Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
39 of 50 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Very well done presentation of the intellectual strengths and historical truths of Christianity, November 23, 2007
I found this book to be wonderfully refreshing. We live in a time when books promoting atheism and attacking religion (especially Christianity) are best sellers and promoted nearly everywhere. This book stands up for Christianity, but in an intellectual and systematic way. D'Souza has not provided a book of testimony or a scriptural defense of faith. He spends twenty-four chapters examining the arguments made against religion and answers them using history, philosophy, and careful reasoning. Chapters 25 & 26 are the closest the author comes to promoting Christianity and inviting you to examine its benefits. However, it is hardly an aggressive missionary approach.
D'Souza presents the basic material examining Christianity in seven parts (the eight being the last two chapters). The first is "The Future of Christianity". The author lays out the current bump in popularity in militant atheism, but why it is really a long term loser. Despite atheism's best efforts, outside narrow intellectual circles religion is growing in most places in the world. In particular, Christianity is growing the fastest of all and in its future is bright. The second part looks at the historical rise and contributions of Christianity to Western Civilization and again demonstrates that many popular notions are simply wrong or fabrications.
The third part looks at science as a wonderful tool and a very poor faith. I particularly loved the chapter correcting the popular notion that Galileo was imprisoned by the Church because the Church was trying to suppress scientific truth. In fact, he was put under house arrest because he published a book he had promised not to publish and insulted the pope in a very egregious way. However, Galileo's scientific truths were being examined by the leading intellects of the day, who were in the Church, and while much was accepted, it did turn out that Galileo was wrong about some details.
The fourth part examines the various arguments against the Church because of evolution and natural selection. D'Souza shows the evidence for creation, that evolution per se says nothing against religion or faith, and how what is understood in the natural record comfortably corresponds to religious teaching over the millennia. Yes, all human knowledge has expanded, but the core religious truths have not been overthrown.
Part five is an interesting examination of the limits of the reason that the atheists say overthrows faith. D'Souza makes an interesting use of Kant to demonstrate a problem in Hume's thought. We also get treated to an interesting discussion of why miracles are reasonable and the skeptic's wager. That is, if there really is nothing, one hasn't lost much by believing in God and yet if there is a God not believing in him presents a great cost.
Part six looks at the notion of suffering as an argument against God and Christianity. The author corrects the notion that religion is responsible for the great mass murders in history and exposes the lame attempts by atheists to try and keep their skirts clean by pushing Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, and Mao in the camp of believers.
Part seven spends several chapters examining the problem of morality for atheists, despite their great efforts to construct their own morality, the notion of spirit, why so many find unbelief (even a passive unbelief) so appealing, and the problem that evil in the world presents to those who believe in God. I think D'Souza does a good job with each topic.
I recommend this book to any Christian of any sect to get great information about the history, power, and strength of your history and faith. No, it is not a replacement for your communion with the Spirit or the nourishment of your faith in the scriptures. However, it will help you deal with the nagging frustrations you feel when you see Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and others on TV or read their words in articles and books. While they are very confident in their faith (and that is exactly what atheism is at its core), most of what they are presenting is testimony rather than fact and sound reasoning.
If you are in doubt about choosing between a search for faith or giving up and accepting materialism, I also urge you to read this book, but to also seek to join yourself with a community of believers who can help you on your journey. My faith is strengthened by worshiping and living in faith with others and you probably will, too.
If you are an atheist, I also think you should read this book. No, I don't expect that it will open a mind already committed to an opposite point of view, but it will give you a good look at the strength of argument on the other side. If you simply dismiss them out of hand or disdainfully push them away, you haven't won anything because you haven't actually participated in an exchange of ideas. Sure, you have every right to do so, but I don't find such pride and contempt of others to be very becoming.
Reviewed by Craig Matteson, Ann Arbor, MI
|
|
|
203 of 275 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
the right book at the right time, October 1, 2007
I had the chance to read a review copy of this book, and it is excellent. D'Souza engages the arguments of Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and other atheists with arguments for the existence of God in general, and the Christian God in particular by arguing on their turf--through an examination of scientific evidence. It is fascinating, detailed, and convincing. It is an important book written at a critical time.
|
|
|
305 of 415 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
EXCEPTIONALLY IMPORTANT. GREAT CHRISTIAN GIFT. (But Be Sure To Read The Full Review.), October 23, 2007
There are 26 chapters. I'll summarize (and then critique) each:
Ch 1: TWILIGHT OF ATHEISM: GLOBAL TRIUMPH OF CHRISTIANITY. An excellent international overview of Christian growth ("the only religion with a global reach') and relative atheistic paucity. CRITIQUE: This is mainly quantitative rather than qualitative; doesn't consider education; Christianity grows mainly among relatively less educated; scientific/philosophical atheistic arguments are clearly understood by relatively few.
