Ron Nash wrote this wide ranging book back in the '80s, but much of its material is applicable and helpful for the reader today.

I debated whether to give the book 4 stars or 5. I opted for 5, but I think a certain kind of reader might not rank it that high. I found that there were parts of the book, particularly the early parts dealing with noetic structures and worldview formulation, that tend to drag a bit. But, for someone who is new to the field of apologetics and the intellectual side of the Christian faith, these chapters might well be very engaging. Since it appears that Nash's target audience was at a more beginner-type level, I have no problem with his extensive early treatment of noetic structures since it lays a good foundation for the rest of the book. That's why I did not demote my 5 star rating even though I found a fair amount of this specific material to be a bit dragging. Someone else who has been around the block a few times with these issues might not give it a 5 star rating due to the amount of time Nash devotes to this area, but I think Nash's treatment is very good and would be quite helpful for the beginner.

I found the real highlight of the book to be Nash's treatment of miracles. His critique of Hume's landmark work on the subject is outstanding, as is his examination of non-Hume objections to miracles. Also, Nash's examination of the problem of evil is also quite good, but given his Reformed theological background, I was a bit confused by his often repeated emphasis on the preservation of human free will as a central issue in the problem of evil. I happen to think this line of thinking has merit, but I'm unclear as to how it fits into a Reformed worldview. Nonetheless, for Christians who don't have entrenched theological leanings on the free will issue and simply want to be able to respond to the problem of evil, Nash offers a lot of meat to chew on.

In summary, this is a wide ranging book that takes the reader from the infancy of noetic structure and worldview formation, to the more advanced issues that face theism such as cosmology, design, the problem of evil, and the problem of miracles. And while I believe it is a very good and unintimidating resource for the beginner, I also think there's plenty of meat in this book for more advanced readers to make it worth reading.

John Byl has written an interesting book on cosmology here. This is a book that I would consider to be introductory in nature, and I would recommend it for readers who are interested in cosmology but have not been extensively exposed to the topic. Cosmology is an area of thought ripe with complex theories, abstractions, concepts, and assorted disciplines. This is a book that does a good job of getting a person's feet wet in this area without being overwhelming.

As best I can tell, Byl is basically trying to arrive at two conclusions. First, that scientific theorizing about the existence of the universe is not the same as scientific fact. He attempts to argue that much of cosmology is based on unverifiable speculations that are based more on the philosophical and/or religious presuppositions of the cosmologist than on verifiable scientific fact. Secondly, that much of both medieval and present age cosmology is problematic in terms of adequately explaining the origins of the universe or what the future of the universe may look like. In many ways, I found this book to be an anti-cosmology book, which makes it unique relative to other works on the subject.

But when I say that the book struck me as being anti-cosmology, that doesn't mean that the book is anti-intellectual. Byl spends a large amount of time in this book critiquing big bang cosmology and in the process, takes on the views of a number of heavy hitters both in theistic and non-theistic thought. I thought he did a pretty good job of pointing out a number of problems in big bang cosmology which at the very least, cast doubt on the ability of current big bang cosmology to accurately and COMPLETELY explain the creation of the universe. This is clearly a counter-cultural position to take in current cosmological circles, with prominent thinkers in both the theistic and non-theistic camps assuming the veracity of big bang cosmology in drawing wider conclusions. In the process, Byl also critiques a number of cosmologies alternative to big bang cosmology, and then attempts to argue from a theistic perspective that the cosmological argument is problematic to conclusively prove the existence of God, much less the existence of the Christian God. Lastly, he attempts to formulate what he believes is a Biblically supported cosmology that assumes the inerrancy of the Bible as the starting point for his cosmology, and further assuming that where the Bible and current scientific thought conflict, that the scientific thought rather than the Bible is in error.

Relative to big bang cosmology, Byl draws the rather radical conclusion that current big bang cosmology is incompatible with Scripture, and thus, theistic thinkers who adopt big bang cosmology as part of arguing in favor of the existence of God are making a very big mistake.

It is here that I question Byl's conclusion. First, I don't agree with Byl that the cosmological argument is not a good proof for the existence of God. The universe exists as opposed to not existing. As a result, it deserves to be explained. Further, since the God of the Bible is clearly portrayed as a God who created all there is, it is both logical and reasonable to attempt to erect a sound cosmology that demonstrates the truth of the Bible by showing that the universe could only have been created by an omnipotent God like the One described in Scripture. Unfortunately, when I read Byl's book, the conclusion I got was that all cosmologies that have been attempted to date are not only flawed, but equivalently flawed, and I think this does a disservice to some of the more sound cosmologies. I think that some cosmological structures are more sound than others and hold promise of leading us to even better cosmological structures. Secondly, Byl is clearly a young earth creationist, and while this is certainly okay, as even he says in the book, a person who does not believe in Biblical errancy will not subscribe to a young universe cosmology, presumably because of the alleged conflicts between science and Scripture. Byl did nothing to attempt to reconcile these supposed conflicts, other than to dismiss such conflicts as cases of presuppositionally based scientific thought that leaves the realm of fact and enters the realm of theory and ideology. While there is certainly truth to this claim, I don't think this claim in and of itself is a sufficient and compelling criticism.

