Taking A Side should mean that you are aware of the counter argument
346287
The Taking Sides books helps you to understand your side of any argument as well as consider the counter argument. I think a lot of people go into an argument with their mind made up. Taking Sides urges the reader to consider the other side for the purpose of understanding their own argument. Understanding both sides may encourage you to rethink your position
1044153
A common frustration in arguing with someone about, well, anything, is the problem of different assumptions and conflicting foundational beliefs--especially when we aren't even aware they are in conflict. I tend to want to address the underlying issues first, to distill them down to their fundamental essence. Mitch Stokes does exactly that in what is basically a layman's summary of the work of well-known Notre Dame philosopher Alvin Plantinga.

Leveraging Plantinga (and a few others) to do the heavy intellectual lifting, Mitch--very ably and eloquently--addresses the very building blocks of human inquiry: What is reason? What makes something rational? What is a belief, and how do we develop them? Do beliefs have to rational in order to be reasonable or legitimate? What does secular humanist and atheistic thought contribute to these discussions, and are those contributions ultimately rational or reasonable?

Stokes handles all of these topics and more, comprehensively and readably.  He shows that the recent spike in angry polemics from of the "New Atheists" is inversely proportional to the strength of their arguments and assumptions. It turns out (surprise!) that atheism and methodological naturalism end up being intellectually self-defeating. Even rationality itself ultimately depends on a divine designer. In addition, Stokes shows that the so-called "problem of evil" ends up being a greater problem for atheists than theists.

The book is clear and concise for such difficult topics, and I highly recommend A Shot of Faith (To The Head) to believer and skeptic alike. It will challenge assumptions and understanding on both sides, and will hopefully lead to fruitful conversation.

---------------------------------------
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the BookSneeze book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission's 16 CFR, Part 255 : "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising."

(On a side note, when it comes to this issue, the FTC can go jump in a lake.)
---------------------------------------
4416924
Pointing out that people on the same side of a conflict can have different motivators seemed very relevant to the current divide in our country. So did pointing out yelling a position while not being willing to listen to alternate views is the action of a bigot.
1373311
This is a structured and reasoned argument from the middle ground.  It presents facts and the author's opinion on the facts.

The facts stimulate thought and help you consider the argument.  The opinion is not in-your-face, but rather holds a mirror up to the reader and asks questions.  It allows the reader to form (or re-form) their own opinion.

This was well worth reading.
1097874
As I understand the author's argument, there have been two dominant trends in America's relationship with religion. One is based on the idea that America is a Christian nation, and religion and politics work together for the common good. The other is the idea that the United States is based on separation of religion and politics. These two trends have been in conflict from the beginning (from before the beginning even), and the struggle between their adherents has shaped important developments in American history. The author frames that history as a debate between those who promote the "moral establishment" as necessary for fulfillment of American ideals, and those whose full participation in American political life is threatened by the establishment. It's an interesting argument, well documented and thoroughly explained, and intuitive in our own time--which, of course, is the whole point, or ought to be. The argument is compelling, and the author's own background as an ex-evangelical gives him a unique perspective, one that informs the thinking throughout the book. If you like stimulating thought, and having your assumptions challenged, then reinforced, and then challenged again, you will profit from this book.

