As this is a book on the general subject of apologetics, it should be understood that this is not a book on apologetic methodology. Its aim, and strength, is a presentation and analysis of the landscape, of the comparative relationship between believers and atheists, as it is understood by presuppositionalists. This understanding is, essentially, that the Christian (presumably, Catholic Christian) worldview can account for and justify reasoning and ethics while the atheist worldview, with its necessary commitment to materialist Naturalism, cannot. This is the point of the book and it is well argued by the authors.
As a Catholic presuppositionalist myself who highly values the apologetic work of Dr Greg Bahnsen, I view this book as a valuable compliment to Dr. Bahnsen's discussions of technical issues and methodology. This is not to imply that the distinction between the relative emphasis' taken by Bahnsen vs. Madrid-Hensley was total and exhaustive. But while Dr Bahnsen's emphasis was to argue forcefully that, as Christians, we must presuppose the truth of the Christian worldview, "The Godless Delusion" elaborates in detail the composition of that worldview and HOW it provides the preconditions necessary for man to have certainty in knowledge and confidence in moral judgment. It does this both directly and indirectly by examining the shortcomings of current atheistic thought on the matter.
Regarding some of the criticisms raised by previous reviewers:
1. Circularity: Argument over one's foundational epistemological commitments, one's presuppositions, always entails circularity of a kind. If one claims to be committed to X as the only and ultimately valid way of knowing truth (X = `Reason', `God's relevation', `Oprah's revelation', `tossing dice', etc) it makes no sense to then go on to say that this claim is known with utter certainty due to Y. Presuppositional circularity is a circularity of logical necessity - not a circularity of logical fallacy.
2. Presuppositionlism is Reformed Protestant methodology: This is largely true in an historical sense - but not an epistemologically necessary one. In fact, and though it would cause him grief to hear it, I credit the presuppositionalism taught to me by the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen with eventually compelling me to enter the Roman Catholic Church as a convert from a Reformed Baptist perspective. Of course, I couldn't abandon my presuppositionalism at the Church gates. Catholic presuppositionalists are out there and hopefully this book will contribute to growth in our ranks.
3. If A. Tierney actually read the book, he did so in an all-too-superficial manner and didn't really make an effort to understand the arguments it contained so as to better refute them. This is evidenced by how many of them are mis-stated in his review. As one example, his claim that the authors' reference to the examples of Hitler/Mao/Stalin somehow "means that the three examples of Atheists leaders must show what Atheism always leads to. Not a strong point." But the authors' point was clearly that atheism has no foundation from which to hold a valid critique of the actions of Hitler/Mao/Stalin and infer that this might explain why, in the previous century alone, national leaders committed to atheism (Castro/Pot/Il Sung) have been responsible for the greatest bloodbath known to mankind.
4. PJ Porvaznik wrote: "The authors should have no problem then with the scientific theory of evolution, taken within its limits. Cardinal Schonborn ... and Pope Benedict XVI ... agree there is no problem with Catholic dogma and evolution. But it seems the authors have reservations with the science ... which they mistakenly call `random chance' (natural selection is not random, and is `the opposite of chance,' as Dawkins has frequently pointed out)." However, the authors would have no reservations with "the science" that attends a Catholic conception of God driving evolution according to His purpose. But this later idea, of course, is not what Dawkins means when he says that natural selection is the `opposite of chance'. To treat their critique of the latter as a pronouncement in ignorance on the former is not really fair to the authors and their actual argument.