Well, I’m about to do that which should (almost) never be done- I’m going to issue an opinion on a book I have never read. That book is Vincent Bugliosi’s “Divinity of Doubt.” I have been listening to about 30 minutes of a radio interview with him, with a hostile host and a live audience, and know nothing ether than from these brief moments.
I understand that he is a prominent prosecutor, and presents himself as analyzing the evidence for “God” (in abstract) v. atheism; and presenting that evidence as a neutral observer.
For my friends who read this on Face Book, relax. I’m not going to try to turn FB into a forum for apologetics; 2/3 of my friends would un-friend me, and the rest would shake their heads and say “there he goes again;” but I am absolutely astounded by this gentleman. He presents thoughts about God, and knocks holes in them, saying “therefore the Christian God cannot exist.” Sounds pretty thoughtful. But I tend to gravitate to blogs where some of these issues get kicked around. Some are unabashedly Christian sites, others are clearly atheist. I enjoy sticking my oar in on both. Sometimes I get my point across, sometimes I get bashed around pretty good; either way, it helps me clarify what I think.
What astounds me is that things Bugliosi was presenting (in this brief radio portion) as uncontestable proofs against the God described by Christianity are things that get widely kicked around on these sites, and are routinely demolished by Christians whose knowledge of that faith extends past junior high Sunday school.
I am not saying there are no good arguments on the atheist side. I have absorbed some shots, there are plenty of arguments that go way past my ability to provide satisfaction. But it astounds me that a supposedly very intelligent man, skilled in analysis, would choose such wimpy straw-men for his opponents.
Of course, those who read the book may find that he was at his worst in the interview, and that the book is far better. I think I’ll pass.