What's So Great About Christianity
by Dinesh D'Souza
List Price:
Our Price: $7.88
You Save: $20.07 (72%)
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Buy Used: from $0.44 (click here)
Category: Book
See more book details and other editions
Book Summary Information
Author: Dinesh D'SouzaBrand: Spring Arbor/Ingram
Edition: Hardcover
Audio: English (Unknown); English (Original Language); English (Published)
Published: 2007-09-25
ISBN: 1596985178
Number of pages: 348
Publisher: Regnery Publishing
Product features:
- ISBN13: 9781596985179
- Condition: New
- Notes: BRAND NEW FROM PUBLISHER! 100% Satisfaction Guarantee. Tracking provided on most orders. Buy with Confidence! Millions of books sold!
Book Reviews of What's So Great About Christianity
Book Review: One of the best popular apologetic books I have read, BUT...
Summary: 1 Stars
I can't review the entire book, because some of the stuff with the history of science and Christianity are things I don't know much about. I am more curious about the question "does science support the existence of God?" So my review will be basically limited to chapters that discuss such a thing. There were a few other chapters I have a lot to say about (3, 4, 14, 15, 16 & 17), but this review is way too long as it is, so I wont. If anyone feels that I have misrepresented any of the arguments from the book (and you have read it), or that I made any factual errors, please do not hesitate to leave a comment correcting me. Just please keep it mature.
Chapter 11- A Universe With A Beginning
D'souza starts off by quoting EO Wilson, saying "if any positive evidence could be found of a supernatural guiding force...it would be one of the greatest discoveries of all time" (pg 115 ). D'ouza continues, "In recent decades, in one of the most spectacular developments in physics and astronomy, such evidence has been found."
Well, this is quite exciting! We constantly hear from all proponents of the paranormal and supernatural that they have evidence of such exotic forces. When asked what they are, these folks just point to their/our current inability to understand a certain phenomena.
Apparently, this has changed. So what is D'souza's positive evidence? Well, basically, we don't know how the universe began, so it must be God. Of course!
Obviously, this is a negative argument that rests on our ignorance of something, not our knowledge of it. And postulating that an invisible, magical being that can do literally anything, "did it" doesn't really help to answer the question. If anything, it just creates more problems to be accounted for.
D'souza then moves on to retrofit modern science into the Bible. This is a very common tactic that Muslim apologists use to convince infidels of the truth of Islam. They take a bunch of verses from the Koran, hold them up against modern science, and see if there is any overlap. If you have enough verses, there are BOUND to be a few that sound somewhat good. There is an entire book called "The Tao of Physics" which goes through ancient eastern religious and philosophical texts, and finds passages that sound similar to modern physics. Murray Gell Mann's eightfold way of quantum physics sounds a lot like the eight fold path of Buddhism, so those Buddhists MUST have been onto something right? No, it's just retrofitting.
D'souza also states on pg 122 that "Many secular writers seem to think that the orthodox Christian position is that the universe and the earth were literally created in six calendar days." But he forgets/ignores the fact that it's not just secular writers. It's a huge chunk of the Christians as well. The vast majority of conservative Christians think that Genesis is literally true. D'souza then goes on to use the "day doesn't mean day" excuse. This has never worked. Reason being, Christians are then forced to believe that plants existed for millions of years before the sun was created, and that Adam lived millions of years before Eve was created, etc. This is ridiculous, and the story only makes sense if it's a day is a literal day. Robert Ingersoll pointed this out (along with many other mistakes of Moses) over 100 years ago.