Ch 2: WHY RELIGION IS WINNING: Argues rightly that religion creates "an animating sense of purpose" and "is thriving because it helps people adapt and survive in the world," while atheism does not (for most people). CRITIQUE: Again, the winning is numerical. This is a (generally valid) "masses" argument.
Ch 3. ATHEIST ASSAULT ON RELIGION. A clear, generally fair, even-handed, organized presentation, from psychology, biology, etc., listing atheists' "anti" arguments.
Ch. 4: MISEDUCATING THE YOUNG. Argues that non-religious education leaves children with little structure of values, purpose and direction. CRITIQUE: I think that, in the main, he's quite correct about this.
Ch. 5: SPIRITUAL BASIS OF LIMITED GOVERNMENT. Makes the point, among others, that the US Constitution and democratic form of gov't assumed there would be a voting population of commonly accepted high moral values assimilated mostly from Christian doctrine and morals/ethics, without which limited gov't doesn't work. CRITIQUE: his facts and logic seem generally valid.
Ch 6: CHRISTIANITY & HUMAN FALLIBILITY. Argues that ordinary people are valuable, yet fallible; that Christianity "exalts" ordinary people, inculcating in them noble values and aspirations needed to offset fallibility. Argues that Christianity (1) empowered marriage (partly by the Rom. Cath. Ch. elevating marriage to a Sacrament), (2) "developed a new notion of romantic love," that ennobled the male view of women, (3) "introduced consent on the part of both the man and the woman as the prerequisite for marriage." Argues that Western law derives partly from assumptions arising from the doctrines of the church, preventing unwise concentrations of power, that leaders became judged by how well they responded to peoples' needs; that capitalism and progress, including abolition of slavery, evolved from these factors, including "emphasis on compassion." In the West, Christians built the first hospitals, etc. CRITIQUE: This chapter is generally valid.
Ch. 7: ORIGIN OF HUMAN DIGNITY. Says equality of human beings is a Christian legacy. "The equal worth of every life is a Christian idea," improving the low status of women in Greece & Rome. Christianity spawned human rights movements from Lutherans to Quakers to Martin Luther King, creating our modern concept of individual freedom, and that it is foolish to believe we can jettison Christianity while preserving these values. CRITIQUE: His points seem generally valid, at least in the western world.
Ch 8: THEOLOGICAL ROOTS OF SCIENCEl "Science as an organized, sustained enterprise arose only once in human history ... in Europe ... Christendom." CRITIQUE: His proffered "proof of God's existence" from Aquinas and Anselm seems surprisingly childish. Ref. Anselm's claim that since we can conceive the idea of God being "that than which no greater can be thought" proves that God exists. I think this is jarringly weak and faulty.
Ch. 9: CHRISTIANITY & THE INVENTION OF INVENTION. This very informative chapter argues that physics, numerous universities (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc.), scientists such as Boyle, Newton, Kepler, etc., arose owing to Christianity. CRITIQUE: This is a strong chapter, generally valid.
Ch. 10: REOPENING THE GALILEO CASE: Argues that the Rom. Cath. Church got a bad rap because of false spin that historians put on Galileo's run-in with ecclesiastical authorities vis a vis his claim of heliocentrism, that while Galileo's conclusion was correct, his form of proof was in fact wrong, that he needlessly and intentionally humiliated the pope by calling him a simpleton (by means of the character Simplicio) in print, that his writings weren't confined to scientific matters, but nonetheless he was never actually charged with heresy, put in prison, nor tortured; thus the church was not as cruel as commonly thought. CRITIQUE: Overall, D'Souza validly establishes his points.
