A well-made case against religion
345574
Religion example: The recent bridge collapse in Minnesota was caused by Allah to punish the infidels. Also, Angels saved the children on the bus.

Secular example: The recent bridge collapse in Minnesota was caused by a weakening substructure and political inertia. The bus stopped in time.

If you believe any part of the "religion example," you'll hate the book.
If the secular example is more satifying for you,  you'll love the book.

Regardless, it is an extremely interesting and well written book.
2423284
Timothy Kellers popular "The Reason for God" presented a case for belief in God and Christianity, but Keller does not believe it began back far enough for the true skeptic, and thus the reason for this present volume (p. 4).  He wants to demonstrate to secular readers that Christianity is sensible and desirable (p. 216).  More than that:

"My aim from here on through the book is to do just that, and, I hope, to show that Christianity makes the greatest sense in every wayemotionally, culturally, and rationally.  In the process, I hope to show readers that Christianity offers far greater and richer goods for understanding, facing, enjoying, and living life than they had previously imagined."

In order to do this Keller tackles the primary philosophical issues with which modern humans wrestle, devoting a chapter to each:  the delusion that religion is waning, the myth that secularism is not based on faith, the problem of suffering and pain, the futile search for satisfaction and meaning, the emptiness of self-centered freedom, the question of identity, the need for hope, especially facing the reality of death, the problems of morals, and issues concerning justice and rights.

Keller concludes "Making Sense of God" with a chapter presenting and updating the six standard and historical philosophical arguments for God and finally a chapter on the self-revelation of God in Scripture.

"Making Sense of God" is a winsome, thoughtful, well-written philosophic apologetic for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity.  For those looking for such a work this volume would be hard to beat.  However, it is not a biblical apologetic which recognizes that people do not reject God because of lack of evidence of well-reasoned arguments, but because they are depraved and predisposed to deny God His rightful place in the universe and in their lives (Romans 1:18).  As with all evidential-based apologetics this book will mostly encourage the believer rather than convince the non-believer.  For Christians seeking such encouragement they will find it in Making Sense of God.

Reviewed by Gary E. Gilley, Southern View Chapel
4438004
This is something interesting:  An Indian Christian apologist writing a book about the superiority of Western civilization.  His unique Indian perspective allows him to view the West from afar and compare it to the familiar conditions he faces at home today, as well as conditions in India throughout history.  Dr. Manglawadi makes a very strong case in support of his thesis which states that the modern (Western) world is built on principles derived from the Bible during the Protestant reformation of the 1500s.  It's very persuasive and gives me lots of ammunition to use in debates with atheist friends who are woefully unaware that they are the beneficiaries of a Bible-based culture.  The very freedom of speech which they use to bash the church was won for them by God-fearing folk some 250+ years ago.  The modern educational system is descended from medieval universities, all of which were founded by the Church.  Political revolutions based on Biblical principles result in freedom & greater liberty; revolutions based solely on secular "reason" end in chaos and greater tyranny (re: the French revolution and just about any Latin American coup you can think of.)  These are just a few examples of the kind of stuff the author lays out.  It's exciting, vindicating; here's one in the eye for all those multiculturalists who condemn "Western Imperialism" as a bad thing, and those militant atheists who claim the Church has done more harm than good.  Dr. Mangalwadi proves that the Western way of life is better, and the Western way of life is inherently Christian.  However, Western culture is now becoming more secular, trying to detach itself from the Bible ... and the good Dr. predicts dire consequences from this trend.

Unfortunately his presentation is marred by occasional instances of snarled-up logic, such as blaming European and American plundering of Middle East oil on the Arabs' lack of initiative in discovering & exploiting it themselves.  And Dr. Mangalwadi can't resist the urge to evangelize.  He's obviously one who takes the Bible at face value, and far too often he drifts away from the history & sociology lessons to preach a sermon about Personal Salvation.  I don't think it is necessary to believe that Jesus was a mythological "Son of God" to appreciate the tremendous social value of his teachings ... and the Dr's evangelical sermonizing is just exactly the sort of thing that will INSTANTLY turn off the very people who most need to read this book.  So you're left with a product that's only marketable to other Christians.

Dr. Mangalwadi is preaching to the choir, and this book's potential to make a world-changing impact is reduced to a quantity disappointingly close to zero.  I wish he had stuck strictly to historical & scientific facts when making his case ... but I guess to him the divinity of Christ IS a "fact."

