This book presents a sound argument for the truth of the Christian faith and also helps to define what that faith entails. I highly recommend it to all interested in understanding the rational basis for Christianity and faith.

Christianity is not for someone with "blind faith", but for a person who uses his mind to study the Bible and reason through the questions most of us have. The author tackles tough questions and writes at a level we all can understand. While I didn't agree with all he said, he caused me to think through my positions. He's right on point most of the time and ends the book with the perfect conclusion.

The book is essentially a book on fundamental theology, formerly called apologetics. Unfortunately, apologetics uses arguments from history, science, metaphysics, and psychology. One person can't be an expert in all these fields. For example, Dinesh doesn't understand the metaphysical proof of God's existence. Also, he never states explictly that human beings are embodied spirits which is obvious from the indefinability of human rationality. He talks about the human spiritual soul without explaining what it is.

The best part of the book was his explanation of the motives of atheists. I always knew Lee M. Silver (a nonfamous biologist and author) thought human free will was an illusion, but it was great to learn that E.O. Wilson and Francis Crick say the same thing. There are similar inanities from Carl Sagen, Steve Pinker, Stephen Hawking, and Steven Weinberg. Dinesh failed to mention that they say these things against the spirituality of human beings only in philosophical conversations. They live their lives as if they had free will: they feel guilty when they do something wrong, they apologize, and they promise not to do it again.

Dinesh also didn't mention that Stephen J. Gould, an anti-religious fanatic, admitted that the science of evolution only concerned the bodies of human beings and that the souls of human beings were created by God.

His idea that Christianity superceded Judaism is predjudiced. A better way to put it is that there is a disagreement about theology.

He also claims that Christianity gave us Western Civilization. Russia is not part of the West and shares with non-Western countries their lack of capitalism and democracy. It is rather the Catholic Church that is responsible for Western exceptionalism. After the Roman Empire fell in the West in was replaced by the Catholic Church, which evolved into Western civilization.

I found this book very well researched and very well written. It is not written like a textbook but it has answers to many questions that arise in a complex world where Christians, atheists and everyone in between need to try to understand one another. To live together in todays society is a challenge for those who have faith and want to hold true to it in the barrage of opinions. Thank you Mr. D'Souza for sharing your knowledge, your research and your own faith.

This book is an eye opener for me. I didn't know that the Christian church did not beleive that the earth was flat. And that so many scientists have been Christians.
I did not realize that Darwinism and evolutionism are two different things.
I'm really apprieciating the education I'm getting from this book.

As a clever argument and a compelling agreeable read for Christians, this book is great. As an argument that completely disproves atheist belief(or lack thereof), this book fails. D'Souza constantly contradicts himself and his analysis of atheist arguments is shallow.

I had to read this book for a college theology course and frankly, I found it offensive and frustrating. D'Souza wrongly uses witty prose and assumptions about atheist beliefs to bolster his argument that atheists are responsible for corrupting young believers, causing mass murders, and are generally the scum and bane of society.

If you are a Christian wanting to reaffirm your belief that yours is the best religion in the world, then this book of lies and misleading arguments is the one for you. If you believe any differently then chances are you will at the least be frustrated with D'Souza and his close-minded take on his religion and the beliefs of others.

I plan on burning my copy.

Dinesh D'Souza is a compelling apologist for Christianity in many ways. Much of what is contained in this work is valuable information for the Christian, and a powerful rebuttal to much of what modern atheists are saying. He defends the actions and motivations of the Christian church over recorded history, correcting quite a number of revisionist ideas perpetrated by critics.
Ultimately though, Mr. D'Souza wants it both ways. My impression was that he is deeply interested in being in the majority on both sides of the issue. He wants Christians to accept him for his defense of the faith, while courting majority opinion on natural science. He is a theistic evolutionist (or one of its derivatives) who believes that a four-and-a-half billion year old earth and Darwinian evolution can be married with the tenets of Christianity. He repeats the common arguments often found among those of this inclination, most of which have been either effectively refuted or shown to be weak. In a few cases, he weakens his whole dissertation by stating opinions about natural history as if they were actually facts. His research on natural history and the recent discoveries of creation science is weak, or perhaps he is fully aware of it but ignores it because it doesn't fit with his world view.
Sadly, being seen as a bright intellectual by both camps is more important to Mr. D'Souza than accepting and believing, with good reason, what God has said.
Ignoring D'Souza's compromise with popular secular opinion, I enjoyed the book quite a bit. I recommend it for Christians who are strong enough in their faith to ignore the evolution nonsense. It's actually not a main theme nor a large portion of the book.

Things that exist do not require an argument. An argument is required for things that do not exist. In fact a verbal edifice is required which must be constantly expanded and maintained. In this respect D'Souza is a competent workman.

D'Souza's book has been called inconsistent and poorly researched, but in no specific terms. It is actually none of these. Granted, it is written (and researched) on a popular--not scholarly--level, but it is entirely consistent within its own parameters of exposing Christianity as the foundation of Western civilization, and clarifying the modern distortions of claims of religion poisoning everything. Even when Dinesh extols Kant's limits of reason he supports theistic faith (in that because all we have are our experiences of reality, we must have faith that reality itself is accurately reflected through these experiences).

At first I was questioning his grasp of Christian theology, but later attributed seeming inaccuracies as over-simplifications. This is such as a statement that Christianity "borrowed from Judaism." This implies a separation between Christianity and Judaism. Such a separation is completely fallacious. Christ is the completion of God's revelation in the Hebrew scriptures. There is no Christianity without Judaism, and likewise there is no Judaism without Christ. D'Souza later shows he is quite versed in Christian doctrine and history, though he shouldn't have stooped to these levels to prove his point.

But it is most important to note that this book is categorized as "Current Events" not "Religion." This means that is great for all thoughtful people, Christians and non, living anywhere in the West. It does a nice job to expose the Christian roots of our Government, morality and scientific thought (and misconceptions thereof) that are important in today's society.

Face it, folks, America is dying because it is forgetting it's Christian roots. And remember in your reactions to this statement that the very freedoms of speech and religion you take for granted are only the result of the Christian based values of essential human value.

Despite minor foibles, I urge you to read this book and more like it.

Lennox "God's Undertaker"
Craig "Reasonable Faith"
Geisler/Turek "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist"
Bawer "While Europe Slept"

This is unquestionably one of the most intellectually apologetic books ever written in defense of Christianity and its influence on western culture ever written. What is so amazing is that the author is not a theologian nor is he particularly well-versed on Scriptures; however, he is very convincing in his logic and keen insight on how Christianity has impacted the thoughts and actions of both individuals and countries around the world.

