Project and content management for Contemporary Authors volumes
WORK TITLE: An Atheist and a Christian Walk into a Bar
WORK NOTES: with Randal D. Rauser
PSEUDONYM(S):
BIRTHDATE: 1984
WEBSITE:
CITY:
STATE:
COUNTRY:
NATIONALITY:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/notesfromanapostate/2016/03/exploring-reasonable-doubt-an-interview-with-justin-schieber/ * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_Doubts_(podcast)
RESEARCHER NOTES:
PERSONAL
Male.
ADDRESS
CAREER
Writer and podcast host. Reasonable Doubts radio show and podcast, 2011-15; RealAtheology.com, host; Center for Inquiry, Grand Rapids chapter, served on the board, 2014-15.
WRITINGS
SIDELIGHTS
Philosopher and religion writer Justin Schieber has participated in public debates in Canada and the United States about skepticism toward religious claims and philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God. Formerly the cohost of the Reasonable Doubts radio show and podcast, Schieber now heads the Real Atheology YouTube channel, where he interviews theological scholars and produces short videos about contemporary trends in the philosophy of religion. He served on the board of the Grand Rapids, Michigan, chapter of the Center for Inquiry in 2014 and 2015.
In 2016, Schieber partnered with Canadian theologian Randal Rauser, professor of historical theology at Taylor Seminary in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, to publish An Atheist and a Christian Walk into a Bar: Talking about God, the Universe, and Everything. In the book, Schieber and Rauser conduct a theological discussion in a friendly, straightforward dialogue. Using provocative arguments, anecdotes, and lively banter, the authors discuss reason and faith, as well as varying concepts of God in different cultures. Their extended conversation explores a broad range of topics, including the concept of the necessity of God, morality in connection with religious beliefs, the knowledge of evolution versus the existence of God, the question of suffering and evil in the world, and the apparent mathematical measurability of the universe, which suggests divine design or creative intent.
In an interview with Sincere Kirabo online at Patheos, Schieber explained his doubts about the authenticity of religious texts, despite growing up with Christian parents: “The more fantastic stories of the biblical text were becoming increasingly difficult to genuinely imagine happening in the real world and to real people like you and me. . . . I tried to fight these doubts as any person of faith would but I lost.”
Writing at the Portland Book Review, Norman West described An Atheist and a Christian Walk into a Bar as “intended to encourage a lively discussion of the question of God’s existence.” West appreciated the philosophical bent of the authors’ dialogue, which avoids proof-texting references to Scripture, and learning about terms such as Aseity, Fideism, and Apatheism. Somewhat less impressed, a Kirkus Reviews contributor described the conversation between Schieber and Rauser as “a rather unappealing combination of sophomoric jokes and theoretical conundrums” that fails “to engage those interested in the theoretical arguments behind theism and atheism.” In contrast, a writer for Midwest Book Review recommended the book to readers “looking for a reasoned discussion” about the existence of God, adding that the text “provides an excellent feel for the basic arguments and contentions” of the two debaters. In Publishers Weekly, a writer similarly noted: “Though at times the philosophical talk gets thick, Rouser and Schieber are generally adept at unpacking concepts for nonexpert readers” even though the authors “never reach consensus.”
BIOCRIT
PERIODICALS
Kirkus Reviews, October 15, 2016, review of An Atheist and a Christian Walk into a Bar.
Midwest Book Review, February 2017, review of An Atheist and a Christian Walk into a Bar.
Publishers Weekly, October 10, 2016, review of An Atheist and a Christian Walk into a Bar, p. 74.
ONLINE
Patheos, http://www.patheos.com/ (March 8, 2016), Sincere Kirabo, author interview.
Portland Book Review, http://portlandbookreview.com/ (January 24, 2017), Norman West, review of An Atheist and a Christian Walk into a Bar.
Sens Homines, https://senshomines.wordpress.com/ (January 13, 2017), review of An Atheist and a Christian Walk into a Bar.