D'souza then states on pg 123 that "...modern science tells us that the Bible is right. The universe was indeed formed out of nothing." Well, hold on. In "Fabric of the Cosmos" (pg 272), Brian Greene states that "A common misconception is that the big bang provides a theory of cosmic origins. It doesn't. The big bang is a theory that delineates cosmic evolution from a split second after what happened to bring the universe into existence, but it says nothing at all about time zero itself. And since, according to the big bang theory, the bang is what is supposed to have happened at the beginning, the big bang leaves out the bang. It tells us nothing about what banged, why it banged, how it banged, or, frankly, whether it ever really banged at all." So according the Greene, the BB theory says nothing about anything coming from nothing, and says nothing at all about who, or what made it all happen. And in a survey by Jeffrey Jay Lowder, he asked nearly every non theistic philosopher in the English speaking world "do atheists have to believe that the universe came out of nothing?" The answer, unanimously, was "NO".
So D'souza is just wrong on that point. On the question of where the universe came from, most scientists will just admit their ignorance. Good thing we have Christian apologists to tell us how it really is.
So the pattern seems to be, whenever something sounds moderately like it meshes with modern science, it's because the Bible is true: "the Biblical account of how the universe was created is substantially correct" (pg 124). But whenever it doesn't, it's because THAT part is not actually literal: "The Bible is not a science textbook" (pg 124). I'm sorry, but you can't pick and choose. I guarantee that if tomorrow, science found that human males existed for millions of years before animals and women existed (Genesis 2:19-22), Christians would change their tune from "well that's just non literal myth" to "the Bible said so all along!" It's retrofitting, and it's dishonest.
But what does D'souza say to these strange ideas of having human males exist for millions of years prior to other animals or women, or how fruit trees were created before any animals or the sun, or how women were apparently created from the rib of a man? "...the order of creation--turns out to be accurate" (pg 124). Yikes!
D'souza then continues, claiming that "Genesis 1:4 clearly refers to the formation of the sun and the earth" (pg 123). Odd, especially seeing that Genesis 1:4 states that God created the heavens and the earth on the first day--and there is no mention of the sun. It's only on the fourth day that God creates the sun (Genesis 1:16). Maybe, "sun" doesn't actually mean "sun", just like day doesn't actually mean day. Or perhaps D'souza needs to read his Bible a little more carefully.
D'souza then pulls out the Kalam cosmological argument, claiming it proves God exists (pg 124). Sure, everything that begins to exist IN space and time has a cause. But the origin of the universe is not an event in space or time. And if causal events are not needed outside of space and time, then there didn't need to be a cause of the universe. And to object would mean that you object to the idea of God being an uncaused causer. Even William Lane Craig, who defends this argument, admits in his book, "Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology" that "the majority of scientists who adhere to the Big Bang model of the universe probably see no theistic implications in it whatsoever" (pg 46).
Chapter 12- A Designer Planet
On pg 128, D'souza claims "The heliocentric revolution was not revolutionary because it contradicted the claim of the Bible that the earth is at the center of the universe. The Bible makes no such claim." Odd, seeing how the Bible makes it quite clear that the earth is stationary and not moving. Other verses also state that it's the sun, not the earth that moves.
1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10 and Psalm 104:5 all state that the earth is firm, immovable, fixed, etc.
That's quite a trick, seeing how its actually the sun that is stationary, and it's the earth that moves. And remember that the sun stood still for Joshua, and went backwards for King Hezekiah.
So D'souza is completely wrong on that point as well.
Continuing on about the cosmological constants, D'souza quotes Romans 1:20 "ever since the creation of the world, His invisible nature, namely His eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made" (pg 131). Ok great. But does D'souza really think that Paul was aware of the fine tunings of the cosmological constants? I really, REALLY doubt it. This is just more retrofitting.
As for what would happen if any of the numbers were changed, to quote Stephen Hsu, a theoretical particle physicist at Yale "This stuff is nonsense. The numbers these people cite are pulled out of thin air. Really, we don't have the slightest idea how likely or unlikely the universe is."
And as Richard Dawkins points out, we should be very wary about attributing things that we think could have no other explanation, to a designer (presumably Christian) God. We made the mistake time and time again in the past, and thought we finally were right with biological complexity... only to be shot down once again. So how about a little caution this time? It has been pointed out more than once that the theists increasing reliance on things like theoretical cosmology, quantum physics and biochemistry seems to show that they are running out of gaps for their God to hide.
