Customer Reviews

The End of Reason: A Response to the New Atheists

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(14)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(13)

 

 

With The End of Reason, Ravi Zacharias has written a brief but articulate argument responding to "the new atheists." In just under 130 pages--a read of an hour and a half--he refutes many of the claims and charges laid against religion in general and Christianity in particular. But Zacharias's book is not just negative, arguing against atheism, he eloquently argues for belief in God. The result is a well-rounded, thoughtful little book and one of the best apologetic works in recent years.

The End of Reason is primarily a response to Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. Zacharias uses Harris as a starting point, skilfully countering not only Harris's arguments, but also those of other well-known atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.

The book is divided into several distinct sections. To begin, Zacharias notes the particular kind of atheist to which he is responding--those that make others "embarassed to be an atheist." He also describes his own past as an atheist and the suicidal hopelessness to which such thought brought him. The second and longest section describes this atheism in philosophical terms. Zacharias outlines this worldview's stance on life's origins, the meaning of life, morality, and hope in a painful world. In the third section, Zacharias sets out to confront and debunk a number of Harris's specific claims, whether of Christianity's inferiority to religions like Buddhism or Jainism or that the Christian doctrine of the virgin birth is erroneously founded on a mistranslation and the root of Christian "anxiety about sex." Zacharias also discusses Pascal's Wager--that the fulfilment brought by Christianity is worthwhile even if the universe turns out to be meaningless--and a number of other major issues.

The final section is perhaps the best, and the lynchpin of Zacharias's book. In the closing pages, Zacharias puts forward a simple, understandable argument for the existence of God and discusses the true meaning of the Eucharist, at once the most important rite of the Christian church and the symbol of the unity brought through Christ to believers around the world. And, in closing, Zacharias suggests that in the end the final decision will not be between atheism and religion, but between Christianity and Islam.

I found this book encouraging and refreshing--encouraging, because it fed my desire to not only believe but to believe for good reason, and refreshing because of its brevity and coolheadedness. What perhaps encouraged me most about the book is the overwhelming tone of reasonableness that Zacharias maintains throughout. Never once does he stoop to the level of crassness and vitriol demonstrated by polemicists like Harris. Instead, Zacharias proves by his own example the kind of peace and fulfillment of which atheism is devoid and only faith can bring. This book is a beautifully clear-headed respite from the current trend of "flame-war" argumentation.

The End of Reason is a good, quick read--like I said, I read it in perhaps an hour and a half. But packed into a very little space is the kind of brain-fodder on which meaningful reflection thrives. Christians will value this book as a defense of the faith; atheists will value this book as a civil counterargument in an ongoing debate.

Highly recommended.

For the sake of immediate disclosure, I self-identify as an atheist -- thus my opinion will surely be considered suspect by some parties. Nevertheless please bear in mind that my views are highly sympathetic toward theism and I do not truck with the militant "new atheists".. This book caught my eye because religious apologia (and the philosophy of religion generally) are topics of great interest to me, it was short, easy to read, and inexpensive.

However: For someone who comes to the discussion from an atheistic perspective, wishing to understand and perhaps be convinced by the theistic point of view, this book simply doesn't offer much. It is one long letter addressed to atheist popularizer Sam Harris, against whose work Zacharias has taken no small insult; in response he offers a great deal of indignant heat but not much light.

Most irritating, I suppose, is his treatment of the problem of evil. There *are* good theistic answers to this but he chooses a well-trod canard -- the implication that atheists have no objective moral standard and thus contradict themselves when positing any extant evil -- which is not only unconvincing but invalid. The user of the problem of evil intends to show that an omnimax god cannot exist *on its own terms*. The atheist's own moral standards just aren't relevant, so this whole discussion becomes an ad hominemistic misdirection.