Ch. 11: GOD & THE ASTRONOMERS: Mainly argues that Christian scripture and current scientific astronomy are not in conflict. There are too many details to describe here, but they are presented in a clear, fascinating way, letting us see that D'Souza accepts the Big Bang theory of universe-origin. CRITIQUE: This chapter is very solid regarding the Big Bang theory, etc.,, but makes an insufficiently based jump to "someone made it." Also, current astronomy is certainly not in agreement with Genesis's description of our solar system and the age of stars, the author's resourceful rationalizations notwithstanding.
Ch. 12: MAN'S SPECIAL PLACE IN CREATION. Argues that "we apparently inhabit a world specifically crafted for us," basing this on the enormous size of the universe needing to be that big for the proper gravity and rate of cooling, etc., etc. He cleverly (almost stand-up comedy quality) mocks atheistic scientists who have posited infinite number of universes, an oscillating universe, parallel worlds, black-hole-emerging universes jumping out like corn from a popper, and a plethora of imaginary universes that scientists propose as alternatives to the idea of a God-designed planet earth. CRITIQUE: A generally very strong and entertaining chapter, though part of it depends on stretched ex post facto reasoning.
Ch. 13: EVOLUTION & THE ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN. This is based on a famous 1802 argument by an Anglican theologian, Wm. Paley, positing finding a watch on a beach and rightly inferring a designer & creator. D'Souza accepts evolution and earth's 4.5 billion-year age, but knocks Dawkins, Shermer & other atheists, claiming the earth's & man's structure imply design & thus personal designer, primarily citing the basic cell, whose "intricate machinery of RNA and DNA came fully formed with the first appearance of life" even in simplest bacteria, with ability to self-reproduce. The author also argues that "the moral sense presses us to act against our evident self-interest," implying an extra/pre-evolutionary moral source. Thus "evolutionary theory cannot account for the origin of life, the origin of consciousness, or the origin of human rationality and morality." Thus "evolution seems right as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far." CRITIQUE: D'Souza writes strongly here, but ends on a clearly and vibrantly incorrect note: "Christians can affirm that the book of nature and the book of scripture are in no way contradictory. The "no way" is in no way justified in this chapter.
Ch 14: GENESIS PROBLEM: METHODOLOGICAL ATHEISM OF SCIENCE. Here D'Souza tries to explain "why the attempt to explain everything scientifically is inadequate and even unreasonable." He argues that scientists can proceed by "methodological atheism" (looking for purely natural explanations) but should not be hamstrung by "philosophical atheism" (that there is no God, therefore ...), stating that "the theist is more open-minded and reasonable." CRITIQUE: Here he erroneously treats all theists as one; we all know of numerous theists of various religions who are not open-minded and reasonable.
Ch. 15: THE WORLD BEYOND OUR SENSES: KANT & THE LIMITS OF REASON. He summarizes Kant's famed argument that we cannot know reality, being limited to our filtered sensory inputs as partial impressions of reality. Kant proposed that morality & free will can't be understood without postulating beyond-reality (supernatural) input, since "human reason operates only in the phenomenal domain of experience." The thought that "reality must be exactly the way we experience it" is an illusion, partly because our reason is confined within the borders of our experience." CRITIQUE: D'Souza unsupportedly jumps from this to (therefore) "this is not the only world there is." In this he actually "moves" Kant to where he needs him to be to support argumentation of future chapters. This is a relatively weak chapter, mainly strategic as a building block.
Ch. 16. IN THE BELLY OF THE WHALE: WHY MIRACLES ARE POSSIBLE. Here the author attempts to justify why belief in whale-belly habitation, virgin birth, water-into-wine, resurrection, etc., are possible and, in a sense, even reasonable (of sorts) in principle. Miracles are violations of natural law, but God exists and operates outside of nature. He is also pressed by his philosophical and scientific exigencies to claim that "scientific laws are not verifiable" even if experiments seem to validate a law millions of times. The key idea is, What about the NEXT time? He mentions the late discovery of black swans to support this. He writes, "Like the author of a novel, God is entirely in charge of the plot." CRITIQUE: Here the author takes on scientists and philosophers, not entirely consistently, and mainly ignores documentary history that has in many cases deconstructed some of the timing and content, as well as prior mythological parallels from Greeks, etc., of scriptural miracles.