On pg 132, D'souza reveals to us that he really doesn't know that much about evolution after all. I guess this is what happens when you let an apologist out of the chapel (that's his joke, not mine). D'souza quotes Dawkins, who explains how we shouldn't be surprised that we live on a planet that supports human life. Because that's how evolution works--organisms evolve to fit their environment. If they couldn't evolve to survive in their environment, they would perish. So it would be quite surprising if we found life on a planet that didn't support it, no?
Chapter 13- Paley Was Right
On pg 145, D'souza states that he is not a biologist... and not a moment too soon. Previously, on pg 142, D'souza argues that the Bible is yet again, right in its science, as it claims that man was created from dust. He then continues on to say "the Bible is quite consistent with the idea that man is made up of atoms and molecules and shares the same DNA found in earthworms, whales and monkeys." Where did the bible ever say anything about DNA, atoms and molecules? It says than men we were made of dirt (and the breath of God), and women from Adam's rib. I don't get why he thinks this is supported by science.
And even worse, the whole Genesis story is the bedrock of Christianity. If it's not literally true, as D'souza sometimes claims, then there was no original sin to begin with. I am not sure what D'souza thinks about this, since he (nor anyone else that tries to harmonize science and Christianity) never mentions how to solve this problem. It makes it even more difficult in light of the fact that Jesus seemed to believe in a literal Genesis story. "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female" (Mark 10:6).
D'souza mentions many smart Christians who accept evolution (CS Lewis, Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins). However, none of them have ever even attempted to show how Genesis as a myth doesn't ruin the premise of Christianity. And every single one of those guys accepts Genesis as a religious myth.
On pg 147, D'souza shows his ignorance of scientific fields of research, by claiming that Dawkins and Dennett go too far with evolution, claiming that it can account for "cosmology, psychology, culture, ethics, politics and religion." Well, I have never heard either of them argue anything about cosmology being explained by natural selection. But for the rest of the list, those can all be summed up into "human nature." And lo and behold, there are even scientists called anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists, who study things like psychology, religion, culture, ect from a Darwinian POV, and are making quite a bit of fascinating discoveries. So its not just Dennett and Dawkins, it's all of the scientists who want to understand human nature.
On pg 148, D'souza states that a modern cell must have a designer, because it's too complex. Well, no one thinks that a modern cell just popped into existence (besides a few ID creationists). Biologists are quite willing to admit that they don't know how first life forms began, but no scientist seriously suggests that it was from magic. This is D'souza just using the worn out God of the Gaps fallacy. Ironically, Francis Collins (who gave D'souzas book a thumbs up) states in his own book "The Language of God", "while the question of the origin of life is a fascinating one, and the inability of modern science to develop a statistically probable mechanism is intriguing, this is not the place for a thoughtful person to wager his faith" (pg 93).
D'souza then goes on to claim that Dawkins must have a lot of faith (is this a compliment or an insult?), since he (along with the entire biology community) is willing to bet that life formed naturally. But remember, D'souza already admitted he isn't a biologist--so what does he know, that the scientists don't? I am curious what D'souza would say to Francis Collins regarding the idea that life was formed without magic. Ken Miller has also expressed confusion over this exact type of pick and choose reasoning, which D'souza seems to have borrowed from the ID creationists (say some things in nature are the result of natural processes, while others are a result of magic).
So in the end, it seems that no one, Christian or atheist, is on D'souza's side when it comes to claims about the alleged design of a cell and the origin of it all.
On pg 150, D'souza states that evolution cannot account for consciousness, the origin of life, rationality or morality. You would think D'souza would be careful with statements like these, seeing as how he already admitted his non expertise.