There are further problems: he does not argue for the proposition that an atheist cannot have an objective moral code, which may be true but isn't necessarily obvious. Many philosophers would disagree -- some virtue ethicists, egoists, and intuitionists at least, and even some forms of utilitarian. Even if atheists couldn't in principle have an objective moral code the falsity of atheism would not necessarily follow. And that argument lurks around every corner of this book -- atheism is false because it cannot ground morality. (Throw in a few more or less oblique argumenta ad Hitlerum for good measure.)

Well, if that's true, *show* it. Zacharias's keenness for telling rather than showing gives this book very little apologetic value. Perhaps the already-convinced could be entertained by his treatment. Genuine questioners should look elsewhere.

(Aside: another reviewer says that atheists should look at this book as a "civil counterargument", but frankly I don't see what's civil about this book. An atheist reader could easily get the impression that Zacharias believes him to be downright *evil* or at least an empty, amoral creature slouching towards eventual attempted suicide. He *begins the book* imagining a family torn apart by the works of new atheists, and implies that Harris doesn't care one whit about the damage he would cause [in such an imagined scenario]. Zacharias is responding to incivility on the part of Harris and others, so maybe it's the correct tone to effect. But civil it sure as heck ain't.)

The forward is by Lee Strobel, author, who writes:
Together with a wave of other books promoting militant atheism, authored by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens and others, these books by Harris have confused spiritual seekers and even rocked the faith of some Christians.
* How are these authors in any way militant? As a result of their writings has anyone been tortured, killed or imprisoned?

Ravi Zacharias' (RZ's) letter opens with an imaginary story of a mother committing suicide because her son recognizes that Christianity is factually false. RZ uses the subject of suicide repeatedly to evoke strong emotions.

Elsewhere within RZ's letter, here are some excerpts (in quotes) I found significant:

"I have always found it fascinating how relativists who say they love the idea of tolerance ultimately reveal themselves to be among the most bigoted."
* 1) an unsubstantiated claim and, 2) not at all accurate in reference to the atheist authors he previously mentioned. Scientists he targets discuss at length moral behavior arising from evolutionary psychology which has shown moral and ethical behavior to be largely fixed rather than relative and is, in fact, highly predictable.

"Academic degree after degree has not removed the haunting specter of the pointlessness of existence in a random universe."
* Much of the universe isn't at all random and much of it we still don't fully understand but invention of a deity won't accomplish anything except console ourselves that a spirit inhabits our gaps in knowledge (Gap Worship). Also, how does RZ know highly trained atheist scientists live pointless lives?

"His America would ban our belief, leaving room only for the sovereignty of his materialistic or matter-driven vision of all human existence."
* This is just inflammatory and dishonest. Harris never advocates banning Christian belief.

"As I read Sam Harris's books, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, I felt as though I was being dragged through a vortex of emotion--from incredulity to outrage to a deep sadness."
* Much of RZ's objections are laced with his emotions that lend nothing to the argument.

"Is it possible, however, that Harris's disrespect is justified because in an atheistic world, love for one's fellow human beings is a foreign concept?"
* Presumptive and emotional

"Contrary to what atheists imply, the dead weight of their beliefs leads to a heartless, pointless, and hollow existence."
* Another unsubstantiated assumption that lends no explanation as to why belief in a deity makes existence more meaningful and why the lack of a deity is a dead weight.

"Atheism Led to My Suicide Attempt"
* RZ must assume that many atheists will attempt suicide because he did.

"Now, after reading the likes of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett in their anti-theistic outbursts, I have concluded that there are big bucks in the atheist racket as well."
* Not even comparable! A handful of atheist authors will make only a tiny fraction of that generated by the Protestant/Catholic religious industry. Most of Dawkins' work is in the field of biology with atheism advocacy as a sideline. Sam Harris is a neuroscientist.

"Big Bang cosmology, along with Einstein's theory of general relativity, implies that there is indeed an "in the beginning.""
* Very simplistic and dated. In the century since Einstein published his theories, physics theory has changed radically. Humans can't easily conceive of existence without a beginning because we lead time-linear, 3-dimensional lives.

