The Truth Behind the New Atheism

David Marshall

Harvest House Publishers

Ratings and reviews

In his book, Marshall frequently accuses others of deliberate dishonesty, generally without offering even a scrap of specific, credible evidence; so it’s particularly interesting to note the numerous, obvious falsehoods in Marshall’s book. And there’s plenty of specific, credible evidence for that! 1. Marshall claims that Dawkins contradicted himself by stating that "irreducible complexity" (IC) is both relevant and irrelevant. Marshall's false accusation unfairly takes Dawkins' "relevant" and "irrelevant" conclusions out of context. In context, what Dawkins actually says is that IC is relevant in trying to falsify evolution but irrelevant in trying to prove ID. Since Dawkins' conclusions involve two radically different functions (disproof vs. proof) in two radically different contexts (evo vs. ID), it's obvious that they are no more contradictory than a weatherman's conclusions that "It's going to be 75 and sunny in Miami and 25 and cloudy in Murmansk." The weatherman's two conclusions are different but not inconsistent, because they refer to two different contexts. Dawkins' two conclusions are not logically inconsistent either, for the same reason. 2. On the issue of whether Christians rely on blind faith, Marshall claims that well known skeptic Michael Shermer recognized that some of the most common justifications that Christians give for believing in God are "essentially rational." In reality, however, Shermer actually said pretty much the exact opposite: "I believe that these results are evidence of an 'intellectual attribution bias'….” So the responses that Marshall wanted Shermer to characterize as "rational" were actually characterized as "intellectually biased." Even worse for Marshall's argument, Shermer actually devoted the next section of his book to a detailed explanation of why those responses should NOT be regarded as rational. 3. Marshall says, "... Dawkins says that being brought up Catholic is 'undoubtedly' worse than child abuse!" (185) But if you check Marshall’s citation, you’ll find that Dawkins didn’t actually say that. 4. Marshall claims, "Harris blames America's high rates ofabortion, teen pregnancy, and sexually transmitted disease on Christianity" (204). In reality, Harris explicitly disavows the causal link that Marshall attributes to him. Here’s Harris’ statement: "Of course, correlational data of this sort DO NOT resolve questions of causality ….” (Emphasis added.) 5. Marshall indicates that the Bible was written in the Stone Age. (114) I’m not making that up. Marshall really does say “Stone Age.” 6. In discussing blind faith, Marshall complains that Dawkins doesn't cite any actual Christians (16), but just four pages later, Marshall admits that Dawkins cites Richard Swinburne, a very prominent Christian. 7. Marshall also complains that Dennett doesn't cite any actual Christians (16), but in the very same sentence, Marshall admits that Dennett cites Pascal, a very prominent Christian. 8. Marshall claims that life appeared in roughly the same sequence reported in Genesis (61). In reality, however, Genesis 2 indicates that humans were the first animal life form on Earth. I don’t think science really confirms that! 9. Marshall criticizes Harris' comment about killing people for their beliefs (42), but takes the comment badly out of context. In context, Harris' comment would undoubtedly be quite acceptable to many Christians. And in any case, Jesus Christ said pretty much exactly what Marshall is so horrified about, so how come Marshall doesn’t criticize Jesus? 10. Marshall makes it look like Sam Harris suggested that killing a human being might be ethically justifiable if the victim had low intelligence, poor language skills, or other cognitive deficits. (196) In reality, however, Harris was actually discussing various

Did you find this helpful?

Yes

No