Reddit reviews The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God

Oh, is that like the other book by Lee Strobel in which he makes the case for creationism by interviewing people who take the position he likes while ignoring arguments and facts that he doesn't like? Sorry, but that's nothing like objective. Sort of the opposite, really. Somehow, I have a hard time Strobel makes any sort of attempt at objectivity.

I just read "The God Delusion" and i'm a 4th year chemical engineering student so maybe my words can be useful.

I think that first you should keep in mind that words like "rational" and "reasonable" and even in some cases "logical" are relative terms. For instance, have you ever heard of the Prisoner's Dilemma? Just in case I'll explain it really quickly.

You and I commit a crime but sadly we get caught. The fuzz takes us into separate rooms and we have two options. 1.) Rat out the other guy 2.) Say nothing. There are 4 possibilities of combinations; We both rat each other out, we both say nothing, or one rats the other out and the other says nothing. If we both say nothing, we both go to prison for 1 year. If i rat you out and you say nothing, I go free and you go to jail for 5 years (or vice versa). If we both rat each other out we both go to jail 3 years. What is the "rational/logical/reasonable" choice? Some would say you should always rat the other out because in that case you always get the best outcome for you. Others would say that staying silent would be the best option because it most benefits both parties.

As far as Dawkins is concerned, I thought that same chapter you mentioned "Why there is almost certainly no god" was rather lack-luster when it came to convincing me of that (although, granted, I'm biased).

Personally I don't think scientific discovery in any way removes the need for a God. I believe that all phenomena in the universe can be scientifically explained, although some may be harder than others. It would be kind of silly if it couldn't. You hear people talk about God as being omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-all-sorts-of-other-cool-things. Thinking of God as this perfect being, it's not hard to believe that he made the universe in such a way that it can be explained. Although if you don't already think of God that way, it wouldn't be hard to dismiss that.

Anyway, your friend recommended you a book from one side, I'll do the same for you on the other. "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel. It's about a journalist who came to believe that science (in his case a lot of it was evolution) removed the need for a God. And so he interviews many experts in specific fields of science to try and come to a conclusion. It's nice because Strobel went about this is such a way that he was looking for the truth as opposed to looking for a certain answer to fit his beliefs.

Hope that helps!


Edit: This book
http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Creator-Journalist-Investigates/dp/0310241448

Case For a Creator.
http://www.amazon.com/Case-Creator-Journalist-Investigates-Scientific/dp/0310241448

Some guy was handing them out on campus. Funny read though.

Well if you get in touch with him later, if you get a chance, ask him what else he reads besides the bible to find out if it's more like this or more like this. Finding out what he thinks about things besides the bible should give you an idea of where his head is. I guess in that sense, it isn't a very big deal what you ask, but if you can engage him in anything worldly (politics, science, less politicky current events, etc), you're likely to get a better idea of how he's doing.

Maybe I'm taking all of the weight out from what I'm saying by disclosing my Christianity (I have ingenious justifications :) ). But that being said, you're much more likely to feel like you're getting someplace if you're engaging him on specific issues, by talking about things such as negative aspects of social conservatism or the authority of the scientific community as far as describing the natural world is concerned, or even this or that about Christianity rather than attacking "theism". (Not because it's a 'sacred cow' that can't be questioned, but because he isn't likely to respect your views about theism in itself if that's most of what you guys talk about right off the bat),

I asked originally about what your expectations were because if you want to (and if he still likes to have such rangey, high-minded discussions), you guys can knock around on things like this and over time you'll be giving him a chance to see things the way that you do. I just worried seeing your original post all by itself that you might be tempted to make this make or break at the beginning and I was thinking that you might not make that much headway, and wanted to throw in my 2 cents.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Creator-Journalist-Investigates/dp/0310241448

Sorry, its "the case for a creator", it's been 3-4 years.

Another thing...

Finish Aquinas when you can. (Hopefully) marvel at the ingenuity of the man's reasoning and the tightness (maybe?) of his arguments. Even you don't accept the arguments, at least marvel at their high-level, fundamental reasoning that are specifically designed to avoid god-of-the-gaps.

Then go look at the table of contents of this piece of shit:

Evolution, evolution, evolution. Darwin. DNA is machinery! Darwin. Derp derp! Biochemistry! Darwin was wrong! Evolution. Dembski Dembski. DNA is complex machinery!!! Behe. Meyer. Dembski. Behe. Darwin. Evolution.

???!!!!

THE FECKIN' IDIOTS HAVE ABANDONED THE ENTIRE INTELLECTUAL FOUNDATION OF THEIR OWN WORLDVIEW!!!

My encounters with Aquinas now make me doubly pissed off at modern evangelicals! Not only do they provide shit arguments, but now I know they provide shit arguments when they don't need to.

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Creator-Journalist-Investigates-Scientific/dp/0310241448