Alister McGrath is a moderately conservative Evangelical theologian who was born in Northern Ireland. After a period of atheism, he became a Christian and is now one of the most prolific theologians in the world. In this book, he traces the rise of atheism from the time of the French revolution to its gradual decline in recent years.

Prof. McGrath is a good storyteller. Along with a discussion the seminal thinkers of atheism such as Nietzsche, Freud, Marx and Feuerbach, we get a political, historical and social overview of the entire movement. For example, Prof. McGrath discusses recent political issues such as the turbulence of the 60s and Madeline Murray O'Hair's crusade for atheism. While this book is no substitute for more detailed studies on atheism, it provides a historical and political background that other studies generally don't.

Prof. McGrath is, as I said, an incredibly prolific author. He has probably written, edited, or revised over 15 books since 2000. Because of this, it would appear that a few too many errors and editing problems creep into his books. For example, Robert Ingersoll is described as the "great atheist" when he was the "great agnostic." The former Episcopal bishop of Newark is not James Spong, but rather John Spong. The same quote from Augustine appears twice within a few pages, etc. In spite of these defects, THE TWILIGHT OF ATHEISM is an enjoyable work.

Tara Smith is a professor of philosophy and a follower of the ideas of novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand (called "Objectivism"). Prof. Smith offers a strong defense of individual rights based on an Objectivist conception of reason and human nature. (Curiously, while Rand is mentioned in the footnotes, she is never mentioned in the body of the text.)

There are a number of merits to this book. Prof. Smith is a clear writer who sets forth her arguments forcefully in jargon-free language. Unlike much Objectivist writing, she interacts with other traditions in a non-vituperative manner. Rather than give Rand all the credit, she indicates where she is indebted to others. Finally, she responds to potential arguments and counterexamples to her theory. Compare, for example, her section on "the ethics of emergencies" with Rand's article of the same name. Rand's article quickly descends into a screed against "altruism."

Prof. Smith argues that rights find their justification in man's need to advance his own life. Without rights, I can't exercise my reason and therefore can't live. Prof. Smith's argument, although fairly persuasive, runs into some obvious problems. Most importantly is the question of why one person should respect the rights of others. If, as Prof. Smith argues, rights have an egoistic foundation, then why should I respect someone else's rights? In fairness, to Prof. Smith, she realizes that this is a question that needs to be addressed, but I don't find her answer completely satisfactory. Finally, is the only justification for rights their role in advancing life? If I knew that I was going to die next week, would it be okay for me to cheat and steal?

Prof. Smith is also the author of a work on metaethics called VIABLE VALUES, which is quite good. A work that interacts with some of the topics covered by Prof. Smith is Roderick Long's REASON AND VALUE: ARISTOTLE VERSUS RAND (which, unfortunately does not reference Prof. Smith). Thomas Fleming takes on the tradition represented by Prof. Smith in THE MORALITY OF EVERDAY LIFE.

THE MORALITY OF EVERYDAY LIFE is one of the more interesting books on ethics that I've read in a while. Thomas Fleming, a top paleconservative writer, contrasts an "ancient alternative" to the liberal tradition. The liberal tradition (growing out of Descartes, Locke and others) is characterized by certain assumptions: Individuals and governments are the central players in ethical considerations; moral behavior is a question on rational decision-making; moral principles must be applied with equal consistency to all situations.

Yet the ancient (and in fact almost universal) way of looking at moral questions is different. I have different obligations to different people. My duties to family and the world are not equal. Charity, as they say, beings at home. To the liberal "citizen of the world" this is provincialism at its worst. "[T]here is a consistency of tone, a certain universal high-mindedness that is impatient with distinctions and disdainful of irrational attachments. Sentiments of loyalty, because they are not entirely rational, do not yield their secrets to analysis or measurement." [p. 103.] People who profess a love for mankind first and foremost have the tendency to be cruel to their family and friends. It's easy to justify almost anything in the name of one's love for mankind. (A point made in Paul Johnson's suggestive, if problematic book, INTELLECTUALS.)

Dr. Fleming's book, as one might suggest by my brief description, is hardly rationalistic and abstract. There are plenty of examples from "everyday life" illustrating the arguments of the book. My only complaint is that I had hoped Dr. Fleming would have situated his ethical approach within the tradition advanced by writers of the Old Right. Richard Weaver and Robert Nisbet are mentioned once, and Russell Kirk not at all.