His responses to the atheistic rantings of the likes of Sagan, Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, Wilson and others is so plausible and rational that one is left with the impression that these men speak only for themselves in their hardened unbelief. Their arguments and positions are wholly untenable when placed up against historical facts that support Christainity as the only religion that is founded by God himself in human form, namely Jesus Christ. D'Souza successfully dispels all myths and misunderstandings about what Christianity is with regards to its origin,its transcendant leader, its life-changing repercussions on its followers, and its significance in arousing widespread derision and divisiveness from doubters and scoffers with the passage of time.

Secular humanism, scientific naturalism, reformation, rehabilitation, theraputics, good deeds and good works will not assure one of avoiding the judgment of God or gaining entrance into heaven. Only acceptance of the finished work of the Savior and Lord of mankind on the cross of Calvary will give that assurance. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" ( Acts 16:31 ). That, my friend, is what's so great about Christianity.

Anyone looking for valid arguments for the existence of god had best look elsewhere. D'Souza makes plenty of decent arguments for why he personally likes Christianity, but never builds a valid case for why Christianity is true. In fact, he contradicts himself regularly.

The most irritating feature of this book its misleading nature. Dinesh makes a number of good points regarding bad logic or false assumptions made by famous atheists attempting to show that god doesn't exist, then turns around and uses the very arguments he just refuted to "prove" that god does!

A prime example is how he uses Kant's logic to show that atheists can't say that science shows us the truth about reality because we can't really know the truth of anything; he then continues on to say that Christianity offers us truth.

Huh?

Or that science can't tell us anything about god, but that science clearly demonstrates god's existence.

What?

Time and again he does this, and he is more blatantly deceptive when he tries to show that if Christianity must be held accountable for the crimes of Christians, atheism must held accountable for the crimes of atheists. For one, a more fair comparison would be atheism vs all theism, or Christians vs Communists (or Humanists, or social Darwinists, or some other subdivision of atheists). For another, while he tries to imply that the higher body count of atheists compared to Christians (numbers he arrives at by a highly misleading analysis of history) indicates that atheism is invalid, he never addresses what the body count of Christianity must represent.

As a love letter to Christianity, this book does just fine. As an argument for Christianity, it is a complete failure.

I recently picked up a copy of What's So Great about Christianity (2007), by Dinesh D'Souza, and was pleasantly surprised at what I found. Although D'Souza's background is primarily in domestic policy, he has established himself as a significant apologist with the release of this recent book. In fact, What's So Great about Christianity is one of the most eloquent, researched and forceful responses to the recent barrage of anti-Christian books by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and the like. While there are a few points of which I would disagree with D'Souza, his book is overwhelmingly an excellent and timely read.
Even though these "new atheists" are making waves in the public arena like never before, D'Souza is convinced that atheism is on its way out. One of the most important developments of our time, according to D'Souza, is the global revival of religion. One of the reasons some atheists are making so much noise is because they are losing ground--hence, the renewed effort by atheists to explain away religion as a byproduct of evolution. Harvard's Stephen Pinker, for example, has suggested that evolution gave us a "God module" in the brain which predisposes people to believe in the Almighty. It may serve no purpose, says Pinker, as it may have evolved as a byproduct of other modules with evolutionary value. In simple terms, this means there is no evolutionary explanation. D'Souza asks a pointed question: "If a `God module' produces belief in God, how about a `Darwin module' that produces belief in evolution?" (15)
D'Souza points out that many of the "new atheists" are not content in merely expressing their ideas--they want to take your children with them: "The atheist strategy can be described in this way: let the religious people breed them, and we will educate them to despise their parents' beliefs" (31). Defenders of the new atheism are quick to assert that they are not trying to inoculate kids, but merely stand up for science. But D'Souza points out that the wide majority of students are scientifically illiterate in all aspects of science. So, why isn't there a movement to teach photosynthesis, Boyle's law, or Einstein's theories, as there is for evolution? To D'Souza, the answer is simple: "This is why we have Darwinism but not Keplerism; we encounter Darwinists but no one describes himself as an Einsteinian. Darwinism has become an ideology" (32).
Much of What's So Great about Christianity is an explanation of the positive aspects Christianity has brought to the world, and in particular, Western culture. Despite incessant claims in the media that religion is harmful, D'Souza powerfully defends the overwhelmingly positive legacy Christianity has had on the world. Consider a few points he brings out.
1. Secular values are the products of Christianity, even if they have been severed from their original source. The separation of the realms of church and state has always been central to Christianity. In Matthew 22:21 Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God that which is God's." This is not the result of the Enlightenment.
2. Christianity made family life far more important than it ever was in the past.
3. Christianity shifted the focus from the rich and powerful to the common man.
4. Christendom developed a new notion of romantic love.
5. Christianity introduced consent as the prerequisite for marriage.
6. Christianity introduced a new model of influence: servant leadership.
7. Christianity brought a powerful emphasis on compassion.
8. Christians built the first hospitals.
9. The modern concept of freedom has been inherited from Christianity.
10. Christians were the first group in history to begin an anti-slavery movement.
11. Finally, Christianity brought true equality for all human beings, because of the doctrine of being made in the image of God. This laid the basis for all modern doctrines of human rights.

Christianity and Science
One of the reasons the "new atheists" are so confident is because they believe science is on their side. But with tremendous recent advances in our knowledge of the complexity and diversity of life, nothing could be further from the truth. It is also ironic that modern science is an invention of medieval Christianity. The greatest breakthroughs in scientific history have largely been at the hands of Christians. Atheistic scientists work under Christian assumptions (namely, that we live in a rational universe that operates according to laws which are understandable to the human mind), even if they deny them. D'Souza asks, "So where did Western man get this faith in a unified, ordered, and accessible universe? How did we go from chaos to cosmos? My answer, in a word, is Christianity" (93). Some of the leading scientists have been Christians: Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Boyle, Galileo, Pascal, Mendel, Pasteur, and more.
In the middle chapters of the book, D'Souza makes a powerful case for design in the universe. He points to the beginning of the universe as compelling evidence for a creator: "In stunning confirmation of the book of Genesis, modern scientists have discovered that the universe was created in a primordial explosion of energy and light" (116). Even Einstein tried to avoid this conclusion because he knew that a beginning of the universe strongly implied a beginner. Amazingly, the Bible stands alone as the only ancient document positing an absolute beginning. What the Bible has held to be true for a few millennia now has powerful scientific support.
D'Souza also points to the failure of naturalism to account for the fine-tuning of the universe as well as the origin of life. In fact, says D'Souza, these are problems for which naturalistic scientists are not even remotely close to solving. All explanations, such as the multiverse, are plagued with problems. Even biologist Franklin Harold admitted that the origin of life is one of the "unsolved mysteries of life" (147). The reason many atheists reject design in the universe is not for lack of evidence, but because of their pre-commitment to naturalism. Steven Pinker puts his cards on the table: "Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it" (160).

