In Krueger’s words, this passage "is often taken to prophesy the virgin birth of Jesus: ‘Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel'". Krueger comments, "scholars are well aware that the term translated here as ‘virgin’, the Hebrew word ‘almah’, is best translated as ‘young woman’, who may or may not be a virgin", says Krueger, "the Hebrew word ‘bethulah’ means ‘virgin’ but that is not the word used in the Isaiah verse. Some modern Bibles, such as the Revised Standard Version, use the correct translation of the passage and do not use the word ‘virgin.’" What’s Krueger talking about, you ask?

Good question! It appears that Krueger assumes his readers are already acquainted with the issues surrounding Isaiah 7.14, a judgment inferred from his silence of Matthew 1:23. In any case, what’s at stake here has to do with the traditional Christian interpretation concerning those two passages. In that regard, I will acquiesce with Krueger’s remarks above, that the Isaiah 7.14 passage is not a "virgin" prophecy. However, I argue strongly in the viable essay, The Virgin Birth Revisited , in favor of an "Immanuel" prophecy that found its fulfillment in the characteristics of Jesus Christ.

Incidentally, due to Krueger’s brief mention of the virgin meaning given to "betulah", readers may be interested to know that Alcalay’s Jewish Hebrew-English Dictionary defines "betulah" in the non-exclusive terms of a "virgin, young woman, girl, maid"; and the Jewish Encyclopedia Judaica, says of "betulah", that, "the biblical betulah, usually rendered 'virgin', is in fact an ambiguous term" (Pritchard, Texts, 142).The argument implied by Krueger that "betulah" exclusively meant "virginity" has its own problems.

On page 104, while attempting to undermine the reliability of Bible, Krueger negatively presents that the scholarly consensus of the Gospels is that they were authored anonymously and not written by eyewitnesses. But here, Krueger is feeding on the fact that many churchgoers take for granted these issues. Bruce Metzger and other scholars of a similar stature, who’s writings occupy many church libraries, have told church practitioners time and time again, "the text itself of each Gospel is anonymous and its title represents what later tradition had to say about the identity of the author." (The New Testament, 96). Indeed, it is customary in church circles to say that "Matthew wrote" such and such, or, "Mark wrote" such and such (etc..). However, phrases like that stick out like sore thumbs in the Skeptical community. In order for the churchgoer to avoid any problems in dialog with skeptics, it is more proper to refer to any one of the Gospels in the following way: "...the writer of Matthew", or, "...the writer of Mark" (etc..). To do otherwise, invites unnecessary divagation from the Christian message in today’s critical world.

Moreover, though the Gospels themselves are not eyewitness accounts, they do however represent a mixture of both eyewitness observances and oral traditions (Lk. 1.1-3). In this regard, Krueger’s argument that "those who wrote the New Testament were not eyewitness to Jesus’ life or resurrection" (pg. 104), is meant to cast doubt only in the mind of the uninformed churchgoer. In other words, informed students of the Bible are aware that the New Testament writers report eyewitness observance and oral traditions rather than actually being that witness. In my opinion, if more churchgoers would consult their church libraries and educate themselves, de-conversions due to skeptics who are preying on uninformed churchgoers would be less frequent (see the present writers essay, Apologetics and Christianity)

Krueger then attempts to cast further doubt on the credibility of the Bible by correctly pointing out in a negative tone that we have no original documents of any books of the Bible. In Krueger’s words, "all we have are copies of copies of copies, we don’t know how many times removed from the originals" (pg. 104) we really are. Again, however, Krueger seems unaware of not only the general consensus among objective scholars, but he seems to be also unaware of how those who are informed within his own Skeptical community view the textual reliability of the New Testament. In fact, the co-founder of the Secular Web, Jeffery Lowder, in his review of Lee Strobel’s former book, The Case For Christ, remarks in reference to textual scholar Bruce Metzger:

"According to Metzger, ‘the more often you have copies that agree with each other, especially if they emerge from different geographical areas, the more you can cross-check them to figure out what the original document was like’ (Strobel, Case For Christ, p. 76). Moreover, as Metzger points out, we have far more ancient copies of the New Testament than we have of, say, Homer's Iliad or Tacitus's Annals of Imperial Rome. Since I am not aware of any classical scholar who seriously questions the textual reliability of those works, I am willing to accept the textual reliability of the New Testament." ( http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html )

Though Jeffery Lowder goes on to say that his admission does not mean that he "accept[s] the empirical accuracy of the New Testament", his comments do speak for themselves when set up against Krueger’s. Ironically, in the introduction that precedes Krueger’s comments on being too far removed from the original manuscripts of Bible to determine what they really said, Krueger writes:

"Bible scholars are of two kinds: the biased and the unbiased. The difference can be seen in the way in which they treat the sacred texts of other religions. If he uses the same methods of analysis on the bible that he uses on other books, that is a good sign that the scholar is unbiased. The best unbiased bible scholars hold that there are good reasons to believe that the books of the bible are unreliable sources." (pg. 103).

