THE ATHEIST DEBATER’S HANDBOOK

This book is filled with fresh and intriguing insights as well as confusing literary obfuscations and errors.  The two often seem to be interwoven, creating a strange philosophical fabric.

There is much original, thought -provoking material between the covers of this short volume.  The section “God and Faith” is particularly good, and the author gives us several invaluable examples on how to turn the concept of faith around so that it favors the skeptic.  For example, if one were about to jump off a tall building, it could be stated that he has faith that he will not be killed.  That most people do not test their faith in this way attests to the fact that they are, in this instance, putting their reason ahead of any faith that their god will save them.  Atheists contend that we must use our reason in all aspects of our daily lives, for reason alone enables us to make sound judgements and decisions.  We see by this example how faith, when put to the test, is always found to be wanting.  Indeed, the fragility of faith is further demonstrated when we observe how many believers need to have it constantly re-enforced, as evidenced by regular church attendance.

Another good example of turning a theistic argument on its head is seen when believers tell us that since human judgement is so corrupt, we must rely on God for guidance.  As Johnson rightly points out, this is irrational since the decision to abide by God’s supposed laws is a human decision.  God certainly does not make the decision for us.  If our judgement is so bad, then why should we trust it when we judge that God will guide us well?  How can we be good judges of an omniscient, omnipotent, invisible being when we can’t even judge our own very visible character?

The main problem with this book is that the author has a very strange way of turning a phrase.  Johnson is not pretentious, but his syntax is flawed.  For one thing, his corollaries do not seem to flow from his antecedents, and one is left with the distinct impression that one has missed something.  There are times when thou feel impelled to re-read a given sentence or section for this reason.  For example, when discussing miracles, he says, “The most reliable testimony for the occurrence of an event is found in situations where it is contrary to our expectations that the testimony could be false.”  I had to study this sentence and juxtapose the wording and even change some of it before it made sense to me.  I came up with “The occurrence of any event is invalidated if the testimony for that event can be falsified.”

In addition, there are a number of annoying errors that should have been caught.  One of these is on page 34 when Johnson, theorizing on the positing of God’s mind as the “explanation” of the orderly behavior of the universe (the old design rationalization), says that “There are only three possible explanations for the orderliness of God’s mind.”  He then describes two of them, leaving the reader to wonder what became of the third.

While the text sometimes seems to have been written sub rosa to purposely confuse the reader, Johnson still presents quite a few worthwhile hypotheses to ponder.  His dissertations demonstrate a curiously unique talent that would be better served if he could overcome his muddled writing style—and hire a proofreader.