I borrowed this book for the summer from a friend at college. We have had many intense debates over evolution. He’s a creationist, and I am a theistic evolutionist. I have borrowed several books from him, as I have an interest in regards to what is the scientific evidence behind theological pursuits.
This book in particular is a Creationist rebuttal against Christopher Hitchens’ and Richard Dawkins’ book, “The God Delusion”. The book is written much in a bullet point format, addressing questions and answers sequentially. I am halfway through the book and honestly disappointed. I have decided to stop reading it.
I found it incredibly repetitive, intellectually shallow, and guilty of a variety of logical fallacies. I think the main flaw of the book, is that “The God Delusion” was majoratively a scientific book, and secondarily it was an ethical and theological application of an atheistic perspective; while “The Atheist Delusion” was mostly philosophical and theological in nature. While they answer the same questions, Fernandes (the author) does not treat Creationism with the same scientific rigor. At least to a scientific audience, this book perhaps edifies Hitchens’ and Dawkins’ claims about the ignorance and arrogance of religion.
The only real piece of gold I feel is in the book, is its use (however redundant) of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. This logical reasoning states that nowhere in the history in the observable universe has nothing created something. It reaffirms the logical basis of theology, that if the universe had a beginning, it must have something ultimately which caused it into being.
The atheist assumes that the universe is eternal, but thermodynamically this is impossible. The amount of energy in the universe is finite. Logically speaking, existence has to be caused by something eternal in some form. So whatever created the universe has to be relatively omniscient and omnipotent. Since creation logically must have a Creator, the character and nature of the Creator is a matter of academic discussion. Merchants and poets found analogy with a potter, a smith, or a carpenter. Peasants perhaps found solitude in imagining God as a King, or perhaps as a parent. In these analogies, their human counterparts experience personal pride, joy, and love in their creation. So it follows to the human condition that God must care for us.
Fernandes had an opportunity with this title and this audience, but it simply became a cheap apologetic. He should have brought into question the legitimacy of the scientific theories themselves, and exposed the militant atheists’ abusive application and intrusion into very clearly unscientific areas. It was kind of just a crude theology textbook. In fact, my time and interests would have been better served with a theology textbook.
I believe there is a Creator that often works in natural ways. And while I think that it is great that scientists are getting away from materialism and into metaphysics, ethics, noetics, etcetera; they are displaying great disrespect to the people and ideas which have held this ground for so long.