Rating: 
Summary: Mixed feelings
Review: At times while reading this book, I found myself in strong agreement & found Zacharias to be very insightful. At others, I felt myself in strong disagreement & disappointment with Zacharias' assertions. This is a book that should be read if you want to find a Christian writer that comes across as highly intelligent and articulate, but if you want a cogent proof of Christianity, look elsewhere.I heartily agreed with Zacharias' introduction, where he made the following statement: "If even a slight doubt could be raised upon any minutiae of theistic belief, it was exultantly implied that the whole world-view should be deemed false." and quoted Paul Scherer who wrote: "From believing too much that never did have to be believed, they took to believing so little" Ravi Zacharias bemoaned the attacks on Christianity & the illogical espoused by some of its critics, and seemingly promised to deliver a book that provides intricately woven, logically tight argumentation in favour of Christianity. He seemed to set himself a high standard, but this standard wasn't met. Yes, he made some excellent points, but he insisted that atheism is the dogmatic belief in the non-existence of God. I'm not an atheist, but why not let atheists define what they believe (or don't believe) themselves?! Atheism is merely a lack of belief in a God(s), and it was disappointing to see Zacharias insisting (illogically, in my opinion) that atheism is something that most atheists would disagree with! Overall, "Can Man Live Without God" was a mix between the good and the bad of Christian apologetics.
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: Mixed feelings
Review: At times while reading this book, I found myself in strong agreement & found Zacharias to be very insightful. At others, I felt myself in strong disagreement & disappointment with Zacharias' assertions. This is a book that should be read if you want to find a Christian writer that comes across as highly intelligent and articulate, but if you want a cogent proof of Christianity, look elsewhere. I heartily agreed with Zacharias' introduction, where he made the following statement: "If even a slight doubt could be raised upon any minutiae of theistic belief, it was exultantly implied that the whole world-view should be deemed false." and quoted Paul Scherer who wrote: "From believing too much that never did have to be believed, they took to believing so little" Ravi Zacharias bemoaned the attacks on Christianity & the illogical espoused by some of its critics, and seemingly promised to deliver a book that provides intricately woven, logically tight argumentation in favour of Christianity. He seemed to set himself a high standard, but this standard wasn't met. Yes, he made some excellent points, but he insisted that atheism is the dogmatic belief in the non-existence of God. I'm not an atheist, but why not let atheists define what they believe (or don't believe) themselves?! Atheism is merely a lack of belief in a God(s), and it was disappointing to see Zacharias insisting (illogically, in my opinion) that atheism is something that most atheists would disagree with! Overall, "Can Man Live Without God" was a mix between the good and the bad of Christian apologetics.
Rating:
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: 
Summary: Re: Andrews's "Flawed Research, March 20, 2003"
Review: This is not meant to be a review of Dr. Zacharias's book, as I have not read it, but a point of clarification regarding Mr. Andrews's 20 March 2003 review, viz. with respect to Epicureanism.* Epicureanism is indeed hedonistic. It seems Stoic because it emphasizes the "avoidance of pain" part of the equation moreso than that "attainment of pleasure," but this does not make it Stoic. Rather, Epicurus thought it made it efficient. For him, a great many sources of pleasure simply caused more trouble than they were worth. He thus concluded that it was easiest to maximize pleasure in most situations not by positively seeking it out, but by avoiding pain.** The result in practice looks Stoic, but it is not. It is possible that Mr.Andrews raises a number of valid, philosophical contentions with Dr.Zacharias's work; however, he has, at the very least, mishandled Epicureanism. For this reason, I suggest perusing the range of other reviewers before making a judgment upon this volume based on its purported technical merits or flaws. ________
* At the time of this review, the volume possessed a mean rating of 3.5; my four star rating is an attempt to reinforce, rather than disturb, this mean (unfortunately, I am stuck rounding to the nearest integer). **Take a look at Leucippus' _De_Rerum_Natura_ for an interesting application of this doctrine to marriage. The Epicurean suggestion: Sex is just fine, but you had better not get emotionally attached. This is to be taken quite literally; in fact, Leucippus' volume gives the reader a range of suggestions for falling out of love in the "unfortunate" event that one has let his or her guard down and fallen into it!