Oh well, I still thought it was a real "eye opener" so I recommend you get a copy and try to persuade your atheist pals to read it.  There's lots of information in here which they (and you) don't know.  If books give us food for thought, this book is a 7-course banquet.  Should start lots of debates.
2359083
This book contains a clearly reasoned argument, in which the author states that it is possible to be both Christian and gay. Having heard him speak  so eloquently on the issue as to whether an objective study of biblical text can indeed support this claim, I have no doubt in my mind that Matthew Vines is one of the most erudite and well-informed scholars to put forward the case. What is so important is to place biblical text within its own context and not to pluck individual verses out from the text and build a theology around it without consideration of the social background of the times in comparison with our modern world. To be in a same sex monogamous lifelong committed relationship is not the same as to commit the crime of gang rape as in the story of Sodom or to be involved in temple prostitution during the act of idolatrous worship to a pagan god which Saint Paul discusses in the first chapter of his letter to the Roman church. Translations of the biblical text can sometimes only partially bring out the original meaning of particular words, especially when they are rarely used or are new inventions by the writer. It is essential to get back to what the text actually says. Sometimes we have to compare text with text, word with word in different contexts, in order to arrive at something like what the author intended. Given the antipathy of some biblical scholars towards homosexuality, as they saw it within their own social setting, they deliberately chose to translate in a way which did not reflect the original meaning of a particular word, but which bolstered their own theological stance. I commend Matthew Vines' book which seeks to redress the balance, so that we as the readers can consider the biblical text in its purest form, as far as we can, and make up our own minds as to what it actually means. We must consider the message of the gospel in its totality, even if that makes us uncomfortable and causes us to rethink our own theological stance on this vital issue of homosexuality. There are some who will dismiss this book as being heretical. In my humble opinion, they have never actually asked the question as to why they assent to a certain dogma or doctrine. They are unwilling to take time and effort to come alongside the gay Christian, and ask themselves: "Am I prepared to love this person unconditionally?" In other words, without preconditions! And "Am I prepared to look again at what I believe, as well as what my friend believes?" Friendship is the key to meaningful dialogue. I am sure that Matthew Vines would agree with this. He is placing before a friend his view on the issue of homosexuality and Christianity for his friend's careful consideration.
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.
3856061
How does Boyer address this big question, and how does his response fare? Marshalling evidence from cognitive psychology, evolutionary psychology, anthropology and religious studies, he argues that we all have a mind equipped with a set of "inference systems" produced by evolution to solve adaptive problems.  These inference systems solve coalitionary problems, distinguish animals from non-animals, and so forth.  What religious concepts do is "parasitize" mechanisms from our species-specific mind, and the religious concepts best able to do so are counter-intuitive (immortal ghosts or the like, for instance).  Boyer elaborates this basic argument in great detail.  The exposition is often obscure and brain-draining, the narrative a somewhat disjointed series of arguments rather than a smooth flow, but the argument stands as an important one, and thus makes the book worth reading despite the difficulty.  Also recommending the book is an opennes to religious concepts of all stripes; it doesn't privelege the major formal religious like Christianity or Buddhism but includes illustrations from the author's own fieldwork among the Fang of Cameroon, examples drawn from Papua New Guinea, rural France and so forth.  In sum, despite the obscure and difficult writing, this book might interest anyone concerned not just in the variety of religious experience, but with the question why we have religion at all.
602700
This is a book that addresses some of the most difficult questions confronting religious faith. Written by a lawyer, it is framed in arguments not unlike a lawyer would do to convince a jury. As such, it can be a bit tedious but the arguments are well reasoned. It provides important confirmation for Christians.
2035015
Os Guinness has done us all a great service in writing The Case for Civility: And Why Our Future Depends on It. Always an articulate and sane voice, Guinness attempts to bring reason to the conversations / arguments that rage in America and beyond today. He notes, "Unquestionably, religion can be divisive, violent and evil. But also, unquestionably, secularism can be oppressive, murderous, and evil, too." He addresses issues like: What role does faith play in the public square? What role should it not play? Is secularism the answer? Moving beyond simplistic versions of the "new tolerance" where every view point is seen as "equally valid," Guinness helps us think about disagreements and how to disagree; yet in a way that affords dignity and respect--A truly important and timely work.

