The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World |  | Author: William Dembski
Publisher: B&H Academic
List Price: $22.99
Buy New: $12.99
as of 11/24/2009 19:49 CST details
You Save: $10.00 (43%)
New (20) Used (9) from $11.74
Seller: centralkybooksupply
Rating:  8 reviews
Sales Rank: 3113
Media: Hardcover
Pages: 254
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.1
Dimensions (in): 9.1 x 6.1 x 0.1
ISBN: 0805427430
Dewey Decimal Number: 239
EAN: 9780805427431
ASIN: 0805427430
Publication Date: November 1, 2009 (New: Last 30 Days)
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Features:
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
| |
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Theodicy attempts to resolve how a good God and evil world can coexist. The neo-atheist view in this debate has dominated recent bestseller lists through books like The God Delusion (Richard Dawkins), God Is Not Great (Christopher Hitchens), and The End of Faith (Samuel Harris). And their popularity illuminates a changing mental environment wherein people are asking harder questions about divine goodness. Surprisingly, these books please intelligent design champion William Dembski, because “They would be unnecessary if Christianity were not again a live issue.”Entering the conversation, Dembski’s provocative The End of Christianity embraces the challenge to formulate a theodicy that is both faithful to Christian orthodoxy and credible to the new mental environment. He writes to make peace with three claims: (1) God by wisdom created the world out of nothing. (2) God exercises particular providence in the world. (3) All evil in the world ultimately traces back to human sin. In the process, Dembski brings the reader to a fresh understanding of what “the end (result) of Christianity” really means: the radical realignment of our thinking so that we see God’s goodness in creation despite the distorting effects of sin in our hearts and evil in the world. Endorsements:" The End of Christianity towers over the others in profundity and quality . . . I have read very few books with its deep of insight, breadth of scholarly interaction, and significance. From now on, no one who is working on a Christian treatment of the problem of evil can afford to neglect this book." —J. P. Moreland, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, Biola University and author of The God Question A thought-provoking and well-worth reading book by a brilliant evangelical thinker on the perennial and puzzling problem of how to explain physical evil in the world before the Fall. I could not put it down. It has so much intellectually stimulating material in it. —Norman Geisler "Believers have badly needed the kind of compelling case for biblical theodicy provided in Dr. Dembski's new book-grounded, as it is, not in traditional philosophical arguments (often not merely obtuse but irrelevant in today's scientific climate), but in intelligent design, of which Dr. Dembski is the world's foremost academic proponent." —John Warwick Montgomery "William Dembski is a first-rate scholar who has focused his attention on the perennial challenge to Christianity: Why does God allow such evil and cruelty in the world? While staying well within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy, Dembski offers fresh insights that can truly be described as groundbreaking. Whether you end up embracing his solution or not, The End of Christianity is a book all Christians-and even non-Christians-need to wrestle with. We enthusiastically recommend it." —Josh and Sean McDowell, co-authors of Evidence for the Resurrection and More Than A Carpenter
|
| Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 1-5 of 8
 rehash of same old lame nonsense November 7, 2009
E. Morton (USA)
2 out of 28 found this review helpful
Nothing new or at all persuasive in these tired old arguements about a God who is all powerful, all knowing, but somehow also not responsible for evil. Save your time and money.
What About the Nature of Time? November 1, 2009
Keith H. Bray (Redondo Beach, CA)
5 out of 7 found this review helpful
I have been an ID advocate since its inception and Dr. Dembski was kind enough to even have lunch with me (although it wasn't "free"--pun intended) after a 2-week course he taught years ago on the budding intelligent design movement and the twin aspects of the "Wedge" sides--both the positive (positing evidences) and the negative (epistemic [e.g., alleged demarcation lines defining science]).
I have just read The End of Christianity, and it is painfully obvious that I will have to re-read at it as least two more times. The book is more then intriguing and I have been a follower of Dembski et al. for over ten years. Dr. Dembski does comment that there will be a sequel to the book (page 111), and am I hopeful that he will address this issue which I believe to wreak havoc with his proposed theodicy.
