Book Review- Stealing From God by Frank Turek
It is quite common for atheists to claim that science and reason are completely on their side and rule out the possibility of God's existence. While it is to be expected that atheists would recognize that certain philosophical foundations exist in the world they (and we) live in, it is not necessarily expected that they would understand that their explanation of reality (without God) is incompatible with such realities. Laying out that explanation is the goal of Frank Turek's book "Stealing From God." In order to be a logically consistent atheist, many of reality's foundations must be denied. And if they do not wish to deny them, then they must steal those foundations from God to argue against His existence.
Turek describes seven CRIMES that atheists commit against reality and their everyday life in order make their case against God (or even to attempt to explain reality without God). As he shows that reality demonstrates atheism to be false, he shows not only how each one provides a negative argument against atheism but a positive argument for God. In the final chapters Turek argues for the existence of not just any theistic God, but the God of Christianity- the true worldview.
In this review I'll go over some of the key points Turek makes throughout the book, provide several of my favorite quotes, and give my specific recommendations.
Key Points
- Whether atheists admit it or not, atheism does have philosophical foundations that undergird its understanding of reality. The question is whether those foundations are reflected in reality or not. If not, then atheism is demonstrably false.
- Several philosophical foundations undergird reality and everyday life: causality, reason, intentionality, information, morality, evil, and science.
- These philosophical foundations of reality and everyday life are demonstrably, necessarily incompatible with atheism. Thus atheism is false.
- Atheists, because they live in a non-atheistic world, take them for granted yet still try to use them as evidence against God.
- In the world we live in, all effects have causes, but the chain of past causes must terminate at an uncaused cause (not an effect). Atheism either explicitly states that there is no uncaused cause or looks for explanations to avoid an uncaused cause. Thus atheism is incompatible with the world we live in.
- In the world we live in, logic is discovered not made up. If logic is made up, no matter how sound an argument (soundness is also made up) is, reality does not necessarily reflect it, thus no conclusion has any necessary connection to the reality we live in. In atheism, logic is made up, thus if atheism is true, no argument for any conclusion (including that atheism is true) can be made.
- In the world we live in, intentionality is a feature. Intentionality is only a property of metaphysical agents. Atheism (naturalism) necessarily denies the existence of any metaphysical realities, including agents and by extension, intentionality. Thus atheism cannot accurately describe the world we live in.
- In the world we live in, information exists. Atheists communicate information in the books they write and the talks they give. However, information is necessarily the product of agents, and since agents are metaphysical realities, information is incompatible with atheism, making atheism incompatible with the world we live in.
- In the world we live in, morality is objective and discovered; it is neither made up nor dependent upon the person or society. Atheism only allows for morality that is made up and any attempt to objectivize it reduces down to pragmatism which is not discovered to be good but is opined (made up) as good. Atheism is incompatible with morality and the world we live in.
- In the world we live in, evil is real and objective (not dependent upon opinions of people or societies). However, for evil to be real and objective, "good" must also be real and objective. See the previous point to follow the logic to the conclusion.
- In the world we live in, science is a valid method for discovering truth about nature. Because science necessarily depends upon causality and atheism is incompatible with causality (and several other foundations), science is incompatible with atheism. And since atheism is incompatible with science, atheism is also incompatible with the world we live in.
- Each one of these stands alone to defeat atheism, but when they are combined, someone truly has to have blind faith to be an atheist. Atheism is ironically the delusion, not theism.
- Defeating atheism, though, does not automatically mean that Christianity is true (other forms of theism have been offered).
- Other forms of theism can be eliminated if the Resurrection of Jesus Christ happened in history.
- Given the evidence of the Resurrection, it takes more faith to deny it than to accept it.
- But becoming a Christian is not merely an exercise of head knowledge of the Resurrection, it takes trust in the sacrifice that Jesus Christ made on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins. This is where the head meets the heart and brings us into a loving and saving relationship with the Creator and Foundation that undergirds and accurately explains the world we live in.
Quotes
"Since atheists use arguments from science, reason, morality, and evil to support atheism, God must be dead. Right? No. There's a fatal problem with all of those atheist arguments against God--they are stolen from God Himself."
"The foundational assumptions of atheism make it impossible to make a sound intellectual case for atheism."