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.
Rating:
Summary: Preaching to the choir...
Review: This book was given to me by a well-intentioned Christian, hopeful of bringing me back into the fundamentalist fold. A sweet gesture, but it missed the mark -- because what I found unpalatable about Mr. Zacharias' book is what I found unpalatable about Christianity itself: this book is entirely lacking in compassion for those of us who have been driven into disbelief or non-belief by both the behavior of believers and a more complete understanding of the history of the Christian church specifically, and religion in general. He shows such contempt for the painful journey that many of us have had to take to be true to ourselves. For example, Zacharias is not content to use the term "atheist;" he insists that those who can no longer believe the Christian or fundamentalist orthodoxy are "antitheists" and are even demonic tools. He suggests that people adopt atheism to justify a profligate lifestyle. Sheesh. He fails to understand (or recognize) that most people who leave the church and its beliefs behind do not do so casually, thoughtlessly, or skipping merrily to go out and play. In most occasions, apostasy is the result of years of sincere and sometimes agonizing thought, meditation, and speculation; people are driven to it by the evidence of history as well as contemporary Christian stances that are devoid of Christian compassion and infused with hypocrisy. Many unbelievers have had to lose not only the comfort of belief and a community of believers but also the solace of family in their search. This evolution comes lightly to few, and when Mr. Zacharias' excoriates those of us who can no longer believe exactly as he does, he reminds us of why we had to leave in the first place. Believers, take my advice: if you want to give a book to someone who has fallen away from the faith, DON'T choose this one; Mr. Zacharias' approach preaches to the converted while insulting my sincere search for a belief system with and by which I can live an honest life. Pick up something by Philip Yancey instead (e.g., Reaching for the Invisible God). Peace be unto you, and unto us all.
Rating:
Summary: A Tribute to the God of Logic!
Review: I must congratulate Dr. Zacharias for putting so much into this one small book. I think the two cornerstones to this book are his faith, and his understanding of the basics of logic. I say faith, because faith is a mode of epistemology, an way of understanding the world around us. It is quite different than what we use in the Academy or in the world, but it is a way of knowing nonetheless. It is a way of knowing by the heart, since the heat oftentimes tells you things that you mind doesn't know. I say logic, in that he works with the fundamental Three Laws of Logic: Identity, Excluded Middle, and Non-Contradiction. This is where most of the logical confusion and chaos erupts. This is the rock-bottom of all logical discourse. Using these three laws, Dr. Zachairas illustrates the absurdities (using this is the technical sense of an incoherency) of life without God. (In fact, this book is a primer on logic, and clear thinking. We are, after all, commanded to worship God not only with our hearts, but our minds. This is not a math book, but a book of thought written on the freshman college level. As always, ambitious people will always be rewarded. This book bridges the gap between the mind and the heart. Dr. Zacharias is neither cold Spock nor wild McCoy, but he has channeled the synergy of both. He nails, quite correctly I might add, that Nietzsche is the greatest modern philosopher. More people believe (and prove it conclusively by their actions) that God is dead than believe that God is alive and active in our live. Most people believe that God exists, but picture him a senile Santa Clause, or a vague historical personage as relevant as Amerigo Vespucci or Ferdinand Magellan. The case the Christians make is that God is alive, active, and guiding us nowadays. Dr. Zacharias asks the lynchpin question: Why do antitheists believe in ethical codes that are not a direct outworking of their philosophy. In other words, how do you get from "E=mc2" to "Love your Neighbor?" I realize many antitheists have ethical codes, but why do these codes, in many instances, ape the religious ethical codes? Not to mention there is no Atonement and resurrection in antitheistic ethics, which atonement is the Central Christian Doctrine. The only fault I would have with Dr. Zacharias is that he can be circumlocutious at times, but since he confesses that characteristically Eastern fault, we cannot hold it against him! The appendices are quite helpful. When is the last time you heard that in a review?
| 