"As we know it now, all order did not evolve. Nothing in science supports this contention. Something had to exist as an explanation in itself. Nothing does not produce something--and never has."
* RZ here is way outside his field of expertise which is, after all, divinity. He has a master's degree in divinity. Science shows conclusively that in many cases order evolves out of chaos. Every snowflake self-assembles in beautiful 6-point symmetry out of a chaotic mess of water vapor.

"One would have to conclude that the chance of the random ordering of organic molecules is not essentially different from a big fat zero. Perhaps that's why they call it a singularity, because it is without definition or empirical explanation."
* No, it's a singularity because it proceeds to infinity.

"If life is random, then the inescapable consequence, first and foremost, is that there can be no ultimate meaning and purpose to existence."
* Harris never said that life is random and in fact, in his book "The Moral Landscape", makes a case for limited choice.

"Not only does atheism's worldview lead to the death of meaning; it also leads to the death of moral reasoning."
* Science is all about finding meaning. Moral reasoning is well studied and even predictable.

"Has Harris read about Hitler's own spiritual journey?"
* Hitler was an opportunist who sometimes cited elements of his Christian faith as reason to exterminate Jews.

"What would he say if two hundred years from now someone says that genocide against Christians can be traced back to the anti-Christian writings of Sam Harris?"
* An incendiary statement used to evoke emotion. What about the millions of those stabbed, burned, broken on the wheel, crushed, lashed, hanged, flayed, starved and drowned by Christians through the ages. It's still happening among Christians in Africa.

"there is no logical explanation for how that intuition toward morality could develop from sheer matter and chemistry."
* Correct. It also involved evolution of Homo sapiens.

"Let me put it in philosophical terms:
- Objective moral values exist only if God exists.
- Objective moral values do exist [a point Harris concedes in his letter].
- Therefore God exists."
* This is the old apologetic "argument from morality" for the existence of God. Several scientific fields are currently studying the origins of human and other animal morality and ethics. In fact in Sam Harris' own book, "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values", his goal is to show how moral truth can be backed by "science", or more specifically, empirical knowledge, critical thinking, philosophy, but most controversially, the scientific method.

"Therefore, we must agree with the conclusion that nothing can be intrinsically prescriptively good unless there also exists a God who has fashioned the universe thus."
* This is the old apologetic "argument from degree". About it, Richard Dawkins said, 'That's an argument? You might as well say, people vary in smelliness but we can make the comparison only by reference to a perfect maximum of conceivable smelliness. Therefore there must exist a pre-eminently peerless stinker, and we call him God. Or substitute any dimension of comparison you like, and derive an equally fatuous conclusion.'

"So on his own terms as an atheist, Sam Harris is either engaging in moral reasoning that is only valid if God exists, or he is being irrational in his assertions."
* The old "Moral law requires a Lawgiver" argument.

"Even Richard Dawkins, Harris's hero, admits that science has no methods or authority for deciding what is ethical."
* Not true. In fact, Dawkins dedicates a chapter to it in "The God Delusion".

"Only in Christianity is the privilege given both to believe and to disbelieve without any enforcement."
* Not true. Eternal agony in a fiery hell is the penalty for disbelief and thus belief is rigidly enforced.

"Has he not seen the violence that takes place during trade union strikes in Europe? There were atheists present, you know. Has he not heard of the riots in the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles and in other places? There were atheists present, you know."
* RZ thinks European trade union strikes and the LA riots were atheist riots.

"When I was at Oxford recently, I was told about an article written by Richard Dawkins in which he advocated that any prospective student with a creationist point of view should be refused admittance into Oxford."
* No citation given but even if it's true, so what? Dawkins is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford and thus has the obligation to express an opinion about whether or not a prospective student should be admitted if he advocates fantasy rather than scientific theory.