Exploring Reasonable Doubt – An Interview with Justin Schieber
March 8, 2016 by Sincere Kirabo 1 Comment
Whether or not a supernatural force we generally refer to as God exists remains one of the most important philosophical questions to humans. And while social sciences (anthropology, sociology, cognitive science of religion, etc.) have revealed much about the “why” behind religious beliefs, and despite methodological naturalism in science not requiring the extraneous factors associated with the god hypothesis, many remain spellbound by the meaning belief in God provides.
However, careful scrutiny of god beliefs is important. Belief in a supernatural intentional agency is a huge assumption (rather, a series of assumptions). It isn’t a scientific hypothesis, but due to the implications of the premises and claims, it should be treated as if it were a scientific hypothesis, and thus subjected to rigorous inquiry and systematic testing. We shouldn’t just assume such a belief is true, cherry-pick confirming evidence, insulate it from disconfirming evidence, shift the burden of proof onto critics, and then buttress the belief with cognitive and logical errors such as anomaly hunting, subjective validation, circular reasoning, and appeals to ignorance.
Enter Justin Schieber, noted skeptic of religious claims. I recently had a chance to discuss philosophy, atheism, and gods with the former co-host of “Reasonable Doubts,” the popular skeptic radio show and podcast. I appreciate the nuance and well-calculated perspective he takes regarding these matters. Schieber brings a charitable yet firm resolve to the table many could learn from.
Sincere: Have you always been skeptical of religious claims centered on god beliefs? What led to your current atheistic position?
Justin: I was not always skeptical of religious claims. I, like most others early in life, had inherited the beliefs of my parents. They were Christians and so was I. I was raised in the church but it wasn’t until around the age of 12 that I began to take my faith seriously. A few years after this shift in me, the doubts crept in. The more fantastic stories of the biblical text were becoming increasingly difficult to genuinely imagine happening in the real world and to real people like you and me. The struggle was real. I tried to fight these doubts as any person of faith would but I lost. This then led me down a long path from apatheism to obnoxious, firebrand atheism then finally to my current approach which I hope is more measured, careful, and fair-minded. My current view is that I want God as classically conceived to exist. She probably doesn’t though and I think that’s unfortunate – the world would be a radically different and better place.
SK: As a philosophile, I’m someone who greatly appreciates the intellectual ingenuity and rigor that goes into philosophy in general. Why do you think philosophy is important?
JS: In my view, part of the importance of philosophy comes from the fact that it doesn’t shy away from examining those assumptions which undergird much of what people are liable to take as a given. From common notions of causality to the nature of moral obligation, philosophy challenges us to plunge deep into our conceptual landscape – the surface on which most only casually stroll. It can also have profound practical implications. Studying, contemplating, and interacting with ideas in ethics can be not only a source of personal improvement and intellectual fulfillment but it can also help bring about real and positive social change. Further, the study of philosophy has turned me into a more careful thinker than I would have otherwise been. The set of cognitive and communicative skills such a hobby tends to foster are applicable in nearly every aspect of human life.
SK: I’ve had plenty discussions and disagreements with individuals who hold science in high regard yet depreciate philosophy as if science were a wholly separate enterprise. You have some, like John Searle, who view them as not being distinct due to philosophical presupposition and implications that go into every scientific inquiry. What are your views on this?
JS: Yes, I’ve noticed that in my own discussions with the more scientifically inclined. I tend to agree with Searle here in that I don’t think we can – or should seek to – draw a hard line between ‘science’ and ‘philosophy’. Those two bushes of inquiry cannot be untangled. Even the most obviously ‘scientific’ investigation rests on a bed of philosophical assumptions that cannot themselves be demonstrated by any sort of scientific method we have. Further, any responsible philosopher will bring into his research the best and most current science when relevant. Regrettably, it seems that in pointing this out to anti-philosophy folks, I’m rarely met with much more than an eye-roll. The truth is, for all the amazing technological successes science has bestowed upon us, it hasn’t yet built a machine allowing it to pull itself up by its own bootstraps severing it from its philosophical foundation. This need not be thought of as a bad thing.
