Review: The Preponderance of Evidence in a Faith Based Construct
Rating: 4 out of 5
Date: 05 14, 2014
There were many things I liked about this book and some things I didn't like. I don't agree with a lot of it but I found it interesting to listen to the arguments presented and it has certainly got me thinking.Analogies are often effective in illustrating a point, especially in situations of hot debate where the goal is to defeat your opponent by the use of tactics not necessarily aligned with finding the truth. I counted many examples of flawed logic but unless you are familiar with these, the flawed logic not only goes unnoticed but works as intended as a convincing argument.Example: An unlikely event, say winning a lottery, is used to illustrate the unlikely probability of a universe or life created by chance or natural causes. The probability of winning the CA State lottery was used which is one in millions. Not very likely but I'm assuming someone wins on a fairly regular basis. The flaw here is in using the argument of a single person winning when in fact hundreds of thousands participate. That is, the unlikely probability of the creation of life at a particular moment is almost zero but much, much larger when the wait time is eternity. OK, one chance in 10^138 is much larger odds for the 122 constants that make life possible but not when compared to eternity.Also, holding up the legal system as the standard for truth finding I found comical. Do they get it right every time and isn't the US legal system all about winning rather than truth seeking (insert appropriate lawyer joke)? I ask myself why a holder of truth uses such flawed tactics?Then there is the charge of proving atheism. Good grief, it is impossible to prove a negative, that something doesn't exist. Think about this; someone has never broken the speed limit while driving. The fact they have never gotten a speeding ticket is no proof and unless they have had a speed recording device and route map for their lifetime of driving it is impossible to prove. It is amusing that one faith based group beats up on another.Science cannot prove the existence of God, it isn't testable in a scientific venue. This is flipped around to attack science in the question, why can't scientists see God in the facts? Scientists don't rule out God, they rule out God as a scientifically testable phenomenon which is unfairly labeled as contempt. Another flawed analogy and one of many examples in the use of non-sequitur.Speaking of which brings up another example. Namely, the conclusion that intelligence is not an indicator of truth from the fact that both sides of the belief in God contain very intelligent people. Consider the possibility of "not knowing" as a third alternative. No, lets polarize the argument and its either true or false. Framing the debate this way is another questionable tactic.If the presence of a conscience and good proves the existence of God then why doesn't the presence of evil and the lack of conscience in the same population prove there is no God?I'm not an atheist and I believe in the Christian philosophy towards my fellow man which according to this book, damns me to an eternity in hell. Oh well! My recommendation, do a logical fallacy sweep on the next revision.