Its true, evolution cannot account for the origin of life. Just like Germ Theory cannot account for germs. But that's ok, because neither attempt to. As for morality, it's a tricky subject, but research is being done on it constantly. In the book "Next of Kin", Roger Fouts recounts a story of Washoe risking her life for a young chimp, who she didn't know, who almost drowns. Is D'souza really going to claim that this moral idea was placed in the chimp by God? The more likely explanation is that one way or another, morality is a result of evolution.
In a debate with Daniel Dennett, D'souza was accused of not having the slightest understanding of current research on these topics, especially regarding consciousness, and is simply making silly caricatures. D'souza admitted that he would have to go read Dennett's books which deal with these issues (and hopefully others). Admittedly, consciousness is a mystery, but again, on one seriously considers it to be a result of magic.
Hilariously, D'souza finishes up by stating that he is "not making a 'God of the Gaps' argument that says that because science cannot explain this, therefore God did it. But neither do I want to succumb to the 'atheist of the gaps' that holds that even where there is no explanation, we should be confident that a natural explanation is forthcoming" (pg 150).
First of all, its not "atheism of the gaps", it's called being honest with yourself. That's how science works: it tries to figure out a problem, and until then, it admits ignorance. Why is this bad? Should we tell cancer researchers to give up looking for a cure? If D'souza is suggesting that we shouldn't expect answers from science, what is he suggesting we should expect answers from? Obviously, even though he tries to deny it, it's nothing more than a God of the Gaps argument.
Chapter 20- Natural Law and Divine Law
D'souza states that while morality can be found without religion "its source is ultimately divine." He then goes on to say that "however disingenuously we deny it [we all know] there are absolute standards of right and wrong" (pg 226). Well, I am not denying anything... but I would love to have an example of something that is wrong, absolutely. Killing is ok in cases of self defense; even God kills people all the time in the OT. So that can't be an absolute. I am curious what is, but D'souza never says.
As for objective morality, the Oxford Theologian, Richard Swinburne has stated in his book "The Coherence of Theism" that "If morality is objective, than the naturalistic account of it is correct and morality is based on a set of logically necessary truths. Genocide and torturing children is wrong and would remain so whatever commands any person issued" (pg 207). That's NATURAL, not supernatural.
D'souza then spends the rest of the chapter trying to show how naturalism cannot account for morality. That's fine, but there are enormous problems with invoking God as the explanation. For starters, there is the Euthyphro Dilemma. "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?" In over 2400 years, this has never been sufficiently answered.
Also, it's easily shown that we didn't derive morality from some the Christian God. In 2 Kings, God sends bears to kill 42 children, because they made fun of Elisha's baldness. If this actually happened, there is no one in their right mind who would think that this was a moral or decent act. But why not? If God thought it was a good idea, and our "conscience is nothing other than the voice of God within our souls" (pg 237), then where the heck did this moral intuition of "killing children for teasing is bad" come from? It surely can't be from God. Why does the alleged voice of God in our souls differ from the word of God?
Another thing that comes up, and I hear quite often, is the confusing of scientific laws (descriptive laws) with laws that have been given down to the people (prescriptive laws). D'souza makes this error on pg 227, asking "have we considered the possibility that there are moral laws in nature that are no less reliable and comprehensible than scientific laws?" Dennett expressed concern about D'souza's lack of understanding of this issue in their debate as well. The problem is that laws are not things, they are descriptions of events we have observed. "Law" just means a scientific generalization based on a sufficiently large number of empirical observations that it is taken as fully verified. There is often a lot of confusion between everyday terms and scientific terms (like how evolution is "just a theory"). This is just another example.
Anyway, D'souza brings up a lot of good points in this chapter, and his debunking of an ULTRA simplistic view of moral relativism is quite excellent. But in the end he never shows why we should believe that morality is from God. He just tries to pull a creationist tactic: show that theory A is wrong, and then declare theory B to be right. This is the either or fallacy.