SK: I’m a big fan of the work you do with Real Atheology. Please explain how this project got started, what Real Atheology entails, and why you think exploring the philosophy of religion is important for atheists.
JS: First of all, thank you for the compliment and for the excellent content you produce here at Notes from an Apostate. The idea for Real Atheology came out of the few years I spent co-hosting the Reasonable Doubts Podcast. For a number of primarily practical reasons, that show had to come to an end. However, my interest in the philosophy of religion was really just beginning. I knew I was going to keep researching, discussing, and participating in public debates on the topic so I figured I might as well put out some content as well.
Unfortunately, many atheists I know–or come across on the Internet–think the philosophy of religion is stupid, meaningless, or a waste of time. And yet, these same persons continue doing philosophy of religion – they just do it very poorly.
I’ve decided then to make Real Atheology as a tool for atheists (and theists too!) as an extremely easy way to explore the contemporary philosophy of religion in some detail but through the magic of YouTube videos. The goal here is decidedly not to deconvert anybody or to laugh at creationists – it’s merely to elevate the atheistic discussion past the constant barrage of ‘God of the Gaps!’ accusations and references to anthropomorphic spaghetti dinners in place of real argument. There is a ton of really interesting work going on in the philosophy of religion and I hope I can present a small part of it in a way that’ll help others with their own thinking on these topics.
Justin Schieber enjoys promoting a friendly, yet firm, skepticism toward religious claims. He regularly lectures on the philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God and participates in many public debates throughout the United States and Canada. Follow him @Justinsweh.
Justin Schieber is former co-host of the Reasonable Doubts Radio Show and Podcast and current host of the Real Atheology youtube channel (RealAtheology.com) where he produces informational videos on contemporary academic philosophy of religion. Justin has lectured on the philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God and has participated in many public debates throughout the United States and Canada. December 2016 saw the publication of 'An Atheist and a Christian Walk into a Bar', a conversational exploration on the merits of theism co-authored with Canadian theologian Randal Rauser and published through Prometheus Books.
An Atheist and a Christian Walk Into a Bar
(Feb. 2017):
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2017 Midwest Book Review
http://www.midwestbookreview.com/bw/index.htm
An Atheist and a Christian Walk Into a Bar
Randal Rauser and Justin Schieber
Prometheus Books
59 John Glenn Drive, Amherst, NY 14228-2197
9781633882430, $18.00, www.prometheusbooks.com
An Atheist and a Christian Walk Into a Bar ... Talking About God, the Universe, and Everything is both a comedy and a conversation and helps readers understand the basic differences between atheist and Christian perspectives by offering a discussion between the two. Arguments and contrasting perspectives represent the give-and-take of opinion and ideology between the two individuals using a dialogue format that captures these conversations. While audio format would perfectly dramatize these encounters, the print book provides an excellent feel for the basic arguments and contentions of the two participants, and is recommended for any reader looking for a reasoned discussion.
