What do you think?
Rate this book
What's So Great About Christianity
In a world of facts and figures, can an intellectual have faith ? Is it possible to believe anything the Bible says? Yes, and one man will show you how.
Amidst scientists’ attempts to debunk Christianity’s truths and atheists’ assuming the Bible is a how-to-be-virtuous self-help book, bestselling author Dinesh D’Souza resolves to both answer the tough questions and challenge believers as well as doubters to search for the ultimate truths about theories of origin. D’Souza tackles subjects and events such as the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, the Big Bang theory and Darwinism—everything you always pondered but never scrutinized, now placed under the proverbial microscope and studied thoroughly.
Amidst scientists’ attempts to debunk Christianity’s truths and atheists’ assuming the Bible is a how-to-be-virtuous self-help book, bestselling author Dinesh D’Souza resolves to both answer the tough questions and challenge believers as well as doubters to search for the ultimate truths about theories of origin. D’Souza tackles subjects and events such as the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, the Big Bang theory and Darwinism—everything you always pondered but never scrutinized, now placed under the proverbial microscope and studied thoroughly.
348 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2007
About the author
Dinesh D'Souza
44 books882 followersDinesh D’Souza is a political commentator, bestselling author, filmmaker and a former policy analyst in the Reagan White House, Dinesh D'Souza graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Dartmouth College in 1983. He served as John M. Olin Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and the Robert and Karen Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. D'Souza writes primarily about Christianity, patriotism and American politics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 298 reviews
December 18, 2020
I love reading Christian apologetics so it’s no surprise that a name like this would catch my attention. I’m impressed with the arguments that Dinesh D’Souza makes in his case for God. D’Souza uses both deductive reasoning and probability as his main arguments for the existence of God. Along the way, D’Souza explains why we should be thankful for God and the gift of life He has given us. The endorsement from Rick Warren was well deserved.
December 8, 2013
I worry this book might be more harmful than positive. But let's start with the stuff that was terrific:
1) A beautiful effort to re-unite Christian thinking with scientific thinking. There are not many contemporary Christians who enjoy endorsing science, but D'Souza welcomes science as a natural fit within the Christian worldview. It's a restoration that is needed. Very refreshing.
2) When his chapters dwell on history, they are very engaging: learning about Copernicus, Galileo, and even some early shifts that occurred around civil rights movements, the Enlightenment, and more, was great. (I love learning about history.)
But where it's not-so-good:
1) If this book was written with an agnostic or atheist audience in mind, it would be very off-putting. D'Souza is sometimes an articulate, patient and passionate communicator. Other times, he strikes a rather condescending tone, and it is not very endearing or respectful at all. I almost quit reading after the introduction. The tone is extremely "us vs them," and is unnecessarily divisive.
2) If this book was meant for Christians, it DOES help provide some historical and scientific segments that could enrich a person's perspective. However, it also serves as a congratulatory back-pat: "Congrats, you are on the winning side, keep doing what you're doing." And what good is that?
D'Souza reminds us that many of the great restorative movements that happened throughout history were launched by Christians, after significant spiritual awakenings. But he leaves it at that, content to provide proof that Christianity help spawn some important movements. But I wanted to hear D'Souza call us BACK to that.
I wished D'Souza had written something like this: "Christianity is not great. It is compromised of foolish, mistake-prone humans who are just as self-centered as anyone else. Only Christ is great, and his greatness must shine forth in what we choose to DO now. To not loiter, but to lead. To use our minds and our time and our vocations to help advance civilization."
So, if you read this book, not matter your background, keep moving forward. Don't rest on past accomplishments. Don't be defensive. Don't be arrogant. Christians, don't look down on seekers, agnostics, atheists; they are brave enough to ask questions Christians should have been asking earlier. Stay humble, engaged, leaning-forward, showing love, solving hard problems the world needs solved, and seeking Jesus.
1) A beautiful effort to re-unite Christian thinking with scientific thinking. There are not many contemporary Christians who enjoy endorsing science, but D'Souza welcomes science as a natural fit within the Christian worldview. It's a restoration that is needed. Very refreshing.
2) When his chapters dwell on history, they are very engaging: learning about Copernicus, Galileo, and even some early shifts that occurred around civil rights movements, the Enlightenment, and more, was great. (I love learning about history.)
But where it's not-so-good:
1) If this book was written with an agnostic or atheist audience in mind, it would be very off-putting. D'Souza is sometimes an articulate, patient and passionate communicator. Other times, he strikes a rather condescending tone, and it is not very endearing or respectful at all. I almost quit reading after the introduction. The tone is extremely "us vs them," and is unnecessarily divisive.
2) If this book was meant for Christians, it DOES help provide some historical and scientific segments that could enrich a person's perspective. However, it also serves as a congratulatory back-pat: "Congrats, you are on the winning side, keep doing what you're doing." And what good is that?
D'Souza reminds us that many of the great restorative movements that happened throughout history were launched by Christians, after significant spiritual awakenings. But he leaves it at that, content to provide proof that Christianity help spawn some important movements. But I wanted to hear D'Souza call us BACK to that.
