Rating: 
Summary: all you need to know about this book
Review: Finishing this book was a lesson in patience. Don't bother with this waste of paper, there are many other fine writers of christian leaning--g.k.chesterton and t.s.eliot come to mind--who can write without egregious fallacies.
First, RavZac asserts that his book counters the 'steady barrage of scholarly attack' which 'has been foisted upon religion' in general, and on christianity in particular (p xiv). Paradoxically, he then goes on to quote Kant's assurance(as representative of modern antitheistic thought)(p9) that spirituality is not threatened by Kant's antitheistic philosophies, and also acknowledges that modern thought has been a natural evolution of human history (p6). Second, RavZac continually correlates societal ills with modern intellectualism (p xiv,xvii,8,12,et al), and actually asserts causality between the two (p xvii,8,22-33). Then, he states that 'every generation raises the issue of life's essence' and discusses the long history of humanity's existential angst. If dissatisfaction with life is universal in all times and places, and if the history of humanity is the history of pleasure as well as pain, then where does RavZac get off when he tries to pin it all on modern intellectualism and philosophy? Finally, he states 'that all philosophizing on life's purpose is ultimately two conclusions, Does God exist? and What is his character?'(p8) He may hold such a view, however he seems to be ignoring a vast record of philosophy that does not presuppose a theistic view, let alone the monotheistic variant. RavZac is atrociously unrigorous in his sophomoric attempt at conversing with the great philosophers. The foregoing should show that one needn't get very far into his book before being stumbled at his profusion of ineptitude. The entire writing has so borrowed pseudo-biblical language as to be cloying, and RavZac thoroughly conveys his paranoid rhetoric by overutilizing key words such as 'warned, aberrant, terrifying, unbridled, unleashed, attacks, machinations, trickery', etc. ad nauseum.
In short, this book is the religious version of political paranoia as discussed in Richard Hofstadter's THE PARANOID STYLE IN AMERICAN POLITICS, 11/64. There are no redeeming features of this writing, save for giving the lucid reader abundant opportunities to identify logical fallacies and monitoring the addled ramblings of today's christian writers.
Rating: 
Summary: There are certainly people who can live without God.
Review: While believing in God can surely be beneficial to man and can make the person healthier as well as provide much improvement in other areas as well, there are still atheists who had and have lives as perfectly fine human beings. Take for instance Bertrand
Russell, the philosopher and mathematician who was an atheist. He led an exemporally life without having to be involved in God. And he was a compassionate man wo cared deeply about human suffering and human decency. A lot of times, people need there to be a God because humans had previously hurt them so. This is not always the case but many times it certainly is. By the way, I myself believe in God , that is, a supernatural entity which created life, but other then that, I think "HE" minds his own business. Keep in mind, there is probably a huge amount of life
forms in the universe. I wonder what their thoughts are about God? If they have thoughts, that is. Who knows?
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent book.
Review: As an ill-educated person (I have little more than a public high school education), I admittedly am ignorant in the area of Philosophy. It is for this reason I am very glad Ravi Zacharias did not write this book so only the pedants and PhD's could understand it. It is an intensively interesting book and a pleasure to read.
Rating:
Summary: Superb
Review: When I applied to the University of Wales for doctoral studies, I was asked to list five books (besides the bible) that have had the greatest impact on me. This was one of the ones I listed. This book taught me more than any other on how to properly use logic when exploring theology. It also highlights the massive effects of the philosophies of Nietzsche, Sarte, Kant, Hume, and others on the current relgious landscape. Zacharias is a wonderful writer as well.
