Divinity of Doubt by Vincent Bugliosi part 3

Bugliosi next blasts Christians for their supreme calling to Love God. He belittles this as some kind of false choice between loving God or loving our fellows humans. He completely ignores John's admonition in 1 John 4: 20-21, "If anyone boasts, "I love God," and goes right on hating his brother or sister, thinking nothing of it, he is a liar. If he won't love the person he can see, how can he love the God he can't see? The command we have from Christ is blunt: Loving God includes loving people. You've got to love both."

Loving people IS loving God. There is no either/or or even an "and." Had he spent any time in a book like "In Defense of Faith" he might realize his ignorance as to the extent to which Christians actually DO love their neighbors!

As to the question of all the evil done by secular humanists like Stalin or Mao, he brushes their travesties off by saying none were done in the name of Atheism like Christians act in the name of God. Ummm... once again, this cringeworthy excuse falls short of convincing. I would argue it is precisely BECAUSE they were atheists that they were even able to commit such atrocities. Nothing held back their innate sinfulness.

Of course Christianity, while earning most of his venom, is not alone in his list of victims. Other world religions get a short write-up in a single chapter. It's surprisingly easy to sit on a fence and throw stones when you are ignorant.

Finally, he concludes his ridiculous diatribe with ridiculous tests for flushing out God. One involves a death row prisoner standing on a cliff daring God to strike him down. No comment. Another bemoans the fact that life ALWAYS seems against us: we get in the wrong line at the grocery store; every time you drop a pill, you can't find it; a searched-for paper is always in the bottom half of a stack. His idea is to get some sort of mathematician to discover how often we beat the odds, so to speak, and get the short end of the stick. He believes this will conclusively prove, with evidence, that if there is a God, he is mean. Ugh.

Bottom line, avoid this book if you want a serious critic of belief in God. He is just embarrassing. I thought his credentials would require him to be well-reasoned and logical, but I was wrong. Very wrong. I have a lingering thought that we might want to re-look at his criminal trials. There may be people convicted by a man with little grip on rational arguments and ignorance about his ignorance.