Russell Kirk was the preeminent American conservative thinker in the 20th century. He produced a huge volume of nonfiction, literature, essays, and also edited many important works as well. Although Kirk is occasionally praised by the "conservative" establishment (in reality, the neoconservative controlled beltway establishment), he is for the most part ignored today. There hasn't been much in the way of secondary studies of Kirk. James Person's book is fairly good, but is more of a biography of Kirk and an overview of his thought, rather than a critical study. Prof. McDonald's book should go a long way to restoring Kirk to his place in conservative thought.

As I've said before, Kirk tends to be a rather opaque writer. Kirk rarely presented definitive plans to solve specific problems. Instead he offered a general approach to society based on respect for tradition and some general "canons" of conservative thought. For this reason, Kirks opposed libertarianism. Besides libertarianism being wrong on certain issues, libertarianism represents an "ideology" -- a preplanned approach to society which (to that extent) is similar to socialism. As someone once said, certain political systems offer the "One Big Solution" to the "One Big Problem." To Kirk, society's problems are more complex.

The best part of this book concerns the chapter on "moral imagination," which plays a central role in Kirk's thoughts. McDonald also highlights the influence of Irving Babbit and Paul Elmer More on Kirk. There is also an excellent discussion of Kirk and the Natural Law. I enjoyed the brief discussion outlining the differences between the Old Right (writers such as Kirk and Nisbet), paleoconservatism, and neoconservatism.

PHILOSOPHY OF MIND is one of Routledge's "Contemporary Introduction to Philosophy" series. Although there are other similar series, this is my favorite because the contributions are particularly comprehensive.

Professor Heil's work is no exception. This book takes as its point of departure (like most such works it seems) Descartes' approach to the mind/body problem. Prof. Heil then discusses important philosophical and psychological approaches (Watson and Skinner, for example) to the philosophy of mind.

The work discusses some of the questions that are often left out of introductory works on the topic, such as artificial intelligence and biological evolution. This book can be used by someone who is a beginner, or someone who is familiar with the basic issues in philosophy but wishes to get a better understanding of the issues.

I've just finished reading Stanley Jaki's BRAIN, MIND AND COMPUTERS which discusses many of these issue from a broader theological and philosophical perspective. I think the books complement each other quite well.

Al Stewart is best remembered for his 1970s "AOR" hits, "Year of the Cat" & "Time Passages." Although Stewart has continued to produce records since then, his American hits were limited to that brief period of time. That's unfortunate since for over 30 years, Stewart has produced an impressive quantity of good material. I like Stewart's work because he often incorporates historical events and imagery into his music. Sure, it can be a bit corny at times (and his 70s hits were pretty schmaltzy) but it's a step up from today's "urban" music for sure.

In BETWEEN THE WARS, Al teamed-up with hotshot guitarist Laurence Juber (briefly of Wings). These songs are, as one might gather, "soundscapes" from that surreal period of time, 1918-1939. Not all the songs work equally well, but there is more than enough vintage Stewart for any fan. Thanks to Juber, many of the songs have a jazzy feel. I particularly liked "The Cause," about the Spanish Civil War & "Laughing Into 1939."

The JOURNALS OF AYN RAND is an important addition to the large body of work by and about Ayn Rand. This work is put out by Rand's Estate, which worked with scholars associated with the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI). JOURNALS contains an introduction and notes by editor David Harriman which are, for the most part, helpful. There is a forward by Leonard Peikoff which is pretty much what you would expect.

Rand wrote out her notes in complete sentences, so there is a good deal of lengthy philosophical and other matters contained in this book. One of the best parts her notes for a work Rand started after THE FOUNTAINHEAD, called THE MORAL BASIS OF INDIVIDUALISM. It's over 60 pages long. Particularly revealing are the notes for an early story called "The Little Street" which is highly Nietzschian in tone, as even the editor had to admit. (Peikoff's forward attempts to downplay the influence of Nietzsche on Rand's thought.)

One thing I found interesting is that most of the journal entries are before 1955. However, Rand didn't start writing philosophical essays until after that. JOURNALS includes some notes for the articles that make up INTRODUCTION TO OBJECTIVIST EPISTEMOLOGY, but that's about it. Editor Harriman tells us that Rand made only brief outlines for her philosophical essays, and felt that publishing them wouldn't add much. I would like to take Harriman's word for it. But was there no benefit to publishing these outlines? This might be a minor point, but for the fact that there are reasons to question the accuracy of the JOURNALS. Prior to this book, some small portions of Rand's journals were published by ARI-associated scholars. In an entry dated January 20, 1947, the previously published version contains a reference to Albert J. Nock, which is left out in the version published in JOURNALS. There are other changes as well, such as the removal of "duty" in a passage on ethics. [Sciabarra,"Bowlderizing Ayn Rand", Liberty, Sept. 1998.] This isn't a big deal to fans and casual students, but to scholars attempting to sort out the influence of other thinkers on Rand's thought, it is a big problem.

Carl F. H. Henry (1913-2003) was one of the most important evangelical theologians of the twentieth century. He was instrumental in the founding of Christianity Today and Fuller Theological Seminary, both of which have drifted toward liberalism as of late. (Fuller's slide toward liberalism is detailed in George Marsden's REFORMING FUNDAMENTALISM.)

In 1960 or so, Christianity Today serially published a number of brief essays on various topics in theology, which were published together in this book. (Christianity Today was more scholarly and conservative in those days.) These essays (which number 43, plus a postscript by Roger Nicole) were written by some of the most prominent evangelical thinkers of the day, including Cornelius van Til, F. F. Bruce, G. E. Ladd, and E. J. Carnell. Actually, just about all the deep thinkers in Evangelical Christianity of the time except Gordon Clark appeared to have contributed to this project.

This book is an informative mini-systematic theology. It's a good place to start if you want an introduction to conservative Protestant theology.

THEORY is the third and final volume of Alister McGrath's A SCIENTIFIC THEOLOGY, a work of over 400,000 words. This series seeks to study the methodology of the natural sciences and attempt to correlate and apply them to the study of theology. Prof. McGrath is clear that it isn't a work of systematic theology, but rather a methodological prolegomena to a soon to be published systematic theology. (For some reason, the book jacket for all three volumes describes it as a "systematic theology" anyway.)

As I've mentioned in my previous reviews, these books contain numerous interesting background studies that would be of help to anyone interested in the relationship between religion and science. On the other hand, these books come across as something like a collection of encyclopedia articles interspersed with a few observations by Prof. McGrath setting forth his own positions in a somewhat cursory manner.

Reviewing the final chapter, entitled "The Place of Metaphysics in a Scientific Theology", shows what is wrong with this work. McGrath discusses Ayer, Mach, Carnap, John Milton, Ritschl, Schleiermacher, Iris Murdoch, Ayn Rand (that's not a misprint), protocol sentences, etc. All of it is highly informative. I didn't know that Milton wrote an anti-metaphysical treatise on theology that wasn't rediscovered until 1823. Yet the points that McGrath makes are relatively few and general: we cannot escape metaphysics, even those who advocate a "functional Christology" are implicitly making metaphysical claims, and the like.

The entire series gives indications of being hastily written. Besides being repetitive, it appears that Prof. McGrath has read and written more on these issues than actually thinking about them. For example, on page 272, he states that E. O. Wilson's book CONSCILIENCE is "important" and discusses it in some detail. Yet in volume two, he said that the book was "disappointing." On the next page he tells us that B.B. Warfield was Charles Hodge's "colleague" at Princeton. In fact, Warfield didn't start teaching at Princeton until after Hodge died.

Last year, I reviewed the first volume of Alister McGrath's A SCIENTIFIC THEOLOGY. This work seeks to study the methodology of the natural sciences and attempt to correlate and apply them to the study of theology. Prof. McGrath is clear that it isn't a work of systematic theology, but rather a methodological prolegomena to a soon to be published systematic theology. (For some reason, the book jacket for all three volumes describes it as a "systematic theology" anyway.)

As I pointed out, volume 1 (NATURE) contained a lot of interesting background studies that would be of help to anyone interested in the relationship between religion and science. On the other hand, the book came across as something like a collection of encyclopedia articles interspersed with a few observations by McGrath setting forth his own positions in a somewhat cursory manner.

Unfortunately, the same may be said of volume 2 (REALITY). This work is a discussion of the nature of reality from the "critical realist" perspective. Like volume 1, there are lots of background studies. You get four pages on the "Sokal hoax," an extend discussion of John Milbank's THEOOLOGY AND SOCIAL THEORY, a discussion of John Searle's THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOCIAL REALITY, seven pages about postmodernist theologian Don Cupitt, etc. All of this is quite interesting, but how it all relates to Dr. McGrath's ideas isn't entirely clear.

As in volume 1, Prof. McGrath's positions aren't well developed. He constantly reminds us that truth is mediated by a community and that claims of "neutrality" are part of the allegedly discredited "Enlightenment project." Maybe, but is 2+2=4 or "God exists" "mediated" truths? Is it only more "complex" ideas, such as Anselm's theory of the atonement (which was apparently framed within the context of medieval law) that are "mediated"? I'm sure Dr. McGrath has a way of sorting out these questions, but sustained arguments shouldn't be hard to find in a three voume series of 400,000 words.