I wished D'Souza had written something like this: "Christianity is not great. It is compromised of foolish, mistake-prone humans who are just as self-centered as anyone else. Only Christ is great, and his greatness must shine forth in what we choose to DO now. To not loiter, but to lead. To use our minds and our time and our vocations to help advance civilization."
So, if you read this book, not matter your background, keep moving forward. Don't rest on past accomplishments. Don't be defensive. Don't be arrogant. Christians, don't look down on seekers, agnostics, atheists; they are brave enough to ask questions Christians should have been asking earlier. Stay humble, engaged, leaning-forward, showing love, solving hard problems the world needs solved, and seeking Jesus.
May 28, 2009
This is one Christian's response to the recent onslaught of atheistic anti-Christian literature. D'Souza answers their attacks eloquently, showing how religion is triumphing globally over atheism, how Western culture, including the scientific method, is thoroughly indebted to Christianity, how Christian teachings are supported by science, and how atheist attacks against Christianity don't hold up philosophically. I found this eye-opening and intriguing. It's a good tool for anyone seeking an answer to books like The God Delusion, God Is Not Great, et al. One of the things I found particularly interesting was D'Souza's outlook on how the Big Bang Theory supports creation ex nihilo and how evolution theory cannot possibly work without the hand of God.
October 3, 2008
I am a devoted follower of Jesus and firmly believe he is the way, the truth and the life, but d'souza is, in my opinion, trying to exploit a right wing market to sell books by putting out poorly researched, very biased, one-sided works designed to be self-congratulatory to a particular group. His sense of history is so skewed that a high school teacher would give him a "D". Open minded, fair and balanced, it is not.
February 7, 2008
Of the recent books I've read on Christian apologetics, this is the one that I'd most like friends who are skeptics or doubters to read. It's written in clear, conversational, persuasive and sometimes witty prose. ("If you are confronted by a relativist who insists that all morality is relative, go ahead and punch him in the face.")
The chapter on evolution challenged my thinking on that topic.
I can't say that I understood everything in this book. Anselm's argument for the existence of God is a bit beyond me, and I can't understand Kant. I borrowed this book from the library. Eventually, I might buy it, because I'd like to have another go at some of it, and I'd like to be able to use a highlighter and write notes in the margins.
The chapter on evolution challenged my thinking on that topic.
I can't say that I understood everything in this book. Anselm's argument for the existence of God is a bit beyond me, and I can't understand Kant. I borrowed this book from the library. Eventually, I might buy it, because I'd like to have another go at some of it, and I'd like to be able to use a highlighter and write notes in the margins.
December 17, 2008
I was very disappointed in this book. I was looking forward to some solid reasoning on the positive points of Christianity. What I read were mostly arguments trying to prove that atheists are wrong. In addition, many of his arguments were contradictory and he made many blanket statements without any basis of fact. The book should have been titled instead, "What's So Bad About Atheists."
September 15, 2013
Dinesh D’Souza’s What’s So Great About Christianity is the book I want to have inside my mind when I encounter a confirmed atheist. Of course I could never sort through my cluttered thoughts or dig out just the right argument when needed anyway, so it doesn’t matter ... I suppose. And arguments don't win souls anyway, for that we need the Love of God. However, it is still good to know what one's critics are saying.
So I loved this book, enjoying Mr. D’Souza’s skillful handling of many modern atheistic objections to Christianity and other divisive issues such as: the theological roots of science, the beginning of the universe, man’s special place in creation, human fallibility, why miracles are possible, and the spiritual basis of limited government—all highly relevant topics in our world and country today. D’Souza takes on every big name in the scientific, atheistic and/or agnostic communities, quotes and refutes them out of hand. As a Christian, I was left amazed. I wanted to buy this book for every college age young person today. If only they would read it.
Here are a few of my favorite quotes and also some selections from the book which I highlighted because I thought they were so significant, i.e., I did NOT necessarily like them, but wanted to be able to return to them for reference:
‘Dennett and Dawkins want to be called “brights.” Yes, “brights,” as in I am a “bright.” Dawkins defines a bright as one who espouses “a worldview that is free of supernaturalism and mysticism.” According to Dennett, “We brights don’t believe in ghosts or elves or the Easter Bunny—or God.”’ p.24
‘Science is incapable of answering questions about nature of purpose of reality. Science merely tries to answer the question, “How does it behave?” So science does not even claim to be a full description of reality, only one aspect of reality.’ p.167
‘Kant’s argument is that we have no basis to assume that our perception of reality ever resembles reality itself. Our experience of things can never penetrate to things as they really are. That reality remains permanently hidden to us.’ p.177
‘From such examples (Newtonian physics and mechanics being contradicted by Einstein’s laws of relativity) philosopher Karl Popper concluded that no scientific law can, in a positive sense, claim to prove anything at all. Science cannot verify theories; it can merely falsify them. When we have subjected a theory to expansive testing, and it has not been falsified, we can provisionally believe it to be true. ... We give a theory the benefit of the doubt until we find out otherwise. There is nothing wrong in all of this as long as we realize that scientific laws are not “laws of nature.” They are human laws, and they represent a form of best-guessing about the world. What we call laws are nothing more than observed pat terns and sequences. We think the world works in this way until future experience proves the contrary.’ p.192
‘If we are purely material beings, then we should no more object to mass murder than a river objects to drying up in a drought. Nevertheless we are not like rivers. We know that evil is real, and we know that it is wrong. But if evil is real, then good must be real as well. How would we know the difference between the two? Our ability to distinguish between good and evil, and to recognize these as real, means that there is a moral standard in the universe that provides the basis for this distinction. And what is the source for that moral standard if not God?’ pp.280-281
======================================
RESTARTED THIS 22 November 2010! Going to finish it this time
I wish I knew my science better, but even if you don't, this is an incredible book. D'Sousa writes for almost any audience--Christian, atheist, agnostic or whatever else you might consider yourself to be--and is literally opening up Christian apologetics for me. Only on page 168 but I don't want to rush through this. Taking my time, thinking a lot and reading slowly...