Chapter 21- The Ghost in the Machine
This chapter was the main reason that I wanted to read the book. I am very interested in neurology and philosophy of the mind, and I was curious to see what D'souza would bring against basically the entire scientific and philosophical community. I found it to be laugh out loud terrible. I know that's harsh, but really, it's THAT bad.
A few months ago, I emailed Daniel Dennett, asking him what the current situation on the idea of a immaterial soul/mind was. His response was "There is something approaching a consensus among philosophers and cognitive scientists: no immaterial mind/soul makes any sense at all."
In his book, "Kinds of Minds", Dennett goes on to say "Dualism and vitalism have been relegated to the trash heap of history, along with alchemy and astrology. Unless you are also prepared to declare that the world is flat and the sun is a fiery chariot pulled by winged horses--unless, in other words, you defiance of modern science is quite complete--you wont find any place to stand and fight for these obsolete ideas" (pg 24).
The neuroscientist, VS Ramachandran (I recommend everyone reads his books) stated that "An immaterial spirit that occupies individual brains and that only evolved in humans -- all that is complete nonsense. It's basically superstition."
And Steven Pinker has stated that "Modern neuroscience has shown that there is no user. `The soul' is, in fact, the information-processing activity of the brain."
And regarding free will, philosopher of the mind, Owen Flanagan has stated in his book "The Problem of the Soul" that "There is no reason, none, to think there could be such a thing. It is so conceptually puffed up that it's incredible, incoherent" (pg 124).
VS Ramachandran has claimed in his book "A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness" that "free will is just a post hoc rationalization--a delusion" (pg 87).
So what gives? Why do all of these heavy weight scientists and philosophers deny the existence of a soul and free will? They probably all just hate God right? Well, it turns out there are pretty good reasons. First of all, the Volitional Acts and Readiness Potential experiments by Benjamin Libet show that free will truly is an illusion. D'souza doesn't mention any of this, and I am going to assume he is simply just ignorant of it, which is quite odd, seeing as how the experiments are quite famous, and anyone who has just a basic understanding of these issues is sure to have come across them. So his ignorance of the basics, along with this extremely amateur handling of the subject suggests that he really has not much of a grasp on the topics at all.
So we can see empirically that free will is an illusion, but what about philosophically? Most philosophers consider it incoherent. I quote Owen Flanagan in "The Problem of the Soul":
"Consider what it would mean to have such a free will. When I make a choice I do so ex nihilo, by electing, without anything constraining my deliberation, a course of action. But if nothing constrains my choice, then reasons don't constrain my choices either. And if that is so, then ordinary, introspection must be deemed wildly wrong. After all, it seems to most everyone that when they are deliberating among the options at hand that they are weighing pros and cons that this information constrains the choice."
"Second, and just as bad, if when I choose I do so for no reason (choice may create a reason for action but does not itself rest on any reasons) then my choice is either arational or irrational. Since one of the main things--perhaps the main thing--any conception of free will worth wanting is supposed to do is to explain how rational choice is possible, and so to explain how I can be held rationally accountable for my choices, the orthodox conception of free will is a miserable failure. It is conceptually incoherent, in the sense that it provides no coherent way of conceiving of what it wants to gain for itself" (pg 124).
Then there is the problem that if God is omniscient, our future actions are already known, and so there is no free will. And to claim that God exists outside of time and space is to claim that he is not omnipresent.
Lastly, on souls, VS Ramachandran has pointed out that in some split brain patients, they suddenly have two spheres of consciousness, independent of each other. And in many cases, the different consciousnesses will disagree over things of opinion. One patient even disagreed on belief in God. One side of his brain believed, and the other didn't.
If our minds are truly immaterial, how does D'souza account for the fact that cutting your brain in two makes two minds? Why would affecting a physical brain affect a non physical soul/mind?