One minor criticism: I found the writing at times a bit dull. Sentences are routinely long, with multiple modifiers, and explanatory clauses tacked on to the introductory phrases instead of separated into shorter sentences. There are flashes of really good writing, but many people, especially college students, will be looking to the end of the chapter to see how many pages they have left. They may even be tempted to skip a few. That would be too bad. Good books deserve good readers, and while I wish the writing were a bit more engaging, this is a good book. I look forward to more from this author.
1819028
I like the way the author allowed two different people, usually university professors, to express their opinion in either the "Yes" or "No" format.  I found that I could better understand a point of view other than my own, even though I may choose not to agree with that opinion.
4459701
Mr. Scully's "DOMINION" was recommended to me by a vegetarian acquaintance. It was with some hesitation I purchased the book, but I was quickly impressed by Mr. Scully's down-to-earth logic, his factual arguments, and the non-emotional perspective upon which his positions are based.
By the end of chapter 1, I'd been moved to a place of 'moral discomfort' by Mr. Scully's clear and cogent logic.  He does not write from a traditional "Animal Rights" perspective, but takes the position that humans have (by whatever cause) been placed in a position of power in this world. As the "apex creature", we have a moral responsibility to make decisions based on more than simple expediancy. He stresses the responsibility of humankind, not the 'rights' of the animals.
I found his position and his arguments compelling, a reaction I suspect most open minded readers will share.
915432
This book on apologetics is different. Rather than give arguments for the existence of God, Bannister looks at the arguments for God not existing. Are they valid?

Atheists have become very vocal of late. In many Western countries atheism is seen as the default position. In fact, Bannister writes, Many people assume that atheism is, indeed, the only position for somebody who wishes to be considered educated, sophisticated, urbane, and rational. (6)

The arguments for atheism just do not stand up to scrutiny, Bannister says. I love how he has us think through the arguments and other statements atheists have made. He clearly points out how to spot which arguments are good and which are bad. One of the tests is if the argument stands up in a different setting. He sometimes turns an argument of atheists around,using it on the atheists themselves, thereby showing it just does not work.

Atheists demand evidence from Christians that God exists so Bannister turns the tables on atheists, demanding evidence God does not exist. Atheists claim their view is just non-belief in the statement, God exists. Bannister says that does not fly. An atheist must rather say, It is true that there is no God. Then evidence is required. He suggests atheists, must recognize their belief for what it is and engage accordingly. (35) He quotes extensively from atheist authors, calling them to intellectual integrity.

This is a serious subject but Bannister is not overly academic. The book is very readable. In fact, he has a quirky sense of humor and inserts it from time to time. One might think humor inappropriate in a book on such a serious issue. As Bannister says, Humour is powerful because it can prick pomposity and puncture delusions of self-importance. (234) I love it.

I really like how he engages the reader by starting of each chapter with a humorous story. As one continues through the chapter, it becomes clear the story clearly illustrates the absurdity of an atheist argument or statement.

Bannister's aim is not to disprove atheism. He just wants to weed out the bad arguments so a more sensible dialog can occur. Is this important? Yes. Whether God exists or not is arguably the most important question there is. (27) Is it important to read and think through arguments on both sides of the issue? Yes. After all, Bannister writes, it's only when you're willing to go down to the basement with a flashlight and poke around your foundations that you can really know whether what you're building stands on rock, sand, or simply hot air. (204)

I highly  recommend this book to atheists and Christians alike. Atheists will be challenged to truly think through their arguments. Bannister hopes this will encourage them to abandon bad arguments and engage the question of God's existence anew. Christians who have been intimidated by the forcefulness of the new and very vocal atheists will realize how inadequate their arguments really are.

This is a foundational issue. As Ravi Zacharias says in the forward, ...without God as our ultimate frame of reference, we don't know who we are in essence or where we are in the great scheme of life. (11)

I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for the purpose of an independent and honest review.
840237
Whether pro or con; whether in partial or total agreement; one cannot but help seeing the compassion and kindness of the author and his plea to just please think the decision through; please understand that there are options one can explore. He presents his views in an unthreatening manner. The author does an excellent job at educating and is simply asking one to think, feel and explore the options before making a decision... a life altering decision at that; Of course he has his opinion, and certainly hopes one can see his view, but one will see his non-judgemental view toward others shine through... he is trying to educate and provide insights that indeed one may be quite surprised of.. I won't let you know exactly how it impacted my view, but it certainly DID modify it...

This is an easy to read, non-threatening view that I whole heartedly suggest, WHATEVER your view, to read.
2871195
Although I do not agree with much of what is said in this book, Gerry Spence does make a good argument for why the country is so divided. Selling hate is a product, and he exposes it for what it is.