"The difference between someone who calls himself or herself a Christian and yet kills and slaughters and an atheist who does the same thing is that the Christian is acting in violation of his or her own belief, while the atheist's action is the legitimate outworking of his or her belief."
* The old "No True Scotsman" defense. He: "Ian is a Scotsman." She: "Does he eat haggis?" He: "No." She: "Well no true Scotsman would refuse haggis."

"Today it may be a failing business that is in need of God's intervention. Tomorrow I may want to be healed from cancer. The day after
that, I may even want a loved one to be brought back from the dead."
* So God ignores starving Christian children in Africa but saves his failing business? Also, I'd like to see the resurrection trick.

"Sam Harris betrays a rather amazing prejudice. How he has gotten away with making slanderous statements in his book --accusing Muslim communities of "misogyny, their anti-Semitism, . . . forced marriages, honor killings, punitive gang rapes, and a homicidal loathing of homosexuals"--boggles the mind (see Letter, 84).
* RZ criticizes Harris for this but then a few pages later in his own book writes:
- "Islam is a religion that is academically bankrupt, for it fails to meet the ordinary tests of truth. Those who critique it run the risk of being obliterated."
- "Islam is a religion of power; the Christian faith is one of communion and relationship with the One. Even now, Europe is demonstrating
that its secular worldview--one that Harris applauds --cannot stand against the onslaught of Islam and is already in demise. In the end, America's choice will be between Islam and Jesus Christ."

"Think of a world where there is no ultimate justice! Think of young Seung-Hui Cho, a student at Virginia Tech University, who slaughtered thirty-two students and professors and then shot himself. He has won in a world where there is no ultimate justice. Innocent people have been randomly shot, and their families have no recourse and no closure. Are you at peace with that?"
* The old "Pascal's wager" apology coupled with delight in the eternal burning misery of the mentally ill Seung-Hui Cho.

"The mass murderer at Virginia Tech University used a question mark in reference to his name. The logical outworking of the denial of God is to question the worth of every individual."
* RZ's psychological diagnosis is that Seung-Hui Cho murdered due to atheism. According to his pastor at Centreville Korean Presbyterian Church, Cho was a smart student who understood the Bible. On the other hand an actual psychologist diagnosed Cho with selective mutism.

"I have seen statistics declaring that as many as 40 percent of scientists do believe in God."
* Among members of the National Academy of Sciences, 7.0% expressed personal belief, while 72.2% expressed disbelief and another 20.8% were agnostic concerning the existence of a personal god who answers prayer. (Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998))

"The reason Jesus was silent on the issue of slavery is very simple. He was silent on many issues that the "law" could have addressed
without changing the heart, including the overthrow of Rome--the empire that had enslaved his own beloved Jerusalem and his people."
* This is a cop-out. History might have been much kinder had Jesus simply said, 'Don't have slaves.'

"On their own scientific terms, atheists should know that we do not change people's hearts by mocking them and castigating them."
* But...RZ did this to atheists throughout his letter.

"Science is lame when it comes to moral decisions; it limps as it walks, lacking an absolute moral law for life's purpose."
* Morality as outlined by modern science is far more orderly and kind than that of the Bible or Koran. Modern science doesn't advocate slavery, rape, genocide, infanticide, misogyny, or genital mutilation.

"I must go on to say some important things about Sam Harris's implicit assertion that only religious People have a strong bias against stem cell research and cloning."
* I searched Harris' letter and he didn't mention cloning.

"Einstein also cautioned that God "does not throw dice." Make no mistake about it, Sam Harris is throwing dice, and we are the pawns in
his kind of world."
* RZ took this completely out of context. Einstein was talking about quantum mechanics.

"It boils down to this: for the follower of Jesus Christ, the fact that the universe cannot explain itself, added to the obvious intelligence behind the universe, linked to the historical and experiential verification of what Jesus taught and did, make belief
in him a very rational and existentially fulfilling reality."
* 1) For those who take the time and effort, the universe explains itself very articulately through the language of mathematics. 2) There is no evidence of obvious intelligence behind the universe. 3) The historicity of Jesus is weak and all experiential evidence is based on ungrounded individual testimony.