<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Welcome-to-College-A-Christ-Follower-s-Guide-for-the-Journey/dp/0825433541/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Welcome to College: A Christ-Follower's Guide for the Journey</a>
324969
This book makes a great case for three important ideas. First, science can not tell us, and is unlikely to be able to tell us, how the universe began. A Creator who transcends time, space, and matter is the most reasonable cause of the "Big Bang." Similarly, science can not tell us, and it unlikely to be able to tell us, how life began. A Creator who made DNA, the coding for all life, is the most reasonable cause of the origin of life. To believe that the universe and life had naturalist or materialist causes takes much more faith than to believe in a Creator. The weakness of the materialist case is proven by the rhetoric and logic that proponents typically use. The Case for a Creator actually addresses the more rational, scientific arguments for the case against a creator, but regrettably, the rhetoric of materialists, including atheists, often gets very emotional, something I find ironic coming from people who supposedly are defending Reason from Faith.

I have just read Case for a Creator and participated in an eight-week discussion group, led by a Ph. D in Molecular Genetics. "Bill" is in total agreement with Stobel's position, in fact, his doubts about evolution started him on a twenty-year journey that turned him from atheism to theism and eventually to Christianity.

This book is well-written and, I think, has just the right amount of detail for the average reader. Some science would be helpful but not necessary. I found the Kalam argument particularly convincing, as well as the concept of irreducible complexity. As for evolution, I don't know how believers in materialism get around the problem of the origin of life without DNA (Since DNA is incredibly detailed information that determines all life, where did it come from?).

The section on the Icons of Evolution was very intriguing as well. I wondered if the author that Strobel interviewed, Jonathan Wells, was overstating his case, so I took a look at two recent college Biology textbooks that I had at home, and sure enough, I found 3 of the 4 "icons" in both texts. If the case for evolution is so strong, why do these textbooks include material that is so obviously incorrect (the Miller experiment and misleading drawings of embryo's) or "proof" that could also be used to support a Creator (homology in Vertebrate limbs). And if you review these texts you will not find any transitional forms. If they exist, as evolutionists insist, why don't they picture them in their texts? All they can give us are cartoons drawings that represent their dreams of how they think they might have appeared. There are simply no transitional forms in the fossil record. 5 Billion years of history and we can't find any transitional forms?

This book, reinforced by the discussions that I had with others in the group, has strengthened my faith in a Creator and weakened my faith in the explanatory power of mainstream science when it deals with topics that touch on faith. There is definitely bias among the evolutionary scientists and they should be embarrassed by the lack of evidence to support their theory.

Thank you, Lee Strobel.
2324367
As a prelude to this review, let me state the pertinent elements of my background. I have a PhD in chemistry and was a research scientist for many years in universities and research institutions. I therefore consider myself to be particularly familiar with the human faculty of rationality and its relationship to the scientific method. I have also spent the last 20 years of my life committed to the realization of Truth; not from the perspective of conventional religiosity, but rather from that of esoteric spirituality.

In 'Letter to a Christian Nation' the author states his case with clarity and eloquence, brilliantly conveying the falsities of the irrational beliefs underlying Christianity and religious beliefs in general. His use of Biblical references to undermine the absurdities of those trying to reconcile its text with scientific evidence is convincing. This alone makes the book a worthwhile and necessary read. It is likely to appeal to those who enjoy rational argumentation and the discrediting of religious faith as absurd and dangerous.

However, there is a lot more to discovering the nature of Reality than that presented by rational logic and scientific materialism. If the author was to pursue that with the same fervor he displayed in formulating this book, then not only would conventional religions be seen for the farce they are, but so would rationality and the scientific method, especially as representations of Truth. I would write about it myself, but I do not have anywhere near the flair this author has displayed in the writing of this book.

Having said all that, all things considered, I must confess I would rather have this world comprised of people with views similar to Sam Harris than those of religious fanatics.
3286305
Charles Foster is a barrister,  part-time Crown Court judge and teaches Medical Law and Ethics at the University of Oxford. In this book he uses two characters, X and Y, who argue opposing sides of the case of the resurrection of Jesus.

It is a rather extraordinary book, in that he manages to really get under the skin and argue both sides of the debate. He has clearly done a lot of research both in terms of historical data and the advocates of both sides. This is no Lee Strobel or Josh McDowell apologetics.

