Home :: Books :: Audiocassettes  

Arts & Photography
Audio CDs
Audiocassettes

Biographies & Memoirs
Business & Investing
Children's Books
Christianity
Comics & Graphic Novels
Computers & Internet
Cooking, Food & Wine
Entertainment
Gay & Lesbian
Health, Mind & Body
History
Home & Garden
Horror
Literature & Fiction
Mystery & Thrillers
Nonfiction
Outdoors & Nature
Parenting & Families
Professional & Technical
Reference
Religion & Spirituality
Romance
Science
Science Fiction & Fantasy
Sports
Teens
Travel
Women's Fiction
Can Man Live Without God

Can Man Live Without God

List Price: $15.99
Your Price:
Product Info Reviews

<< 1 >>

Rating: 3 stars
Summary: The Biggest Mystery
Review: I guess the biggest mystery is why so many Christians believe this book to be such a great work of apologetics. If you think this book is serious business, then perhaps you haven't read Sproul or Geisler. At least those two explain their arguments.

Zacharias leaves several assertions unexplained, such as why a nonteleological view of the universe must translate into a meaningless day-to-day existence. And how does a minority ontological belief such as atheism directly have a responsibility for all of the societal ills Zacharias cites? He accuses the atheist of reductionism when he is the guilty one!

The funniest thing to me is that the same theologians that assert that the atheistic worldview leads to social breakdown also love to cite that 90 percent of the populace belives in God. If any philosophy can be held accountable for social ills, shouldn't it be theism?

Or perhaps this guilty-by-association argument is just way off track. I mean, how many of our actions are truly dictated by our worldview anyhow, atheist or not? I am reminded of that question every time somebody with a Jesus Is Lord! bumper sticker cuts me off on the freeway. Our day-to-day moral actions may have much more to do with what mommy and daddy showed us than with what our worldview would do, if consulted.

I give the book three stars because it's easy to read and it's fun to get sucked into Zacharias' pretend world. It's recommended by so many Christians that this popularity alone makes it a worthwhile read. But for me, this book will go right next to The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe.

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: Revealing the truth about God through Christ
Review: I should start my review by clearly stating that I am a Christian so I did not have much difficulty with the apologetic arguments put forward by Dr. Zacharias in this book. Still, I was very interested to see how he would go about trying to prove God's existence, and more importantly, explaining how God answers the tough questions of life through His son Jesus Christ. Overall, I was very impressed with the book because of the unique blending of materials that Dr. Zacharias uses. He possesses a deep understanding of his material, and is a master at communicating the message - despite recent attempts to kill off the concept of God - He is alive, and still speaks to us today through His Son, His word, and His Holy Spirit.

I read all of the reviews for this book, and I am encouraged that it has received so much attention. Although others may not agree with the author's position, at least, it gets people to talk about things that matter. Real issues that we just don't spend enough time dealing with these days like Does God exist? If so, what does that mean for me? For the world. If not, what does that mean for me, and the world? Is there such a thing as absolut truth? If so, how can we know it (or Him from the Christian perspective). I think that Dr. Zacharias makes an effective attempt at answering these questions, and ultimately, offering the Christian world view.

I especially like the fact that he argues at various levels and brings in numerous stories and illustrations to prove his point. Without these elements, it would be a pretty dry read. Some are bothered by the fact that he does not go into great detail about opposing views, but I think they miss the point. Dr. Zacharias is not writing an academic volume which covers every detail and possible outcome of the various world views. Instead he attempts to show that ideas do have consequences, and we must pay attention to what is possible in the world if we try to make it work without God.

I highly encourage anyone who is interested in this topic to read the book. It may not answer all of your questions, but it will get you thinking. Also, it is not very long, but be warned, it is not light reading. Having said that, I am confident that the average college educated person can handle it. The copy I bought included a CD with the oral presentation that Dr. Zacharias gave upon which the book is based. I recommend listening to the CD before reading the book so that you have an understanding of the framework, and general approach that the author plans to take.

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: needs to be read VERY carefully
Review: I thought this book hit things right on the mark. Some atheists charge him with attacking a straw man version of atheism, but if you read his book carefully, he deals with those accusations convincingly, both in the book and in the appendices. Yes, an atheist can be moral withoug believing in God, and can also find life enjoyable and meaningful. HOWEVER, they would not be living true to the philosophy they claim to espouse. Atheism is completely unlivable and undefendable. That is one of the reasons why we are seeing some atheists claim "I don't believe in God because I lack evidence." If atheism would take a good look at itself in the mirror, it would see Zacharias' points. One can deny God on the surface and live out life without God on the surface, but no one dares tinker with the foundations of good thinking. I'm not surprised at all that some reviewers are offended at this book--Zacharias is honest and he doesn't pull any punches.

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: An Existential Look
Review: Ravi Zacharias has written a very good book on the existential outworkings of atheistic thought and teaching, in comparisons to the tensions between the logical out working of Chritsian teachings and the illogical out comes of Christian abuses. In the first two chapters, Ravi carefully sets the parameters of his thesis and where he is starting from.

Even though he has been often critized, Ravi clearly asserts that his position is that true atheism is the person who maintains that there is no God: He quotes this definition from the Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ravi then, using much of Nietzsche's life and teachings as a framework on which to build his case.

Chapters on "Getting to the Truth", "Humanity's Dilema" and "Q&A" are probably the books strongest and most rewarding reading. Here in these chapters, is where he most forcefully asserts his case against the existential arguments for Atheism.