A quick glimpse of the reviews for this book reveals the same polarization as is found under Harris' 'Letter to a Christian Nation'. Generally speaking, Christians will find this book persuasive and atheists will find it simple-minded and distorted. The reverse assessment will be made of Harris' book by the same groups. The polarization was predictable.

I read this book after first reading Harris' work to which this is a response. Harris' book is not sophisticated and appears to be aimed at the popular-level reading audience. The same could be said of Zacharias' response in this book. It probably accounts for each books' degree of popularity.

Harris doesn't like Christianity, or any other religion for that matter. He doesn't even begin to attempt to ground that preference in any sort of prescriptive normativity, but does do a sufficient job to point out his objections to Christianity. As a work of sociology, I found his writing helpful and relevant. Why someone with a Christian worldview would expect more from someone like Harris is utterly beyond me. Harris' objections are not intellectual, they are psychological. Even so, I find Harris deeply interesting and would love to have a cold draft with the guy.

The thrust of Zacharias' book is to point out the arbitrariness of Harris' preferred ethical normativity. Harris doesn't like Christianity. The attempt of Harris to persuade others of his behavioral and sociological preferences ultimately demonstrates the futility his philosophical precommitments. He has nothing behind his preference and Zacharias capitalizes on this.

I only rated this book three stars because, although I love to listen to Ravi, I found this book painfully shallow and only successful as a reductio. There are weak allusions to the cosmological argument and a quasi-argument for the transcendental necessity of God's existence, but other than that, it offers little more.

Should you read it? It certainly will not be on anyone's top ten list. It is however, much like Harris' book, something you can read in one sitting. If you have read 'Letter to a Christian Nation', then you might as well read this one.

I assume that the heading on the back of this book: "Is God Real or a Creation of Your Imagination?" was added by Dr. Zacharias's editor in an attempt to sell more books. Make no mistake, this book is not an argument about whether or not a personal God exists. Sure, Dr. Zacharias restates some of the tired old arguments, my favorite being that if atheists (more specifically scientists) can't prove with certainty how everything got here, God (Christian God?) must have done it. But he presents nothing new on this front. Otherwise, this is a book about the evil consequences of atheism.

To that end, I must say that I find Dr. Zacharias totally unconvincing. He comes off as someone taking advantage of the fact that most readers of his book have not read Sam Harris, and he engages in the same broad brush nonsense that these sort of books have become known for. He imagines that all atheists are the same (or even share a mind), and thus uses quotes from one atheist to "refute" another. He doesn't acknowledge that not all atheists share the same worldview, nor do they always agree. Indeed, he paints atheists as relativists and "naturalists," while apparently ignoring the fact that Sam Harris, a staunch moral absolutist, is neither. I've included a few examples that I think highlight Dr. Zacharias's ridiculousness.

On page 68, Dr. Zacharias cautions his readers: "And be careful not to judge a philosophy by its abuse. The difference between someone who calls himself or herself a Christian and yet kills and slaughters and an atheist who does the same thing is that the Christian is acting in violation of his or her own belief, while the atheist's action is the legitimate outworking of his or her belief." And just like that, Dr. Zacharias absolves Christianity of responsibility for the slaying of abortion doctors, the crusades, the inquisitions, and every other piece of violence carried out in the name of Christianity. Of course, remember that atheism is to blame for each and every evil committed by an atheist. A silly position.

On page 92, Dr. Zacharias pretends that Harris knows nothing about Jainism: "Sam Harris reveals a similar lack of understanding about Jainism when he addresses what he judges to be the positives about that belief system. He says he finds Jainism utterly harmless as compared to the horrible things that Christianity has done and that Jainism has a superior ethic to Christianity. Does he know that Mahavira, a great teacher of Jainism, wore a mask over his mouth so he wouldn't swallow any insects, which are only different in degree to what he thinks a human being to be?" The answer is that Harris is well aware of the Jain practice of nonviolence; he includes the mask example in his book! This is Dr. Zacharias taking advantage of the fact that most of his readers will never read Harris. All Harris was saying is that Jainism, followed to its utmost, is virtually harmless to all forms of life. Christianity, as history has shown, is not.

