That's Just Your Interpretation: Responding to Skeptics Who Challenge Your Faith

by Paul Copan

Book Overview

In our relativistic society, Christians more than ever are bombarded by tough questions about their faith. Author Paul Copan has observed that many of these questions emerge as "anti-truth claims"... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0801063833
• ISBN13: 9780801063831
• Release Date: January 2001
• Publisher: Baker Books
• Length: 240 Pages
• Weight: 0.80 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.7" x 6.0" x 9.0"

Customer Reviews

An Extremely Good Concise Book of Answers for Skeptics Like Me

Paul is a friend of mine. We both graduated from TEDS under William Lane Craig, and we both attended Marquette University, but we did so at different times. We didn't meet until this year. I am one of the skeptics he argues against. I have honestly learned a few things in this book, and yet, I am still unconvinced by his arguments. Nonetheless, I have to say that his book offers in a concise way the results of evangelical scholarship on the questions he addresses. When I am arguing with Christians about a topic he speaks of, I take another look at what he says to see what the best interpretation of that topic is from a evangelical Christian perspective, and that's saying a lot, coming from a skeptic like me. Paul's arguments that there was animal pain and death before the Fall and that God created human beings as meat-eaters (on pages 150-152), plays into my argument against the existence of God from the horrible suffering caused by the law of predation in our world, so I refer readers of my book to his on that point. In any case, even though I disagree with him, this is a great Christian apologetics book on the issues he speaks about. And as odd as this sounds, I want to read more of what he writes so I can see what is the best that can be said for evangelical Christianity, since he represents it so well. ----------- I'm the author of "Why I Became an Atheist," and the forthcoming edited book, "The Christian Delusion."

Seriously flawed? It's Not Perfect But I Wouldn't Go That Far

Having bought and/or read a number of books in this vein, Copan's work seems to be accessible and understandable by the lay person, yet at the same time offers enough depth for the person interested in deeper treatments of various subjects. The chapters are brief enough to keep the average person interested. I would recommend it as a primer for the non-academic who wants an introductory treatment of critical worldview issues. I do have an issue with "Ben J"'s review of the book and its mischaracterisation of Copan. After browsing his other reviews, it seems he doesn't like ANY of the Christian books he's reviewed and seems to include the same hyper-critical elements in most of his reviews - as if he's working from the same template for all of them (including the non-orthodox position that the Bible teaches that everyone, Christian and non-Christian, will be saved, which runs absolutely contrary to the orthodox Christian position that has been held for 2000 years. How Ben pulls that out of Scripture is beyond me. The fact that Copan disagrees with that view makes Ben attacks his work. But I digress.....). But specifically here, his accusation that Copan's attitude in this book is to preach some message of "win the argument over the 'poor pitiful non-Christians' at all costs" is so offbase that it seems to me he threw that in there to mischaracterise Copan and throw the on-the-fence person off from considering it as a reading possibility. On the contrary, Copan takes great pains, starting even in the first couple chapters and repeating it throughout the rest of the book, to talk about how Christians must conduct any discussions of critical issues in love and respect for other's viewpoint and always seek to build positive bridges between themselves and those they are trying to reach. "Ben J" read the book (at least I think he did), yet he can't see that. So it seems to me that Ben's problem is that he just doesn't want to see it at any cost, so he'll mischaracterise the book and the author with wild straw-man statements in the hopes that the unsuspecting reader will be convinced that Ben knows what he's talking about. Get a copy of the book for yourself and then draw your own conclusion as to whether I am right on this or Ben is right. I'm confident as to which conclusion you will reach.

Accessible and clear presentation

Paul Copan does an admirable job of presenting arguments that will prove useful especially to the general reader. He strikes a nice balance between real substance and accessibility. It's true that here and there the author might have strengthened his premises and thus his conclusions. However, by doing this he would also have moved the treatment of relativism beyond the grasp of some general readers--those who would profit most from the book. In response to the Mormon reviewer below, I have to respectfully disagree with his criticism of Copan's treatment of the Trinity. There is no possible way that Copan can be construed as veering into polytheism--or, a plurality of gods. In line with historical Christian orthodoxy, he understands that there is no contradiction in the classical doctrine of the Trinity. And, emphatically to the contrary, St. Thomas Aquinas presented one of the most lucid and logical expositions Trinitarian doctrine. To say that there are three persons in one divine substance is no contradiction. The categories of "person" and "essence" (or "substance") are distinct. The doctrine of the Trinty does not say that there is one God who is three gods, nor that there are three persons who are one person. It accepts from biblical revelation that there is One God (one divine substance), and three persons or centers of consciousness. Logically, this is to say that there is one "A" and three "B"s--logically distinct, and thus coherent categories. What WOULD be irrational would be to claim that the "godhead" is comprised of three finite beings, with a mere unity of will but not of Being. Copan is not guilty of such a silly blunder, and it misrepresents his thought to suggest it. In short, the book will prove useful, because accessible, to a wide range of readers.

Good clearly laid out arguements.

I enjoyed reading this book very much even though I found some of the arguments a bit too simplistic to stand against a hostile opponent who has thought some of these issues through.. The biggest weakness is the author's use of the Moral Argument without laying it out effectively. A few sentences destroying a straw man of relativism does not prove theistic absolutism nor does the existence of moral outrage prove that there are objective moral principles.The book does however demonstrate an approach for the thinking Christian but is far more effective in dealing with the lunatic fringe of Christianity who advocate "Creation Science", violence, racism etc. in the name of their God than it is with dealing with a determined critic of Christianity.The open minded skeptic will find much of interest in this book.

Interesting follow-up book, almost a "Part II"

This is quite an interesting book. I adore Mr. Copan's ability to not merely "chop logic," but to hold up the torch of intelligence. This book, and his previous book, "True For You, But Not For Me," are geared toward defeating the pseudo-converational sloganeering that passes off for discussion and thought that will be the undoing of Generation-X.Copan tackels these "bumper-sticker" thought-bites head on. Try these out on someone who is a walking platitude, and you see what I mean.The most objectiobns will be with the Trinity, the Incarnation, and Evolution. He takes a more Trinitarian approach to the Trinity, which some would interperit as polytheism but as the Good Book says, "There be gods many, and lords many . . ." (1 Cor. 8:5). This is really a mystery that even Aquinas couldn't logically prove. Wasn't it C. S. Lewis who siad that the Trinity of the Creeds was either the greatest truth or the greatest lie?In regards to the incarnation, he wrestles with the tempations of Christ and His divinity, and asserts that Chriat had laid his divinity aside, as per Phillipians 2. He runs betweeen making a monkey out of the Bible, or making a monkey out of the Savior, andf I think he steers a steady course between the two.He advocates a hybrid theiostic evolution, with the days being of indeterminant length. See the usage of "day" in Genesis 2:4 versus Genesis 1:5.The trick is to defend you faith, and affirm the strengths of your opponents position, without selling our your own theology in the name of reason, or some theoretical elegance.