Rating: 
Summary: Great Eye opener.
Review: This book is excellent reading. His passionate arguments and his cosmopolitan approach help us escape our egocentric cleanroom worldview. He takes classroom philosophical ideas and tests them against the real sweating persons. It helps us realize that ideas have consequences. Add it to you library.
Rating: 
Summary: An Emotional Tirade Against Atheism
Review: As I read the book, I was shocked by Zacharias's inflammatory and patronizing tone. Zacharias describes atheistic critiques of theistic arguments as "linguistic trickery and distortion of truth" (p. xiii) and "emotionally charged outburst[s] against the existence of God ... garbed in intellectual terminology." According to Zacharias, atheist philosophers "hide behind philosophical arguments, heavily footnoted for effect," rather than "admit our hurts, our confusions, our loves, and our passions in the marketplace of life's heartfelt transactions." Zacharias also describes atheist philosophers this way: "every now and then there arises on the educational landscape some new antitheistic voice, arrogantly sounding forth with an air of omniscience, mocking religion and debunking the sacred" (p. 6). He even calls atheists "God-killers" (p. 31)! Zacharias' attack on atheism contains many errors and distortions: * Atheism is NOT synonymous with materialism (p. 17).
* Zacharias engages in name-calling when he calls atheists 'antitheists.' (Given that Zacharias's first two consecutive books attack atheism, one wonders if Zacharias is "better described" as an anti-atheist.)
* Atheism is NOT a worldview.
* Atheism does not entail nihilism (pp. 18-19). As a matter of fact, atheism does not logically entail *any* theory of ethics! Moreover, despite Zacharias's protests to the contrary, the problem of evil is still an excellent reason for rejecting theism (p. 45). Zacharias argues that the problem of evil cannot be used as evidence for atheism since if atheism is true there is no such thing as evil. However, even if that were true--it isn't--that is irrelevant to whether the problem of evil provides good evidence for the nonexistence of God. *Theists* believe certain things are evil. *Theists* believe God is good. *Theists* believe that good persons are opposed to evil. So *theists* need to explain why a good who is good (in their sense of 'good') would allow so much apparently pointless evil (in their sense of 'evil'). If theists can't explain it, then that is a problem for the internal coherence of a *theistic* worldview. Furthermore, Zacharias is simply mistaken when he asserts that atheists cannot consistently accept objective moral values. Richard Swinburne, arguably the most influential Christian philosopher in the world, says that if there are objective moral values, the *naturalistic* account of them is probably correct. If Zacharias wants to disagree with Swinburne, he needs to provide objections to Swinburne's view. Finally, Zacharias's defense of theism is totally inadequate. Although Zacharias recognizes that he must establish the existence of God before he can defend Christianity (p. 189), he relegates his "case" for theism to a mere 6 pages--0.02% of the book--in an appendix! (A much more logical structure would have been to first refute atheism, then defend theism, and then defend Christian theism.) With such little space devoted to arguing for theism, Zacharias is forced to summarize theistic arguments without adequately explicating and defending key premises in his arguments. ...
Rating:
Summary: Duh. If God doesn't exist....and I do...Q.E.D.
Review: Since it's obvious that there are moral people who don't believe in God, including atheists, and nontheists such as Buddhists, the answer should be obvious. But Zacharias wants to peddle religious bigotry dressed up in the snake oil of apologetics. If atheists are responsible for Joseph Stalin, then Zacharias has the Crusades, and the blood of those martyred with the slogan "God will know his own" (the early version of "Kill 'em all- let God sort 'em out) on his soul. The idea of attributing Nazism to Nietzche is repulsive, too, and one of the current "big lies" in favor by religious right revisionists these days. Nietzche, in fact refused to speak to Wagner over his antisemitism. Nietzche was a tormented atheists, who clearly understood from a Christian framework what the "death of God" entailed. I wonder how come Zacharias left out all of Hitler's quotes about what a good *Christian* he was. Actually I don't. False witness isn't false witness with these hucksters. If you're a Christian, read Kierkegaard's *Training in Christianity, * and don't waste your time on this putrid excresence.
Rating:
Summary: Man can live without God very well, thank you!
Review: Ravi Zacharias is very fond of the 'it would be nice if X were true, therefore it is' style of argument. In the same chapter as defending Christianity from responsibility for suffering caused in its name he holds Atheism responsible for all the actions of (alleged) Atheists. He uses many Philosophical tricks to fool the unsophisticated layman in particular claiming that you can't question the internal consistency of Christian morality without assuming the existence of God! If Christianity can't explain the 'Problem of Evil' using it's own morality then the whole Christian system falls because it is internally inconsistent. If a logical system can prove itself inconsistent then it is an inconsistent system, you can't just object that since it is inconsistent the proof isn't valid since that is circularly assuming the inconsistency you are doubting. Thus if Christianity is unable to account for evil using it's own moral system then the sceptic has established the inconsistency of the Christian system (i.e. either the assumptions of Christianity are wrong or the moral system is wrong). This is why an atheist is entitled to ask his question within the moral framework of Christianity. The majority of this book is taken up with pointing out the rather stark conclusions of Atheism without actually refuting them. Ravi Zacharias attempts to fool the reader with the Cosmological and Teleological arguments, dressing up Philosophy 101 in intellectual clothing. He never substantiates the claim that Atheism leads to violence or Nazism. The Atheistic moral law he uses as his straw man is some kind of 'Social Darwinism'. Moral law under atheism is quite consistent and may be: Relativistic - in the sense that it accepts that there is no absolute yardstick and this is why different peoples have different morality. Limited biological innateness - it may well be that we are biologically predisposed to refrain from some behaviours (e.g. incest, infanticide). Social laws - deriving from social contracts, I don't kill you because I will: a) Be punished. b) Have empathy for you and don't want it to happen to me. c) Have social investments in you (e.g. friendships). Universalising these laws is a function of the human brain to facilitate application (i.e. the bit of the brain that governs reward learning when removed stops you from learning moral and social rules) and these rules are internalised when learning from our parents and society as a whole through reward and punishment. Essentially Ravi Zacharias combines the very worst of Theology and Philosphy of Religion with a populist and emotive appeal that obfuscates and smears Atheism without addressing the realities an Atheist faces.
Rating: 
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: 
Summary: A must read for the Educated
Review: I admit to being somewhat of a snob when it comes to religious thought. Walk into your average christian book store and you see silliness and books that seek to tell the reader what they want to hear, not what they need to hear. Books that give easy answers and literally no mental or intellectual challenge. I will admit I am not a Christian but found this book to be one of the rare gems that is written with the educated person in mind. If you have attended a top University, traveled the world, been in the Peace Corps or otherwise exposed to the wonders of different countries, cultures and beliefs you will find this book to be one that explains in a challenging manner why we as humans cannot live without some belief in God. While he certainly speaks of Jesus Christ and is a Christian himself, it was so refreshing to have a book that asked some of the difficult questions that an educated mind would ask. His chapters on Truth and how to seek it were helpful to me. I came away realizing that one could be a well educated, cultured and still curious about the world around us, and as a Christian as well. He isn't an author that plays to the fear and desperation that is alive and well in America televanglism. He talks about the country club mentality that many mega churches have. He talks about a lot of issues that most "popular" religious leaders avoid. He got my toe in the water...
Rating:
Summary: The best apologetics book
Review: I first heard Ravi at Promise Keepers and I was immediately taken with him. It is true he is very academic and pontifical but don't let that get in the way of his message. He uses his logic and academics to create convincing arguments. Even though he is lecturing, he is not concentrating on academic arguments. Rather, he argues from societal evidence. Whenever there has been godlessness he has shown the demise of the societal framework. Not to mention the fact that you'll learn lots about philosophers, as well as have some counter-arguments if you are ever stuck in an actual serious debate on this topic (which he has). I also like the way he contrasts eastern and western experience. It adds an angle on things we're not used to seeing here.
Rating:
Summary: ideas have consequences
Review: If it is one thing that I have learned from Ravi in his works, it is that ideas have consequences. All the smut that is being paraded as true these days, that we are nothing but physical reflexes, there is no evil, it is all just DNA, even the "truth" that there is no truth, is destroying us. Ravi points not only this out, but he points out where the above (and other often ill-thought through beliefs) are weak and go wrong. As to the reviewer below, sorry bud, but your whole review can be summarized in four little words: attacking the person fallacy. I don't think that Ravi is as stuck up as you make him out to be, but even if he were, that has nothing to do with the strength of his argument. Your review is a textbook case of that fallacy. One more thing too; many here are really perturbed by Ravi's use of others' quotes. Some try to make it look like he says "so and so agrees with me, so you should too," or something of that nature. But I don't even see that within a thousand miles of his book. Sure, he uses a lot of quotes and anecdotes from others, but that serves 3 functions: 1) keeping the writing interesting, 2)illustrating the point, 3)attaching a historical relevance with some of his points. 4)someone makes an observance in a masterful way, in a way that no other, especially the author himself, cannot seem to capture in his own words, so he puts it in the book to retain its original punch. If he did not quote others and use anecdotes,if it was just all propositions and such, that would make for quite a boring book. The anecdotes and quotes from others also make us sit up and take notice, ala function number three. Some people are just able to illustrate points much better than the author,and he recognizes this and uses them in his book. And lets recognize one more thing on this issue: using significant authorities to strengthen your case is quite different from arguing from an ill-qualified authority. The former, as long as one doesn't make it a band-wagon approach (which Ravi doesn't), serves to strengthen an argument, while the latter is a logical fallacy (kind of like saying, "well, the pope said that Goodyear tires are the best tires to put on a car, so I'm going with Goodyear"). We all use authorities to bolster our arguments to a certain extent; we are not authoratative on some issues, while others are, and we recognize this. It is a perfectly legit thing to do. Ravi does not use authority in an illogical or wrong way.
Rating: 
Summary: Philosophy 101-- The Reader's Digest Condensed Version
Review: This book is far more fascinating for the insight it gives about the author than the subject. He intersperses superficial discussions of philosophy with long passages designed to feed his enormous ego. A common sentence will begin like, "A few years ago, I was asked to speak at Oxford...". He then proceeds to revel in his own brilliance. One starts to wonder whether the idea he is presenting would be any more valid if given at Eureka College rather than Oxford, and what difference it makes that he was asked to speak there. Then there is the shameless name dropping. "Konrad Adenauer once asked me..." And--you guessed it--Adenauer is amazed at our authors' wisdom. At times he seems almost bored by his topic. He'll be in the middle of a point when he suddenly shifts gears to tell us of another of his amusing anecdotes. Sort of like, "But enough of Kant, let's talk about me!" And of course, like most of his colleauges, he seems to believe that quoting those who agree with him strengthens his case. "Hey, if you don't believe me, here's another real smart guy who thinks I'm right". All in all, another Christian preaching to the choir, though he seems a tad gloomier than most.
Rating:
Summary: The book has literary style but lacks philosophical content
Review: This review is only intended to show the depth this book lacks on numerous philosophical issues. It is more rhetorical than logical. For instance, Ravi's lack of understanding when it comes to Hinduism is seen clearly when he uses the same arguments used by Norm Geisler, Sproul etc. In fact, his writings and recorded speeches I have heard seem to consistently do this. But the logic used in this book is elementary and the "law of non-contradiction" need not necessarily apply at the ontological level. Obviously Ravi has not taken the time to inquire much into eastern thought(especially Hinduism), although he is cited as an authority on World religion by other Apologists(eg. Josh McDowell, Sproul, Geisler etc.), who themselves are quite ignorant about similar issues. But the book tries to make up for the lack of content by employing a rather florid style. The appendix is even more distressing because I can't believe that students at Harvard could be answered so easily. Obviously the ones who attended were not philosophy majors. Can man live without God? Yes he can if he read this book!
| 
