Part I: Religious Language. In Part I, Swinburne sketches various criteria for coherence. The basic means for testing whether or not some proposition is (in)coherent is to ‘unpack’[3] the concept and see what results. This is necessary because while some contradictions are explicit (The author of Hamlet did not write Hamlet) many others are implicit. Swinburne closes out this section by tackling a handful of topics, including ways in which theology involves ‘mundane’ uses of words (i.e., theological terms are defined using words that are close to their more pedestrian, ‘every day’ usages) and more ‘analogical’ or ‘stretched’ uses of words. Even when theology is using words in more mundane ways, the properties involved (e.g., power, goodness) may involve those properties occurring in unfamiliar combinations[4]. Swinburne helpfully notes that this occurs not only in theology, but also in science.[5] Using non-religious examples, Swinburne illustrates how mundane language implies only similarities, not absolute sameness. Although myself and my desk are alike in some ways (we both are composed of matter, have weight, occupy space) we are very different in other ways (I am made of flesh and bone, can lose weight through diet and exercise, and breathe—none of which apply to my desk).
, (Kindle:1087)
You might think that 
by Edgar Andrews is a “just another” popular-level response to the new atheism. But you’d be wrong. While it is a popular-level book, it is anything but a typical response. British scientist Edgar Andrews (who himself debated Dawkins in 1986) takes a unique and extremely readable approach that not only critiques the likes of Richard Dawkins and Victor Stenger, but also makes a case for Christianity from a scientific perspective. He makes his case with reason and logic, all while weaving it together with clever wit, interesting analogies, and a unique style. The result is a book with a great deal of scientific depth, while remaining completely accessible to both the expert and the man on the street. This review will highlight some of the apologetic angles that Andrews takes.
is Alister McGrath’s 2004 book tracing the history of atheism from eighteenth-century Europe to present. In Part One: The High Noon of Atheism, McGrath outlines significant historical points in the history of atheism, the primary historical figures and personalities, and key cultural movements. Part Two: Twilight, McGrath offers his own personal narrative, reflections on atheism and social change, and what he sees as the fading appeal (at least, at the time of his writing) of atheism in general. McGrath’s style is engaging and readable, which makes this book an easy, interesting read. This review will highlight some notable points by McGrath.
by J.J.C. Smart and J.J. Haldane is part of the Great Debates in Philosophy Series by Blackwell Publishing. Now in its second edition, this book is an exchange between theistic philosopher J.J. Haldane and atheistic philosopher J.J.C. Smart. This brief synopsis will outline the general content and the angles presented by the authors.
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2004), p. 21.