Finally, Dr. Zacharias reaches the height of his incredibility on page 63, where he blames atheists for--I kid you not--radical Islamic terrorism. The foolishness of such a position needs no further exposition.

As an atheist, this book ultimately failed to convince me of anything, other than to ponder futility and meaninglessness of life on this 'Godless' earth. Mr. Zacharias makes a good case that absolute morality cannot exist without a moral law giver, and I accept that point. The problem is that Ravi Zacharias does nothing (NOTHING!) to even try to prove that this law giver, in fact, actually exists.

'New Atheism' if such a thing exists, is a global consiousness raising effort (to borrow Dawkins term) to show that the existence of God is very unlikely. Mr. Zacharias, however, considers 'New Atheism' to be a cultural revolution dedicated to the Church of Hedonism. His assumption is wrong, and it is therefore not surprising his book is a failure.

That being said, the book is very lucid, short, and easy to read. There is no reason to avoid it. All us New Atheists must read books like this if we are going to continue to be outspoken...

This is the ninth of the responses to the New Atheists that I've read, with six more waiting on my bookshelf. I'm glad that several people seem to love Zacharias's book, but from my perspective a 3-star "It's OK" rating was the appropriate one. He makes some good points, but I just can't work up the enthusiasm for him that others can. I certainly don't see the resemblance in him to C. S. Lewis that others do.

While the book is fairly cheap, it's very short, so you're paying about ten bucks an hour for whatever enlightenment you're achieving. The book felt disorganized to me, with no real chapters but just one big section carved up into little 2- or 3- page thoughts. I felt it needed fewer expressions of indignation and fewer Indian folktales, and more historical, philosophical, and scriptural insights. What there were of the latter were generally good, but I felt they suffered from being presented sporadically rather than systematically.

I mean no offense to those who feel blessed by Zacharias's ministry, and, as they say, your mileage may vary.

Sam Harris' most powerful argument is arguably not to be found in neuroscience, still in its infancy, but rather his explicit and implied logical connections between the following phenomena:

--monotheism as a human reaction to terror/fear of death and what comes after
--monotheism as a human reaction to suffering and injustice
--the consequent setting-up of a religion based on (1) an omniscient God believed in only by faith (2) a human figure (Mohammed, Christ, Judaic Prophets) in whom one must absolutely believe or one is damned forever; and (3) a heaven AND a hell where the damned go

Harris is in company with brilliant social scientist Barrington Moore in saying that these factors contribute to a mass culture based on concerns with purity and impurity, rigid belief systems, and lack of logical thought (for many followers, at least, if not all), with the most pernicious consequence being that a follower comes to believe in "sectarian truth claims" that INHERENTLY AND INNATELY lead most (though not all) followers toward the "logical" conclusion that if one's own monotheistic religion/human figure is absolutely right as the "unifying principal" for humanity, than all other monotheistic or even non-theistic religions must be wrong, and the other religion's followers are therefore at the very least wrong and at the worst, amoral, immoral, impure, and sinful....the latter judgements of which naturally leads over time to violence and repression towards the inherenty impure/sinful/amoral/immoral citizens at home and abroad.

Alas, the good Reverend in this publication displays this very tendency toward "sectarian truth claims" by stating that (1) only Christ is the true unifying agent for humanity in peace (implying that human peace in societies and between societies is impossible without Christ as intermediary) and (2) Islam is wrong and the "real" competition is between Christianity and Islam -- as the first reviewer above notably points out (in favor, not against, this argument). Obviously, this last parting note by the author against Islam makes Harris' points for him! -- by resorting to the very sectarian truth claims that Harris believes contributes to belief rigidity, social inflexibility, social injustice, and violence.