There are sections covering issues such as the crucifixion (did Jesus die?), the burial, the empty tomb, and origins and expectations of resurrection belief, as well as issues such as the alleged 'Jesus Family' tomb. In each case X and Y both have their say, and Foster leaves it to the reader to make their own mind. X argues against the resurrection, using a number of arguments that anyone who has read Robert M Price or Richard Carrier will be familiar with, though he did put forward some that I had not come across before. Y argues for the resurrection and there are traces of N.T. Wright and others in there. However, Y holds a few views that some evangelical apologists may not agree with (such as arguing that certain inconsistencies in the gospel narratives are not able to be harmonised).

The appendices are very helpful and deal with arguments relating to the medical cause of death, the issues relating to the Shroud of Turin, and the Gospel of Peter.

One would be hard pressed to find another book on this issue anything like this, offering a broad and fair portrayal of both sides of the argument while leaving the reader to decide which they find more persuasive (it is testament to the author - or perhaps his barristerial skills - that he can actually manage to argue a view which he doesn't actually hold in a way which can be rather persuasive). If one is at all interested in this historical issue, and wants to see both sides of the debate via a work that has a broad and deep understanding of the literature and evidence, then this book is highly recommended.
1430490
Well donel  A great defense of Christianity in midst  of unrelenting criticisms from the secular/atheist and Islamic groups..
3705493
After reading Dawkins' THE GOD DELUSION (374 pages of actual material) and Hitchens' GOD IS NOT GREAT (283 pages), I wondered how Harris' small book of 227 pages could possibly contend.

As it turns out, I felt that he often packed more punches per page than his fellow atheists.

Seeing anti-God, -Faith, and -Religion arguments from a point of view of someone learned in neuroscience was definitely an eye-opener, and I found that I agreed with him on quite a few points:

1) How certain religious beliefs (especially Islamic) can spell disaster for more--relatively--rational and peaceful countries and citizens.

2) The hypocrisy of the War on Drugs when so many other crimes essentially amount to a slap on the wrist.

3) The foolishness of a truly Pacifistic philosophy.

4) How "spiritual intelligence" can be found in almost anything if we look hard enough--even a Hawaiian seafood recipe!

All of the above arguments I found to be quite convincing and well-articulated. Despite his neuroscience background there were only a few parts difficult to grasp due to philosophical and scientific terminology and concepts. Most impressive was his well-documented Bibliography--a whopping ~30 pages! Indeed a LOT of research went into this book.

However, Harris also has a few arguments that are sorely lacking in arguments and evidence.

Harris--and indeed many atheists--contend that "We simply do not need religious ideas to motivate us to live ethical lives." (page 172).
He also states that "We are the final judges of what is good, just as we remain the final judges of what is logical." (page 226).

In general I agree with the first statement that people, even without religion, will have some sort of moral compass.
The problem comes in realizing that each individual's concept of right and wrong on issue X is going to differ, which then raises the question: If 5 people have a gut feeling that abortion is wrong and 6 people have a gut feeling that it isn't, which group is ultimately "right"? Is it the decision of Harris' "world government" (page 151) that he claims we need? But even there, government is comprised of individuals. If people can't come to a unanimous agreement on "right" and "wrong" it is quite possible that, ultimately, violence between the two groups could break out--whether it's punching each other in the face or crashing planes into each other.
His best guess to the answer of "who's right and who's wrong?" is this:
"There will probably come a time when we achieve a detailed understanding of human happiness, and of ethical judgments themselves, at the level of the brain." (page 175). So here stands mankind, thousands if not millions of years in the making, and even Sam Harris doesn't have an answer.

Finally, Harris criticizes the religious concept of any Afterlife, only to make the following admissions:

"But the truth is we simply do not know what happens after death." (page 208)
"We do not know what awaits each of us after death, but we know that we will die." (page 226)
"What happens after death is surely a mystery, as is the relationship between consciousness and the physical world." (page 288)

After reading such statements as these, it is apparent to me that the only way atheists are ever going to truly find out what happens one second after death, is to die and find out themselves. We can send a rocket to the moon, but we can't send test equipment beyond the land of the living and come back with evidence.