His style is easy to read...even folksy...and he is wonderful at creating an argument. For that reason alone the book is worth the read.
3568044
Positives: I like books that challenge me. If you are pro-life, I think you can read this to get a better understanding of the folks who disagree, because it isn't so strident that you will feel attacked. You will probably disagree with it though and I don't think it is written to persuade you. I think this was written for people who are pro-choice, but are in the "safe, legal and rare" camp. It made me recognize and wrestle with some of my own biases and assumptions. The book included facts that I was looking to find out -- like was it true that many women who have abortions are women who are already mothers and has abortion always been seen by the church as immoral? The anecdotes regarding how women who have abortions think about them, and why abortions happen later rather than earlier in pregnancy were useful. It was helpful to wrestle with the much-held view that abortion is shameful. I liked her analysis of biblical views regarding women and children and how she discussed illogic of pregnancy and motherhood as punishment. I found her views on thinking of the true moral question of "should I become a mother" as critical and something I hadn't spent much time considering -- I came at my pro-choice position more from my belief in the wrongness of state coercion and assault.

Negatives: (1) the author surveyed a very small sample set of women for her anecdotes, (2) I didn't find the scriptural analysis and faith-based component a bit light -- it wasn't as helpful to me in understanding how to think about this moral question for myself grounded in a Christian view, (3) the discussion of Paul's views on women in 1 Corinthians didn't mention that many scholars think the statements about women in verses 33 through 36 were likely added in later centuries and not actually written by Paul.

All said, I'm recommending the book -- it's a great one to read if you are in the camp, "I'm pro-choice, but I/my partner would never personally have an abortion." You will be challenged to assess your reasons for that position.
4401866
The reviewers who feel that Warner criticizes stay-at-home motherhood either ignore Warner's point or didn't read the book carefully. Warner argues (I think correctly) that the "Mommy Wars" (the battle for validation between working-moms and stay-at-home moms) distract from the true problems facing ALL mothers. The problem that we all share is the challenge of raising, protecting and nurturing our children in an uncertain and untrustworthy world: a world in which it often seems that we are the ONLY ones looking out for our childrens' interests. As our government, our work-place, our communities and sometimes even our families, do less and less to provide sense of security and a social safety-net, the burden falls more and more to us to make sure our children get absolutely everything they need to thrive in a quickly changing, often harsh and highly competitive world. Is it any wonder that we're anxious?

Warner does fall into the trap of writing mostly from a frustrated-stay-at-home mom perspective, but her book explicitly makes the point that there is no morally superior form of motherhood- that when women have genuine choice, they chose what is best for them and their familes. However, she argues, most women do not have genuine choice. Our options are narrowed by economic realities and by meddlesome dogma from BOTH sides of the political spectrum. The left says you're a failure as a woman if you're not "empowering yourself" in the work force; the right says you're a failure as a woman if you're not staying home with your kids. Both sides work to shape public sentiment and policy to push you in their direction and the economic reality is that you may not actually have control over any of this stuff.

Warner's call to arms is for all mothers: to end the "Mommy Wars" and demand a renewed sense of community and real resources to create genuine choices for our lives and our families.
771943
This book provides a sane response to the vitriol that passes for reasoned discourse in 21st-century America.  Dr. Haidt reveals that the anti-intellectuals on Fox News and their pseudo-intellectual counterparts on the left have more in common than either would dare to admit. Both sides understand that hatred can be manufactured, packaged, and sold to the masses, and each camp does so for the purpose of amassing power and wealth.. Along the way they poison the minds of well-intentioned people and destroy any prospects for real consensus among American voters. Tragically, this only serves to perpetuate the problems that both conservatives and liberals seek to remedy.