"When most atheists attack what they think is the God of the Bible, they are actually attacking the equivalent of an Old Testament idol—exactly the kind of invented being that the true God kept warning Israel was not real."
"The need to expose the faults in atheism and provide the evidence for Christian theism has never been greater. And since atheism appears to be growing, it's especially important to refute atheistic beliefs directly."
"With a flawed foundation, the entire superstructure of atheism comes crashing down. No future scientific discoveries or elaborate theorizing will rescue it. A house build on the sand of illogic is a goner."
"The existence of wacky philosophy doesn't discredit the existence of good philosophy any more than the existence of wacky science discredits the existence of good science."
"While it is true that one can use bad philosophy, it is impossible to use no philosophy."
"In an atheistic world where reason, consciousness, and free will are illusions, 'you' and 'me' don't really exist and neither do arguments. We're all blind. So you can assert that atheism is true, but you can't rely on arguments to support the claim. You have to accept it on blind faith."
"When [archaeologists and detectives] discover inscriptions or crimes, it's not a 'gap' in their knowledge about natural forces that led them to conclude intelligence was required. It's the positive knowledge that inscriptions require inscribers and crimes require criminals."
"God and science are not competing explanations for the universe and life, any more than Henry Ford and the laws of internal combustion are competing explanations for the Model T. Both are necessary. Learning more about how a car works will never disprove the existence of the carmaker. Likewise, learning more about how the natural world works (which enables us to make technological advances) will never disprove the existence of the Creator or Sustainer of the natural world."
"Some people like to murder; others don't. Without an unchangeable authoritative standard beyond human opinion, nothing is objectively right or wrong. Only if God exists is there an authoritative and unchanging standard (God's nature) that establishes what is morally right. An atheistic reality has no such standard."
"You can know what a book says while denying there's an author. But there would be no book to know unless there was an author. Likewise, atheists can know objective morality while denying God exists, but there would be no objective morality unless God exists."
"You don't have to appeal to God to write laws, but you do have to appeal to God if you want to ground them in anything other than human opinion."
"Christians can say with confidence that while some atheists have the attitude, 'There is not God and I hate him,' Christ had the attitude, 'There are atheists, and I love them. In fact, I died for them.'"
Recommendations
"Stealing From God" is an important work for Christians, in general, to read. As Christians share the Gospel of Jesus Christ, they will encounter challenges that are unrelated to the truth of the Gospel, and many of those challenges will take the form of philosophical sufficiency of life without God. As part of being "prepared to give a reason for the hope that we have" we need to be prepared to give reasons for the lack of hope of the unbeliever. When people are searching for answers, it is because they realize that something truly is missing in their lives and/or worldview, but not every unbeliever recognizes that something is missing. In "Stealing From God" Frank Turek describes several things that are missing from the worldview of atheists (and even believers of other worldviews), and if even one of these things is understood and recognized, then a window of opportunity is open for the Gospel to take hold.
Anyone who is involved in discussions about origins will benefit from "Stealing From God." Today's prevailing view of scientism (in either the weak or strong form) prevents many science-minded people from even entertaining the idea that God is the Creator. In "Stealing From God" Frank Turek covers several of the foundations of science that are necessarily dependent upon God for their function. While science investigates the function of nature, philosophy investigates the function of science; and Turek shows how, if we grant that science is a valid way to investigate nature, then God is necessary to explain the function of science.
Anyone who is involved in discussions about the mind and the brain. Intentionality, free will, and creativity are all discussed in "Stealing From God." Turek shows how all these concepts, if true and not merely illusions, require God. He also demonstrates how, if God does not exist, then all these are necessarily illusions. If someone is to hold fast to their attempts to explain this world without God, they not only need to explain the illusions of intentionality, free will and creativity, but they need to understand and accept that none of these actually exist in their worldview and that non-existence applies to them; they are not exceptions to their own worldview. If an atheist wishes to except himself or herself from these implications, then they are guilty of stealing from God- they use God in order to argue against God.
Any atheist who champions "reason" and eschews "blind faith" will benefit from the philosophical challenges presented by Turek. While the challenges he presents can be emotionally dismissed or ignored, they cannot be intellectually dismissed or ignored. They also cannot be merely thought exercises performed from the seat of an armchair. They must be applied to the thinker; the thinker must self-reflect and grapple with what the implications mean for them if they wish to continue to explain this world without God.