Ch. 17: SKEPTIC'S WAGER: PASCAL & THE REASONABLENESS OF FAITH. Blaise Pascal, French mathematician and philosopher, argued that it makes the best sense to bet that Christianity is true and get in line with its salvation requirements, rather than betting that it's not true and burning in hell forever if you have bet wrong. D'Souza, in nine pages, accepts and recommends this mode of thinking and betting: "There is no alternative but to weigh the odds . . . faith is the smart bet. It makes sense to have faith." "Science is conducted on a field, and the most important questions of life -- Why am I here? . . . lie outside that field." "If the only way to find out about God was through reason, ... (g)etting into heaven would be like getting into Harvard." "Reason is aristocratic, but faith is democratic." "It is much less risky to have faith in God." CRITIQUE: Somehow his approach here strikes me as cheap cheating, which I might phrase as Well, yeah, I may not feel it in my heart or believe it in my head, but what the heck, it's the safer bet so I'll take a shot at it. Personally, I think it's embarrassing for a person of character to think that way or recommend thinking that way.
Ch. 18: RETHINKING THE INQUISITION: EXAGGERATED CRIMES OF RELIGION. Here he disputes the current atheistic charge that Christianity (and religion in general) are, on balance, evil. He marshals an impressive array of numerical data demonstrating that far more people have been slaughtered by atheistic regimes than religious ones, including the Catholic Church during the Inquisition, Salem witch burnings, etc., asserting that the Crusades were mainly a defensive action against the aggression of Islam, that current conflicts in Ireland, Isrel-Palestine and so on are more ethnic than religious in motive, and that Christianity "contilnues to supply a noble standard ..." CRITIQUE: In general, I think D'Souza is on sound numerical ground here and makes some valid points.
Ch: 19. ATHEISM & THE MASS MURDERS OF HISTORY. This continues the topic of Ch. 18, showing that atheist regimes (Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc.) have killed far more than religious ones. CRITIQUE: Again, I think he is on sound ground in this chapter.
Ch. 20: NATURAL & DIVINE LAW: OBJECTIVE FOUNDATIONS OF MORALITY. Linking the Old and New Testaments, D'Souza argues that "there are absolute standards of right and wrong." "By their very nature, moral laws are both universal and objective." Secular relative morality is incorrect in fact and ineffective & destructive in practice. "The presence of moral disagreement does not indicate the absence of universal morality." "Morality is universal." Actually, by this D'Souza means only that morality as a general concept is universal, in the sense that Chomsky argued successfully in the '60s that grammar is universal in human language (while, obviously, each of thousands of languages has its own individual grammar). The author states, "Relativism in its pure sense simply does not exist." These moral laws "operate beyond the realm of natural laws." "Moral laws presume a moral lawgiver. In other words, God is the ultimate standard of good." CRITIQUE: There are so many flaws of logic and immature misattribution of fact in this chapter, there's no way to explain it all here. His statement, "It is the essence of morality to operate against self interest" reveals a serious lack of knowledge of psychology, and doesn't even explain the "morality" (group ethics) of life in a wolf pack. D'Souza is simply trying to think and write far beyond his depth here. And yet, on balance, there is much value in this chapter overall.
Ch. 21: THE GHOST IN THE MACHINE: WHY MAN IS MORE THAN MATTERl Here D'Souza argues against Pinker and others who state that the "mind" is simply a label for what the brain does, and that our sense of self is just a network of brain neural systems. He argues that the brain does not just compute plausible interpretations, that it is wrong to see our brain as perceiving or even being aware. He states that we are the single type of animal that is able to act in violation of laws of nature that control all other animals. CRITIQUE: I see this chapter as astonishingly weak in fact and argument, wherein D'Souza displays lack of all sorts of knowledge, such as what certain animals (African Grey parrots, dolphins, elephants, crows, some dogs) are demonstrably able to do.
Ch. 22: THE IMPERIAL "I": WHEN THE SELF BECOMES THE ARBITER OF MORALITY. Here the author begins (strangely) asserting that the morality of the nonreligious "is no less binding for its adherents than traditional morality is for religious believers." "Traditional morality is based on the idea that there is a moral order in the universe that is external to us ... ." "Secular morality breaks with Christianity ... in positing a self-sufficient inner source for what is good." He explains how this leads to whatever feels good and let-it-all-hang-outism, which too often "offers no check on ... behavior traditionally considered improper and immoral." He argues for the conscience that "enables us to go beyond what feels good and to do what is right." CRITIQUE: This is a very strong chapter overall.