The answer, as is obvious, is that the mind is a product of the brain, just like all those scientists and philosophers said to begin with--and D'souza has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. He just goes around saying that science cannot account for everything, so souls and free will DO exist, and scientists and philosophers only deny them because of their atheism. When in fact, they deny such superstitious and outdated ideas because they are incoherent, and flat out contradict the facts that D'souza seems to be blissfully unaware of.
Chapter 23- Opiate of the Morally Corrupt
D'souza main point in this chapter is to argue that "contrary to popular belief, atheism is not primarily an intellectual revolt, it's a moral revolt" (pg 272). This argument is no good, and D'souza shows why, with his own arguments.
D'souza never actually presents any evidence for this claim, but just quotes random atheists who say something like "I want atheism to be true." I would be quite interested to learn that an atheist rejects belief in God purely because he does not like the idea of it. I have never heard of anyone fitting that category.
D'souza seems to suggest that the only real reason that people become atheists is because they either don't like the idea of God and they don't want to be judged for their immorality (pg 272), but gives no data to actually support this claim. And at least with myself, I DID want to believe in God. I just couldn't find any reasons to. I still can't.
D'souza is just falling for an attribution bias that Michael Shermer expounds upon in "How We Believe."
He quotes Bertrand Russell, by saying "Russell pompously said he would tell God, 'Sir, you did not give me enough evidence.' This is quite ironic. First of all, this quote seems to debunk D'souzas entire argument (that people are not atheists for lack of evidence). Secondly, D'souza argues that the universe was designed for us, and that if you disagree with him and the Bible, you will burn in a lake of fire. Yet, Russell is the arrogant one! It's too easy to point out that D'souza probably would "pompously" say that there isn't enough evidence for Allah.
And it turns out that 90% of Americans believe in God. 40% of working scientists believe in God, while only 7% of the top scientists believe in God (D'souza admits this on pg 23). So, if D'souza is right (that atheism has nothing to do with intellectual inquiry), the fact that the more people know about the universe, the less they believe in God seems to just be an insane coincidence.
D'souza also never cares to counter Sam Harris in regards to how modern, secular societies are much healthier and prosperous than religious societies, and why the National Academy of Sciences isn't a cesspool of immoral scientists. He also dodged the same question in his debate with Daniel Dennett.
On pg 270, D'souza states that in order for abortion to be ok, you have to get rid of God first. Well, anyone that has the smallest interest in the debate over abortion will realize that its not just atheists that are pro choice, and I know of a few atheists that are pro life. He quotes Sam Harris saying that first trimester fetus is not really human, but doesn't counter any of Harris's arguments for why he thinks this. Harris even goes on to explain how his opinion of this could be refuted, but D'souza doesn't even attempt.
In fact, unless I missed something, there isn't one single argument in this entire chapter. He just quotes people that he disagrees with. At worst, the chapter is just a bunch of whining about how atheists claim nature is all there is, and they are ok with it.
The last thing I will mention about this chapter, is something that made me laugh out loud. On pg 267, D'souza quotes the book of Revelations 12:8, which says how liars, murderers, adulterers, non believers, etc will be thrown into the "lake that burns with fire and brimstone." This is odd for D'souza to quote, since he has said numerous times that Hell is not about suffering, but is about being separated from God.
But what makes this all so funny, is that in the very next paragraph, after stating that atheists will burn in hell for their lack of faith, he explains that "Christianity is a religion of love and forgiveness..." LOL! His ability to hold two such contradictory ideas at the same time is breathtaking. And to add to the comedy, in his debate with Robert Spencer, he stated that "for every 'kill the infidel' passage in the Koran, you can find a matching 'slay the infidel' passage in the Old Testament." This is just more shell game apologetics.
Chapter 24- The Problem of Evil
After harping on atheists who claim that they don't like the idea of a God who would punish honest doubters for eternity, D'souza shows his cards, and admits that Christianity just makes him feel good. "When I get sick, I don't want a theory [does he not care about germ theory?] to explain it; I want something that will make me feel better. Atheism may have a better explanation for evil and suffering, but it provides no consolation for them" (pg 274). How he can possibly think that this is some sort of good argument is beyond me.