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
"An Atheist and a Christian Walk Into a Bar." The Bookwatch, Feb. 2017. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA485971390&it=r&asid=ad910ffed0ab6964f1cc5b9d46450c17. Accessed 2 June 2017.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A485971390
Randal Rauser, Justin Schieber: AN ATHEIST AND A CHRISTIAN WALK INTO A BAR
(Oct. 15, 2016):
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2016 Kirkus Media LLC
http://www.kirkusreviews.com/
Randal Rauser, Justin Schieber AN ATHEIST AND A CHRISTIAN WALK INTO A BAR Prometheus Books (Adult Nonfiction) 18.00 ISBN: 978-1-63388-243-0
In this 21st-century take on the long-standing tradition of philosophical dialogue, two intellectuals battle it out in the arena of ideas and witticisms.Unfortunately for readers, the resulting conversation is a rather unappealing combination of sophomoric jokes and theoretical conundrums. The work is neither insightful enough to engage those interested in the theoretical arguments behind theism and atheism, nor is it accessible enough to appeal to a broader audience. That’s not to say Rauser (Historical Theology/Taylor Seminary; Is the Atheist My Neighbor?: Rethinking Christian Attitudes Toward Atheism, 2015, etc.) and Schieber, an atheist lecturer and YouTube contributor, don’t cover weighty topics. Among those is “massive theological disagreement”—if God exists, why are ideas about his nature so thoroughly varied? Elsewhere, the question arises of why God would have created a universe that is almost entirely inhospitable toward the few sentient beings meant to worship him. Do the beauty and perfection of mathematics lead one to believe in a creating God, or is this simply a fortunate reality of existence? What does evolution teach us about the existence or nonexistence of God? Rauser and Schieber go back and forth with these and other topics but offer few conclusions. Their subject matter, however, is riddled with jokes, puns, and other attempts at humor and levity, which, if minimized, would have the desired effect of removing the loaded problem of “argument” from this age-old discussion. However, the authors take it too far. After countless lines like, “I feel sick that my slick shtick doesn’t stick,” or, “since the reader can’t see me, let the record reflect that my eyebrows are rising in incredulity,” readers will simply feel patronized.
A good idea derailed for the sake of entertainment. Readers interested in this topic should turn to Gary Gutting’s Talking God: Philosophers on Belief (2016).
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
"Randal Rauser, Justin Schieber: AN ATHEIST AND A CHRISTIAN WALK INTO A BAR." Kirkus Reviews, 15 Oct. 2016. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA466551409&it=r&asid=567005853c0a9c61fccb4d136da0ab62. Accessed 2 June 2017.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A466551409
An Atheist and a Christian Walk into a Bar: Talking about God, the Universe, and Everything
263.41 (Oct. 10, 2016): p74.
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2016 PWxyz, LLC
http://www.publishersweekly.com/
An Atheist and a Christian Walk into a Bar: Talking about God, the Universe, and Everything
Randal Rauser and Justin Schieber. Prometheus, $18 trade paper (200p) ISBN 978-1-63388-243-0
Theology professor Rouser and YouTube personality Schieber offer complex, rigorous arguments that will challenge the thinking of believers and atheists alike. Through one long conversation presented in transcript form--complete with digressions and calls for clarification--the duo avoids the simplistic attacks or hasty reasoning found in many polemical works. Although Rauser speaks from a Christian perspective, the authors focus on a more inclusive classical theism: the notion that an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God exists. They argue about whether testimony is valid evidence, what the major theological disagreements between religions suggest, what the creator's seeming hostility to the universe means, whether the neat mathematical pattern of the universe proves intentional design, and how to best explain the problem of human suffering. The dialogue format lends authenticity but can become tedious, especially when either author cracks a joke. Though at times the philosophical talk gets thick, Rouser and Schieber are generally adept at unpacking concepts for nonexpert readers. They never reach consensus, but their model of listening to and respectfully challenging each other provides a refreshing, hospitable break from heavy-handed demonization and overly simplified apologetics. (Dec.)
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
"An Atheist and a Christian Walk into a Bar: Talking about God, the Universe, and Everything." Publishers Weekly, 10 Oct. 2016, p. 74+. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA466616225&it=r&asid=289750a90b55b9798f14d7e1ceced98e. Accessed 2 June 2017.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A466616225
An Atheist and a Christian Walk into a Bar
John Burroughs
(Mar. 2017):
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2017 Midwest Book Review
http://www.midwestbookreview.com
An Atheist and a Christian Walk into a Bar
Randal Rauser & Justin Schieber
Prometheus Books
59 John Glenn Drive, Amherst, NY 14228-2197
www.prometheusbooks.com
9781633882430, $18.00, PB, 220pp, www.amazon.com
Synopsis: The question of God is simply too important and too interesting to leave to angry polemicists. That is the premise of "An Atheist and a Christian Walk into a Bar: Talking about God, the Universe, and Everything", a friendly, straightforward, and rigorous dialogue between Christian theologian Randal Rauser (who is a Professor of Historical Theology at Taylor Seminary in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) and atheist Justin Schieber (the founder and host of Real Atheology, a Youtube channel dedicated to presenting issues in contemporary philosophy of religion in easy-to-follow videos).
