God Walks Into a Bar by Grenville Kent

 

Chapter-by-Chapter Critique of "God Walks Into a Bar"

1. Introduction: Billiard Balls and Big Bangs

• Problem: The opening sets up a false dichotomy: Either blind chance, or a purposeful Mind. This ignores a spectrum of scientific, metaphysical, and philosophical positions including non-theistic interpretations of cosmological fine-tuning, and leaves the vast literature on contingency and necessity unexplored.
• Failure: Kent often frames atheism as a pessimistic and empty worldview, misrepresenting secular humanism and naturalism as nihilistic, which is both unfair and unsupported by evidence.

2. "Evidence For (and Against) Faith"

• Problem: Kent claims to offer evidence "for and against" but is overwhelmingly apologetic, rarely engaging with the strongest atheist or skeptical counter-arguments in their best form. Straw man versions of skepticism abound.
• Failure: Where he attempts to address doubts, Kent tends to present faith as emotionally attractive—offering hope, purpose, and love—rather than demonstrating rational or empirical necessity.

3. The Church’s Image Problem

• Problem: Kent acknowledges abuses and corruption in religious institutions but ultimately hand-waves this away by pointing to Christianity’s charitable works, without deep philosophical grappling with theodicy or religiously motivated harm.
• Failure: Systemic critique is dodged; historical harm and the abuse of power are contextualized as mere exceptions or image problems, not as substantive challenges to divine providence or goodness.

4. Miracles, Resurrection, and the Empty Tomb

• Problem: Kent recycles standard Christian apologetic talking points: eyewitnesses, the inability of guards to have stolen the body, transformed disciples, etc. These claims are extensively rebutted in scholarly literature, and Kent does not present or critically engage rival explanations (e.g., legendary development, cognitive dissonance, myth-making).
• Failure: The book presupposes the reliability of gospel narratives and ignores contradictions, late dating, lack of external corroboration, and the methodological limitations of miracle claims.

5. Faith and Reason

• Problem: Kent often conflates faith with reason, suggesting belief in God is rational because it feels good, offers hope, or answers existential questions. He does not properly distinguish emotional satisfaction from epistemic justification.
• Failure: Instead of engaging deep epistemology—what counts as knowledge, warranted belief, justified true belief—Kent slides into motivational apologetics: "It would be nice if it were true, so let’s hope it is."

6. Suffering and Theodicy

• Problem: The treatment of suffering is generic: Kent asserts that God works all things for good, without tackling the existential horror of natural evil, the suffering of innocents, or the non-intervention of God in history.
• Failure: Sophisticated atheistic arguments (e.g., evidential problem of evil, divine hiddenness) are mostly ignored or misunderstood.

7. Moral Guidance and Meaning

• Problem: Moral claims rest on the assumption that objective morality requires theism, which is heavily debated and flatly rejected by many philosophers. Kent cherry-picks moral "benefits" of belief but glosses over religiously motivated harm, exclusion, and tribalism.
• Failure: The book side-steps the Euthyphro dilemma and evolutionary origins of social cooperation, failing to critically weigh moral frameworks outside theistic narratives.

8. Conclusions and Calls to Faith

• Problem: Kent ends with a barstool invitation to faith as a leap, dressed in warmth and social belonging. These are pragmatic and affective appeals, not arguments addressed to truth-seeking skeptics.
• Failure: The book’s methodology is grounded in persuasion, not demonstration; conviction is prioritized over truth, and doubts are reassured, not actually resolved.

---

Summary of Main Problems

• Kent’s apologetics rely heavily on rhetorical framing, emotional resonance, and selective engagement with skeptical arguments, rather than robust dialectic or evidence weighing.
• False dichotomies abound—chance vs. Mind, despair vs. hope, blind faith vs. enlightened belief—leaving critical alternatives unaddressed.
• Contentiously asserted “prophetic quotations” (e.g., "seek and you will find") are attributed without adequate historical or textual scrutiny, a problem you previously flagged and which remains unresolved.
• Where demonstrably false claims or misleading implications exist in Kent’s book (such as the reliability of resurrection accounts or the necessity of theism for morality), he either glosses over scholarly rebuttals or buries the nuance under motivational platitudes.

---

This book may spark “rich discussions,” but as a work for the truth-seeking skeptic, it is riddled with logical flaws, a lack of rigorous argument, and methodological weaknesses. If your goal is to examine faith claims critically, “God Walks Into a Bar” is better read as an example of contemporary pop-apologetics—useful only as a case study in persuasive but non-rigorous religious advocacy.

Let me know if you wish for a deeper dive into any chapter, or want sources on specific scholarly rebuttals to Kent’s arguments.

continue above with chapters 9 onwards

Continuing the savage critique of Grenville Kent’s "God Walks Into a Bar," here are problems with chapters 9 onwards, built from the available chapter list and Kent’s repeated apologetic themes.

9. Jesus and the NonChristian Historians

• Problem: Kent appeals to non-Christian historians (like Josephus and Tacitus) as evidence for the historical Jesus, but fails to address serious scholarly disputes about the authenticity and accuracy of these accounts. For instance, the Testimonium Flavianum from Josephus is widely regarded as interpolated or at least edited by Christian scribes, a fact Kent discounts or buries.
• Failure: Instead of dissecting sources for Christian bias and later emendation, Kent treats the thin historical record as strong supporting evidence, showing apologetic selective blindness while ignoring the complex and contested nature of ancient testimony.