I wonder if Krueger accepts the textual reliability of such classical works as The Wars of the Jews, The Antiquities of the Jews (by Josephus), World History (by Hannibal), History of Rome from its Foundation (by Livy), and the Annals (by Tacitus) to name but a few. After all, in Krueger’s attempt to undermine the textual reliability of the Bible, his technique also undermines the textual reliability of other classical works. In other words, if scholars used Krueger’s technique, we would know absolutely nothing of ancient history. By way of point, it should be obvious to readers which kind of scholar Douglas Krueger is.

Turning to page 106, Krueger says in reference to the last twelve verses of the gospel of Mark (16.9-20), these passages "are known to have been added much later than the time the rest of the gospel of Mark was written", and, "these verses do not appear in any of the early copies of the gospel". Of this, Krueger states, "these forged verses contain the only post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in Mark", and remarks, "since Mark is thought to be the earliest gospel, it is interesting that the earliest supposed biography of Jesus’ life contains no report of any eyewitnesses who saw Jesus after the resurrection". [see, Q&A, #2 ]

Nevertheless, while it is true that the writer of Mark probably did not pen the ending of Mark (vss: 9-20), it is inaccurate to say that it was added "much later". The impression is misleading. Why? Because there is not only an early citation to Mark 16.9 from Irenaeus (130 - 200 AD) in his work Against Heresies (Bk 3 Ch.10:5), but there is also an early reference from Tatian (a pupil of Justin Martyr) in his Diatessaron dated around 150-160 A.D. Krueger may be tempted to point out that the citation from Irenaues comes from a later Latin mss, but readers should be made aware that it is considered authentic by competent scholars. Krueger may also be tempted to point out that Diatessaron comes to us through the processes of secondary and tertiary witnesses, but again, readers should be made aware that it is also consider authentic by competent scholars.

What’s the point in establishing an early date for the end of Mark? Well, if the consensus among the learned is correct (that the ending of Mark was not written by the writer of Mark). Then what we have from vss:9-20 is an extra more fully developed narration of the resurrection composed by a different author who includes appearances not mentioned in the shorter ending of Mark. In other words, this ending constitutes additional evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, a so-called, fifth account if you will. Think about it! This longer ending seems to have emerged from relatively the same time frame as the main Gospels and was attached to the Gospel of Mark before canonization.

Given what I have just said, Krueger may still be tempted to pull a couple scholars out of his bottomless bag of "how-it-could-of-been" scenarios, hypothesizing that the ending of Mark is an "artificial summary" of the other Gospel accounts and therefore not independent (see: E. L. Bode, The First Easter Morning, p. 44; Herman Hendrickx, Resurrection Narratives, pg. 104; Reginald H. Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, pg. 156). However, that contention overlooks more objective pronouncements made by competent scholars like Raymond Brown on the "uncertainty" surrounding such a charge. (Brown, An Introduction To The New Testament, pg. 148, fn. 58).

By way of time out, Krueger continues on through the remaining pages of this chapter attempting to undermine the Bible in any way he possibly can. In that respect, I decided to take a moment and count how many either specific or implied assertions he made after the ending of the Mark fiasco. Out of a remaining 18 pages in this chapter, Krueger makes a staggering 53 more assertions. In light of that, I can see no beneficial reason to rebut assertion after assertion which fail to have but a few (in some cases one) support sentences, hence, I will generally restrict my assessments to assertions where Krueger appears to have spent more time in formulating his argument.