Setting aside the formality of the traditional debate, Rauser and Schieber invite the reader to join them in an extended, informal conversation. This has the advantage of easing readers into thorny topics that in a debate setting can easily become confusing or difficult to follow.
Like any good conversation, this one involves provocative arguments, amusing anecdotes, and some lively banter. Rauser and Schieber begin with the question of why debates about God still matter. They then delve into a number of important topics: the place of reason and faith, the radically different concepts of God in various cultures, morality and its traditional connection with religious beliefs, the problem of a universe that is overwhelmingly hostile to life as we know it, mathematical truths and what they may or may not say about the existence of God, the challenge of suffering and evil to belief in God, and more.
Refreshingly upbeat and amicable throughout, this stimulating conversation between two friends from opposing points of view is an ideal introduction to a perennial topic of debate.
Critique: An inherently thoughtful and thought-provoking read from cover to cover, "An Atheist and a Christian Walk into a Bar: Talking about God, the Universe, and Everything" is a consistently compelling read that will linger in the mind and memory long after the book itself has been finished and set back upon the shelf. While unreservedly recommended for community and academic library Religion & Philosophy collections, it should be noted for the personal reading lists of academia, theologians, and non-specialist general readers with an interest in the subject that "An Atheist and a Christian Walk into a Bar" is also available in a Kindle format ($11.99).
John Burroughs
Reviewer
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
Burroughs, John. "An Atheist and a Christian Walk into a Bar." Reviewer's Bookwatch, Mar. 2017. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA491310625&it=r&asid=eb673c50fd0ee8be76f564cedb221d20. Accessed 2 June 2017.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A491310625
An Atheist and a Christian Walk Into a Bar
(Feb. 2017):
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2017 Midwest Book Review
http://www.midwestbookreview.com
An Atheist and a Christian Walk Into a Bar
Randal Rauser and Justin Schieber
Prometheus Books
59 John Glenn Drive, Amherst, NY 14228-2197
9781633882430, $18.00, www.prometheusbooks.com
An Atheist and a Christian Walk Into a Bar ... Talking About God, the Universe, and Everything is both a comedy and a conversation and helps readers understand the basic differences between atheist and Christian perspectives by offering a discussion between the two. Arguments and contrasting perspectives represent the give-and-take of opinion and ideology between the two individuals using a dialogue format that captures these conversations. While audio format would perfectly dramatize these encounters, the print book provides an excellent feel for the basic arguments and contentions of the two participants, and is recommended for any reader looking for a reasoned discussion.
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
"An Atheist and a Christian Walk Into a Bar." Internet Bookwatch, Feb. 2017. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA486309593&it=r&asid=f6dd94e7ed8cd92680e3415733da4202. Accessed 2 June 2017.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A486309593
An Atheist and a Christian Walk into a Bar: Talking about God, the Universe, and Everything by Randal Rauser and Justin Schieber
by Norman West on January 24, 2017
2
?
?
This book has a great title, promising a lighthearted, convivial discussion. …Light headed, might be a better estimation.
This is Randal Rauser’s tenth book and the third one with a coauthor. This reviewer has previously reviewed God or Godless by Randal and John W Loftus. That one was styled as a debate between a believer and an Atheist, with opening statement, rebuttal, and closing arguments. This book uses a conversational format, which may be less formal, but also leads to a less rigorous treatment of the subject matter.
