Rating: 
Summary: The Truth Hurts...
Review: Hmmm. What a variety of opinion here. First off I must state that this book stands on the merits of its philosophical arguments. I also have to respond to one reviewer (an atheist) who said 'why not let atheists define what they are?' all the while telling us exactly what a Christian is...gee that's great pal. Let the stereotyping begin!Zacharias is a philosopher of high repute (common folks-he lectures at Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, Oxford etc) and his arguments make sense at the most rudimentary levels. The REAL problem for atheists and agnostics is that he asserts things that upset them. He's rocking the boat too much for some I guess. His arguments regarding humanistic philosophy are correct-not that all atheists are going to commit mass murder. That type of hysteria from atheists ('He thinks we're all killers!') is pointless nonsense. (I have heard him speak and I assure you he does NOT say this.) His point is that someone truly following Christ's example has no excuse for wrongdoing while the humanistic/atheistic 'believer', having taken that belief to ONE (read: not the only) natural destination becomes the be-all and end-all of existence; everything exists for that person & to be used by that person. They are the ultimate authority and accountable to no one but themselves. This is precisely the world view held by Hitler and Stalin (among others). While Christ was a servant to others and provided humans with a blueprint for behavior, the atheist/agnostic has rejected that blueprint in favor of their own subjective sense of right and wrong. And of course the example of the crusades has been brought out again. Obviously the things that happened during the crusades were wrong. Who would argue with that? Those responsible for them (and other terrible acts) were NOT following Christ's example of love and sacrifice. Let's be clear: a true Christian will never advocate or participate in activities that will demean, injure, slander, or kill another person (war is another matter...)(Some people seem to be unable to differentiate between a common joe who says he/she is a Christian and tries to live as a follower of Christ's teachings, and a nut who shoots an abortion doctor and then tells people God told him to. These people are deceived and evil.) Hitler, seizing the day and attempting to draw all power to himself, thought nothing of destroying millions of lives in his own selfish pursuit, claimed-at least publically-to be a defender of the Christian faith. [Those who still insist Hitler was a Christian (don't make me laugh) should check out the newly released Nuremburg war trial documents at the online Journal of Law and Religion at Rutgers University] Some folks are just sour grapes when it comes to some of the topics addressed here. Don't believe the naysayers-I urge you to pick up this book and read it thru at least twice before commenting-this is thick reading. Zacharias even includes a section at the back with transcripts of some of his question and answer sessions with Harvard students during the Veritas Lectures. He answers quite clearly some of the very questions that have been raised by other reviewers here. I guess they just didn't read thru the whole book... See for yourself what the ruckus is about. I guarantee it will be thought-provoking. If you come into this arena with a chip on your shoulder it will become evident quite quickly.
Rating: 
Summary: Does what he sets out to do, not a comprehensive arguement
Review: Appreciated the book, though Zacharias has a few logical mis-statements. This book, in my opinion, was not intended to be a comprehensive proof for the validity of Christianity. Ravi accomplishes what he set out to do, showing areas where Atheism is lacking and Christ offers help. A readable book. A person could easily knock some holes in the arguements presented by Ravi. But such a person, I would hope, feels the honest need for deeper answers to life's questions than can be derived from an atheistic viewpoint.
Rating:
Summary: A World at the "Crossroads"
Review: This book, is a great continuation of his previous "A Shattered Visage." This book is well written and works in many areas. One, is that a novice to the subject can easily follow Ravi's arguments and understand his positions without any rereading. He writes in a layman's world which adds to the usefulllness of the book.
Secondly, Ravi's arguments are solid and refreshing. His chapter, "Where is Atheism When It Hurts" is exceptional good because often Atheist use the "Problem of Evil" question against theism, but never try in any sense answer it themselves. After all, if pain is the reason for choosing a worlf view, at least most religions, and I affirm Christianity, provides much better answers than does a secular viewpoint (I say this as an ex-hardline Atheists for 35 years.)
"Truth-An endagered Species" is also an outstanding chapter and quick to read. All in all, this book is exceptional and a must read for anyone looking into the extentional quest of one's soul.
Rating:
Summary: bad philosophy huh?