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
Andrew Browne, recent college graduate and son of a dear friend, has been talking and talking about this author so I finally picked this up as well as his new one, Life After Death: The Evidence
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
Both of these looked promising and worth noting for future reference: a blog post and discussion group devoted to this book.
So I loved this book, enjoying Mr. D’Souza’s skillful handling of many modern atheistic objections to Christianity and other divisive issues such as: the theological roots of science, the beginning of the universe, man’s special place in creation, human fallibility, why miracles are possible, and the spiritual basis of limited government—all highly relevant topics in our world and country today. D’Souza takes on every big name in the scientific, atheistic and/or agnostic communities, quotes and refutes them out of hand. As a Christian, I was left amazed. I wanted to buy this book for every college age young person today. If only they would read it.
Here are a few of my favorite quotes and also some selections from the book which I highlighted because I thought they were so significant, i.e., I did NOT necessarily like them, but wanted to be able to return to them for reference:
‘Dennett and Dawkins want to be called “brights.” Yes, “brights,” as in I am a “bright.” Dawkins defines a bright as one who espouses “a worldview that is free of supernaturalism and mysticism.” According to Dennett, “We brights don’t believe in ghosts or elves or the Easter Bunny—or God.”’ p.24
‘Science is incapable of answering questions about nature of purpose of reality. Science merely tries to answer the question, “How does it behave?” So science does not even claim to be a full description of reality, only one aspect of reality.’ p.167
‘Kant’s argument is that we have no basis to assume that our perception of reality ever resembles reality itself. Our experience of things can never penetrate to things as they really are. That reality remains permanently hidden to us.’ p.177
‘From such examples (Newtonian physics and mechanics being contradicted by Einstein’s laws of relativity) philosopher Karl Popper concluded that no scientific law can, in a positive sense, claim to prove anything at all. Science cannot verify theories; it can merely falsify them. When we have subjected a theory to expansive testing, and it has not been falsified, we can provisionally believe it to be true. ... We give a theory the benefit of the doubt until we find out otherwise. There is nothing wrong in all of this as long as we realize that scientific laws are not “laws of nature.” They are human laws, and they represent a form of best-guessing about the world. What we call laws are nothing more than observed pat terns and sequences. We think the world works in this way until future experience proves the contrary.’ p.192
‘If we are purely material beings, then we should no more object to mass murder than a river objects to drying up in a drought. Nevertheless we are not like rivers. We know that evil is real, and we know that it is wrong. But if evil is real, then good must be real as well. How would we know the difference between the two? Our ability to distinguish between good and evil, and to recognize these as real, means that there is a moral standard in the universe that provides the basis for this distinction. And what is the source for that moral standard if not God?’ pp.280-281
======================================
RESTARTED THIS 22 November 2010! Going to finish it this time
I wish I knew my science better, but even if you don't, this is an incredible book. D'Sousa writes for almost any audience--Christian, atheist, agnostic or whatever else you might consider yourself to be--and is literally opening up Christian apologetics for me. Only on page 168 but I don't want to rush through this. Taking my time, thinking a lot and reading slowly...
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
Andrew Browne, recent college graduate and son of a dear friend, has been talking and talking about this author so I finally picked this up as well as his new one, Life After Death: The Evidence
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
Both of these looked promising and worth noting for future reference: a blog post and discussion group devoted to this book.
October 17, 2008
Meh. I read this because I had recently read The God Delusion and wanted to see what this sort-of-rebuttal had to say. (I also D'Souza and Christopher Hitchens debate at a conference over the summer and wanted to hear what this book had to say.)
Ultimately, I thought that this book was just as uncompelling as was the Dawkins book. The arguments are mildly interesting to think about, but there seemed to be many points either forgotten or left out. In both books, I found myself wanting to present the arguments that the author had not given.
I suppose in the end, reading a book by someone else isn't going to show you the truth or untruth of atheism or Christianity. You will likely agree with whatever you did before you read the book.
Ultimately, I thought that this book was just as uncompelling as was the Dawkins book. The arguments are mildly interesting to think about, but there seemed to be many points either forgotten or left out. In both books, I found myself wanting to present the arguments that the author had not given.
I suppose in the end, reading a book by someone else isn't going to show you the truth or untruth of atheism or Christianity. You will likely agree with whatever you did before you read the book.