Publisher: Prometheus Books
Formats: Paperback, eBook, Kindle
Purchase: Powell’s | Amazon | IndieBound | iBooks
The discussion starts with why God matters and moves on to the problem of massive theological disagreement, the problem of the hostility of the universe and God, mathematics, and reason. There’s more, but these subjects illustrate the scope and type of discussions going on.
The discussions are philosophical in nature and so are not anchored to evidence, be it scripture or some scientific ‘proof.’ As a result, they are mostly assertions by analogy, constructed example and free range fancy.
At first, I thought we might be faced with a Hannity & Colmes situation, where one participant overpowers the other with superior knowledge, better debating skills, or just extra determination. On reflection, I think it’s because Randal, as a religion professor is immersed in his subject matter, while an atheist has to keep his day job and so may be not quite so facile with his presentation. This impression largely disappears later on when they both go to the mountain, where the ideas are thinner.
I did learn some new words, though. The first, Aseity, means “that which exists of by and for itself, without antecedents, etc.” A neat, though not very plausible, or fair, end-around the infinite regression problem. The second. Fideism, says that faith need not depend on evidence. Kind of like one of my favorite bumper stickers: God said it, I believe it, That settles it! If only it were that simple. A third is Apatheism, the dismissing of the whole question of whether the idea of God even matters in this world.
If you haven’t figured it out yet, this reviewer is an Atheist. The whole book is intended to encourage a lively discussion of the question of God’s existence, which I agree is important to the world we live in. However, after reading An Atheist and a Christian Walk into a Bar, I think apatheism is my fallback position. …At least for a while.
Review: An Atheist and a Christian Walk into a Bar
January 13, 2017 4 Comments
Note: This review will also be posted on Amazon. I was given this book by the publishers as a review copy.
If you’ve ever attempted any sort of discussion concerning a “serious” subject (politics, religion, ethics, etc.), you’re probably aware of how frustrating such an endeavor tends to be. Sure, the conversation can usually start out politely enough, but as things get on they (seem) to almost always rapidly deteriorate to heated emotionalism, unchecked biases, ungrounded assertions, flagrant name-calling, unwillingness to actually engage, etc., etc., with the result that both participants go home feeling a good deal more self-superior, and a good deal more dismissive of the other, but nowhere nearer to the actual truth.
The human propensity for rational inquiry is quite astounding. So, however, is its corollary: the human propensity for disagreement. Part of the whole dilemma of the process of human reasoning is how to come to grips with the fact that very often, very many people disagree with us about topics which are extremely significant. Even more, very often the people who do disagree with us are people who are very intelligent in their own right, and seem to have very good reasons for disagreeing with us. Is rationality thus futile, if it leads us to such wildly disparate conclusions?
This, it seems to me, is really the central question of An Atheist and a Christian Walk into a Bar, although it is contextualized here specifically in the question of the existence of God, which, both authors note, is perhaps one of the most important questions a human being can ask. In this book, the co-authors Randal Rauser and Justin Schieber have taken upon themselves a monumental task: to move beyond simplistic, dismissive, rhetoric to real, substantive dialogue between two people who very much disagree with each other, but who also very much care about the truth about which they disagree.
