LAUSR

One might desire that for a genuinely teleological argument. But complementarity (or coherence, but not correspondence) seems to be argued too; the subject structure is empirical in chapters 1–3, theological in 4–6, constructive-synthetic in 7–8. Perhaps this invokes the classic types of theological reflection. It is not unusual for reflective people of faith with a capacious scientific to write a personal summa to argue both that there is a point to life and how the point is revealed. The practice exemplifies the theological trope of “faith seeking understanding” (fides quaerens intellectum). It aims to give the believer more data and systemic coherence for interpreting the real world in consonance with one’s beliefs. However, any success of faith’s seeking understanding at explicating a believer’s worldview does not necessarilymean that the exercise will be as successful when the endeavor is “reversed” to function as an apologia; as if “understanding so to believe” (intelligo ut credo) can convince an unbeliever, notwithstanding even the admitted power of the believer’s reasonability. Freedom all the Way Up is a strong example of the dual method. It is current in its summary of empirical science that is applicable to theological construction, while also rhetorically compelling. If there is any apologetic aim, it convinces as much as teleological proofs for God’s existence are convincing to the already convinced, and may not succeed insofar as inductive reasoning already is probabilistically doubtful for any skeptic influenced by a Hume or a Dawkins. Barrigar’s book serves superbly for illumining what a reflective Christian should expect from the sciences by adding more pixels to one’s marvelous worldview; for the Materialist, probably not so much. But it still would behoove such a one to read this fine book. The cost and risk are minimal and the possible benefit great.