By way of chapter conclusion, Krueger has out-asserted himself so much so that the chapter topical question entitled, "Doesn’t the Bible Show That God Exists?", is lost. In fact, the contents of the entire chapter seem out of place in light of that heading - a heading ripe with theological intensity - yet bitter in bite. In my opinion, the Bible does not set out to show, demonstrate, or prove, that God exists. Rather, it presents and assumes the existence of God right from the get go. Why? Because in the period of history when the Bible was written, the majority world view was theistic. In a theistic dominated world, why would a theistic book set out to convince a theistic society of a theistic God that they already assume exists? In short, the ancients "understood" that God exists not because of the contents of the Bible (because it was not written yet), but "through what has been made" (Romans 1.20), much like today. It is beyond me, why anyone, given the unknowable vastness of the universe and the uniqueness of the earth within it, would be so sure that there is no God.

Don’t Reports of Miracles Prove That God Exists? (Chapter 5)

This short chapter, consisting of nine pages, sets out to show: "(A) testimony about a miracle is never sufficient justification for belief that such an event really occurred; (B) even if it were granted that a seemingly miraculous event has occurred in a given circumstance, this would not be evidence for god’s existence; and (C) there is no evidence that miracles have occurred" (pg. 125).

According to Krueger, who cites Hume, "the testimony of another person cannot be considered extraordinary evidence, which is what would be needed to show that a miracle had indeed occurred" (pg. 126). Krueger understandably goes on to emphasize, "testimony alone does not establish that a miracle has occurred" (pg. 127). To this, I can only agree. However, it is not "testimony alone" that persuades a believer to accept a miracle as valid, it’s the philosophical assumptions within the framework of an accepted (as opposed to a fringe view) world view. In other words, it is the philosophical assumptions of Christians that allows for the possibility of miracles. Of course, even within that mindset, Christians should be cautious in their willingness to accept anything uncritically with an awareness for a naturalistic explanation. Nevertheless, for Krueger, who is not able to cross the boundary between these two philosophical outlooks, the scope will always remain restricted. How restricted you ask?

Well, according to Krueger, "there are always alternative explanations for a supposed miracle" (pg. 128) that exclude God. What kind of explanations? In Krueger’s words (here we go again), "rather than conclude that a god exists because of the report or observation of a supposed miracle, one could conclude that there could be other forces at work besides gods. There could be a group of technologically advanced beings playing a trick on humans to see how they would react. Anyone who has seen a few episodes of Star Trek can see how this objection could be explained in detail" (pg. 129).

As I mentioned before, as crazy as the technically advanced extraterrestrial scenario is, which apparently Krueger thinks is a more likely "alternative explanation", even if it were true, it too would fail his own test due to the same flaw. After all, could Krueger rule out the possibility God wasn’t behind the outcomes?. I think not! It is a philosophical issue, and Krueger’s philosophical assumptions render his outlook as being close-minded to the possibility of an existing God. In his mind, there must always be an alternative explanation of "how-it-could-have-been". The thought of a supernatural explanation isn’t even in the pool of live options.

By way of chapter conclusion, Krueger’s topical question asks: "Don’t Reports of Miracles Prove That God Exists?" To this, my answer is no. They do not "prove that God exists". Rather, the "reports of miracles" in the Bible merely validate a framework of philosophical assumptions particular to those who are cautiously open to such.

Aren’t There Philosophical Proofs Which Demonstrate That God Exists?  (Chapter 6)

Regarding the nature of this particular chapter, and the on going debate between the intelligent design folks and the secular folks, my remarks will remain on a non-critical overview level due to the fact that this is not the present writers area of so-called expertise. I have limitations, and I have learned that to be critical of something without a proper rounded understanding is almost always detrimental.

Having said that, Krueger tells us, "there are many so-called proofs of god’s existence, none of which survives review by one with some skill in critical thinking". Of this, Krueger covers the two most popular arguments, which are, the teleological argument, and the cosmological argument.

The teleological argument takes on many forms, but the most famous is that of William Paley’s (1743-1805) watchmaker analogy, which, has also been made popular by Michael Behe in modern times. In essence, the argument runs along the lines that, since every watch has a watchmaker, and since the universe is exceedingly more complex in its operation than a watch, it follows that there must be a Maker of the universe. Kreuger’s objection to this argument is that, "order does, in fact, come from disorder", and, "order can be generated by chance even on a computer programmed to generate random dots on a screen", he says of this, "designs form, patterns are recognized" (pg. 137). I wonder if Krueger took into consideration that both the computer and the program had to be designed first?

Concerning the cosmological argument, this posits the notion that because there is a universe rather than none at all, it must have been caused by something beyond itself. Krueger spends several pages on this covering the various forms and versions its been argued in with his objections that do prove thought provoking and challenging. In my opinion, this chapter seemed to touch the tip of what appears to be a much bigger ice berg.

Given the apparent uniqueness of planet Earth in light of the vastness of the universe, how can anybody be so sure that there is no God? Without facts, how can you really know? Perhaps Krueger can answer that for us in the next chapter.

Wouldn’t Someone Have To Know Everything In Order To Say That There Is No God?   (Chapter 7)

In this chapter, Krueger right from the get go states, "theists often state that someone would have to know everything in order to say that there is no god", and writes, "this approach is sometimes used in an attempt to persuade the atheist to ‘give’ a little on his or her position". Regarding this he comments, "the intent here seems to be the vain hope of narrowing the gap between Atheism and theism by trying to show that it is irrational to be an Atheist, and that, at best, one can be an agnostic". According to Krueger, "there are many ways to respond to this charge", of which, he states, some of them are:

(A) Atheism in the absence of evidence is an accepted principle.

(B) The concept of god is incoherent, so god cannot exist.

(C) The existence of evil is strong evidence against the existence of the traditional god.

(D) The existence of nonbelievers is evidence against the existence of the traditional god.

Krueger then asserts, "each of these four responses shows how one can legitimately conclude that god does not exist without requiring one first to be omniscient" (pg. 159). Really, how so? In the case of "(A)", Krueger’s argument entails the demand for "extraordinary" evidence. Without "extraordinary" evidence, Krueger thinks, God simply does not exist. But the fact that the vastness of the universe is unknowable, is in-and-of-itself extraordinary evidence against the type of omniscient claim that Krueger makes, videlicet, there simply is no God.

Moreover, I wonder if Krueger would believe the reports on the evening news that he had the winning numbers of that day’s lottery. After all, those numbers were picked in light of extremely extraordinary odds (i.e. millions and millions to one)! Something tells me that Krueger would believe the evening news and proceed to cash in on his winnings despite the lack of extraordinary evidence.

In the case of "(B)", Krueger tries to show his readers that "the concept of god is incoherent, so god cannot exist". According to Krueger, "it should come as no surprise to anyone that there are competing views as to the nature of god", he states, "where there is, or has been, monotheism, there are, or have been, different accounts of what the being’s characteristics are" (pg. 164). Krueger then goes on to propose a number of contradictory belief systems concerning the nature of God. However, Krueger seems unaware of the fact that just because people disagree about the nature of God that it does not mean that God does not exist. It just means that their views on the nature of God may be off - nothing more.

In the case of "(C)", Krueger states, "the existence of evil is strong evidence against the existence of the traditional god" (pg. 172). Krueger then goes on to discuss some biblical passages that touch on evil in that regard, however, Krueger’s response is more concerned with the theology that surrounds the existence of evil in light of what is thought to be a good and compassionate God. Nevertheless, Krueger’s argumentation fails, because these theological difficulties have no real bearing on the existence of God - they are merely human theological issues - nothing more.

In the case of "(D)", Krueger asserts, "the existence of nonbelievers is evidence that god does not exist" (pg. 185). I’m actually surprised that Krueger would find this argument a persuasive tactic. After all, how on earth could Krueger say with a straight face, he is living evidence that there is no God?

By way of chapter conclusion and personal opinion, if hypothetically the present writer were to abandon Christianity, the only alternative in my mind would be Atheism. Why Atheism and not other faiths you ask? Because to me, the Christian faith seems more rooted and evidential than other faiths. Having said that, I don't think I could ever bring myself to embrace Atheism. Why you ask? Because my mind is not qualified (unlike apparently Krueger’s) to rule out the possibility of an existing God. But what about agnosticism? For me, agnosticism is ruled out also. I believe that if there is a God, that God probably had something to do with our creation. In other words, I think that this planet is unique enough to warrant a God who would also have concern for us. In light of the preceding, I believe that the Christian God is the best possible scenario.

What’s Wrong with Believing on Faith? (Chapter 8)

In this chapter, Krueger argues that "faith is not an adequate justification for belief in god", and states, "faith is the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence" (pg. 208). Krueger then goes on to cite Hebrews 11.1 as conveying the biblical idea that "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen"; and puts forth the notion that the biblical concept of faith shows that belief in God rests on zero evidence. Krueger notes as supporting evidence that: "the risen Christ said to Thomas, "Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed" (John 20.29), and then states, "sometimes the clergy will try to make it out that faith is trust, commitment, or some other thing, but make no mistake about the nature of what they are promoting", he states, "their explanations are just elaborate ways of telling believers to trust for no reason or to commit for no reason", and writes, "they are asking people to abandon the need for evidence, for supporting reasons, for their beliefs" (pg. 209). Is Krueger correct?