July 11, 2008
I just skimmed through this at the library, but I don't think I missed much because I've encountered every idea here in other books. The only argument I found somewhat convincing is the anthropic principle, which Stephen Hawking elucidated more adeptly in A Brief History of Time. However, while I believe it's possible (if not necessarily probable) that the laws of physics were created in order to sustain life, everything we know about evolution, astronomy, and science in general suggests that human beings are not the end-all be-all.
D'Souza's biggest mistake, I think, is forgetting the title of his own book. He argues that something created the universe, and that something is God. However, he fails to explain why this God is the Christian God rather than that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-imagined or some other ambiguous malformed deity. He only touches on this, rather unconvincingly, toward the end in his My God is Better Than Your God chapter.
The frustrating thing about these kinds of books is that you can't stop at the end of every chapter and tell the author why he's wrong.
D'Souza's biggest mistake, I think, is forgetting the title of his own book. He argues that something created the universe, and that something is God. However, he fails to explain why this God is the Christian God rather than that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-imagined or some other ambiguous malformed deity. He only touches on this, rather unconvincingly, toward the end in his My God is Better Than Your God chapter.
The frustrating thing about these kinds of books is that you can't stop at the end of every chapter and tell the author why he's wrong.
February 27, 2023
After reading this a second time - the first was 2020, and my introduction to Christian apologetics - it still stands as my favourite, with Metaxas's more recent Is Atheism Dead? coming in a close second. Whether you agree with D'Souza's politics or not - for the record, I often but not always agree with him - this book has got to be his crowning accomplishment. Amazingly written, extremely enjoyable, sharply incisive, and for believers, refreshingly hopeful.
This is the book I think I would have to single out for any atheist, or even non-Christian, that is willing to assess the other side of the argument. That is not to say that they will be converted. It is against the point of one of this book's arguments to assume that is all it would take. But if you want a well-reasoned, rigorous and critical defence of Christianity, I would much prefer said sceptics go with this over something by Lee Strobel.
This is the book I think I would have to single out for any atheist, or even non-Christian, that is willing to assess the other side of the argument. That is not to say that they will be converted. It is against the point of one of this book's arguments to assume that is all it would take. But if you want a well-reasoned, rigorous and critical defence of Christianity, I would much prefer said sceptics go with this over something by Lee Strobel.
July 22, 2012
According to D'Souza, atheists choose atheism because they are unrepentant sexual deviants who need to eliminate punishment for fornication and abortion. "The atheist seeks to get rid of moral judgement by getting rid of the judge"(272).
Religion requires adherence, undermines individuality, and promises a set of rules for the conscience. Atheism requires individuality, undermines indoctrination, and provides the perfect foundation for consideration of conscience. Which sounds more humanizing to you?
Religion requires adherence, undermines individuality, and promises a set of rules for the conscience. Atheism requires individuality, undermines indoctrination, and provides the perfect foundation for consideration of conscience. Which sounds more humanizing to you?
February 6, 2008
Didn't agree with every point, but it's a great comeback to Hitchens, Dawkins and the rest of the atheists who have published books in the past few years. What I liked most is that he takes the atheists' primary argument tool-- "reason" --and turns it right back on them to show the limits of their arguments, but without being arrogant or assuming. The overall message could be summed up as "Faith is not as unreasonable as some would have you believe; in fact, it's the more reasonable option."
November 10, 2023
This is one of the best modern Christian apologetics I have read, because it directly addresses the specific concerns of atheists and secularists by drawing evidence and reasoning from a variety of fields including science, history, literature, and philosophy. The tone is fairly moderate, and the book is well reasoned. For me, the chapters on the origin of modern science (which was made possible by and grew out of Christianity) were the most intriguing. I would have liked more detail in the arguments, and there are many important points I believe he left out, but he has done well to cover a lot of ground in a manageably-sized book.
December 16, 2015
The book could use one more revision for concision, but it really is a brilliant and substantive response to Dawkins and Hitchens. Hitchens himself said in one debate he had with D'Souza that D'Souza is one of the more formidable opponents he's ever faced. That's high praise, coming from Hitchens.
Several of the chapters are right on par with C.S. Lewis.
Several of the chapters are right on par with C.S. Lewis.
July 23, 2017
This was a pleasant surprise. Here is an author I can heartily recommend. Whether you agree with him or not, D'Souza's work is superbly researched and keenly thought out. Disagree at your own peril.
January 5, 2013
I smiled at D’Sousa’s portrayal of liberal Christians (readers know me as one): “Instead of being the church’s missionaries to the world, they have become the world’s missionaries to the church. They devote their moral energies to trying to make the church more democratic, to assure equal rights for women, to legitimize homosexual marriage, and so on … Liberal Christians are distinguished by how much intellectual and moral ground they concede to the adversaries of Christianity.” Guilty as charged.
So D’Sousa is unafraid to voice his opinion, but they are admittedly studied opinions, fun to contemplate, and worth the effort. His purpose, of course, is to highlight what is great about Christianity. This he does by appealing to our Christian roots in America, debunking atheist arguments about the evils of Christianity through the ages and instead listing Christianity’s accomplishments, and appealing to our common sense of values and morals as God-given. In discussing Christianity’s failings (such as witch hunts and holy wars) D’Sousa points out that atheist regimes have destroyed far more lives than Christian regimes (he convincingly paints Hitler as an atheist).