10. Can You Find a Hole in This?

• Problem: This chapter poses “holes” in skepticism and seeks to rebut common objections. However, Kent typically offers simplistic versions of skeptical arguments—setting up straw men, not steel men (best form)—and his rebuttals are shallow, centered more on plausibility than on rigor.
• Failure: Kent does not seriously engage with leading criticisms from philosophy of religion or biblical scholarship. For example, he does not address Bayesian reasoning on miracle claims, or properly deal with alternative non-supernatural explanations for the appearance of resurrection belief.

11. Four Agreed Facts

• Problem: Kent likely draws on William Lane Craig’s “minimal facts” apologetic method: Jesus died by crucifixion, his tomb was empty, disciples experienced appearances, and belief spread rapidly. All these facts are hotly contested by critical scholars.
• Failure: Kent lumps together apologetic consensus as if it were scholarly consensus, glossing over major debates (e.g., cognitive dissonance theory, origins of legend, Paul’s vision as hallucination) and incorrectly asserts that these agreed facts “demand” a resurrection.

12. Conclusions

• Problem: Kent summarizes faith’s emotional and existential appeal, typically leveraging hope, belonging, and purpose—conflating desirability with truth. The conclusion is an extended motivational speech, not a weighing of evidence or a reckoning with deep doubt.
• Failure: Serious questions about religious epistemology—the limits of reason and faith, the coercive psychological power of apologetics, religious pluralism—are swept aside for narrative closure.

13. Ruby

• Problem: This final narrative is likely an anecdotal testimony meant to crystallize religious conversion or the "human face" of faith. Kent uses personal story, emotion, and individual transformation to imply argument.
• Failure: The rhetorical move is storytelling in place of logic or evidence. Testimony is not a substitute for truth-claims—but Kent deploys it as if it seals the defence.

---

Overarching Problems (Chapters 9+)

• Kent’s apologetic style remains unchanged: He repeatedly cherry-picks evidence, ignores scholarly objections, and conflates plausibility with probability, desirability with truth.
• Historical and philosophical gaps: Major debates in New Testament criticism, ancient history, and philosophy of religion are barely acknowledged; complexity and context are replaced by Christian triumphalism.
• Rhetorical closure: Faith is the end-point—doubt is acknowledged emotionally, rarely intellectually.

---

Bottom Line: For the truth-seeker, Kent’s book remains a work of persuasive apologetics, not critical engagement. It is more a barstool sermon than a scholarly inquiry. The chapters from 9 onward continue the pattern: shallow rebuttal, selective evidence, narrative persuasion.

14. Narrative Faith and Storytelling

• Problem: Kent relies increasingly on anecdote and narrative at this stage, using personal and communal stories as “evidence.” While stories can illustrate, they do not logically justify faith claims or authenticate miracle reports. The rhetorical sleight-of-hand is substituting impact for argument.
• Failure: Subjective transformation and emotional testimony are multiplied, but their epistemic value is never established. Kent does not address why atheists, people of other religions, or even secular narratives can inspire similar change—making the link to Christian truth claims spurious.

15. Religious Experience and Conversion

• Problem: The book pivots to cases of religious experience—visions, mystical moments, conversions. Kent treats personal experience not just as evidence, but as a kind of proof, dodging the empirical and psychological explanations for such phenomena.
• Failure: There is no engagement with well-established critiques from neuroscience, psychology, or comparative religion. He avoids the question: If religious experience proves a religion true, why are such experiences common across contradictory religions and ideologies?

16. Faith’s Fruits: Hope, Purpose, and Love

• Problem: The apologetic tone peaks, focusing on the positive “fruits” of faith while sidestepping destructive outcomes—from psychological manipulation to toxic tribalism and violence. Poignant stories of hope are marshalled selectively, glossing over real-world harm.
• Failure: Kent never provides a metric or framework to compare the "fruits" of faith versus secular humanism, or other belief systems with equivalent moral outcomes. Philosophical arguments concerning the grounding of value are replaced by motivational examples.

17. The Leap

• Problem: The narrative invites you to “take the leap"—to choose faith, not through reason but through desire, hope, and community. The leap is portrayed as a rational act, but this is an equivocation at best and a category error at worst.
• Failure: Genuine risk, doubt, and the existential cost of religious belief are obscured by a façade of certainty. Kent glosses over the leap’s epistemological peril: committing without sufficient evidence.

18. Epilogue: A Final Toast

• Problem: Kent closes not with answers, but with camaraderie, warmth, and exhortation—faith is a “journey,” truth a barstool conversation. Emotional closure replaces rigorous reckoning.
• Failure: The book leaves critical doubts unaddressed, faith’s leap unexamined, and religious epistemology underdeveloped. Motivational closure is not the same as philosophical closure, and the latter is necessary for any genuine search for truth.

---

Final Problems (Chapters 14+)

• Kent’s final chapters double down on rhetorical, emotional, and anecdotal appeals, not intellectual engagement.
• Critical questions about religious pluralism, subjective experience, and the epistemic status of faith are ignored.
• The book ends with kinship and persuasion, not with demonstration, justification, or answer to skepticism.

In summary: The latter chapters of "God Walks Into a Bar" exemplify lay apologetics at their weakest—stories in place of evidence, feelings in place of facts, and camaraderie in place of rigorous argument. For the truth-seeker and critical reader, Kent’s method does not hold up: it persuades the hopeful, but fails to meet the doubter’s challenge.