This book is really quite unique, and, I’d suggest, it has the potential to open up new pathways into how people approach “debating” such topics. It is written, in many ways, like one of Plato’s dialogues, but very much between equals. And, as an ardent fan of Plato’s writings, I couldn’t have enjoyed it more. The actual content of the book consists of several arguments for and against the existence of God, hashed out between two very philosophically competent thinkers who are well versed in philosophy of religion, and who are equally as impressive in their writing abilities as in their metaphysical rigor. But, for me, the content itself almost seems secondary in importance to the structure of the book. In other words, the primary significance of the book seems to be how they argue, rather than merely what they argue. Don’t get me wrong, this latter aspect is extremely significant as well, in its own right (as should hardly have to be explained). But one can find hundreds and thousands of books, articles, presentations, lectures, debates, etc. on just about every single little minuscule facet of the topic of God’s existence from both perspectives–but the number of treatments of the issue in the format of this book are, I’d say, quite rare, which makes this book a gem. Schieber and Rauser, above all, have nearly perfectly modeled for the readers the way in which dialogue about God (and really all serious intellectual controversies) between people with conflicting worldviews ought to be conducted. They are polite, cordial, kind, humble and respectful, not just of each other as persons, but of each other’s views. There is no “love the person, mock the idea” attitude here. They take the position of the other seriously, so seriously, in fact, that they are willing to allow it to challenge their own position, to see which stands up in the face of the evidence, all in pursuit of truth. They are polite, but they are not passive. They are generous, but also heated–because they are each passionate about what they’re discussing. They deeply care about the question at hand and about their respective beliefs concerning the answer thereof.
As I said, this book is quite unique in its format, and, as such, I think there are both pros and cons associated with it. The book reads much less like a formal debate or presentation of arguments, and much more like a conversation, casual yet purposeful, informal yet not succumbing to laziness or flippancy. It reads quickly and is quite accessible to laypeople and those unfamiliar or uninitiated into philosophy of religion technicalities. One immediate benefit is that both sides are presented of every issue, by advocates of those positions, and are directly subjected to critique by the opponent. It isn’t like a normal debate format, however, where one person offers an opening statement, then the other does as well, then the first person offers a rebuttal, and so on. Rather, it is a real discussion, with all the intricacies and messiness that goes along therewith. There are interruptions, digressions, rabbit trails, backtracking, side notes, etc. In short, it feels very human. One possible con with this style, however, is that the arguments are not given as a whole, all at once (at least not in every case). Instead, the arguments develop naturally, following along with the general rhythm and flow of the conversation. Some might find this a bit difficult to keep track of at times, but it is an inherent limitation of the type of discourse being undertaken here, and I think it is well worth it. To be clear, I don’t think that this “dialogue” format ought to replace regular formal debates or other methods of presenting arguments, but I do think it is quite a welcome, fruitful supplement to those standard approaches.
Most of the arguments considered are not exactly new or unique in themselves–those with a general knowledge of philosophy of religion literature should find them fairly familiar–but popular level audiences who are used to “new atheist” or non-academic apologetics works should find the material here fresh and thought provoking. Schieber and Rauser, of course, hardly have room to offer anywhere near an exhaustive treatment of the arguments they’ve chosen to consider, but they do succeed in giving the reader an excellent introduction to relevant concepts, terms, ideas, and ways of thinking about things. Nearly every chapter ends in a sort of “stale mate” where both authors admit that they’ve reached a point where they just have to “agree to disagree”, if you will, and some might find this disappointing. Is there no way to reach any conclusive, definitive answers? Is it really impossible to persuade someone entrenched in a different view to admit they’re wrong and change their minds? To be sure, both authors at times do plenty of admitting they’re wrong, at least on some small points–which in itself is a mark of notable intellectual honesty. But I don’t think the primary purpose of the present book was to convince the other person to change positions. Rather, as has been said, the primary purpose is to model how two people might go about embarking on a long, extended, in depth journey into the depths of their beliefs, which might eventually lead to one or both parties altering their views on important points. But this book is just the beginning of such a journey, so we should hardly expect them to so readily forfeit their deeply held intellectual commitments, especially considering that both have obviously been thinking quite deeply about these things for a good amount of time. To come into any conversation with the direct aim of immediately changing the other person’s mind may be missing the point–and, more importantly, may actually be detrimental to the overall process of truth seeking. Schieber and Rauser recognize this and embody it in their dialogue.