I am unpacking this issue in a public context as this is not the kind of issue typically addressed in popular level books. Specifically, I am referring to Dembski's theory of time, which is not explicitly stated, but obviously seems to be a "static" or "B-theory" of time given the references in his book. This seems to follow from his view that God's eternal nature is timeless or atemporal. Most atemporalists typically hold to a B-theory of time. Whether this is a logical entailment is another issue. However, Dembski's view seems to be supported by his comment that Einstein's remark about the distinction between past, present and future is a stubborn illusion (page 128), which is typical of B-theorists.
The could wreak havoc on Dr. Dembski's theodicy as is it is evident to the initiated. For the reader not familiar with these issues, not only is God timeless, but time is an illusion--there is no such thing as "temporal becoming"--or tense for that matter. Worse yet, the main problem is how is it a timeless God can interact with creatures in time and still remain timeless (this issue here is not unlike the problems that obtain with the failed notion of ET-simultaneity). Dembski offers an atemporal God that remains both extrinsically and intrinsically untouched through causal interactions with mankind. If there is a sequel to this most incredible book, it would be great to see this issue address--even a footnote would suffice.
Moreover, the cosmology of the timeless God conjoined with a B-theory of time usually carries other baggage that does not sit too well within a theistic worldview. And here I am referring to the two major rivals of persistence: three-dimensionalism (3D, endurantism) and four-dimensionalism (4D, purdurantism). Four-dimensionalism also leads to eternalism (i.e., that all moments of time are on the same ontological footing), of which there are two varieties: worm theory and stage theory (which I believe to be more akin to the persistence of persons).
It is somewhat difficult to reconcile Dr. Dembski's theodicy unless he addresses these issues, especially the first issue; namely, trying to reconcile atemporality and a B-theory of time with God's interaction in a "linear time" that Dembski associates with "causal temporal logic," but still remain the God of time of "intentional-semantic logic." Perhaps my questions will be answered after reading this supurb book a second time. Lastly, I believe that (despite the young earth beliefs of those such as Dr. John Mark Reynolds) this book does well to challenge the superficial and offensive beliefs of young earth materials one would find in a church bookstore such as my own. I highly recommend this book and I hope that Dr. Dembski finds this review unoffensive.
 Intriguing and challenging, but not young-earth friendly October 30, 2009
P. W. Deaver (Fort Worth, Texas USA)
8 out of 10 found this review helpful
"The End of Christianity" is a new book by William A. Dembski, published in 2009 by B&H Publishing Group. Dembski is a philosophy professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (Fort Worth) and a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (Seattle). As both a philosopher and mathematician, he is on the front lines of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement among scientists. His list of credentials and accomplishments impresses. With postdoctoral work at MIT, University of Chicago, and Princeton, Dembski has written over a dozen books, appeared on ABC News Nightline, BBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, and Fox News, and been cited by The New York Times and Time Magazine. He was interviewed for the Ben Stein documentary, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed."
The book's subtitle is "Finding a Good God in an Evil World," and it is a theodicy, attempting to demonstrate that God's goodness is compatible with the existence of evil on earth, or, in other words, "to resolve how a good God and an evil world can coexist" (p. 4). Divided into five sections, it contains twenty-four chapters and 238 pages, including introduction and various indices.
More than mere theodicy, Dembski's goal is to outline a specifically Christian theodicy that defends three particular claims: "God by wisdom created the world out of nothing...God exercises particular providence in the world...All evil in the world ultimately traces back to human sin" (p. 8).
The eye-catching title has nothing to do with Christianity's demise, but, rather, its effect. "The end of Christianity, as envisioned in this book, is the radical realignment of our thinking so that we see God's goodness in creation despite the distorting effects of sin in our hearts and evil in the world" (p. 11).
One might suspect an author trained in mathematics and philosophy should not be the most interesting to read, but Dembski is no dull writer. He excels at casting deep theological and philosophical truths in easy-to-understand, creative, and thought-provoking ways, perhaps even reminiscent of C. S. Lewis.
The initial four chapters treat the topic of evil, and Dembski offers many keen insights. In the face of critics who say Jesus could not fully identify with human suffering, Dembski defends the Cross as far more than the Lord taking a few hours of pain. "In particular, Christ on the Cross identifies with the whole of human suffering, and this includes the ignorance and uncertainty that intensify human suffering" (p. 20). "The extent to which we can love God depends on the extent to which God has demonstrated his love for us, and that depends on the extent of evil that God has had to absorb, suffer, and overcome on our behalf" (p. 23).
Humans are to blame for both the presence of personal sin (i.e. disobedience to God), and the existence of natural evil (e.g. floods, disease, animal suffering, etc.). Says Dembski, "We started a fire in consenting to evil. God permits this fire to rage. He grants this permission not so that he can be a big hero when he rescues us but so that we can rightly understand the human condition and thus come to our senses" (p. 26). Sin forced souls into a state of disorder, which, in turn, came to be reflected in nature (p. 28). The evil and disorder apparent in nature are designed to impress people with the magnitude of the Fall in the Garden of Eden. Thus, "humanity must experience the full brunt of the evil that we have set in motion, and this requires that the creation itself fully manifest the consequences of humanity's rebellion against God" (p. 44). It is not that we serve a petty God who holds grudges, but, rather, that we must come to terms with the seriousness and consequences of human sin. "The problem isn't that God can't take it but that we can't take it--in offending God, we ruin the image of God in ourselves and so lose our true self" (p. 45).
Chapters 5-9 deal with creationism from a young-earth and an old-earth perspective. "God gave humanity two primary sources of revelation about himself: the world that he created and the Scripture that he inspired. These are also known as general and special revelation, or sometimes as the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture...We study science to understand the first of these books, theology to understand the second" (p. 71). Further, "God is a God of truth. As the author of both books, he does not contradict himself" (p. 72).
Admitting that "Young-earth creationism was the dominant position of Christians from the Church Fathers through the Reformers" (p. 52), Dembski says he "would adopt it in a heartbeat except that nature seems to present such strong evidence against it" (p. 55). He sees a problem in that today astrophysics and geology posit an age of 13 billion years for the universe, 4.5 billion years for the earth. This model results in a world where animals predated humans by eons, and in which this animal planet was suffering the effects of natural evil. In other words, according to the current climate of accepted science, long before man arrived there were animals eating each other, dying slow deaths, suffering from parasites, drowning, falling in tar pits, etc. If humans are responsible for the existence of all evil on earth, then how could such evil exist before there were humans? The answer to that question is the gist of the book. More on that in a minute.
Young-earth creationists have no dilemma in which the need arises to account for evil before man, since everything was created in the span of six 24-hour days. But Dembski thinks this cannot--at least in the current scientific atmosphere--be made to harmonize with accepted facts of geology and astrophysics. "Christians, it seems, must therefore choose their poison. They can go with a young earth, thereby maintaining theological orthodoxy but committing scientific heresy; or they can go with an old earth, thereby committing theological heresy but maintaining scientific orthodoxy" (p. 77).
Taking young-earth creationists to task, Dembski accuses them of adopting a double standard, appealing to nature's constancy when it helps their case, and denying nature's constancy when it appears to hurt (p. 63). According to him, "Young-earth creationists, it would seem, hold to a recent creation not because of but in spite of the scientific evidence" (p. 70).
Chapters 10-15 are about divine creation and action. Writing on the creation week, he notes, "At the end of the six days of creation, God is exhausted--not fatigued, as we might be, but exhausted in the sense of having drawn out of himself everything needed for the creature to be what it was intended to be" (p. 99). However, Dembski does not take the days of Genesis 1 to be 24-hour days, which brings us to his unique solution.
Chapters 16-20 cover what he calls retroactive effects of the Fall. If, as Christians believe, the efficacy of Christ's blood at the Cross could flow backward in time, as well as forward, then why not also the detrimental effects of original sin? Because God is not bound by chronological time, he could engineer the world to account for sin's consequences, and allow those consequences to begin to play out long before Adam and Eve (who were the reason for sin's consequences) appeared in the Garden of Eden. This intriguing suggesting would allow for an old earth, in which animals and natural evil existed long before humans. Evolution's timetable could fit nicely, and even evolution itself since, as Dembski suggests, it is possible that part of sin's result is that God had man evolve from lower forms, not because it was the original plan, but because evolution would itself be a form of evil brought on by man's sin in the Garden, with God initiating evolution long before the Garden as a response to Adam's sin (which was yet to be committed, chronologically speaking).
As he puts it, "in the theodicy I am proposing, our evolutionary past would itself be a consequence of sin (i.e., evolution would be a retroactive effect of the Fall)" (p. 162). Remember, Dembski is not saying we got here by evolution, but he is saying that, with his proposal, theistic evolution is welcome at the table, along with old-earth creationism (with young-earth creationism seemingly the odd-man-out).
It's a bit of a mind-twister to think about this idea, somewhat akin to figuring out a time-travel plot in a science fiction movie. Writes Dembski, "God is under no compulsion merely to rewrite the future of the world from the moment of the Fall (as assumed by young-earth creationism). Rather, God can rewrite our story while it is being performed and even change the entire backdrop against which it is performed--that includes past, present, and future...In other words, the effects of the Fall can be retroactive" (p. 110). So, in a nutshell, natural evil is chronologically prior to man, but man is logically prior to natural evil.
This proposed solution harmonizes modern scientific belief about the age of the earth with the biblical account of the Fall, thus preserving the doctrine that all evil on earth traces back to man's sin, which is the third plank in Dembski's theodicy. And this, even though the beginning of evil on earth predates the arrival of man. "Young-earth creationism attempts to make natural history match up with the order of creation point for point. By contrast, divine anticipation--the ability of God to act upon events before they happen--suggests that natural history need not match up so precisely with the order of creation..." (p. 137).
But, if he is right, what about the creation account of Genesis 1? Dembski does not want to deny a literal interpretation of Genesis, nor does he want to suggest the day-age theory. He says, "Accordingly, the days of creation are neither exact 24-hour days nor epochs in natural history nor even a literary device. Rather, they are actual (literal!) episodes in the divine creative activity" (p. 142). But if the days are not days as we normally think of days, what are they? "They represent key divisions in the divine order of creation, with one episode building logically on its predecessor. As a consequence, their description as chronological days falls under the common scriptural practice of employing physical realities to illuminate spiritual truths (cf. John 3:12)" (ibid.).
The days of Genesis 1 are, thus, to be taken literally, but not as composed of either hours or eons of time. Rather, they describe chapters of activity by a God unconstrained by chronologic time. Chapter 16 is titled "Chronos and Kairos," taken from two New Testament Greek words, and Dembski uses them to distinguish between two concepts of time. "The visible realm thus operates according to chronos, the simple passage of time. But the invisible realm, in which God resides, operates according to kairos, the ordering of reality according to divine purposes" (p. 126). Again, "Chronos is the time of physics, and physics has only been around as long as the cosmos. But kairos is God's time, and God has been around forever" (ibid.). "Thus God responds to the Fall by acting not simply after it, as held by young-earth creationism, but also by acting before it" (ibid.).
So, the world we inhabit--affected as it is by sin--is greatly marred, for "God himself wills the disordering of creation, making it defective on purpose" (p. 145). But why should the earth and animals suffer the effects of human sin? "The broad principle that justifies linking human sin and natural evil is humanity's covenant headship in creation" (p. 147). Since man is creation's apex, God holds man responsible for the results of his sin on himself, as well as the world. "God's dealings with creation therefore parallel his dealings with humanity" (ibid.)
Refusing to question God's justice in allowing nature to suffer for human sin, Dembski turns it around to suggest it would be unjust if God were to allow man to sin without its consequences coming down on nature. "Sin has ignited a raging fire in our hearts. God uses natural evil to fight fire with fire, setting a comparatively smaller fire (natural evil) to control a much larger fire (personal evil)" (p. 148).
The last part of the book, chapters 21-24, attempt to tie up "Loose Ends." Dembski freely admits that "the present theodicy attempts to make peace between our understanding of Genesis and the current mental environment" (p. 170). The "mental environment" to which he refers is the current conception of a universe that began billions of years ago with a Big Bang.
It is important to note that Dembski himself is not an evolutionist. And, as stated, he is a leader in the field among those in academia subscribing to Intelligent Design. Nor does he deny the verbal inspiration of Scripture. We appreciate his effort to defend God, Christ, the Cross, and the Genesis account of the Fall, as well as the existence and nature of evil. And, to his credit, Dembski rejects process theology, which reduces God's infinity in order to account for the existence of evil (making God himself an evolving, and in some ways helpless, being). Dembski believes in and defends the God of Scripture.
Thus, it is disappointing to see young-earth creationism endure a broadside (albeit a sympathetic broadside) from this proponent of Intelligent Design. Disappointment continues when Dembski writes, "Noah's flood, though presented as a global event, is probably best understood as historically rooted in a local event (e.g., a catastrophic flood in the Middle East)" (p. 170).
Though this review, in the main, describes a thesis of Dembski's with which we disagree, he does offer helpful insights and thought-provoking analyses, especially in Part I ("Dealing With Evil") and Part III ("Divine Creation and Action"). Among many of note who praise the book, Douglas Groothuis, philosophy professor at Denver Seminary, writes, "Dembski's ingenious approach to explaining natural evil (particularly animal pain and death before the fall) will not convince everyone, but all who read it will benefit from a mind crackling with intelligence, insight, and expertise."
In the final analysis, we think Dembski goes too far in an effort to accommodate what parades under the rubric of modern science. His "kairological" interpretation of the Genesis creation account loads the text with more meaning than the language can bear (e.g. "the evening and the morning were the first day...the second day...the third day," etc.), giving rise to this question: If God had wanted to convey the idea of his having created the earth in six 24-hour days, how might God have written that?
Further, Dembski's proposed retroactive effects of the Fall (and even making room for the evolutionary timetable) does violence to the understanding of Bible believers across the centuries. Are we to think that truths as fundamental as the origin of man and earth were necessarily misunderstood by Christians until the advent of modern geology and astrophysics?
We'll continue to occupy and defend our acre where evolutionary theory is untenable, unwelcome, and unable to be harmonized with Genesis. If it comes to a duel between science (or, what passes for science) and Scripture, we defer to the apostle Paul's timeless principle, "let God be true, but every man a liar" (Rom. 3:4). God is the God of true science, and of all knowledge. All truth (i.e. whatever accords with reality) harmonizes with all Scripture (since all Scripture is, itself, true).
But science does not know everything it says it knows. And it is difficult to read some of Paul's statements without the hubris of modern science springing to mind: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" (1 Cor. 1:19-20). "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called" (1 Tim. 6:20).
 The End of Christianity - Finding a Good God in an Evil World October 26, 2009
Mario A. Lopez
3 out of 5 found this review helpful
In The End of Christianity, William Dembski demonstrates, once again, to be one of today's most prolific authors. The End of Christianity does not disappoint. In fact, I believe that Dembski has answered more theological questions than the intended scope of his book. Indeed, if one follows the logic behind his argument throughout the whole of Scripture, you will have a more comprehensive understanding of Christianity. As I read through Dembski's book, I had one revelation after another, filling the gaps of my understanding.