Responding to Common Criticisms against Christianity
Prominent atheists commonly object that Christianity has caused incredible bloodshed in the world. D'Souza makes a few key points in response. First, the crimes committed by religious fanatics pale in comparison to those committed by atheistic fanatics. In the 20th century alone, atheistic regimes were responsible for over 100 million deaths. Even if we compensate for higher population levels, the violence caused by Christian rulers over a 500 year period amounts to only 1 percent of the deaths caused by Stalin, Hitler, and Mao in just a few decades. Furthermore, atheism is intrinsic rather than incidental to their ideology. Some people have done some horrible things in the name of Christ, but clearly these actions go against his teachings. In other words, they were acting in spite of their convictions, whereas it can be argued that atheistic regimes, says D'Souza, acted consistently with their beliefs.

Point of Disagreement
One key point of which I disagree with D'Souza is his take on faith. He sees beliefs such as life after death and the existence of heaven as mere acts of faith, impossible to verify. Rather than being knowledge claims, he sees them as faith claims. In his view, faith takes over when knowledge ends. Thus, he defines faith as, "a statement of trust in what we do not know for sure" (195). While I agree that faith does not necessarily mean certainty, the Christian tradition is one of knowledge. Faith should more properly be understood as being built on knowledge. The disciples had faith in the God of the Bible, and they also believed that they could know it to be true. As J.P. Moreland points out in his recent book The Kingdom Triangle, the word "knowledge" appears far more often in the Bible than "faith." In fact, one in every four verses in the book of 1 John has the word, "know."
There actually can be evidence for life after death, despite D'Souza's claim that it is merely faith. In Beyond Death, Gary Habermas and J.P. Moreland trace how there is scientific evidence for the continued existence of consciousness after physical death. And there can be evidence for heaven as well. Before his death, Jesus said that he was going to prepare a place for his followers in heaven (John 14:2-3). Any evidence, therefore, for the resurrection of Jesus counts in favor of the reality of heaven. These are minor points of disagreement, though. D'Souza is to be commended for a first-rate defense of the Christian faith. I highly recommend his book. And I hope this is the first of many to come.

The author claims too much for Jerusalem and grants too little to Athens and Rome in the creation of Western Civilization, which to him is exclusively 'Judeo-Christian' civilization.

D'Souza claims Christian origins for: limited government, human rights, the US government, and the scientific revolution.

Since limited government was invented by the Greeks and adapted by the Romans before Christ, this is hubris.

D'Souza claims that Christians invented religious tolerance. Never mind that there were dozens of religions coexisting in Rome and that Cyrus the Great exemplified religious tolerance in 500 BC.

He references the Gospel of John's story that the universe was created through the Logos or divine reason, and claims that this lead to the expectation that the universe's working could be intelligible and so encouraged science. Never mind that the writer of the 4th Gospel was framing his theology in Platonic terms for the benefit of his Greek audience. The 'Christian' idea of Jesus as the Logos is just a recycled Greek idea.

Closer to our own time, D'Souza quotes Washington and Adams to the effect that you can't have a Democracy without religion to keep us in line. He of course, avoids Madison and Jefferson. He makes the claim that the idea of human equality is Christian, even if the national documents make no explicit reference to Christianity, and Adams explicitly denied an explicit link.

He makes the usual claims that atheists are immoral, that atheism was responsible for the crimes of both the Communists and the Nazis.

The Communists killed to further their economic goals; atheism was incidental to their ideology. Even if it had been central, it would not follow that all atheists are Communists. Lack of belief does not make you a Marxist.

It is also complete nonsense to call the Nazi's atheists, since atheists were among the first groups sent to concentration camps, the Nazi SS had 'God is With Us' on their belt buckles, Hitler was elected with the support of the Catholics. Whether Hitler was a 'good Catholic' or not, the Nazis saw themselves as defending Europe from godless Commmunism, which is why they had the support of the Vatican early on.

D'Souza accepts the theory of evolution, but bolsters his scientific support for theism with the usual gaps in scientific explanation: the big bang, the origin of life, the origin of consciousness. Even if you reach for a supernatural explanation, at best these are claims for Deism, Christianity in particular does not follow from this.

In the latter part of the book, D'Souza details Christianity and makes a pitch to the reader to accept it.

D'Souza illustrates to me why Christians remain an existential threat to non-believers: They are fanatics who claim that history begins with them, that Western Civilization is synonymous with Judeo-Christianity and cannot exist without their religion in a privileged position, that our form of government is based upon Christian ideas (whatever the founders say to the contrary), that non-religious people are not moral, and that non-belief leads to ideologies that lead to the commission of mass murder.

Essentially, D'Souza excludes you from full citizenship in your country or even identification with Western Civilization, claiming it as exclusively the province and product of his religion, and slanders you as at best amoral if not evil.

What's not to like?

D'Souza makes a great the case for the existence of God, while simultaneously tearing apart many of the common atheist arguments presented in other books. Not only does D'Souza make a clear and well researched case for the existence of God from the philosophically side of things, but he also uses plenty of historical and scientific examples to prove his point. These examples are also used to sweep away the perception that atheists are somehow smarter and more sophisticated than the believers out there.

Through these historical examples D'Souza also demonstrates the many positive contributions that Christianity has made throughout history. He goes rights after the usual group of leftist myths that populate history textbooks and classrooms around the world. He debunks the so called "Dark Ages" and shows them in their true light as a time of innovation, science, economic growth, the end of slavery, and other positive accomplishments. Furthermore, over a span of three chapters D'Souza demonstrates how religion has been very supportive of science and not a hindrance to its development as you are taught in school with the leftist version of the Galileo affair. Additionally, the book clearly shows that overwhelmingly the greatest minds that have ever lived have been believers.
Moreover D'Souza shows that the crimes of the Crusades, the witch hunts, and the Inquisition are grossly exaggerated and in many cases had nothing to with the Church or religion persecution. These crimes are always played up by those of the left and these terms have unfortunately made their way into everyday language. D'Souza nicely counters these false claims with the fact that the atheist left leaning regimes of the last two hundred years are in fact the ones who have committed the greatest crimes in human history. In terms of numbers, the crimes of atheist and anti-Christian regimes like the French Revolutionary government, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and other leftists far dwarf anything that has been done in the name of Christianity.

In closing as a strong believer, an engineer, and a history guy this book could not have made for a better read.

New atheists are here. But their arguments are anything but new. In his inaugural foray into Christian apologetics, D'Souza has done an outstanding job of synthesizing vast amounts of material and presenting it in a compelling narrative. The overall thesis is solid and well argued. Believers and skeptics alike will find plenty to think about in these pages.

