THE ATHEIST’S FATAL FLAW:
Exposing Conflicting Beliefs
By Norman L. Geisler and Daniel J. McCoy
Baker Books. 177 pages. £9.99
ISBN 978 0 801 016 462
The Atheist’s Fatal Flaw is a brilliant, thought-provoking essay, which is sometimes witty and always wise.
The authors do not merely dismantle the logic of the atheist’s worldview, but also uncover conflicting desires in the atheist’s heart. Demonstrating a remarkable knowledge of academic and popular atheistic texts, they uncover two prominent arguments against Christian theism, which are not only popular, but which have had remarkable longevity. Atheism’s ‘fatal flaw’ is that these two arguments contradict one another; one person cannot hold both simultaneously.
Problem of evil
The first argument for atheism is the ‘problem of moral evil’. If God is good, he would want to prevent human cruelty; if God is all powerful, he could prevent human cruelty; but human cruelty exists; therefore, there is no God. The logic of the argument is not compelling – after all, an all-powerful, omniscient God might have reasons that we cannot comprehend. Or human cruelty might be a consequence of human free-will. But when we survey the scale of history’s killing fields, the argument carries significant emotional force. There is a strong desire for God to intervene to fix everything. When he does not, we retaliate with unbelief.
God the selfish tyrant?
However, there is a second argument against Christianity, which runs from the classic complaints of Marx and Nietzsche, to the ridiculous rants of Hitchens and Harris. Many atheists actively oppose Christianity because they reject the very idea of a God who wants to intervene in our hearts and who will intervene in our world. If the Christian God issues commands, he is a tyrant. If God demands submission, he is selfish. If he wants our trust, he wants to keep us infantile.
A good God would not transform us morally, because this would robs us of our freedom; and human dignity depends on our freedom.
God and our freedom
Such atheists even reject the vision of heaven on earth. They argue that this would be a celestial dictatorship, in which the faithful were bribed into obedience and the unfaithful terrified into conformity. Atheism forbids God to touch world or conscience; yet it insists that a good God would create a world without evil. But the atheist cannot have it both ways. If we demand freedom from God, we should not be surprised if he lets us suffer the consequences.
Not every atheist holds these contradictory arguments, but many do. So, if a preacher wishes to grapple with atheist hearts as well as unbelieving minds, he should read and absorb this book.