D’Sousa’s writing is engaging and intelligent, but he occasionally seems to miss the point. His portrayal of how atheists think is off the mark. He claims the Anthropic Principle for his side, to argue for design, favoring, without making a distinction, the “strong” variant—that the creation must have been fine tuned (presumably by a designer) to meet the needs of intelligent life. He ignores the AP’s weaker and more original stance—that of course the universe contains the natural laws and perfect timing for life to evolve, because if perchance it did not, no one would know it. The weak Anthropic Principle hints that there may be other unfriendly universes where no life could evolve, an idea which D’Sousa dismisses with a wave of his hand, stating that such speculation would hardly survive Occam’s Razor.
Of critical importance in D’Sousa’s Christianity is miracles. (What happened to Occam’s Razor?) He rightly notes that Christianity is founded upon a miracle: the resurrection of Jesus. He quotes Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:14 to say that without Christ’s resurrection, “our preaching is useless and so is your faith” (D’Sousa ignores the fact that Paul saw the risen Jesus not as a physical resurrection, but as a light from heaven, and presumes other Jesus sightings were the same). From a required belief in bodily resurrection, D’Sousa extrapolates to define a Christian as one who believes literally in all of the nature miracles reported in the New Testament. Don’t believe a man could really walk on water? Then you’re not a Christian. I’m not complaining—I’m quite used to this attitude—I’m just pointing out where D’Sousa draws the line between believer and nonbeliever. D’Sousa’s line requires a belief in nature miracles.
There is no condemnation of competing religions in this book, and only a small argument at the very end of the book for the historicity of the Christ story, by arguing that the resurrection really happened. This book is not really going to convince you that the Bible is true; more effort goes into finding room for a creator god in our philosophy (the big bang discovery really helped!), and accepting that religion is good for us. But perhaps this is the appropriate direction for 21st-century apologetics? We recognize the accomplishments of science, and that by making our life better, science “works”—yet we also recognize science’s shortcomings and the viability of a creator. Evolution, while certainly true, cannot account for the origin of life, consciousness, human rationality or morality (here, D’Souza’s arguments for a soul seem to compete with his assumption that only humans have souls). So why dump on Christianity as a solution? As D’Souza points out, Christianity “works” too, bringing meaning and comfort to lives, speaking to human longings and needs.
While many of the topics D’Souza introduces are unoriginal, his arguments are well-prepared and often fresh. In rereading my review, I may have come down a little harder than intended; the fact is I very much enjoyed the book.
So D’Sousa is unafraid to voice his opinion, but they are admittedly studied opinions, fun to contemplate, and worth the effort. His purpose, of course, is to highlight what is great about Christianity. This he does by appealing to our Christian roots in America, debunking atheist arguments about the evils of Christianity through the ages and instead listing Christianity’s accomplishments, and appealing to our common sense of values and morals as God-given. In discussing Christianity’s failings (such as witch hunts and holy wars) D’Sousa points out that atheist regimes have destroyed far more lives than Christian regimes (he convincingly paints Hitler as an atheist).
D’Sousa’s writing is engaging and intelligent, but he occasionally seems to miss the point. His portrayal of how atheists think is off the mark. He claims the Anthropic Principle for his side, to argue for design, favoring, without making a distinction, the “strong” variant—that the creation must have been fine tuned (presumably by a designer) to meet the needs of intelligent life. He ignores the AP’s weaker and more original stance—that of course the universe contains the natural laws and perfect timing for life to evolve, because if perchance it did not, no one would know it. The weak Anthropic Principle hints that there may be other unfriendly universes where no life could evolve, an idea which D’Sousa dismisses with a wave of his hand, stating that such speculation would hardly survive Occam’s Razor.
Of critical importance in D’Sousa’s Christianity is miracles. (What happened to Occam’s Razor?) He rightly notes that Christianity is founded upon a miracle: the resurrection of Jesus. He quotes Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:14 to say that without Christ’s resurrection, “our preaching is useless and so is your faith” (D’Sousa ignores the fact that Paul saw the risen Jesus not as a physical resurrection, but as a light from heaven, and presumes other Jesus sightings were the same). From a required belief in bodily resurrection, D’Sousa extrapolates to define a Christian as one who believes literally in all of the nature miracles reported in the New Testament. Don’t believe a man could really walk on water? Then you’re not a Christian. I’m not complaining—I’m quite used to this attitude—I’m just pointing out where D’Sousa draws the line between believer and nonbeliever. D’Sousa’s line requires a belief in nature miracles.
There is no condemnation of competing religions in this book, and only a small argument at the very end of the book for the historicity of the Christ story, by arguing that the resurrection really happened. This book is not really going to convince you that the Bible is true; more effort goes into finding room for a creator god in our philosophy (the big bang discovery really helped!), and accepting that religion is good for us. But perhaps this is the appropriate direction for 21st-century apologetics? We recognize the accomplishments of science, and that by making our life better, science “works”—yet we also recognize science’s shortcomings and the viability of a creator. Evolution, while certainly true, cannot account for the origin of life, consciousness, human rationality or morality (here, D’Souza’s arguments for a soul seem to compete with his assumption that only humans have souls). So why dump on Christianity as a solution? As D’Souza points out, Christianity “works” too, bringing meaning and comfort to lives, speaking to human longings and needs.
While many of the topics D’Souza introduces are unoriginal, his arguments are well-prepared and often fresh. In rereading my review, I may have come down a little harder than intended; the fact is I very much enjoyed the book.
February 7, 2017
Dinesh D'Souza drives me crazy. He's clearly a bright fellow, and when he knows his subject he's fascinating, but he has a bad habit of dismissing some concepts out of hand, which means that the depth of his ignorance is sometimes astonishing. I suppose we all are guilty of that, but what's annoying is that he has no interest in issues sometimes quite close to his main subject, meaning he can go from profound to just plain ol' ignorant in the space of a sentence.
I don't mind reading stuff I disagree with, or even lines of reasoning I think illogical or poorly considered, but I get ticked when someone brings up a pertinent point but refuses to even grapple with it. I want him to either ignore its existence or actually deal with what people who hold that view actually believe, instead of these sideswipe gripes. Most other authors will at least go to the trouble of creating a straw man and then slamming it; D'Souza doesn't even make that much effort with concepts he disdains.
He far too readily grabs onto statements various atheists have made about preferring atheism because it frees them from morality (particularly sexual morality) as *the* over-all explanation for atheism, ignoring both the fact that many atheists did not have a big disagreement with Biblical sexual mores, and the fact that many self-proclaimed Christians jettison Biblical sexual mores as well. Going back to the time of Paul, there have been self-proclaimed Christians who define Christian liberation as complete moral license, meaning D'Souza's primary "cause" for atheism was unnecessary. Atheism is about more than just broad sexual license.
He also discusses that fact that Job never did find out why God allowed his pain and suffering, while completely ignoring the fact that the *reader* knows more than Job ever does. Some believers are satisfied with the argument that God is God and loves them, whatever the evidence, and their job is simply to accept that, others look at the story of Job and recognize that God did have purpose behind what Job experienced, but D'Souza doesn't discuss that. Job understood, even in the midst of his pain, that his "redeemer liveth", and he never truly lost faith, so there is a sense where he didn't need to know any more than what God had to say -- God redeemed Job in the eyes of the friends who'd been tormenting him, and then restored to Job all he had lost.
But for those who lack Job's faith, knowing what went on "behind the scenes" can be very helpful, yet D'Souza doesn't grapple with it at all. Just odd, to me, but typical of D'Souza somehow. Every so often, he just completely misses the point, while discussing right around it, which gets tiresome. He clearly connects with some people, but I’m going to quit reading him. Which is precisely what I said the last time I read a book of his, so we’ll see….
I don't mind reading stuff I disagree with, or even lines of reasoning I think illogical or poorly considered, but I get ticked when someone brings up a pertinent point but refuses to even grapple with it. I want him to either ignore its existence or actually deal with what people who hold that view actually believe, instead of these sideswipe gripes. Most other authors will at least go to the trouble of creating a straw man and then slamming it; D'Souza doesn't even make that much effort with concepts he disdains.
He far too readily grabs onto statements various atheists have made about preferring atheism because it frees them from morality (particularly sexual morality) as *the* over-all explanation for atheism, ignoring both the fact that many atheists did not have a big disagreement with Biblical sexual mores, and the fact that many self-proclaimed Christians jettison Biblical sexual mores as well. Going back to the time of Paul, there have been self-proclaimed Christians who define Christian liberation as complete moral license, meaning D'Souza's primary "cause" for atheism was unnecessary. Atheism is about more than just broad sexual license.
He also discusses that fact that Job never did find out why God allowed his pain and suffering, while completely ignoring the fact that the *reader* knows more than Job ever does. Some believers are satisfied with the argument that God is God and loves them, whatever the evidence, and their job is simply to accept that, others look at the story of Job and recognize that God did have purpose behind what Job experienced, but D'Souza doesn't discuss that. Job understood, even in the midst of his pain, that his "redeemer liveth", and he never truly lost faith, so there is a sense where he didn't need to know any more than what God had to say -- God redeemed Job in the eyes of the friends who'd been tormenting him, and then restored to Job all he had lost.
But for those who lack Job's faith, knowing what went on "behind the scenes" can be very helpful, yet D'Souza doesn't grapple with it at all. Just odd, to me, but typical of D'Souza somehow. Every so often, he just completely misses the point, while discussing right around it, which gets tiresome. He clearly connects with some people, but I’m going to quit reading him. Which is precisely what I said the last time I read a book of his, so we’ll see….
August 14, 2008
I am "reading" this book via CD (many CDs, as it turns out). It is a thorough refutation of atheist Richard Dawkins and his ilk.
A favorite point D'Souza makes so far is this: The very nature of "faith" *means* that we will doubt. If we *knew* with complete certainty, by all available empirical evidence that there was a God, then we would not *need* faith. In this, we share our doubt, our "not knowing" with agnostics.
"Lord, I believe; help thou my unbelief." Mark 9:24
But, believers use faith to get us beyond where reason can go. Believers and agnostics are climbing the same mountain, so to speak. Agnostics reach a certain point, and say, "I don't know, therefore, I cannot go on." They put down their pack and give up. Believers use faith to continue the climb to the top.
A favorite point D'Souza makes so far is this: The very nature of "faith" *means* that we will doubt. If we *knew* with complete certainty, by all available empirical evidence that there was a God, then we would not *need* faith. In this, we share our doubt, our "not knowing" with agnostics.
"Lord, I believe; help thou my unbelief." Mark 9:24
But, believers use faith to get us beyond where reason can go. Believers and agnostics are climbing the same mountain, so to speak. Agnostics reach a certain point, and say, "I don't know, therefore, I cannot go on." They put down their pack and give up. Believers use faith to continue the climb to the top.
February 20, 2021
In a world of facts and figures, can facts and faith coexist? Is it possible to believe anything the Bible says? According to What's So Great About Christianity by Dinesh D'Souza, the answer is a resounding Yes! With scientists and atheists attempting to debunk Christianity’s truths and assuming the Bible is essentially a self-help book, bestselling author Dinesh D’Souza resolves to examine and answer the tough questions and challenges to Christianity's origins. He further tackles some of the most controversial aspects, subjects, and events related to Christianity such as the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, the Big Bang theory and Darwinism applying a fair analysis to everything you've wondered about. Well-written and thought-provoking.
July 5, 2008
Not as good as Tell Me Why or Mere Christianity. He talks about Kant and Hume, but I don't think he is giving a full explanation of their ideas. And a weird citation from Leo Strauss. If I was an atheist, I don't think I would find this convincing (as an argument for the God of Christianity). I found an informative (negative) review.
http://www.infidels.org/library/moder...
http://www.infidels.org/library/moder...
September 4, 2013
This book had good arguments, but the tone of the author was completely lacking in humility, which made it difficult for me to read. I agree with his view against atheism, but did not appreciate his personal slanders and assigning of motives to people he speaks against.
October 3, 2023
This book takes a look at Christianity from a secular point of view. The author is a Christian and for the most part I agree with a lot of his political views, but after reading this book I see a lot more differences in our religious beliefs - which are more important!
I'm not particularly fond of some of the arguments made in this book. It's purpose it to win over atheists who may be open-minded enough to read this book. And to my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, if you find yourself in a situation where someone who doesn't like or doesn't know God wants to go through a book with you - then in that case I would recommend this book for such a purpose.
I personally don't agree with the scientific stances it takes in this book - like creation - and much prefer the view that Nathan, Andy, and I have on such topics. Sometimes books like these try to appeal to atheists in a way that means them halfway so to speak. Which may seem nice, but in my opinion the Truth is either stretched or suspended to make a good enough point to win over someone on the fence. In doing so the it always comes off as elitist to me.
Despite my personal dislike, many good points are made in this book. And I did enjoy much of -although not all - of his historical examples.
Worth reading if you are curious and have the time.
I'm not particularly fond of some of the arguments made in this book. It's purpose it to win over atheists who may be open-minded enough to read this book. And to my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, if you find yourself in a situation where someone who doesn't like or doesn't know God wants to go through a book with you - then in that case I would recommend this book for such a purpose.
I personally don't agree with the scientific stances it takes in this book - like creation - and much prefer the view that Nathan, Andy, and I have on such topics. Sometimes books like these try to appeal to atheists in a way that means them halfway so to speak. Which may seem nice, but in my opinion the Truth is either stretched or suspended to make a good enough point to win over someone on the fence. In doing so the it always comes off as elitist to me.
Despite my personal dislike, many good points are made in this book. And I did enjoy much of -although not all - of his historical examples.
Worth reading if you are curious and have the time.
June 11, 2023
My dad made me read this and I fought it very hard but I actually enjoyed it in the end. I thought a lot of parts were unnecessary (part I and II) but when we get to the actual philosophy and metaphysical discussion I was thoroughly entertained. Lots of questions were answered, though I can’t say my opinion has faltered that extremely. Good for a Christian questioning audience. Now I will report back to my rom coms.
March 3, 2014
I have read several of the anti-religious books that have appeared in recent years and felt it would be interesting to give the other side a crack at it. Valerie had this book (she likes the author) from the library and I started reading it. I was honestly impressed, so I got it used from Amazon.
There are excellent chapters on why it's no slam dunk that there isn't a Creator. The Big Bang is hardly a substitute, as one is still left with the question: so what happened before the Big Bang? Eventually science starts talking about infinite universes, either parallel, serial or even co-existing, and winds up sounding as silly as a preacher. There's no proof for ANY of itl But Mr. D'Souza, like many who have made similar arguments before him, fails to see that this argument for a Creator is a long, long way from "for He so loved the world, He sent his Son..." The possibility of a Creator does not lend any credence for what his book is supposed to be about: Christianity.
Another good chapter addressed the "more have died in the name of Christ" chestnut we frequently hear. Stalin (an atheist) killed far more people than who died in the Crusades, and he killed many of them *because* of their religion. Hitler was famously responsible for a large number of deaths himself, but none in "the name of god". People point out that he was raised Catholic, but that's not why he killed Jews. In fact, it wasn't their *religion* he targeted, but what he perceived as their *race*. Northern Ireland is similarly less of a *religious* war. Are Muslim extremists pissed at us because of our choice of Gods, or because of our arrogant entanglements in the lives and politics of people who hold our interest only because of their oil?