All this said, Harris (and many atheists) are sadly deficient in exactly this area: social justice and peace. Notably, Harris writes as if (and his followers act as if) once one gets rid of monothestic or theistic practices in society, justice and peace are achieved or at least far more likely. However, there are plenty of other SECULAR ideologies out there -- notably, and especially, libertarianism under Ayn Rand -- that can and have led to mass death and suffering (in IMF policies, in the first years of US occupation of Iraq, under secular positivistic beliefs of Cheney/Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld/Bremer) and must equally be fought against for their distorting effects on human cultural practices and relationships (essentially, making materialism and individual human abilities their God or Deity, rather than communral peace and prosperity). And, I would just add: absolute gun rights in the U.S. do not have to be connected to Christianity to be potentially dangerous. At issue here is: how do you suppress tribalism, violence, and poverty IN GENERAL, not just specifically by putting an end to Theism (although that's certainly a start). The latter is where there should be a concerted critique against the "new atheists," not from Islam or Christianity. What socioeconomic reforms do the new atheists embrace? Why? How will this fill the hole left by the end of Theism?

Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias writes an eloquent yet firm response to author Sam Harris's LETTER TO A CHRISTIAN NATION, in which Harris debunks Christianity by telling readers that "science has the answers to our questions about life and that religion is the bane of existence." In rebuttal, Zacharias states that he has "Always found it fascinating how relativists who say they love the idea of tolerance ultimately reveal themselves to be among the most bigoted."

Zacharias writes not only in response to Harris's work but also to refute other well-known atheists, such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, whose work runs along the same lines as those of Harris's. He opens his text by sharing his personal story of growing up in India, which some say is the most religious country in the world. Zacharias, though, says that many live there as practical atheists. He recalls listening to priests who were Hindu, Buddhist and Christian, and finding them (and their message) completely boring and inconsequential.

After following "only one serious philosophical question" as purported by Albert Camus, Zacharias watched two close friends commit suicide and then tried himself, but ended up in a hospital in New Delhi. It was then that he was handed a bible and was read the gospel story. Four decades later, he has traveled the globe lecturing and teaching in universities, finding Jesus "more beautiful and attractive than ever before."

Zacharias tells of his extensive study of atheism researching the world's best scholars and begins dismantling Harris's premises one by one, starting with "origin." Nothing cannot produce something, writes the author, and at this very starting point the laws of science begin to break down. Even the staunchest atheistic contenders cannot explain why there is "something" from "nothing."

Next, Zacharias tackles the "odds of random life," where Nobel laureate and atheist Francis Crick believes a spaceship delivered spores to "seed the earth." He shares more examples of well-regarded atheists' postulations on beginnings, each more far-fetched than the previous one. From there, he discusses the meaning of life and morality, posing important questions such as these: Does the reality of evil mean there is no God? Can morality exist apart from a moral lawgiver? Can reason alone provide a moral framework? Are atheists more "moral" than others? How do we define love?

Zacharias presents a study of the Christ of scripture, prophecy and the inherent morality of the Ten Commandments. He then tackles Jesus' method for changing hearts, along with current hot topics such as genetic engineering, abortion and cloning, before presenting his argument for the existence of God. Readers, whether Christian or not, will find Zacharias's work to be most necessary and enlightening reading in response to the "new atheists" teaching, which is gaining more credibility with society as a whole.

--- Reviewed by Michele Howe

This is a small but powerful book. I would'nt advise recommend this to someone that is looking for the scientific arguement for theism but for the philosophical("The devils delusion" is a great book for those of the scientific mindset that are interested in the subject). Understand also that this book is written as a response to the works of another author, Sam Harris. In this book Ravi puts together a very cohesive argument against some lines of thought that are becoming very popular as of late. If you are new to the debate between atheism and theism this is a great resource to challange your way of thinking about the world and this great question. If you are are a Christian that is underfire and looking for some encouragement this is also a great resource.