What I've said so far is no surprise to any thinking person. But Dr. Haidt doesn't simply identify the problem. He reveals its causes and prescribes a thoughtful remedy. Ideologues on both sides of the aisle will denounce his message - not because they have a substantive response to it, but because they rightly recognize that it threatens their interests. So be it. If you're ready to swallow the red pill, then read this book and see the Matrix for yourself.
1390840
This book is aimed squarely at the liberal left, make no mistake. But, being fairly liberal in most of my views, I don't mind. I just like knowing which direction a book is coming from so that I can read it with a critical eye.

The most important thing to me when reading a political book is this: does the author use facts and cite sources to create and support his/her argument. I don't want conjecture, hypotheticals or theories - it is hard enough with the media giving us just that anyway. The answer to my question is: yes. Holland is careful to back up each argument with fact and cites sources so that you can verify each fact. Having said that, Holland is attempting to argue against common myths from a left-leaning point of view, and so some of the studies used and assertions made are cherry-picked to support the authors argument. So while this book is a great jumping off point, I would not use it as the end point because there are just too many other studies and facts out there that contradict or slightly change the information that is being presented. I don't think that Holland is attempting to distort the truth, not at all. But I think that human nature is to give bias to the information that support our point of view, and that is the biggest problem with this book.

This is a great addition to your political library, but just make sure to balance it out with more information.
480090
It is my goal to provide an honest review of this book, as seen from my perspective.  I appreciate what Dawkins says, from the viewpoint of his arguement.  Dawkins also, surprisingly, admits that the existance of God is a 50/50 chance.  He does, however, provide arguments for why he believes God is improbable.  The book is split into two parts.  The first half of the book is Dawkins' argument against religion.  The second half is a scientific history of religion and a hypothesis for why it began.

Regardless of if you are Atheist or Theist, I think both sides can appreciate (not neccessarily agree with) Dawkins' arguments.  For Atheist's, Dawkins provides a central scientific argument for Atheists beliefs.  Saddly enough, Atheist's are persecuted everywhere, simply because of what they believe.  This is eerily reminiscent of the persecutions of jews and christians elsewhere.  Theist's should not look at this book in disdain, but see it as a resource.  Challenge makes people stronger, and "The GOD Delusion" is definitely a challenge.

This book was written for the Atheist, not the Theist or Christian.  Dawkins states repeatedly that its not his intent to convert people, but to provide his arguments to those who share his belief.  I found his arguments well thoughtout, a bit over explained, and quite stimulating.  For the Athiest this book is a true breath of fresh air and a source of solace.

While I have no doubt, that because I said positive things about this book that my review will be terribly rated, I felt compelled to share my view.  As an Atheist living in the christian dominated American society, I'm often smothered by the religious beliefs of others.  While the Constitution provides freedom of religion, it does not afford freedom FROM religion.

Mr. Dawkins, Thank you sir.  Thank you for letting me know that I am not alone in my beliefs, and thank you for your richly inspiring arguments.
342946
Disclaimer: I received a free review copy from the author. Now that that's out of the way...

This book is a necessary buy for anyone who finds themselves under attack for their politics. Two sections in particular stand out: the anatomy of a SJW attack and the response scripts. It will tell you exactly what to expect, what frame of mind to get in, and how to respond.

That said, I take exception with Vox's suggestion later in the book that the antidote to the thought police is an equal and opposite thought police for conservative organizations. I understand his argument that 'they started it, so it's fair game,' but it seems like the opposite of the ideal outcome: un-policed thought.

I will hasten to add that this is a mere academic consideration when you are under active attack from a group that wants to destroy your good name and livelihood for political reasons. Your first priority is to defend yourself, and this book will help you do just that.

TL;DR Version: Essential advice for dealing with organized slander, but take Vox's political rants with block of salt.
1224371
A very  interesting book.  The author contends that  in religious terms, if A is true, then B ,must also be true.  Protestants  believe that A is true, but they  have other (faulty, illogical  conclusions other than B.)  That is the Protestant's dilemma.  They have to justify their answer to A  (maybe C, D, E, etc, other than  B.) , and logically speaking they cannot do it.  Many Protestants simply ignore B and continiue  to believe ANYTHING other than B.