Welcome to College: A Christ-Follower's Guide for the Journey

I will keep this review short and concise: Dinesh D'Souza will not be on any atheist Christmas Card mailing list, er, should I says Winter Solstice Card list. It has been said the greater the lie, the more some people will want to believe it. Atheism is so lacking in credibility, yet so many people ignore the truth and willfully adhere to this morally bankrupt philosophy. This book thoroughly demolishes the atheist viewpoint; it should be required reading at all universities, to offset the poison that the Liberal elites are forcing on students.

Dinesh D'Souza is a talented writer. There is no doubt in my mind about that. I have read four of his books and they are all gramatically and structurally sound. Also, even if you don't agree with his points, he at least lays out a good argument for his position.

There was just one problem in this book for me. I don't believe Martin Luther King's non-violent struggle was influenced by Christianity as much as it was influenced by Gandhi. Keep in mind, Gandhi wasn't someone who spoke for any religion. He was more of a spritual leader to his followers. I am surprised D'Souza, who is an Indian immigrant, would give more credit to Christianity than to Gandhi. I don't think that is historically accurate. Alot of MLK's actions were clearly immitations of Gandhi's noncooperation struggle against the British. When MLK was laying out his strategies to combat segregation, he was probably reading books by and about Gandhi and not the Bible.

Overall though, not a bad read. I just want to say, though, that D'Souza is probably a better political writer that a theological writer. I have enjoyed his other books more.

In an age where politics have reached the lowest common denominator and the news is dominated by hacks concerned only with sensationalist attacks to tear down anyone with a feel-good story, when politicians say "yes we can", but secretly mean that "you really can't, so the government must control all you bitter, angry primitives", it's great to hear a POSITIVE VOICE. In an age when no politician can get anyone with an above-70 IQ excited about the future, D'Souza's books do the trick!

This time, he turns his attention to Christianity itself, in something of a companion book to "What's so Great about America". And just as the latter set the record straight about the most unfairly maligned nation in world history, so this one does the same about the most unfairly maligned religion. (I suppose it's no coincidence that most of the worst maligners are the same close-minded losers, but anyway...).

This book, like the other D'Souza offering I read, "What's So Great About America?", was absolutely fantastic. Very well written and one finds it difficult to agrue with the logic of his agrumentation.

If you are into apologetics--then this is for you. If not, or if you are looking for an intro into apologetics or if you are really into science and philosophy, then read this book. It will provide you with many thought provoking scientific facts, explanations, philosophical insights and scriptural references. Highly recommend.

D'Souza's attack on atheism and non-Christian religions has nothing new to offer. It is an updated rehash of tired arguments, equivocation, appeals to ad populum and ad baculum fallacies, and is hardly the nail in the coffin of secular humanism that it has been touted to be. I found his argument that Christianity is compatable with the theory of evolution in that being the largest and fastest growing religion in the world (according to D'Souza), it is winning the battle for survival of the fittest over all contenders. Clearly D'Souza either doesn't understand much about science and reality in general or chooses to deliberately mislead his followers. The book is written in clever prose but is an empty shop with nice window dressing. I recommend this book for anybody who needs a refresher course in all that is wrong with religious thought. Highlights include how Jesus gave us American democracy directly following how liberal Christian churches are failing due to their inclusion of such horrible ideas as democracy and equal rights. Enjoy.

Dinesh D'Souza is a close-minded, simpleton buffoon. Plain and simple. He essentially lumps all atheists and agnostics as being 'militant types', and proceeds to show his infantile prejudice against all of them, because they have the gumption and intelligence to realistically ask the age-old valid question, "was, or is there a superior being?"! As an agnostic myself, I KNOW that 'god' cannot be proved, nor disproved. That is FACT. Another more outrageous, narrow-minded assertion in this joke of a masturbatory book is that ethics and morality are predicated upon, or depended upon religion, to be meaningful or valid. This is also patently not true. Many people do not hold a valid religion in their own lives, and do live happy, productive, and ethical/moral lives. On the other hand, many religious fanatics do not, and even kill and murder 'in the name of a god'. Witness fanatical Islam and 9/11. Witness the Aztecs savagely sacrificing prisoners to their 'god' in cold blood, by cutting and ripping their hearts out of their bodies alive. Ethics and morality, can, and do exist independently of religion or a belief in a 'god'. When you cut through all the B.S. and Dinesh's own arrogant, myopic right-wing agenda so evident in this skewed book, one thing is clear- these right wing nutjobs want nothing more than to control your thinking, logic, and rationality in order to promote their personal beliefs and political agendas. They are intellectual Nazis. I've come across infinitely more fundamentalist fanatical religious nutjobs wanting to 'shove their religion down my throat' and 'condemn me to a hell', than atheists or agnostics using the same, pathetic tactics. Dinesh has shot himself in the foot, and he thanks many of you uncritical simpletons for purchasing this drivel, and in the process making him even wealthier (I borrowed this book)! Don't waste your time with this predictable, dishonest book.

I thoughly enjoyed this work. Even athiests and Agnostics will gain in their stances regarding the divine. Its not a blindly religous text, it does leave the reader contemplative on the foundation of western civilization.

I'm glad to see this book has been written. The worst response to Hitchens, Dawkins, et al's recent efforts would be silence and neglect. Also, I admire the writing skill, research, and occasionally good insights D'Souza puts into his book. Unlike most religious writers I have read, there is no astoundingly ignorant contradiction of science to be found in his work, and he seems to be legitimately interested in the findings of recent science. Many historical references he gives are enriching as well. I was, for example, quite impressed to learn that Augustine predicted there was no time before the big bang. Though it was only a guess, it is nevertheless amazing that he was able to conceive of this possibility long before modern science understood such issues more thoroughly, much like Democritus's atomic hypothesis. However, on other historical points, such as his revisionism of the Galileo trials, this book was less enjoyable. Or take the statement, "Yet science as an organized, sustained enterprise arose only once in human history. And where did it arise? In Europe, in the civilization then called Christendom." (p.83) I suppose he is unaware of the scientific triumphs of the Arab world, where in fact the scientific method was born. Or how about his claims regarding the role of religion in inspiring art? I think most people would agree that the most primitive art in civilization's history came from the Medieval period; it was a actually a big step down from Greek and Roman art. Furthermore, did great art disappear after the 1700s when the church ceased to be its sole sponsor?

Despite my atheistic beliefs, I enjoyed much of the book and so am not going to declare jihad on it, although I'm sure D'Souza would applaud my religious fervor were I to do so. Even at its weakest, this book is still light years ahead of C.S. Lewis's tripe, which is why I give it 3 stars; it does indeed "elevate the debate". (The weakest park of the book, by the way, is the following argument given on p.124-5: We don't know what caused the universe to exist. Define this cause as god. Therefore god exists.) And to those readers who only gave 1 star, where's your atheist charity?

In fact, I think this book needs a good bit of charity. It's probably not a good thing when the most convincing points in the book come from the supposed straw men arguments of elites so brilliant, they ought to inspire some real "fear and trembling" among believers: Feynman, Weinberg, Hitchens, Dawkins, E.O. Wilson, and Stephen Hawking are among those quoted. Note that the great minds invoked by the author on the side of faith come mostly from an era when being Christian was a de facto inevitability. Is it really that significant that Newton, for example, was a religious zealot? What else would he have been? A Hindu? An atheist? He also fervently believed in crackpot ideas like alchemy and was surprisingly unchristian at times, like when it came to acknowledging Leibniz's contributions to calculus.

D'Souza points out that the population of theists around the world is growing exponentially--and this is a good thing, I ask? Should he be so gleeful to see the faithful adherents overpopulating in a meat grinder like Rwanda, a country so choked by population already that each person barely has enough dirt outside his hut to grow the meager food that sustains him? Perhaps some circumspection regarding the anti-contraception edicts of the church would benefit these people, but D'Souza is only cheered by their blithe self-destruction. Shouldn't the Scandinavian countries that he criticizes for low birth rate instead be praised for responsibly dealing with the population crisis? Nope. Apparently zero population growth is only the result of secular gloom, he contends. I rather think it's natural for reflective people to have concern for the future--hope is only justified if we take action to prepare for impending problems, which is to say that faith isn't enough to solve our most pressing problems, and in fact, it isn't of any real use at all. I love the assumption he makes that atheists don't reproduce as much as the faithful because they are dour and hopeless. He seems to think that religion has a monopoly on happiness, although this is the last thing one would conclude from watching a parade of self-flagellation, or recitation of endless mantras over tightly clutched beads.

One has to wonder in the end why the author is so impressed with the rise of blind fanaticism in the world. The unexamined beliefs of the superstitious, uneducated, and starving masses hold more weight for him than the reasoned skepticism of western scientists and thinkers who have reached the fullest potential of our species. Why exalt the lowliest of low? "The worth of a street sweeper on the streets of Philadelphia was as great as that of Jefferson himself." (p.68) Does anyone actually agree with this? I think he is confusing the notions of worth and accountability. The value of a Jefferson to civilization is immeasurably greater than that of a street sweeper, but I think most of us would agree that the two should be held accountable to the same set of civil laws. This does not imply that the street sweeper is "just as valuable" as Jefferson, but rather that universal justice is a cherished principle.

"It is no use responding that Mill was a product of the Enlightenment understanding of human freedom and equality. That notion was itself a product of Christianity. Where else do you think the enlightenment thinkers got it?" (p.77) I hate to tell anyone who believes this, but if our impulse to respect other sentient beings wasn't a part of human nature to begin with, no preacher could possibly have instilled it. I prefer to claim enough dignity for myself to say that, as a human being, I can appreciate equality without supernatural backing. It's funny how D'Souza is telling me, as an atheist scientist, that my motivation to promote science and secularism are actually thanks to religion. This would be a bit like telling Hitler that his idea of German superiority pays homage to the Jewish idea of a chosen people. In other words, the Enlightenment thinkers' and my own dislike of religion is obviously not a teaching of religion. John Adams did not learn from his father, a pastor, to say, "This would be a perfect world if only there were no religion in it."

At times, I was irked by D'Souza's disrespect or lack of understanding of science. Like when he takes on Stephen Hawking's mathematical idea of multiple universes (p.136), he criticizes the "unreality" of imaginary time. "Imaginary" may be a misnomer for numbers that are very real, but I don't think this point deserves to be criticized as being too abstruse. The imaginary time formalism, also called a Wick rotation by physicists, is used routinely in quantum field theory to simplify the calculation of four dimensional integrals, since Euclidean space is more convenient to work in than Minkowski space. The results of these calculations are amazingly accurate predictions of observables, such as the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, so imaginary time is actually a very useful concept.

The problem is that D'Souza doesn't see any difference between a Stephen Hawking, who says "Here is a consistent mathematical theory that may or may not be true--perhaps we can collect evidence for it," and a religious fanatic who says "I know why the universe is here, and I'm willing to sacrifice my life and others' lives for it," except that the latter is apparently more praiseworthy. What the educated and circumspect thinker realizes when pondering the biggest of big questions is that we simply don't know the answers. It is a triumph that we can even consider the possibilities on such a high level as theoretical physics. One has to wonder whether D'Souza realizes just how ingenious is a man such as Stephen Hawking, but once again we see the principle of "exalt the lowly" at work. Feynman, Weinberg, Hawking--all simpletons, while the common ignorant man of superstition is avowed as holy.

I find it incredible that the author uses his erudition in an attempt to elevate some of the most base and primitive ideas of man. I just can't fathom why he would go through the contortions required to defend a backwards way of thinking, even while possessing the powers of logical scrutiny; the hookworm of religion does indeed burrow deeply into the mind.

Hope that wasn't too long. Thanks for reading, and comments are appreciated!

This book is a must for any Christian going to a liberal arts college (like me). It is difficult to get my athiest friends to read anything out of this book (which I find ironic), but when they do read something they usually have no response. I can only hope this book will be a helpful device for my atheist friends and anyone elses.

Wow, where do I begin! I have been engaged in written as well as verbal discussions with both atheists and other religious/non-religious people regarding the existence and nature of God as well as the Creation-Evolution debate. Always I find that when we really begin to get to the heart of the issues of Christianity or Evolution, the arrows of insults and hostility are directed at me with gusto. I find that it is nearly impossible to adequately answer the innumerable objections to Christianity and remain engaged in rational conversation.

In his book "What's So Great About Christianity" Dinesh D'Sousza has done just that, presented a cogent, rational, well documented presentation that address nearly all the atheistic objections ever conceived. His presentation is structured and measured. He begins by laying out the basic framework of the argument that God does not exist and that religion, particularly Christianity are unnecessary and have in fact been proven dangerous in light of those who carry the torch of knowledge and understanding, the Scientists. Mr. D'Souza points out that the motivation behind this purely naturalist view of the universe and life is based on Darwinism and the belief the nature itself has paved the way to our existence. We have no purpose in life except to perpetuate the species.

After laying the ground work and noting that Christianity is not dying, but actually growing, Mr. D'Souza address the issues and objections. He begins by showing that the current state of the world has been shaped in no small way due to the Christian presence in society for the past 2000 years. And it is not the problems that are due to the Christians, but progress. The progress that has resulted from Christian thought has been on all fronts. He then shows that even science itself is really the result of devoted Christians trying to understand the awesome creation of God. This is then reinforced by the fact that we see design everywhere, but most importantly in life itself.

Moving on to the philosophical underpinnings of life, Mr. D'Souza does an excellent job of addressing how the existence of God is not only logical but is necessary based on reason and the limits of our reason. Using the arguments of some of the greatest philosophers he builds a solid case that we are incapable of eliminating God from the equation, we don't even know what true reality looks like outside of the limits of our five senses.

From there, Mr. D'Souza tries to defend and mend some of the tarnished history of Christianity. This admittedly it is a difficult thing to do since so much harm is done in the name of religion, but the point is that men do the harm, not the teaching of Christ or the foundations of Christianity. However, it is men, and men without God commit the most heinous crime of all. The horror of these crimes against humanity is solidly addressed and documented. Mr. D'Souza makes no bone about placing the blame directly in the lap of atheism and Darwinism where is rightfully belongs.

Finally Mr. D'Souza presents a rock solid case against Atheism and one for Christianity by exploring the issue of Morality. It does really come down to the personal desire for a license to do what ever we darn well please doesn't it! We can justify anything, especially if there is no God, no Judgment, no afterlife, and no accountability. Masterfully, Mr. D'Souza hits the nail on the head here and lays open the real and most powerful motivations for bad behavior, self pride, selfishness, and sexual promiscuity.

Mr. D'Souza ends the book with a weak, but none the less sincere, invitation to accept the Gospel and Jesus Christ. He does this with dignity and humility.

This was a great read. I found it difficult to put the book down as if I was reading a mystery novel! As for content, I have only scratched the surface. And while I thoroughly enjoy the book and thought it was not only well constructed and very accurate, I recognize that not everyone will receive it that way. I know that there are some who will hate it as much as they hate the Bible. But to the sane, this only illustrates the truth presented in the book. After all how can you be upset with some thing unless it hits you directly where it hurts? Regardless, read it, you need to.

I first became aware of Dinesh D'Souza after seeing a video of his recent debate with atheist Christopher Hitchens. This new book did not disappoint me! It is excellent, thorough, well-reasoned, and sound. Highly recommeded

Dinesh D'Souza has written the most comprehensive and balanced case for belief in God, Christianity and our Christian culture that I have had the pleasure of reading. He engages the atheistic critics on their own grounds and presents an intelligent argument that is reasonable and persuasive to anyone with an open mind and humble enough to admit they don't know everything. I am teaching a class using it as the text. It provides great material for discussion. It is pro-science and anti-obscurantism.
Ted Schroder, Amelia Island, Florida

D'Souza's understandinge of philosophy is amateurish, which can be forgiven because he appears to be part of the philosophical fringe (read: Catholic) that thinks that natural theology still has a leg on which to stand. What is worse is his understanding of history, which is a childishly simplistic, which cannot be forgiven but must also be understood in the context of the fact that this is the guy who blames Americans for 9/11 and who spent a lot of his last book apologizing for the Khomeinis and for bin Laden, seeking common ground between himself and polygamist conservative Muslim autocracies, and being principally opposed to free speech, as in the case of the Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy.

The sections where he tries to plod his way through the cosmological and teleological arguments are like pulling teeth; you need to read about eight lines of Hume and then six of Kant to undo the trashy Paul Davies-style revamping of dead arguments with new buzzwords that D'Souza attempts. And of course there are the token ad hominems about Stalin and the Inquisitions and so forth, as if something D'Souza really has anything new and innovative to say.

He gets two stars instead of one for not being a sufficiently faithful Christian to be a creationist.

Atheism is a biased ideology worse than fundamentalism, calls everyone but its adherents deluded imbeciles, please keep it away from my kids. But now agnosticism and skepticism...they warrant our attention since they afflict all reasonable humans from time to time.

I am an esoteric Christian "believer" and altho this book doesn't have any esoterica in it, no Mary Magdalene, no occult/hidden Christianity, it DOES give you all the tools you will ever need to argue that the Divine (aka God) does indeed exist, and Jesus aka Yeshua, wasn't "just a legend". I studied philosophy at University but it's been a long time. This book brought it all back and I feel like the armchair Philosopher that I am again, whew. Reading the easy to understand arguments helped me solidify my own (unorthodox, alternative) beliefs. Okay, Dinesh probably does not believe in the Divine Feminine, nor does he put Magdalene as the First Lady of Christianity, but he does help me answer all the Christian-bashers of my acquaintance, be they new agers, neo-pagans, or Wiccans, that Christianity is NOT the source of all modern evils and in fact is the cause of Western Civilization as opposed to 3rd world living which we'd have if our ancestors hadn't chosen to believe as they did. Christianity invented women's rights, feminism, women-having-souls, and science, The Church (even tho Catholicism is half-whacked) supported and expanded intellectual debate, democracy, the concept of individual worth, and human rights. Note Science never developed in China -- only in Europe under Christian incubation. Yes, Science was created smack dab in Christianity where all the funding was and all the bright minds of the world hung out. Europe would never have advanced to the levels it did without your Grandma's Judeo-Christianity. So get off the oh-how-vile-we-are! bandwagon and help straighten up the revisionist self-loathers in your life.

Now if only Dinesh had covered the Problem of Evil aka Theodicy more fully. He does give it one chapter at the end of the book wherein he hits the highpoints of the argument from evil and its refutation, but alas... I crave more debating tools from Dinesh's straightforward easy to comprehend arsenal. The presence of suffering and evil in the world, in our everyday lives, is the number one fact that causes my occasional agnostic fits. (God must not exist or he wouldn't let that poor little 2 year old girl I just met die painfully of cancer... That tornado snatched a baby from its father's arms, what's up with that??) Get to work, please D'Souza.

Thank you for arguing God into existence for me and providing me with convincing tidbits not only for my combative christian-bashing acquaintances but for myself in my doubting/agnostic moments. I love philosopher Peter Kreeft's prayer of the skeptic given word for word in this book...

Just please don't ever focus your debating lens on the Judeo-Christian Islamic Sufi Goddess (Sophia, Mother Mary, Shekinah, Allat, Fatima, Magdalene) and argue Her out of existence! I will just have to cry. Yeah, I know I'm a quack, and probably not the kind of fan you would like to have(!). But at least you have now been informed of the wide appeal of your extremely useful and valid book, which I have dutifully promoted around the various forums I moderate, to my online students, and of course blogged about.

Read this book and make your Grandparents / parents proud when they hear you rattling off the awesome evidence, both scientific and metaphysical, that the Divine Designer is out there and in here. Wow 'em with the truth about Christianity having been naturally selected for survival. Judeo-Christianity is way cool and not to be ashamed of.

I marked this book in so many places! I've got little red tags sticking out of many pages!

I went into this book hoping for relief from daily cultural and media derision of the Christian Faith. This book provided that. D'Souza wrote up an easy-to-read, thoughtful, intellectually-based defense of traditional Christianity. It was enjoyable and thought-provoking.

I've recommended it to many friends!

This is an ambitious book on the part of D'souza. It is a multi-faceted argument for God, the reasonableness of Faith, the universal nature of morality, and Christianity. He seeks to be a 'contender' for his faith, especially as it is under assault by Dawkins and other Darwinist Athiests. He delivers powerful rebuttals repeatedly and consolidates multiple sources and arguments in an easy to read style. A great book for any thinking, rational person with an open and questioning mind.

Dinesh D'Souza provides in "Great", a summary of the recent history of religion and its increasing popularity--especially Christianity, which the author shares with over 2 billion other people, then succinctly counters atheist claims that religion is useless, unsientific, and in fact harmful to society. Drawing on science himself (though not too successfully), philosophy (D'Souza has a great explanation of Kant), and atheist think itself to refute the claims of atheism, D'Souza has created a very convincing argument for believers.

Though it's unlikely that this book will change anyones mind who is dead set against religion, it is the most logical and well-thought out defense of the Christian faith since Mere Christianity and offers only a few contradictions. Throughout the book, the author makes solid points refuting atheists such as pointing out Huxley's quote, "We objected the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom." D'Souza responds that atheists don't find God invisible as much as objectionable and, "atheists aren't adjusting their desires to fit the truth, they're adjusting the truth to fit their desires." D'Souza uses Hume's skepticism against those who use it to reduce God to wishful thinking, and he successfully analyzes the recent believer/atheist arguments of the watchmaker and anthropic principle. D'Souza also makes it clear that the lack of religious belief has led to the worst crimes of humanity throughout history (Nazi, Soviet, and Maoist terrors to name a few).

This text isn't without contradiction, however. In the final section, D'Souza relays the benefits of Christianity to society--the religion helps people feel good and comfortable confronting death/tragedy--but this only offers more of a reason why we would invent religion, just as the atheist thinkers purport. The result is a good book about the validity of religion and Christianity, specifically.

JSBM
Author, The Evolution Diet: What and How We Were Designed to Eat, Second Edition

Dinesh D'Sousa presents a well-reasoned, historically-sound defense of basic truths of Christianity. The book's scope is enormous, all well-reasoned. It is a re-read as well as a great book to give to friends whose problem with one doctrine prevents them from examining other basic tenets of Christianity.

I was disappointed in this book, big time. The arguments are very sophomoric, confused, uninformed and even at times contradictory. Instead of arguing that Christian morals are still relevant and indeed important, that science and religion are not incompatible, that though science is not a religion, "scientism" comes very close to being one, etc., D'Souza takes a remarkably ignorant stance, actually claiming that Christianity explains the entire universe better than atheism! This is a stance that would not even be taken by many priests and pastors! Why? Because to argue that phenomena are best explained by the presence of God, to invoke "proofs" of God's existence or to say that you "know" God exists makes the entire concept of faith irrelevant! The very reason you need faith is that the idea of God is not something that is in any way demonstrable, and it is practicing a faith--not proving God's existence--that makes a religion valuable. The idea is that having "faith" is an ACTIVITY that makes you a better person. If you think you "know" God exists then the activity of practicing a faith is removed, which removes, many would say, the very point of religion in the first place, because any religion, properly understood, is a PRACTICE, a practice that is undertaken because of its beneficial effects on one's wellbeing and character. (Praying, for instance, is supposed to be akin to mediating. Unfortunately, for many people today it has devolved into "asking for stuff.")

D'Souza could have, as Hedges does in his clever new book, pointed out that many atheists are indeed "devout atheists," and that despite their denial of the existence of a personal God nevertheless do harbor beliefs that ultimately rest on faith. One of my mentors in graduate school pointed this out to me once by saying: "If you believe that the universe was created by God that is an act of faith because such a belief is not supported by evidence. BUT, if you believe that the universe just popped into existence sans creation, or just always existed, that is also an act of faith, because again it is a belief that is not supported by evidence."

D'Souza could have argued that if God DOES exist, then the seeming lack of evidence supporting this claim and the paradoxes that result are actually a problem with our rationality that we are insisting on imposing on the world. Alas, his arguments are not nearly this sophisticated. He opts for a kindergarten approach: "I'm right and you're wrong!!" He is, after all, pushing an agenda, and so is just as biased as he accuses Dawkins and Dennett of being. It's not as though he's agnostic, a concept he seems unaware of. He divides the world into "theists" and "atheists" and ignorantly claims that both are religious viewpoints. An agnostic, going by Huxley's original definition, is someone who realizes that if saying "God exists" is an act of faith then saying "God does not exist" is also an act of faith, because absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. D'Souza ignores such fine distinctions, and the result is a fallacious diatribe built on a foundation of false dichotomies. He even resorts to misinformation, such as when he claims that the story of Galileo's house arrest is a "fable." He also dubs Kant the most important philosopher of all time. Most would give that honor to Hume. D'Souza seems to think that Kant was a fan of Hume's arguments. I, rather, have always read that Kant was horrified by Hume's arguments, and that that is what actually motivated him to write! (D'Souza also, in my book, loses points for taking Bishop Berkeley seriously!)

I could write a book responding to D'Souza's mountain of fallacies. To save on time (both yours and mine) I will end with one example: An entire chapter of his book is based on the (false) premise that materialism and freewill, and then freewill and determinism, are both incompatible pairs. Anyone who has actually studied philosophy knows that neither claim is true. D'Souza again attempts to confuse us with more childish false dichotomies. His entire discussion falls flat on its face as he entirely fails to distinguish between the different varieties of determinism, such as hard and soft. First, it is false to say that materialism and freewill are incompatible. If D'Souza thinks so then he must not be aware of such things as dynamic systems, epigenesis, bidirectional causation and emergent properties. Second, philosophically, it is false to say that freewill and determinism are incompatible. They are not, at all. In fact freewill without determinism makes no sense.

The problem with saying that "you believe in freewill" is that the very concept of freewill is notoriously indefinable. Just what do you mean by it? Freedom to choose? Well, determinism is not incompatible with choice, at all. All determinism necessarily is is some statement regarding causality, that at least some of our actions, or all of our behaviors to at least some extent, are caused. That's it. If someone says he believes in freewill and so denies this claim, then what exactly is he saying he believes in? An absence of causality? But that would be chaos and randomness, which itself is incompatible with choice, and so this is obviously not what is meant by freewill. Russell pointed out decades ago that if you ask someone who says he believes in freewill WHY he did something, he will give you a reason. Why is this illuminating? Because doing things for reasons is also determinism!

Further, I would have thought that D'Souza would have been smart enough to realize that trying to prove God's existence is a fool's errand. Alas, he stoops to things like arguments from design and the first cause argument! Even many theists readily admit that the first cause argument is self negating! How? Well, first you say that everything must have a cause, and so, if you go back in a regress of causes there must be a FIRST cause, call it God. If everything must have a cause, then what caused God? Well, God doesn't need a cause. Therefore, it's no longer true that everything must have a cause, which negates the need for the argument in the first place! If something can exist uncaused it could just as easily be the universe as God! Oh well. Again D'Souza lets us down.

In closing, D'Souza's book is surprisingly childish and amazingly uninformed. His cherry picked quotes entirely fail to impress, and frankly I am shocked that this silliness is on the bestsellers lists.

This book is incredible!

D'Souza is more philosophically astute than Dennet, has a better grasp of the scientific method than Dawkins and frankly makes Sam Harris look like a six year old with a below average intelligence.

PLEASE READ THIS BOOK. It is well researched, and the facts are backed up by a brilliant intellect. D'Souza faces his opponents head-on. No excuses. No compromising. Only facts and logic. Oh yes, and that very passé Christian virtue called honesty.

The only problem with the book is the title. It gives the impression that this book is a defence of Christianity, while it is effectively an attack on the hypocrisy, lies and sloppy thinking of modern atheism. EVERY RELIGIOUS PERSON, REGARLESS OF THEIR FAITH, SHOULD OWN (AND STUDY) A COPY OF THIS BOOK. Leading atheists like Michael Shermer have conceded that this book raises the current debate on religion to a new level.

Anyone who gives this book less than 4 stars is either an unthinking atheist fundamentalist, someone trying to learn English in a month, or an idiot.

...is contained in the negative reviews on this very site. As military pilots say: "You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak." Obviously, this book has upset some atheists to the point that they feel a strong need to lash out with surprisingly vitriolic attacks.

It is rare for any work of reason and intellect to appeal so strongly to my faith. This book, though, has helped my faith by strengthening the "logical" reasons for God's existence. Powerful, well-backed arguments are plentiful in Mr. D'Souza's work-- and this book is no exception. This has, of course, caused the atheists to slam it because it dares to show that their "facts" and "proven theories" are mostly not so.

I was raised to pray for atheists, and I do to this day (I realize that would make many of them very angry to hear). Such sadness and loneliness must be contained in a heart that is-- atheist or not-- still human. Mr. D'Souza's arguments show us that most atheists lash out at the idea of hell more so than heaven. This makes perfect sense, given the selfish and sinful nature of man. Still, in their lonely and sad hearts, even the atheists are "programmed" to seek their maker... and, whether they like it or not, they will eventually find Him. How much better for them to do it while they still have life in them.

A great book for anyone with an open mind and a searching heart. I don't look for it to change the ideas of the hardened... but it will certainly help those of us (both religious and not) who are not so inclined to arrogance of thought.

First: I am Christian
Second: I have not read this book
Third: I gave it 5 stars because I'm not trying to "convert you with a keyboard"
but after reading the overview done by amazon, it looks to me that the book is going to prove christianity true. does the book do this? because it would be quite funny if it did because of the title.
Dont be mad just becasue i didnt read the book...
thanks

A Compelling Case for Theism vs. Atheism ...

Author Dinesh D' Souza gets into the theological and philosophical ring versus a gaggle of neo-atheists to make the case for theism and for Christianity. What you think of the job he does may depend largely on whether you are a Christian, atheist or agnostic. In my view, D' Souza does a creditable job of refuting the essentials of latter-day atheists such as Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, etc. He draws from deep strains of Western philosophical thought and refutes what he sees as common "myths" about Christianity - e.g., Galileo was threatened by torture to recant, that Christianity has been the cause of much death and suffering, etc.

Where D' Souza may get tangled up is this. He makes a compelling case for theism over atheism. He spends less time in making a compelling case for Christianity, the bodily resurrection, etc. This would seem to be the crux of the book's theme, but it is covered thinly toward the end. In this respect the book's title may over-sell itself.

Whether you are a Christian, agnostic or atheist, D' Souza's book will be thought-provoking. It may reaffirm your existing beliefs or prompt you to probe further for arguments to refute theism. D' Souza makes no secret of his bias; despite that caveat or perhaps because of it, he makes a compelling case for belief in God.

D'Sousa makes some points not widely known outside the philopher culture. But the inconsistency of the book is how well he researched some topics but makes gigantic leaps of intuition on others. Besides, as D'Sousa eventually concludes, Christianity partly lies in the noumenal realm (outside human perception), so half of it's understanding lies beyond our comprehension! In the end, as one expects, the beauty of Christianity lies in the leap of faith based on the reason we can SEE. If in fact Christianity is a "man-made invention", they concocted quite a brew, that will be sure to influence generations to come.

The author gives very intelligent arguments in a very easy-to-understand way. I couldn't put this book down. I enjoyed it so much that when I was finished reading it, I began all over again - TWICE! All my friends know exactly what I have been reading because I've talked about it so much. I couldn't recommend it more highly. It's one of my all-time favorite books. Very thought provoking.

This book was very interesting and we enjoyed it. We had also purchased another book by this author. That too was very good. And conditions of both items were very good.

You will get more out of this book if you first read the popular atheist books. The author in this work is answering them point by point. This book is so good that it was recently mentioned in a G. K. Chesterton lecture in Seattle.

I lived abroad for 35 years in most countries compassion is considered
a weakness. I love his books.

D'Sousa's book will bring a smile to the face of the Christian reader. Intelligently, thoughtfully and skillfully, he makes an apology (defense) of Christianity. His work is especially pertinent in that he confronts the latest atheist attacks on the Christian faith. D'Souza evaluates the usual attcks ont he Christian faith - the Crusades, the Inquisition, the anti-science stance of the Roman Catholic Church and offers a sane and historical rebuttal that will bring a smile to most Christian readers. At points he is eloquent.

The book is readable and should be easily understood by most lay readers. There are a few caveats, however. One is his vicious attack on abortion. I (I am a protestant pastor) was thinking about having a series of adult study sessions with this book. But his insistance on saying that a woman who aborts, "kills her own unbron child," and rabid attack on abortion I know would wound women who come to study the Bible who are already wracked with guilt for having had abortions. The question is one of proportion. D'Sousa does not so vigoroiusly attack thos ecomitting economic injustice, or war-mongers. He goes after guilty women instead.

Also, I have reservations about his repeated insistence that part of the value of the Christian faith is in an after-life where all scores are settled. I am not so sure that is the teaching of the Bible. The gospel does not say to the evil-doer, "You just wait, you'll get yours!" God is not the "Divine Oliceman," as said J.B. Phillips.

Nevertheless, I liek this book! I like his quoting of classical authors - Shakepseare, Milton, and the Greeks. (Each chapter is headed by a pithy quote from the Classics.) His sprinkling of their writings and his excellent summaries of their beliefs is admirble and helpful.

His quoting of Christian authors tends to the conservative camp, however, with C.S. Lewis and John Stott, for example.

All in all, though? Most Christians will feel vindicated with this book and say, "Right on!"