Review: I have found philosophy to be an unsatisfactory tool for getting a handle on reality, just as the apostle did before the Epicureans and Stoics. My path to understanding therefore came about by a different root - firstly, by looking at the scientific evidence and seeing that a naturalist origin of life and the universe was statistically impossible, e.g. If the existence or non-existence of God could be proved philosophically someone would have accomplished that by now. The same is true of the quest for scientific proof. But the nature of the problem necessarily restricts us.
Rating:
Summary: Amazingly insightful
Review: This book made me a fan of Ravi Zacharias. He is the most thought-provoking Christian apologist I have ever read. This book defends the validity and divinity of the Christian faith through pure logic. Not only does he make a wonderfully powerful defense of the existence of God, but he also proposes excellent reasoning for the existence of God as Christians perceive Him: a personal, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. I would recommend this book to EVERY CHRISTIAN who desires to know God on a more intellectual level.
Rating: 
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.
Rating:
Summary: Raves for Ravi
Review: This was an excellent, excellent book that gave a lot of information on the philosphical reasoning for Christianity. It was wonderfully interesting to see such a solid background of logic as well as being incredibly helpful. Many of the arguments were fresh and useful. It was also good to see the comparisons between Eastern and Western logic, and the convincing refutal of the former. Seeing the lives of the skeptic mentors was helpful to realize just how empty their lives must be.
Rating:
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: 
Summary: Correction of my previous review
Review: In a previous review I wrote an incoherent paragraph I would like to explain for the sake of clarity and communicating an important idea... Zacharias in describing what he calls "anti-theism" uses Stalin as a paradigmatic example of anti-theist (a term he applies to ALL non-theists) ethics. Stalin, the story goes, once plucked all the feathers out of a chicken in front of his men and then showed the pointed out to the men that the chicken followed him around the room utterly dependent upon him after that. Stalin used this as an example of how when you crush people they will be dependent upon you forever. Their fear would make them emotionally bound to you and even grateful to you for whatever you gave them. My point was that there is nothing about the "logic" of unbelief in God that in any way necessitates the cruelties of Stalin. Because one thinks there is no God does not mean that one is thereby given a necessary reason to destroy any natural emotional bonds to other individuals, families, communities, nations, etc. In theory one may do so without divine retribution but that is not made the "logical option." Stalin is not paradigmatic of unbelief. He is simply a possibility from unbelief. Similarly, however, believers can be either emotionally responsive and responsible or may themselves become tyrannical about enforcing their Absolutes. The Western psyche has been permanently scarred by the religious wars of the 16th and 17th Centuries, in which many atrocities against intellectual conscience were committed by those intolerant of disagreement. The tyrannical spirit is neither intrinsic to the atheist nor to the theist, nor is the benevolent one limited "logically" only to theists or atheists. Either belief about God can be used to support a number of agendas - benevolent or malificent towards others. In the end what is decisive is the ethic which accompanies the beliefs in real actions. As an example of the spirit of the tyrant in Zacharias, I compare Zacharias to Stalin in his when he, with his typical simplistic tone, insists (like Francis Shaefer before him) that nonbelievers "if consistent" would see that savage behavior or suicide are indeed the "logical" conclusions of their beliefs. Such arguments are manipulative ploys sought to drive people to despair so that they will, in that weakened state, confess their need for the Christian remedy. I believe this is comparable to Stalin's attempt to abuse the psychology of his people like that of the chicken. If Zacharias can rip out the feathers of your ethic and show you that even if you think you find meaning and value in it that it MUST really be the road to savagery and suicide, then you will be forever dependent on his answer to the questions of meaning and value. In this way his method is as manipulative as his "logic" is non-logical. Making this a repulsive book on yet another level. Of course, there are many more criticisms to level at this book, this is not meant to be exhaustive, just indicative.