Read the quote again. D'souza is actually claiming that he prefers something that makes him feel good over something that actually explains the facts.
His other attempts to reconcile suffering and theism are just as weak. He brings out the oft quoted idea that in regards to good and evil "How else would we know the difference between the two? Our ability to distinguish between good and evil, and to recognize these as real means that there is a moral standard in the universe..." (pg 277).
Dawkins counters this in "The God Delusion", but D'souza says nothing in regards to it. In case you haven't read TGD, Dawkins points out that by this logic, there has to be an absolute standard of smelliness, since we are able to tell the difference between pleasant and nasty smells. Are we now to believe that there is some sort of "absolute stinker" diety somewhere?
And notice that D'souzas simply uses another God of the gaps argument. "How else would we know the difference?" he asks. He obviously has no idea, so he just posits a God, even though, such an idea is completely incoherent.
D'souza keeps digging his hole, and on page 279, he states that "In no way is God responsible for evil; He is responsible only for using evil to bring forth good."
Well, according to Isaiah 45:7, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
D'souza is simply using more shell game logic, switching things around when it is convenient for him. Saying God is not responsible for evil, except when he uses evil for his plan, is like saying "there are NO exceptions to this rule... except this one." D'souza also has created a nice little non-falsifiable situation. Why do bad things happen? Because people are bad. And what about when we cant explain it by blaming humans? Well, God has a plan, and you just don't understand. Besides being completely ad hoc and begging the question, it seems somewhat strange to claim that an all powerful God can't accomplish his goals without hurting his beloved creations.
D'souza quotes CS Lewis who states that it's not God, but man who has done most of the harm, with gas chambers and guns and whatnot (pg 278). However, this argument doesn't work. If God made humans, then he also made human nature. If a car manufacturer makes a poor car, it's their fault. If a watchmaker makes a bad watch, it's his fault. Pulling the free will card doesn't work, because one, its empirically false, and two, there is (I am told) no evil in heaven, and people allegedly have free will there too. So if God can make a heaven where people have free will, and don't commit evil, then there should be no problem with making a real world with the same attributes. God could also have made people more inclined to be good, rather than bad.
This chapter reminded me a lot of a quote by the Christian Philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, from the book "Christian Faith and the Problem of Evil" (pg 12), "I must say that most attempts to explain why God permits evil... strike me as tepid, shallow, and ultimately frivolous." Indeed.
Conclusion-
So those are my thoughts on the chapters I was most interested in. I didn't find any of them to be convincing at all. If you want a brief overview of some arguments for Christianity, read this book. It's easy to read, and D'souza explains his ideas very clearly. However, if you want philosophically sophisticated arguments that your average atheist won't be able to counter right off the bat, I recommend something by an actual theologian or philosopher. But what do I know? According to D'souza, I am nothing more than another one of those "God-hating ignoramuses" (his Nov, 30th blog).
Summary of What's So Great About Christianity
Is it reasonable to have faith in God? Can intelligent, educated people really believe what the Bible says? Or do the atheists have it right?has Christianity been disproven by science and discredited as a guide to morality? Best-selling author Dinesh D'Souza (The Enemy at Home; What's So Great about America) responds head-on to the anti-God arguments of prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens and defeats them on their own terms. What's So Great about Christianity provides believers with a straightforward tool kit for meeting the challenge of modern atheism and secularism; for nonbelievers, it offers a compelling apologetic that will challenge their assumptions and affirm that there really is something great about Christianity.