As I've shown, there are both good and bad arguments to be had here, but if there's one thing I've come to learn it's that perhaps nothing kicks the mind into high-gear faster than picking up a book written by an atheist, opening your mind and considering the possibilities.
2126979
I do want to emphasize that my five star rating does not mean I am in 100% agreement with the author.  I doubt that any thoughtful reader will be in total agreement.  However, as a book that presents a well thought out and well constructed argument that challenges the reader, this is top drawer. It does require thoughtful reading. Since most will find some points of disagreement, it is easy to be thrown of course and miss what Carter is truly saying.  He speaks both from knowledge of constitutional law and from a belief in justice for religious and non-religious equally.  He repeatedly illustrates that while a person should be allowed to practice the dictates of his religion, that religion can not be allowed control over non-believers.  There will be disagreement as to the extent that a person is allowed to obey the laws of his religion.  I have not disagreement with the argument that Native Americans should be allowed to use peyote in their worship, that Mormons should be allowed to practice polygamy, and some other issues.  I do have trouble with the idea of allowing animal sacrifice.  But my disagreement and any reader's individual disagreement doesn't lessen the value of being presented with an argument which causes the reader to think and to consider his or her own evaluation of the author's premise.
453840
The God Delusion  is a well-written, entertaining critique of organized religion and fundamentalism.  Dawkins is clearly a truth seeker, and some of his points are difficult to refute.  For example, he shows how the argument from intelligent design is its own undoing.  If items of great complexity are proof of a designer, that designer himself, being quite complex, must have been designed by an even more talented designer.

The book has two major weaknesses.  First, Dawkins makes no mention of the Sociology of Religion, preferring instead an evolutionary viewpoint.  He asks, "If religious beliefs are irrational, how did they survive the process of natural selection?"  He then discusses meme theory, meme's being ideas and beliefs whose evolution can be compared to the evolution of living organisms.  Those are interesting ideas.  But there is an entire body of literature, based in the Sociology of Knowledge, that provides better, more logical answers.  Well-known books like The Social Construction of Reality and The Sacred Canopy explain how humans create their own reality, and then anchor this cosmically through religion.  They also explain how reality thus constructed then becomes subjectively real to individuals, and how the human creation of religion in turn acts back upon its human creators.  Dawkins should let us know his position on this.

The second weakness is the lack of appreciation for religion's positive social and personal impacts.  A lot of altruistic behavior, social compassion, sincerity and value clarification are tied up in religion.  Yes, that doesn't prove that God is real. Yes, many evils also occur in the name of religion, such as making children afraid of Hell.  And yes, atheists can have positive values as well.  But it's nave to believe the religious enterprise should just be stripped away because it's not based on logical argument.

Religion should continue to evolve and modernize.  It should embrace science fully, and let go of beliefs that contradict science.  The New Testament is an improvement over the Old.  Currently, a big part of Christianity is the personal development angle.  And our view of God changes as cultural values change.  For example, since we no longer believe homosexuals should be executed, be assume the Old Testament was wrong about that.  Obviously, we're invoking moral standards that are independent of religion or at least of the Bible, as Dawkins points out.  The works of Bishop Spong illustrate how far this process has come.  Faith in the absence of proof can be a good thing, and that can only be measured by our ever-evolving values.

Nonetheless, a must read for believers and nonbelievers alike who seek the truth and want to think more clearly.
4678370
As the title suggests, "God's Not Dead" was written to provide evidence for the existence of God.  Of the several books I've read on the subject matter -- specifically, combating the "New Atheists" -- it is honestly one of the best.  It is well-researched and carefully documented.  Broocks cites not only the intelligent, well-respected Christian sources, including Stephen Jay Gould, Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, etc, but also the intelligent, well-respected atheist sources, including Bart Ehrman, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, etc.

ORGANIZATION AND LAYOUT:  The book is basically laid out in three parts.  Chapters 1-6 present the evidence for the existence of God.  Chapters 7-8 deal primarily with the historicity and reliability of Jesus and the gospels. Finally, chapters 9-10 discuss the impact the existence of God and the presence of Christianity have on the world.

LIFE HAS MEANING AND PURPOSE:  I think the best chapter of the book is #6: Life Has Meaning and Purpose.  Broocks details early in the book the emptiness of the atheist and evolutionist position when it comes to the meaning of life.  If life as we know it began as some primordial goo that exploded and expanded into what it is today, then nothing was behind it, and everything was one great big accident.  Yet something that has no thought and no moral direction spontaneously brought forth life that thinks about thinking and has moral capacity to love, defend, and die for others.  How could this be?