Rating:
Summary: Misleading, Slanderous, Self Congratulatory
Review: Almost every page of this book has something awful on it, so my criticism cannot be exhaustive here. Zacharias is completely insensitive to all nuance of thinkers who disagree with him. He enjoys mischaracterizing their positions and burning them as strawmen. His dismissal of Nietzsche's ideas as irrational and merely "existentially" motivated is some of the most superficial and misleading drivel I have ever heard and simply reveals Zacharias' incompetence in dealing with philosophical complexities. His claim that Nazism is the "enfleshment" of Nietzsche's philosophy is repugnantly slanderous. He likes using clever words like "enfleshment" even if they are at the least, inaccurate, and at the most, false. Sign of a terrible philosopher. His mistreatment of the Western (and for that matter the Eastern!) philosophical tradition is equally shameful when one realizes that most of his most plausible notions find their classical and influential expressions in thinkers like Kant and Hegel, whom he derides, belittles, and dismisses as essentially foolish. ALL are foolish but Ravi and those who formulate things exactly as he. Such a mindset one always finds in the thinker truly devoted to the objective pursuit of truth, right? Or is it one finds in tyrants? His label of "anti-theist" meant to accurately describe all non-believers betrays his persecution complex as much as his simplistic view of the world into Christians and Villains, plotting to subvert the Truth of ChristAsUnderstoodByZacharias. No one seeks to disagree rationally, no, all detractors are users of linguistic trickery to undermine the Truth. That's why Zacharias can dismiss Richard Rorty as pathetic based on a quote he read from Rorty likely without having ever read Rorty or any of the thinkers from whom Rorty draws his notions. This is a "wonderful" model of scholarship in Zacharias. Attack a guy third hand -- and villainize every one who disagrees with you! If you want to hear a philosopher at Harvard who disagrees with Rorty read Hilary Putnam, not Ravi Zacharias. Another point, low and behold, the grand conspirators in philosophy subverting the Truth until Zacharias showed up at Harvard and Princeton... who are they? Does Zacharias even know that Putnam or Kripke are both philosophical theists and identify themselves as religiously Jewish? And, in defense of the actual atheists and agnostics, the way Zacharias dismisses them is intellectually insulting. His mock etymology of "agnosticism" supposedly showing its self destruction is just plain ignorant. Zacharias points out that "a-gnostic" means "not to know" and says that one cannot intelligibly so claim to not know anything. The real etymology and spirit of "a-gnosticism" comes from Huxley. Huxley was a mid-twentieth-century thinker who realized that many of the thinkers around him spoke greatly speculative things as if they knew them with great certainty. Comparing their claim to have insights into the deepest mysteries of things to that of the early gnostics of the primitive Christian church he contrasted their belief that they had a "special gnosis," a special knowledge, with his own feeling of uncertainty. He did not have a divine revelation or anything treated as similarly absolute. His standards for what he could say he knew were more humble than that. The agnostic does not make the stupid claim that he knows nothing but that knowledge about certain things is beyond him if he is to have a respect for what it means when one says they KNOW something. This sort of humility is nowhere to be found in Zacharias and those who have it are wholesale slandered and accused of villainous motivations, in a way that is truly sickening and devestating to intellectual community amongst believers and non. Zacharias accuses the atheists of being by their world view destined to be monsters like Stalin? Well, who, I ask you is not the Schaeferian argumentation which tells the atheist that he can construct no meaning or find no meaning apart from the "Christian" framework, that without God one would rationally be left only to savagery or suicide; is not this position the true attempt to pluck the feathers of the chicken so it begs the Christian for its food, its spiritual sustinence? Finally, I find it ridiculous that Zacharias refuses the evidence that nonbelievers can consistency still be moral by saying that they're just being "better than their beliefs" while also demanding that we not judge Christians by their actions but rather "pay no attention to the church behind the curtain" and only look at the Jesus that it promotes. Maybe there is a case that nonbelievers often are "better than their beliefs" and that since Christians are often worse than theirs (for example, Zacharias) that in the end the question is a moral one and not just one of beliefs. Oh yeah. In response to the smarmy response of Zacharias to the philosophy professor who told him he should be more Eastern that he found it funny when Westerners told him he didn't understand the Eastern mind -- I find it funny when Zacharias claims to know philosophy better than philosophers. If you would like to read a conservative Christian philosopher who actually knows about philosophy, read Merold Westphal, "God, Guilt and Death" or classics like Tillich, Kierkegaard, Augustine --- anybody but Ravi.
| 