Theology Books
Book Subjects
- Arts & Photography
- Biographies & Memoirs
- Business & Investing
- Children's Books
- Comics & Graphic Novels
- Computers & Internet
- Cooking, Food & Wine
- Entertainment
- Gay & Lesbian
- Health, Mind & Body
- History
- Home & Garden
- Horror
- Law
- Literature & Fiction
- Mystery & Thrillers
- Nonfiction
- Outdoors & Nature
- Parenting & Families
- Professional & Technical
- Reference
- Religion & Spirituality
- Romance
- Science
- Science Fiction & Fantasy
- Sports
- Teens
- Travel
Most talked about in Theology Books
Praying the Names of Jesus: A Daily Guideby Ann Spangler
Zondervan; Published: 2006-09-12; Hardcover; Book
Best price: $7.89
Price in other shops:
Case for Christ, Theby Lee Strobel
Zondervan; Published: 2002-10-01; Audio CD; Book
Best price: $18.31
Price in other shops:
What's So Amazing About Grace?by Philip Yancey
Zondervan; Published: 2002-02-01; Paperback; Book
Best price: $6.99
Price in other shops:
The Jesus I Never Knewby Philip Yancey
Zondervan; Published: 2002-02-01; Paperback; Book
Best price: $7.50
Price in other shops:
Who's Afraid of the Old Testament God?by Alden Thompson
Zondervan; Published: 1989-09; Paperback; Book
Price in other shops:
Upanisads (Oxford World's Classics)Oxford University Press, USA; Published: 1998-11-19; Paperback; Book
Best price: $8.84
Price in other shops:
St. Augustine Confessions (Oxford World's Classics)by Saint Augustine
Oxford University Press, USA; Published: 1998-06-25; Paperback; Book
Best price: $5.00
Price in other shops:
Christ the Lord: A Crisis in the Life of Godby Miles Jack
Arrow/Children S (a Division of Random House; Published: 2003-03; Paperback; Book
Price in other shops:
The Mind of the Makerby Dorothy L. Sayers
HarperOne; Published: 1987-09-23; Paperback; Book
Best price: $7.39
Price in other shops:
Living Jesus: Learning the Heart of the Gospelby Luke Timothy Johnson
HarperOne; Published: 2000-01-05; Paperback; Book
Best price: $4.50
Price in other shops:
Similar Books and other products
The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/ 11by Dinesh D'Souza
Doubleday; Published: 2007-01-16; Hardcover; Book
Best price: $2.68
Price in other shops:
Ronald Reaganby Dinesh D'Souza
Free Press; Published: 1997-11-01; Hardcover; Book
Best price: $29.92
The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensionsby David Berlinski
Basic Books; Published: 2009-09-22; Paperback; Book
Best price: $6.99
Price in other shops:
What's So Great about Christianityby Dinesh D'Souza
Spring Arbor/Ingram; Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; Published: 2008-11-04; Paperback; Book
Best price: $8.24
Price in other shops:
The Roots of Obama's Rageby Dinesh D'Souza
Spring Arbor/Ingram; Regnery Publishing; Published: 2010-09-27; Hardcover; Book
Best price: $2.99
Price in other shops:
What's So Great about Christianity Study Guide: Your Guide to Answering the New Atheistsby Dinesh D'Souza
Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; Published: 2009-11-23; Paperback; Book
Best price: $4.10
Price in other shops:
What's So Great About Americaby Dinesh D'Souza
Regnery Publishing; Published: 2002-04-24; Hardcover; Book
Best price: $4.66
Price in other shops:
Life After Death: The Evidenceby Dinesh D'Souza
Spring Arbor/Ingram; Regnery Publishing; Published: 2009-11-02; Hardcover; Book
Best price: $8.00
Price in other shops:
What's So Great about Americaby Dinesh D'Souza
Penguin (Non-Classics); Published: 2003-05-27; Paperback; Book
Best price: $4.26
Price in other shops:
The Roots of Obama's Rageby Dinesh D'Souza
Regnery Publishing; Published: 2010-09-27; Hardcover; Book
Best price: $6.48
Price in other shops: