Editorial Review

This beautifully written, heartfelt memoir touched a nerve among both readers and reviewers. Elizabeth Gilbert tells how she made the difficult choice to leave behind all the trappings of modern American success (marriage, house in the country, career) and find, instead, what she truly wanted from life. Setting out for a year to study three different aspects of her nature amid three different cultures, Gilbert explored the art of pleasure in Italy and the art of devotion in India, and then a balance between the two on the Indonesian island of Bali. By turns rapturous and rueful, this wise and funny author (whom Booklist calls "Anne Lamott’s hip, yoga-practicing, footloose younger sister") is poised to garner yet more adoring fans. ... Read more

Reviews

Great, for what it is., March 31, 2008
I find it so surprising--reading the angry, negative reviews--that the people who hated the book hated it for exactly the reasons why some steer clear away from the the spiritual-journey-memoir genre. Yes, the author is self-absorbed, yes, she seems to think of only trite stuff, yes, she seems self-indulgent with her problems. And yes, she's allowed. It is after all a book that is positioned to address these things in the author's self; who otherwise would not be searching for something more: more meaning and more appreciation in/of her life.
Here is a woman who shows all the possibly-perceived-as-lacking-substance thoughts of hers and we are throwing tomatoes at her. One thing, she obviously wasn't afraid of that. She wasn't aiming to be coming off as some deeply wise woman but a fumbling girl-woman trying to break out of what she felt was imminent disaster (had she had the baby and delayed her need to find out what she truly wants from her life she might have left not only her husband, but their child, or most probably ending up not leaving out of guilt and becoming crazy instead: exposing her family to that for years; not an uncommon reality). She is not one for anti-depressants, remember.
This memoir falls in the same category as the TV show Sex and the City (of which it was compared to in a review here). Both get trampled for being supposedly superficial, covering the silly plights of city girls who don't know what they want and yet have everything. But this book--as the TV show--actually are part of a wider story that is illiciting reactions from the public because it reflects the transition in which women in the modern world are experiencing: now that we have equality with men professionally, now that we are liberated from all the limitations being a woman dictated two generations ago, how does that affect us? From a distance, in a glance, it seems that women have all the cards to play with now. But this book and many other works by women and/or about women of this generation show that having all those cards does not mean Happiness.
There are still things in society--in regards to a woman's role--that grates. And then there are things within our Modernised, Westernized, Individualized, Ambitious selves, that are lacking.
This is what Miss Gilbert's search is about, and what she represents.
On a collective level, much of the modern world is in search of God, Spirituality (one just needs to walk through bookstores in the US and see the plethora of soul searching self help books on the shelves). This is what needs to be observed and understood as a phenomena in the West; the small voices, small cries, here and there by those who come up with the balls to share their journeys and thoughts with us--no matter how trite-sounding, how shallow-seeming--are part of a collective howl for the meaning of life.
Elizabeth Gilbert's voice is just one of many that calls for recognition as part of a chorus for something that firstly, many women are hollering about, and secondly, humanity in general--humanity in the first world--are crying for: some kind of guidance, indication, that the collective paths we fought for and chose (the best education, career ambitions realised, a certain amount of money needed to live that certain kind of magazine-lifestyle life--which is what Liz Gilbert's life is a reflection of, remember--love in the form of marriage and what society dictates) are truly the things that give us peace and happiness in the infinite sense.
Eat, Pray, Love might not be that deep, wise voice representing the deep, wise journey into the deep, wise self. But this book's packaging and tone, hell, its WORDS, never did say it was. It is a fumbling--almost child-like in its guilelessness--show of the ego's awareness and needs, and its attempt at searching for what many people from all walks of life only wish they could go out and find: THEMSELVES. SELF, being the keyword here. And in this memoir, ultimately, God, being in each of our selves.
To the people who were disappointed that the author didn't seem to give a hoot about India's poverty, they must have not read the book through: Miss Gilbert never ventured out of her ashram and the little village it is located in, after making a decision to further develop her meditation skills and thus skipping the rest of India. She also ignored Italy's corruption with her indulging in good food and focus on learning and enjoying the Italian language. Again, the critics missed the point of this memoir. It's a book about a writer, a New Yorker, a recently-divorced-woman-in-her-early-thirties' journey to heal and find spiritual strength through various means: pleasure first to recover (Italy), spiritual examination and purging (India), combining the two for balance (Bali), which would result hopefully in the kind of substance and depth and balance that so many critics mentioned she lacks.
One doesn't pick this book up to: 1. Be exposed to India's poverty and expect the author to discuss that in depth. 2. Be exposed to Italy's corruption and expect the author to discuss that in depth. 3. Be exposed to Balinese wiles and expect the author to discuss that in depth. (which she actually did in the account of the Balinese woman she raised money for to buy the land the woman needed to build a home).

Next time you pick a book up at the bookstore, call up your powers of perception before purchasing it. A book IS pretty much its cover. Did everyone really expect a book titled "Eat, Pray, Love" A Woman's Search for Everything, to be an experience of religious fervor, one that would reveal the secrets of the universe? It's a story about a girl who thought everything she thought she wanted, would bring her happiness. It didn't. It didn't for her, and possibly not for many other women. If it took this one woman to go to Italy, India, and Indonesia, to get away after a difficult and painful divorce to heal and get perspective--instead of festering and turning into a pile of flesh in depression--then by all means. Yes, she financed her travels through her book advance--after giving away the suburban home and NYC apartment to her ex-husband. And if she wrote this book for us, it's really for us to appreciate and enjoy the ride with her. Anybody else who got so upset needed only to put the book down and pick another one to their taste. If anything, that's this book's lesson: Do what makes you smile and thankful for life.

A ME-moir, not a memoir, April 25, 2009
I'm a big fan of Gilbert's earlier work (specifically 2003's The Last American Man) and I was deeply disappointed by this book. In fact, I sent it sailing across the room twice within the first hour. Gilbert's a fine writer, let there be no doubt. Her structure is great. She writes scrumptious sentences. She's an eminently likable narrator. But my complaint is more psychological rather than literary. As we learn over the course of the book, Ms. Gilbert is an enormously privileged woman, lives the glamorous writing life in NYC, owns two homes and yet is so sad and depressed about life. Get over yourself, lady! This book is the literary equivalent of like How Stella Got Her Grove Back. Only with yoga and white people.

Gilbert claims to be quite the globe-trotter but seems to have never learned the basic tenet of travel: learning about the larger world. Confronted with the rich, confounding, complicated world, she turns away and gets lost in her own navel.

What I hate even more about this book is what its incredible popularity says about us as Americans: just like Gilbert, we are giant narcissists and we never, ever stop thinking about ourselves and our own needs and cannot, even for a second, think about the lives of the less fortunate around the world. Gilbert thus becomes the American Every-Woman: 9-11 happens in her own backyard and she's so distraught over her failed marriage that it barely registers. If you think I'm being too hard on us Americans, think of it this way: her previous book The Last American Man was much, much better than Eat, Pray, Love but since it evinced none of the yoga-loving-upper-middle-class-woman-who-spouts-cheap-wisdom-like-Oprah-on-a-global-quest-for-self-actualization story elements, it barely sold 1% of what Eat, Pray, Love did. This is a sadly-revealing book about the state of our culture. And it's not just about Elizabeth Gilbert. It's all about us.

And, of course, don't miss the upcoming film adaptation, starring-you guessed it- Julia Roberts. If I have one other person recommend this book to me I'm going to to kill them.

Eat Pray Shove (It), February 16, 2008
Here is a book that either changed people's lives or irritated the bejesus out of them. Count me among the latter.

Eat Pray Love - One Woman's Search for Everything Across Italy, India and Indonesia by Elizabeth Gilbert was supposed to enlighten me. It didn't.

OK -- First the positive: Overall, it is a well-written book. The author takes many complicated metaphysical concepts and makes them readable. The book is divided into sections: Eat, which is the author's journey to Italy; Pray, her pilgrimage to India and Love, where she takes a lover in Bali.

This is about a thirty-something woman looking for spirituality and happiness. She is married, but desperately unhappy for no single reason that she cannot or will not divulge. So, she leaves her husband (and, by the way, gives him all marital property out of supposed "guilt" for leaving him, making me wonder what exactly she did to warrant this)and falls right into another relationship (a-ha! adultery, perhaps?). When the rebound relationship that broke up her marriage falls apart, she now wants to find God. Of course. She claims God spoke to her on the bathroom floor, thus beginning her journey.

But not before she goes to her publisher and secures a $200,000 advance for this book. Makes you wonder, as one reviewer on Amazon pointed out, was the journey retrofitted to the book proposal?

What better way to go find God than in Italy. For four months she eats gelato, practices her Italian with a young man named Luca Spaghetti (If you are going to make up names of allegedly real people, could you find a more sterotypical name? Why not Carmine OrganGrinder?) and gains 23 pounds -- quick to point out to the readers that she was way underweight to beign with.

She learns to enjoy life and be selfish from the Italians - who by the way still find her immensely attractive, although they don't hoot and holler at her like they did 10 years previously. But she is still so damned cute. Just ask her.

On to India. At the Ashram, she learns to meditate and still broods over her lost marriage and subsequent realtionship. Probably the most boring part of the book, except for her conversations with "Richard from Texas" -- a down home, larger than life character who speaks in folksy platitudes that would make Andy Griffith proud. He also bestows our author with her nickname "Groceries" because she was emaciated from grief from crying for the millionth time over her beloved David. As one reviewer from Amazon said, "What kind of nickname is Groceries?"

I honestly believe she made these people up. Reminds me of "Go Ask Alice" -- supposedly the real story of the drug-addicted Anonymous -- until it was revealed that the protagonist was a fictitious composite of the author's psychiatric patients. Boo.

Then Bali. She ends her self-imposed celibacy with an older Brazilian man. High on orgasmic ecstasy, out of the supposed goodness of her heart, she asks her friends to send $18K in donations to help a single mother, an alleged friend of Ms. Gilbert's, who is portrayed as a con artist because she didn't buy a house in the timeframe coinciding with the termination of Ms. Gilbert's visa. I always thought that a gift should be a gift without strings attached -- especially coming from someone who supposedly found God. I wanted to ask Ms. Gilbert "What Would Jesus Do?"

My biggest problem with this tome is that this 30-something woman basically is looking for applause for running off for a year, obstensibly supported by a $200K book advance, to "find God." I'm sure millions of women would love to leave their everyday lives and travel the world to do nothing but self analyze. If she had done volunteer work, I may have felt differently. If she went through some real hardship, I could sympathize. But she was in an incompatible marriage, then dumped by the guy she left her husband for. She should perhaps speak to those battling life-threatening diseases, or raising children alone, or taking care of an elderly parent, or worried about where their next meal is coming from.

And for all of her self-realization and navel-gazing to end her dependence on men, Ms Gilbert has, as pointed out by anotherAmazon reviewer, married her Brazilian and moved to new Jersey. She could have saved Penguin Books a whole lot of money by getting in her car and going through the Lincoln Tunnel. I wonder how long before she ends up back on the bathroom floor.

Blah, blah, blah, blah...., October 24, 2007
I could not finish this book. When the author burst into sobs yet again in the middle of prayer, or a conversation, or walking down the street, or (more likely) on the floor of yet another bathroom, I gave up. This is the type of person you meet at a cocktail party and RUN in the other direction after a few minutes when she starts spewing out all her problems at you with no end in sight. Note to the author: I am your reader, not your psychotherapist. I really tried to enjoy the book and even like the author, but after slogging through a couple hundred pages of endlessly self-absorbed chatter, I was worn out and put the book in the Goodwill pile. When she writes, "I discovered my mind was not a very interesting place to be," I have to say, "Amen, sister!"

dishonest and poorly written, April 14, 2007
I've read several of the reviews posted here and though I couldn't finish this book, it seems to me that what's wrong with it is not so much the author's hollow-souled narcissism but her lack of intellectual seriousness. Someone gave me this book as a birthday present. That it has received a lot of attention is no surprise. Look at the drivel America reads. Light, shallow laughs, sex, food, not much real thought. That's the sum of this book. Feel-good rubbish that inspires not one iota of serious thought. Gilbert's slapphappy universe is one in which everything can be solved with pizza and fresh mozarella. Every paragraph contains at least one stock one-liner. This isn't literature. It's stand-up comedy of the worst kind. We've read it all before. She claims she can make friends with anyone. It's precisely that lack of discernment and depth that makes this story forgettable. The prose is laced with one cliche, one trite and cutesy obvservation after another. Some reviewer here said this book is not a book but a magazine article. Exactly right. I finally closed the book when I read that while in India she wanted to "valet park" a destitue family into a new life. It isn't just that the phrase is a silly toss-off modernism but that there's no true emotion in it. You'll never know how this woman really feels. Don't waste your money on it.

Expected more. MUCH more., March 19, 2007
This book reminded me of a quote that's served me well in life: "It's a sign of maturity when you begin to fall out of love with your own drama." The author clearly hasn't reached this stage on her path to "enlightenment"!

don't waste your time on this one, July 12, 2007
Not one interesting character. Not even the author. A horrible divorce... big deal. A love of food ... not really worth 116 pages. I had to get to page 156 to finally understand. She is in an Ashram in India having trouble silencing her mind and meditating.

"What I am alarmed to find in meditation is that my mind is actually not that interesting a place after all."

That sentence sums up the book

Glib, narcissistic and lightweight, May 14, 2007
I picked up this book on the strength of good reviews and found myself wanting to throw it at the wall. The author is a fine writer with a good sense of humor who seemed to want to write about her journey to self fullfilment, spiritual awakening and happiness. Instead she came off as a priviledged, slightly spoiled writer who needed an excuse for a writers advance so she could travel for free. She reveals herself to be a spiritual narcissist who obsessively navel gazes. While many passages are light hearted and funny and she is oh, so very clever and witty!! there was no real depth, no real meaningful questions asked or answered except for how she could get more breaks and be FULFILLED. It seemed like an extended article for SELF magazine. Instead order books by Kathleen Norris or even Anne LaMott for God's sake!

Symptomatic Of The Downfall Of Western Civilization..., October 28, 2009
Elizabeth Gilbert was a self-absorbed, married, thirty-something living the privileged existence of an affluent writer in the most powerful nation on Earth, when, suddenly - shock-horror - she realized that she wasn't happy. As a consequence, she cast aside her husband, took up with another man - with whom she still wasn't happy - and, after this relationship fell into inevitable dissolution, decided to run off around the world in order to "find herself" (one must assume that she'd already looked down the back of the sofa) after receiving a handsome advance from a publishing company to chronicle her subsequent exploits.

"Eat, Pray, Love" is pseudo-intellectual, altruistic, mother-my-dog pap of the worst kind masquerading as spiritual insight. Read between the lines and it expounds selfishness as a virtue and mindless hedonism as both philosophy and legitimate path to spiritual insight. Unsurprisingly, that great doyen of the gullible, Oprah Winfrey, loved it and made it one of her book club choices, thus unleashing it to a wider audience than Gilbert's talents as a writer would normally have ever allowed. Apparently, God help us, a big-screen version with Brad Pitt and Julia Roberts is currently in the offing.

As a literary construct, Gilbert herself seems to be the contemporary living embodiment of Tom and Daisy Buchanan from "The Great Gatsby", of whom F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote, "They were careless people...they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness...and let other people clean up the mess they had made."

"Self-absorbed" does not begin to cover it; "self-centred" is not nearly an adequate description. One hopes that she can't really have been so completely inured to the poverty of India and Indonesia by her solipsism. If so, then she seems to be genuinely emblematic of a subset of the "sex and the city" generation of women who put their own self-gratification above all other things. Worryingly, this attitude seems to be becoming increasingly more prevalent in western society.

I will be honest, I first happened upon this book after briefly seeing some of Winfrey's interview with Gilbert on television and consequently read three quarters of the book in my local library - and was so completely incensed that I felt it my civic duty to warn you off of this book.

If you want a genuinely enjoyable book to provoke introspection, this isn't it, but may I politely suggest Tom Hodgkinson's How to Be Idle: A Loafer's Manifesto and The Freedom Manifesto: How to Free Yourself from Anxiety, Fear, Mortgages, Money, Guilt, Debt, Government, Boredom, Supermarkets, Bills, Melancholy, Pain, Depression, Work, and Waste or Lin Yutang's The Importance Of Living in it's stead; If you want a decent travelogue, may I politely suggest any Bruce Chatwin's books, and if you really want to read a writer with talent give the exponents of the Gilbertian philosophy of self-aggrandisement both barrels, then I strongly recommend Michael Bywater's Big Babies: or: Why Can't We Just Grow Up?

She teaches you how to discipline yourself not to judge someone, November 20, 2007
I hated this book but I forced myself to finish it. Putting the authors irritating voice aside, it epitomizes everything wrong with American culture today: worship of the mediocre, travel without seeing anything, polarizing of the Other and fake spirituality. That said, I learned something important about spirituality as well but I'll get to that in a minute. It has to do with learning not to judge (see above, I've become quite judgmental).

When I was dragging myself through this book, I experienced strong waves of hatred for this woman. She missed all of the poverty in those places and all complexities of the cultures she "learned about". She acted like hers was the only travel experience any of her readers have ever had with her "Let me explain what being Balinese means..." demeanor. She couldn't even accurately transcribe the Italian words in the passage of curses ("Molto migliore"???). She spoke about Italy like an annoying travel companion who has been there for five minutes, has read two things about the place and knows five words and acts like the expert and when you visit her there and after 2 days there yourself you can see that she still hasn't seen or learned a thing. She takes what she wants to see from the world and tells readers what she thinks they want to hear about it. She doesn't even give an original spin to these common travel destinations, or even any insight into the expats she does meet. Did she ever mention not liking someone? Did she ever mention any negative emotions about anyone other than "David" or her ex-husband? Did she ever mention any locals being any less than thrilled that she graced them with her presence? Did any other readers feel her jealousy seething when the sexy Brazilian Armenia walked in Wayan's shop? Of course we all did but the author, miss Spiritually Enlightened at Greeting Her Emotions must still not be able to face that one. Or maybe she can't dare mention it because that might make her readers not like her and this woman spends all her energy spinning a version of herself that everyone can like. I guess her spiritual enlightenment only works for exploring and sharing insights about her weight. Or making money off the bored, privileged American public.

Now, how about how offensive she is? Besides her condescending assumption that we are all married 35 year olds stuck in our houses who have never traveled and are relying on her to tell us how it is, she made two references where she tried to make the suffering of her love life out to be comparable that of a refugee ("we had the eyes of refugees" and counseling with the boat people revealed that their suffering too "was all" love story sagas (personally offensive to anyone touched by the world's refugee story).

Okay, I said that I learned something. Yes, I learned something. Important. I looked deeply into my hatred I felt towards this woman throughout the book. I learned that the reason I hated her so much was because I was expecting her to have something insightful to say and I was expecting to learn about the people from an anthropological, non-biased, realistic perspective. Each faux pas she made infuriated me. I wasn't seeing her for her. I was trying to project what I thought was her view of herself onto her. Basically, I was expecting her to live up to how great she tells us she is and when she didn't deliver, time after time, sentence after sentence, I felt some justified sense of triumph and anger at "catching" her, and then feeling immense frustration at not being able to expose her to the world so everyone else would see through her too. Instead, I should learn to accept the book for what it is (horrible) and accept the author as she is (whoever that is) and accept that to her it was suffering, to her it was enlightenment and it does no good to judge her for it (even though I am not spiritually enlightened enough to stop myself). Instead of hating her, I should have shut the book, written this review, and laughed about it. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Sam Harris’s first book, The End of Faith, ignited a worldwide debate about the validity of religion. In the aftermath, Harris discovered that most people—from religious fundamentalists to nonbelieving scientists—agree on one point: science has nothing to say on the subject of human values. Indeed, our failure to address questions of meaning and morality through science has now become the most common justification for religious faith. It is also the primary reason why so many secularists and religious moderates feel obligated to "respect" the hardened superstitions of their more devout neighbors.In this explosive new book, Sam Harris tears down the wall between scientific facts and human values, arguing that most people are simply mistaken about the relationship between morality and the rest of human knowledge. Harris urges us to think about morality in terms of human and animal well-being, viewing the experiences of conscious creatures as peaks and valleys on a "moral landscape." Because there are definite facts to be known about where we fall on this landscape, Harris foresees a time when science will no longer limit itself to merely describing what people do in the name of "morality"; in principle, science should be able to tell us what we ought to do to live the best lives possible. Bringing a fresh perspective to age-old questions of right and wrong and good and evil, Harris demonstrates that we already know enough about the human brain and its relationship to events in the world to say that there are right and wrong answers to the most pressing questions of human life. Because such answers exist, moral relativism is simply false—and comes at increasing cost to humanity. And the intrusions of religion into the sphere of human values can be finally repelled: for just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim algebra, there can be no Christian or Muslim morality.

Using his expertise in philosophy and neuroscience, along with his experience on the front lines of our "culture wars," Harris delivers a game-changing book about the future of science and about the real basis of human cooperation.

... Read more

Reviews

A Provocative Feast, October 5, 2010
Sam Harris seems to have a knack for staying on the cutting edge of the religious debates. His first book, "The End of Faith," ignited the so-called New Atheist movement. Now after several years and after earning a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA Harris returns igniting a new debate, this time about the moral landscape of our world. People have been arguing back and forth whether there was anything new in the so-called New Atheist movement. But if this book counts as part of that movement then Harris does succeed in bringing something new to the table.

Theists like to remind atheists of the old days, the days of Nietzsche, Camus and Sartre, the so-called robust atheists of the past who didn't think there could be an objective morality for us all. Now with this book there is truly a new atheism, one that affirms an objective morality based in the sciences. And it will be hotly contested by both sides.

In this book Sam Harris admirably attempts to steer between a moral absolutism that has answers to most moral questions and a relativism that has nothing objective to say about them. For him moral facts exist, but relativism is false. For him the answers to moral questions do not come from religion, which can and does produce more harm than good, but from science, which helps us understand what makes for human flourishing. Science should be able to tell us in principle how we ought to live our lives.

Given that our experience is constrained by the laws of the universe, Harris argues there must be scientific answers to the question of how best to move up to the peaks of this moral landscape, toward greater happiness.

According to Harris there can be no such thing as Muslim algebra or Christian neuroscience so also there can be no religion specific morality.

While there are conflicting moral claims that might never be solved, most moral issues are not like this, he argues. For if we could eliminate "war, nuclear proliferation, malaria, chronic hunger, child abuse," etc. this would provide for human flourishing and be morally good for everyone.

He argues that at bottom moral questions are about neurology, biology, psychology, sociology, and economics.

According to Harris: "It seems to me that the only way we are going to build a global civilization based on shared values--allowing us to converge on the same political, economic, and environmental goals--is to admit that questions about right and wrong and good and evil have answers, in the same way the questions about human health do."

I hope his argument succeeds. It should. He argues for it in a masterful way.

Though I agree with many of Sam Harris's views on religion, I was expecting a book on "how science can determine human values.", November 9, 2010
Before I begin, and hopefully before people reflexively click the "no" for review helpfulness, simply because I did not assign five stars to this book, allow me to get a few things out of the way:

1. Like Sam Harris, I reject supernatural claims.
2. I agree with most statements Harris makes in the book regarding morality and well-being, especially the evolutionary origins of morality.
3. I agree that science has a part to play in the study of morality, and can provide information to help in moral decisions.
4. I am neither a moral relativist, nor a postmodernist, so I agree that morality is not infinitely relative across cultures.
5. There are several serious problems throughout this book, many of which may cause negative associations with nontheistic views or people.
6. When one argues against freethought or freedom of/from religion, one produces arguments that can be used against oneself. I can well imagine some of the famous freethinkers flinching at portions of this book.

Now, the title of this book is "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values," which implies that the book will demonstrate how *science* can *determine* human values. I understand that in the U.S., the publishing industry occasionally re-titles a book in order to produce a sensation, improving sales, but causes unfortunate misunderstanding. This happened to Bart Ehrman, with the publishing of his bestselling book, "Misquoting Jesus." That was the title in the U.S., and was not the real title of the book, but was something he had no control over. The book was not about anyone misquoting Jesus.

I have to wonder if the same thing happened to Sam Harris, because this book is not about what the title suggests. How science can determine human values does not enter the picture. Harris does present opinions as to what is moral and what is not. He defines morality as being based on human well-being, which in turn depends on events in the brain and in the world. Notice that he has in effect given us the answer to what we must value, without science to back it up. I agree in principle, but I was under the impression that science was going to make the determinations, not Harris. Plus, human well-being, and what produces it, is likely not as clear-cut as Harris implies, but the frequency with which he uses terms like "clearly," as though all debate is superfluous, belies his confidence that he already has the answers.

However, on page 7, he does mention the somewhat relative nature of morality, though not to the extreme sense of postmodernist moral relativism. He suggests that the "moral landscape" may have many peaks, or more than one right answer for some questions. In this we can agree, and I appreciate his offering this particular opinion, though it is difficult to see his words on many other pages in agreement with pg 7.

Assuming morality is to be measured by well-being, are we considering only an individual's well-being, community well-being, national well-being, or planetary well-being? How do we measure human well-being against the well-being of other animals? How do we measure the well-being of one human against the well-being of another human (as these are frequently mutually exclusive, if one pays attention to the world around them)?

While I find myself agreeing with most of his arguments about what is best in regard to human well-being, I have to observe that he has not produced any significant science or reference to science done in regard to the majority of his arguments or why his definition of morality has been proven by science. Would it not be best to have that in hand before producing a book arguing for a scientific approach to morality, or at least before filling it to the brim with his judgments on what the answers will be once we evaluate moral questions scientifically? Throughout the book, he seems to know what evidence will be produced by scientific experiments before they have been done. He knows what science will deduce as moral when the question is put to it.

What tool is neuroscience primarily using for examining questions of brain activity at this point? fMRI, as far as I can tell, and that is what is used in any studies mentioned in the book. What does it measure? Blood flow (or blood oxygen levels) to areas of the brain. What does that mean? Generally, that those areas being suffused with higher blood flow (increased oxygen levels) are being used more. It does not tell us what is necessarily being thought, and can only suggest correlations to stimuli, but correlation does not imply causality. Harris mentions on pg 221, in footnote 17 for chapter 3, "fMRI may be blind to the difference between excitatory and inhibitory signals, as metabolism also increases with inhibition."

There is ambiguity in fMRI as a tool to evaluate the brain, which suggests it is a very blunt instrument, even having detected activity in the brain of a dead salmon (search fMRI salmon). From what I have read elsewhere from other neuroscientists, some have mentioned the possibility of a future discovery that fMRI has no more ability to produce reliable conclusions than phrenology, which was an enormous science in the 19th century, since discredited. (See also The New Phrenology: The Limits of Localizing Cognitive Processes in the Brain (Life and Mind: Philosophical Issues in Biology and Psychology).) However, fMRI surely has to be better than that, but as a relatively new technology, there is much work to be done before we have the confidence we need.

This is not to say that we will not be able to determine some things, but if one keeps in mind the complexity of many moral decisions, and considers what technology has to offer at the current time, I am quite skeptical that we will be getting clear answers as to what is best for well-being from evaluation of brain activity by fMRI.

When he sings the praises of possible future reliable lie detection (pp 134-136), in any setting, by hidden devices, it is positively Orwellian, not to mention possibly overconfident about the future technology. What have we learned about polygraph tests (even mentioned in the text)? The danger of lie detection lies in the lack of 100% accuracy (polygraph much less) and implication of innocents. At least Harris acknowledges this, but seems to be okay with a percentage of error, since we have a percentage of error now. He seems to imply we might have the ability to be monitored anywhere that we are, especially when truth matters most, like the courtroom or boardroom, but anywhere important conversations take place. "1984," anyone?

In the footnotes, at least he also mentions the shortcomings of current technology such as fMRI for accomplishing this. What he does not mention is the possibility that lying by genuine psychopaths may be not be detectable with this technology, and there will immediately be a black-market science within organized crime to circumvent the promise of guaranteed honesty. What can we surmise from those two strong possibilities? Perhaps we will unknowingly exonerate the ones we most wish to catch, but maybe it will help if we keep this in mind.

The attack on Francis Collins in the "religion" chapter is unnecessary, though I'm no fan of Collins. Anyone should agree that religion and science is not compatible, but I'm not entirely certain that prohibiting a Christian from taking the position at the NIH, purely on religious grounds, is "moral." It is clear that Sam Harris thinks that a scientist in that position must be required to be an Atheist. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I would bet that requirement would be unconstitutional, not to mention bigoted. If the religious views of Collins inhibits his performance for such a position, I would agree his appointment is inappropriate. Sam Harris writes as though he has no unsupported beliefs, himself. We know better than that.

He implies that Kenneth Miller and Andrew Brown (pg 173) "clearly feel that unjustified beliefs and disordered thinking should not be challenged as long as they are associated with a mainstream religion," but this is a straw man argument, as it is bigoted not because Harris criticized unreasonable thoughts or ideas, but because he is insinuating that a scientist that just happens to be wrong in some area of his thinking, even if it does not ultimately interfere with his job, does not deserve to have the job, because his thinking in all possible areas is not flawless -- because he is religious. Next, he may be suggesting (if he hasn't already) that Ph.D. candidates in any scientific field must be subject to a religious test before being awarded a Ph.D, and only awarding it if the scientist is an Atheist. One cannot have a thought-criminal be a scientist, and unless I misunderstand him, one day Harris hopes we have the technology to tell if you are committing a thought-crime.

I found myself irritated with the casual dismissal of the naturalistic fallacy delineated by David Hume, the 18th century philosopher, since it does not work with Harris's model. Hume's whole point is that you cannot tell what someone "ought" to do based on what "is." On pg 204, note 22 for chapter 1, he says we can just do away with the idea of "ought," then be left with scientific "cause and effect" telling us what we "should" do. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure "ought" and "should" are synonyms, and I do not see how "should" is more scientific than "ought."

I worried that with people like Pinker, Dawkins, and Krauss putting endorsements on this book, I must be entirely wrong, but I reread Krauss's endorsement carefully -- even he alludes to his disagreement, while praising Harris's rhetorical ability (a virtue in evidence throughout the book). Massimo Pigliucci, a scientist and philosopher with three Ph.D.'s, has some genuinely valid concerns about Harris's outlook on this subject. Pigliucci questions whether it would be moral to use corporal punishment on children if scientific data shows it to be beneficial. Elsewhere, Harris has said it would be, writing "I asked whether subjecting children to 'pain, violence, and public humiliation' leads to 'healthy emotional development and good behavior' (i.e. does it conduce to their general wellbeing and to the wellbeing of society). If it did, well then yes, I would admit that it was moral." Pigliucci said he would reject the data, based on his "moral intuition." (See links in first comment.) Perhaps Pigliucci is right that Harris should include philosophy with science in morality evaluation.

What if the burka is suggested by scientific experiments to increase or preserve well-being for more women than not in Muslim cultures? Will Harris also change his mind about the morality of forcing women to wear the burka? I agree with his assessment of the burka being immoral, but I have read statements by even American women that converted to Islam that they found the burka to be comforting and protective, so how could we expect the data to certainly show otherwise in Saudi Arabia? Certainly, the well-being of a Saudi woman not wearing a burka in public would be in question at this point, correct?

One last major concern I have is that it almost appears Harris has pursued a Ph.D. in neuroscience in order to use his "learning license" to pursue evidence against religion, and have a scientific platform from which to authoritatively argue the atheistic viewpoint -- somewhat like atheist evangelism. I hope that is not the case. There is a larger focus on criticizing religion in this book than any other subject, possibly with the exception of his focus on convincing us of contribution to well-being as the definition of morality. Once again, though I agree with most of his views on religion, I was expecting a book on science. I thought that was a reasonable expectation, as he has become a scientist since his last book publication, and the title implies that is his focus here.

This ultimately seems to be science through rhetoric -- an argument for science to explore what Harris defines as moral -- not for science to determine what is moral. Plus, he provides arguments about the lack of clearly delineated free will, but with no suggestions about how we decide morality if no one can help what they do. Maybe science, along with philosophy, will gradually shed light on some of the more complex questions.

It's the Beginning, not the End, of the Debate, October 5, 2010
Sam Harris has written a simple, yet extraordinarily powerful book about the "science of morality" and it is quite a revelation. He cuts through the cloudy thinking of religion and relativism to get at the heart of the problem: How do we as human beings maximize our well being?

Harris provides no hard and fast answers, he is attempting to lay the foundations here. He is not, like Moses, stumbling off Mt. Sinai with stone tablets emblazoned with the "truth," he is merely sketching out how we might orient ourselves to best tackle the mountain ourselves.

Refreshing and brilliant.

Interesting read, but very shoddy argumentation, October 14, 2010
First of all, I must say that I am a Sam Harris fan. I enjoyed his previous two books and really like his writing style, which is lucid, lively and engaging. Unfortunately, while the quality of Harris' prose in "The Moral Landscape" remains excellent, the same cannot be said of the quality of his reasoning.

In "The Moral Landscape", Sam Harris posits that there *are* objective moral values and they can be determined by science. Briefly, his argument is that morality should be defined as the well-being of conscious creatures, and since the question of what acts or situations will promote/undermine well-being is an empirical one, it is a question that science can (in principle) answer. This is an audacious thesis, and as reluctant moral skeptic who is constantly on the lookout for a convincing account of moral objectivity, I was excited to see whether Harris could support his claims.

However, I was sorely disappointed. Harris' argumentative technique consists primarily of making bare assertions or rhetorical statements. For example, he says things like "There is little doubt that well-being must include fairness, compassion, etc" or "It seems clear that whether a certain state of pleasure is 'good' has to do with whether it is conducive to well-being". Anyone familiar with argumentative writing would know that when a writer has to resort to bare claims about how "obvious" or "clear" a proposition is, he really doesn't have any support for that proposition at all.

In a similar vein, Harris rejects Hume's venerable is-ought distinction by insisting, "If this notion of 'ought' means anything we can possibly care about, it must translate into a concern about the actual or potential experience of conscious beings." He then summarily dismisses the views of people who disagree by asserting that they must be wrong, lying or not making sense! This is very poor argumentative technique indeed.

Harris is slightly more persuasive when he draws analogies between morality and science or medicine. He points out that science and medicine also rest on certain unsubstantiated premises - for example, science assumes that empirical evidence can be relied upon for determining truth, while medicine presupposes that "health" means a long life free of diseases. Yet nobody would say that science cannot discover objective facts, or that health cannot be studied scientifically. By the same token, the fact that one cannot prove that morality is about the well-being of conscious entities is not fatal to the scientific study of morality.

However, upon closer scrutiny, one will find that Harris has ducked the issue altogether. The issue is not whether morality can be studied scientifically, once we accept the premise that morality is about the well-being of conscious creatures. Rather, the issue is whether science can determine what morality consists of *in the first place*. In other words, the question is not, "Can science tell us how to achieve X, assuming that X is moral/desirable/valuable?" Instead, the question is, "Can science determine *whether* X is moral/desirable/valuable?" While the subtitle of Harris' book suggests that he is addressing the latter question, his book is in fact concerned with the former.

In conclusion, Harris' book lacks logical rigour and fails to accomplish what it set out to achieve. Nevertheless, it is still a well-written, highly readable book that is informative and interesting, especially when it deals with the neuroscientific aspects of belief, free will and morality. In spite of its significant flaws, I would still recommend it to the average layperson who is interested in this subject area.

Science cannot answer moral questions, I'm afraid, November 12, 2010
[Below are some excerpts from a fuller review, currently in press in Skeptic magazine] Let me first begin by making clear that there is much about which Harris and I agree. We are both moral realists, i.e. we believe that moral questions do have non-arbitrary answers, though our realism is, as will be clear in a moment, of a very different nature. We both agree that religion has absolutely nothing to do with morality, though I don't think of it as "the root of all evil" either, to use Richard Dawkins' phrase, which Harris seems to endorse with glee throughout this (and his previous) book. Lastly, as an obvious corollary of our moral realism, both Harris and I think that moral relativism is a silly notion, and that it is in fact downright pernicious in its effects on individuals and society.

Here is where the two of us disagree: I do not think that science amounts to the sum total of rational inquiry (a position often referred to as scientism), which he seems to (implicitly) assume. I do think that science should inform the specifics of our ethical discussions, and hence is in an important sense pertinent to ethics, but I maintain that ethical questions are inherently philosophical in nature, not scientific. This is a problem, I think, because ignoring this distinction does a disservice to both science and philosophy. Finally, as a corollary of my rejection of scientism above, I do think that there are significant differences between science and philosophy, even though of course the demarcation line between the two is far from being sharp. Indeed, I think that a combination of these two disciplines -- which used to be called "scientia" (knowledge in the broadest possible sense) -- is our best hope for a more rational and compassionate humanity.

Harris undermines his own project in two footnotes tucked at the end of his book. In the second note to the Introduction, he acknowledges that he "do[es] not intend to make a hard distinction between `science' and other intellectual contexts in which we discuss `facts.'" But wait a minute! If that is the case, if we can define "science" as any type of rational-empirical inquiry into "facts" (the scare quotes are his) then we are talking about something that is not at all what most readers are likely to understand when they pick up a book with a subtitle that says "How Science Can Determine Human Values" (the italics are mine). One can reasonably smell a bait and switch here. Second, in the first footnote to chapter 1, Harris says: "Many of my critics fault me for not engaging more directly with the academic literature on moral philosophy ... I am convinced that every appearance of terms like `metaethics,' `deontology,' ... directly increases the amount of boredom in the universe." That's it? The whole of the only field other than religion that has ever dealt with ethics is dismissed because Sam Harris finds it boring? Is that a fact or a value judgment, I wonder?

Harris' insistence on neurobiology becomes at times positively creepy, as in the section where he seems to relish the prospect of a neuro-scanning technology that will be able to tell us if anyone is lying, opening the prospect of a world where government (and corporations) will be able to enforce no-lie zones upon us. He writes: "Thereafter, civilized men and women might share a common presumption: that whenever important conversations are held, the truthfulness of all participants will be monitored. ... Many of us might no more feel deprived of the freedom to lie during a job interview or at a press conference than we currently feel deprived of the freedom to remove our pants in the supermarket." If these sentences do not conjure the specter of a really, really scary Big Brother in your mind, I suggest you get your own brain scanned for signs of sociopathology (or watch a good episode of Babylon 5).

In the end, I did not learn much about either science or ethics from reading Harris' book (though I am very clear on the fact that he really, really dislikes Francis Collins, the new director of the NIH). But at the same time I just happened to be reading Michael Sandel's Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? If you wish to understand ethics, do yourself a favor, and read Sandel instead, your time and money will be much better spent.

Unconvincing, October 27, 2010
Although I am a fan of Mr. Harris' prior two books, the subtitle of his latest book made me cringe. I came to it not expecting much and I wasn't disappointed. I noticed by the way that no philosopher endorsed it. At least there wasn't one on the dust jacket. I consider this latest work a philosophically naive attempt to defend hedonic utilitarianism( HU ), which BTW is what our country is founded on. A quick read of the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence confirms this: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.' Hmm...apparently Jefferson didn't need neuroscience to write that sentence. If we as a society determine that the goal is to maximize our hedonic utility collectively, then I think science, and in this case neuroscience, can help make our decisions more informed. But the issue is a lot more complicated than that which is why I consider this lastest book naive.

I am sympathetic with his goal of securing the notion that we do not need a belief in god(s) or religion to live healthy, moral and fulfilling lives. I think he overreached himself however. I did not read anything in the book to change my mind that humans impute value. We do not discover it.

The other low starred reviews discuss many of the things I think are wrong with his position, let me just mention a few of my own.

First of all, there is the measurement problem. Utilititarianism has spawned a huge literature in economics none of which he has engaged with regarding measuring a person's utility function. Basically, it is considered impossible. Looking at a bunch of pretty colors in an fMRI machine doesn't help. Do we measure short term happiness or long term happiness. Do we take the average? Does it matter? Maybe short term equals long term. Harris's equivocations amount to not taking a stand. How is science going to determine the optimal ratio of short term pleasure versus long term pleasure? This is an intractable problem in principle. Those decisions require human non-scientific judgement.

Secondly, Mr. Harris assumes that there is an isomorphism between the brain states of the population that neuroscientists study and the general population. This means that one can extrapolate from a sample to the rest of the population. This ultimately means that the moral truths learned apply to the average human. Are you average? In so doing, he essentializes humans. He also neglects to discuss how learning plays into determining what behaviors create well-being. We've all had the experience of disliking something when we are young and then later on learning to find an activity pleasurable. Sex naturally comes to mind here. We can measure happiness he says. I can hear the board of ethicists now, 'Mr. Smith, we've discovered that 99.0% of the people aren't happy if they engage in this behavior, therefore it would be immoral for us to allow you to do it.' Also consider the Happy Slave thought experiment which highlights the distinction between subjective well-being and objective well-being. We all are taught to believe that enslaving another human being is immoral. But imagine for a moment a slave who is content and happy with their enslavement. Any other situation would be intolerable for the person and would decrease their well-being. We back this up with brain scans and find yes indeed this person would experience horrific pain if they were freed. Not allowing the slave to enjoy his well-being is to tell him what to VALUE ( he/she doesn't value primitive freedom ). Harris would respond like Socrates that this person acts out of ignorance and does not perceive their 'true' objective well-being. If they only knew the truth, they would understand that they could be so much happier if they were not a slave. ( Think also of the 'Story of O' here ). Of course, Mr. Harris and his team of fellow neuroscientists are ready to supply those objectively true values/morals...it also causes us so much pain to see you enslaved. Thereofore for our subjective well-being, and your objective well-being, you must be freed even if it doesn't enhance your subjective well-being. But Harris would say, we solved the hedonic calculus equations. This is moral truth.

So what are we to have then, a board of scientists who determine what the objectively true morals are? He dismisses the fascist implications of his position which are quite real. Many from my generation can remember how individuals wanting to leave the former Soviet Union were categorized as mentally ill by the government and incarcerated in mental hospitals. Why? No sane person would want to leave the 'worker's paradise'? What if science shows that people are happiest in a monogamist male-female relationship where the couple has sex at least once a week. Are we going to promote this as national policy? What about those who are not average and want to remain single or would like to be in a polyamorous group? He would say there are multiple peaks to the moral landscape, ie multiple ways of pursuing well-being that do not make others worse off in a Pareto optimal sense ( he seems unfamiliar with Pareto optimality however ). But multiple peaks seem to me to eviscerate the whole concept of moral truth. Who determines if some behavior is another peak and not a moral valley? Who detects shoddy science? Remember the eugenics movement in the US in the 1920s.


Consider another thought experiment: The allies have just taken Berlin at the end of WW2. A team of soldiers with medics rush into Hitler's bunker. You find him lying on the floor bleeding from a botched suicide attempt. Should you save his life? Why or Why not? I don't see how science would help us make this decision.

Thirdly, following in the venerable tradition of Aristotle, Mr. Harris assumes that morality and well-being are non-separable. However, it is very clear that they are and many philosophers would have a hard time accepting the idea that they are not. Basically separability means that it is logically possible for a person to have a fulfilling happy life without being moral and vice versa. Imagine for a moment a society that determines that acting in pornographic movies is immoral. Yet, you interview a sample of actors and find that they are living fulfilling happy lives and they could not imagine doing anything else. This would be an example of someone behaving immorally yet is happy. So it is logically possible. In my Happy Slave example, even though the slave was worse off morally, this fact alone does not tell us anything about the slave's well-being.

Harris says that people who find happiness while engaging in grossly immoral acts are brain damaged. This would seem reasonable for serial killers, etc, but at what point in the continuum does the person start to be considered brain damaged? This is yet again a decision where human's have to judge using non-science derived values.

In my view, he adds nothing to the debate. The book could have been more informed had he undertaken a closer reading of utility theory in economics. A wider reading in game theory would also been helpful as would a reading in biosemiotics ( ala Jesper Hoffmeyer ). Mr. Harris dismisses culture as if it is unimportant. Only science provides certainty to his mind. So if we want an independent morality that we can force religious people to adopt, then it must come from science. I don't agree. Humans have made moral progress without resorting to 'science' so-called. This is the whole enlightenment tradition. Humans create culture like beavers build dams. It is not mere culture, it the source and background of all meaningful signification. Most of our moral progress is from learning what doesn't work to enhance well-being. It is a fragile knowledge that depends on culture and not science. For example, women's rights depend on culture not science. If we find that a woman's brain turns the right colors in an fMRI machine when they have full reproductive rights, this does not tell us that they should have those rights. Only people VALUING those rights make them secure. The Liberal Arts are more vital today than ever. I would rather have a comparative literature or history graduate determining our society's moral truth any day over a neuroscientist.

I also found his folksy conservative morality offputting at times. Apparently the pair-bond male-female monogamous family is the paradigmatic family structure. Quoting from his shallow reading of Evolutionary Psychology, apparently we evolved to have women seek out high status males who strut and show off to win over females and provide them with resources. How very right wing Christian of him. However, there is a lot of evidence that this is a cultural adaptation subsequent to the agricultural revolution approx. 10,000 years ago...mere culture again.

No humans do not find or discover values just as we don't find or discover meaning. Humans create meaning and values. That's what we do. We can't hide behind science when we make decisions. It's called moral responsibility.

Ultimately what was the point of writing a book just to say what Mill said 100 years ago? Maximize individual autonomy and exercise your autonomy without causing harm to others. We don't need neuroscience to tell us that this can enhance well-being.

A Contribution to Consequentialism, Not a Panacea for Moral Philosophy, November 24, 2010
In this book, Sam Harris advocates for the relevance of science to moral judgments and moral decisions. Harris defines himself as a consequentialist or utilitarian moral theorist, and within that tradition in moral philosophy, the relevance of science to morality is not so controversial. If you can define "happiness" (or some other condition to be maximized), and you can adopt a definition of "maximized", and you can calculate the contribution of any act to what you've defined as happiness, you've provided at least a rudimentary method for determining the morality of those acts. And scientific research is certainly relevant to that determination, especially if you've defined "happiness" ("well-being" for Harris) in scientifically friendly terms. Harris does so, claiming that "well-being" has to do with the brain states of conscious creatures.

That's a coherent position to take. It's not without controversy or refinement. Figuring out what "maximize" means, for example, is pretty critical to whether or not we value equal distributions of happiness across a population or only the sum total. If only the sum total, then radically unequal distributions are morally superior so long as they sum out higher than more equal ones.

Harris knows about such problems. In fact, he discusses but takes no stand on the average vs. sum question in Chapter 2 of his book. Nor does he offer any sort of detailed guidance on how such a question would be settled scientifically, if he thinks that can be done.

Harris has less to say about debates between consequentialist moral theory and other main strains of thinking about what morality is. As he himself says, he is not going to provide any sort of strict definition for his key term "well-being", referring rather to an analogy to the term "health", in which numerous approaches to what is "healthy" can be mutually consistent without supposing that the term itself thereby becomes radically undetermined or meaningless. I think he's right about that. But it's exactly that indeterminateness that is the root of a great deal of philosophical debate about morality.

Philosophers sometimes distinguish three main branches in the history of moral philosophy. One is consequentialism, Harris' branch. Another is Kantian moral thought, in which it is not the consequences of an action that make it moral or immoral, but rather what Kant calls the "subjective principle of volition" behind the action -- we can call that the "intention" behind the action just for the sake of argument (but Kantians will howl). And the other is Aristotelian moral thought, based on the concept of virtue and the development and exercise of virtue in a life. Harris has little to say about either of those lines of thought, except to say that his notion of "well-being" is elastic enough to encompass whatever other people may mean when they talk about things like "duty" (a core Kantian term), "justice", etc.

Harris thinks, like some other consequentialists, that any validity those other strains of thought have can be captured within the consequentialist framework. After all, as Harris argues, if those things matter, they must matter because they contribute to someone's well-being. Sounds reasonable.

But I think that without more fully addressing those alternative strains of moral thought, Harris doesn't address some pretty central questions. For example, how much does the fact that I am the one causing pain or happiness for others count in my moral decisions as opposed to just anyone causing that same pain or happiness? If I were asked to fire an employee I manage, and I believe the firing to be unjust, should I refuse to do it, even though I know that if I do so, I will be fired for refusing, and the employee will be fired anyway? That's not a made-up case -- among others, that was Elliot Richardson's position, when his boss, Richard Nixon, ordered him to fire Archibald Cox. On one way of thinking about morality, my character (and my virtues) count centrally in the decision. On strict consequentialist grounds, it doesn't, except in so far as we can reconstruct my character in terms of "happiness" or "well-being", detouring around the central question of whether character in itself counts.

There are also more radical strains of thought. One that is particularly relevant to Harris' arguments, is that the moral autonomy of human beings extends to the very definition of well-being itself. Put in terms closer to Harris, what makes us happy is then something we can influence ourselves, by training, or by commitment, or other methods. At times, Harris seems to admit such possibilities (see his discussions in Chapter 2 of the faults in our moral intuitions and the possibility of training ourselves out of them, or his remarks there about how we might alter our moral perceptions with drug treatments). Should we train ourselves to value equality, so that we perceive our own well-being served by equality (with the resulting positive conscious brain states Harris associates with well-being)? Or conversely, should we train ourselves to value extreme distributions, finding satisfaction in the lives of others even if we can't achieve those heights ourselves? If so, then we might be able to increase our collective well-being by simply training ourselves to positively perceive a given state of affairs. Should we do that?

The opponents that Harris aims at are not alternative theories of morality per se, but rather religion and moral relativism. He thinks that many immoral acts and institutions are purportedly justified by religious belief, and he liberally cites the Taliban and Muslim extremism in general as examples. Then he decries modern liberals for shrinking back from moral judgment against those acts and institutions on relativist grounds.

Understood this way, as I said, I don't see that much to object to in Harris' claim that science can contribute to determining the moral value of actions, at least in consequentialist terms.

We could object that his sweep across "religion" makes little room for distinctions among fundamentalist believers and others. That's probably a topic better addressed in reference to his book on "The End of Faith" than this one. Chapters 3 and 4 of this book concentrate on "Belief" and "Religion", but I don't think that any of the claims in those chapters bear directly on unanswered questions relating to consequentialism and its alternatives.

We could also object to Harris' rhetoric -- his style is polemical, not academic. He seems to think that anybody who disagrees with him is an idiot or a fool.

For my part, I just don't think that he has solved the problems of moral philosophy, either the ones within his consequentialist branch or the ones between consequentialism and others strains of thought about what morality is. And I don't think that Harris has shown that those problems can be solved scientifically, if he intended to do so.

Philosophy, yes; Science? Hardly., November 26, 2010
I've enjoyed Sam Harris' wonderful writing since The End of Faith but I cannot recommend this book. It is certainly interesting as philosophy for those who like that sort of thing. But science? As far as I can ascertain Harris' claim that his proposed moral landscape is scientific is based on the fact the human actions take place in the real world, with real causes and effect and therefore since certain causes have certain effects, then the ones that cause goodness (wellness) can be determined in theory as can the ones that cause evil (harm). The whole thing is absurdly trivial and almost equivalent to the old theory that if we knew the velocity and position of every subatomic particle we could in theory foretell all events.

Worse than the triviality of the premise is the underlining tone that the concepts and morals that Harris likes also happen to be the ones that science will no doubt agree with. Again and again he presents arguments for maladaptive behavior and informs us that (without a doubt) that science will certainly tell us this behavior is contrary to human happiness. One can only assume this is based on his reasoning, not science; for Harris acknowledges this is a fledgling field and is merely suggesting what is possible in theory. Then how is it he knows the answers already?

Sorry Sam that is not science. It is philosophically reasoning. It is good reasoning; I certainly agree with your moral standpoints. Reason and logic are good guides. But that does not make your reasoning science. It reminds me of an old question: "How many legs would a donkey have if you called its' tail a leg?" Answer: "Four - calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg". Calling philosophy science does not make it science.

I've all ways maintained the greatest challenge to a scientist is knowing what questions need to be asked; that can be asked; and the should be asked. Just because something is phrased as a premise doesn't make it worth investigating: that's why there are thesis advisors. Sam is barking up a useless tree with this thesis. In a way the inability to understand what is a good scientific question and what isn't is the difference between science and pseudo-science. Sam is dangerously close on this one to the wrong side of the fence.

What it can teach us is trivial - even without using the proposed method Sam Harris and any other person can arrive at the same conclusions by reason alone. Nothing is illuminated, nothing gained. Science not only explains what we already know, it illuminates new vistas. What new insights could his moral landscape provide? What could falsify this theory? I wonder what moral belief that Harris finds repugnant would be "proven scientifically" useful for mankind's well being? I must assume none, from reading this. Just the fact that such an idea "happens" to coincide with exactly the views I hold before investigating it would have made me stop and realize I was engaging the useless practice of justifying my reasoning by bolstering it with the name of science. I would have stopped and used Feynmann's recommendation that one should bend over backward to state what is wrong with one's theory. None of that from Harris I am afraid.

Nothing new here really, just more philosophy. Good philosophy, but to paraphrase Shakespeare - I could eat all the science in this book on Good Friday and ne'er break my fast.

Food for thought, December 24, 2010
This book makes the case that morality can be objective, since there can be objective ways to work on making everyone as happy as possible, since happiness is a result of brain states that can be objectively and scientifically measured, described and altered. And, well, that's about it for the thesis, really. It's not about evolutionary reasons why we have ethics, although the topic does come up, so if that's what you thought the title meant, look elsewhere.

The first part of the book mostly tries to get this point across in differently phrased ways. Once I understood that Harris wasn't trying to present this system of metaethics as some sort of universal, scientific law (like the "law of moral right" thing you always used to see full-page ads for in Scientific American), but rather as a method to "maximize human well-being", I found his points made more sense. At some point, it really doesn't make sense to let people cause the suffering of other people simply because it's part of their culture, and while it is good to be objective and equal-minded when studying other cultures, that doesn't mean it's because cultures are inherently equally good at maximizing their constituents' happiness. However, the presentation of this thesis, rather than trying to provide positive evidence, says that if you disagree with the claim that the happiness of conscious beings is the most important thing in the universe, then you might as well close the book right now because there's just no reasoning with you. True, perhaps, but not very well supported.

After this, the book addresses a wide range of subjects, including a chapter on the nonexistence of free will that doesn't really link it to metaethics and seems a little out of place (it ends by saying that the illusion of free will is itself an illusion then just moves on to something unrelated in the next chapter) and a chapter largely dedicated to explaining why the director of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins, is inconsistent in his view of the sources of knowledge for also being a born-again Christian. The point about science and religion not just being different "ways of knowing" is a relevant one, but it seems to focus almost entirely on Collins, and not just in an exemplary way. Harris wrote a scathing review of Collins' book "The Language of God" in 2006, so this isn't especially surprising, but the chapter reiterates a lot of points from that review.

I went to see Harris talk about the book in Seattle in October, and while the talk understandably reiterated a lot of points from the book, there were some interesting graphics that would have been quite useful in understanding the book. For example, a CGI picture of a landscape-graph-thing where the peaks represented points of high happiness and the valleys represented low happiness and equally high peaks represented different ways of going about the same happiness really helped illustrate the titular "Moral Landscape" concept. There was also a graphic of a long line with tons of red lines connecting parts of it that Harris noted was a graphic of the Bible's inconsistencies, which probably wasn't entirely on-topic but was informative nonetheless.

Overall, this book probably won't instantly convert you to ethical hedonism, but it is food for both thought and discussion on ways we can acknowledge which approaches to human happiness just don't really work.

Listen to or read this book now!, December 18, 2010
This book will undoubtedly go down in history as a sentinal piece of literature. Harris is extremely capable with the English language and introduces many ideas and arguments in this book that require quite a bit of thought to absorb. I started with the audiobook- though I will almost certainly buy the book after listening to the audiobook again. This one is a must read/listen.

Several small cautions for listeners of the audiobook however, just to temper ones expectations. First, I think he would have been better off to give the narration over to a professional reader rather than do it himself. I have heard Sam Harris give public speaches, and he is a fine speaker. However, he is a bit monotone here and at times comes across a little lifeless when it would seem to have been easy for him to be more energetic. Second, some of the material is so intellectually dense, so uterly profound, that you may find yourself stopping the tape just to ponder and think. Third, his overuse of "etc" is a bit maddening, but that's just my personal pet peeve. In spite of these comments, which represent exceptionally minor quibbles with a ground breaking book, I enjoyed it immensely.

Listen to or read this book!
... Read more

Editorial Review

Joyce Meyer has a knack for coining phrases-her fans call themJoyceisms-and one of her best loved is "Where the mind goes, the man follows." This was the basis for Battlefield of the Mind, and in her latest book, Meyerprovides "power thoughts," bringing the reader to a new level of ability to use the mind as a tool to achievement.
In POWER THOUGHTS, she outlines a flexible program to turn thoughts into habits, and habits into success. Sections include:

�The Power of a Positive You

�5 Rules for Keeping Your Attitude at the Right Altitude

�More Power To You bulleted keys to successful thinking in each chapter

�The Power of Perspective

Nobody has more of a "can-do" attitude than Joyce Meyer.Now you can, too. ... Read more

Reviews

Winning On the Battlefield of the Mind, September 15, 2010
*****
This latest book by Joyce Meyer is her follow-up to her best-selling "Battlefield of the Mind"--the "next step"--which gives you "specific insights and strategies to help you build powerful mind-sets to empower you to live in a place of strength, success, and victory every day". And it truly delivers. The author writes that the mind "can be a junkyard or a treasure chest" and in this book, she shows how. I would consider this not a book to be read over lightly, but a manual to be read once and then studied, digested, and most of all--practiced in daily life.

The book has two parts. The first part gives a general overview of why the mind is a battlefield, why we as Christians must take every thought captive, and how this is done. It has been years and years since "Battlefield of the Mind" came out (and thus years and years since I read it) but it seems to me that the first part would be an overview or refresher on what that book covered. Once you understand the basic principles involved, you are ready to go on to the second part. The second part is the meat of the book--a group of specific tools--12 beliefs that are vital in a Christian's life in order to live in victory. Each belief is one chapter and at the end of the chapter there is a "Power Pack" of Scriptures that the belief is based on for you to memorize. I found the structure of the book really helpful in being able to use it on an ongoing basis.

I read the book last night and today, but am going to be working with it for far longer. I'm going to write the Scriptures down for memorization and (as the book suggests) focus each week for the next 12 weeks on one of the beliefs. The first one is "I can do whatever I need to do in life through Christ". Another is, "I am difficult to offend." The last is "I put God first in my life." Now these may seem elementary and obvious, but it is surprising when you read the book and answer the thought questions interspersed throughout each chapter, how many of them we might forget in daily life. These questions are called "Think About It' and help you apply each belief to your own life. For example, I identified that I don't believe the best of other people; instead, I believe the worst so that I'm prepared no matter what happens, and then am pleasantly surprised if something better happens. This might work for me on some levels, but it isn't Scriptural! (Or effective!)

The author is like a personal coach or "cheerleader in a book" who is endlessly upbeat, cheering you on as you read. If you are a newcomer to Christ, or to victorious Christian living, you will find much support in this book. On the other hand, if you are a mature Christian, long-time veteran of different Bible studies and programs, you won't find new or unusual information here, but fresh encouragement and/or (as I did) a kick and a jump-start to help you get unstuck from the rut you may be in in your Christian walk. In practical terms, this books walks you through, step by step, everything you need to do to take every thought captive and to begin thinking thoughts that are based on Biblical truth and that lead to a joyful and abundant life.

This book is definitely for any Christian reader; it is interdenominational and doesn't reflect a Pentecostal theology (as do some of the author's books). This is information we can all agree on!

Highly recommended.
*****

We become what we think, September 26, 2010
Once again, Joyce Meyer has written a down-to-earth motivational self-help book for Christians in Power Thoughts. Meyers uses basic cognitive therapy ideas combined with a biblical approach to combat your thoughts to change your world. She teaches the importance of thoughts and how to control them in her book, Battlefield of the Mind, but this book goes one step beyond, encouraging readers to meditate on scriptures to keep their minds renewed daily. In Power Thoughts, Meyers illustrates a "Power Thoughts Program" which she has developed to assist in gaining and maintaining control over your thoughts in order to transform your life. This is a 12-week plan to maintain the life God desires for us.

This book is positive, realistic and easy to read and understand. Readers will enjoy her honesty and no-nonsense approach. This book is a great read for anyone who wants to improve their life and further develop their relationship with God. Her Power Thoughts Program is simple and doable. "We become what we think." Proverbs 23:7

Disclosure: I was provided with a copy of this book from Hachette Book Group in exchange for my HONEST review. The opinions in this review are solely mine.

The Meyers Charisma, October 3, 2010
Whether it is her charisma or just plain intellect, Joyce Meyers finds a way to express what others only grapple at. Very intuitive and deep. The book explains a lot. This is a best seller for sure.

Really makes you think, October 16, 2010
This book is all about retraining your mind to think positively. Joyce Meyer gives 12 power thoughts to help in this task. From the first one 'I can do whatever I need to do in life through Christ' to the final one 'I keep God first in my life', each is backed up with scripture and biblical principles. Satan throws arrows to our mind everyday and, with the help of this book, we can learn to fight off those darts and live victoriously. She talks repeatedly about meditating on each thought until it becomes ingrained in our daily lives. Taking each thought and concentrating on it for a week is a great idea. I also personally like the idea of writing them and sticking the notes all over the house as a reminder.

After listening to the book, it really makes you think about where your mind goes during the day. Joyce Meyer's book is filled with stories of how everyday people overcome Satan's arrows. It gives hope to be able to turn our thinking around to where God wants us to be. The scriptural references are very helpful with each thought. Think about it, that really makes you take notice of what she is saying. I enjoyed listening to this book and recommend it to anyone as a tool in their everyday life.

Applies to all foundations of life!!! Must Read!!!, October 5, 2010
I must say that this book is the absolute foundation of everything in life. Whether its regarding relationships, career, family, health, this books applies to all. In order for anything else to work how you want in life all starts with positive thoughts. If you are looking for a book to renew, improve and change your thinking, and learn how to have a good,postive mental attitude, this is the book.

Joyce Meyer Does It Again!, October 22, 2010
I picked up this book because I have found many of Joyce Meyer's books to be of help to me in my Christian Journey. I read an excerpt and realized from it, that I had fallen back into some old habits about how I think or look at things.
This book is a helpful reminder that 'it's all in how we look at it'. It also reminds us what God's promises are to us during tough times and what our attitude needs to be.
I found particularly helpful the Think about It sections.
As always, Joyce Meyer is easy to read and she encourages you to read the Bible and look up things you don't understand. Not all of her books are for me, but this one seemed to really hit home.

speaker is boring, October 24, 2010
I always loved Joyce Meyer and everything she has to say. I would give it 5 stars if it were read by Joyce. I got the audio book since I can listen to it faster than I can read it. But not in this case..I was disappointed to put the CD in only to hear the boring speaker/narrator. The content is exciting, but the reader sounds like she is just reading it for the first time. HO HUM!

Winning On the Battle for Your Mind, October 9, 2010
This is Joyce's follow-up to her best-selling "Battlefield of the Mind", that gives us "specific insights and strategies to help us build powerful mind-sets in a 12-Week Plan to Win the Battle of the Mind. In the book she explains the battle for our minds, make you aware of what's at stake in the battle and why it is important to get in the battle to win. She does a great job of arming you with a well laid out plan for winning the battle, she gives scriptures and ask questions to get you thinking, explaining your thought life.

Some people may say "I have heard all this before" and they are right, as I too have heard the subject of this book talked about in many books over the years. But here is the deal, like the scriptures tell us, renewing our minds is a Daily event. We are in a battle for our minds, a war against our flesh and the ways of the world. Every thing we see and hear every day is fighting for our thought life, against the Spirit, the mind of Christ. We need to be renewing our mind, putting on the mind of Christ daily. And we need to read books like this one on a regularly to not only reminds us we are in a battle for our thought life, but to give us a battle plan for our minds. And she does give us a new strategy to keep our minds renewed. After all the word is change every year in how it seeks to win the battle for our minds, to keep us captives in it's ways, so we need to keep renewing our battle plan to win the war.

This book is not only a good read, but one every Christian should read and use it as the ground work of how to renew your mind. How to do battle in the battlefield of your mind and Whether you admit it or not there is a battle for your mind and the enemy never stops coming after your mind, you dont win once and its over, every day it starts again.

Disclosure: I was provided with a copy of this book from Hachette Book Group in exchange for my HONEST review. The opinions in this review are solely mine.

Joyce Meyers, October 5, 2010
Book arrived in excellent condition and ahead of time. Great service. Would highly recommend the seller.

Will serve to reinforce your identity as a child of God and empower you to live more like a victor than a victim, October 4, 2010
"To be able to enjoy life and avoid unnecessary problems, we must live according to the truth which is found in God's Word and not according to the lies we hear from other people, the world, or the enemy," writes Joyce Meyer. At a time when many people have come to believe that there are no absolutes and what's true for one person may not be true for another, anyone who claims to know the "truth" is viewed with suspicion. Yet, for the Christian, truth has real meaning and value. Knowing what the standards are gives life structure and guidance so that it does not get out of control.

POWER THOUGHTS is divided into two parts. Part One gives a general overview of the principles that will be used as a foundation for the practical applications in Part Two. In Part One, Meyer reminds us of the many truths that we have learned during our journey but that we often forget when crisis strikes. For example, we can believe that "all things work together for good for those that love the Lord," but when you're up to your bangs in debt, it may be hard to hang on to that. Or we may agree that behaviors follow thoughts yet find ourselves falling into negative-thinking patterns and wondering why we're behaving so badly. Throughout the chapters, Meyer provides breaks that encourage the reader to "Think About It" by jotting down notes and expressing feelings about what has just been revealed.

Meyer describes her 12-Week Plan as learning to use power thoughts that will "bring your thinking into agreement with God so you can enjoy Him and His good plan for you." The power thoughts are all scriptural and serve to encourage and lead toward happier and healthier thinking patterns and behaviors. The first one is: I can do whatever I have to do in life through Christ. Imagine the benefits that could come from meditating on that truth for a week. I appreciate the way that Meyer thinks of "meditation" as interacting with information. This effectively takes the Biblical word back from the mystical/cultish connotation it has often taken on.

By memorizing the power thought, leaving it on sticky notes around the house, journaling as the thought begins to take hold in your life, soon the reader will have gained a new weapon in the battle of the mind. Even if you are not dealing with some huge addiction or major disaster, POWER THOUGHTS can be helpful by taking you step by step through some exercises that will definitely improve the way you think and feel. Whether you are depressed, short-tempered, tend to live in the past, fearful, or generally negative, this 12-week study will serve to reinforce your identity as a child of God and empower you to live more like a victor than a victim.

--- Reviewed by Maggie Harding, a substance abuse counselor in Phoenix, AZ who wanted to be Brenda Starr before life intervened. ... Read more

Editorial Review

One of the most important theologians of the twentieth century illuminates the relationship between ourselves and the teachings of Jesus

What can the call to discipleship, the adherence to the word of Jesus, mean today to the businessman, the soldier, the laborer, or the aristocrat? What did Jesus mean to say to us? What is his will for us today? Drawing on the Sermon on the Mount, Dietrich Bonhoeffer answers these timeless questions by providing a seminal reading of the dichotomy between "cheap grace" and "costly grace." "Cheap grace," Bonhoeffer wrote, "is the grace we bestow on ourselves...grace without discipleship....Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again, the girl which must be asked for, the door at which a man must know....It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life."

The Cost of Discipleship is a compelling statement of the demands of sacrifice and ethical consistency from a man whose life and thought were exemplary articulations of a new type of leadership inspired by the Gospel, and imbued with the spirit of Christian humanism and a creative sense of civic duty. ... Read more

Reviews

An excellent book on what it means to follow Christ, December 29, 2001
I recently took a seminary class that dealt with traditions in Christian devotion, and one of the assignments was to pick a classic Christian book and do a report on it. I chose "Cost of Discipleship" because I had wanted to read it for some time. Much has been said about the book's power, and I desired to experience that for myself. After finishing it, I can see why "Cost of Discipleship" has challenged so many in their walk with Christ.

The book's major theme centers on what it really means to be a disciple of Christ. This is summed up by Bonhoeffer's statement that Christ calls us to "come and die." Christ wants all of us - nothing is to be held back. One is either a disciple of Christ, or they are not. There is no middle ground. The true disciple is dying to his or her life as a whole, and their old life is being replaced with the life of Christ.

"Cost of Discipleship" is soaked in Scripture, and that is one of its main strengths. This is not surprising, since reading the Bible actually contributed to Bonhoeffer's personal conversion and commitment to Christ. Bonhoeffer constantly refers to Biblical passages to make his points, and he does not resort to storytelling or even personal anecdotes. One can sense his deep love for the Bible and for Christ throughout the book. Another strength is Bonhoeffer's conveyance of how imperative commitment to Christ really is. Bonhoeffer was an early foe of Adolph Hitler, and this book was published while he was being persecuted by the Nazis. Thererfore, he wrote as one who has stood for Christ in tough times, and he knew that Christ is one's only hope. Indeed, he eventually gave his life for his faith, and by all Christian and secular accounts glorified God to the very end. Finally, even though "Cost of Discipleship" was published in 1937, every page in this book counters the "easy believism" and license that tempt and seduce many Christians today. Bonhoeffer attacks "cheap grace" and demands a steadfast, deep loyalty to Christ. He illustrates the power and holiness of God in a way that indicates the necessity of a healthy, reverent fear towards God.

However, I did have a couple of minor issues with the book. It is somewhat densely written, and therefore may be daunting to the average layreader. Bonhoeffer was a highly educated theologian, and it shows in his writing style. In addition, Bonhoeffer tends to neglect grace in favor of emphasizing absolute holiness and commitment. His moralistic leanings have the danger of encouraging legalism and asceticism if a reader is inclined toward those pitfalls. I'm sure this was not his intent, since it was Bonhoeffer's genuine love for Christ that motivated his passion and perseverance. But this may be a situation where a person takes for granted a truth they have worked through and internalized, and therefore they fail to communicate it to others because it is so integral to them. I think Bonhoeffer loved God so deeply, with all his being, that he never thought to specifically describe loving God as the basis for the principles in this book. However, it is also possible that the times he lived in prevented a more introspective writing style. Bonhoeffer was under persecution by a political regime that he knew to be the epitome of evil. Therefore, he knew what was at stake, and so focused on what needed to be heard about the cost of Christian discipleship, with the assumption (or at least hope) that the reader already had an abiding love for Christ.

Overall, "Cost of Discipleship" challenged me in a number of ways. First, Bonhoeffer's life and death were inspiring - he lived what he wrote, and I consider him to be an example of faith in action that every Christian should emulate. I pray that I would face persecution with his courage and perseverance. Second, his linking of sanctification with being part of the Body of Christ encourages me to avoid being a "lone wolf" Christian. It's important for my spiritual health to become part of a church so that I can minister to others and be ministered to as well. Third, his love for Scripture reminds me to never forsake reading the Bible, and also not to rely exclusively on the writings of others, or their interpretations of Scripture. Fourth, his focus on a relationship with Christ prods me to examine my own relationship with Him, and to ensure that I don't neglect it. Finally, his statement that Christ bids us to "come and die" leads me to evaluate the level of my own commitment as a Christian, especially in light of current events.

"The Cost of Discipleship" was difficult to read. This was in part due to its literary density, but also because of its powerful message about the true cost of being a disciple of Christ. Bonhoeffer's words are relevant, convicting, and challenging to anyone who claims to be a Christian. Highly recommended.

"He Who Learns Must Suffer . . ., January 13, 2005
"And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God." These words of Aeschylus echoed through me time and time again as I read Dietrich Bonhoeffer's "Cost of Discipleship". This was not an easy book to read. I do not think it was meant to be easy.

Bonhoeffer was a person of limitless courage and faith. Born 1906 in Breslau, Germany to a prosperous family Bonhoeffer studied theology and completed his doctoral thesis when he was 21. He rose to some measure of fame in the 1930s by virtue of his writings and radio sermons.

The rise of Adolph Hitler ran parallel to Bonhoeffer's own rise and it was opposition to the evils of Nazi-ism that compelled Bonhoeffer to put his words into actions, actions that cost him his life. As is set out in the introductory memoir in this edition, Bonhoeffer understood immediately that Hitler and his national socialist ideology represented a grave threat to Germans, to Christianity, and to western civilization. In a radio adress he gave in February, 1933 Bonhoeffer denounced Hitler and denounced his fellow Germans for accepting a corrupt and inhumane leader and system as its idol. Although Bonhoeffer spent a great deal of time living in England, safe from harm, he understood that he could not in good conscience "participate in the reconstruction of Christian life in Germany after the war if I do not share the trials of this time with my people." Bonhoeffer returned to Germany in 1939 to take up the struggle against Nazi-ism. He had to have known that his return would lead to his death but he knew he could not do otherwise. He was called and he obeyed that call without question.

Bonhoeffer was arrested in 1943 after being caught assisting the escape of a number of Jews from Germany. On April 8, 1945, with Allied troops only days from liberating his prison, Bonhoeffer was executed on the orders of Hitler by the S.S. Black Guards. One cannot read the Cost of Discipleship without an acute understanding that his writings on sacrifice, on obedience, and on the cost of grace were mirrored by his actions.

Cost of Discipleships consists of a series of set pieces on grace, justification, and obedience to God. This was a tough book to read for two reasons. First, I grew up in a tradition in which words like grace and justification were concepts best left for other denominations. I had to think about the meaning and context of those words in order to understand what he was saying. Second, Bonhoeffer does not speak to his reader in the manner of a kindly, easy-going grandfather. Rather, he speaks in the manner of the strict drill instructor in boot camp whose manner is designed to hit you in the face with your own (and his) inadequacies until you break. As you read further the purpose behind Bonhoeffer's harsh manner evidences itself. Like the drill instructor his purpose is not to be harsh for the sake of harshness but to save your neck once you leave boot camp and make your way to the front lines. The drill instructor is harsh to help ensure your survival. Bonhoeffer is harsh to help one seek salvation through faith.

The book begins with a section entitled The Call to Discipleship. Each step of the way Bonhoeffer sets up a test, a test that this reader invariably fails each step of the way. He discusses `cheap grace', the kind where "my only duty as a Christian is to eave the world for an hour or so on a Sunday morning and go to church to be assured that my sins are all forgiven." Bonhoeffer asserts that if one `believes' one must obey and if one does not obey they cannot believe. He argues that prayer should be hidden, not public. Too often public prayer in churches is nothing more than `empty noise'. Further, he suggests that our own good deeds, like our prayer, should be hidden. If we perform righteous acts to receive a pat on the back from our friends or family it is valueless to God. It was hard not to recognize myself every step of the way. It clearly must have been Bonhoeffer's intent to have us feel this discomfort and if so he did a remarkably good job of it.

Bonhoeffer suggests that too many people feel they must know the path they are about to follow before beginning their spiritual journey. In fact, Bonhoeffer claims the opposite is the case. He argues that we will find out once we begin: "plunge into the deep waters beyond your own comprehension, and I will help you to comprehend even as I do."

The heart of Cost of Discipleship is found in Bonhoeffer's extensive examination of the Sermon on the Mount. It is at once both illuminating and powerful. Again, Bonhoeffer's own life provides justification for the argument that the call to discipleship is not easy and will likely bring pain and suffering but that it can be done if one so chooses. The fact that I have no doubt that I lack the wherewithal to act in a similar fashion is both depressing and challenging. How does one respond to such a challenge? Such wisdom as I acquire from this book will, no doubt, come drop by drop and with no small amount of pain.

This is a compelling book for anyone interested in matters of faith and the role of faith in contemporary society.

To encourage and entreat others to experience Bonhoeffer, December 5, 1997
This is an intense work,though not as intense as some of Dietrich's other works.This book lives up to it's title in every way,he pulls no punches as he relates the scriptures to real life and expounds upon the teachings of Jesus.He plainly teaches that there is a cost to following in the footsteps of Christ,just as Christ himself taught that Christ must be first and there is no compromise.This work is so intense,even Dietrich himself later in life,wondered if he was too blunt.Definitely not for those who enjoy sugar coated watered down messages,but if you've got the guts to read it,it will change your life!

Not the Best Place to Start a Worthwhile Study of Bonhoeffer, November 9, 2008
Dietrich Bonhoeffer is without question a hero of the Christian Faith, and one would be well served to study his thoughts, theology, commitment and example. But this is probabaly not the place to start, for two reasons.

(1) The writing style of this book is badly outdated and hard to follow and understand. This book badly needs an editor to put Bonhoeffer's thoughts into more modern prose. This book, as it is, is a difficult and at times convoluted read. A new updated editon is badly needed.

(2)Secondly, and more importantly, this book is early Bonhoeffer,full of didactic thought, at times morally pompus. A better place to start a study of Bonhoeffer might be his last work, "Letters from Prison..." written at the end of his life. this work is the more seasoned, more mature Bonhoeffer, a man who has seen to some the degree the mistakes and folly of his earlier thinking.

Case in point: In this work, Bonhoeffer says to be a disciple a man must separate himself from the everyday living of life. In the later book, "Letters from Prison," he writes, it is "only by living completely in the world that one learns to have faith..." He says he stands by his earlier book because he wrote it, it is his work, but he makes it clear that if he had it to do over again, his thought would be different and he would express himself in a way much more understanding of the world in which we live.

For that reason, "Letters From Prison..." would be the best place to get the complete, aged and wise Bonhoeffer.

Cheap Grace and Difficult Choices, May 21, 2000
Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Cost of Discipleship explores the challenges of embracing the gospel theme of sacrifice. In a direct, sometimes harsh assessment, he points up the difficulty of actually living a creed which embraces sacrifice of the individual believer called to task by the divine.

The phrase "cheap grace" remains the watch-phrase of the work. "Cheap grace" refers to the counterfeit self-acceptance the would-be believer experiences, and is discussed in sharp contrast to the genuine experience caused by the demands of the Christian faith. Bonhoeffer cautions us against 'easy religion' and mere emotive response to the Christian message. He portrays Christian life as demanding unflinching self-awareness and struggle, culiminating in surrender.

In later writings, Bonhoeffer himself modified the viewpoints he set forth in the Cost of Discipleship. An argument can be made that the work's stringent tone fails to convey the richness of the Christian life to which his book seeks to call adherents.

Nonetheless, Bonhoeffer's construct of "cheap grace" serves as a useful metaphor in a time in which materialism, inequity, and disconnection plague us. We may not choose Pastor Bonhoeffer's iron-clad distinctions as to what constitutes authentic spiritual experience, but we will not easily forget his call to embrace the genuine, and not merely counterfeit assuaged feelings for genuine spiritual experience.

Although this is a work of theology accessible to most readers, it is never patronizing in tone. Although one would have only a limited vision of Bonhoeffer's work if one read only the Cost of Discipleship, this is an excellent first Bonhoeffer book to read. The Cost of Discipleship is not a radical work, but rather a work of then-mainstream Christianity intended to provoke the reader into action. Even if one cannot reach all of Bonhoeffer's conclusions, and even if one does not share Bonhoeffer's theology, the inquiry is certainly worth undertaking.

If you want to follow Jesus, this will challenge you, September 24, 2004
For those who wonder if there is more to the Christian life than just living and occasionally asking for grace, while seeing minimal change in your life, this book expains why that is. This is by far the most beneficial book I have read apart from the Bible. Bonhoeffer's view of following Jesus is intense and inspiring (just read the intro about his life). If you want to follow Jesus, I would not miss out on this book.

Be warned -- Makes good on its title, September 7, 1997
You want to read about the cost of discipleship? Bonhoeffer gives it to you! Discipleship is a hard pill to swallow, and Bonhoeffer doesn't try to sugar coat it for you. He wants you to know exactly how bitter and choking it will be.
Still interested? This caution, then -- the more you read about the cost of discipleship, THE MORE YOU WILL WANT TO PAY. It's a mystery. Read at your own risk

This book changed my life and could do the same for you..., October 1, 2001
Dietrich Bonhoeffer's book "The Cost of Discipleship" is a tremendously inspiring, motivational, and insightful look into what Christian discipleship is all about. Bonhoeffer, who wrote the book in the midst of struggling to stand up against the evils of Nazi Germany in the 1940's, provides the reader with a transformational look into Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, and what it means to us as believers today.

If you are not inspired and given food for thought and prayer about your journey with God after reading this book, then check your pulse!

His message, like the message of the Gospels, when truthfully proclamied, is not easy to hear. He writes something to the effect of "When Christ calls a [person] he bids them to come and die...that they might gain new life." That is the radical message of Christian discipleship in a nutshell- Christ calls us to give our ALL for Him.

The first step of discipleship is putting Christ first, and following- no matter what the cost may be. For Bonhoeffer, his faith cost him his life. He was imprisoned in a Nazi concentration camp for his open opposition to the tyrrany of Nazism, where he died helping others at the age of 39.

If you have not done so already- READ THIS BOOK- it WILL change your life! Or should I say that through this book Bonhoeffer's witness to the transformational power of Christ will change your life.

The price to be paid..., October 22, 2004
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was one who knew of that which he spoke when dealing with the issue of cheap grace versus costly grace. Bonhoeffer's commitment to the principles of his vocation and being cost him his life - executed in the closing days of World War II, Bonhoeffer walked a dangerous path through exercising his vocation faithfully in the midst of the twin evils of warfare and Nazi domination of Germany.

Bonhoeffer's life, from the earliest days, probably seemed like it was set on an idyllic path - the son of a professional family with strong roots in a prosperous and civilised culture, Bonhoeffer would seem to have `had it made'. His early days in school showed him to be a minister and academic of great promise. However, his experiences at Union Seminary in New York City, an academic environment very different from the German academy, and at the Abyssian Baptist Church, an African-American congregation, vastly different from his Germanic Lutheran background, prepared a way for Bonhoeffer to expand beyond his upbringing and learning to become someone striving to find God in all people, and the will of God in all that he did.

The subject of this book is grace - too often, in Bonhoeffer's day and our own, people seem to look at grace as something free, instead of something freely offered. Bonhoeffer points out that the call of God and the gift of God's grace is not to be taken lightly - `the call to follow Jesus always leads to death'. This may seem an unusual call in our day; after all, the more prosperous of our churches would seem to espouse a conventionally respectable lifestyle (far from the `death' Bonhoeffer speaks about) as the reward for following God. However, Bonhoeffer uses the example of the disciples, each of whom faced martyrdom, as did many early Christian leaders, as a touchstone for the vocation.

Bonhoeffer also gives a great deal of attention in this text to the Sermon on the Mount, providing interpretations that still speak to congregations today, but also with warnings. Bonhoeffer admonishes those who would pick and choose the parts of scripture, or indeed the parts of the Sermon on the Mount, that fit what they want to hear, disregarding the rest. Bonhoeffer writes that we are not called to interpret, but to obey, giving ourselves up to God, as the disciples did, as martyrs did, and as Bonhoeffer himself would do in the fullness of his lifetime.

This edition of Bonhoeffer's great work is prefaced by his friend, Bishop G.K.A. Bell of Chichester, a friend and admirer of Bonhoeffer, who states that, `Dietrich himself was a martyr many times before he died'. There is also a memoir provided by G. Leibholz, which puts the text in historical context. However, the real substance of the book is in Bonhoeffer's own words. Cheap grace was the deadly enemy of the church then, and it remains a dangerous foe to this day.

One of the most important books of the 20th Century...or ever, August 13, 2005
I do not want to be guilty of over-hyping this book, but THE COST OF DISCIPLESHIP radically and positively affected my life when I was 18 years old and I have returned to its wisdom and insights many times since. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a martyr for his faith in WWII Germany. He lived out what he wrote and believed.

Bonhoeffer understood clearly that Christianity was not a mere creed, nor was it an offer of membership into an exclusive country club. The apostle Paul wrote of his need and challenge to "die daily," laying down his own will to do the will of God. Jesus said that whoever would believe in Him must "take up their crosses" and follow Him. He also said, "I only do those things which please the Father." This is the basic framework from which Bonhoeffer builds and shares truth with the reader.

This is not "light reading" and it is not for those interested in being "stroked." It's challenging, and at times, maybe a little bit angering. Bonhoeffer had never heard of "political correctness" and he was not interested in catering to the reader's "inner child." He simply lays it on the line for the reader to either accept or reject. But He backs up His challenges with solid biblical research and great passion...not to mention his own personal living example.

This book confronts the reader with the reality that we are not just called to believe "nice things" or even simply to look nice or act nice. It's a radical call to discipleship and to embrace the cost of the cross. Without wanting to sound cliched, I believe this book is a treasure of great wealth for the mind and the spirit...and will produce great things in the reader's life as they receive and embrace these truths.

Even if you do not consider yourself a Christian, you will find this book extremely stimulating and enlightening. It gives superb insights into the mindset of many committed believers today. ... Read more

Editorial Review

In the tradition of Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian and Sam Harris's recent bestseller, The End of Faith, Christopher Hitchens makes the ultimate case
against religion. With a close and erudite reading of the major religious texts, he documents the ways in which religion is a man-made wish, a cause of dangerous sexual repression, and a distortion of our origins in the cosmos. With eloquent clarity, Hitchens frames the argument for a more secular life based on science and reason, in which hell is replaced by the Hubble Telescope's awesome view of the universe, and Moses and the burning bush give way to the beauty and symmetry
of the double helix. ... Read more

Reviews

From someone who's actually read the book!, May 14, 2007
After looking through some of the other customer reviews found here, I was dismayed by the amount of "blog-style" entries: that is, people who may have only glanced at the title or saw Hitchens promoting the book on CNN or YouTube and decided to just speak up, either in support or condemnation. However, if you're curious about the book and just want to know what to expect, may I humbly offer some actual information?

Hitchens, a contributing editor to Vanity Fair, author of books too numerous to mention and contributor to smaller magazines such as Free Inquiry, adds to the recent renaissance of pro-atheist books with his own provocatively-titled contribution. Whereas Sam Harris (The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason) sees dire warnings and Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion offers a defense of science, Hitchens uses his long experience in journalism to illustrate the madness that results when faith is unchallenged by reason. Dawkins has been criticized for adopting a harsh tone (an assessment I disagree with), but Hitchens is the one who really pours on the anger and witty derision. Some sample chapter titles make it clear he's playing for keeps:

Chapter two: "Religion Kills"

Chapter Four: "The Metaphysical Claims of Religion Are False"

Chapter Seven: "Revelation: The Nightmare of the Old Testament"

Chapter Eight: "The 'New' Testament Exceeds the Evil of the 'Old' One"

Chapter Nine: "The Koran is Borrowed From Both Jewish and Christian Myths"

That should give you a pretty good idea of the tone, but the chapter titles prove to be no mere cheap provocations. Drawing on decades (if not centuries) of scholarship that exposes the cobbled-together recipes for the holy books of the three "great" monotheisms, he shows them to be products of a violent time when scientific information about the world was unavailable and most people were entirely illiterate. He then gives modern day examples of how these myths have been put to horrendous use (yes, 9/11 is mentioned). In one section, he revisits the sins of "Agnes Bojaxhiu, an ambitious Albanian nun who had become well-known under the nom de guerre of 'Mother Teresa'," which he covered at greater length in his previous controversial expose The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice, and reiterates how the "miracles" ascribed to her are so slap-dash and false they're almost comical.

While he devotes much of his outrage at "the big three" (my phrase), he also offers a chapter titled "There Is No 'Eastern' Solution," which would have to find disagreement with Sam Harris, who argues that many of the spiritual practices of Buddhism, shorn of their supernatural trappings, could be beneficial. Hitchens, ever the realist, wants us to know that history doesn't bear these claims out.

Hitchens often delivers his ideas like he's trying to splash his martini across your face at a party--at one point he muses "Why do people keeep saying, 'God is in the details'? He isn't in ours, unless his yokel creationist fans wish to take credit for his clumsiness, failure and incompetence"--and the result is often thrilling reading. His vitriol can be unnerving sometimes, like when he asks "Is Religion Child Abuse?", not to mention the full title of his tome. Never trust a book that splashes the word "everything" on its cover; it's usually a sign that the author is either desperate or foolishly grandiose. After reading the book, I don't think Hitchens is either, but in his worst moments he shows symptoms. In any event, I'm sure he doesn't intend this to be a work of (pardon the phrase) "evangelism"--he doensn't hope to influence even the mildly religious--but like that martini in the face (followed, perhaps, by an olive to the noggin), he wants to deliver a wake-up call. Some may see only a plea for attention, but he would quickly redirect you the the world outside.

And thus he spake..., August 5, 2007
My favorite part of the book is the last third. By that time Hitchens has made his arguments about how Religion Poisons Everything and is now rebutting the best intellectual arguments against his thesis. What would become of human decency, morality and ethics without religion? How do you address the inherent human need to believe in something and take comfort in a higher power? What are the god-less alternatives and aren't those institutions as bad or worse? Doesn't religion provide stability to society by pacifying individuals in times of darkness and uncertainty? It is hard to sum things up and provide sound bytes about something as complex as religion, but my take-away from this book is that any religion (by design) has the ingredients of becoming totalitarian, when successful; and totalitarianism of any kind leads to ultimate power corruption.

Hitchens makes his arguments and rebuts the best counter-arguments with passion and panache. If you are amongst the majority of people in the world - believers - his irreverent sense of humor may lead you to immediately brush him off as a partisan hack; while the unbelievers will get a kick out of each of the thousands of punchlines that Hitchens artfully mumbles. However, if you belong to the third category - an intellectual who chooses to look beyond a bi-polar view of the world when it comes to religion - I would urge patience with Hitchens' indulgence as a genius linguist (when you have it, it is hard not to flaunt it!) and you will find this book extremely rewarding and will not go un-satiated. If you are seriously debating the merits and demerits of religion as an institution in the society we live in, you have glanced at the perfect place, no matter what your affiliations.

If you are looking for education on the various major religions in the world, their origin, history, interconnection, impact, popularity, etc.; this is NOT the right book for you. The book presupposes basic knowledge about these topics, and on several occasions I felt that I lacked the prior knowledge to appreciate many nuances in Hitchens' arguments.

Hitchens is no economist, and he does not get into numbers and measurements. But Hitchens is a seasoned intellectual, and does utter the voice of reason grounded in the sound principles of philosophical debate. His knowledge and wisdom about religion are comparable (arguably) with "good" reverends and pastors. The book is written in commentary style, but does have a semi-structured flow to it.

Just like this book lashes out at totalitarianism in the form of religion, I wish someone writes a book lashing out at totalitarianism in its other most ugly form in the modern world - Nationalism.

a necessary reactionary voice (with some qualifications), July 9, 2007
I am not suprised that religious people are offended by this book as Hitchens' language can (at times) be aggressive and polarizing when describing the believers of a given faith. To call all believers of a religion thoughtless imbeciles or to call them just plain stupid seems to me out of hand. However, as I read some of the half-baked religious apolagetics being written in the one or two star reviews of his book, perhaps Hitchens was not out of hand at all. (As a side note, to the reviewer who wrote "Christopher Hitchens is NOT great", you are truely an ignorant moron who has only strengthened the resolve of 'unbelievers' with your blind, hypocritical and borderline racist remarks. The very fact that you accept all the criticisms Hitchens had to offer about Islam but you object to his critique of 'us' "civilized Christians" (as you put it) only reveals your blind prejudice.)

I think many (if not all) of Hitchens arguments have been presented in the past but as the spectre of religious fundamentalism rises in our modern society perhaps an "anti-theist" revival is in order as well. Though I have to say that Hitchens' random derision of 'multiculturalists' (like Karen Armstrong) because they are too soft on the behaviour of religious people or because they are too sensitive to the beliefs of a given people seems to be counter-productive at best. We live in a diverse society which relies on mutual respect for other peoples cultural beliefs. Reviving a kind of soft Jacobin anti-clericalism does not really seem feasible (or desirable)in this day and age.

Read and buy this book, especialy at the price they are selling it for, but if you are not really interested then read some Voltaire, Hume or Nietszche instead.

Reason prevails, July 8, 2007
Christopher Hitchens, in his hard-hitting and revealing new book, "god is not Great", has found the courage to say what so many of us have thought for a long time...religion is its own curse and has been a plague endured by millions for centuries. With science and reason as his guide, Hitchens debunks just about everything from god and the Bible to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Mother Teresa and more... and he does it with a breathtaking panache. It's the best book on this subject I've ever read.

No mere bystander when it comes to faith, Hitchens recounts his own associations with religion and how he moved to his current intense feelings about the topic. As a lapsed Christian who has moved towards atheism, I found myself concurring with just about everything he says. Not content to simply disagree with the faith-based crowd, Hitchens lambastes them. Good for him. The chapters in this book are all relevant to 2007 and some really stand out. One chapter entitled "A Note on Health", gets this book going full steam and another one toward the end, "Is Religion Child Abuse?", cuts to the quick. The Catholic Church, to Hitchens's credit, comes under scathing attack...I wish he had written even more about the abuses that this institution has caused.

Hitchens warns about secularism, too, (citing non-religious movements such as Fascism and Communism and the immense suffering they have inflicted). But it is religion itself that Hitchens finds almost intolerable. He closes by saying "religion has run out of justifications...it no longer offers an explanation of anything important". Bull's-eye! Religion should be in the business of putting itself out of business.

"god is not Great" is an important book in large part because it demonstrates convincingly that science has trumped religion and continues to, everytime. The depth which Hitchens tackles religion and its ramifications is matched by a compelling narrative style that has become the author's "signature". I highly recommend this book for its courage to tell the truth.

Intelligent discourse on religion with an appropriately embittered slant., July 9, 2007
I have never read a book that so matter-of-factly and flawlessly made its argument seem the only possible point-of-view. This book could possibly be the most important and relevant piece of literature written in the past decade. Christopoher Hitchens so effortlessly weaves a tale of religion's many downfalls that it sometimes seems as if his subject has done the research for him. In a world where people who look inward for strength are ridiculed, persecuted and often brutally abused, raped or murdered by those who look toward the sky for guidance and find solace in cartoon-logic, this book serves as a beacon of hope for those, like myself, who sometimes feel weakened beneath the burden of Mankind's history of savagery. I bought this book as soon as I heard it had been written and every page has been incredible. The writing style might be a bit too literate for some, which has already - in the case of certain neo-religious talking heads, Denis Prager for example - lead to bad reviews by means of excluding some for its readership, but the patient or already well-read (open-minded) audience will find it a delightful read.

I'll end with one of my favorite quotes from the book:

"The Bible may, indeed does, contain a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre, but we are not bound by any of it because it was put together by crude, uncultured human mammals."

Very readable, erudite dismissal of theistic pretensions, August 7, 2007
Part of the recent effusion of bestsellers providing an explanation of the underpinnings of the atheist / secularist worldview, Hitchens' book approaches the subject from a different angle; and it deserves space on your shelf. This book concentrates on dispelling the moral and utilitarian pretensions of theism rather than engaging in a detailed analysis of why their specific claims about the universe at large lack support. Hitchens' style, unlike that of Dawkins or Harris, for instance, emphasizes argument-by-anecdote. He tells stories about people and events which he links up to social movements, political events or philosophical principles. This makes his book eminently readable, especially for newcomers to the subject. Still, he can be quite galvanizing, to say the least; so I would hesitate to make this a book club selection for people I do not know well.

Hitchens' book provides what I think of as "cocktail party atheism" rather than the more rigorous argumentation presented by others, e.g., by Dawkins, Dennett or Ehrman in their books. As such, Hitchens' book, while entertaining and educational, does not lessen the value of reading the wider body of secularist literature.

Now what ?, August 6, 2007
Hitchens has brilliantly and logically articulated what the many (though relatively small) who share his view have long felt. Religion is so entrenched in our and the world's culture that there is little hope that anything can change despite the reasoned thinking of writers like Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris. What a shame.

God is not Great, August 6, 2007
Hitchens has produced a book which is both timely and scholarly. Scholarly that is in the sense that he has read widely and has had hands on experience with a number of cults and religions, and timely in that the world seems currently to be polarizing into fundamentalism as against atheism. His arguments are well reasoned and supported and will appeal to the faithful, but of course men convinced against their will are of the same opinions still. At times I found the text inclining to the discursive, although this is being somewhat ungenerous, and certaily worth a second reading.

Believers Are Missing Out, June 28, 2007
Believers are missing a lot by not reading Hitchens' book. You should not let that title, "God is not Great," spook you. Pretend that the title is something more appropriate. In my opinion, for instance, a better title might have been "Religion is a Many-Splendored Thing," because the book is really more about religion than about anybody's god.

I can sincerely recommend this work to the faithful--of whatever faith--but especially to Christians. As a Christian, though I was a studious one, I never realized how much about my faith, and about the Bible, my teachers and pastors were not telling me (and may very well not have known themselves). I later learned much of this omitted data on my own, and this is largely the information you will acquire by reading Hitchens' book. It is a bonanza of fascinating facts.

Contrary to what you may have heard, Hitchens does not try to persuade you that there is no supreme being. Rather, he explains things you've probably wondered about but didn't know where to go for the answers. For instance, he explains why God hates ham; he shows that the Muslims' "Koran" is largely just a ripoff of the Old and New Testaments; and he makes miracles more understandable for doubters.

If there is one book--besides the Bible, of course--that I would recommend to most Christians, I think this is it. And if you're not much of a reader, I hope you'll at least read Chapter 18, "A Finer Tradition."

Don't believe everything you've been told about Hitchens' book. Don't knock it 'til you've read it!

God is not Great, July 8, 2007
You need to read this book by Christopher Hitchens. "God is not Great" is a terrible name for this brilliant journalists book. If you are looking for a new enlightenment of truth not faith, then this book is for you. I am not atheists, agnositic yes. Hitchens makes a ultimate case against religion and a more secular approach to life. You will come away with more than when you arrived. Chet Zaremba, Fort Lauderdale, Fl. ... Read more

Editorial Review

An essential resource for anyone interested in our nation's religious heritage and the Founders' intended role for the American judicial system. Original Intent combines hundreds of quotes from primary sources with the author's exposition on hot topics such as revisionism, judicial activism, and separation of church and state. A substantial appendix encompasses full texts of the founding documents, biographical sketches of numerous Founders, and extensive reference notes. ... Read more

Reviews

Original Intent by David Barton, A must read, June 11, 2008
Original Intent By David Barton

This book has meticulous foot notes and references to it's sources. Barton uses the words of the founding fathers themselves to make his points. He uses actual court cases, and even puts the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in the back of the book for your reference. The author presents the material in a clear and precise manner, and the reader can easily look up, reference, and test his conclusions themselves (his footnotes and index make it that easy) ..... Better yet, Barton actually invites the reader to read the federalist and anti-federalist (the words of the founding fathers themselves) papers after reading this book . If Barton's conclusions are false as some have concluded he's definitely a horrible revisionist since he gives the reader all the ammunition in the world to check his sources and refute him.

This book has done more for my understanding our founding fathers than the many secular based history texts I've pawned through. The author is thorough, complete, and as I said earlier he gives the reader all the power by giving him/her the power to reference the original documents. The truth is many of our founding fathers were Christians, did read the bible, and most wouldn't approve of the course of action taken against religious expression in our country today. This is a worthy read for the Christian and secular skeptic alike. Truly, this is a must read!!!!

Postscript: There have been many attacks on this book and those who give favorable reviews to it (as of this date the reviews are 44 five star reviews and 30 some one star reviews). Instead of believing what any man says I urge the reader to do what I'm doing.... Look up the material yourself... Read the book, check it's sources, and make your own conclusion... Don't let the many individuals who leave nasty comments under these reviews steal from you your right to make your own conclusion....

A good summary of the founding fathers' views, May 5, 2008
I guess it is not surprising to find so many one-star reviews about a book that dispels so many myths about the original intent of the founding fathers' who wrote the Constitution. Of course there can be some fault found with some of the citations used by Barton in this wonderful book, but those who find fault with the citations cannot really overcome the overwhelming evidence in this book that the current courts have far overstepped anything that the founders intended in not recognizing and establishing a single church vs. their views that religion is a fundamental foundation for the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution.
If you read this book, you should also read the Federalist Papers, the words and works of the founders, including Washington's first inaugural address to understand that the current courts have radically departed from the intentions of the founders when it came to the role of religion, vs. established churches in the USA. For many generations, the original intent of the founders was well understood, but it was only until the 20th century that judges decided to re-write the Constitution and take on the role of "a national theology board" that makes earlier debates about how many angels fit on the head of a pin look enlightened.
A must-read for anyone wondering where our nation has gone wrong.

Based on fact, whether you like it or not, June 1, 2008
After seeing Rick Green present at our church in Cedar Park, TX, I had to get this book. I am very glad I did. David Barton did a fantastic job of including references for everything. I don't believe there is anyone who can claim that the statements or conclusions made in this book are false or opinion. Only those who don't read the book can be told that it contains false claims and believe that.

Read the negative comments posted here. The people posting them have clearly either (a) not read the book, or (b) are so left-wing that they will say anything to try to keep you from purchasing and reading this book. Don't listen to their opinions, read the facts presented in this book for yourself.

Will the real revisionist please stand up?, December 26, 2007
This book has 55 pages of footnotes that reference original documents referred to in this book. The book only has 533 pages which means over ten percent of it is footnotes.

The people who accuse this book of revisionist history have clearly never checked out any of the original documents. And do not supply more than one or two footnotes.
I haven't checked them all out myself but I have checked out many, and I trust the man who refers to the original material more than I trust people who think name calling is a valid argument. This book is for real, the negative reviewers are just blowing bias a smokescreen in your faces.

An excellent resource!, March 17, 2007
Barton shows how the Supreme Court reinterpreted the US Constitution, diluting the Biblical foundations upon which it was based. He includes quotes from the Founding Fathers showing their beliefs on the role of religion in the public square, the limited role of the courts, and the intended limits on federal powers. An excellent and well documented reference! This should be part of the curriculum for every college and high school history course!

I have read and research everything Barton has written. He is incredibly accurate., June 25, 2008
The first clue that Mr. Barton is telling the truth is the torrent of scathing reviews from the Secularists. I have personally reviewed the facts presented in Barton's books, and have found them to be not just factually accurate, but intellectually honest.

The first thing to remember about secular historicism, is that the facts don't matter, just the political agenda.

We Americans write our own history. And the chapters of which we're proudest are the ones where we had the courage to change. - Al Gore, Speech at the Democratic National Convention (28 August 1996)

This is some great stuff, January 15, 2008
David Barton has assembled a very impressive amount of original source material here. He makes a very compelling case that the Founding Fathers were largely orthodox Christians (not deists, as revisionist historians are so fond of claiming) and that the current Supreme Court dogma on the role of religion in government is a far cry from what the Founding Fathers actually intended.

With regards to the negative reviews, I rather suspect that their issue was more that they didn't like Barton's conclusions than that his original source material is bad. They know they can't back up their nonsense about the Founding Fathers being deists and atheists. David Barton has really shown that the emperor has no clothes. He also shows that the revisionists tend to cite very little primary source material themselves, and when they do they frequently take quotes out of context.

In an age of falsehoods, I'm glad that someone has the courage to stand up to the revisionists and tell the truth about the Founding Fathers. Barton has done some very good work here, and quotes primary source material extensively. Although not everyone will agree with every word (those who went to public school may find it particularly troubling, since the public schools generally teach history in a highly inaccurate way), this book is thought-provoking, well-researched, and well-written. I recommend it without reservation.

A Great Source of the Founding Fathers, January 11, 2008
This is an excellent work, just for the biographical information it contains. There may be some minor errors and heterodox opinions in the book, but it's claim that the Christian Framers framed a Nation of Christian States has sufficient evidence.

Other reviewers attack Barton's work on secondary issues, with a fine tooth comb I might add, that some would think absurd, but the evidence is clear, religion was left to the states, with the states choosing Christianity as their religion. How far have we fallen:

In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government.
Thomas Jefferson
Second Inaugural Address, 1805

Based on this quote, let's see what religion the people of the states established.

Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), (until 1876) stated: There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other. Article XXXII That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.

Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), (until 1851) stated: Article XXXV That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion." That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested... on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality... yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion. [pp.420-421]

Constitution of the State of New Hampshire (1784,1792),(in force until 1877) required senators and representatives to be of the: Protestant religion. The Constitution stipulated: Article I, Section VI. And every denomination of Christians demeaning themselves quietly, and as good citizens of the state, shall be equally under the protection of the laws. And no subordination of any one sect of denomination to another, shall ever be established by law. [p.469]

The Constitution of the State of Delaware (until 1792) stated: Article XXII Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust... shall... make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:"I, ___, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forevermore; I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration." [p.203]

Besides Georgia, the other states believed the same. That these constitutions are inherently Christian can easily be deduced from its words:

Virginia
Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1786)
Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free...the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind...his Almighty power to do...That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever...

This makes sense because Jefferson believed he was a Christian.

Jefferson uses encompasses all religions but the right comes from the Lord. Madison uses the same words "Holy author of our religion" in 1812, showing our religion was a form of Christianity, not every religion. This also proves Madison's recommendation for the First Amendment(National Religion) is referring only to a form of Christianity.

Penn Const. of 1790
Sec. 3. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty god according to the dictates of their own consciences; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, against his consent;

The key word being "ministry" this word at that time only referring to Christianity, as Webster's 1828 shows:

MIN''ISTRY, n. [L. ministerium.] The office, duties or functions of a subordinate agent of any kind.
1. Agency; service; aid; interposition; instrumentality.
He directs the affairs of this world by the ordinary ministry of second causes.


2. Ecclesiastical function; agency or service of a minister of the gospel or clergyman in the modern church, or of priests, apostles and evangelists in the ancient. Acts 1. Rom.12. 2 Tim.4. Num.4.

3. Time of ministration; duration of the office of a minister, civil or ecclesiastical.

A light, October 6, 2007
This book brings to light what many wish to suppress. The name calling and ridicule of other reviews only shows that this book has truth. When people feel they have to slander instead of argue or let people discover the truth for themselves, you know a book must have something to offer. It doesn't take much time to see the faith of the founders. If those who dislike this book would read the second Federalist, any of John Wither-spoon's writings, George Washington's farewell address and on and on. When people disregard what is argued in this book, they show that they are not students of the Founders writings. Every Prof of American history I have had acknowledges their faith.

Captivating, enlightening, & completely true. Read for yourself., December 12, 2007
I am not a voracious reader, but I devoured this book. I found it to be almost hypnotic while at the same time enraging. As a casual observer of politics from right of center, I have long been aware of the abuses of the judiciary toward our religious freedoms, but I had no idea how far we had fallen. David Barton has not only opened my eyes to the true "Original Intent" of the founders of this great nation, he has equipped me with the truth so that I can beat down the lies that continually and relentlessly emerge from the left. (Just read a few of the 1-star reviews of this book for some examples.) This book should be the required textbook of every history class in the nation. Read it and judge for yourself. ... Read more

Editorial Review

American Grace is a major achievement, a groundbreaking examination of religion in America.

Unique among nations, America is deeply religious, religiously diverse, and remarkably tolerant. But in recent decades the nation’s religious landscape has been reshaped.

America has experienced three seismic shocks, say Robert Putnam and David Campbell. In the 1960s, religious observance plummeted. Then in the 1970s and 1980s, a conservative reaction produced the rise of evangelicalism and the Religious Right. Since the 1990s, however, young people, turned off by that linkage between faith and conservative politics, have abandoned organized religion. The result has been a growing polarization—the ranks of religious conservatives and secular liberals have swelled, leaving a dwindling group of religious moderates in between. At the same time, personal interfaith ties are strengthening. Interfaith marriage has increased while religious identities have become more fluid. Putnam and Campbell show how this denser web of personal ties brings surprising interfaith tolerance, notwithstanding the so-called culture wars.

American Grace is based on two of the most comprehensive surveys ever conducted on religion and public life in America. It includes a dozen in-depth profiles of diverse congregations across the country, which illuminate how the trends described by Putnam and Campbell affect the lives of real Americans.

Nearly every chapter of American Grace contains a surprise about American religious life. Among them:

• Between one-third and one-half of all American marriages are interfaith;

• Roughly one-third of Americans have switched religions at some point in their lives;

• Young people are more opposed to abortion than their parents but more accepting of gay marriage;

• Even fervently religious Americans believe that people of other faiths can go to heaven;

• Religious Americans are better neighbors than secular Americans: more generous with their time and treasure even for secular causes—but the explanation has less to do with faith than with their communities of faith;

• Jews are the most broadly popular religious group in America today.

American Grace promises to be the most important book in decades about American religious life and an essential book for understanding our nation today. ... Read more

Reviews

An Extraordinary and Unique Achievement - Read It !!!!!, October 18, 2010


I for one was blown away by the contents of this book. Once I started reading, I found it difficult to put down and fascinating. I am now convinced that we are all walking around with presuppositions about religion and religious beliefs in America that are just plain wrong. Think about it. You're a smart, educated, well-read adult. You try to keep an open mind throughout your life, and then along comes this 550 page book and smacks you, and your belief systems right in the face. Everything I thought about our country's religious status is now subject to re-interpretation. Here's why:


The authors did very substantial research, over a period of years. It was painstaking, and brutally honest. They approach this project the way you would do a massive pharmaceutical drug research study. They did not inflict their own belief systems on what they found. There has been no study like this, anywhere approaching this effort in more than 50 years. At the same time, they made the book highly readable which for a research study is more than surprising.


If I had to compare this study to anything comparable, it would be the Master's and Johnson study on sexual practices in America published many decades ago. That study revolutionized our thinking about sexual mores in this country, and this study will do the same thing for religion. You do not have to follow this book in sequence. Go into the table of contents, find a chapter that interests you and you will be able to go into whatever depth you like. Read a few pages or read the whole chapter, just be prepared to realize that what we think is not necessarily what the rest of us are thinking, and believing.


Here are a few concepts straight out of the book that should pique your interest in reading more.


* One third to one half of all marriages in America are interfaith marriages. Wow, this is surprising. It is difficult to stay married to someone if you do not respect that person. These marriages are producing a powerful respect for other religions, and that's probably good for all of us.


* One third of all Americans have switched religions in their lifetime. I would never have dreamed the number was so large.


* The young are more opposed to abortion than their parents, and more accepting of gay marriage. I would not have believed the abortion statistic, but research is research.


* Fervently religious Americans believe that people of another faith can go to heaven. This is another mind blowing statistic because it implies that people are starting to treat other people's religions with the same respect they accord their own.


* I was completely taken aback with the following. I knew that in 1960 a number of Protestants (30%) said they could not bring themselves to vote for a Catholic (John Kennedy) for President. I was alive then, I remember. Did you know that in 2004 John Kerry, a Catholic took only half the Catholic vote in this country? The other half went for George Bush, an evangelical Protestant.


* Jewish people are the most broadly popular religious group in America. Statistics are clear on this, regardless of what the news media would have you believe. What's interesting also is that Mormons tend to like, and are most comfortable with other people's religions, and yet are the least liked religion themselves. This would imply that Mormons are the most accepting, and yet least accepted of the religions in America.



In summary I believe that you should be prepared to be amazed at your new understanding of who and what America believes in. It turns out we are the most religious country in the industrial world. Over 83% of us belong to a religion. More than 40% of us go to church almost every week, while 59% pray weekly, and one third of us read the scriptures every week, and 80% of Americans say that they absolutely believe there is a God. By way of comparison, 54% of the people in England never pray, that is true for only 18% of Americans. More than anything else, I was taken aback by the following. Almost 40% of Americans belong to a church or church group versus 9% for Italians, and 4% for the French. If you watch CNN when the Vatican elects a Pope, you see a million people in Vatican Square, you would think that 100% of Italians belong to the church.


Read this book and be prepared to be amazed at what you will learn. The authors did a superb job at wringing out their personal biases, and portraying religion in America in an honest, respectful fashion, and they deserve to be read for what they have accomplished in this highly readable book. Good luck, and thank you for reading this review.


Richard C. Stoyeck

Extremely good social science, October 23, 2010
With 550 page of text and another 123 pages of appendices, notes, and index this is an extensive assessment of the role of religion in American society. The information is strictly factual, measured from two major surveys led by the authors. In addition they draw on many standard sources, Gallup, the General Social Survey, the Pew Religious Landscape Survey, and others. The authors present the data,- the cross classifications, the correlations, the trend lines - in half page, black and white graphs. Emphasis is on four major religious traditions, Catholics, main line Protestants, evangelical Protestants, and the not religious, i.e. those answering "none" when asked their denomination. The authors make it clear that most of the "nones" do in fact believe in God; only a tiny number of Americans label themselves as atheists or agnostics. These four groups account for 90 percent of Americans. The Authors can classify individuals by the extent of their "religiosity" on the basis of how often they attend church and other variables.

The authors examine the role of religion by ethnicity, gender, denomination, and race. They ask how the womens revolution has impacted religion. They examine religion and social class. Most of all they devote a chapter to "Religion in American Politics" to bring out how the current period seems to have divided Republicans from Democrats. Yet over the long run, that is since the fifties, religious adherence has varied greatly.

The authors also examine religion and civic virtues. Interestingly they find, - and of course document, - that religious Americans are more generous, more civically active, more trusting and trustworthy, in short, better neighbors. On the other hand, religious Americans are less tolerant of others' views and have difficulty accepting dissent.

This is a very good book. The authors are the first to point out where they think their assessment is fully supported, and also warn the reader where the data are inadequate, and therefore the conclusions tentative. This is must reading to understand the complexity of religion in America.

comprehensive and thought provoking, October 12, 2010
This book is a treasure trove of observations about multi-denominational attitudes and behaviors and its intersection with political and social issues. But what I found most surprising and hopeful were the findings of integration across religious belief systems (e.g., the high rate of inter-faith marriages, friendships and shifts from one's parents' faith to another or no affiliation at all, etc.). As the subtitle suggests, faith does not only divide us, but in unexpected ways also unites us. A much needed message in today's volatile climate. The authors attribute this to a high level of religious tolerance. Unfortunately, they stopped short of distinguishing between religious tolerance and religious acceptance (tolerance involves "putting up with" people you disapprove of; acceptance involves refusing to pass judgment on people who are different from you). This would have been an important distinction as tolerance, with its condescending tone, is far less hopeful than acceptance. You can and must legislate tolerance while acceptance must come from the heart. And I believe that much of what they discovered was indeed religious acceptance. You'd have to go elsewhere for more on this distinction, such as another new book - Tolerant Oppression: Why promoting tolerance undermines our quest for equality and what we should do instead Keeping that in mind, the authors' application of religious distinctions and affiliations to a range of political issues including premarital sex, homosexuality, abortion, etc. spawned interesting observations. An important book.

An eye-opener, November 15, 2010
What we think about religion (ours and others) and what we actually know about religion are two very separate entities and that is a major presentation that appears in this new book, "American Grace". It's a timely book in many ways, but an educational one at all levels on this subject.

If there is one word I could describe about this book it would be "surprise". Each chapter contains more than one surprise... in large part about our pre-conceived notions of religion and its hold on American society. While it seems evident that younger people are much more tolerant than their parents are with regard to homosexuality, for instance, they are actually more conservative on the issue of abortion. And with all the reports of anti-Semitic activity over the years, who would have thought that Jews are the best liked religious group in the country?

These revelations abound in "American Grace" and while the authors could have merely offered up a dry, chart-driven look at religion (yes, there are many very intriguing charts!) they intersperse it with "vignettes" of Americans going through their daily and weekly religious activities. Yet, the best part of this book is showing us all up, in a sense...that we tend to know so little of other religions that when something is presented, the reader tends to drop his or her jaw in disbelief. "Really?!", could be a perfect response to many of their discoveries.

Unlocking what is behind religion is no easy task but authors Robert Putnam and David Campbell have done an extraordinary job of peeling away the layers of our own lack of knowledge and filling it with substantial insight. I highly recommend this terrific book.

Great blend of qual/quant, December 11, 2010
Putnam and Campbell offer a comprehensive if sometimes disjointed portrait of religion in America. The case studies and vignettes are fascinating, especially the Jewish and Mormon portions, and the statistical analysis is very accessible. It is a fun read and a good primer for someone interested in religion and politics. My only complaint is that the chapters don't always flow one from another. Still, this is a very well-researched and well written book.

Excellent analysis of American religious trends, December 9, 2010
This is a lengthy book but very well written and manages to keep one's interest. The different analyses of religious faiths in America were quite interesting. Some were quite unexpected, others predictable if one belongs to a religious comunity. I appreciated that opinions were backed up by the data from surverys, rather than made up whole-cloth. Survery data have their own weaknesses but data-based is a good start.
The book would be of interest to those in Administrative positions in the church, as well as to lay leaders who are curious.

Not much new, December 20, 2010
Like so much social science, it presents a boatload of statistics, but the analysis is shallow. Sometimes this is ok: Putnam's Bowling Alone was like this, but most of his research there was new, addressing then-neglected topics. In this case, the subject is well-worn. Consequentliy, most of the supposed "surprises" presented here are well-known to anyone even half-educated on the topic. More notably, most of the more significant information presented here is very widely available elsewhere -- including a lot for free on the internet, from such organizations as the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, as well as in previously published books and articles on religion and politics in America (often with more depth of analysis). It's just hard to see what this book adds, except for those who want the convenience of a whole lot of stats pulled together in one place in hardcopy form.

What's really needed is not so much more number crunching as more sensitive and philosophically/theologically/culturally rich analysis of matters of religion and politics in the U.S.

Statistics on top of statistics on top of statistics on top of.........., December 17, 2010
This book reads like a doctoral thesis. Basically it is 550 pages of research studies with little evaluation of the statistics. If you want to know the percentage of any given group on any given religious subject and how those percentages have changed and charts and graphs to show those percentages this is the book for you. If you love wading though numbers with little analysis of those numbers this is the book for you. If you want to impress people with the number of Mainline Protestants vs. White Catholics vs. Latino Catholics vs. White Evangelicals vs. Black Evangelicals vs. Mormons vs. Jews vs. Other vs. None broken down to those that attend always vs. sometimes vs. never on absolutely every religious subject this is the book for you.

If averages and numbers numb your brain after 100 pages or so avoid this book because that's all it is.

fabulous, December 18, 2010
An incredible book fot the student or pastor. Will make you stop and carefully think about the full import of your words and actions. ... Read more

Editorial Review

John and Stasi Eldredge revise and update this runaway bestseller.

What Wild at Heart did for men, Captivating is doing for women. Setting their hearts free. This groundbreaking book shows readers the glorious design of women before the fall, describes how the feminine heart can be restored, and casts a vision for the power, freedom, and beauty of a woman released to be all she was meant to be.

Reviews

Believe it or not, 'Captivating' is a blessing., October 9, 2005
I just spent the last 10 minutes reading or skimming through the 60-some reviews on here. Interesting to note that most people either love or hate the book. Personally I love it. When I read I find myself tearing up over various issues that fully resonate with my heart. I also promise you that I am not your typical 'gushy', chick-flick watching female. To be honest, i'm much more tomboyish and struggle to be feminine instead of 'tough'. But I believe God plants in woman many universal core desires and that is what 'Captivating' addresses. I give this book 4 stars and am going to explain why by addressing issues OTHER people had with the book's content.
A warning, this could be long. I love to write. I beg your indulgence.

First off..the title of the book, 'Captivating'. I saw one review that claimed this title is negative and implies men being captives of women. How misunderstood! In my evening Bible-reading, I came across this verse in Proverbs(5:18.19) 'May you rejoice in the wife of your youth...may you ever be CAPTIVATED by her love.' So yes, for the record, being captivating is very Biblical.

Secondly, comments about the 'over-use' of movie references and pop-culture. I've noted that much of our Christian culture has always been AFRAID of popular entertainment. I agree that there is a great necessity for discernment, but at the same time, we must address society WHERE IT IS. This book does not seek to REPLACE the Bible, but to encourage us to see God in everyday things. How many of us never go to the movies or listen to the radio or read classic literature? very few indeed. Is it really so terrible to draw truth from fiction? Fiction is not synonmous with lies, yet some still chose to believe this. God is the author of our creativity..our desire to spin tales for entertainment. We shouldn't shun that.

In order to avoid writing a book instead of a book review, I'm just going to address one final concern..one that holds more reason for concern. Eldredge's books do tend to lack 'meat'. Not to say they are faulty -- the books NEVER make claim to replace the Bible or other quality non-fiction. All i'm saying is that it's true that while a huge portion of his books will be easy to relate to, sometimes one walks away being unsure of answers. And this is my main concern and the reason for 4 stars instead of 5. However, if this book is studied WITH the Bible, I believe that it will be a blessing and a source of healing instead of emotional 'fluff'.

This book will likely resonate with certain personality types more than others. In my experience, it touches more of the expressive/creative types than those who are blatantly practical. That's ok. There is no one cure-all book, and 'Captivating' is NOT for everyone. However it does speak great truth about hurt and healing to those who will listen. And I encourage women and their husbands,boyfriends, brothers in Christ to read this book without prejudice and to see what God teaches.

God bless.

Message from a skeptic...., December 1, 2005
I decided to read this book because I'd been told by multiple people that I respected as Godly women to read this. And I was given the warning- you might hate it at first, but get through the first few chapters and see what you think. I was skeptical, and reading the first few chapters I wanted to chuck the book across the room. I'm far from a Bibical scholar, but I value Scripture a lot and I think we're called to be skeptical of people's interpreations.
I do not think that John and Staci Eldredge have everything right. But I think "Captivating" speaks to our need for God to meet us deeply, personally and intimately. I hear many people saying- I don't relate because I don't need someone to rescue me. Well then, why do you need Jesus? I think I believe a lie that "God loves sinners- His grace is sufficent for sinners- sinners need Jesus to save them...but now, I'm a Christian (a saved sinner) and yeah, I still need grace and He loves me, but I'm no longer in need of rescue." God wants more for us then this- read Romans 5- read 5:8 (while we were still sinners Christ died for us- AMAZING)...now keep reading- it doesn't end with salvation...Paul says "HOW MUCH MORE" multiple times in the next few verses talking about what God has FOR us after our conversion. It never stops being about God rescuing us, or our need.
What I love about this book is that it does beat the idea that God loves us. And you know what- I don't think we ever really learn this lesson and need to stop hearing it. This is not a Barney "God loves me" now let's all run and give eachother hugs- it is learning that God's love is totally life transforming. HE changes us- and not because we are this problem He has to deal with (which I think is how many people see sanctification)- but because He loves us more than we can imagine! "Captivating" forces us to our continual need...that's not a comfortable place...I think that is part of why I wanted to chuck the book across the room. I don't want to need anyone- I am a strong woman, right? Oh, wait, I am broken...we all are!! This book is not for low-self-esteem women- it is for any women who is willing to consider that she is broken (and maybe more than she wants to admit).
I think the Eldredges are bold, and sometimes with being bold, you miss sometimes, but I think the message behind this book- that we are ALL broken and in need of rescue, and that God loves us in our brokeness and that He cares about our redeemtion beyond our salvation because we are of immense value to Him- is a message worth being bold about. I think they lack in some theological arguments, but I think their core message is Bibical- very Bibical- but I'm not sure we always want to hear it.
I advocate reading this book. Read it as a skeptic, but be willing to actually consider their argument. Don't accept everything you read in ANY book...only the Bible is God's Word. Test things. Test their arguments against Scripture- see the flaws. But don't let your skeptism harden you to also hearing a message that might bring you some amazing freedom.
Sorry this is long- these are my thoughts.

Balm for a woman's soul, May 2, 2005
"As a new Christian, the first book I picked up on godly femininity I threw across the room. I never picked it up again. In the twenty-five years since, I have only read a few I could whole-heartedly recommend. The rest drive me crazy. Their messages to women make me feel as though, 'You are not the woman you ought to be --- but if you do the following ten things, you can make the grade.' They are, by and large, soul-killing. But femininity cannot be prescribed in a formula."

So begins (or very nearly begins) CAPTIVATING, written by John and Stasi Eldredge. The "I" in question is Stasi, but it's her husband John you are more likely to be familiar with. He's the author of THE SACRED ROMANCE, WILD AT HEART, and a number of other books that promote an adventurous and cathartic brand of Christianity. Whereas WILD AT HEART tailored that message for men, CAPTIVATING looks to tailor the message for women and is likely to have similar bestselling results.

But even though femininity cannot be prescribed in a formula as the introduction says, CAPTIVATING's premise is that there is an essence that God has given to every woman. "We share something deep and true, down in our hearts," Stasi writes. And it's this universal feminine heart that CAPTIVATING hopes to expose, heal, develop, and celebrate.

That this feminine heart needs healing is not hard for the authors to evidence. "Every woman I've ever met feels it --- something deeper than just the sense of failing at what she does. An underlying, gut feeling of failing at who she is. I am not enough and I am too much at the same time. Not pretty enough, not thin enough, not kind enough, not gracious enough, not disciplined enough. But too emotional, too needy, too sensitive, too strong, too opinionated, too messy. The result is Shame, the universal companion of women. It haunts us, nipping at our heels, feeing on our deepest fear that we will end up abandoned and alone," writes Stasi.

If that statement doesn't hold water with you, don't even bother picking up this book because it's an observation (and a foundational one for this book) that's only anecdotally supported. If you don't already believe it, this book isn't going to convince you it's true. But if this being both not enough and too much at the same time strikes a chord with you, as it does for me, you'll want to read on.

When you do so, you will learn that every woman's heart longs for three things: to be romanced, an irreplaceable role in a great adventure, and beauty to unveil. It's worth noting that in WILD AT HEART John Eldredge writes that every man's heart longs for three things as well: a battle to fight, adventure, and a beauty to rescue. Isn't that nice of God to pre-load both male and female hearts with desires that fit nicely in parallel three-point outlines?

Snark aside, CAPTIVATING contains some truly moving stories of women, their anguish, and their beautiful blossomings into whole-heartedness. I especially appreciated a section about emotional promiscuity among young single men and women. And as in the books that John authored alone (or with best friend Brent Curtis), CAPTIVATING's imagery is steeped in nature, also something that I personally appreciate. I feel the closest to God under a West Texas night sky where the stars glitter like so many princess-cut diamonds (though admittedly, the site of Chicago's skyline under a full moon as viewed from Lake Shore Drive has been known to do a number on me too).

The breathlessly romantic tone of CAPTIVATING will alienate some. But of greater concern to me is that, while Scripture is sprinkled around liberally, the real source material here for making sweeping statements about the needs of women is literature, movies, music, and nostalgia. And while all of these are beautiful landscapes to explore and traverse, given that they often offer potent glimpses of Truth, they aren't necessarily meant to be our spiritual base camps.

Having said that, CAPTIVATING surely will be a balm for the souls of many women. And if you and/or the man in your life is a fan of John Eldredge's previous books, don't miss it.

--- Reviewed by Lisa Ann Cockrel

Keep Away from Offense, and THINK about it, April 28, 2008
First of all, I'd like to begin by saying that this book touched areas in my heart I had either assumed unimportant or been ashamed of. I approached it with an open mind and an already solid relationship with God, and what I got out of it was absolutely invaluable and life to my soul. For the benefit of those reading these reviews who are trying to decide whether or not to read this book, let me address the main concerns I've seen expressed from my own perspective. I don't fit the stereotype of 'the type of woman who would like this book' given by its detractors, and it spoke deeply to me nonetheless.

-- "Geez, I didn't even feel wounded enough to read this book. The women given as examples had all gone through horrific sexual or verbal abuse, so they need this kind of building up, and me, not so much."

Nor was I wounded enough to read this book. You don't need to be a dysfunctional human being to be confused about the fullness of a woman's role, or to not have had your 'question' (and yes, as a very atypical woman, I believe that the questions the Eldredges have hit upon for both genders are spot on!) answered in a more subtle way. As a girl and a teenager, I was a very intellectual, achievement-driven young woman who tiraded against placing relationships before accomplishments and any form of softness whatsoever. All my friends were male. Other young women tried to befriend me and within twenty minutes were sent packing by my scathing, uncompromising view of everything. As I grew into my early twenties and returned home for a year or two to work in between college and law school, my dad came up to me one day after reading John Eldredge's small booklet about fathering (naming the 'questions' both boys and girls have) and said, "I have to apologize. I raised you well, in many senses, but I raised you as a boy." I blazed through the booklet and found the answer to all my mysterious teenaged behavior. By this point, by God's grace, I was being transformed into the woman He had created me to be and had finally formed a number of close female friendships. "Captivating" was more the resonance with what God was shaping my soul into, making me yell "Yes!" and "Exactly!" to a lot of what it was saying, than it was anything new. And I wasn't tremendously wounded. I was a young woman already walking with God, highly respected, filled with integrity and a growing sense of kindness and compassion. But there was something missing, created by the misstep of a well-meaning, involved, and loving, but slightly misguided father. I challenge ANY woman who believes (and who doesn't come with a metric ton of religious baggage and a hyper-sensitive offense meter) to come away from this book without a truth ringing in her heart.

--"Any woman who doesn't fit this twirly, dopey idea of a woman that Stasi has won't get anything out of this book. I have ____ credentials, was always a tomboy, actually have ambition, blah blah blah self-defense and closemindedness."

Listen, sisters. At age twelve, I could outrun every boy in the seventh grade. I didn't have a female friend until my last year in college. I actually lectured everyone I met about the weakness and frippery that things like makeup, perfume, and shaving your legs engendered (or indicated). I got my high school diploma a year early and my bachelor's degree two years early (at age 20). I was hard. I was determined. Anyone who didn't meet my standards was met with no small measure of contempt. Even after the thaw in my heart came, even after I took a year off of school and discovered much of who I truly was becoming, I took that knowledge and a newfound compassion and used it to reevaluate my path and strike boldly off in a new direction. I'm not waiting to be rescued, and I don't believe that Stasi believes women should wait passively for their prince to come. By digging deep to the core of every woman's soul, she tells us, "Yes, you are lovely. Yes, you are worth fighting for." What to do with that assurance is up to us. It's so key, so central, that it helps us with everything, single or married, working or not, educated or not, 'girly' or not. With that question answered, we can more easily discover our true purpose and more functionally (and joyfully!) go about fulfilling it. Because yes, it's worth it simply because we are. It's so much more worth it.

--"This book is so self-centered, so very unChristian. The author focuses on pampering oneself and ignores Christian duty."

What is duty without joy? And where is joy without self-esteem, or, a much better alternative, God-esteem? Before you can effectively turn to others and affect their lives, you must get the fundamentals right in yourself. And, may I ask further, where's the sin in acknowledging that God didn't make a robot, but an absolutely beautiful living, breathing human being? It's not self-centered to give yourself some attention, but normal and healthy. My greatest joy exists in spreading love among others, being of service, and helping others see who God is and who they are called to be. But without appreciating myself as well, it's all lost in a joyless, tight-lipped mire of "Christian duty," whatever that is. What Stasi is giving women here is a *tool*, not an end in itself. By coming to a fuller knowledge of who you are, you become more able to enable others.

You know what? This book may be a little bit unChristian. But it's very much like the God I know, and I delight in it (and Him).

--"Many fewer Biblical examples than examples taken from secular movies and music, and gosh dang, I'm offended and/or concerned about the validity of the conclusions drawn."

First of all, do you believe God speaks in more ways than one? Secondly, if you read the Gospels and try to get the *spirit* (NOT the law, always the law) of what Jesus was about, He was about speaking and teaching in diverse ways, unusual ways, many ways that offended the established and "Godly" people of the time, the Pharisees. In fact, those Pharisees were livid purple most of the time. Jesus just didn't act the way they expected a good Jewish Messiah to act. Read the story of the water into wine carefully. Yes, Jesus went to a party that was well under way, saw that the guests were already five sheets to the wind, and created barrels MORE wine for them! He kept a wild party going. I'm definitely not condoning drunkenness or saying he did, but am with this trying to say "Lighten up!" Christians are the Pharisees of today. They have expectations, they have a very small, plain box, and they have doctrines and dogmas used as a stick to try to beat the Christ and the living God into their boxed model of propriety. Movies and music Do Not Fit this Box. However, if we consider ourselves as reflections of God and consider that our hearts are indeed the 'wellspring of life,' and then consider that movies primarily deal with affairs, both good and true and twisted and wicked, of the human heart, I believe we can see quite a few reflections of God in them. All the examples used in the book rang true. May I ask, what are you afraid of?

--"Stasi's writing is mediocre. She belabors some points, and her word choice is goofy here and there."

Yes, sometimes. So what? Are you a high-school English teacher or someone looking to glean truth from the very real revelation of a godly woman? Also, better to say it too much than to not say it enough.

--"The sensual language and the comparisons of Jack and Rose from "Titanic" to Jesus and myself just grossed me right out, and heaped on even more offense."

Oh, come on. It's not meant to be literal. It's meant to emphasize that God considers us precious in the most incredible way a woman knows how to be precious. Also, I think the lavish language of love was used so often to get us acquainted with the overwhelming, abundant nature of God's love, rather than using all the approved monastic equivalents. This book was written to instill hope. It does an incredible job.


In short: potential readers, I encourage you to read this book. Men and women. If you do two things, I guarantee you'll walk away from it richer than when you went in.

1) Let go your ease of offense, your nitpickiness, and your dogma. This is a book of heart, real heart, rather than of technicality. You will probably find some discrepancies with what you had drilled into you in Sunday school. Let it GO, and listen to God speak through this woman in a package you weren't taught to approve.

2) Let down your defense mechanisms. I fully realize that if I had read this even a year ago, my iron-clad defenses and presumptions about who I was would have shot up and cut off the life I got from this book. "It doesn't apply." "I'm fine." If you just can't read it, try coming back a year or two later. Much may have changed. It takes a lot of work to peel back all the layers sometimes.

Sappy, Sentimental, Poorly Written Dribble, March 29, 2007
I picked up this book in the hopes that I would find something original, something challenging, something other than the evangelical dribble that passes for "Christian Living" books these days. Unfortunately, I was sorely disappointed.

What I Liked:
1. There really were some challenging ideas in this book. So often, "biblical womanhood" is portrayed as being all about homemaking, mothering, and hospitality. It's all about being "against feminism." While I don't see anything wrong with a balanced view of a woman's role, I do think that it's easy to take these ideas to the extreme. Stasi Eldredge's book definitely does not fit the mold, at least not in the circles I tend to frequent. Mrs. Eldredge's ideas are concerned more with the heart. To her, "godly womanhood" means getting back to our roots as women, to embrace our femininity and use it for God's glory. Unfortunately, Mrs. Eldredge's ideas about femininity are wrought with their own problems. (See below). Additionally, Mrs. Eldredge's idea that womanhood and femininity doesn't always look the same between women is very refreshing and something of which I need to be reminded every day.

2. The authors are clear about the God-ordained distinction between the sexes. In other words, men and women are not the same.

3. The chapters, while lengthy, were quick and easy to read. Yes, that is a plus when you're running after two children under the age of three.

4. This book was easy to read in pieces.

What I Did NOT Like:
1. The Eldredges have a very low view of women. In their minds, all women are broken, messed up creatures who have spent their lives hurting and looking for someone to build them up and fill in all the holes they experienced growing up. There is no room for strength, confidence, industry, dignity or any other "Proverbs 31" quality in their economy. In fact, they mock and ridicule the "Proverbs 31" woman as though hers is an unattainable, impractical, useless standard to which we should strive. For them, it all boils to whether or not a woman feels she is beautiful (and while they spend an entire chapter developing this idea, I never understood what they meant- beauty on the outside? Inner beauty? What beauty are they talking about? Oh, the beauty that is completely corrupted by sin, but made alive and beautiful again by the saving work of Christ? That beauty?), and whether or not she is being properly "romanced." In fact, I'm actually nervous about writing a bad review of this book in fear that Stasi will read it and spiral into a depression again. What if I hit a nerve, dig a deeper wound, remind her of her difficult childhood? Why not generalize this fear to all women because according to the authors, women are weak, wounded, and helpless.

2. Theologically, this book is a mess. For example: "Eve was given to the world as the incarnation of a beautiful, captivating God" (pg. 44). Hello! That is heresy! Jesus Christ, ALONE, is the incarnation of God. I think they must have no clue as to what they are actually saying in that statement. It would be more appropriate to say that Eve was made in the image of a beautiful, captivating God. Image and incarnation are not the same thing. They make this error several times throughout the book. They suggest that Eve was the "Crown of Creation." In reality, mankind (women AND men) is the apex, the pinnacle, the crown of creation. They often refer to Jesus as the "bridegroom" of the Christian woman and that the woman is His bride. Actually, the Church is the Bride of Christ, and that includes men as well as women. They refer to Jesus in these sappy, overemotional, and overtly sexual terms when they talk about Him as a "Lover." Well, were I a man, I would either laugh at this or be very turned off. Jesus isn't my boyfriend. He's my God. He's my Savior. He's my Lord. He is the Bridegroom of the Church Universal, but not of individuals. I could go on, but its late and I'm tired...

3. Frequent and blatant misuse of Scripture. They take so much of the Bible out of context that its hard to know where to start in pointing it out. Their use of the Song of Solomon is a frequent offense in this regard. The book was written as a description of marital love between husband and wife, not between Christ and the Church and certainly NOT between Christ and a woman. Hosea is another example. This book was written as prophecy regarding the eventual return of Israel from exile, not as a description of the return of a woman to her "first love". They often mock the correct interpretation of several passages in Scripture, tossing them aside for their own feminized, overly-sentimental view as well.

4. They have a very low view of Christ. Essentially, they suggest that He cannot act in our lives unless we let him, unless we "open the door of our hearts" where he stands knocking (yet ANOTHER reference they take completely out of context). Theirs is a neutered, powerless Christ. There is nothing said in this book about the beauty He gives us because He is IN US, living HIS LIFE through us. The reason I need to look to Christ to find this beauty for which I am allegedly seeking affirmation is because the beauty I possess comes from Him.

5. There is an overemphasis on the effect that Satan/demons/spirits can have on the lives of Christians. I believe this issue stems from their use of the Neil T. Anderson's book The Bondage Breaker, a book that has been widely rebutted due to its unbiblical views of Satan and his relationship to believers. They attribute common marital and even medical problems to meddlesome spirits when there were completely natural explanations for what they were experiencing. I'm afraid that people will fail to get to the root of their problems and just "blame Satan" instead of really working through very complex issues (or seeing a doctor for medical issues!).

6. Enough with the movie metaphors already! I don't want to hear about how I'm like "Cora" in "Last of the Mohicans" or "Rose" in "Titanic." Tell me about Rachel, Rebekah, Mary, Deborah, Ruth, Phoebe, Dorcas, Mary Magdelene, the nameless women throughout the Bible who acted in faith when God called them out of their normal lives into greatness. Tell me about those women FIRST and leave the movie metaphors out of it! Instead of looking to God to learn about us, they point us to our culture and ourselves in order to learn about God. That's completely backwards!

This book is nothing more than really bad pop psychology trying to be passed off as "biblical" truth. It is sappy, overly sentimental, erroneous, and, in most parts unbiblical. I had a hard time following any of the points put forward by the authors. The meat in this book would've made for an interesting article in "Christianity Today" or "Focus on the Family" magazine. They didn't need a whole book to detail this dribble. Please don't bother with it. There are much better books out there about biblical womanhood than this one.

EVERY woman?, August 11, 2006
My problem with this book is the same as my problem with the book "Every Woman's Battle." EVERY woman wants this, or ALL women want that. No. We don't.

Reading books like these have always made me feel freakish. This book, like EWB, made me think there must be something wrong with me, for it was proclaiming what ALL women want, and all I could think was "But...I don't. What?"

Well, according to the reviews on this site, I'm not the only one who feels differently than this book tells me I should. If I got one thing out of this book, it was coming to this site and discovering I'm not the only one who didn't feel the way the book said I did.

Fantastic!!, April 2, 2005
I love this book!! First of all, it's not based on the Proverbs 31 woman. The books that say "Follow rules A, B, and C to be a good Christian woman" drive me nuts!! They make me feel so completely inadequate. This book was so different than any other book I had read. The Eldredges describe a woman's deep desire to feel beautiful, cherished, and fought-for (how we want a knight in shining armor coming to our rescue), and how that relates to our relationship with God. The book describes how women reflect the part of God that wants to be desired and cherished as well.
This book really spoke to my heart, and encouraged me in my walk with God. I would recommend to any woman, and to any man who wants to understand the heart of a woman.

Twirly not Captivating, August 26, 2005
Being a big fan of John Eldredge, especially his last book, "Wild at Heart," which singlehandedly changed my relationship with men for the better, I was very disappointed with "Captivating."

First, I don't know why it is taken for granted that a wife of an author can automatically write a book. I know that we Christians believe that husbands and wives are one flesh, but in this partnership the writing brain cells were not shared. Stasi's writing was weak at best and twirly at the worst. Twirly being one of the most over used words in the book.

I had a hard time following where the book was going to but gathered that we women are a hurt and overly emotional lot, what with all the beating, circumsicion and even all that foot binding that used to go on in China. The best thing to do to get over these deep wounds is to watch your favorite Hollywood movie, (Titanic is the example given) and as your emotions roll, imagine Jesus as Jack the hero saving you from the cold water of the Atlantic. No comment made on the fact that Jack believed in premarital sex! :)

I don't know. I have a hard time imaging Jesus as Fredrick Bhaer in "Little Women," or even William Wallace in "Braveheart." (Remember that poor William showed up too late to save his girl Muron.) Maybe it's just me, but Hollywood movies are FANTASY and not REAL LIFE. I live in a real world, with real challenges as a women, one of which is to try and pull myself out of the Christian role model ghetto that our cultural puts us in. Jesus is my SAVIOUR! He died for me! What he did could NEVER be compared to a movie hero!

Not to fear, there is an answer in all this twirlness. There are two types of women. Domineering and desolate. Your mission is to become captivating just like God wanted you in the first place. The book suggests becoming arousing. Just who am I supposed to arouse? I am tired of being told who I am as a Christian woman and what I am supposed to do to fix my supposedly broken self.

I say there are three types of women, domineering, desolate and dumb ones like me who sat and read this book.

Was Surprised to Find My Church Reading This Book, March 30, 2007
To be honest, I agree with most of what the rewiewer below had to say. The authors are subpar, but that's to be expected with the Eldredges. The reviewer is also correct in calling them out on their sketchy interpretations of Scripture. In fact, they use *so few* Scripture references, you better have Bible in hand while you're reading this book so you can do your own research for their controversial statements.

However, I wouldn't go SO FAR as to bash the *concept* of the book. While I agree that not EVERY woman is broken and helpless, there are a SIGNIFICANT number of women who have experienced tremendous hurts. The authors touch on some widely accepted, scientifically proven psychological issues that can develop in women at young ages.

All in all, this book needs to be read with a discerning mind. THIS IS NOT SCRIPTURE so not every sentence is truth....keep that in mind! My suggestion would be to start with this book to gain some insight but if you're dealing with some of the serious issues discussed in this book, professional help is a must!

I am Captivating... This book is Not, November 18, 2005
This book has a fatal flaw: it depends on fluff and emotionalism, not Scripture, to draw conclusions. You may notice that the lion's share of passages from this book are not from an actual translation of the Bible... they are from a book by a man named Robert Alter wrote ABOUT the book of Genesis.
I am wary of any book that tells me who I am in Christ, but doesn't think the words of Christ are good enough to communicate that.

Secondly, and this is probably the consequence of the dearth of Biblical references, Captivating is not theologically sound. John and Stasi Eldredge spend several pages detailing how God created the earth in increasing measures of beauty and complexity and importance. The culmination, according to this book, is not with PEOPLE but with EVE. Page 25 says:

"She is the crescendo, the final, astonishing work of God. Woman. In one last flourish creation comes to a finish not with Adam, but with Eve... Given the way creation unfolds, how it builds to ever higher and higher works of art, can there be any doubt that Eve is the crown of creation? Not an afterthought. Not a nice addition like an ornament on a tree. She is God's final touch, his piece de resistance... Look out across the earth and say to yourselves, 'The whole, vast world is incomplete without me. Creation reached its zenith in me.'"

Not something I would teach the girls in my high school small group.

Apart from the lack of sound scripture, the shaky theology, and the fact that these authors quote themselves in every chapter (from Wild at Heart), the other major fault of this book is that I think all 224 pages could be condensed into 20 or fewer. There was so much sugar-coated FLUFF in this book, that I couldn't take it seriously. The authors used entirely too many words, pages, paragraphs, and chapters to say, "You are a creature of inherent beauty, created in the image of God, and He Loves You!" That is not difficult to say.

I started reading this book because my boyfriend cared enough to buy it in an effort to understand women better -- and because he loved The Sacred Romance. He didn't read Captivating, and now I can save him the time. ... Read more

Editorial Review

This new book is very timely for one of the most frequently debated issues in America: the separation of church and state. Where did this phrase originate? Was it always meant to prohibit expressions of religious faith in public settings as many claim today? Learn the answers to these questions and discover the Founding Fathers own words and intents in this book! With all these resources, you will be able to clearly understand the original intent of the Founding Fathers and be able to share those beliefs with others! ... Read more

Reviews

Some of the research used for this book might be off, September 20, 2010
I am a big fan of David Barton's work. I think it is obvious for anyone who has read American history honestly (and is not on the ACLU's payroll) that Barton is correct about God's central role in America's founding, and foundation. However (and maybe I am not seeing something correctly) but, Separation of Church & State p.6 has three quotes that Mr. Barton uses that do not seem to match the official "Journal of the Senate" records from the same date referenced in his book for September 3, 1789.

Example #1: Mr. Barton's quote: "Congress shall not make any law establishing any religious denomination." The Journal of the Senate's first version of the amendment states that Congress should not support any "one religious sect or society in preference to others."

Example #2 Mr. Barton's quote: "Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination." The Journal of the Senate states" Congress shall not make any law infringing the rights conscience, or establishing any religious sect or society."

It doesn't change his very valid points, but it is very important to me (especially considering what's at stake) that original sources are quoted accurately. If I am wrong in my amateur research please show me I will immediately apologize and change this post. I have included the link to The Journal of the Senate date in question. [...]

Constitutional seperation - the big lie, November 8, 2010
The common acceptance of the current popular belief that there is a constitutional mandate prohibiting any ties between government and religion is an example of the propaganda principal of "telling a big lie, repeat it over and over, and it will be accepted as truth". At this point in history, there is still such a huge wealth of factual information in opposition to this idea that even a brief review of the salient points, such as is provided in this little book, is enough to show the bad faith and ill will of those who propagate it. One can only believe this total misrepresentation of the truth deliberately or through ignorence. The latter can be quickly cured by reading this book. I highly recommend it.

The real perspective, April 8, 2008
This book is exactly what the title says it is, the founding father's view of religion's place in government and government's place in religion. Mr. Barton describes the origin of the phrase "seperation of church and state" (which isnt in the constitution)and describes how this phrase has been used contrary to its original purpose. This is a great book, easy to read, and well worth buying.

PRIMER FOR "ORIGINAL INTENT", December 10, 2010
This small book is a summary of the much more comprehensive work by the same author. Both demonstrate that our Founding Fathers were deeply religious men whose belief in God and Divine Providence guided them in the creation of our Constitution. It is well-documented and also demonstrates how history has been revised by judges and other authors who refer back to more recent texts to verify their distortions of history, rather than going to the source documents such as the letters and speeches of the Founding Fathers and the Federalist Papers.

Separation of Church and State, November 7, 2010
If you want to know about the so called Separation of Church and State- This is a must read! The First Amendment says that the gov't cannot make a Federal religion, it does not say keep religion out of schools. President Jefferson in a private letter to a church in Connecticut used that phrase to assure the church of their right to freedom of religion. The Supreme Court misinterpreted that letter. Excellent book! Learn our real history.

Nothing left to say, August 23, 2010
What else can I say but HOORAY for David Barton and to our four fathers. Many people I've talked with, (well educated people) didn't know that this nation is a Republic and not a Democracy. Some of them, (after struggling to remember) had to sight the Pledge of Alligiance to "decipher" this fact. I thought it would be well known fact.

Thank you Mr. Barton!, July 16, 2010
This was very helpful and eye opening. The meaning of our founders have been so perverted that unless we read our constitution and understand what it says we will continue to be lied to and know no different.

American concept of the meaning of church and state seperation, August 5, 2010
The best explanation of this flawed concept that I have ever seen! It takes only a few minutes to read this little 20 page book. A must read for all Americans who admire and respect the Constitution.

Finally a book that tells the truth about the "separation of church and state", May 18, 2010
This book reveals the true meaning behind the now infamous phrase "separation of church and state" that has misused by so many in our country. If you want to know what the founders meant by the first amendment or any other, go to their own words and acts to determine what they intended. Thomas Jefferson knew that the "wall of separation" was there to protect the churches from the government and not in the perverted way it is used today by atheists and secularists to keep the church or any form of religion out of the public square. Our founders were Christian men who believed in God and they would be appalled at the way their words are being misquoted, misinterpreted, and abused.

If the people only knew, October 7, 2010
Mr. Barton really opened my eyes on how the founding fathers felt about church and state. You must read then teach your children the truth about our country. ... Read more

Editorial Review

"A glorious book . . . A spirited defense of science . . . From the first page to the last, this book is a manifesto for clear thought."

�*Los Angeles Times

"POWERFUL . . . A stirring defense of informed rationality. . . Rich in surprising information and beautiful writing."

�*The Washington Post Book World

How can we make intelligent decisions about our increasingly technology-driven lives if we don't understand the difference between the myths of pseudoscience and the testable hypotheses of science? Pulitzer Prize-winning author and distinguished astronomer Carl Sagan argues that scientific thinking is critical not only to the pursuit of truth but to the very well-being of our democratic institutions.

Casting a wide net through history and culture, Sagan examines and authoritatively debunks such celebrated fallacies of the past as witchcraft, faith healing, demons, and UFOs. And yet, disturbingly, in today's so-called information age, pseudoscience is burgeoning with stories of alien abduction, channeling past lives, and communal hallucinations commanding growing attention and respect. As Sagan demonstrates with lucid eloquence, the siren song of unreason is not just a cultural wrong turn but a dangerous plunge into darkness that threatens our most basic freedoms.

"COMPELLING."

�*USA Today

"A clear vision of what good science means and why it makes a difference. . . . A testimonial to the power of science and a warning of the dangers of unrestrained credulity."

�*The Sciences

"PASSIONATE."

�*San Francisco Examiner-Chronicle

... Read more

Reviews

A Candle in the Dark, July 2, 2004
Demons, UFO's, the Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot, fairies and the like are all investigated in this incredible non-fiction book by the late Carl Sagan. Pseudoscience, and those who perpetuate it, find their place in today's society among those who want to believe in the impossible. In fact, Sagan too admits that he would love to find life on other planets, among other things (he was, after all, an advocate of SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). However, science today has not been able to prove that such things exist. As the book states, "the siren song of unreason is not just a cultural wrong but a dangerous plunge into darkness that threatens our most basic freedoms."

This book challenges the reader to critically scrutinize information professed by supposed experts, and be more of a skeptic. Sagan states early on in the book that "some 95 percent of Americans are scientifically illiterate." By using the scientific method combined with a little bit of logic and common sense, one should find that it is much more difficult to be mentally taken advantage of by pseudoscience "experts." Intelligent inquiry and analysis of information presented, and those presenting it, proves to be an invaluable tool.

Nonetheless, stories regarding crop circles, area 51, and other such nonsense still abound. Sagan runs through various examples and places them under the hypothetical microscope. Once examined more closely, most of these theories and fallacious postulations crumble quite easily. What some people don't realize, and what Sagan points out, is that things just as mysterious and awe-inspiring can be found all around us, and they are indeed factual and are being investigated by those in science fields. We need not look elsewhere to find mysticism and intrigue. People are still trying to completely understand viruses and the molecular building blocks in gas in space, and if people were equally as drawn to understand real phenomena as they are fallacious theories, then more people would be working to unravel the true mysteries that are much more worthy of our efforts.

I truly feel that this is a book everyone should read. Not only does Sagan do an excellent job of attempting to popularize science, but he also tries to teach people how to think for themselves rather than to be force-fed information from less-than-trustworthy sources. The demons in this demon haunted world are both those who perpetuate such celebrated fallacies, as well as those who believe them without question. Sagan attempts to teach, in this book, how to distinguish "real science from the cheap imitation." Indeed, he does just that.

Sagan took the road less travelled......, April 1, 2000
One word: OUTSTANDING.

I read this book over two nights, couldn't put it down, and afterwards was eagerly searching for more of the same. Science at it's best-accurate, timely, well-argued, emotionally and mentally invigorating, spiritually uplifting; and filled with boundless enthusiasm and hope. Like the author, Carl Sagan himself.

This book describes the 'scientific journey'. Alternately curious, cautious, inquiring, uplifting, compassionate, humane, warning, discovering and fulfilling. Topics include UFOs, alien abductions, witches, religion-both good and bad, Roswell, frauds, scientific genuises, skeptical thinking, wishful thinking, deceptive thinking, balanced thinking, belief, superstition, astrology, ESP, myth, and the like; and the role and place of science and scientific inquiry in all of this. For those who think science "destroys" spirituality-does not scientific inquiry with its' abundant curiosity and courageous endeavour accurately describe a spiritual journey to find the truth? Sagan contends, with great clarity and enthusiasm, that it assuredly does. It's just that this scientific journey is not an easy one, neither for the individual, nor humanity, by any means. But when has the attempt to find "truth" and "light" in this complex world of ours, ever been easy? Sagan argues that science and the scientific method is a noble and enlightening endeavour, an unquenchable candle, lit by the human yearning for truth, and able to steer humanity towards truth and goodwill in a world of mists, shadowy truths, and darkness.

For those who wish to open their minds to science and what it has to say about much that goes in this beautiful, yet sometimes dark world of ours, this is the book for you.

This great book (Sagan's last) is a fitting testament to a great man of science. Sagan, who passed away recently, was one of the great communicators of science, and this book is considered by many to be his best.

Reading it was something I'll always cherish.

I wish I could give it Billions Upon Billions of stars!, September 26, 2005
I realize it doesn't make me a cool guy to gush over a scientist, but I can't help it. I love Carl Sagan! I love Carl Sagan's writings. He has that unique combination of both a brilliant mind and the ability to communicate complicated ideas in a simple, straightforward manner. He can write about complicated scientific topics in a way that conveys the beauty and wonder, but doesn't overwhelm or confuse. He can also write about more humanistic topics, such as abortion, politics, and facing his own death.

In Demon Haunted World, he writes about science, about what science is and what science isn't. Whenever you get in debates with religious types, or with those self-appointed geniuses, the philosophy majors, they will always hit you with the fact that science is just another belief system, just like any religion or philosophy. They will tell you science can't answer all the questions and is often wrong. Of course that is true, if you look at science strictly as a body of knowledge. But that is not what science really is. Science is a process. It is a way of approaching the world, a way of formulating and testing hypotheses. If it is just another belief system, then it is a belief system that grows by virtue of challenging its adherents to challenge and disprove the current state of knowledge. It's the only belief system where you have to be a skeptic to be a zealot.

Debunking myths is part of the fun of this book, but an even important aspect to it is investigating how the human mind works and why we are drawn to myths and magical explanations for things in the first place. After all, I get the thrill of pseudoscience, it's fun stuff to believe. But if presented correctly, the truth can be just as thrilling.

Demon Haunted World should be required reading for any first year college student. It is astonishing how many people get through four or five years of higher education without having developed the ability to think critically.

The lack of critical thinking in this country has real consequences. It is the reason that the anchormen on the national news can't convey a story about a scientific or medical topic in a meaningful way. It's the reason that you meet well-educated parents these days who are more concerned about side effects from vaccinations than about the lethal diseases being vaccinated against. It's the reason that parents believe treating their children's depression is more likely to lead to suicide than leaving it untreated. It's the reason the majority of voters in this country voted to elect a President who openly confesses to having a concrete interpretation of the world. Think about that for a second. We have come to the point where adults fail to recognize that seeing things in black and white, all good versus all evil, is a sign of stunted emotional and intellectual development, not a skill to be bragged about. We live in a time when the media tells us that being balanced means presenting peoples opinions from both sides of the political spectrum, as opposed to challenging the statements from an evidence-based, rational perspective.

I love Carl Sagan, I highly recommend this book, and I highly recommend all of his writings.

The final statement of a great man, December 29, 1999
In an age where we are surrounded by psychic hotlines and alien abduction stories, the vast majority of the population is consistently fooled into believing the most absurd of notions. As Sagan beautifully demonstrates, this is not because of our collective intelligence, but a part of human nature. _The Demon-Haunted World_ is easily one of the most important books of this century. High school students should read this book to graduate, at least a little exposure to sense will be advantageous to our growing society. Faces on Mars, aliens, faith healers, and various other practitioners of pseudoscience swirl around us in a pool of credulism and blind faith in the most absurd of Golden Calves. Sagan brings the razor of reason to the face of fallacy and superstition and cuts off delusion and myopic belief. There is perhaps no other person who could have exposed this seldom seen part of the human being. Carl Sagan, the man who loved science so much that he felt in his heart the desire to sing it to the rest of the world, deserves the highest recognition for his accomplishments. I can think of no better than to have _The Demon-Haunted World_ shown to the whole of the world.

Skeptic's Bible, November 16, 2001
Surely no semi-aware person in this unfortunate age of television dumbing down, condescending school textbooks, and widespread ignorance and gullibility fails to note the danger that is inherent in society due to a lack of rational thinking, healthy skepticism, and application of the scientific method among the common folk. This book is a plea to those people, and a "how-to" educate guide to those who do realize and want to do something about it. Perhaps the most interesting chapter in this well-rounded book is "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection" in which Sagan demonstrates a "Baloney Detection Kit" listing the checklist for determining whether or not a particular assertion (whether scientific or not) is Gospel. Conversely, he also wisely offers the companion kit, what NOT to do. Among the other interesting things in this book are convincingly argued debunkings of such annoying to rationalist topics as UFO abductions, astrology, faith healing, chanelling, and their indiscernable ilk. Sagan consistently brings up parallel cases from olden times, i.e. witchcraft mania and demo xenophobia, that show that such fears and paranoia have always been around in different forms. This goes a long way towards exposing them for being fraudelent. Sagan also expounds here his views on such subjects as religion (a very rational argument on their scientific insignifigance, while also pointing out its virtues: a balanced view that should open many eyes, without, perhaps, offending the faithful), public education (corollaried with an abundance of letters Sagan has received from readers on the subject, many of them eye-opening), and politics; many of which I agree with, all of which I can respect. This is a very enlightening and useful book, and an elegant manifesto for the useful application of the scientific method and skeptical and rational thinking in our modern world. It's a shame that Sagan is no longer around to parlay such truth to our all-too-ignorant public. Still, the incredible works that he left behind, including this indispensable book, can still enligten us and perhaps make our world that much better for whatever dose of rationality it can inject into our "demon-haunted", close-minded society: science as a "candle in the dark" indeed.

Life changing book, January 24, 2000
Many are turned off by science since they find it to be cold, desenchanting or even a bit nihilistic. With a clever sense of humor and easy-to read writting style, Sagan proves that science can be an awe-inspiring spiritual experience, when we are confronted with the immense complexity of nature and our universe. He reminds us how to be a good skeptic: one who is open minded to new information, but will only believe after receiving proof. (Which consists of much more than anecdotal evidence )As Sagan states "I believe that the extraordinary should be pursued. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." He urges everyone to think skeptically and to express our opinions while being respectfull of others' beliefs. Unfortunately those who would benefit from more skepticism are the ones less likely to pick up this book. It takes courage to abandon the comforts of an "all-loving" ever present god, immortality, and belief in psychic powers in exchange for the truth. However, Sagan shows us how science has greatly improved the quality of life throughout history, and how the systematic search for truth can be more rewarding than blinded-faith. We should be open minded("Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence") without being gullible. And we must remember how "wishfull thinking" does not make something true.

The Best Spent $14.95 In My Life, February 14, 2005
Ok. To keep this as short and simple as I can:
My buddy kept ranting and raving about this book almost in the same way that I am about to convey in this brief recommendation. For months he told me I should pick it up. He's been pedaling it to everyone he considereds close to him, or merely to those who have even a vague interest in science or comprehension of the world around them.
I'm 20 years old. A sophmore in college. In a reflection to how much I THINK I know, or knew rather, I have come to discover just how insignificant my "knowledge" is.

To be blunt: This book is as much an exceptionally incredible gift as it is a curse to self reflection, rational thought, and sketicism.
I've been tortured by the countless internal monologues, views, and arguments spawning from numerous points the author presents in this text. You can't help but think about how it pertains to YOU. What do you think? What do I think?
I think where I am now, or where I was more specifically, is nowhere near where I want to be.

I'm not even into science. I'm a history major. It doesn't matter.You cannot read this book from cover to cover, without getting caught up in Sagan's passion. It's not just about science. It's not just about philosophy. Or knowledge. Or history.

His opinion may vary from yours. In fact, it probably will. He may present views or arguments you choose not to acknowledge or agree with. Once again, it doesn't matter. It is precisely these elements that continually compell me to learn more about who I am and what I think of the world around me.

If I had to choose one book for any of my friends to read from start to finish, this would be the one. So I guess now it's my turn to start pedaling this book to others who might want to enlighten themselves.
And I guess this is my way of doing it.
You're already here. What more do you need to know?

Required Reading for School Boards, March 28, 2002
This was one of the late Carl Sagan's last books, and it is certainly one his most important. We live in a credulous society, a culture that seems to be incapable of critical thinking. That's an extremely dangerous situation. When a majority of U.S. citizens believe in astrology; when a voter can read a newspaper expose' on dial up fortune-telling scams and then dial a 900 number in order to decide what to do; well, it doesn't bode well for our country.

To some extent, Sagan oversold himself in the late 1980's and early 1990's. His eager sincerity was even parodied - "billyuns and billyuns - but he was an engaging science writer and popularizer. In this book he stepped a bit outside of that usual role, and made some critical and important points about our culture. No thoughtful citizen can read this book, look around and fail to be concerned.

I'd make this book required reading, not for students, but for school board members and teachers. If the average citizen is credulous to the point of embarrassment - and that's pretty clearly the case - the solution has to involve the educational system, and especially those in charge. We are not teaching our citizens and future citizens to think critically. In Sagan's phrase, "Extravagant claims require extravagant evidence." For better or worse, the life of the world is logic, and the ability to reason is as important as the ability to read and the ability to do arithmetic. And if you think it's not a problem, you need to read this book, or just attend the public comments portion of a school board meeting, or read the letters to the editor in your newspaper.

You should read this book. You should act on the message of this book. Not just because it is a thoughtful, entertaining treatment of an important issue. But because that issue hasn't gone away; and it seems to be getting worse.

Sagan Sounds a Warning, November 27, 2001
The underlying message of Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World" is twofold. First, that we are becoming an increasingly scientifically illeterate society, and second, that our ignorance of science is a threat not only to the security of our future, but to the freedoms we all enjoy. Sagan spends much of the book debunking so-called psuedo-science (alien abductions, psycotherapy, astrology, etc). He also makes the point that America is doing a very poor job educating its young about the wonders of science. Sagan also castigates the media for not exercising more scepticism in scientific reporting, and, indeed, mostly ignoring hard science altogether.

The book itself is a bit disjointed, with several chapters deriving from expanded magazine articles. Additionally, Sagan pontificates about political issues, and reveals a leftist political bent. He also has a tendancy at times to overemphasize his point. Nevertheless, he has some important points to make, and as a society we would be better off if we paid close attention to many of the issues he raises.

A MUST READ, January 1, 2004
As a science student at university I bought this book expecting it to confirm and perhaps broaden my understanding of sceptical thinking, and how too many people do not employ it. Something that I have found frustrating on many an occasion. I was delighted to find that this book was gave me a terrific insight into why sceptical thinking and science should be employed in every possible way. And how failing to do so can result in the direst consequences.

Sagan devotes much of the first part of the book to the current fad of alien abduction. This is something that becomes a bit drawn out and boring and in my opinion the only flaw of this book. He does so comparing the many similarities to the role of demons in centuries past. He describes one example of how when scepticism is not used people will devise the most wild and unjust thinking which leads such ordeals as witch hunts.

He makes the case that in today's increasingly scientifically dependant western society, people, especially Americans, are abandoning scepticism. Few politicians understand science, and the applicability of it's philosophies. Furthermore the general public is becoming increasingly scientifically illiterate. If this trend continues we could easily slip into another `dark age' of witch hunts.

This book is one of those rare books that I would insist that everyone reads. Far too few people understand that to abandon scepticism, relying upon blind faith and assertions, is to close ones eyes, and abandon all hope of understanding the truth. Demon haunted world is truly a masterpiece. I found it completely engaging, and full of most valuable insights. Demon Haunted world will light the darkness for anyone that reads it. ... Read more

Editorial Review

A nuanced exploration of the part that religion plays in human life, drawing on the insights of the past in order to build a faith that speaks to the needs of our dangerously polarized age.
 
Moving from the Paleolithic age to the present, Karen Armstrong details the great lengths to which humankind has gone in order to experience a sacred reality that it called by many names, such as God, Brahman, Nirvana, Allah, or Dao. Focusing especially on Christianity but including Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Chinese spiritualities, Armstrong examines the diminished impulse toward religion in our own time, when a significant number of people either want nothing to do with God or question the efficacy of faith. Why has God become unbelievable? Why is it that atheists and theists alike now think and speak about God in a way that veers so profoundly from the thinking of our ancestors?

Answering these questions with the same depth of knowledge and profound insight that have marked all her acclaimed books, Armstrong makes clear how the changing face of the world has necessarily changed the importance of religion at both the societal and the individual level.  Yet she cautions us that religion was never supposed to provide answers that lie within the competence of human reason; that, she says, is the role of logos. The task of religion is “to help us live creatively, peacefully, and even joyously with realities for which there are no easy explanations.” She emphasizes, too, that religion will not work automatically. It is, she says, a practical discipline: its insights are derived not from abstract speculation but from “dedicated intellectual endeavor” and a “compassionate lifestyle that enables us to break out of the prism of selfhood.” ... Read more

Reviews

A Stimulating Read, An Important Book, October 3, 2009
Enter the caverns of Lascaux and step back into the world of our early hunter ancestors of the Paleolithic era. We find record of a people who took life and the taking of the life they hunted very seriously and recorded on the stone walls of the caverns their rites performed to return the animals they killed for sustenance to a second life. Enter another cave where Plato paints a picture of humanity groping in darkness until some are able to step out into the light, seeing the world for the first time are faint able to make those still in the darkness of the caves comprehend their new vision. Humanity has a history, a long encounter with the sacred. It is expressed in different ways such as God, Brahman, Nirvana, Allah, and Dao among others. With all the diverse manners of approaching it humanity has a long, intimate relationship with the transcendent and it is important for anyone to understand the religious impulse in order to understand a vital element of what it means to be human. Karen Armstrong provides a thorough and compelling resource toward this kind of understanding in her book "The Case for God".

It is useful to know before reading this book that it is not a tract attempting to prove the existence of God. It is rather a case for God, not the existence of God. Amid the arguments made by New Atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, Armstrong makes the case that the religious life can be valuable and healthy. While Logos describes the objective reality that is essential for living, Religion or Mythos, helps us "to live creatively, peacefully, and even joyously with realitites for which there [are] no easy explanations and problems that we could not solve: morality, pain, grief, despair, and outrage at the injustice and cruelty of life" (318).

I recommend this book for two reasons. The first is that it gives a very thorough exposition of the history and development of religion and philosophy that is by all accounts very valuable to know. You will be more educated after reading this book and that is useful in itself. Both religious and nonreligious people can benefit from a background in the ideas, traditions, and world-views that have shaped and continued to shape the world. Armstrong also gives a summary of many of the major scientific developments of history. With my professional background in science I particularly enjoyed these passages and was impressed by her knowledge in these subjects.

The second reason I recommend this book is because she brings an interesting argument to the discussion over God and it would benefit anyone to be exposed to it. It is not necessary to agree with her positions to enjoy the book. I have always enjoyed the scientific writing of Richard Dawkins and I think "The Selfish Gene" is one of the best popular science books ever written. Dawkins also makes some important points and criticisms of religion that people of faith must confront. On the same note, atheists and agnostics ought to consider the ideas Armstrong presents in "The Case for God". Religious people should consider arguments as well. She proposes that many modern discussions of God are too careless and that the concept of God is much more complex and uncertain then is often recognized.

This book recalled to me William James' "The Varieties of Religious Experience". Both distinguished the existential judgment from the proposition of value. In other words, while the veracity of supernatural claims may be significant it may be more meaningful to evaluate the effects of a world-view on those who hold it. Armstrong contends that religion has much to offer in a world of complexity and at times suffering. Says Armstrong: "We have seen too much evil in recent years to indulge in a facile theology... A modern theology must look unflinchingly into the heart of a great darkness and be prepared, perhaps, to enter into the cloud of unknowing" (278).

Remarkable, fascinating, mindshifting,, September 22, 2009
Karen Armstrong is able to do two things which are individually remarkable, and in combination perhaps unique.
- provide a credible, erudite, historical overview of all the main religions in a way that shows how they fit together. ie. the key ideas they have borrowed from each other
- do so in a way which is vivid, accessible and often inspiring.

Some religious readers will be shocked to discover that "their" religion is based on ideas that are far more widespread than they may have realized. And they may be uncomfortable that the God Armstrong is arguing for is not one actively involved in day-to-day human concerns, checking off prayer requests or directing the weather, but deeper, mysterious, perhaps ineffable. Some non-religious readers will be shocked by how compelling a case Armstrong makes for a religious mindset based, not so much on "belief" or "faith" but on spirituality and compassion. But all, if they approach this book with an open mind, are likely to emerge with a richer understanding of life's most important questions.

An interesting polemic, but at its heart problematic, September 22, 2009
Can I really be the only person who finds Karen Armstrong, the author of fifteen books on religion, writing in her latest that one cannot comment on the divine with words but only with silence, more than a little ironic?

To be fair, Armstrong does offer several interesting insights. Her effort to find universal "truths" that run across faiths is worthwhile and thought provoking. One might even imagine that there are many members of exclusivist faiths for whom this would be a revelation, though one can hardly imagine many of them reading Armstrong's work. At the same time, Armstrong offers an intelligent and evocative response to the new wave of atheistic polemicists - Dawkins, Hitchens, etal - and offers a muscular retort to their rather juvenile view of the divine, as almost all of them seem to have decided that they learned all there was to know about religion as teens in Anglican Sunday School. Armstrong deserves great praise for reminding people that theology is an intellectual pursuit, the attempt to seek to understand God, as opposed to what much of religion seems to be today, namely the effort by many to project their own narrow petty views onto the divine.

That said, this work suffers from the same shortcoming of all Armstrong's voluminous work. Were she a theologian, one might forgive her for ignoring all those arguments that ran against her claims of universality, though it would still be intellectually sloppy. However, Armstrong claims to be a historian of religion, and as such she is guilty of appalling sins of omission. When a fact contradicts her thesis, she does not even give it the due regard of inconvenience and seek to reconcile, but simply pretends it is not there. As such, she is not a scholar, but a polemicist, even if a polemicist for a position for which I have sympathy.

Examples are legion. Armstrong claims that no one prior to the Enlightenment no one read the first chapter of Genesis literally. Really? In the Jewish tradition Ibn Ezra did. So did several rabbis in the Talmud. In the Christian tradition one can look to Luther and no lesser figure than Paul. Does that mean that these were majority views? Certainly not in the Jewish tradition, but to pretend that they don't exist is rank intellectual dishonesty and preying on the ignorance of her readers. Likewise, Armstrong's tut tut comparisons between the Crusaders and Jihadists as religiously retrograde, ignores the fact that - certainly in the former group at least - religious warfare was not merely tolerated but extolled near universally through its religious polity of the day as a duty and a path to salvation. By the same method of argument through erasure and faith in her readers ignorance, Armstrong famously whitewashed Muhammad's military career in the efforts to declare him "a great peace maker."

In a recent interview, someone asked Armstrong a question about the anti-Christ. She replied declaring it a "bogeyman" that "isn't even really in the Bible." When the interviewer, plainly ignorant of the bible asked if that claim was true, Armstrong replies "Not really. It's a couple of chance remarks of Saint Paul and then there's the "Book of Revelation." But the whole idea of there being end-time battles reflects a more sort of Zoroastrian view of the world." Oh, just Saint Paul and the Book of Revelations? No biggie.

Of course this isn't my religious tradition, so one might wonder why I would take offense, but readers should beware what any "scholar" has to say who depends mightily on her audiences ignorance in order to succeed in her arguments.

Karen Armstrong is a Great Teacher, September 25, 2009
I believe what Karen Armstrong is trying to do is refine the definition of God and to respect all the real life experiences of so many people, of so many ages, and of so many faiths. Contrary to what some other reviewers have said, I find her argument - her case for "God" - scrupulously argued. Let's be clear about this...Dr. Armstrong is very well read. Time and again, she finds evidences in the thinking of the Bible writers, the early Christian theologians, the Talmudic rabbis of the Middle Ages, the important philosophers of the Islamic Golden Age...or even in practices such as those of the Sufi or Christian mystics. And yes, even the scientists! In a nutshell, the book is an Intellectual History of how the idea of God has been understood and argued, from prehistory to the present, including the recent populism of the New Atheists (as opposed to the 19th century agnostics).

One of the most interesting chapters talks about the early history of Christianity when the idea surfaced that God created the universe from "nothing" as opposed to the idea God shaped and formed what already existed as chaos. Once that new idea surfaced, there were two camps, those who believed that Jesus was divine but had been elevated to that status by an immensely powerful being and those who believed that God could never be characterized as being at all and therefore Jesus could be God from the beginning.

Do not be distracted by "petty disputes" about her presentation. As an example, whether the "antiChrist" is described once or twice in the Bible is irrelevant. To Dr. Armstrong, we must not confuse the reality of God with the language about the existence of God. No one can accurately describe the marvelous ecosystem, power, interconnectedness, and beauty of the ocean in mere words...And yet, the ocean exists.


As I interpret the author's position, I am to understand God as a point of destination that is constantly moving. We find God in our personal quest for ultimate truth, ultimate wisdom, ultimate beauty, and...ultimate compassion. Using these ideas, when Kepler or Newton - for example - were seeking to uncover the laws of the universe, they were seeking God. Indeed, I believe that's how these great scientists did understood their mission.

Karen Armstrong is not so interested - as many wrongly think - in being right. She is interested in imagining God in such a way as to force us to become connected to something larger than ourselves. To be enlightened. To become enriched as human beings. Practicing compassionate acts brings one closer to God. Unleashing hate on others - on the other hand - is the very disrespect of God. She shares the thinking of Shakespeare, let's say, in "The Merchant of Venice" , Act IV, scene 1: "The quality of mercy is not strain'd; It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven...It is enthroned in the hearts of kings; It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's when mercy seasons justice."

I think the book is a treasure and the culmination of years and years of Dr. Armstrong's reading and thinking. Highly recommended...to those of faith and to those of agnostic bent.

An Intellectual Feast But in the End Very Little Help to the World's Problems, September 26, 2009
In this astounding book, prolific author Karen Armstrong has written an intellectual history of the notion of God down through the centuries, focusing on our western Christian conceptions. In many ways her book covers much of the same territory that Robert Wright did in The Evolution of God, which I reviewed on Amazon. But whereas Wright focuses on the evolution of morality in conceptions of the divine, Armstrong focuses on the practice of religion itself.

I was astonished as time after time she got so many things right in those areas I knew something about. This is an amply documented massive book which cannot be rehearsed in any detail in this short review. But it is an intellectual feast. If you want to be brought up to speed to today's world on the subject of religion in the western world, this book may be the only one you need. From Paleolithic times to postmodern thinking it's all here for the most part. From the Hebrew God Yahweh, to the Greek "logos," to the rise of Christianity, the era of Constantine, the rise of Science, the Enlightenment down to the present day, she covers it all masterfully.

Her main concern throughout the book seems to be the rise of the religious fundamentalist phenomenon and the atheist backlash seen best in the so-called New Atheists like Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, and Hitchens. Against both sides she claims religion is not a set of doctrines to be believed but rather something practiced in ritual and experienced through introspection, art, and music. As such, the New Atheists have not adequately debunked religion at all when they debunk the Bible, creationism, and/or religious ideas of the divine.

Christian fundamentalism according to her, "is in fact a defiantly unorthodox form of faith that frequently misrepresents the tradition it is trying to defend" (p. xvi). She argues: "Religion was a matter of doing rather than thinking" (p. 25). "Religious discourse was not intended to be understood literally because it was only possible to speak about a reality that transcended language in symbolic terms. The story of the lost paradise was a myth, not a factual account of a historical event" (p. 15). "Like any myth, its purpose is to help us to contemplate the human predicament" (p. 28). As such, the creation account "was emphatically not intended as a literal account of the physical origins of life" (p. 44). When it comes to Yahweh she argues, "There was no clear, consistent image of God in Genesis" (p. 35). Moreover, "Yahweh was simply one of the 'holy ones' in El's retinue" (p. 34). She challenges fundamentalists to therefore "face up to the implications of the Darwinian vision of nature `red in tooth and claw'" (p. 324). She argues that "if a biblical text appeared to contradict current scientific discoveries the exegete must interpret it differently" (p. 324).

With this understanding of fundamentalism she claims the New Atheist's "analysis is disappointingly shallow, because it is based on such poor theology" (p. xvi). "Religion," she says, "was never supposed to provide answers to questions that lay within the reach of human reason...Religion's task, closely allied to that of art, was to help us to live creatively, peacefully, and even joyously with realities for which there were no easy explanations and problems that we could not solve; morality, pain, grief, despair, and outrage at the injustice and cruelty of life....Religion is a practical discipline" (p. 318). Just like the fundamentalists whom they argue against, Armstrong claims that "the new atheists believe that they alone are in possession of truth...they read scripture in an entirely literal manner and seem never to have heard of the long tradition of allegoric interpretation or indeed of Higher Criticism" (p. 303). Thus, Dawkins is "not correct to assume that fundamentalist belief either represents or is even typical of either Christianity or religion as a whole" (p. 304). And he "is also wrong to claim that God is a scientific hypothesis, that is, a conceptual framework for bringing intelligibility to a series of experiments and observations" (p. 305). All told, she shares the same kinds of criticisms of the New Atheists as liberal theologian John F. Haught does in his book God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, which I also reviewed on Amazon.

But her analysis is problematic on a number of fronts. When it comes to religion, Armstrong is placing her liberal theological grid on it backward through time. She's right about primitive religion. Their religion was in the rituals, the dances, the human/child/animal sacrifices, the chants, and the drum music. But somewhere along the evolutionary line, especially within Christianity, religious believers developed doctrinal beliefs too. We see them in the historic creeds of the church, a few of which are in the New Testament itself. If they hadn't done so then what can account for such things as the Inquisition, or the Thirty Years War between the Catholics and Protestants and between the Protestants themselves? This creedal development happened long before Christian fundamentalism arrived on the scene, by her own account! What she seems to misunderstand is that there is no "one size fits all" when it comes to religion. And so she cannot fault the New Atheists for attacking the fundamentalist religion of today's world since that's what religion is for many many people.

Furthermore, her book uses the results of Higher Criticism, which is little more than the scientific method applied to historical texts like the Bible. She faults the New Atheists for treating God and religion as a scientific hypothesis but then turns around and uses that the same scientific method when deconstructing the Biblical texts. Can she really have it both ways? Even if she doesn't think the scientific method should be used to examine one's religion or concepts of the divine, she needs to articulate and defend an alternative method that can deliver the same kinds of results. What's the alternative for her? Introspection? Art? Music? What kind of method is that? Such a method would never have allowed her to come to the conclusions she's reached about religion in general, and of Christian fundamentalism in particular.

Suffice it for me to say that I find her religion-as-psychology metaphysically unfulfilling and deeply inadequate. Her god is a distant god and as such her god can be safely ignored as having no relevance for one's life at all. She's practically an atheist. So rather than targeting the New Atheists who are promoting scientific thinking, denouncing religious violence, and proclaiming the follies of authoritarian fundamentalist faith, why doesn't she stand up with them against the fundamentalists who are the source of much, if not most, of the problems in this world?

Think of it this way. What does Armstrong fault the New Atheists for in comparison to the religious fundamentalists? Misunderstanding, at best? That's nothing in comparison to the problems that authoritarian fundamentalist faith produces in the world, and she knows this. She's nitpicking when there's a world that needs her help. After all, who really cares if the New Atheists are attacking what she doesn't consider representative of true religion or true Christianity? They are attacking a real threat to world peace regardless! And who really cares if religion doesn't poison everything as Hitchens proclaims? Religion causes a great deal of suffering.

I highly recommend Victor Stenger's latest book in response to criticims like hers, The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason, which I also reviewed on Amazon. This is one of the New Atheists that Armstrong failed to mention.

--------
I'm the author of "Why I Became an Atheist," and the edited book, "The Christian Delusion."

Worth savoring, June 9, 2010
The title of another book out last year excited me--The Evolution of God--but when I heard the author speak I was disappointed. (There was a lot of talk about zero sum game.) Armstrong's book is what I had hoped for from the other. It covers the changing ways people have viewed God and religion, from 30,000 BCE, when humans crawled deep into caves to cover their walls with paintings of animals and maybe shamans, to the present, when both fundamentalists and atheists insist on a strict literal interpretation of scriptures--a legacy of the modern scientific revolution that has left everyone, including the devout, looking for unambiguous, objective truth derived from some kind of logical deliberation. The modern way is simplistic; Armstrong believes religious life involves hard work, pushing finite hearts and minds to the edges of their understanding, toward the infinite.

I took a long time to read this book and as soon as I finished I started reading it again. There is a lot to absorb and a lot that challenged my unexamined beliefs, a mind-blowing experience that's my drug of choice. As an an agnostic leaning toward a non-belligerent atheism, reading is almost my religion, so when Armstrong wrote convincingly about the printing press's drawback of moving learning and religion in a depersonalized and inflexible direction, leading in religion's case to ridiculous disagreements over finer and finer dogmatic distinctions, I was shocked into a speechless, apophatic state. One of many I experienced while reading her book. Which is maybe, or maybe not, ironic because that apophatic experience I got from reading is the right place, Armstrong believes, to begin transcending our everyday world and experiencing God. Religion, Armstrong writes, historically has been and should be more about practice and experience and less about blind belief in particular doctrines. Sounds great to me.

A total failure, December 1, 2009
Does this book only deserve one star? Is Karen Armstrong that bad of a writer? Well, truthfully, assessing her writing skill as such, she's quite good. She's excellent at making a fairly meaningless phrase sound profound, or making an unsupported assertion look like fact. She's eloquent and obviously erudite. But if a book that promises, in its very title, to make a case for something, it had better do it. A noble failure would be one thing, but Armstrong never even tries.

Armstrong, along with Collins, Dan Brown, the Templeton people, and many others, have recently gone to great lengths to convince the public that there is no conflict between faith and reason. The methods are all over the map, from Collins S.J. Gould-ish separation of spheres, to Brown's confused message about science and religion telling the same story in different languages, to Armstrong's insistence that religion is entirely orthoprax and never included orthodoxy until recently. The book is billed as a case for the existence of God and a rebuttal of the "new atheists", i.e., a handful of atheist authors who have managed to put millions of panicked believers on the defensive by publicly disagreeing with them. It does neither. Armstrong simply redefines "God" to the point that it is meaningless and utterly subjective. If "God" is just what it means when I enjoy reading a book or looking at nature, sure, I believe in God. If Poseidon is just a word for the feeling I get when I eat seafood, I also believe in Poseidon. See how that works? It's an even lighter version of deism, in that God as designer is not even postulated; God is just another word for the ineffable.

The problem is that, pages of cherry-picked citations and tortured logic to the contrary, this isn't what almost any people mean when they say "God", and it never has been. Literalism is not new in any way, shape or form; indeed, it's pretty much the religious default. Armstrong points out that some people put allegorical interpretations ahead of literalism historically. This isn't an argument for religion, it's an argument against it, as any oppurtunistic power monger can take the confused, hodgepodges of scripture and make them say pretty much whatever one wants, especially "allegorically". This is not unique to Christianity/Judaism/Islam; in Buddhism, Theravada are the most "literalist" sect, yet when appropriate they are perfectly capable of drawing an interpretation of scripture that is at odds with what the scripture really says. We can claim anything was meant symbolically when it serves our purposes. The big question is, who decides? However, some things were pretty clearly meant literally. The bible is pretty clear on the point that Jesus physically rose from the dead, claiming that over 500 witnesses saw this, and even that local saints rose from the grave on the same day and danced through the streets. You either accept this proposition or reject it; I reject it and, amazingly, so does Armstrong; however, she chooses to dishonestly write that the resurrection was merely a vision the early Christians had, with no evidence whatsoever to support this claim. The book is full of such dishonest twisting of the truth.

By almost any definition, Armstrong is as much of an atheist as I am. Perplexingly, though, she decided to write a book that purports to prove that atheism is wrong and religion is correct, well, not religion as practiced by most people but a hypothetical meta-religion that includes all the existing religions, even if Muhammad and Buddha (for example) were saying entirely different and mutually exclusive things about the nature of reality. It's a confused mess that ultimately fails its own objective rather spectacularly.

If you want to read a case for the transcendent and contemplative outside of religion, without desperate juggling of definitions, there are plenty of great books to check out; Hume, Kant, Nietzsche, Wang Yangming, and Huang Po all come to mind in the classical sense. In modern terms, we have Sam Harris, Andre Comte-Spoonville, John Horgan, Charles Taylor, and even Brad Warner (though the latter is guilty of the same kind of "god" wordplay as Armstrong on a smaller scale). Even the confused drivel by people like Dinesh D'Souza and Rick Warren are still superior in that they at least attempts to build a solid case for its nonsense conclusions; Amstrong is merely very good at saying that black can be white if you look hard enough and ignore that it's black. A waste of time to those on any side of the current debates about the nature of reality.

True Myth, December 28, 2009
Karen Armstrong is a former nun (no longer Catholic or Christian) who lives in England and is a very well-known, graceful writer and speaker on religious topics. Her latest book is entitled The Case for God. I have just finished it. It is a tour de force of religious and especially Western cultural and philosophical history. She should be applauded for striving to give an informed overview of vast cultural development in an age of overspecialization where, too often, the overload of fragmented information leaves many without any possibility of creating a comprehensive vision of the past or of the future.

Having given my accolades, let me be clear that, not surprisingly, I do not share her theological tendencies, the most fundamental of which seems to be that all religious traditions are created equal. I also sense in her work the apparent presumption that it is never appropriate to interpret religious texts as being reliable guides to the accurate depiction of actual historical events. It is not clear to me if she views that working presumption against historically "referential" religious texts as being rebuttable in certain, theologically significant cases. (By "referential" I mean that the text actually refers to some real, objective event in history that observers can verify.) In the end, she paints a picture of worldwide religious fraternity based on the view that the historical details do not really matter as long as the mythic aspect of different religious texts are plumbed for their deeper, universal, and common meanings. Many Christians, especially in the developing world, will view this approach as inadequate to the uniqueness of the Christian Gospel.

Yet, I can recommend the book to readers who are prepared to read critically and are not predisposed toward an uncritical embrace of a particular author's view of history or of religion. In my opinion, she does a fine job of exposing the fact that many of the new militant atheist writers of today are theologically tone deaf in assuming, without justification, that Christianity is tied to a fundamentalist approach to the Bible. She turns the tables on these aggressive atheist writers by calling them "fundamentalists" themselves who refuse to recognize the possibility and reality of a nuanced and literarily responsible interpretation of the Bible's diverse genres.

Yet, my main critique remains and is as follows. She makes much of the distinction between symbolic, non-literal discourse (mythos) and practical, logical discourse referring to objectively observed realities (logos). By viewing religious texts as merely or primarily mythos, she deftly turns back any criticism that such texts may be fictional. But, as a Christian, that approach is a strategy that is not acceptable when applied to the proclamation of the death and bodily resurrection of Jesus and thus is not ultimately favorable to the Christian stance. The key Christian response to her approach was made long ago by C.S. Lewis, an expert in mythology as a genre in both pagan and Christian inspired works. For Lewis, the Gospel is a true myth, which combines the profound symbolic meaning that Armstrong rightly sees in mythos with the objective, historical reference to truly occurring events that Armstrong labels logos. For Christians, in Jesus, the profound yearnings of all humanity expressed in mythos became true in actual history or logos. In short, the tomb was indeed empty. Interestingly, given Armstrong's terminology, Christians in fact view Jesus as the Logos, as even she mentions in the book.

That Armstrong seems to assume that Christianity can somehow overlook the logos part points to her own misunderstanding of the Christian foundational writings known as the New Testament. It is undeniable that Paul, to pick one example from the New Testament writers, understood that the Gospel story must of necessity involve a real death and a real bodily resurrection or else all bets are off. Thus, the well-intentioned Armstrong attempt to divorce logos discourse from the New Testament falls flat. Of course, Christians would have no problem with applying a purely symbolic interpretation to the texts of other religious traditions in an attempt to find common truths in such texts. But the Bible, especially the New Testament, is a very different type of story. The genre of the Gospel proclaimed in the New Testament is, as Lewis noted, true myth (not merely symbolically "true") that combines both mythos and logos, two aspects that cannot be divorced in this particular case. Yet, I still enjoyed the book, but with the above, significant reservations.

Overall, a good summary statement, October 31, 2009
I have read a read a number of Armstrong's book and while I can appreciate the complaints of more scholarly inclined readers (I'm a professor- but not of theology or philosophy- and tend to be very critical of popularized work in my own field), I feel that on the whole the book is valuable as a statement about the current state of religion.

As both a Buddhist and an Episcopalian, I connect very much with her discussion about a apophatic knowing of God and the importance of ritual. The last two chapters are tremendous and I feel the Epilogue could stand very much as a statement on its own.

I particularly enjoyed the discussion about how we , as children, learn about the existence of Santa Claus and God at about the same time, but, as we grow older, our knowledge and belief in Santa Claus "matures" while our belief in God often remains immature. I know that it sounds silly, but actually it is a rather profound thought.

Basically the book captures very well the frustration and tiredness many of us feel about the current state of "debate about God" and proposes a far more productive way to think about this. She shows up the neo-atheists as a bunch of tiresome bores (Actually she is a little more kind than that.) Also I am happy to see that, in contrast to many religious fundamentalists, she has a number of good things to say about postmodernism and what it can offer to us in our thinking about God.

I hope this book gets a wide reading.

Atheists and Believers: Check your Guns at the Door, and Come on In!, December 19, 2009
There is a beauty, scope, and deeply edifying tone about this book that allows the armed-to-the-teeth atheist or Christian/Jewish/Islmamic/Buddhist/Hindu/Daoist believer to lay down their weapons at the door to a metaphorical Theological Caf�, come in, take a seat, order up a latte or tea, sit back, and ready one's self for that most pleasurable of experiences: a long, careful, cordial, and deeply satisfying day-into-night human discourse.

Armstrong sets the table for her guests by reviewing over 32,000 years of the human search for spiritual meaning. Rarely have the caves of Lascaux and their enigmatic drawings been brought to life as vividly as in the first chapter of this book, and Armstrong draws on this evoked sense of awe and wonder to firmly ground three of the book's themes. First, Armstrong feels that religion at its core is not about dogma or beliefs, it is about becoming aware of an ineffable and unknowable God, a God whose nature is so far beyond the ken of human knowing that to seek to describe the attributes of God can do nothing but diminish the very concept of God. Secondly, Armstrong argues that becoming aware of God takes discipline and practice. Rituals are not in and of themselves "true" (e.g. the consecration of the host is not literally transubstantiation from bread to the actual body of Christ), but the practice of the ritual is an important portal to awareness of God. Thirdly, Armstrong finds cause to believe that from the earliest hints of human religious experience through the vast spiritual menu offered up today, true relationship with God is a life of orthopraxy (right living/action/doing) instead of orthodoxy (right dogma/beliefs/knowing). We don't, Armstrong says, need churches that tell us what to believe; rather we need churches that focus on the disciplines and rituals that bring us awareness of God.

Following her entrancing introduction to Paleolithic spirituality, Armstrong takes us on a 300 plus page exploration of where we humans have gone since emerging from the flickering shadows of the Lascaux caves. Boring? Absolutely not. Armstrong's review of the major religions, the ebb and flow of theological/philosophical tides up to and including the relatively recent cross-current of modern atheism, is fascinating. All but the most erudite of scholars will find engaging new perspectives to both ponder and savor. Is Armstrong always right? I'll refer back to the day-into-night discussion in the caf�: The Case for God will inspire vigorous, enthusiastic and hopefully civil discourse.

In her closing chapters, Armstrong takes on the Four Horsemen of modern atheism: Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris. These chapters are more problematic, in that one of her main contentions is that these outspoken atheists proceed by setting up straw men (e.g. acting as though the religious excesses of fundamentalists represent all of religion) and then knocking them down. In the process, Armstrong sets up a few scarecrows of her own, before knocking the stuffing out of them. Though she does a marvelous job of maintaining an impartial and inclusive tone throughout most of her book, when she discusses the atheists, Armstrong lets loose with a brief volley of the literary equivalent of indignant sniffs.

The Case for God is an important and deeply satisfying book to read, a treat for non-believers and believers alike. I cannot think of a single book that covers more theological territory, and gives a more thorough base of understanding to speak from. Atheists and theologians will have many "Aha!" moments; those who feel secure in their current faith will pause to think, and then find the need to think again.

The Case for God contains a deep conundrum, in that it seeks to make an Ineffable God somewhat effable. It seeks to pursue a God that Armstrong insists cannot be known by rational thought, by making the most rational argument for God that I've personally encountered. The first ten words of this 432 page book are "We are talking far too much about God these days.." Her book is a koan, and more is the pleasure that this is true!
... Read more

Editorial Review

A variety of perspectives exist within the Christian community when it comes to political issues and political involvement. This comprehensive and readable book presents a political philosophy from the perspective that the Gospel pertains to all of life so Christians should be involved in political issues. In brief, this is an analysis of conservative and liberal plans to do good for the nation, evaluated in light of the Bible and common sense.In this ground-breaking book, recognized evangelical Bible professor Wayne Grudem rejects five mistaken views about Christian influence on politics: (1) 'compel religion,' (2) 'exclude religion,' (3) 'all government is demonic,' (4) 'do evangel-ism, not politics,' and (5) 'do politics, not evangelism.'He proposes a better alternative: (6) 'significant Christian influence on government.'Then he explains the Bible's teachings about the purpose of civil government and the characteristics of good or bad government. Does the Bible support some form of democracy? Should judges and the courts hold the ultimate power in a nation? With respect to specific political issues, Grudem argues that most people's political views depend on deep-seated assumptions about several basic moral and even theological questions, such as whether God exists, whether absolute moral standards can be known, whether there is good and evil in each person's heart, whether people should be accountable for their good and bad choices, whether property should belong to individuals or to society, and whether the purpose of the earth's resources is to bring benefit to mankind. After addressing these foundational questions, Grudem provides a thoughtful, carefully-reasoned analysis of over fifty specific issues dealing with the protection of life, marriage, the family and children, economic issues and taxation, the environment, national defense, relationships to other nations, freedom of speech and religion, quotas, and special interests. He makes frequent application to the current policies of the Democratic and Republican parties in the United States, but the principles discussed here are relevant for any nation. ... Read more

Reviews

A terrific and much-needed resource, October 31, 2010
This volume is invaluable for at least two main reasons. It offers a careful and well-argued overview of the biblical view of politics and government, and it also offers detailed analysis of key political issues. And in this massive volume (well over 600 pages) a lot of solid material is presented.

Grudem admits that he leans to the conservative side of politics, but argues that he does so on the basis of what the Bible teaches, rather than as a preconceived position he holds to. But as this volume makes clear, he is not above criticising fellow conservatives when the need arises.

He also admits to not writing as a lecturer in politics, but as a New Testament professor. From a Christian point of view this is not a problem. Indeed, it seems to strengthen his hand. The volume is throughout a careful assessment of a whole range of political and social issues, but always with a view to understanding how Scripture addresses such concerns.

His opening chapters on general political principles as seen in the light of the Bible offer a number of helpful insights. He of course addresses key passages such as Romans 13:1-7, and looks at other controlling NT principles. He begins by looking at five wrong (or unbiblical) positions on government and political involvement.

These include the idea that believers have nothing to do with politics; that governments should exclude religion; and that we should view government as evil and demonic. After dealing with these positions, he seeks to lay out the biblical case for Christian social and political activity.

He argues for a properly understood separation of church and state, avoiding the errors of both a theocratic take on government, and an anarchistic approach. Believers are to be involved in government, while recognising that ultimately governments cannot save anyone.

But the state is instituted by God, and has clear - but rather limited - ends. Thus Grudem argues for a restricted form of governments, recognising that neither radical libertarianism nor stifling statism is the preferred model. He argues for the importance of liberty, but notes that it is not an absolute in itself, and must be limited to some extent in a fallen world.

These first 150 pages would alone be worth the price of the book, but he gets into the real world of politics in the remainder of the volume as he looks at numerous particular issues. These include economics, the protection of life, national security, marriage and family, freedom of religion, and environmental issues.

Consider the contentious issue of same-sex marriage. Grudem argues that governments have - according to Scripture -a primary responsibility to restrain evil, bring good to society, and promote social order. When it comes to marriage, evil is restrained when sexual faithfulness between a man and a woman is legally recognised and enforced.

Marriage brings good to society in promoting social stability and the well-being of children. And social order is maintained by clearly delineating the married from the non-married. There is no right to homosexual marriage to be found in the US Constitution, and there is no violation of human rights in keeping marriage a heterosexual institution.

The law does not prohibit others from marrying, it simply states what marriage is - the union of one man and one woman. He cites various court cases in which the limiting of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not seen as engaging in sex discrimination.

Or consider the specific issue of foreign aid. What is the scriptural position on this rather complex issue? Grudem argues that good intentions need to be assessed in the light of actual outcomes. Surely any concept of Christian compassion for the poor should result in policies which actually help the poor.

He notes that over a trillion dollars in Western aid has gone to poor nations. Yet numerous studies have demonstrated that such aid has in fact often been harmful rather than helpful. Not only does it tend to result in creating a culture of dependency, but most of the money will usually go to corrupt government officials rather than those who actually need it.

Leftist Christians will argue for debt forgiveness for these countries. But a careful look at such measures shows that they tend to be counter-productive. They often result in the perpetuation of corrupt and inefficient regimes. And they encourage future reckless borrowing, since the leaders know they may well get off the hook in the future.

And as is so often the case, the poor really benefit very little from such schemes. That is because the root causes which made for such poverty in the first place are not addressed. "Forgiving debt or giving aid may meet some short-term need, but it does not change the government corruption, oppression, and destructive economic policies".

Plenty of other specific political and social issues are carefully and incisively discussed. Grudem then finishes by offering some concluding observations, including the role of the believer in the governmental process. He reminds us that while God rules over the nations, he uses his people to accomplish his ends.

He reminds us that we have a role to play to be salt and light in our communities, and that includes political and social involvement at all levels. He offers the example of Wilberforce and others as those who have made a significant difference in this world as they applied biblical truths to contemporary problems.

He closes by noting that whenever God has revived his church in the past, it resulted in not just personal renewal, but in social transformation as well. When God breaks forth in new and fresh ways, biblical principles are applied to all levels of life, from the personal to the social.

All in all this is a very important volume which not just outlines broad biblical concerns, but fleshes them out in numerous practical cases, showing how the biblical view of politics is not only relevant to modern social life, but offers plenty of constructive and workable solutions to modern problems.

Classic Grudem, November 17, 2010
I have long been a Grudem fan leaning heavily on his Systematic Theology and Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Politics According to the Bible will occupy the opposing side to Jim Wallis' God's Politics.

I am personally in agreement with the author's position regarding the role of the believer in politics and appreciated his handling of the five opposing views regarding the believer's role. My discomfort with many of his observations and conclusions stem more from his view of the broad reach for the government in the life of the citizen. At the same time, it seemed to me he gives more attention to the public statements of the political parties as opposed to their actions over the past century or so. Platform statements are for propaganda purposes. What the parties have done is the evidence of what they believe. Seems as if there is a suggestion in scripture toward that end?

Still, the book is a great resource, especially the first four chapters while his treatment of the sixty issues affords one a starting point in considering each point. Needs to be in the Christian's library

I recommend the book along with Chuck Colson's Kingdom's In Conflict, Gary DeMarr's God and Government series, Rushdoony's Law and Liberty, and Bhansen's By What Standard.

A Valuable Resource, September 20, 2010
I am very excited about what a great resource this is. I loved Grudem's Systematic Theology for the detailed work yet well laid out approach to teaching Biblical Theology. So I was interested in this work on Politics based on what the Bible has to say hoping that it was going to be as well laid out.

I was not disappointed. Part one is a must read as it sets the foundation for what Grudem will detail throughout the rest of the book. It approaches his view of the Basic Principles of Politics as seen in scripture. He does a good job of talking about the Theocracy of the Old Testament and then how Jesus gives us a new view of Biblical thoughts regarding government.

Grudem states in the Introduction, "I support political positions in this book that would be called more 'conservative' than 'liberal.' . . . . It is important to understand that I see these positions as flowing out of the Bible's teaching rather than positions that I hold prior to, or independently of, those biblical teachings." I think it was important for him to state this fact so that we know that he may have had a different view of politics before he studied what the Bible had to say. I think he does a good job of also stating that he will take on some conservative, Republican, ideas as being wrong, because they don't square with the Bible.

After you have read Part 1 you can then start to read at random, depending on what topic is of most interest to you. The table of contents is extensive and helps you to find topics of interest to you that you can go directly to. I have read several of the topics I was interested in and found Grudem's work to be thought provoking. I have been challenged to think through my feelings about some issues not based on what makes me feel good or what I think is right but based on what Scripture has to say regarding the subject.

But again, read the foundational Part 1 before you start skipping around.

This is a good reference book that I think you will find as a great edition to any Biblical Library that you have started. It will give you good reference material as you start to dialogue with family and friends about the issues that are facing us today.

Many of the items are very timely. Those of us who claim to be Christians need to stop hiding our heads in the sand and start (or reaffirm) addressing the world of politics that we live in. This text will give you a great handle on what a Christian worldview should be in relation to the political scene of our country.

Enjoy!

Very good-, November 15, 2010
I'm not through reading this book yet, but the first 4 chapters are great. We tend to compartmentalize in life- work here, family there, church there... but it's all really interrelated and this book really drives that point home.

Opinion at times more than biblical principle, October 16, 2010
I have to agree with the previous critique by Mike. At times Gruden starts with personal preferences then seeks to reinforce those preferences with biblical backing. It would have been more effective had he stated the biblical and constitutional principles first and then developed his public policy positions from that initial perspective. Considering all the vast knowledge that he has access to with regard to Reformed theology and its history of church state relations, I was hoping for a work that was more biblically presuppositional. In light of the current Calvinistic reawakening among our young people on the universities, I believe they will be looking for public policy solutions based on biblical principle.

Also, Gary North and Gary Demar have been detailing specific areas where Gruden has missed the mark in relation to economics and the limited role that government should play in its development. This is a very important issue at a time when our Marxist president is trying to increase the power of the federal government within our lives. Their critiques can be found at AmericanVision.org

However, this is a good start and I hope it helps to spark a badly needed dialogue among Christians concerning the proper role of government at this critical time in our nation's history. For those interested in further reading on this topic I highly recommend reading the God and Government series by Gary Demar. David Hall has also written "Calvin in the Public Square." R. J. Rushdoony has also written "Law and Liberty." Greg Bahnsen has also written "By This Standard." Calvinist thought is making a comeback and these are good source to discuss a biblical approach toward developing public policy in light of our Constitutional form of government.

Further recommendations:
Calvin in the Public Square: Liberal Democracies, Rights and Civil Liberties (Calvin 500)The Legacy of John Calvin: His Influence on the Modern World (Calvin 500)Ruler of the NationsLaw & LibertyLaw and Revolution II: The Impact of the Protestant Reformations on the Western Legal TraditionLaw and Revolution, The Formation of the Western Legal TraditionLaw and Revolution, II: The Impact of the Protestant Reformations on the Western Legal Tradition (v. 2)Faith and Order : The Reconciliation of Law and Religion (Emory University Studies in Law and Religion)By This Standard: The Authority of God's Law Today

Applying Timeless Truths in Politics, October 29, 2010
This is a very good compendium on applying the truths of Scripture through civic responsibility. I met the author, Dr. Wayne Grudem in Anchorage, Alaska, in October 2010 and he confirmed in person what he says in the book. On some issues people of good will can differ on what God means in Scripture--but on other issues God is very clear. Living our lives and applying our politics according to God's clear direction will result in far greater fulfillment. This is a good read, and is worth keeping on a reference shelf. It was interesting that when I met Dr. Grudem his book had sold out several times at the usual book outlets--and amazon.com was one of the best places to pick it up. I had already done that.

Loren Leman
former Lieutenant Governor, Alaska ... Read more

Editorial Review

Reviews

Great read, August 22, 2010
Eliza Griswold demonstrates an unparalleled expertise in issues of religion and politics. This book is a must for anyone who wants to go beyond the dominant rhetoric of religious extremism to understand the intricate political issues at stake in the local conflicts of the regions she examines. Griswold shows the personal human costs of regional power structures.

POWERFUL, August 21, 2010
I had to stop reading The Tenth Parallel before bed because I couldn't put it down and was staying up all night reading. The stories Giswold relates are so powerful you have to finish each chapter once you start. Unlike so many book like this she does not rely on easy answers or come to confident conclusions but lets the reader sit in the uncomfortable accounts.

Go and see, read and see, August 22, 2010
This book is very intresting if you are intrested in where we are living, and how: what is happening far away from us, far away from television, far away from our stereotypes?. Is religion the real issue of some great conflicts round the world?.
I like the way Eliza Griswold went to see with her eyes what is happening in Africa and Asia, in common people life, and ho w she can mix history, research, journalism and vivid images of what she experiences and saw.
Religion is not the only issue of this long travelling around the world, where islam and cristiany meet and arrive and clash, in so long time and so different ways. There is so much to tell about economy and geography and education in this slow reportage and essay with no thesis and no answers.
As somebody said: geography is a destiny.

Very Illuminating, September 13, 2010
As a secular American I was only dimly aware, from mainstream media coverage, of how extensive the war is between evangelical Christian sects and Islamic settlements, nor how diverse Islam really is. This book is very informative and a real eye - opener.

On-site Clash of Civilizations, November 11, 2010
This is an on-site rendition of the `Clash of Civilizations'. Ms Griswold goes boldly to outposts in Africa and Asia to meet radical (and rabid) Christians and Muslims. By radical I mean people who may kill because of words written in their so-called sacred texts.

But the book goes beyond that, as Ms Griswold explores the why and the localities of these conflicts. She puts a historical and geographical context in her interviews. There are different manifestations of these `radicals' - some, like in Nigeria, seem to have exhausted hate and rhetoric and hopefully the truce established will not expire. What is also apparent with these religious extremists is their intolerance of liberal religious views in the West. Religions in the Western world receptive to Gays, pro-choice, woman's rights, general openness to sexuality ... are an apostasy to fundamentalist Christians and Muslims in the tenth parallel. There is another religion in the areas discussed by Ms. Griswold where there are no shades of grey. Sometimes we have a view of this in the U.S. when abortion clinics are bombed. But I don't know how the `born-again' evangelicals in the U.S. would fit in or adapt to Africa or Asia. As the writer points out, religion in these countries is a way of life because there is no government infrastructure that they can rely on for social and economic support.

There is among both Muslims and Christians in Africa and Asia a strong tendency to revert and restore a view of the way religion was several centuries ago - a literal view of the Quran or the Bible. So this is another clash with modernity. It is difficult to see a resolution of this religious conflict with modernity. It did seem that Muslims in Malaysia were successful at this.

This book does have more of a focus on Christianity and Ms. Griswold (in my opinion) is more comfortable in that milieu, but there are several excellent encounters with Muslim fundamentalists, particularly in Somalia and Asia. Ms. Griswold is a keen observer and is able to provide several perspectives when she is conducting an interview.

Important book, September 28, 2010
This is essential reading for anyone interested in the conflict between Christianity and Islam taking place along the tenth parallel in africa and Asia. The authors personal stories are fascinating and her history of the region helps to explain the complex relationship between religion and colonialism.

Unsettling conclusions & a critique of the West, October 12, 2010
An incisive account of the state of religious practice and overall impact of religion in Nigeria, Sudan, Somalia, Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia. Griswold does a wonderful job of sensitively portraying daily lives in these places in the context of historical, sociological and geographical forces. Her conclusions are unsettling and strongly critiqued the simplistic notions that the West tends to arrive at in framing solutions for development and conflict resolution.

Best for its narrative reporting, October 4, 2010
Written by an agnostic daughter of a liberal Episcopalian bishop this is an exploration of the gulf separating Christianity and Islam, the only two religions that are both monotheistic and triumphal. Griswold's account is weak in European historical background, the very background of Christian Western Civilization that allows the author her extraordinary privileges. Were she born into an Islamic society could she have gained the education and political and personal freedom to enable her to research and write this book? You'll find no straight-up Christianity in this account, just the Christianity-and-water relativism that pervades western culture today.
Yet she performs valuable work recording the personal narratives of ordinary individuals in Africa and South Asia who suffer from religious extremism and the political and economic forces that have employed extremism throughout history to gain power and wealth. It's unfortunate that Griswold failed to provide an even cursory comparison with the conflicts in Northern Ireland and in Israel and Palestine to show how occupation and ursurpation of land in the name of religion is not unique to Islamic or Christian expansionism. Yet if Three Cups of Tea spoke to you of the desperate need to seek and achieve peace via education and economic development then this book will reinforce that conclusion with its touching personal insights.

A beautifully written eye-opener, December 10, 2010

Both insightful and intrepid, Eliza Griswold journeyed through Africa and Asia along the tenth parallel, the line of latitude 700 miles north of the equator where nearly 25% of the world's Muslims and Christians compete for resources, converts and political power. A poet with an ear for simple but evocative language, Griswold takes the reader through the dust of encroaching desertification as she attends an indigenous Indonesian wedding, meets with African rape victims, sits with a Muslim religious leader as he tries to resolve local disputes, and observes an election where voters line up in a barren field behind the candidate of their choice. After reading about her meetings with the homosexual and Muslim denouncing Anglican Bishop Akinola of Nigeria I still have no sympathy with his views, but I now have some understanding of why he thinks the way he does. Griswold's own empathy serves her well; believers on both sides of the religious divide open up to her. As an agnostic daughter of the former presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, Griswold even shares a flash of private connection with crusading evangelist Franklin Graham when she meets him in Africa--though they have very different ideas they are both PKs, preacher's kids, with childhoods that were a struggle between belief and rebellion. My copy of THE TENTH PARALLEL is tabbed with more than 30 post-it notes marking sections I thought were so perceptive and illuminating I knew I'd want to read them again.

Like watching a dcumentary, September 13, 2010
I was fascinated from the start as the author took me to places deep inside the boundaries of where I might ever visit. In fact, I had visited two of the countries she writes about and I had no idea such conflict was occuring. The author opened my eyes to why the west is so disliked and some of the many errors the US has made in our foreign policies. Fascinating, well written book. I felt like I was with the author on her journey. ... Read more

Editorial Review

The author, former U.S. Naval Intelligence Briefing TeamMember, reveals information kept secret by our government since the1940s.UFOs, the J.F.K.. assassination, the Secret Government, the waron drugs and more by the world's leading expert on UFOs. ... Read more

Reviews

Knowledge is Power, April 24, 2002
Behold a Pale Horse is definitely not a book to curl up on the couch with on a Sunday afternoon. The topics William Cooper discusses will very likely keep you reading late into the night. There are two types of people in the world: those who want to know who exactly is controlling whom, and those who are more comfortable taking things at face value. I will say up front that I didn't believe everything I read in this book, such as some of the references about UFOs. What really disturbed me was the theory of the true intent of the government. Cooper's account of what the government is capable of in times of heightened alert is extremely relevant now. It is important to keep in mind that this book was published before the attack on the World Trade Center because the US is finding itself in exactly the position Cooper predicted. Whether or not you think you might agree with the information in this book, I recommend any book written by someone who was killed for the purpose of silencing him or her. Be an informed citizen and know what your government is capable of.

A Wild and Crazy Guy, November 1, 2005
First of all, I will date myself. I have been around the UFO/Conspiracy genre for over 30 years. I have close friends who knew "Wild" Bill. He was, in fact, a Viet Nam era intelligence officer. In fact, I have it on good source that he was what was known as a "uniform changer", meaning he could show up as a navy commander and later as an air force major. These folks had special priviledge and this should not be taken lightly.
I remember when his book came out and many felt that it took some guts to say the things that he did. The UFO issue aside, he had some good information on the other subjects in this book. The UFO information was pretty much the "vanilla version" of what was generally known in those days (the early 90's)
It is my understand that he did have license to kill and actually threatened one of my friends. He could be loud and belligerent, which another friend witnessed once when they ran into him at a bar. In some ways, I can see how he could have been killed by police if he got way to aggressive. He was known for that.
In his talks to groups he used to refer to the public as "sheeple" and I have come to agree with him. He was right on the money about what subsequently occurred in the late 90's and after the millenia. More than anything, the one thing that Bill Cooper hit right on was the prime agenda of those in power- population control by any means.
As a testamony to his guts, I highly recommend this book. But, I strongly suggest that you don't stop there. Research, research, research. In doing so you will get down in the dumps, but you will find things that will change the way that you view the world.

A must read!!!, November 30, 2003
Let me start this review with the truth about Bill's death. Milton William Cooper (58) was shot and killed by deputies of the Apache County (Arizona) Sheriff's Office while they were attempting to serve an arrest warrant for aggravated assault and endangerment on Nov. 5, 2001. I won't go into any further details, since the reader can find more information on the web - and some of it is even RIGHT!!!

His death on "unrelated" charges is most interesting to me. Were those charges just a way to shut him up and discredit him at the same time? Did the sheriff's office go to his home that evening with the intent of getting their man dead and not alive? While I don't have any proof about this, it does stir my imagination.

There are two things to keep in mind while reading this that will help you absorb the information inside his book.

1) This book was published in 1991. You'll understand the significance of that date as he accurately predicts events that have come to pass!

2) Disregard all of the instances where he talks about "alien" U.F.O.'s, moon bases, and other extraterrestrial issues. He later said that all such documents he saw while in Naval Intelligence on those issues were false information to mislead the reader.

Let's start the review!

INTRODUCTION

FOREWORD

1) SILENT WEAPONS FOR QUIET WARS

A reprint of a document found in a IBM copier bought at a surplus sale. In short this document is a blue print for controlling a population. Some have claimed that it's a fake. If it's a fake then someone went to great lengths to draft such a insightful document - but why?

2) SECRET SOCIETIES AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER

A good introduction to secret societies like the Freemasons, Jason Group, Trilateral Commission, CFR, and the Illuminati. On page 72 he accurately predicted that the Galileo spacecraft was going to crash into Jupiter in an attempt to ignite its atmosphere! (Anyone out there remember 2010 and what happened to Jupiter in that movie?)

3) OATH OF INITIATION OF AN UNIDENTIFIED SECRET ORDER

You'll have to decide for yourself if you want to believe this oath.

4) SECRET TREATY OF VERONA

A sample of how Monarchs use treaties to regain their crowns.

5) GOOD-BY USA, HELLO NEW WORLD ORDER

Plans for the suspension of the Constitution and the role of Mt. Weather in bringing it about.

6) H.R. 7049 & FEMA

After reading this chapter you won't doubt the real purpose of FEMA.

7) ANTI-DRUG ABUSE ACT OF 1988

An excellent example of how congress (which is the opposite of progress!) passes legislation which on the surface seems to be reasonable, but under the surface it's really an attempt to suspend due proses, trail by jury, and bring about a police state!

8) ARE THE SHEEP READY TO SHEER?

It covers an Oklahoma law that requires residents of that state to declare to the tax collector every piece of property that they own! A good way for the government to know what you own - especially guns!

9) ANATOMY OF AN ALLIANCE

A discussion about population control and various attempts to decrease the world's population. On page 168 he reveals the origins of AIDS (H.B. 15090) and how it was spread by vaccine. How international wars are created for population control.

10) LESSONS FROM LITHUANIA

A short (two page) but excellent article by Neal Knox on gun control.

11) COUP DE GRACE

A transcript of a conversation between Bill and Randall Terpstra, who was a radioman and crypto operator in the U.S. Navy. They discuss how Nixon was forced to resign by the U.S. military, U.F.O.'s, "Operation Majority," and so on.

12) THE SECRET GOVERNMENT

He discusses a lot about aliens and U.F.O.'s in this chapter. On page 215 he reveals the truth about the assassination of J.F.K. How Prozac is used along with hypnosis and mind control techniques to motivate people to commit mass shootings in order to disarm the public.

13) TREASON IN HIGH PLACES

An article on how treaties can be used to erode the sovereignty of the U.S.A.

14) A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL MODEL FOR THE NEWSTATES OF AMERICA

A reprint of a proposed socialist constitution by the Center for Democratic Studies. It's hard to believe that $25,000,000 was spent on this trash.

15) PROTOCOLS OF THE WISE MEN OF ZION

Is this document really the protocols of the Illuminati? Read it and decide for yourself.

16) THE STORY OF JONATHAN MAY

A 26 page story about what happens when someone challenged the Fed money system.

17) DOCUMENTATION: U.S. ARMY INTELLIGENCE CONNECTION WITH SATANIC CHURCH

The title is self-explanatory.

APPENDIXES
A) WILLIAM COOPER'S MILITARY RECORD
B) UFOs AND AREA 51
C) ALIEN IMPLANTS
D) AIDS
E) NEW WORLD ORDER
F) U.S. GOVERNMENT DRUG INVOLVEMENT
G) KURZWEIL vs. HOPKINS

Brave man down..., July 8, 2005
Whatever criticisms can be levelled against this book, I believe it to be Bill's honest attempt to reveal the Truth as he knew it, at that time.

For those who are new to Conspiracy Theory, this is a mine of information, and for those who are more knowledgable, it still stands as a classic of the genre, and a very courageous book.

Bill's 'convenient' death in a questionable shootout came as no surprise to most Conspiracy buffs, as the guy threw down the gauntlet in a big way. He was fearless.

One fascinating addition to his Kennedy assassination info came in his video, Kennedy: The Sacrificed King, in which he examines the Zapruder film of Kennedy being hit, and by virtual frame advancing, the clip appears to show JFK's driver, William Greer, shooting JFK over his shoulder, delivering the second and probably ultimately fatal shot.

As for some of his Alien info, I know military intelligence hierarchies, and Bill was only operating at a relatively low level in his Naval Intel role (whatever his supposed Clearance), so he never had access to the big picture, and he himself was vulnerable to Disinformation, as he suspected himself. What he conveys is a mixture of Truth and DI.

On a technical note, the book is not a polished, edited finished product, and many of his strategies such as continuous capitalization for emphasis make it hard to read at times, but the content itself makes it well worth the effort to press on.

Like so many of his brothers and sisters, the guy served his Country with honor in Vietnam. There is much to respect about the man.

A Good Book to Read, September 14, 1999
After reading this book, I almost feel certain that this man ( William Bill Cooper )really did stumbled on some very important documents from the military. The proof is right in front of my eyes as I read his service record pages from the Navy on how he was absent from CINPACFLT base after learning the real truth about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. But my overall interest is chapter 12, about the secret government ( FEMA )and the real purpose of MJ-12. To tell you the truth, when that television series " Dark Skies " made its debut in 1996, some of the material and information from that show was basically explained in Cooper's book. As they say the truth is out there. I hope you understand where I'm coming from. I'm still looking for more books on UFO's and the possibility of exterrestrail encounters. I must keep in mind that I cannot allow these publishers or editors take me on a joy ride of disinformation. However, "Behold a Pale Horse" is very interesting and enlightning for those who believe that a conspiracy really exist in our country. Thank you for reading my review.

A Must Read!, December 18, 1999
This is one of the only books I have ever bought two copies of at full price, just so I wouldn't lose my copy when loaning the book. And, I could only seem to get a copy by ordering it. Cooper had a radio show that was most always a shocker, so I had to check out his book. There is much discussion about UFO conspiracy, but not the usual rap, and not the true focus of the book. He ties the UFO phenomena with other info that is sure to change the way one looks at conspiracies, suggesting that, in the very least, the public is only being told the twisted truth. Most of it was not written by him, only compiled by him, much of it being photo duplicated from originals. He doesn't care if you think he's crazy or arrogant, as many do. He only asks the reader to review the material and come to his own conclusions. The most interesting thing is that in coming to accept the conspiracy theories, you will have to suspect Cooper as being part of one himself. This is a book you'll likely keep in your library. Recommended for those with a disdain for conspiracy theories.

Mind Blowing Answers to Americas Decay, March 14, 2000
The New World Order, UFO's, JFK's assasination, why our military have become Global police and who the manipulators are is all in there. I read it in one sitting - dawn to dusk - and was deeply troubled. Our own government selling the U.S. to foreign powers, technology to China, panama canal to China, favored nation status for China in WTO, negative trade balance of $5 Billion/month to China all makes sense. I must wonder how much of the latest skyrocketing gasoline price increase was orchestrated by our own Government. This is a book that will open your eyes to what is really going on.

An amazing work that will, hopefully, start critical analysis, August 18, 2005
I was challenged by a friend in the very early 90's to read Mr. Cooper's "Behold A Pale Horse." What I read changed the way I approach life.

The reader's agreement with all the conclusions, facts, figures, stories, or anecdotes found in the book is immaterial. What matters is, and Mr. Cooper states this time and time again, that the reader is encouraged to do their own research! The author's claims are not bolstered or destroyed by belief, or the lack of it. Rather, Mr. Cooper wants you to remain skeptical and verify, validate or refute the facts yourself.

I can say that through my research, as far as the socio-economic-political landscape is concerned, Mr. Cooper was/is right on target. As for the UFO/Alien conspiracy, he recanted his statements in his book and sincerely apologized for providing what he found out to be dis-information.

It is well worth the read; however, do not rest on the copies of Executive Orders, laws and court cases found in the book; do your own research, come to your own conclusions and you will honor the person that wrote this book more than mere words are able to do.

R.I.P. BILL COOPER, October 17, 2005
[...] Everyone should read this book. His website is [...]You can learn more there. the stuff in this book is terrifying!

i wonder why amazon censored and edited my longer reviews. hmmm

It's 2007 and this book is relevant now more than ever:, February 25, 2007
If you are disgusted with reading (Left/Right) Gatekeeper propaganda then William Cooper is for you. Cooper accomplishes what most news analyst such as Chris Mathews, and Anne Coulter won't do, and that's naming names. In his book he elaborates on whose orchestrating the "New World Order."
We as Americans need to educate ourselves about this detrimental topic and Cooper gives us a great foundation to start our research.
And be prepared because you'll quickly discover that "History is the lie that they teach you in school." (Vernon Reid Living Colour)

And if you are distraught over the government's prevarications then get ready to swallow the red pill because what most Americans don't ascertain is that law H.R.4079 and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are designed to marshal in the police state. Which if you haven't already guessed, means Martial Law.
Under H.R.4079 the Federal Government has the right to suspend the U.S. Constitution.
Moreover, Cooper brings to light that many of our elected officials are members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Trilateral Commission (TC), the Bilderberg Group (BG), and many other secret societies hell bent on global hegemony.
Cooper straightforwardly articulates that we are losing our country, our autonomy, and our lives.

This book also dissects the Illuminati subject in a coherent fashion. Cooper discusses how these secret societies BG, TC, CFR, and the Jason Society are really different denominations of the Illuminati.
So, if you don't become an expert on the "New World Order and how it works" after reading this then you have no business complaining about the isentropic issues that concern us today.
The Illuminati exist, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Our lives are depending on our perception of reality. What we think is real is really the fantasy the global elite conjured up, which equals Problem, Reaction, Solution!
We are being spoon-fed prevarication that Congress actually writes the laws in this country, but the reality is secret societies set the agenda behind closed doors. Plus, Congress no longer has the power to declare war! Surprised!!! You should be! At 3:30am Saturday, August 4,1990, the Senate passed the Senate Intelligence Authorization Act (S.B.2834). This bill transferred most governmental authority over to the President, which means, "The President was given the power to initiate war, appropriate public funds, define foreign policy goals, and decide what is important to our national security." So, in a nutshell, the President can declare war with any nation at anytime (with or without just cause)! And enact domestic policy as he or she deems fit.
Just take a glimpse at the Iraq situation? George W. Bush started the full scale Iraqi invasion in September 2002, which was one month before Congress voted on the measure and six month before the official invasion on March 20, 2003 (Operation Shock and Awe). So the President declared War without Congressional consent and they (Congress, the Supreme Court and the media) knew it was legal for him to do so, and they feigned otherwise, misleading the American people.

"Behold a Pale Horse" is a 500-page diatribe of information that no one should be without. Whether you agree or disagree with the info in this book isn't the point. The crux is do we have the right to be circumspect, or more accurately, paranoid over our civil liberties being eviscerated before our very eyes? I think we do.

The controversial subject of Area 51 and extraterrestrials is also discussed in this five star book of info. We have to ponder on the fact that our government hides information from us everyday. I personally don't believe in little bug-eyed gray men from planet Neutron 5, but what I do believe is that our government is running clandestine experiments in Area 51 that they don't want discovered. And we as a free society should have the right to inquire as to why they (the government) would deem this irrational behavior acceptable?

Also, Cooper discusses the Freemasons' role in the "New World Order." So for all you Freemason conspiracy buffs this is essential reading.
Oh and one more thing, for all the Freemason researchers out there who want to find out how Hiram Abif died, here's how, "Hiram Abif represents intelligence, liberty and truth, and was struck down by a blow to the neck with a rule, representing the suppression of speech by the church; then he was struck in the heart with the square, representing the suppression of belief by the State; and finally he was struck on the head by a maul, representing the suppression of intellect by the masses." I fail to construe why the Masons think keeping the secret of Hiram's death is so important. There ideology seems rather gauche in the end.

Anyway, I strongly recommend this book to anyone who is an Alex Jones listener, or is familiar with Anthony J. Hilder, Jordan Maxwell, Jim Marrs, or anyone who wants to truly understand how the world's smoke and mirrors methodology really works.

After reading this book I perfectly understand why Milton William Cooper was killed 2 months after 9/11.
Cooper is a hero that should be honored and respected! ... Read more

Editorial Review

Since he was a small boy, Mosab Hassan Yousef has had an inside view of the deadly terrorist group Hamas. The oldest son of Sheikh Hassan Yousef, a founding member of Hamas and its most popular leader, young Mosab assisted his father for years in his political activities while being groomed to assume his legacy, politics, status . . . and power. But everything changed when Mosab turned away from terror and violence, and embraced instead the teachings of another famous Middle East leader. In Son of Hamas, Mosab Yousef--now called "Joseph"--reveals new information about the world's most dangerous terrorist organization and unveils the truth about his own role, his agonizing separation from family and homeland, the dangerous decision to make his newfound faith public, and his belief that the Christian mandate to "love your enemies" is the only way to peace in the Middle East. ... Read more

Reviews

Love Your Enemies? How The Son Of The Founder Of Hamas Went From Jihad To Jesus, March 6, 2010
I first met Mosab Hassan Yousef, the oldest son of one of the founders of the Hamas, by phone in 2009. We spoke several times for several hours, getting to know one another and taking each other's measure. Later, we corresponded a bit by email and finally met for coffee. It was an unlikely encounter, to be sure. How often, after all, does a former aide to an Israeli Prime Minister and a former aide to the leader of a terrorist movement meet and become friends. But we have. And the reason is simple: we have both been transformed by the love of Jesus Christ.

Mosab was raised a Radical Muslim. He believed "Islam is the answer, and jihad is the way." He was poised to become the future leader of Hamas. As such, he would have become one of Israel's most dangerous and wanted enemies. But something happened along the way that changed everything. Mosab came to the stunning conclusion that Hamas was evil, that Islam was wrong, that suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks were abhorrent, that Israelis were his friends not his enemies, and that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and the Savior of the world. In short, Mosab has become a Revivalist. Today he believes "Islam is not the answer, jihad is not the way; Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and no one comes to the Father except through Jesus." What's more, he believes that the only way for Israelis and Palestinians to truly find peace with each other is to first find peace with God by embracing the Prince of Peace -- Jesus, who was born in Bethlehem; Jesus, who was raised in Nazareth; Jesus who died on the cross in Jerusalem, and rose again, and is coming back to the Holy Land soon.

How this transformation happened -- and the choices Mosab has made as a result -- is the subject of one of the most powerful books I have ever read. SON OF HAMAS, written by Mosab and journalist Ron Brackin, is part spy thriller, part spiritual testimony of a young man leaving terror for redemption. It is a must-read book and one can only hope it becomes the basis of a major Hollywood motion picture.

In just the first week since the book was released, Mosab has received enormous media coverage -- Haaretz, Ynet News, CNN, Fox, NBC, Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, and Forbes, among many others. Most of the reports and interviews have focused on the intelligence intrigue of how Mosab became a double agent for Israel's Shin Bet secret service agency against Hamas, helping to stop scores of terrorist attacks and saving countless Jewish and Arab lives as a result. Unfortunately, most of the reports have glossed over the spiritual side of Mosab's journey. The good news is the book covers both sides of Mosab's life in gripping details.

Here are a few tidbits worth considering:

* Mosab hated the Jews. He cheered when Saddam Hussein fired 39 Scud missiles at Israel during the 1991 Gulf War, and was disappointed when Israel wasn't destroyed. He wanted Hamas to seize back all the land of "Palestine" from the Jews. But in 1996, at the age of 18, he was arrested by the Israelis for buying automatic weapons to kill Jews. He was sent to an Israeli prison. There he was stunned at what he saw: Muslims torturing Muslims. "I had never heard a human being scream like that guy did. What could he have done to deserve that." (p.97)

* "Nearby, fellow Hamas members -- fellow Arabs, fellow Palestinians, fellow Muslims -- shoved needles under [his friend] Akel's fingernails." (p. 100)

* "Every day there was screaming; every night, torture. Hamas was torturing its own people! As much as I wanted to, I simply could not find a way to justify that." (p. 102)

* Months later, after being released from Israeli prison, Mosab was walking past the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem. Someone -- not knowing who he was -- invited him to a Bible study. Curious, he attended. They studied the New Testament, and gave Mosab a copy to read for himself. "I began at the beginning [in the Gospel According to Matthew], and when I got to the Sermon on the Mount, I thought, Wow, this guy Jesus is really impressive! Everything He says is beautiful! I couldn't put the book down. Every verse seemed to touch a deep wound in my life. It was a very simple message, but somehow it had the power to heal my soul and give me hope. Then I read this: `You have heard that it was said, Love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.' (Matthew 5:43-45)....I was thunderstruck by these words. Never before had I heard anything like this, but I knew that this was the message I had been searching for all my life." (p.122)

* "For years I had struggled to know who my enemy was, and I had looked for enemies outside of Islam and Palestine. But I suddenly realized that the Israelis were not my enemies. Neither was Hamas nor my uncle Ibrahim [one of the torturers in prison] nor the kid who beat me with the butt of his M16....I understood that enemies were not defined by nationality, religion, or color. I understood that we all share the same common enemies: greed, pride, and all the bad ideas and the darkness of the devil that live inside us....Five years earlier, I would have read the words of Jesus and thought, What an idiot! and thrown the Bible away....But now, everything Jesus said on the pages of this book made perfect sense to me. Overwhelmed, I started to cry." (p.122-123)

** Joel C. Rosenberg is the New York Times best-selling author of Epicenter 2.0: Why the Current Rumblings in the Middle East Will Change Your Future and Inside the Revolution: How the Followers of Jihad, Jefferson & Jesus Are Battling to Dominate the Middle East and Transform

a must read, March 2, 2010
This book was very well written and gripping - i couldn't put it down! It was filled with details of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, yet was easy to understand and follow. The story pulls you in so much that it 'feels' more like reading a fictional spy book than an autobiography. From a literary standpoint this book was an amazing work. Making a history lesson interesting is no easy task.

The story itself is also amazing. As a Christian, it was inspiring to see how one sentence from the Bible was able to transform Mosab's heart and change the course of his life. As a result, many lives were saved. It is also a work of peace, helping us see that there are no cut and dry answers to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. All have done wrong, with Jesus all are capable of peace.

Amazing job, Mosab! Thanks for sharing your story.

Whatever your politics, this is a good read, March 4, 2010
I heard about this book and its author on NPR a few weeks ago and preorder it on my Kindle. While I was expecting a good story and some unique insight into the Arab side of the conflict my hopes were not high for the quality of writing and storytelling that I assumed a man with a military and religious background could produce. Boy, was I wrong about the quality!!! The book opened up the inner working or rather lack of inner workings within Hamas and loudly vindicated what Israel and the whole world knew about Arafat as a selfish global beggar, who was the main driver behind the second intifada with no regard for the well being of his people. The story is extremely well written and shares a writing style with Natan Sharansky's Fear no Evil. While the author's Christianity plays a large role in his life journey this book should be enjoyed by everyone. I am surprised at how good the actual writing style was and commend Masab on the lives he has saved through considerable risk to his own. Hopefully there are many more operatives like him operating in Gaza and will lead to the release of Gilad Shalit.

the real thing, March 4, 2010
if you are serious about understanding the MIddle East and the ideologies competing for dominance over there this is a must read. Joseph as we call him will be remembered in history as a great man of faith and courage. Take this book very seriously it comes at great cost.
-Pastor Matt Smith
[...]

A Rare Gem, March 4, 2010
My only regret in purchasing this book is that it was so riveting it made me late for work! It is a heart warming story of a man's journey from hate to love for all of humanity. After decades of studying the Middle East and thousands of hours spent studying Islam, I can verify that the author is clearly the real deal. While he characterizes and explains things in a different manner than I sometimes would and his view that "delivered from the oppression of Europe, Israel became the oppressor" is, although an understandable view from his prospective, not entirely fair, his overall understanding of what drives the Israeli-Islamic Conflict is far superior to 99.99999 percent of the views I see regarding the topic. The author is one of those rare souls that managed to figure out some of the most complex and difficult issues to understand in the World today given all of the disinformation and errant opinions, both inadvertent and intentional, promulgated about the conflict and Islam. I guarantee that you will not regret purchasing this book. The author also has great courage to speak out as he has. May God protect him. The author's view of Israel as an oppressor is no doubt a sincere view, but it is a view clouded by his proximity to the conflict. Sometimes when we look at something too closely we suffer from a bit of myopia. While Israel's conduct may seem oppressive at times to one who has suffered from Israel's attempts to defend itself, it is conduct driven by desperation and the need to protect its people. But for the enslavement of Arab Muslims by Islam and the cultural effect of Islam on the entire Arab culture - even non-Muslim Arabs - Arab and Jews could and would live in relative peace together and the Arabs would proper from the industriousness and economic vitality of Israel. The fact is that far from being an oppressor, Israel is the one hope that inhabitants in the area have of living under a relatively fair and just government. All the Arabs need to do is quit trying to destroy Israel and to indiscriminately kill Jews and they will reap the benefits of Israel's better attributes. But when you try to destroy a people, it is hardly a surprise that their natural, instinctive self-defense response will seem "oppressive."

This is a great read and you will have no buyer's remorse. I was only sorry that the story was not longer! The author is an exceptional man wise beyond his years.

Most incredible story I ever read..., March 14, 2010
...and I read a lot. I drive 2+ hours a day back and forth to work listening to Audio Books. This is a gripping story, I can't stop thinking about it. The risks he took, leading a double life at the top of the most violent group of killers in the world. Most books are interesting but I don't expect to ever shake this one. Mosab is still on a mission. We sit around fretting about the Middle East while civilization unravels. Mosab is perhaps the only man with a complete picture of the wretched travesty, and he's not sitting, he's carrying the world on his shoulders. Our leaders are lost, so Mosab is putting his life on the line to save as many as he can. My heart goes out to him. For those of you who pray, pray God will protect and sustain Mosab.

Completely changed my view of the Middle East, March 3, 2010
I am a sucker for spy novels, but have often been disappointed by nonfiction accounts of spies. Spycatcher was particularly disappointing. Son of Hamas is unlike any spy nonfiction I have ever read. It is gripping reading, and I could not put my kindle down until I had read it all.

Mossab Hassan Yousef has helped me understand the Middle East in a new and profound way; In the past I was strongly tempted to see Israel as the good guy and anybody else as the bad guys, but he helped me see many shades of gray in Palestine. Yousef's story is more than a compelling spy thriller or political geography. It is also the story of his repenting of his sins, and believing in Jesus Christ for his salvation. I can barely conceive of how difficult it must have been for him to break his family's heart, take up his cross, and follow Jesus. This book is an absolute must-read. I hope Mossab is adjusting well to life in the United States.

Fast-paced, Sensational, Heartbreaking, May 13, 2010
"Son of Hamas" is a fast-paced, sensational, heartbreaking read. Mosab Hassan Yousef's story is unique and important, and he tells his story with frankness, tears, and outrage. He is the son of a founder of the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas; he himself was a prisoner, an Israeli spy, and, eventually, a convert to Christianity. The book is an easy read; you can finish it in a couple of sittings. It's really more of a long magazine article than a book, though. Neither MHY nor his co-author, Ron Brackin, delves deeply into the many complexities of the story. Rather, the book's focus is on recounting of this or that spy activity. From this book, I didn't gain deep insight into what it's like to be an undercover agent, to betray one's beloved father's ideals, or to convert from Islam to Christianity.

MHY's description of Hamas is scathing. The most memorable passages in the book describe Hamas members torturing other Palestinians in Israeli prisons. MHY worked as the torturers' scribe. He wrote their fastidious accounts of what the tortured inmate confessed to. These files read like pornography. Inmates confessed to unbelievable acts, acts that included cows and cameras. It was clear to MHY that these victims were making up stories to satisfy their torturers' twisted appetites, and to, thereby, make the torture stop.

The Hamas torturers focused on men who did not have outside protectors to avenge their torture. One poor soul, Akel, was targeted for torture because his only living relative outside prison was a sister who would not harm anyone in revenge for Hamas shoving needles under Akel's fingernails. Too, Akel was a "simple farmer" "never accepted by the urban Hamas" who took advantage of him. MHY describes a Palestinian prisoner throwing himself against a boundary of razor wire. An Israeli guard was about to shoot him. The man explained that he was not trying to escape the Israeli prison, but, rather, his fellow Palestinian inmates.

The bulk of the book consists of journalistic accounts of this or that spy operation. Clever ways are devised for MHY to meet with his Israeli handlers. Other clever ways are devised for MHY to avoid being detected as a spy, even as he meets with top figures like the PLO's Yasser Arafat. MHY thwarts suicide bombings and tries to make sure that terrorists are imprisoned, rather than killed. Fans of espionage may find these passages intriguing.

By chance, MHY runs into some Christians and begins to discover Jesus in the pages of a gift Bible. MHY left Islam and became a Christian. This made life completely impossible for him among his beloved home and family. He had to leave Israel for the US. Even that departure had to be orchestrated by Israeli intelligence.

The intense heartbreak MHY has experienced in his life is suggested in this book, but never plumbed. I wonder if he'll ever write a more probing, confessional book that will explore what must have been a very tough life. MHY's love for his father and his family is obvious. His family has disowned him; they have to. Islam mandates the death penalty for apostates. MHY was born into an impossible situation for an ethical being. He loves his father; his father supports terror. He loves his family; his family must renounce him for leaving Islam. He loves his homeland and his people; too many of his people are committed to pointless violence and are rigid in their resistance to any alternative point of view. I suspect that many readers reading this book will be moved to pray for MHY and his family as well. Readers will pray for his safety, of course, but also for peace for the many heartbreaks he has experienced, heartbreaks not of his own making.

Review of Son of Hamas, March 8, 2010
The title of this book describes exactly what it is. It is a gripping, powerful, terrifying tale of unbelievable choices, political intrigue and betrayal of the most potent sort.

Mosab Hassan Yousef, known as the "Green Prince" to the Shin Bet (an Israeli intelligence service comparable to America's FBI), is the oldest song of Sheikh Hassan Yousef, a cofounder and leader of Hamas since 1986. What is Hamas? It is an Islamic resistance movement in the West Bank and Gaza, listed by several organizations and governments as a terrorist organization.

My Aunt bought this book and read it quickly and I couldn't resist the pull of it. I remembered reading about Mosab (Now Joseph) in an article a few months back and thought how fascinating his story must be. Fascinating doesn't even begin to describe this journey.

There are facts and facts laid bare in this book. I don't even know where to begin writing about it. The relationship Mosab has with his father is one that defies all typical American assumptions when it comes to terrorist relationships. Despite his father's heavy involvement in Hamas, he proves that the line is not always black and white and that there is a wide expanse of gray there in the middle. While his father does not participate first-hand in the terrorist acts nor actively condone them he does nothing to stop them which causes Mosab to have one of many second thoughts as to his place in the conflict.

Most of all, this is a story of salvation - although it begins to get a bit lost. This is not a book that preaches to you. It's a simple statement of fact from a man raised in a deeply religious, Muslim family and lifestyle and how he struggles with the differences between the God of the Bible and the God of the Qur'an. An example is this paragraph:

"Somehow, I seemed to always benefit from divine protection. I wasn't even a Christian yet, and al-Faransi certainly didn't know the Lord. My Christian friends were praying for me every day, however. And God, Jesus said in Matthew 5:45 "causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." This was certainly a far cry from the cruel and vengeful god of the Qur'an."

One of the parts of the book that struck me the most was the following passage. In this section of the book Mosab is speaking of an Israeli man, a Jewish man (Amnon) who refuses to serve in the military despite it being a required 3 year term. The reason for Amnon's refusal? He cannot justify killing.

"When he still refused to serve, Amnon was arrested and imprisoned. What I didn't realize was that Amnon was living in the Jewish section of the prison the entire time I was at Ofer. He was there because he refused to work with the Israelis; I was there because I had agreed to work with them. I was trying to protect Jews; he was trying to protect Palestinians.

I didn't believe that everybody in Israel and the occupied territories needed to become a Christian in order to end the bloodshed. But I thought if we just had a thousand Amnons on one side and a thousand Mosabs on the other, it would make a big difference. And if we had more ... who knows?"

Mosab is now currently living in California. His father refuses to denounce him in order to protect him from death. His father denies that Mosab ever had any information about Hamas and was not a member of the organization. I don't know whether this is the truth or not, but I do know that what I have read in this novel shed a definite light on some things and made me think long and hard about a situation which, up until this point, was dark and mysterious.

I applaud Mosab's courage in telling his story and I am thrilled at the message that he conveys through it. If only we had a thousand people to listen and take up his way of thinking just think what we could do. And like he said in this book, "if we had more... who knows?"

A Horror House of Mirrors, March 7, 2010
The devout Muslim son of an Imam Palestinian leader, befriended by Jews and working for the Israeli "CIA", converts to Christianity while spying for Israel and still protecting the life of his Hamas father in the midst of vengeful incursions by Israel into the West Bank.

And that's just the easy part!

Moab Hassan Yousef, this SON OF HAMAS founding leader Sheikh Hassan Yousef, tells a compelling story. He takes the reader from his rock-throwing boyhood in the first Palestinian intifada, through his teenage years of imprisonment with its threats of torture by both his Israeli captors and his fellow Palestinian prison mates, to his heart felt desire to save his people, all people, from endless violence and death. While the author's writing style, in collaboration with Mr. Ron Brackin, may come off at first perhaps a bit adolescent, reading on, the reader is taken into experiences that are anything but childish.

From "true believer" as the son of an Imam to befriending the Jewish state, to encountering "the one true God" of neither of them, Moab Yousef takes the reader through all three camps. Yet, despite the author's earnest attempts to light the way to peace, the reader may be left, as I was, still holding a lamp of hope while wandering the geopolitical wilderness.
... Read more

Editorial Review

Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, is one of the world's leading scientists. He works at the cutting edge of the study of DNA, the code of life. Yet he is also a man of unshakable faith in God and scripture.

Dr. Collins believes that faith in God and faith in science can coexist within a person and be harmonious. In The Language of God he makes his case for God and for science. He has heard every argument against faith from scientists, and he can refute them. He has also heard the needless rejection of scientific truths by some people of faith, and he can counter that, too. He explains his own journey from atheism to faith, and then takes readers for a stunning tour of modern science to show that physics, chemistry, and biology can all fit together with belief in God and the Bible. The Language of God is essential reading for anyone who wonders about the deepest questions of faith: Why are we here? How did we get here? What does life mean? ... Read more

Reviews

Good as far as it goes..., January 14, 2007
Collins' book is a good introduction to its subject matter but is unlikely to be satisfying to anyone who has spent any time reflecting on the issues discussed. If you are an atheist/agnostic who assumes belief in God is irrational or a Christian who assumes that Darwinism is incompatible with your faith, the book makes some thought-provoking arguments to jog you from your "dogmatic slumbers." But for people in both camps who have already spent some time reflecting on the issues, Collins' superficial treatment is disappointing. One question that both atheists skeptical of Christianity and Christians skeptical of Darwinism might want an answer to -- and the reason I bought the book -- is the question of how a process of evolution fraught with death, suffering, sub-optimal "design" and waste is compatible with the existence of a loving God. Collins doesn't even bring this question up, despite his discussion of Christian objections to Darwinism. Given his scientific stature, I encourage Collins to write a second more scholarly book to flesh out the arguments begun here.

Science and God, August 3, 2007
In this deeply personal book, Francis Collins tackles the "science vs. religion" debate. Since at least Immanuel Kant, we have known that this is a false dichotomy. However, modernity has in effect turned a deaf ear to Kant. In this book, Collins follows in the footsteps of the Kantian tradition, attempting the great synthesis of the empirical and the spiritual, the pure reason and the practical reason. Like Kant before him, Collins is sure to raise the ire of both sides of the aisle. And that is usually a good sign one is doing something right.

Collins reviews in the first part of the book his personal journey from atheism towards a theistic worldview, and the classical objections against it. His answers are mostly based on the apologetics of C.S. Lewis. This debate is much older than C.S. Lewis of course; most of his ideas can be found in St. Augustin, the Stoics, Pascal and Kant. However he does manage to present those arguments from a modern perspective, in an accessible conversational style.

The second part of the book is a popular science exposition, where Collins draws extensively on his considerable scientific background in both physics and biology and, in particular, the leading role he played in the Human Genome project.

The third part of the book is where Collins tries to reach a final conclusion about the issue of "faith in science and faith in God." He reviews his options, from Creationism to Atheism, and settles on the middle -of-the-road worldview he calls BioLogos. He expounds this theistic evolutionary view, according to which orthodox evolution theory is a fact, but also a divine means of creation. Here is where Collins slips a little, by trying to chew too much. While evolution from lower lifeforms seems to be an indisputable fact, the orthodox theory of evolution by natural selection operating on pure chance presupposes a metaphysical naturalist worldview, which is very contrary to a personal God model. From a scientific point of view alone, while evolution is a fact, it is clear that the mechanism of evolution is not yet completely understood (e.g., like Collins himself points out, the evolution of moral behavior has not been satisfactorily explained; but we can also mention the riddle of "junk" DNA, the various observed cases of puzzling "exadaptation," and so on).

One omission that stands out is that Collins never once mentions Martin Gardner, the contemporary philosopher and essayist, also Kantian, who has written extensively on the issues examined in this book.

All in all, I applaud Dr. Collins' courage and clarity in writing such a timely and important book. I have no doubt that it will leave creationists and atheists alike scratching their heads. It is a must read for anyone who wants a balanced and informed opinion on this subject.

Intriguing, July 31, 2006
You have to hand it to Francis Collins, he is no fence-sitter, though some may mistakenly so perceive him. Some may think he is trying to win friends and influence people of all types--those who love science and those who love Scripture. In reality, a book like this is sure to displease more die-hards than please them. Evangelicals are sure to get squeamish about Collins' support for the big bang and evolution and his beliefs in a non-literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. On the other hand, as previous vitriolic reviews clearly indicate the so-called loving left will and have attack Collins for daring to value Scripture and claim that believe in God, the Christian God no less, are not only faith issues, but supportable by science. So, he's attacked if he does and he's attacked if he doesn't.

And what does he do? Using his personal faith in God and his professional expertise as an internationally-known scientist, Collins presents a case for the integration of science and Scripture. Both disciplines require the use of reason and logic, as well as faith and experience. Both must interpret the evidence. In Collins' skillful hands and able prose, "The Language of God" is sure to challenge the intellectually honest reader who will read it with an open mind, rather than a defensive heart.

Reviewer: Bob Kellemen, Ph.D., is the author of "Soul Physicians," "Spiritual Friends," and "Beyond the Suffering: Embracing the Legacy of African American Soul Care and Spiritual Direction."

great science, decent theology, July 16, 2006
I read Dr. Collins' book with great anticipation, because of the his scientific reputation (one of the most respected research scientists in the world and the head of the Human Genome Project). I figured he'd offer a balanced approach to scientific and theological issues. I think that's why many people will read this book.

So, to the text. A large portion of the book is devoted to the basics of science such as the Big Bang, the theory of evolution, etc... In my opinion, this part of the book is probably one of the better overviews of the contentious issues in science today. Dr Collins makes an extremely convincing case for the plausibility and likelihood that the Universe was created through the Big Bang and that life on earth was created through evolution. This is the part of the book I have no qualms with.

The second part of the book is where my quibbles begin. At the beginning of this section Dr Collins lays out the case for the "Anthropic principle", a hypothesis that points to various aspects of the universe and suggests that they may point to God. Many of these points are very interesting and make for some thought-provoking discussions.

The more dubious part, to me, is where Dr Collins points to parts of the human psyche as evidence of Godliness. While initially deploring any explanation that suggests "God's in the Gaps", Dr Collins continues on to suggest that the human altruistic drive along with the collective search for spirituality is evidence of God. With this, Dr. Collins falls prey to the very philosophy he deplores, the "God in the Gaps" theory. It's unclear to me if he realizes that he's fallen prey to it, as he does not address this potential problem in his philosophy. He does point out that some suggest alternate reasons for the humans altruistic drive and search for spirituality, but ultimately rejects them because of the science, not the philosophy, behind them.

After this there are some middling attempts to synthesize parts of the bible with science, but they fall pretty short in my eyes. Dr Collins seems to be in favor of a semi-literal interpretation of most of the bible, but makes halfhearted attempts to convince the reader of his position. This largely continues until the end of the book where Dr Collins discusses some interesting ethical dilemmas.

So to summarize, this is a really great science book and has some decent theological points, but there's nothing too conclusive in it.

Competent, but lightweight and unconvincing, March 12, 2007
Dr. Collins is an accomplished geneticist, and from reading his book I can say that he is also a clear and able writer. But one thing he is not is a theological or intellectual heavyweight. This book will convince no one who has not already given this sort of topic some consideration, one way or the other. He adds little to the discussion but a friendly and civil manner - not that that is a bad thing. The key to the book, and the signpost to its downfall, is the subtitle, "A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief." In the end, we are left asking, "what evidence?"

For more than two thirds of the book, Collins lays out the basic facts of genetics and the human genome, denounces Creationism and rejects Intelligent Design theory, rebukes Richard Dawkins, and sets a tone for reasonableness - the voice of reconciliation between science and belief (and by "belief" he means Christianity). As with the late Steven Gould, whom he quotes, Collins believes that science and religion operate in largely separate spheres, the natural and the supernatural, so that most instances of supposed conflict are actually misunderstandings or misapplications of one or the other. He argues that God and nature cannot ever be in true conflict, since God is the author of nature to begin with. Pretty standard, ho-hum stuff.

More importantly, none of this constitutes "evidence for belief." Instead, he has merely shown us that science does not rule out belief, so long as you are willing to grant science its due dominion in the natural realm. As long as your religious belief can accommodate evolution by natural selection and other well-founded scientific theories, your religious belief is OK. So far, we have no evidence for a Biblical God, only the plausibility of an impersonal philosopher's God who is the author of natural laws.

After two thirds of the book, Collins finally presents his theistic evolutionary point of view. Here's where Collins starts to get in over his head. Collins argues that the widespread human feature of a "moral impulse," along with the near universality of religion as a cultural and personal phenomenon, is evidence for the existence of God (the Christian God, of course). But what happens when science starts to explain the psychology and evolutionary origins of morality and religious belief - as it has already begun to do? What evidence does Collins have left for his belief in God? As much as Collins criticizes the old God of the Gaps, I am afraid he has created a Gap of his own! Other than the human traits of morality and religiosity, what reason does he give to believe in his Christian God? What evidence?

Another problem for Collins is that he is too good a scientist, and he realizes the vast scope and explanatory power that science encompasses. The natural world functions by itself so well that God is reduced (without Collins meaning to do so) to little more than the author of natural laws. The natural laws do all the actual work of making the universe go. This is not the Christian God, so what is it? His faith tells him that miracles are possible, but his training and his experience tell him otherwise. All the evidence, it seems, is on the wrong side.

Finally, and perhaps most devastatingly, if natural selection created human beings, what is the consequence of saying that God set up the natural laws that made natural selection possible? Doesn't that still mean that our origins are based every bit as much on pitiless luck, amoral competition, selfish genes, and eons of blind and wasteful trial-and-error tinkering as the Darwinians have been saying all along? If the human genome is the "Language of God," then what does it mean that it was created by natural selection? I'm afraid I just don't see the appeal of theistic evolution, to either theists or scientists - or to scientists who are also theists.

In the end, it may be intellectually and philosophically possible to reconcile belief in some kind of a God with the findings of modern science, but unfortunately Dr. Collins has not given us much in the way of evidence, least of all from the field of genetics or evolutionary biology.

C. S. Lewis Rehash, April 1, 2007
I bought this book, hoping it would describe, in detail, hard scientific reasons to believe in God. The cover, with its picture of DNA, led me to believe this.

It did not. Instead, it recycled the old arguments of C. S. Lewis. Don't get me wrong, I love Lewis and he largely helped me to remain Christian in college. But I have never been convinced by the particular argument that Collins recycles here.

I can summarize the main argument quite rapidly: We have a sense of morality within us. Therefore, God supposedly exists.

Collins tries to argue against the so-called "God of the gaps" fallacy. What people don't seem to realize is that if the gap is large enough, so that there is simply no way for blind natural forces to jump across it, it is not a fallacy to point this fact out.

There happen to be multiple huge "gaps" that there is simply no way for blind forces of nature to bring into existence without God's help. It is not a "fallacy" to point out these huge gaps. For example, it has recently been calculated that the absolute minimum size of DNA required for the simplest life forms is roughly 180,000 base pairs. And without God, supposedly dead chemicals just happened to randomly arrange themselves into the correct sequence? This is a major huge gap, and it simply points straight to God.

If you are looking for serious, hard science to back up your belief in God, I recommend that you read two books that made lifelong atheist Antony Flew recently convert to Deism. The two books are:

"The Wonder of the World" by Roy Varghese.
"The Hidden Face of God" by Gerald Schroeder.

The above two books are excellent, giving you nothing but hard science and great scientific details. This book by Collins pales in comparison, even if Collins happens to have impeccable scientific credentials.

A must read for seekers of Truth, October 4, 2006
By the leader of the Human Genome Project. A most important book for any curious person, scientist or layman.

Francis Collins is one of the most distinguished scientists in the world. This book is a call to end the wars between science and faith. The author proves that the theory of evolution is not an impediment to faith in God (theism). On the contrary, evolution is the language by which God spoke life into being.

Science will never be able to explain the big truths that humans are most concerned of: Why was the universe created? What is the meaning of life? In the first place because that is not the purpose of science, but to study empirical data.

The author claims that "Theistic Evolution" is the best option to stand by in this world of clashes between atheists, agnostics, creationists, proponents of ID, etc. He also intends to rename this synthesis of creation/evolution as BioLogos. Beautiful name, if may say.

Here are the premises on which he and many other scientists (at [...]) rest their proposal:
1. The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago.
2. Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.
3. The mechanism of the origin of life remains unknown. Development of biological diversity and complexity through evolution and natural selection.
4. Once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required. (Evolution was part of God's plan).
5. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.
6. But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of the right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.

This book is a very easy read for anyone. Science exalts God's creation; it does not dimish His work.

This book is also, partly, a testimony of a man who found his personal relationship with God after being an atheist, later agnostic and, finally, accepting Jesus Christ.

Does not meet expectations..., September 6, 2006
I will try to be brief. Being a scientist myself I was looking forward to reading this book by a well known scientist. Overall, written well. I would not call it " a scientist presents evidence for belief" though, but " a believer presents evidence for science". The book feels more like a desperate search of a believer, with a strong need to believe, rather than the writing of a scientist reaching a realization.
In the book the author constantly quotes writings of C.S. Lewis as proof to satisfy his own questions. That is not proof and an author should present their own arguments on a matter.
The author bases his belief on God on the existence of the "Moral Law" and man's search for God. i.e. since man distinguishes right from wrong and since man has always searched for God, then God must exist. No, that is not enough "proof".
The author accepts evolution and accepts the big bang as the beginning of everything. So he argues that God knew all that would happen, made the big bang happen knowing that evolution will take place and all that we have today and will have in the future were known to God...This needs to be accepted, of course, as there is no proof. That is an easy way out to accept evolution as a fact, but also to accept God.
On human suffering he says: "hard though it is to accept, a complete abscence of suffering may not be in the best interest of our spiritual growth"...Once again, an easy way out to "explain" what cannot be explained.
Regarding Jesus Christ and whether he existed and whether he was God, the author claims that while hiking one day he saw a frozen waterfall that was so beautiful that "the search was over" for him and "he surrendered to Jesus Christ" -- that is completely against any scientific attitude.
This book was an interesting read, but if you are a scientist with questions about God, I doubt the answers are here.

Interesting, but not compelling, August 1, 2006
Francis Collins, the former head of the Human Genome Project, has written a book presenting his case for belief in theism. Having read the pre-reviews, I was looking forward to reading a fellow biologist's viewpoint on the evidence supporting the existence of God. Although Collins presents much of the evidence supporting a Christian worldview, he discounts nearly all of it in his discussions. For example, although Collins fully accepts the anthropic principle (and devotes an entire chapter to it in "The Language of God"), he rejects the origin of life as requiring any input from God. Collins present the standard high school textbook version for the naturalistic origin of life and seems unaware of the wealth of evidence that contradicts all naturalistic scenarios, saying "this is not the place for a thoughtful person to wager his faith." Collins goes on to reject creationism (but seems to restrict the term primarily to the young earth variety), relegating virtually all of Genesis (other than Genesis 1:1) to being "poetic" and "allegorical." Another chapter is devoted to criticizing intelligent design, indicating that it is a "God of the gaps" approach "ironically on a path toward doing considerable damage to faith." Ultimately, the entirety of Collins's appeal for faith falls upon the design of the universe (which is covered rather superficially) and the existence of "moral law" among human beings. Collins rejects the idea that moral law is not universal, although he does not mention that things such as human sacrifice were once widely practiced among different societies.

Collins proposes that God designed the universe with such precision that humans would be the end result. Thus, although Collins believes in "theistic evolution," the only part he accepts as being theistic was the original design of the universe. All subsequent events were the result of naturalistic processes (although the end result was guaranteed to result in the evolution of humans because of God's specific initial design). At some point in the process (Collins identifies it as occurring ~100,000 years ago) God put a soul into a group of hominids, creating modern humans. This kind of creation would be indistinguishable from naturalism and, therefore, would provide no evidence for God's existence. Also, it could never be falsified. Collins calls it "BioLogos" ("bios" through "Logos"). Accordingly, "BioLogos is not intended as a scientific theory. Its truth can be tested only by the spiritual logic of the heart, the mind and the soul." Although Collins calls it "spiritually satisfying" and "intellectually rigorous", I think most believers would find it biblically troublesome and scientifically irrelevant.

Collins experience in coming to faith was interesting and is detailed in the beginning and end of the book. He grew up in an agnostic family, and knew at an early age that he wanted to be a scientist. At first, he was interested in the physical sciences, since "biology was rather like existential philosophy: it just didn't make sense." However, nearing the end of a Ph.D. program, Collins took a biochemistry course and was hooked. He applied for and was admitted to medical school, from which he graduated and began genetic research and a clinical practice. During one clinic, Collins was confronted by a Christian patient who asked him about his spiritual beliefs. He didn't really have an answer, but determined that he should confirm his atheism by studying the best arguments for faith. A pastor directed him to Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis. Collins found the arguments compelling, and cites C. S. Lewis as the principle basis for his conversion. Why did Collins choose Christianity over all the other monotheistic religions of the world? Although he came to faith on the basis of evidence that is generally agreed upon by deists, Collins rejected deism because of the presence of the moral law, which seemed to represent God's personal involvement with His creatures. He recognized that the presence of moral law meant that God was holy and righteous, but was extremely concerned about his inability to live up to the demands of moral law on the basis of his best efforts. The answer that seemed best to him was Christianity, which is the only religion that claims to have a solution to the problem of sin that makes one absolutely righteous and justified before God.

Although the "The Language of God" is an interesting book to read, I don't think it will be satisfying to believers or convincing to non-believers.

Eloquent science, worn apologetics, June 17, 2007
Francis Collins, a devout Christian who is director of the Human Genome Project, is surely one of the most distinguished proponents of theistic evolution (the idea that God created life by means of evolution) in recent years. His outstandingly clear and compelling prose will, no doubt, be a great comfort to many Christians who are having difficulty reconciling their faith with the revelations of modern biological science.

What's in this book for nonbelievers? Collins claims to have been an atheist who, through his personal experiences and study, eventually became a believer. With some 85% of the National Academy of Sciences rejecting the notion of a personal God, that places him in a minority. Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium, recently remarked that, rather than asking why so many scientists reject the notion of a god, we should be asking why 15% don't [1]. Beyond Collins' very readable and concise refutations of creationism and intelligent design, and beneath the largely reused Christian apologetics, lies a highly personal and emotional account of the events that ultimately shaped his worldview.

The dialog between believers and nonbelievers so often focuses on elaborate reasoning that ultimate personal motivations remain undiscussed. This is not surprising, since few individuals are courageous enough to expose their most guarded life stories to the scrutiny of skeptics, indeed, the Bible warns against doing just this: (Matt 7:6). An honest meeting of minds, however, demands courage. Collins' efforts, with his life story laid out before the reader, are highly commendable in this regard.

Readers looking for novel Christian apologetics will be somewhat dissapoined by this book, though there are certainly a few nuances to be considered. Collins relies heavily on "no less an intellect than C. S. Lewis" (p208), quoting Lewis liberally throughout the book. Readers may want to simply skip Collins and go directly to C. S. Lewis for more complete versions of the theological arguments. In the acknowledgments, Collins readily admits that "few if any original theological concepts are portrayed within these pages."

His main evidence for belief, following Lewis, is the existence of common or universal moral principles, though Collins stays clear of making any claims of Christian moral superiority. Citing a biomedical ethics text, the appendix of the book actually lists four central ethical principles "common to virtually all cultures and societies" (p243). Some time is spent addressing the new field of sociobiology, which claims that behavior is a natural product of evolution. Here Collins faces off against no less an intellect than E. O. Wilson. To Collins "selfless altruism presents a major challenge for the evolutionist. It is quite frankly a scandal to reductionist reasoning" (p27). He is not talking about simple reciprocity, but rather pure altruism in which there are absolutely no secondary motives. Oskar Schindler and Mother Teresa are pulled out as two presumably inexplicable examples of pure altruism, but it seems that the argument is not that there are no motives, but rather that the motives are somehow divine in origin because they are not subject to evolutionary pressure. Humans may well have compulsions that sometimes run counter to their own long-term survival (think about the Shakers failure to reproduce). Evolution simply dictates that there can't be very many such persons in a population ... and there certainly aren't. That benevolent persons are highly valued by society is no surprise at all, nor is it surprising that persons want to be valued by others, including gods. While group selection remains a controversial subject in biology to be sure, it seems that the reader is still left with an argument from ignorance.

Collins similarly argues against the notion of religion as wish fulfillment originally posited by Sigmund Freud. Citing Armand Nicholi, a professor of clinical psychology at Harvard and author of a book contrasting Freud and Lewis (also a PBS series), Collins dismisses the notion that God might arise out of our ability and need to relate to parents. Nicholi, by the way, was a founding member of the Family Research Council, a controversial Christian right wing think tank and lobbying organization formed by James Dobson. It seems dated to focus on historical figures while the rich body of contemporary thinking in the psychology of religion, sociology, and anthropology seem not to be discussed at all this book. Skeptical readers may seem absolutely puzzled as to why Collins thinks the compulsion to seek a favorable relationship with a god is difficult to explain on natural grounds when the world is full of people who worship, fall in love with, and cozy up to powerful leaders, sports heros, and famous personalities. On the surface, this book rejects "God of the gaps" arguments, yet it seems to rely heavily upon the inability of current science to fully explain human behavior.

One may wonder why moral behavior counts as evidence of the divine, while immoral behavior does not count as evidence against the divine. This, of course, is the famous problem of evil which Collins attacks early in his book. The Universe appears, to the objective observer, to be unsupervised. The innocent, the pure, the devout, and those deeply loved, all occasionally suffer the same terrible, tragic, and unjust events as everyone else. Following C. S. Lewis once again, Collins mainly appeals to free will, claiming that too much divine intervention would result in chaos, that suffering builds character, and that God sometimes teaches us something through severe misfortune. Despite its simple appearance, the problem of evil is a complex topic of debate with a long history. Simple arguments such as those offered by Lewis have already been addressed many times over in philosophy. At least a reference or two to the modern lines of argument would have been helpful [2]. Logic is little consolation though, for those suffering. Collins tells the tragic story of his daughter's violent rape and his personal search for meaning in that event. Skeptical readers should at least appreciate in this story the magnitude to which humans depend upon their interpretation of reality to ease pain and restore wellness. It is no wonder that religious ideas are zealously defended when so much is at stake.

Collins argues that the paradoxical findings of modern physics should convince people that materialism is not simpler or more intuitive than theism. "Today, Occam's Razor appears to have been relegated to the Dumpster by the bizarre models of quantum physics" he proclaims (p 61). This is a peculiar statement coming from a scientist, though he admits that the principle is still evident in the mathematical descriptions of the phenomena. Occam's Razor, the philosophical principle that the simplest answer is more likely to be the right one, does not demand that the simplest answer must itself be simple or intuitive. It is simply a statement that unnecessary and unjustified complexity should be trimmed from any explanation. It may seem simple and intuitive to say "God did it", but a great deal of complexity has been swept under the rug in doing so. While Collins' razor is headed for the dumpster, it does get a good slice out of William Dembski's Intelligent Design theory before the end of the book (p194). "In addressing philosophical issues, I speak mainly as a lay person" Collins reminds readers (p34).

The more interesting parts of this book, in my opinion, are the more personal ones. Collin's voyage of spiritual discovery seems to have begun in graduate school. Within sight of obtaining a Ph.D. in quantum mechanics, he became discouraged with his career path, even doubting his ability to do independent research. Collins does not give details as to exactly what turn of events led to this situation. Many former graduate students will relate (myself included), having considered alternative service-oriented careers at some low point in their education. For Collins it was a switch to medical school. There, his apparently atheistic worldview was put to the test in unexpected ways. When cornered into giving a statement of his own belief by a seriously ill, but very devout Christian, he recounts a dramatic sense of relief as he admitted "I'm not really sure." Evidently, this event caused him to feel that he had never really given fair consideration to theism and that perhaps he had been "willfully blind" or even "arrogant." Who wouldn't have an ethical crisis telling a very sick individual that you do not share in the beliefs that help them to find meaning, assurance, and comfort in their suffering? It would be very difficult not to be humbled in that situation and to wonder whether or not one's own worldview would do so well in the same circumstances. One wonders, however, if the experience would have been different had he been cornered by a critically ill Buddhist or Hindu. This would not be the last time in his career in which Collins was both humbled and deeply touched by the generosity and equanimity of a critically ill, but devoutly religious person. His poignant encounter with a poor Nigerian farmer near death with little hope of long-term survival was the most potent experience he describes. As a discouraged doctor in emotional turmoil, he experiences a dramatic transformation of heart and sense of relief by the calm insightful words of the Bible-toting farmer who, in a profound moment, switches the role of healer and patient. Though Collins doesn't explicitly draw the parallel (and may not even be aware of it) , astute Christians will immediately identify the farmer's behavior as "Christ-like." It is precisely this reaction to altruism that lies at the heart of how many Christians develop a relationship with the perceived divine being of Christ.

Collins makes brief mention of another key experience in which, hiking in the Cascades, he is now wrestling with his newfound belief in God and the claims of Christian scripture. Citing the famous "trilemma" of C.S. Lewis (Jesus must be either lord, lunatic, or liar), Collins finds himself forced to make a choice. Primed for a moment of synchronicity, he happens upon a breathtaking three-tiered waterfall which, for him, becomes a much-needed sign. It may seem odd to readers that seeing a waterfall, however beautiful, could be a major turning point in someone's life. His account of this experience is an abbreviated version of a more complete testimony that appears elsewhere in print [3]. There, it is revealed that the three-in-one waterfall reminded him of the Christian concept of the trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) and so must have helped confirm the divinity Jesus and the veracity of scripture in his mind.

Skeptics familiar with the apologetics of Lewis believe, of course, that the trilemma is really a false trichotomy. The fourth possibility, is that the accounts of Jesus, collected years later by gospel writers, are mostly "legend", faithful exaggeration, and midrashic retelling of the best Old Testament stories with Jesus as the hero. Collins sites a few popular apologetic authors such as Strobel, Habermas, and Bruce, but never any critical biblical scholarship [4-6]. This is, of course, a book of "evidence for belief", so one can hardly expect a balanced treatment. In all fairness, this is also a book about science and belief in God, not specifically Christian doctrine or scriptures.

Collins apparently does not believe in intercessory prayer, but rather prayer as a way of "seeking fellowship with God, learning about Him, and attempting to perceive His perspective on the many issues around us that cause us puzzlement, wonder, or distress" (p220). It is in this sense that Collins sees God acting in the natural world rather than through miracles. He does not altogether dismiss miracles, but sees them more as rare revelations to humanity. He also views the Genesis creation accounts as alegory. While his views may seem theologically liberal at times (he even cites Paul Tillich), he has strong words for "many churches of a spiritually dead, secular faith, which strips out all of the numinous aspects of traditional belief, presenting a version of spiritual life that is all about social events and/or tradition, and nothing about the search for God" (p41). Such churches are "insidious and widespread", in his words, but, diplomatically, he doesn't name names.

No book that addresses atheism these days is without mention of Marxism or Mao's China. Of these regimes Collins says "In fact, by denying the existence of any higher authority, atheism has the now-realized potential to free humans completely from any responsibility not to oppress one another." Collins stops short of directly blaming the violence and oppression of secular regimes on godlessness, but urges readers of overlook the violence and oppression of religious regimes as merely a case of "pure water in rusty containers" (p42). So much for the Fruits of the Spirit.

The appendix, in my opinion, is the best part of the book, and well worth reading. Collins covers a short but fascinating list of current and future bioethical dilemmas, including DNA testing, cloning, and genetic enhancement. He takes a firm stance against human cloning ( "making human copies in this unnatural way") but never makes clear the details of his moral and theological objections beyond pointing out that the current techniques result in a high level of miscarriage and abnormality. Since some 20% of recognized natural pregnancies end in miscarriage and possibly as many as 50% of natural human conceptions end in spontaneous abortion [7], the ethical bar may not be as high as we think. What if cloning becomes safe in the future? What are the real moral objections, if any? Collins is too brief here. He says, "I hesitate, however, to advocate very strongly for faith-based bioethics. The obvious danger is the historical record that believers can and will sometimes utilize their faith in a way never intended by God, ..." The appendix seems almost out of character for Collins. While he sees God as a being with which one may establish a relationship, that relationship is admittedly rather one-sided. With the occasional rare sign of assurance, and with prayer being only an attempt to perceive God's perspective, Collins is reluctant to let faith be a guiding principle in major life-and-death bioethical decisions. Evidently, faith can be mistaken.


[1] Beyond Belief 2006 symposium
[2] Nicholas Everitt, "The Non-existence of God"
[3] Collins interview with Salon.com
[4] Bart D. Ehrman, "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why"
[5] David Friedrich Strauss (1892) "The Life of Jesus Critically Examined" (ed. Peter C. Hodgson, 2002)
[6] "The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave" (ed Robert M. Price & Jeffery Jay Lowder 2005)
[7] Sam Harris, "Letter to a Christian Nation" p 38 ... Read more

Editorial Review

Most people know Greg Graffin as the lead singer of the punk band Bad Religion, but few know that he also received a PhD from Cornell University and teaches evolution at the University of California at Los Angeles. In Anarchy Evolution, Graffin argues that art and science have a deep connection. As an adolescent growing up when "drugs, sex, and trouble could be had on any given night," Graffin discovered that the study of evolution provided a framework through which he could make sense of the world.

In this provocative and personal book, he describes his own coming of age as an artist and the formation of his naturalist worldview on questions involving God, science, and human existence. While the battle between religion and science is often displayed in the starkest of terms, Anarchy Evolution provides fresh and nuanced insights into the long-standing debate about atheism and the human condition. It is a book for anyone who has ever wondered if God really exists.

Reviews

I'll be damned. Two great books in one., October 1, 2010
Here's how nerdy I am: My introduction to Greg Graffin and Bad Religion came through his doctoral dissertation, which I purchased from Graffin and got autographed. And then I read it. And it wasn't very good. Since then I've read a couple of other things that Graffin has written or co-written (Is Belief in God Good, Bad or Irrelevant?: A Professor And a Punk Rocker Discuss Science, Religion, Naturalism & Christianity), but nothing prepared me for just how damned GOOD "Anarchy" is.

It must be said that the best parts of the book are the parts that only Graffin could have written--the autobiographical sections about his earlier childhood in Wisconsin, his transition to the California punk scene, his approach to music, and so forth. Much of what he write about evolutionary biology will be familiar, at least, to people who have taken some evolution classes or read books such as Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body (Vintage), and Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo. But he does have an interesting take on natural selection. Graffin makes it abundantly clear that his slightly unorthodox view of the importance of natural selection to overall evolutionary theory should give no aid and comfort to creationists (or their better-dressed cousins, Intelligent Design advocates). But he also wishes to show that science, maybe especially evolutionary biology, is still an active, lively field with vivid, animated debates...not about the fact of evolution, but about interesting details related to mechanisms.

And Graffin's chapter specifically on atheism was interesting as well, mostly for its biographical elements. I appreciate what he says about preferring a more dialectical approach that encourages questions, versus the more confrontational approach assumed by "New Atheists" in books such as God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, The God Delusion, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, and The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. He makes an interesting and appealing case, but I'm still left thinking there is room for both diplomatic discussion and spirited debate. After all, the New Atheist books listed probably created a much larger space for the more nuanced and sophisticated conversation even to take place in.

I see this book finding its most natural audience among Bad Religion fans (and I don't know how intentional this might have been, but it's easy to see some cross-currents betwee Anarchy and Bad Religion's new album release, The Dissent of Man) and younger people--say high school age--interested in science, the arts, and their relationship to each other. Also fans of flipping off authority--a Graffin staple, and a real strength of both his musical and, it would seem, his scientific careers.

Uniquely Captivativating, September 28, 2010
An astonishing insight into a man who is not only a legend in the punk rock scene, but also a doctor in evolutionary biology. Graffin shares tales of life as the front man of Bad Religion and his years of study and fieldwork. He also discusses his insights on evolution, as separate biological and cultural phenomena, and how they relate to his naturalist worldview. Recommended for anyone with an interest in the sciences or into Bad Religion.

No one here can show you where it is but I can point to a sign, October 8, 2010
I admit I was skeptical about this book. I saw the titles of the chapters included "The False Idol of Natural Selection" and "The False Idol of Atheism" and wondered just what Greg was going to be rambling about. Now, Bad Religion has been one of my favorite punk bands ( and maybe band in general ) for a few years now. Punk wise, their only competition for the title of favorite is the Misfits, but since the Misfit's lineup has been chaotic, Bad Religion's overall consistency ( apart from the few albums without Brett) makes them the current holder of that title. I've admired Gregg for balancing a band and a PhD with a career in both teaching and science. This book has led me to a whole new level of respect for Greg and Bad Religion.

Greg tells you everything you could want to know. He talks about his childhood, his high school years ( which upon reading about, I STRONGLY relate to -- both of us had a small circle of friends, were into punk rock, but not the illegal shenanigans and drugs most are into, and have had a passion for science rooted in our childhoods ), how the band came about ( I'll leave the names that they almost called themselves as a surprise for you ) , how he got interested in science, and many other interesting things about his youth. As far as his adult life goes, I've come to apperciate that he balances school, science, and music with raising kids and having a wife. Greg is not arrogant about his life. He's honest about the difficulties in it, and about the mistakes he has made in his life.

Other than getting to know the great singer, he presents some scientific views and philosophical views covered in the two suspect chapter names I listed above. Fear not, he's not out to destroy Natural Selection. In fact, he's just putting it in it's place. He acknowledges that random chance and chaos ( hence ANARCHY Evolution ) have as much or more to do with evolutionary change than the algorithm of natural selection. He's not trying to break new ground like Stephen J. Gould did ( Read The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design for a good analysis of Gould's ideas ). As far as atheism goes, he is indeed an atheist. But he acknowledges that the word atheist just means without gods. As far as a description of your world view, that doesn't really imply a lot. I also saw Richard Dawkins make this point in a TED Talk lecture ( Richard Dawkins on militant atheism at the Ted website ). Instead, Greg ( as well as Dawkins ) say that the term Naturalist is a more meaningful term. It implies a specific worldview, which atheism is only a part of. While I call myself an atheist ( because since most people dont know what naturalist mean, I just say what they will understand ) , I can sympathize with this sentiment. Atheism is a single component of MANY ideologies, from Objectivism to Marxism to Soviet Communism , etc, etc ).

One quibble I have is his sometimes less than great choice of wording. One example would be the chapter titles I previously mention, which imply something grandiose, but really isn't anything groundbreaking. Another instance is that he said he doesn't promote atheism in his songs, but I think a better choice of wording would be "I don't tell people what to believe" which, if you read further a few pages, is what he actually means. Those are two very , very minor complaints, however. This book is not a book on God. It's not like the God Delusion ( though I love that book). It's not a science book ( though it has science in it ). It's not a book on the band or an autobiography either. Instead, it's a mix of all of those, beautifully woven together in a little over 200 pages of actual reading material that took me 3 days to finish.

Get this book. You won't regret it.

I Wanted to Give it 4 Stars, October 9, 2010
First of all I enjoyed this book and I really hesitated giving it only 3 stars. I found the final few chapters very inspiring and wonderful. The evolutionary ideas are pretty basic and the author tells too many biographical details of his punk rock experiences. They were interesting in the beginning of the book, but by the middle I just wanted him to get on with it. Even though it is a short and easy read, it could have done without so much irrelevant biography; in that case I probably would have given it 5 stars. I think the reviews here are mostly too glowing, so I'm offering a less enthusiastic thumbs up. You probably won't regret it, but you aren't going to have a WOW experience either.

Insightful, Inspirational, Captivating, October 21, 2010
First off let me say, I have been a Greg Graffin/Bad Religion fan since I was in Kindergarten. Brought up and have lived in the punk scene for as long as I can remember. The problem with the punk seen in general is that the lifestyle is full a self destructive nature that is very hard to escape from. Inspired by the depth of the lyrics if Bad Religion, I began studying the band only to find out that they were not your typical punk band, Dr. Griffin was an educated man that could balance the life of a punk rocker as well as the life of a professional. This made me realize, what is the ultimate defiance of a punk rocker? It is success. I achieved my Masters Degree and continue loving the roots of my inspiration.

I loved the book because it gave me great insight into the man that has inspired me throughout my life. Seeing the struggles that he went though, the items that inspired him, seeing the human aspect of a person that I would consider one of my greatest influences in life. The greatest gift humanity has is the ability to question everything and find truth through observation, experience, and the anarchy life presents us with. This book is this journey, definitely worth reading.

The naturalistic worldview of a punk rock professor, October 18, 2010
Great, easy to read book is an evolutionary primer as well as a memoir of a punk rock legend. For fans of Bad Religion (obviously) and those interested in evolution and atheism.

I recently had the privilege of interviewing Greg for ChuckPalahniuk.net. We spoke about everything from music to the new book to evolution to the existence of god. He gives a great interview.

[...]

Great book, October 13, 2010
Having been a Bad Religion fan for about 16 years, Greg Graffin draws great parallels to his career as a scientist and a musician. He shows that it doesn't have to be all spikes, combat boots and leather to help change and influence the world we live in a positive manner. Thinking for yourself and asking tough questions. Truly anti-authoritarian.

I just picked it up on a whim!, November 29, 2010
I ordered this after hearing an interview with Greg Graffin on NPR. I'm not a big Bad Religion/science fan but thought I'd give this a try and it's pretty interesting, nice to have a different perspective on evolution and I like how he incorporates his own stories about growing up and being in a punk band. :)

Evolution for Punk Philosophers, October 12, 2010
What made this book such an interesting read is that Greg Graffin was able to intertwine a lesson on evolution with the story of his life. The main appeal to punk rock to me has been the angry response to authority. I have also enjoyed the spontaneous order and surprising politeness (with the exception of one concert) that would emerge from mosh pits at Bad Religion concerts. Punk rock spoke to the side of me that rabidly pursues truth. Greg also seems to have this same view about science and punk rock, which was exactly what I was hoping for from this book. Although he does not go into his personal politics in any part of the book, he does explain the beauty behind the anarchy of evolution. The natural order in evolution that arises out of seeming chaos, free of rules and only regulated by reality speaks deeply to a philosopher like me.

Original and Thought Provoking Book, October 7, 2010
Although I don't agree with Graffin on some of his ideas regarding religion and evolutionary biology, this is a great book that deserves to be read. It is clearly written and one of those rare books that you feel like you can read for hours at a time. Graffin is an atheist, yes, or as he refers to himself : a naturalist. However, Graffin should not be lumped in with the "New Atheists" as one reviewer implied. This book takes a different approach than the more predictable NA's like Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, Stenger, and others. Agree or disagree with the author(s), this book is well-written, insightful, and thought-provoking! ... Read more

Editorial Review

"This book is written with the sole objective of helping the reader achieve a happy, satisfying, and worthwhile life." -- Norman Vincent Peale

The Power of Positive Thinking has helped millions of men and women to achieve fulfillment in their lives. In this phenomenal bestseller, Dr. Peale demonstrates the power of faith in action. With the practical techniques outlined in this book, you can energize your life -- and give yourself the initiative needed to carry out your ambitions and hopes. You'll learn how to:

• believe in yourself and in everything you do

• build new power and determination

• develop the power to reach your goals

• break the worry habit and achieve a relaxed life

• improve your personal and professional relationships

• assume control over your circumstances

• be kind to yourself ... Read more

Reviews

Positive Thinking = Positive Life, December 1, 2009
It's such a simple and effective concept, that positive thinking creates a positive life, yet hard to do at times- which is a good reason alone to read this book.

Most everything we accomplish each day starts out as a thought. Thoughts flash across our minds each day, all day long, and directly influence how we feel and what we do. So, if you spend your day thinking about negative things, expect to feel bad. On the other hand, if you spend your day concentrating on positive things, good things will happen. And that's basically the purposeand premise of this book- to change your thinking for the better, which in turn will influences your life. The book will "reset your sights" so to speak.

Each chapter of the book tackles important life issues, such as worrying, creating happiness, having energy, etc. Examples of the principles abound, and each chapter ends with a nice summary.

An inspiring and entertaining read, I recommend this book to anyone who needs a little nudge in the direction of positive thinking. Know though, that there is a definite religious tone throughout the book, which could bother some. Those looking for something a little more in the physical rather than cognitive realm to pick you up, might be better off with a book like Exercise Beats Depression.

--->*mysterious TRANSITION*<---, February 26, 2000
I'm one of the ordinary teens that go out & live life in a typical teen perception (e.g. parties, friends, listenining to music, enjoying youth as it is, etc.) I used to be the type of person who typically never found interests with the ''positive thinking'' category (i was cynical at the time). I read this book one day cause it was lying on top my dad's desk, i was hoping to ''kill time'' by glancing at a few pages. Suddenly, i became attached towards Peale's theories and i began reading from page to page and started applying positive concepts into daily situations (even when ''obstacles'' were bound to hold me back) and mysteriously enough my attitude towards life transformed me into an optimist and a devoted believer in God which in turn, gave me successfull results (especially in my academics!). Hey, you have no need to believe me if you choose too, but I strongly affirm this book WILL alter your mind into becoming a believer with ''The Power of Positive Thinking''. If you're a parent with a stressful life style, THEN THIS BOOK IS FOR YOU. If you're the hard worker feeling as if you're not getting anywhere, THEN THIS BOOK IS FOR YOU. If you're a student feeling ''tripped & zoned out'', THEN THIS BOOK IS FOR YOU. All the people i've mentioned illustrates the average person bombarded with everyday problems (trust me, i literally live with them), yet the solution lies in front of your eyes because this book draws out supplies of confidence, faith in your own abilities, positive affirmations, and spiritual guidance in YOUR life...hey, i wouldn't just waste time to make this book review and neither would the rest of these people who placed an entry analysis for this book. "Faith power brings miracles.."

Advice that remains timeless!, June 18, 2007
THE POWER OF POSITIVE THINKING by Norman Vincent
Peale is one of my favorite books . . . so imagine my delight
when I had the opportunity to revisit it recently as a result
of listening to the taped version.

Best of all: Peale did most of the narration . . . while some
could argue that his speaking voice wasn't the greatest (or at least
at the age when he read this particular version), I enjoyed
it even more so because he was the one doing the reading.

His advice from the book remains timeless; i.e., provided you
can get through some of the parts that might be a little
too religious-based for your particular taste . . . I was
able to do so and so was thus able to enjoy such insights
as the following:

* As you think, so shall you be.

* I don't believe people are born negative thinkers. All babies,
unless they're ill, are positive. Positive thinking is extremely
natural. Unfortunately, some babies are born into negative
households. Since they're very susceptible to their
environment, they absorb the negative impulses and attitudes
around them.

* Create a mental picture of yourself as a success. Hold on
to this picture tenaciously. Since your mind tries to complete
what it pictures, always picture SUCCESS no matter how badly
things seem to be going at the moment. Whenever a negative
thought about your personal power comes to mind, deliberately
voice a positive thought to cancel it out.

* Anger, fear and worry are among the most subtle and
destructive of all emotions. To counteract their power, fill your
mind with good will, forgiveness, faith, and love.

* Each time you feel a surge of anger, ask yourself, "Is this
really worth what it is doing to me emotionally? Do I really want
to make a fool of myself in front of friends or family?

* Practice happy thinking. Make a mental list of pleasant thoughts
and pass them through your mind several times each day. If an
unpleasant thought should enter your mind, immediately stop,
reject it and substitute a pleasant thought.

And, lastly, there was this idea that I do try to practice every day:
* Every morning before rising, lie relaxed in bed for a few minutes.
Let pictures of each happy experience you expect to have that
say, pass across your mind. Savor their joy. such thoughts will
cause events to turn out that way.

There's an excellent Listener's Guide that accompanies THE POWER
OF POSITIVE THINKING.

Thank you, November 19, 1999
I know the author has died and no doubt is enjoying eternal life in heaven, but I would like to thank him in this small way for making me realise that life is nothing without Christ and for putting me back on track. If this book did anything for me, it was that it made me realise that life is great, I am so happy when I think of my wife and kids and thank God for the abilities he has given me.God bless.

**-----> Mysterious Transition (part 2)!!! <--------**, May 15, 2003
3 years ago, I wrote a review describing my "mysterious transition" after reading this book. I was your typical teen who liked "hanging out" with friends, going to parties, and enjoy youth as it is. I had never intended to read this book until I accidentally came across a copy on top of my dad's desk and had hoped to "kill time" with it. Fortunately, I was grasped by such profounding ideas in the first few pages that I kept reading on until I applied Peale's suggestions towards daily activities and my attitude towards life had changed completely! My relationship with others improved, my grades in school became very outstanding, my appreciation for the academia went beyond I could've ever imagined, and most importantly my admiration for Christianity and life itself had developed into something truly indispensable. Keep in mind, I was the exact opposite of everything I had just stated here, in other words, a negative person. Of course, it has been 3 years since I wrote about this and I still refer to Peale's book for specific guidance! Currently, I am attending a fine university and I am STILL inspired to conquer life's challenges and reach towards great goals with humble faith and optimism. Its principles and applications towards daily situations has brought me many victories (externally AND internally!). Whoever you are (worker, parent, student, etc.) and wherever you are, living life to the fullest is yours; it can begin with this book and boy, is it a grand experience when its principles are applied. I absolutely RECOMMEND this book. Hey, how often do you hear about a reviewer coming back TWICE to advocate this book? Like I said 3 years ago, I wouldn't just waste time to write an entry analysis on The Power of Positive Thinking, and neither would the other reviewers. "An inflow of new thoughts can remake you regardless of every difficulty you may now face...'Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.' " (N.V.P.)

Not a book for non-Christians, March 18, 2007
The power of positive thinking and strong intentions is well-known and documented, and this short book does indeed offer some strategies for using these techniques. However, the book's primary focus is on establishing a relationship with Jesus Christ, and the author's attitude seems to be that the success of positive thinking hinges on that relationship.

I don't want to sound anti-Christian, but the powers of intention and the law of attraction are enough on their own to give all the results you could ever want or need. A belief in a specific deity or religion are completely unnecessary. Although Peale probably didn't know it at the time of original publication, the law of attraction is a scientific concept, not a religious one. Also, it's rather contradictory to tell someone that they have the power within to accomplish anything, but they need Jesus to do so. Either you have the power or you don't - Jesus has nothing to do with it. (And you DO have the power!)

If you are a Christian, I'm certain that the ideas in this book will resonate. And more power to you! But for those of us who are not, the book comes across as extremely preachy and outdated. There are many better choices on the same topic that don't have some mention of Jesus Christ on 90% of their pages.

(In the interest of full disclosure, I want to add that while I am not a Christian, I DO believe in God. I find it offensive, frankly, that people assume a belief in a deity means one is a Christian, and I want to make it clear that there are more options than just Christianity and atheism!)

Great book regardless of your religious leanings, December 20, 2001
------
I was looking over the reviews, and there were some really negative ones which complained about the religious messages, the repetition, the self-cheerleading, and the dated-ness of the material in the book.

These people don't get it. I'm a totally avowed atheist, so I ignored the Jesus talk. The repetition is important, because it's really a set of principles being taught, that the author is trying to hammer into your head.

I agree that Dr. Peale is more self-congratulatory (and frankly, more status-conscious) than I prefer in an author, but that doesn't change the fundamental correctness of the message.

I think the dated-ness of the material actually helps, because it shows that there's nothing new under the sun in terms of the human condition. Sometimes we think we live in unique times, and while that's true in some areas, the area of personal difficulty is always the same, regardless of one's external surroundings.

This book is worth every penny. Better than the Bible, in my mind, for those who are inclined to Christian beliefs.

This book will change your life!, November 9, 2000
I grew up to believe that God would stick his foot out and trip me when the going got too good; hence, I was wracked with anxiety and sabotaged every good thing that ever happened to me until I read this book. Norman Vincent Peale released me from fear and gave me confidence, peace of mind, and a happy marriage. Most important, he restored my faith and helped me begin a relationship with God. If you suffer from anxiety, lack of self-confidence, inability to sustain relationships, this book is for you!

Changed My Life, April 22, 2006
This book has definitely changed my life. I recommend it to anyone who is at a low especially. It has given me a new outlook on life and helped me become a positive person. I was very jumpy, nervous, even depressed before, this book really helped me to take my time and calm down. I now know that I can handle things much better

Simple but effective - keep an open mind, March 11, 2007
Given to the right person at the right time, this book can provide the foundation to self development: a strong mindset and a positive attitude. Peale's approach is simple but effective, even for the nonreligious - keep an open mind and just try it. Any genuine effort will be pleasantly rewarded. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Driscoll and Breshears team up again to teach thirteen keyelements of the Christian faith that should be held by anyoneclaiming to be a follower of Jesus.

Doctrine is the word Christians use to define thetruth-claims revealed in Holy Scripture. Of course there is amultitude of churches, church networks, and denominations, eachwith their own doctrinal statement with many points ofdisagreement. But while Christians disagree on a number ofdoctrines, there are key elements that cannot be denied by anyoneclaiming to be a follower of Jesus.

In Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe, Driscoll andBreshears teach thirteen of these key elements. This meaty yetreadable overview of basic doctrine will help Christians clarifyand articulate their beliefs in accordance with the Bible.

Reviews

Essential Doctrine for Christians, April 8, 2010
Christians are called to know, appreciate, and dispense the crucial doctrines of the biblical faith. Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears have stepped up and endowed the church with a modern and simple presentation of the most important doctrinal teachings of the Christian religion. The authors previously published the "Vintage Jesus" and in this new volume they help make theology appealing in their straightforward writing style.

Pastor Driscoll (Mars Hill) and Breshears (professor of theology Western Seminary) combine to bestow this volume to Christians whereby this very readable book instructs the reader in the most basic truths of Christianity. Yes this is not Berkoff, Grudem, or Reymond, but the authors approach theology from a Reformed position as they present doctrines concerning:

- Who God is
- How God speaks
- How God loves
- How God saves
- And much more

I came to this book because of the strong endorsement from John Frame and this work is excellent for the new believer, teens, busy housewives, and others who want to learn the basic doctrines of the Christian faith in a non-technical manner. Effective, exceptional, simple, educational, and edifying.
Truth, Knowledge and the Reason for God: The Defense of the Rational Assurance of Christianity
or
"God Does Exist!: Defending the Faith using Presuppositional apologetics, Evidence, and the Impossibility of the Contrary"

Outstanding Book On God's Story And Our Lives, April 12, 2010
Doctrine is in my opinion an essential book that every Christian and Pastor should make sure to have on their library. It is excellently written and thoroughly enjoyable to read. The authors nailed their goal of writing a book that is both helpful for the pastor but engaging for the layman. This book will be a great blessing to the church as it will be one that could serve for discussion groups or classes.

The book is laid out to follow along the meta-narrative for God and the story of the Bible. To highlight just a few chapters I would say the chapters on creation, Trinity, and the death of Jesus are worth the price of the book alone.

So why with all the warm word would I give this book only four stars? Good question. As I mentioned the greatest strength of this book is how broad its appeal and function will be. At the same time this forced the book (seemingly) to limit itself in a critical area of theology; the doctrine of Salvation. It was shocking for me to read through such a wonderful book on theology by a theologically solid pastor like Mark Driscoll and find no chapter on salvation. This is understandable if the book is striving to reach the entire range of evangelicals. The doctrine of salvation is historically and usually the most controversial chapter and topic any theologian writes on, and sadly, often serves as a litmus test by many pastors and readers. I am left to conclude either they forgot this (which is highly unlikely given the credentials of the authors and that I have heard Driscoll preach on it countless times). Or that they left it out in the ambition of giving the book a wider audience.

Though I am sure some could point to the chapter of worship and highlight that it does talk about regeneration, this is far from an adequate treatment on the doctrine of salvation. I had such high hopes for this book and the uses it could have in the church where I pastor. Now I am left though wanting the second edition of the book to come out so they can fix this glaring omission! Or...maybe just put this chapter on the book website for those who would not want it left out.

Often Solid, But Be Careful, May 15, 2010
Theology matters, and greatly so. Churches that have lost their hold on the truths of the faith are destined to drift into destructive errors or to simply become social clubs with a religious overtone. This is why books like Mark Driscoll's Doctrine are so important.

What I Liked

Perhaps the best thing about Doctrine is that Driscoll took the time to write it. It is good for churches to see their leadership caring about the teaching of the Scripture in more than a simplistic or superstitious sense. Driscoll does his best to address important issues of the faith in a serious way--his trademark sarcasm is simply not present in this work.

Many of the chapters of this book are worthy of applause. Driscoll handles some heavy topics such as the trinity (chapter 1), the cross and atonement (chapter 8), and the church (chapter 11) with a great deal of insight. In most of these chapters, Driscoll addresses the issues with a nice balance of complexity on the one hand and explanation, simplicity, and application on the other.

What I Did Not Like

There are a few places where discerning Christians will have some questions for Driscoll as they work their way through Doctrine. In some of these cases, the issues may be quite secondary. In others, however, it appears that Driscoll makes some fairly dangerous statements.

The most serious error in this book comes early, in the chapter on divine Revelation (chapter 2). In explaining that general revelation will not bring a person enough knowledge of God to save their souls, Driscoll asserts that in countries closed to missionaries, God might send dreams, visions, or even angels to the lost to bring them the good news of Jesus Christ. Though I have no doubt that such stories have indeed been told, and perhaps by those whom Driscoll trusts, this is a direct contradiction of Romans 10:13-ff. In that passage of perfectly-inspired holy Scripture, God tells us that people will not be saved without a preacher, and the clear understanding of that passage is that the preacher will be one of God's children, a human preacher or missionary, not an angelic messenger. Besides coming from outside of the Scripture, this issue matters, because if Christians believe that God might save others without human contact through personal communication or written word (including the Bible), this will do harm to the missionary Endeavour.

There are at least two other areas where I found myself concerned about the content of this work. I found myself uncomfortable with Driscoll's openness to an old-earth creation story in chapter 3. I believe in a literal six day creation, and while I will not make this a first-level issue, I fear that old earth theories play fast and loose with the interpretation of Scripture. Also, again in chapter 2, Driscoll leans in a more charismatic understanding of revelation than I am comfortable with. I believe that a closed cannon of Scripture does not leave the door open to divine revelation in the form of predictive prophecy; Driscoll disagrees.

Conclusion and Recommendation

Overall, I am grateful to Mark Driscoll for the work that he has done in writing this very accessible systematic theology. Works like this need to be written, and well-known figures in evangelicalism need to show that such things are important. There are certainly areas where I could caution readers to read with discernment and even to reject Driscoll's conclusions, but such areas are not enough to make me recommend not reading the book as a whole. I have no doubt that my own point-of-view still needs much work before I understand all of what God wants me to grasp doctrinally, and thus I have much grace for a brother in Christ who is doing the work in a far more expansive way than I. So, my recommendation: Read Doctrine, but read it carefully--as you should any book you pick up or download.


Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears. Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe. Wheaton: Crossway, 2010. 464 pp.

[For this review, I read the excellent audio book from [...]

Highly Recommended, April 12, 2010
I am very thankful for this book and it's authors, Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears. In my experience, for many Christians the idea of studying doctrine is something that is done in the world of academia and is not something the average Christian needs to concern themselves with. Many books on doctrine that are available to Christians are very large and daunting works that seem to intimidate readers more than they invite.

This book is a rare treat due to it's relatively short length (in comparison to books on Systematic Theology for example) and how it's written in such a way that someone with no prior experience in studying theology can drive right in and not be lost. This is a perfect book for new Christians who want a solid grounding in their faith or for any Christian who wants to grow deeper in their understanding of biblical truths.

For Christians, theology matters as it gives us the foundation upon which to understand God, how He relates to us and how we are then to live in light of His revelation. This book is a very helpful guide to get Christians grounded in historic and orthodox Christian beliefs and understandings.

Helpful Book, April 26, 2010
Recently I received a copy of Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears' book titled "Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe". My first impression of this book was very positive. I opened the table of contents and discovered that the first doctrine they included was the Triune God. I found this refreshing. Many books or religious movements list the Bible as their first belief. Many times listing the Bible first does not change someone's view of God or their view of the Bible, but by listing God first we are reminded that the Bible is God's Word and there is much more to God than what God chose to provide for us in the Bible.

Sometimes when I pick up a book and look at the table of contents I get excited by the topics that are included, but I am only let down as I work my way through how those topics are presented. Such is not the case with this book. While I do not agree with everything that Driscoll and Breshears set forth I have found this book very helpful in my continuing journey to learn more about God. The sections that I agreed with were helpful to see how someone else related a shared belief. On the other hand, the sections that I disagreed with were helpful as well. They were helpful because they forced me to critically look at what I believe and evaluate why I believe what I believe. It some cases their very well informed and well researched claims have broadened my understanding on those issues, but other issues I am still grappling with. While I will never agree on everything that they posit in this book they have succeeded in educating and challenging me.


Driscoll and Brashears have a very reader friendly writing style and an easy to follow outline. This is book is a great read and well worth taking the time to work through it.

This Book Is A Must Read for Any Follower Of Christ!, April 12, 2010
This book has kept me very interested! There are several things discussed most Christians take for granted. The book is NOT one sided on issues that are more open to the basic Christian's salvation. For example, when discussing the creation story of the Bible, several view points (options or beliefs) were given. This book has not only helped me understand Christian theology better, it has also given enough information about those ideas that would oppose Christianity, for a better understanding of both sides.
I would suggest this book to ANY Christian to read. Read it with an open mind and pray to God to reveal Himself to you . . . and enjoy!

Spot on Christian Orthrodoxy, Presented Refreshingly Well, April 12, 2010
I found the website of Mars Hill Church in Seattle about a year or so ago, and I have been downloading and listening to Pastor Mark's sermons ever since. This book is written in a conversational tone, much how Mark preaches. Clear, understandable, seasoned with humor, not to mention well researched and documented. The sheer amount of footnotes (both Bible references and other sources) puts this book on an academic level, yet it also contains many practical insights on living in a Christ-like manner.

I've tried several times to get through other theology texts such as Essentials of Evangelical Theology, but have lost interest quickly due to the dryness of the reading material. On the other hand, I have had to force myself to put Doctrine down on several occasions.

Cheers to both Mark and Gerry on a job well done.

Driscoll and Breshears are my heroes!, April 12, 2010
I am not a product of seminary or advanced theological training. Rather, just a guy trying to learn so I can better lead a small group in studying and applying God's Word to our lives. I've found Mark Driscoll's leadership in the church and passion for Jesus to be both powerful and refreshing...in a time where we have largely strayed and really need the truth preached!

I appreciate Driscoll and Breshears for many reasons. However, the one aspect of their ministry that stands out is the way that they communicate Jesus, the gospel, and application of the truth to life today. There is no sugar coating. Simply put, they are real. Driscoll and Breshears are steadfast in conservative theology in a time when many have skewed Christianity to fit their lifestyle, as opposed to allowing that Jesus adjust them! Nevertheless, they still communicate in a way that strikes a cord with all backgrounds, ages, etc...

Doctrine is substantial and well-executed, while also remaining easy to understand and follow for all the theological lightweights like myself.

Oh, and did I mention the footnotes? Research, homework, due diligence...done.

Great resource. Great men of God.

Excellent work, April 12, 2010
This is fantastic book. I couldn't wait to get it in the mail, and it was even more than I expected when I received it. It is very well written -easy to read, yet deep enough theologically for anyone from beginner to seasoned teacher to utilize. Tons of Scripture referenced to back up the doctrine presented. Fairly balanced when handling issues that are debated amongst believers. LOVE how each chapter title is referenced to God's action. I highly recommend this, it's a work that belongs on every Christians shelf.

"Sound" Doctrine!, April 12, 2010
Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears have done it again. Although I don't think you could say any of their works are better than the other,(as they all are tremendous) this may be their most important book yet. Were I a theology professor, this book would definitely be in my list of required reading. The chapters on the cross and resurrection are phenomenal. I read, studied, and re-read these chapters in the days leading up to Good Friday and Easter; and can say that I was able to truly see and appreciate these events in a way that I never have before. This book flows well and is very easy to read. I believe that even someone with no theological background would be able to read and comprehend what is taught in this book and come away with a theological and Scriptural knowledge that even some pastors today do not have. Furthermore, as a pastor this book was a tremendous help to me as I taught on apologetics of the resurrection. I believe that no matter what you know, or think you know, everyone will learn at least something from this work. And if you are a dispensational Arminian, you will either have some disagreements...or be converted. It's just that sound. I highly recommend this book and encourage every believer to have Doctrine in their library. ... Read more

Editorial Review

At the dawn of the twenty-first century, dizzying scientific and technological advancements, interconnected globalized economies, and even the so-called New Atheists have done nothing to change one thing: our world remains furiously religious. For good and for evil, religion is the single greatest influence in the world. We accept as self-evident that competing economic systems (capitalist or communist) or clashing political parties (Republican or Democratic) propose very different solutions to our planet's problems. So why do we pretend that the world's religious traditions are different paths to the same God? We blur the sharp distinctions between religions at our own peril, argues religion scholar Stephen Prothero, and it is time to replace naÏve hopes of interreligious unity with deeper knowledge of religious differences.

In Religious Literacy, Prothero demonstrated how little Americans know about their own religious traditions and why the world's religions should be taught in public schools. Now, in God Is Not One, Prothero provides readers with this much-needed content about each of the eight great religions. To claim that all religions are the same is to misunderstand that each attempts to solve a different human problem. For example:

–Islam: the problem is pride / the solution is submission
–Christianity: the problem is sin / the solution is salvation
–Confucianism: the problem is chaos / the solution is social order
–Buddhism: the problem is suffering / the solution is awakening
–Judaism: the problem is exile / the solution is to return to God

Prothero reveals each of these traditions on its own terms to create an indispensable guide for anyone who wants to better understand the big questions human beings have asked for millennia—and the disparate paths we are taking to answer them today. A bold polemical response to a generation of misguided scholarship, God Is Not One creates a new context for understanding religion in the twenty-first century and disproves the assumptions most of us make about the way the world's religions work.

Reviews

Prothero recognizes the beauty in religious differences, May 2, 2010
I loved Prothero's last book, "Religious Literacy," and found his argument spot on -- that while the U.S. is one of the most religious countries on earth, Americans know next to nothing about their own religions and even less about the religions of others. In his new book, Prothero takes the natural next step and offers approachable chapters on each of the eight "great religions"(plus a coda on atheism), giving readers a clear and interesting way in to traditions beyond their own (and maybe even offering an opportunity to learn something about their own religion along the way!).

Prothero's main premise in "God is Not One" is to go up against what he calls "Godthink" -- the popular view that all religions are one. This view is visible not only among multiculturalists who say all religions are equally beautiful and true but also among new atheists who say that all religions are equally dangerous and false. Neither of these dichotomies work in today's world, in which religion plays such a huge role. Knowledge is power, and this book informs us so that we can see the great religions as they really are, not just as we desire them to be. There can be a beauty in recognizing the differences even more than just the similarities.

No doubt this approach is controversial among partisans of Huston Smith and Christopher Hitchens alike, but for the rest of us, this book probably offers the best discussion of the world's religions available. Though an academic, Prothero writes for the general readership, gives us stories that make up the rich stuff within religions, and helps us make the connections between these ancient traditions and contemporary politics, economics, and culture. Who knew that the Chinese government is rapidly turning to Confucianism (as opposed to Marxism/Leninism) as its official state ideology?

Highly recommended for religious and irreligious people alike.

Feeling both Conflicted and Informed, May 5, 2010
I'm feeling a little bit conflicted on this. On one hand, I've had Steve Prothero as a professor. He's extremely intelligent and completely engaging - more so than any other college professor I've come across. Great human being in person too. I found the book to be fair and well-researched, definitely a clear and worthy introduction to many major world religions. His unique method of introducing the problem/ solution that each religion offers is fantastic. Christianity addresses sin through salvation, Islam addresses pride through submission, etc. For its content, I think this should be the standard introduction to world religions for any high school or undergraduate course. There is never a dull moment and he draws fascinating parallels and brings in interesting anecdotes. Further, the Professor makes a very valid point. In our politically correct world, people try to underplay important differences in doctrine, ritual, and worldview and paint all religions as one. Forget about disparity between religions, huge differences exist within religions: the God of Abraham is very unlike the God of Moses or the God of Second Isaiah. This is where the Professor makes a valid and important point - these religions are not the same, so we need to stop pretending they are! Not only is it false, but it's intellectually demeaning.

Now, here's where the conflict comes in. I completely disagree with the entire premise of the book, that "God is not one." In fact, the unity of Godhead is the one thing that all religions seem to share. The very definition of God itself presupposes an all-inclusiveness; if there is a God, God MUST be one. In the same way that Christopher Hitchens took on Islam's phrase "Allahu Akbar" with his book "God is not great" - Professor Prothero here seems to take on the Jewish phrase "Jehovah Echad" with this book: "God is not one." I noticed Huston Smith's biographer posted a defense of the perennial philosophy on here, which is a philosophy I find myself subscribing to on a very deep level. I think the issue behind the conflict is that people often confuse religion and God. God exists independent of religion. God may be one, but there is no doubt that the religions that attempt to reach God are very very different. However, just because particular religions have different opinions about God, does not mean that they are speaking about separate gods. Each person I meet has different opinions and conclusions about me, but that does not mean that there are multiple versions of me. I am one person. We cannot dismiss God's unity simply because various folks approach deity in unique ways.

All religions talk about two realms, the heavens and earth, matter and spirit, prakriti and purusha, etc. To truly understand God as he/she is we need to approach it on the spiritual realm, not the material realm. All that religions and rituals and even words can possibly discuss are in the material world. They are just the finger pointing at the moon, not the moon itself. As the Tao Te Ching says "The way that can be spoken of is not the constant way; the name that can be named is not the constant name." To the mystics, which were not deeply addressed in the book, there is a shared experience of a common underlying Reality because they reach God through the spiritual realms, not through material dogma, ritual, and myth. Jehovah and Vishnu are worlds apart, but the Kabbalistic Ain Soph and Vedantic Brahman are one in the same. So here, perhaps the better book title would have been "Religion is not One." Not as catchy, but perhaps more accurate.

Plus sides:
- Informative about major world religions
- Unbiased in portraying the good, bad, and ugly of various traditions
- Fun to read and not a dull moment, very engaging
- Great problem/ solution method - simple but not simplistic

Down sides:
- Focuses on mainstream religion, ignores the esoteric/ mystical paths
- Assumes religious differences mean God is not one

Recommendation:
Buy it. Even if you don't subscribe to the idea of "God is not one" - it will be a great and informative read, especially on lesser-known religions such as the Yoruba, Taoism, and Confucianism.

Good premise, but ultimately superficial and "chatty", June 11, 2010
The initial premise is intriguing: Prothero want to disabuse us from the notion that all great religions are essentially the same--i.e., that Allah/God/Yahweh are just different names for the same deity, and "believers" are simply ascending different sides of the same mountain, but with the same ultimate goal).

The book does give a reasonably good overview of eight major religions, and I am thankful for some of his insights. For example, he discusses why a "Godless" religion (like Confucianism) deserves to be thought of as a religion and not just a systems of ethics. He also points out that someone can be deeply religious but in a quiet manner: A fire-and-brimstome evangelical preacher isn't necessarily *more* religious than, say, a quietly devoted Methodist.

But the book feels superficial. It reads like a professor giving an overview of religions for college freshmen, and wanting to keep it fun and fast paced: hoping to become their favorite professor. After each chapter, I found myself needing to turn to the Internet to read up on each religion for more information on the basic beliefs and practices of each.

Prothero writes in a chatty, "witty" tone which some may find charming, but I found annoying: as if he's worried the material will be too dry or too impenetrable for his audiences, so he funs-it-up and dumbs-it-down. Here are the first two sentences of the chapter on Buddhism:

"Buddhism begins with a fairy tale. Unlike Cinderella or Rocky, however, this is no underdog fantasy of someone who has nothing and gains the whole world."

Really? That's how we're going to begin an overview of Buddhism? And does he mean that Buddhism themselves think of the story of The Buddha as a fairy tale, or is that just his opinion?

The final chapter on atheism seems dashed off and dismissive. Take this sample sentence:

"After all, atheism is a religion of sorts, or can be. Many atheists are quite religious, holding their views about God with the conviction of zealots and evangelizing with verge."

After writing in depth about three non-theistic religions (Buddhism, Confucianism, Daoism), it's odd that he then writes a "coda" about atheism at all, and then jumbles up theism and religion as analogous concepts.

He also tends to weigh the merits of each religion against his own personal experience, as if he's shopping for the best religion and trying to figure out which is the best fit. I feel like I know more about Stephen Prothero now than I do about the major religions.

It's About TIME!!!, May 24, 2010
God is NOT one! Not all religions are striving for the same thing! Religious tolerance has condensed all of religious ideology into one format, and it has wrongly assumed that we are all climbing some imaginary mountain but taking different paths. The trouble is that we aren't all striving for the same goal. We aren't taking different paths to the same end! We are climbing different mountains! Prothero acknowledges that religions are DIFFERENT. Hallelujah! If there is going to be understanding and cohabitation, we need to grasp the fundamental differences in our world views and in what we believe happens at the end of life. That has everything to do with how we live, and how we live alongside others. This is a well-written book with very few biases. Where Prothero has opinions he openly states his self-perceived biases. It's easy reading and well, well worth the time.

This book is for everyone - Read It!, May 6, 2010
Professor Prothero pointed out very clearly in his previous book, "Religious Literacy", how lacking most of us are in our real understanding of religions, both our own and others. Happily, this book takes us on a wonderful journey through the "great religions" of the world in an interesting,knowledgeable and often fun manner. He is articulate and thought provoking without making one feel they are being lectured at or uninformed. Prothero speaks both of the similarities and the differences between all of these religions and makes us pause to consider all the possibilities they present us toward living and working in this multi-religious world.

We will each be ready and able to help find peaceful solutions to a great many of our world problems after first understanding what others believe and why.

This book is written for "everyone". I recommend "Read It".

LWBlanchard

enjoyable, thoughtful discussion, May 1, 2010
This is a thoughtful, thought provoking, and yes - even fun - follow up to Religious Literacy. Religious Literacy convinced me of the importance of understanding our world religions, and now this book has allowed me to do just that. I think this will be a useful, enjoyable read for just about anyone - students, academics, and people who just want to understand our complicated world better.

teacher/god, May 1, 2010
As Professor Prothero says, the book contains a summary of the eight religions that run the world. Very well done and well written. In telling us about the religions in descending order of
membership, we learn about the founding of each group and the views of the founders and the followers. Though Professor Prothero does not do it, the groups he discusses can be divided into
two groups. First we have those who believe in a God, a supernatural entity, creator, rule maker and enforcer. Second we have the groups based on a great teacher, leader, or thinker who had
and taught ideas that helped people deal with the mysteries and problems of life and death.
For those of us who have never been persuaded of what a supernatural rule maker might be, the second group offers more substance in dealing with the problems religion is supposed to help us with.
For anyone who wishes a learned discussion of these religions, Professor Prothero has given a well written and well thought out and well organized book.

a critique, June 12, 2010
Overall, I was pretty disappointed with this book - as it fails on a number of fronts, some vital to the intent of the book. Its basic and broadest aim is to provide a corrective to the sweeping, and therefore academically sloppy, generalizations made about the world's religious traditions' basic unity. However, though the author sets the stage for a radicle debunking of previous "all religions are one" hypotheses, the play itself never really gets going, so to speak. The author's interest in highlighting difference over similarity (a la J.Z. Smith) is indeed a laudable one, but he does not himself move meaningfully past generalizations about such difference.

Given that the author is trying so hard to move beyond the vague generalizations and essentializing of previous scholars he should have been more on guard in avoiding such scholarship himself. The way he classifies the world's religious traditions (Hinduism as "the way of devotion"; Buddhism as "the way of awakening"; Christianity as "the way of salvation" etc.) is both at times highly problematic and deeply ironic - for, though he is saying that all religions are NOT one, he is implying that Hinduism (e.g.), in all its great variety, is primarily about ONE thing, "devotion". Certainly, some headings are better than others, but the basic problem still exists and works to undermine his overall objective. There are also instances in which he uses anachronistic devices to "explain" religions - for instance, he uses the model of geologic layers to describe the rich religious history of Hinduism over time; but, such a model implies that each layer has its day and then is "overlain" or "replaced" by something new, thereby minimizing the potentially longer lasting effects of each layer and its true relevance to the tradition (this allows him to say that Hinduism is primarily about devotion etc.).

The book would have been infinitely more useful if the author had unpacked some key concepts a bit better and used the book as a true forum for getting at the heart of how the world's religions really differ on key issues. It is not enough to say, as Prothero does, that Christians believe in sin, but Buddhists do not. At face value this is an interesting claim that could take us somewhere profitable, but in the end we are left only with this blanket statement - he does not unpack how the concepts of "sin" and "karma" are different and how that difference directs religions like Christianity and Buddhism on different paths. THAT would have been useful and made the book much more educational. So too, rather than dismiss Buddhism as largely atheistic, why not look at the concept of deity in Buddhism and juxtapose it against Islam's (e.g)? Instead of engaging in such work, however, the book essentially amounts to a mediocre primer of the world's religious traditions. Though difference is indeed highlighted, which is admittedly a plus, the superficial and incomplete manner in which that difference was addressed disappointed me. The nature of the material and the intent of the author's critique require a much more serious treatment than the book provides. In the end, most of the real work is left up to the reader, he or she must connect the dots that the author did not. Now, it is certainly all well and good to ask the reader to think and ponder on their own, but the point of a book like this should be to lead the reader somewhere - not leave them hanging.

The writing style was also off-putting to me. The author attempted to make the book "popular" by employing a more casual and anecdotal style of writing - however, I found it to be patronizing (both to the reader and to the traditions discussed), thus negatively affecting the book's overall quality. Like a previous reviewer, I found the initial few sentences of the Buddhism section curious at best, if not insulting, "Buddhism begins with a fairy tale. Unlike Cinderella or Rocky, however, this is no underdog fantasy..." Could the author really not think of anything more intelligent to say in his first TWO sentences on Buddhism, but to link that tradition immediately with movies or popular culture? or dismiss the Buddha's early life as mere "fairy tale"? It all comes off as very flip and disrespectful.

Oh, and next time include Sikhism! If you have time to make a special point about how much you regret NOT including it, why not just include it and give the tradition its due attention? I'm willing to bet that the average reader is more likely to come into contact with a Sikh than a practitioner of Yoruba religion - thus making the former tradition worth including.

Rather Disappointing, August 6, 2010
In my opinion, the introduction is the best chapter in the book. I was glad to have a book written by a professor of religion, for (during some parts) it felt like I was actually in his class.

In the intro Mr. Prothero outlines four basic criteria for a religion: a problem (addressed), a solution, techniques (for achieving that solution), and exemplars (to use as guides). Every other book on religion that I had read had focused mainly on descriptions and explanations; this book begins with the premise that religions are not all the same in the end because they address different topics, see completely different "ultimate problems", and instruct their followers to do things to fix the problem that often clash with other religions. It gives you an easy to understand formula to apply to religion, and promises that based off this formula all religions are very different.

So far so good.

The chapters in this book cover:
1- Islam
2- Christianity
3- Confucianism
4- Hinduism
5- Buddhism
6- Yoruba
7- Judaism
8- Daoism
9- Atheism

After the first chapter I was left with a feeling of disappointment. Sadly, that feeling never really went away. Although the author refutes the "perennial philosophy" of prominent authors (to include Karen Armstrong and Huston Smith)that all religions are basically the same, he does little to include and prove his argument in each chapter. The topics he does cover are communicated brilliantly, but they offer little more that what is covered in books by authors he disagrees with.

I fully expected the author to apply his four point formula to the eight religions covered, and through the use of that formula prove to us that religions are NOT all different paths up the same mountain. After all, Islam's solution of submission to the problem of human pride is nothing at all like Christianity's solution of salvation to the problem of human sin or Confucianism's solution of social order to the problem of societal chaos, right?

If you've read Karen Armstrong's book "The History of God", then chapters 1, 2, and 7 in this book give you nothing new. If you've also read her "Case for God", then chapters 2 and 7 in this book will probably bore you. If you've read her "Islam", or Rezla Aslan's "There is no god but God", then chapter 1 here is just a re-hash. If you've read Robert Wright's "The Evolution of God", then chapters 1, 2, 4, 7, and 9 here are useless to those who are looking for new information. I'm not here to plug Armstrong or Aslan or Wright; I'm simply pointing out that Mr. Prothero argues against most of their positions, then does almost nothing to back up his hypothesis.

Perhaps the best (and most useful) chapters in the book are the ones on Confucianism, Yoruba, and Daoism. I have not found another book on the Chinese religions that examines them in the way this one does, and if you go to your local bookstore you'd be hard-pressed to find a mainstream religious author that dares to travel farther east than Buddhism or farther into Africa than transplanted Islam. That being said, it seems silly to buy a book for only 27% of its content.

I'm not here to bash the book, insult the author, or downplay the importance of the basic message of the book. I do agree that not all religions are the same, nor are they taking us through different paths to the same end goal. I just really wish that Mr. Prothero had been more aggressive and forthright in his argument throughout the course of the book, rather than beginning with a spectacular introduction and following with what I've read over and over before.

This is an AMAZING book for people who want to start a collection on religious philosophy and need a good overarching text. For those of us who have a few years (and authors) under our belts, I recommend passing on this one.

Religions Aren't All After the Same Thing? Beautiful!, June 11, 2010
Overall, I think this book is a great comparative religion text. It is quite sympathetic to each religion it covers, and does a fine job of illustrating the variety within the great religious traditions as well as between those traditions.

Prothero is critical of both wishy-washy feel-good PBS liberals and vitriolic "New Atheists" for over-unifying religion. He is especially hard on the New Atheists. He makes a good case for the fundamental diversity of religion, though there are a couple of instances where he pushes his case too hard. For example, he claims that Christian salvation is unique because it represents freedom from sin (paraphrasing). In my opinion, most Christians and Muslims are after the same thing: an eternal happy existence. That doesn't mean that all religions are after that blissful afterlife, but yes, admittedly, it is a common motivator for many practitioners of religion.

But Prothero doesn't ram his argument down the reader's throat. If anything, he celebrates the diversity of religion. This is what is needed to encourage religious tolerance: enthusiasm for divers ends and means.

I was raised to believe that all religions are essentially one. This was a matter of doctrine in my family. I spent much of my time as a young adult attempting to secure my own belief in that well-meaning doctrine, but that effort ultimately failed, but that's ok, because in studying the world's religions, I found so much more to admire than any white-washed universalist/perrennialist school could offer. Cultural diversity is a good thing. Celebrate it. ... Read more