Rating: 
Summary: Response to a Response
Review: No, I think that more accurately it is Zacharias that has mishandled Epicureanism and Stoicism. Reading the book gives one a better grasp of how the subject has been approached far too simply. I take issue with him portraying the two schools as diametric opposites in ethics; a choice between grave emotionless sterility (which Stoicism may be) and that of wanton, unbridled pleasure seeking (which we cannot assign to Epicureanism), for this is the false choice given in the book. To say that the Epicurean �looks� Stoic is correct, for thrown into many an ethical choice both the Stoic and the Epicurean would act in the same manner, although the reasoning behind the choice is different. We have to wonder though whether �pleasure� so defined by Epicurus, would not be for most people, the cold life advocated by the Stoics. Yes, Epicureanism is hedonistic, but not in the denoted meaning of wild self-indulgence. For a discussion of the misinterpretation of hedonism in Epicureanism I actually suggest chapter II of J.S. Mill�s essay Utilitarianism, where Mill explains the very error Zacharias has made in light of criticism on his own utilitarianism. * * *
And how are we to addresses this quote?: �As for Sartre�s ethical theory, it is one of antinomianism-a lawlessness� (p. 212) Perhaps Zacharias forgot that in the final section of Being and Nothingness Sartre explicitly opens the floor to an ethics, and perhaps further he has never heard of Sartre�s posthumously published Notebook for an Ethics that attempts a movement from individualism to a socially constructed consciousness. We must applaud Sartre for writing nearly 600 pages of ethical theory from a position of �lawlessness�. Sartre�s ethics, indeed, poses numerous problems, but Zacharias glosses it to the point of recklessness. Also, what of Simone de Beauvior�s Ethics of Ambiguity based on Sartrean existentialism? Or does the blatant sexism of the title betray entertaining a female author? Zacharias should stick to his guns, and not try and take on measures of though or philosophies that he has not researched fully or taken seriously.
Rating:
Summary: Flawed Research
Review: I find no qualms with RZ's claim to the authority of the Christian faith, and the possibility that it maybe transform and deliver life into a fruitful enterprise rather than one hollow with despair. However, as a student of philosophy I do find it rather upsetting that a man as well read as the present author can make so many grievous errors both philosophical and historical. His treatment of Nietzsche I must say is generally fair, however, RZ makes several comments that are just plainly wrong when read in light of contemporary. Nietzsche scholarship. Firstly, Nietzsche in no way ever "admitted" to contracting syphilis, he never was diagnosed, although it is probable that it is what caused is insanity and eventual death. RZ's final remarks on Nietzsche read "...[the] utopia and the utopia he envisioned for Germany were not to be" (p. 33). I do not know what works RZ is referring to when he invokes the term "utopia" to apply to Nietzsche's thought. Taken wholly, Nietzsche's thought is anything but utopian, it is a reevaluation of all values, an "arrow" a "straight line", and a "yes", but one is foolish to think the arrival of the overman is Nietzsche's idea of a savior or of an ideal. Change is tantamount to Nietzsche. And anyone that has read Nietzsche knows that the only people he is more merciless with than Christians is the Germans. He was a consummate critic of nationalism in any form. Oh yeah, RZ spells Nietzsche's first name wrong; its "Friedrich" not "Frederick".
There is also trouble when RZ makes it to Kierkegaard, and for my part, its seems as though he does not understand the three Kiekegaardian spheres of existence. RZ maintains that the ethical for Kierkegaard is a choice that is made for "no specific reason" and "beyond reason" (p. 39). However, in Fear and Trembling Kierkegaard is adamant that the ethical as such is the universal. Charges of irrationalism are warranted to Kierkegaard, even Jaspers claims this, but such a blatant disregard for his thought is baffling. Additionally, in the final chapter, RZ claims that each level of Kierkegaard's spheres, the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious, are characterized by a leap of faith. While the movements are indeed dialectical, with each being preserved, this point is true only of the final sphere in the movement from the ethical to the religious, at the point of infinite resignation. And oh yeah, he spells Kierkegaard's first name wrong too, its "Søren" and not the German rendering "Sören". Overall, I would say RZ is a good writer, and a quality human being, he just needs to do research a little more thoroughly, and not simplify complex thinkers.
* * *
One more thing, what is up with calling Epicureanism hedonistic? Reading Epicurus' ethics, one realizes that the lifestyle advocated is just as austere as any stoic ethics; the difference being that the used different starting points to reason to the same conclusion. I hate to say it but this really is a beginner's mistake.
Rating:
Summary: The Hammer of Logic
Review: This book was Logic spearheaded by the holy Spirit. The critcs above or below hammer at RZ, but note carefully, they do not go into a convincing refutation of his arguments. As for reading Geisler or Sproul (great authors they are)he is at least their equal. Also if you can find this book in bookstores, get it because it will have a cd with his lectures on it. Worth the whole price of the book. The hole irony of aplogetics as this: Dr. Zacharias is compellingly conving, he cannot be refuted. But yet he is attacked. SCripture says that "carnal man does not understand the things of the Lord." But yet we have a mandate from the Lord to evangelise. Buy the Book, if only for the CD.
|
