Subject: Your book review of Without a Doubt
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:31:52 +0800
From: Kenneth Samples
To:

To the Editor:

Greetings.

This is Kenneth Samples and I would like to respond to your brief review of my book WITHOUT A DOUBT.

First of all, thanks for reviewing my book and for the positive points you made about the work.

While I am sure my book could be improved in a number of ways, I nevertheless think that your major criticisms of my book miss the mark. Allow me to make my case and you can judge for yourself.

(1) The existence of God is one of twenty different apologetic topics addressed in the book. Therefore the arguments setting forth the God of the Bible as the best explanation for the meaningful realities of life (existence and design of the universe, abstract entities, morality, man, Christ, etc.) have to be presented in summary form. My arguments are not "half arguments," but rather introductory and summary arguments. In addition, there are extensive notes and resources listed for those who want to take the argument to the next step.

(2) As a philosophy instructor I could have written an entire book on the argument from contingency, but few people would have understand the philosophical and scientific nuances (however books that do that appear in the references). For example, logic dictates that a "contingent" reality demands the existence of a "necessary" reality. Therefore, God or the Creator could not be anything short of eternal, transcendent, and immutable. Otherwise he also would be contingent and be in need of a causal explanation. If people raise the questions you mentioned it is clear that they do not understand the nature of a contingent reality. I do not view my work as in anyway attempting to "dumb down" complicated issues. Rather, I think I have written clearly and cogently about real, tough issues relating to Christianity.

(3) Your point that apologetic writers should "support your [or their] claims to the satisfaction of your readers" is logically misguided. There is clearly a difference between ARGUMENTS on one hand and PERSUASION on the other. An argument can be both valid and sound (deductive) or strong and cogent (inductive) without ever succeeding in actually persuading the person hearing the argument. Why? Because PERSUASION (unlike the rules of argument) is "person relative." Persuasion often depends upon "non-rational factors" such as personal experience, ignorance, bias, preference, sin, intuition, or even divine grace. Just because an argument is rejected does not necessarily mean that the argument is logically defective. No argument will ever likely be convincing to all people, so demanding that one's arguments satisfy all readers is wrongheaded. I would say rather an apologist's epistemological burden is to present clear, relevant, adequate, and true support for accepting or grounding one's conclusion. Some readers will never be satisfied by your arguments, but if the rejection is based upon non-rational factors then one cannot justly blame the one presenting the argument.

(4) Popular Christian apologetics demands a scholarly understanding of the issues, but a clarity and cogency of presentation. This is not an easy task, but with all due respect, I think WITHOUT A DOUBT strikes a pretty good balance overall.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,

Kenneth Samples