More Than a Carpenter

EDIT: Sorry, I put this in the Law and Order board when I meant to put it in the Religion & Philosophy board. If a mod could move this, I'd appreciate it.

Atheists who I've spoken to, who actually have read the book "More Than a Carpenter" by Josh McDowell, claim that it is laughable, disorganized, nonsensical, and any other word that they can think of.

But, one think their responses conspicuously lack is... details. All they're doing is simply claiming that the contents of the book are stupid and ridiculous.

If what they were saying was true, then why can't they actually point out the logical fallacies that McDowell makes?

Can somebody please try to fill me in? Can somebody actually logically refute that book?

Well honestly - I really find it hard to imagine that anyone would read such a book and not be able to cite from it for a few examples . . . thus = I don't believe they read it. What would be in it for them? :shrug: my 2bits.

Aunt Spiker said:

What would be in it for them?

Click to expand...

Oh, I don't know. Truth. Knowledge. Enlightenment.

Ya know... petty crap like that.

middleagedgamer said:

Oh, I don't know. Truth. Knowledge. Enlightenment.

Ya know... petty crap like that.

Click to expand...

So...it's NOT a book about religion?

middleagedgamer said:

Oh, I don't know. Truth. Knowledge. Enlightenment.

Ya know... petty crap like that.

Click to expand...

No - I haven't read it either but I know his book about him finding God. It's a religious testimony - not an athiest book

Aunt Spiker said:

No - I haven't read it either but I know his book about him finding God. It's a religious testimony - not an athiest book

Click to expand...

No, he offers 100% rock-solid proof that Christianity is real. He appeals to logic, reasoning, and historical citations besides merely the Bible, to prove that Jesus really was the Son of God, and that he really did rise from the dead (a feat only possible via divine intervention). He uses history and logic to prove that the Resurrection is just as much a real, concrete historical event as was his crucifixion. Since the Resurrection can only be possible with Divine intervention, and the Resurrection most definitely happened, argues McDowell, that means that Christianity HAS to be real.

middleagedgamer said:

No, he offers 100% rock-solid proof that Christianity is real. He appeals to logic, reasoning, and historical citations besides merely the Bible, to prove that Jesus really was the Son of God, and that he really did rise from the dead (a feat only possible via divine intervention). He uses history and logic to prove that the Resurrection is just as much a real, concrete historical event as was his crucifixion. Since the Resurrection can only be possible with Divine intervention, and the Resurrection most definitely happened, argues McDowell, that means that Christianity HAS to be real.

Click to expand...

yes - it's his testimony. . . why be believes.

Aunt Spiker said:

yes - it's his testimony. . . why be believes.

Click to expand...

But it's more than that. It's appealing to reason and logic (things atheists love a lot) to attempt to convince atheists that Christianity truly is real.

It's not just another conversion story; it points out why even atheists should convert.

middleagedgamer said:

But it's more than that. It's appealing to reason and logic (things atheists love a lot) to attempt to convince atheists that Christianity truly is real.

It's not just another conversion story; it points out why even atheists should convert.

Click to expand...

I get your point . . . I do't see why a non-believer would read it unless they were wanting to be open to such things, though. . . If Itook time to read a book that was a bout somethign I did NOT believe in (use a conspiracy theory for example) - then I'd be furiously writing notes, highlighting and following along to combat what I perceived as 'stupidity'

It has been a long time since I read it. But I was a born-again Christian when I read it. I remember reading a bunch of books on apologetics to strengthen my witnessing. I remember being completely underwhelmed by More than a Carpenter and other works by McDowell. I am always annoyed when books cite the whole "Jesus was either a Liar, Lunatic, or Lord" dilemma as evidence. That is of course a false trichotomy. There are other options, to include "Legend". It might have been a novel idea when C.S. Lewis wrote it but it was soon after proven weak. He also uses the teleological argument to show evidence of God. Even at my most religious I could spot the flaws in the whole argument from design.

I also remember deciding NOT to give it to my more academic non-believing friends because I knew they were the types of people to check sources. And when I began checking the sources of quotes used in the book I realized McDowell was guilty of quote mining. He was taking quotes out of context to make his point. But when read in context they in no way supported the point. I found that to be very dishonest.

He didn't go into the historicity of Jesus or into how the canon was developed (unless I am misremembering). That isn't entirely his fault as there is no extra-biblical evidence for Jesus from the time Jesus is thought to have walked the earth. Such documents don't show up until decades after his death.

I don't remember too many details. I should probably go back and read it again in order to provide a more thorough critique. But I do know that if, as a Christian, I found it lacking, there is little chance the book would convince someone who wasn't even a believer to begin with.

Seeing as we don't have the book, why don't you present McDowell's arguments for us?

I sincerely doubt his claim, as proving the existence of the resurrection without any physical evidence or third-party eyewitnesses is going to be nigh impossible. However, if you think McDowell has suitable arguments, go ahead.

rathi said:

Seeing as we don't have the book, why don't you present McDowell's arguments for us?

I sincerely doubt his claim, as proving the existence of the resurrection without any physical evidence or third-party eyewitnesses is going to be nigh impossible. However, if you think McDowell has suitable arguments, go ahead.

Click to expand...

indeed - any belief based on an improvable 'fact' - however much it might sound reasonable - still relies on faith to finalize it.

middleagedgamer said:

Since the Resurrection can only be possible with Divine intervention

Click to expand...

You know, that's just an assumption. I don't know how one could possibly prove that. Even if Jesus was real, and did come back to life, and even if that was divine intervention, you still only have a sample size of one. That's not really enough to know what is or is not possible.