And if we are simply another kind of animal, as evolutionists would suggest, and if we are simply products of an amoral evolutionary cycle, then why do we experience outrage at various atrocities that negatively affect people around the globe?  We do not watch the Discovery Channel and cry foul when we witness a leopard chasing down a gazelle, eating it for dinner.  The animal kingdom could care less about equality and justice.  Yet, we do, for some reason.  And if we're just "another kind of animal", then why should we care about our "fellow animals" who are victimized?

COVER MARKETING:  I was/am disappointed with the dust cover of "God's Not Dead" because it looks like a long-forgotten book from the 1970's that nobody wanted to buy.  The busy photograph is set on an ugly yellow background, and it fails to capture attention.  The reason it matters is because it doesn't have a modern look that is clever and edgy.

I think the advertisement design for the soon-to-be-released movie is catchier.  It's plain, but it's bold.  It yells: "Watch me!"  The cover design for the book doesn't seem to do the same.  It's weak

Unfortunately, I visited the PureFlix website and didn't find the movie listed there.  Hopefully this movie's absence is only due to the book's early release.

RATING:  I believe people with an interest in Christian apologetics and the defense of the existence of God will love this book.  It is not merely plan and simple.  Broocks put considerable thought into this one, and it will challenge the average reader to think much more deeply about the issue.  It will be a good resource to share with skeptical friends and family.

Overall, I give "God's Not Dead" 4 stars.  It didn't "blow me away", and there were a couple parts near the end that were not very captivating.  I couldn't give it 5 stars in good conscience, but I give it a high 4 stars.  It is well-written and mind-engaging.

Disclaimer: I received this book free of charge from Booksneeze (Thomas Nelson Publishers) in exchange for my unbiased review of it. All opinions are mine. I was not threatened or coerced to provide a positive review.
1599702
This book, with the ever catchy subtitle "How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind" is sure to infuriate most dogmatic atheists and capture the heart of zealous Christians. Both would be making a mistake.  First, Flew has never been known as the most notorious - maybe the most brilliant or most influential of the last century, but he was almost always gracious and unlike Dawkins, Dennet, and Hitchens, he was not overly polemic; but instead, he focused on sharpening his logical arguments.  Flew was one of the few atheists philosophers I enjoyed reading and watching.  He also always demonstrated great respect for those whom he disagreed, a true demonstration of grace and honor.

Second, many modern atheists, more concerned with their zealotry (mention in the book) than properly constructed arguments are sure to hate this book; Dawkins, Dennet, and Harris, et al, are sure to resort to fallacious rebuttals (like Dawkins did at a lecture several months ago calling Anthony Flew a "once" great mind who is now suffering from old age - where is the argument Dawkins?).  One will notice these people by the one star reviews - they cannot evaluate a text on its own terms, but must hate it regardless of any merits it may have.

Third, many Christians may overly praise the book.  The book, while interesting, does not produce so much a tightly constructed argument as much as shows the journey and the arguments he encountered that changed his mind (DNA, Physics, etc) and he takes pains to show that many other thinking people can be theists, etc.  I may be mistaken, but I think he would prefer people investigate the matter further and hence, his arguments are brief and interwoven with a biographical sketch.  The arguments still uphold pretty well, but probably not as sophisticated as they could have been or in other books elsewhere.

There is a good appendix section involving a brief encounter with theologian NT Wright and Roy Abraham Varghese provides a nice preface and appendix section as well.  All in all a fun, quick, and easy read.  The book is delightful in some respects; but, in other  respects, I wanted just a little more argument.

Lastly, I have added this edition to my original review to also provide a quick response to many atheists who are so enamored with the NYT
article and claim it is proof that the zealot Christian right and others have taken advantage of an old senile man.  First, Oppenheimer's article has been rebutted by Varghese and many inconsistencies have been noted by others as well.  Further, Flew himself has provided an interview claiming the book is his "last will and testament" on these things.  Furthermore, did ABC and other mass media take advantage of Flew when he said he was no longer an atheists?

It is an embarrassment to all that some people who are so dogmatic about their atheism (or whatever ism it is) that they appeal to a sloppily developed article.  Wiker's review provides the address to his website that has the Flew interview.