The world is an evil place, and though we have come to accept our role in the fall of culture, we now need to accept our role in the fall of nature. Hence, how we understand the fall of nature will affect our view of God. How could natural evil, which predates human history, be attributed to human sin? The End of Christianity introduces a clear theodicy to make sense of a broken world in the presence of a loving God. To answer the question, Dembski clarifies for us several reasons for accepting the view that natural evil is the retroactive effect of the fall of man. Though the link between sin and natural evil was once thought of as a reasonable proposition, our current mental environment rejects this view in light of modern science. This book reestablishes that view while remaining true to Christian orthodoxy and the science of the day.
The fall of man can be attributed to his own free will, but why would a good free will, presumably created by God, turn against its Creator? Perhaps man, by introspection, recognizes that he is not God and feels to be denied the freedoms that only God possesses (i.e. the knowledge of good and evil). Building on this, Dembski focuses to demonstrate that his theodicy is in harmony with what he terms The Book of Nature and The Book of Scripture. All evil rightly ascribed to the first Adam and complete redemption to the second, Christ Jesus.
The cross--being central to the doctrine of salvation--is effectual to all men through all time past and present, so too sin is effectual in man and nature through all time past and present. To see this, the "reach of the cross" must be understood transcendentally, as opposed to historically. Though the crucifixion was a historical event, its effectual implications go beyond the torture endured by Christ on the cross. His willingness to surrender to the cross was necessary to understand human suffering, not by mere description, but by a personal acquaintance with it. To give up His power for the sake of man and experience the calamity of the world upon Himself went far more than the temporal suffering itself. "At the cross," writes Dembski, "divine infinity and human finiteness intersect." To be sure, Dembski continues, "In a fallen world, the only currency of love is suffering."
Other attempts to develop a complete theodicy have failed because the focus of the fall has been based on a chronological account (i.e. causal-temporal logic) in order to lessen God's culpability in allowing evil into the world. Dembski's theodicy does not reduce God's involvement in the world, nor limit his omnipotence or omniscience to make his case. Instead, Dembski argues that God can act on His knowledge of future events, treating time in a non-linear fashion. Therefore, in seeing forward to the fall, God shows its consequence in the world to man.
Though this book covers many related topics, the theodicy presented here is a monumental contribution to Christendom. This book is a must read!
It is true today (and for time to come, I am sure), if you have not read Dembski, you have not read anything. For this work (and his work in the ID movement), Dembski will certainly be remembered as the foremost pioneer of Christian thinking.
Excellent, Readable, Balanced and Current October 22, 2009
Darwin Researcher (London)
4 out of 6 found this review helpful
This is a different book for Dembski. It is more about theology than empirical science, although it does cover science as well. It is also the first book on theology proper that I have ever read if I ignore the pile of "new atheists" books out now, such as Richard Dawkin's previous book (most of these so-called new atheists books I have read). A focus of Dembski's book is on why evil exists if God is good. After the conclusion that evolution created life, and thus no need exists for God, the existence of evil is the most common reason given by atheists from Bertrand Russell to the new batch of atheists such as Christopher Hitchings as to why they do not believe in God. The most common response to this argument is that we have free will, thus free will allows humans to do evil. Most evil, at least today, is due to the evil done by humans. In the last century holocausts, pogroms, and related either directly or indirectly caused the death of close to a billion people. If God stopped all of this evil we would be deprived of free will and would be robots. Is this view valid? Dembski covers it in a fair and balanced way. Professor Dembski also covers the whole creation, Intelligent Design, evolution, short-age, and young-earth creationism, deism, and related issues in some detail. This book will appeal to a wide variety of persons, religious, atheistic, believers, non-believers, and everyone in-between. He covers basic questions everyone asks, or at least should think about.
Showing reviews 1-5 of 8
|
|
|
|