Well, minus the negative overtones above, the very Hebrews passage that Krueger cites presents the idea that faith is rooted in the reasoning of the mind in relation to a trust and commitment to what is thought to be true. In other words, for the Christian, faith is the extension of personal trust and commitment to God based on the reasoning of evidences that lie out side of God - but nonetheless point to Him.

The question raised by Krueger, "What’s wrong with believing on faith", subtly misleads the reader from the idea of what it means to believe *in* faith, to the blind idea of "believing on faith." To put it another way, believing in faith is the outward expression initiated by sane reasoning of the natural world that God exists (subject to object distinction). In contrast, "believing on faith" is a different idea which suggests "wishful hope".

Therefore, when the Bible says that we are called to "walk by faith, not by sight" (2Cor.5.7), we should understand that our walk is limited to the human experience of trusting in an omniscient God who we believe has concern for us. Indeed, trusting the Lord in faith allows us to confidently go beyond our human limitations in that regard. In Hebrews 11, the ancients were commended for their outward expression of belief that the New Testament identifies as faith. They are described as reasoning by way of their human experience or intuition from the natural world that God exists. By "faith", the ancients walked in the direction that God called them when they could not yet see, or did not yet have, any reward for taking such actions. Given these considerations, admittedly, our trust in God presupposes His existence. But prior to such trusting faith, one believes that God exists, or believes that Christianity is true, on the basis of their observation of evidence. So then, is there something "wrong" with that line of thought as Krueger suggests? I don’t think so.

Furthermore, Krueger is also playing fast and loose with the concept of "faith" when he references John 20.29. Why? Because in the verse before it, John 20.28, Thomas, became a believer in the resurrection, not directly by faith, but by tangible evidence. Hence, Jesus' comments, "Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed", are indicative of the idea that Thomas experienced a particular evidence that only the apostles and early eyewitnesses may be expected to experience. Jesus identifies that this particular evidence of the resurrection is not necessary for everyone to personally experience to believe that it really happened.

In my opinion, Krueger pulls another fast one on us when he comments, "there are good reasons to believe that belief on the basis of faith is not only inadvisable from a pragmatic point of view but also immoral" (pg. 210). According to Krueger, who cites the nineteenth century critic William Clifford, "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence" (pg.213). But, by what method does one determine what is or isn’t sufficient evidence? After all, what passes as sufficient evidence varies from person to person.

For instance, there are many competent professional scholars who believe that there is sufficient literary evidence that supports the notion that Jesus rose from the dead. Yet, there are also many competent scholars who relegate the resurrection of Jesus to myth in spite of what others consider good and sufficient evidence. Many other examples could be provided on this but I think readers can see there's quite a bit of subjectivism within what Krueger makes out to be an objective quote.

In answer to Krueger's topical question, "What’s Wrong with Believing on Faith?", I believe that healthy reasoning serves a foundation for rationally believing something, and then a connected faith is what follows.

Excursus Considerations And Conclusion

In Krueger’s book, there are numerous and various sections that present biblical errors, contradictions, and hard-core criticisms of the Bible. In that regard, Krueger enthusiastically recommends Dennis McKinsey's book, The Encyclopedia Of Biblical Errancy, as a good starting point for further investigation (pg. 123), and categorically states in his "Suggested Readings", that, it is "a huge, well documented, carefully researched gold mine of biblical errors, contradictions, and fallacies" (pg. 236). One can assume by Krueger’s high regard for McKinsey’s work that his own book was probably influenced by McKinsey’s to some degree.

Under that consideration, I took an opportunity to ask Krueger, on the Internet forum Errancy, what he *currently* thinks about McKinsey’s research capabilities in light of what he has learned about McKinsey since the publishing of his book, What Is Atheism?. Krueger said to me in a conversion that involved Farrell Till (editor of The Skeptical Review), that:

"Some of it is well-documented and carefully researched. But not all of it is well-documented, and not all of it is well-researched. And some examples of contradictions don't work. Like [Farrell] Till, I have endorsed McKinsey's work in the past. I would be hesitant to do so in the future without adding some reservations" (Krueger, Errancy, 06/27/02)

Was Krueger influenced by the "well-documented and carefully researched" parts? After all, many of the subjects covered in his book are also covered in McKinsey’s book. Krueger, like McKinsey, tells readers that: "the Church father Eusebius actively promoted fraud and deception in order to further Church interests" (Krueger, pg. 123; see also: McKinsey, pg. 102). But recent findings are indicating that the quotes attributed to Eusebius by skeptics are in all likelihood fraudulent (a URL address will be provided here in the near future regarding these findings). Just how are readers of Krueger’s book supposed to know if what they are reading is accurate? After all, we have caught Krueger on a number of occasions distorting things that call his credibility as a biblical critic into question.