Ravi's point is that in atheistism, there are no compeling reasons (logically or otherwise)to be good. He doesn't say that all atheist are evil, just that when atheism is evil, it is rationally acceptable to be so.

Ravi's book, however, does fail to be exhaustive. There are too many quick historical references without enough historical context. This may have led many not to read the book, but would have given more knowledge and insight to people who are, whether in support of or against his position, more seriously.

This book focuses on the existential questions of Theism and Atheism. If the reader is looking for arguments asserting the truth of Theism the I recommend J.P. Moreland's book "Scaling the Secular City." If the reader wants a book with both views equally expressed then read "Does God Exist", by J.P. Moreland (Theist) and Kia Nielson (Atheist).

Rating: 2 stars
Summary: unconvincing
Review: this books has a problem in that ravi makes a lot of HUGE, strongly worded claims/conclusions which would engender endless debate by themselves. by linking atheism, and suggesting that it is a cause of cruelties or stalin and hitler, by suggesting that atheism leads to nihilism, he presumes a lot, yet justifies little. he proceeds to paint a rather fearful, bleak picture due to atheism. by preaching promised fire and brimstone, he doesn't address the points of non-affinity with religion of atheists.

he doesn't show with rigour why having faith is better than not having one, other than the continuous assertion of a moral code to live by. he claims that the foundations laid for ethics belongs to religion; he sidesteps human interaction and the other possible explanations for behavior in society like social contracts. no, ethics is due to religion, and since you are using my premises, you implicitly destroy your own position. is it really so?

he also uses irrelevant examples to prove his point on the superiority of having a faith to atheism. a stark example would be the imaginary scenario of being in an alien city, it was dark, and you are alone. suddenly, there are 10 burly men walking towards you. would it comfort you to know they were from a bible study group? the reason why this is irrelevant is that the exact same question can be phrased by asking replacing 'bible study group' with 'were firemen/doctors/teachers', 'were students from oxford'... such and such. it's a sneaky way of forcing an association of religion with good moral standing down on the reader. although being part of a bible study group does imply some relative good standing, it can equally said to be true using some other respectable profession. there is no concrete link between goodness and your associations; it's just a hint.

he also sidesteps russell's question of god and moral law. ravi writes that this "... is not only false, it is falsely placed." he proceeds to show where it is falsely placed, but more importantly, he does not address WHY it is false.

read this book as a practice on pointing out the various fallacies at work. there are various evasive parts, false connections, misplaced appeal to authority. leaps of logic. hence, 2 stars. one extra star for giving the reader an opportunity to excercise fallacy spotting.

Rating: 3 stars
Summary: Inconsistent and incomplete
Review: While Zacharias demonstrates a broad knowledge base of literary and philosophical works as shown in the many citations that he inserts in CAN MAN LIVE WITHOUT GOD? unfortunately he comes across as a name-dropper in this book. While he quotes many a famous author, he often fails to weave those attributions into a coherent and consistent argument against anti-theism. Secular philosophy is hopeless and nihilistic while Christianity gives hope and meaning. Zacharias gives page after page of examples. But why are the two systems different? That is the question.

The reason the two systems are different is that they begin with two different epistemological presuppositions. One system begins without God, the other begins with God and his revealed propositions in the Bible. Since they begin differently, they draw different conclusions. It is unfortunate that in all of Zacharias's comparisons and contrasts between secular philosophy and Christian philosophy, he doesn't draw a clear distinction between their methods of knowledge. In fact, when all is said and done, Zacharias reverts to the empiricism of secular philosophy. On page 126, he mixes categories of tests of "proof" believing that 1) logical consistency and 2) empirical adequacy and 3) experiential relevancy are the tests of truth. (This means that Zacharias is simultaneously subscribing to the coherence, the correspondence, and the relativist theories of truth). While these tests may be used to destroy a false and inconsistent philosophy (and one is grateful when Zacharias points out when and how they can be used in that manner), they cannot be used to "prove" Christianity. For example, Christianity is true, and because it is true it will be found to be coherent and consistent. But Christianity is not true just because it is consistent. Nor is Christianity true because we can prove its empirical adequacy and experimental relevancy. Christianity is true because it is the revelation of God. Unless one starts with God in a proof, one cannot end with God. And one must begin with the propositions in the Bible before one can prove anything about God.

But Zacharias insists that one must prove God first before one "defend[s] the Christian system as the one that best explains who this God is." But notice the favored method he borrows from the Thomistic empirical philosopher Norman Geisler, where he argues from "things that undeniably exist" to the God of the Bible (p. 191). There are numerous leaps of logic in the 10 step contingency proof given by Geisler and Zacharias (even in Geisler's original writings), and the astute reader will discover it for himself.

Alas, perhaps one can learn something from Blaise Pascal who noted that "it is a remarkable fact that no canonical writer has ever used Nature to prove God." Perhaps one can learn from those canonical writers and understand that all men already know God. That knowledge is implanted in them by their Creator, but they suppress the knowledge of the truth. And it is the proclamation of the propositions contained in the Bible and the presentation of that system of truth that will, in God's sovereignty, convince and change the minds of those who do not believe. The reader might benefit from reading Gordon Clark's A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF MEN AND THINGS if he wishes to see a different perspective and approach on philosophy and apologetics.


<< 1 >>

© 2004, ReviewFocus or its affiliates