Ch. 23: OPIATE OF THE MORALLY CORRUPT: WHY UNBELIEF IS SO APPEALING. Here he argues, only partially adequately, that "autonomy and self-fulfillment can provide a cover for selfish and irresponsible behavior." He implies that published atheists too often are motivated by wishes of genitally liberated expression. He argues that Christianity is a better source for good cheer than is atheism, and that atheists too often want to be free of moral restraint. "The point here is not that atheists do more evil than others, but rather that atheism provides a hiding place ... " A key sentence is, "It is not religion that is the opiate of the people, but atheism that is the opiate of the morally corrupt." He explains that self-assertion and the will to domination and power are not a sound moral basis for a society, but that secularism wrongly encourages this, including even attempted justification of child killing for relative convenience. He states, "My conclusion is that contrary to popular belief, atheism is not primarily an intellectual revolt, it is a moral revolt. Atheists don't find God invisible so much as objectionable. They aren't adjusting their desires to the truth, but rather the truth to fit their desires." CRITIQUE: He makes several very sound points here, but then dumps atheists of all sorts into the same pot, including the type of absolutely wonderful people I've known in universities where I've studied and taught (Stanford, Yale, Georgetown, State U. of New York, etc.), as well as nonreligious but highly moral environmentalists, etc. In this chapter, that is, he unfortunately evidences a turn of mind seen in other parts of the book: either-or, black-or-white thinking. This surprisingly simplistic mode seriously weakens this chapter. Also he ignores the severe problem residing in the obvious fact that most religious people are de facto atheists with regard to belief in all gods other than their own.
Ch. 24: THE PROBLEM OF EVIL: WHERE IS ATHEISM WHEN BAD THINGS HAPPEN? He begins by acknowledging "sincere unbelief," (without reconciling the incongruous theological implications). He discusses the problem of evil, suffering, great natural tragedies, etc., stating that religion gives more comfort than does atheism in the face of these. CRITIQUE: In this chapter is D'Souza's greatest gaffe, almost schizo in its jarring extremism. He writes, incredibly, "Why do bad things happen to good people? The Christian answer is that there are no good people." I wish I were merely making up that wacko-level statement; it clearly does not speak well for D'Souza or his editor and the various readers of the manuscript before publication. (And, yes, I do completely understand the Christian theological concept ("all have sinned and fallen short . . .") that D'Souza had in mind when he penned that gem.)
Ch. 25. JESUS AMONG OTHER GODS: THE UNIQUENESS OF CHRISTIANITY. Here D'Souza states baldly that God paid the wages of man's sins "by becoming man and dying on the cross." " ... salvation is the gift of God." CRITIQUE: This chapter is thin and weak in exposition, offering mainly assertions. It omits (as does the rest of the book), as one example, the very important study of Dr. Albert Schweitzer, Quest For the Historical Jesus, that concluded that "the Jesus Christ of the New Testament never had any historical existence." That conclusion, in light of Dr. Schweitzer's eminence as historical scholar, theologian and medical "saint," does not disappear with the ignoring of it. D'Souza seems to somewhat run out of gas in this chapter.
Ch. 26. A FORETASTE OF ETERNITY: HOW CHRISTIANITY CAN CHANGE YOUR LIFE. In this final chapter, D'Souza competently presents Christianity's principal benefits, though the historicity portions are summarily hasty and unconvincing. He validly states that "Christianity [helps us] make sense of who we are in the world." "Faith helps us discover things that transcend experience" and "infuses life with a powerful and exhilarating sense of purpose" and infuses difficulties with a sense of importance as lessons. Christianity "enables us to become the better persons we want to be," mentioning the cases of prisoners, etc., who have become Christian converts and thus turned their lives around. "Christianity not only makes us aspire to be better, but shows us how to be better." CRITIQUE: I think it would be small of me to detract from this chapter's high purpose by noting the few serious glitches, so I'll let them pass. This is a strong and important chapter overall.
MY SUMMARY AS READER: As a past Christian missionary, with seven Christianity-raised children and still a high-principles person who has remained morally true to one woman for over 50 years, I strongly relate to the author's values and I strongly recommend this book, though I wish that the truth-claims of Christianity were at present nearly as convincing as are its relative-beneficiality and relative-utility features. I think that, overall, this is the most competent piece of Christian apologetic writing that I've seen in decades. This is as good as Christian expository defense gets, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Clarence Thomas
by Timothy Keller
See all Editorial Reviews