In essence, whether or not you agree with Schieber or Rauser on their respective philosophical positions, whether or not you are generally interested in philosophical inquiry or rumination about God in the first place, you really ought to read this book and take its central message to heart: intelligent human beings can and (most of the time) do disagree on very important issues, and each side can have very good reasons for holding to their own and disagreeing with the other–but far from being an excuse for division or dismissiveness, this interesting fact of human nature is an invitation to radically engage with other humans in intellectual discourse.
With that having been said, what follows is a brief overview of each chapter:
1. Why God Matters:
Here Schieber and Rauser begin by asking why we should care whether or not God exists in the first place. What difference does it actually make to our lives? Is theism an inherently ridiculous proposition to begin with, or is it coherent and intellectually serious? Very importantly, it is in this chapter that they define their respective worldviews which they will be using in the following arguments. Interestingly, they also consider the possibility of an “evil-God” proposition.
2. God, Faith, and Testimony:
In this chapter they consider different understandings of faith, the relation of these understandings to reason, and various ways in which people come to form beliefs. I was quite pleased that they included both of these opening chapters before delving into the actual arguments, since it clears the air of some common false assumptions and lays a solid foundation for proceeding.
3. The Problem of Massive Theological Disagreement:
The first argument considered is presented by Schieber in support of atheism. It is the “Problem of Massive Theological Disagreement” and essentially contends that, if an all powerful, loving God did exist, we would expect Him to prevent confusion and massive disagreement in understanding concerning how best to live and relate to God. This is, admittedly, something that has given me trouble personally, so I found the discussion intriguing. I was, however, somewhat surprised that neither (especially Rauser) made any reference to John Hick’s work in religious pluralism, which would have added a new level to their discussion. (Not that I accept Hick’s pluralism, I just think it would’ve been a nice contribution).
4. God and Moral Obligation
This chapter was more than just another moral argument in support of God’s existence; it also contained a presentation of the authors’ respective metaethical stances in regards to moral value and obligation, as well as a discussion on moral ontology and epistemology and which worldview better accounts for these things. Here I found myself in disagreement with both writers on some key issues. I was interested in Schieber’s defense of the ethical position of “desirism”, but I felt that much of his use of it was somewhat vague and undeveloped (which is not necessarily a critique of it in itself. After all, I am personally a natural law theorist, so I find some common ground in our relative moral frameworks. I think Justin is right that actions are motivated by desires, but I think he would be much better suited in providing an objective basis for this if he grounds these desires in the natural ends posited in natural law theory). Rauser defended “moral perception” as a grounding of moral epistemology, but I thought overall he lacked satisfactory explanation of the ontological grounds. It was there, I just would’ve liked for it to have gone more in depth.
5. The Problem of the Hostility of the Universe
This argument for atheism contends that the overwhelming size of the universe, coupled with the fact that the exceedingly vast majority thereof is completely hostile to life, is surprising on theism but not so on atheism. Personally, I think this argument might be better suited as a response to certain fine tuning arguments, rather than a positive, independent argument in its own right (indeed, I think Schieber has used it as such before). Nevertheless, this chapter showcases some good back and forth on how hypotheses are used as explanations in typical evidential arguments.
6. God, Mathematics, and Reason
I find the topic of the mathematical applicability/descriptability of the universe fascinating, and in this chapter, Rauser uses this as an argument for theism. In addition, there’s some nice further discussion on explanations and using analogies in relation to God. My complaint here is that I just would’ve preferred more on this.
7. Evolution and the Biological Role of Pain
This final chapter begins in consideration of an argument for atheism which maintains that evolution in itself, but especially when coupled with the biological role of pain and pleasure and the lack of fine tuning of pain receptors, is strong evidence against theism. However, the chapter takes a turn and ends up debating skeptical theism, hidden reasons, and the explanatory power of theism, all of which are very important topics, but perhaps should have received their own chapter–or, at least, the main argument should have been given more attention before the conversation changed focus.
In conclusion, this was an excellent book which I highly recommend to everyone, not just those interested in philosophy of religion, as it is as a laudable example of intellectual engagement between disparate worldviews at its finest.