So, what’s the bottom line you ask? Well, while I did think chapter one was good in the sense of explaining "What is Atheism?", it is of my opinion, that in Krueger’s zeal to be a want-to-be biblical critic, his numerous careless criticisms of Christianity throughout the remaining chapters of his book have severely compromised his arguments for atheism. In other words, I found Krueger’s argumentation to be both non-persuasive and non-appealing in regards to Atheism being the "powerful alternative" that he made it out to be.

In conclusion, Jesus’ overall teachings are of an order of par excellence that renders Krueger’s "powerful alternative" as just an alternative. Indeed, I believe that there are many closet Atheists/Agnostics out there who also believe Jesus’ teachings are of a high order but are unable to embrace Christianity due to other problematic theological difficulties (i.e. virgin birth, trinity, miracles, hell, inerrancy, etc..) that conflict with their intellect. But make no mistake about it, given the many doctrines of Christendom, when it comes down to it, one does not have to embrace the trimmings of the Christian religion itself on the same level of importance as the person and work of the historical Jesus. Think about it!

Remember the two thieves who were hanging next to Jesus and hurling insults at him (Mk. 15.32) while they were on the brink of death? If you’ll remember, one of the thieves ceased to cast insults at Jesus after he began to reflect on his own personal just punishment (Lk. 23.41). As a result, he turned to Jesus, and in the only recorded instance in scripture where Jesus is "addressed" without additional modifiers (i.e. Christ, Lord, etc...), the thief said, "Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingdom" (Lk. 23.42). Jesus replied to him, "today you shall be with me in paradise" (Lk. 23.43). For the thief, the only belief he had was that Jesus was going to His kingdom, and he wasn’t, due to the life he lead up to his condemnation. In Jesus’ mind, that belief was enough to alter the thief’s destiny and align it with His own. For many skeptics, that seems too simple. To them, one must readily accept ALL of the Christian trimmings first. But this is not the case as we have seen with the thief. All one must do to be accepted by God is to acknowledge your faults on the very same terms that the thief acknowledged his to Jesus. That’s it - it’s really quite that simple!

----End----

Footnote:

[1] The following list serves as information on relevant resources and the expenses involved (per Amazon.com).

Stroble, The Case For Faith (Zondervan, 2000), $10.39.

World Scripture: A Comparative Anthology of Sacred Texts (Pargon House, 1995), $16.07.

Metzger, The New Testament, its background, growth, and content (Abingdon Press, 1965), $17.50.

Metzger, A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament (United Bible Societies', 2nd Edition), $24.49.

Comfort/Barrett, The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts (Baker Books, 1999), $63.50.

Nestle-Aland, Greek-English New Testament (27th edition), $48.99.

Brown, An Introduction To The New Testament (Doubleday, 1997), $31.50.

McKinsey, The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy (Prometheus Books, 1995), $40.60.

Garrison, God's Purpose - Your Joy (1st Books, 2000). $13.98.

[2]  Cited source was obtained on the Errancy list (1/02/02).

[3]  See: Musonius Rufus (1999): http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/musonius.html
From Taoist to Infidel (2001): http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/testimonials/carrier.html

Appendix:

Religious texts of non-biblical value were cited from, World Scripture: A Comparative Anthology of Sacred Texts (and yes, I read them all).

Other reviews:

http://atheism.about.com/library/books/full/aafprAtheismWhat.htm  

http://atheism.about.com/library/books/summary/aaprAtheismWhat.htm

Acknowledgment:

ITW's own Brian Lawson, for his laborious editing and insightful comments that helped bring this review into fruition; and Todd Airola, for his pinpoint professionalism as a proofreader.

You can find Krueger's Book, What is Atheism, at http://www.amazon.com

You may also find some of the resources mentioned above at:  https://www.christianbook.com home of CBD, Christian Book Distributors.

END                    Original: Summer 2002     Latest Revision Posted: 01/21/03