But by the end of the book, Mr. D'Souza falls off the rails. I was most annoyed with the "without God there can be no morality" nonsense. Such ignorance always irritates me, and makes me want to smack the speaker in the forehead with a ruler like the Nuns used on me. (See Sam Harris book mentioned at the end for a brilliant take on this very subject.)
Many of his arguments for why Christianity is great are better applied to why Spirituality is great. What benefit is there to the hierarchy of religion? The basic message of all of them are practically the same. So why add nonsense like "culture" and subtly varied "rules" that make arbitrary distinctions between us "good people" and them "infidels"?
I considered 2 stars, but I did find some of the book entertaining and enlightening. By giving it 3, no one can accuse me of being single-minded.... :)
I was far more compelled by Sam Harris's treatise on spirituality in "The End of Faith". Go read that instead.
There are excellent chapters on why it's no slam dunk that there isn't a Creator. The Big Bang is hardly a substitute, as one is still left with the question: so what happened before the Big Bang? Eventually science starts talking about infinite universes, either parallel, serial or even co-existing, and winds up sounding as silly as a preacher. There's no proof for ANY of itl But Mr. D'Souza, like many who have made similar arguments before him, fails to see that this argument for a Creator is a long, long way from "for He so loved the world, He sent his Son..." The possibility of a Creator does not lend any credence for what his book is supposed to be about: Christianity.
Another good chapter addressed the "more have died in the name of Christ" chestnut we frequently hear. Stalin (an atheist) killed far more people than who died in the Crusades, and he killed many of them *because* of their religion. Hitler was famously responsible for a large number of deaths himself, but none in "the name of god". People point out that he was raised Catholic, but that's not why he killed Jews. In fact, it wasn't their *religion* he targeted, but what he perceived as their *race*. Northern Ireland is similarly less of a *religious* war. Are Muslim extremists pissed at us because of our choice of Gods, or because of our arrogant entanglements in the lives and politics of people who hold our interest only because of their oil?
But by the end of the book, Mr. D'Souza falls off the rails. I was most annoyed with the "without God there can be no morality" nonsense. Such ignorance always irritates me, and makes me want to smack the speaker in the forehead with a ruler like the Nuns used on me. (See Sam Harris book mentioned at the end for a brilliant take on this very subject.)
Many of his arguments for why Christianity is great are better applied to why Spirituality is great. What benefit is there to the hierarchy of religion? The basic message of all of them are practically the same. So why add nonsense like "culture" and subtly varied "rules" that make arbitrary distinctions between us "good people" and them "infidels"?
I considered 2 stars, but I did find some of the book entertaining and enlightening. By giving it 3, no one can accuse me of being single-minded.... :)
I was far more compelled by Sam Harris's treatise on spirituality in "The End of Faith". Go read that instead.
October 14, 2017
Dinesh D'Souza was the man I liked the least in the debate Science Refutes God. So why did I choose to read his book? Maybe because I try to understand the people and concepts that go against my own convictions. Or maybe because, on a subconscious Thanatotic level, I occasionally long for the tachycardia I get from reading badly written books.
I thought I'd list the fallacies I encountered, but they were so numerous that I had to kill the idea in the womb (you have just caused an abortion, Dinesh!). Instead of a list, this conclusion in the words of Truman Capote: a phony, but a real phony; D'Souza would be better off as a reality TV show host.
I thought I'd list the fallacies I encountered, but they were so numerous that I had to kill the idea in the womb (you have just caused an abortion, Dinesh!). Instead of a list, this conclusion in the words of Truman Capote: a phony, but a real phony; D'Souza would be better off as a reality TV show host.
March 15, 2019
I really wanted to love this book, and parts of it were very well done. However, I was disappointed to see him compromise in the area of origins - he is apparently a theistic evolutionist who subscribes to an old earth and the Big Bang theory, which in my opinion, undermines his entire argument. For a much better and more in depth review than I have time to write, visit https://creation.com/review-whats-so-...
May 16, 2019
I haven't read much from the modern science community, so the quotes he discusses were new to me, for the most part. That made it interesting. His responses are in logical, layman's terms with a sprinkling of facts and figures which I did not investigate. He doesn't do a solid linear argument build the way C.S. Lewis does in Mere Christianity, but I enjoyed this modern treatise on the Christian argument.
August 20, 2008
What a fantastic book! Written for skeptics, Christians, and all in between, it challenges you to think. D'Souza uses scientific inquiry and logical argument as well as historical data to uncover, unmask, and refute long-held beliefs. I recommend this very highly as a great thought-provoking challeng.
August 1, 2011
What a fantastic book! I've grown up in church and religious schools, and this man used everything BUT the Bible to support the claims of Christianity - logic, philosophy, history, and especially science. I think it's great for anyone who wants an intelligent, rational discussion on the subject, whether a believer or unbeliever.
March 24, 2008
This book was frankly much better than Francis Collins' similar volume, the Language of God. It was very good, and D'Souza is very persuasive. He does believe in Evolution, however, as distinct from Darwinism. My feelings are somewhat mixed about it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 298 reviews