So, the book is a good introduction that makes a number of very good points and conducts good critiques. I consider it to be a solid introduction into the world of cosmology and would recommend it on that basis. But I thought that Byl's conclusions were too pessimistic on the role of cosmology in theology and also did not properly distinguish between plausible cosmologies that are incomplete, versus other cosmologies that are based more on fantasy than plausibility.

In this book, Philip Yancey writes candidly and passionately about the issue of grace. He focuses on God's grace, and what a grace filled Christian life should look like. In the process, he unapologetically points out examples of ungrace in the attitudes and behaviors of Christians, and talks about some of these people by name. Clearly, this is a book that was written not in pursuit of winning a popularity contest, but to squarely challenge the church on a number of fronts. For the most part, I think Yancey succeeds.

The strength of the book is clearly Yancey's treatment of both the grace of God and living a grace filled life. Yancey recounts personal experiences that stretch across a wide array of circumstances and episodes to bring home the point that our culture is desperately in a mood to find grace, and that this represents an enormous opportunity for the church. One of the key premises of the book is Yancey's belief that the Christian church is the only entity or system with the ability to offer grace to people, since God's grace, when Biblically practiced, turns many societal norms upside down. Yancey is therefore imploring the church to return to a grace system that no other system outside the church can offer, so that the masses in search of grace will find it in the church, rather than not finding it at all. I found this line of reasoning to be quite persuasive.

I gave the book 4 stars instead of 5 because I felt that Yancey lost control of his subject matter a bit when discussing the relationship between the church and the state. Yancey feels very strongly that evangelicalism's preoccupation (as he sees it) with political issues like abortion and homosexuality have greatly tarnished the reputation of the church among those looking for forgiveness and grace, but not seeing much of it in evangelical circles due to their political activism in these areas. I felt that Yancey was being both unbalanced and inconsistent in this area. First of all, such an assertion makes the false assumption that everybody who has a problem with Christianity or Christians feels the way they do for legitimate reasons that can be traced back to the behavior of Christians, with no ulterior motives. This is not universally true, and should not be assumed as such. Secondly, there are times in this section when Yancey applauds (properly so, in my view) Christian activism in the areas of abolition, civil rights, medical care, and education. But these affirmations come within a section of the book that is generally hostile to Christian activism in political matters. Further, Yancey believes that evangelicalism seems more concerned with more trivial things than major things, and that this is a problem. Maybe so, but as even he says in this book, no sin is trivial to God. So the question Yancey creates for himself is who exactly is going to decide which things are trivial and which aren't? By making this assertion, Yancey is bending dangerously close to appointing himself as the gatekeeper of the exact kind of rule making legalism he writes in such strong opposition to. The bottom line, which Yancey is less than lucid about here, is that Christians have the right and the duty to take their faith beyond the church walls and allow God to use them to change the culture, which includes the political and social culture. This, however, must be done Biblically, which means as Christians, we must conduct ourselves with dignity and love. Yancey, unfortunately, spends about 5 chapters decrying the methods used by some Christians to impact the culture, without sufficiently making a balanced distinction between the Christian's duty to Biblically live out their faith in all spheres of life, versus the mistake of putting the political cause we champion above the spiritual Cause that motivates us, thus tainting our motives and techniques. In his section on the political arena, Yancey greatly emphasizes the latter, but mostly ignores the former, thus generating a perspective that I found imbalanced.

But overall, I think this is a challenging book that hits on many good points and identifies several areas where the church is in need of improvement. In that light, this book is a valuable resource.

John Piper has put together a challenging, in-your-face, kind of book that methodically exorts Christians to embrace the joy of the Spirit-filled life. Piper doesn't pull any punches when he repeatedly asserts that for a Christian, living a joyless life is dishonoring to God and is even a sin.

Piper puts a deep emphasis on Scriptural support for the assertions he makes in this book, and does a good job of countering reasonable objections that some might have to certain critical tenets in this book. I thought that his chapter on the relationship between a Christian and his/her money was one of the real highlights of the book, as well as his discourse on suffering. Piper also includes a few appendices which are relevant and worth reading in order to help complete the book.

This book really got me thinking about some things. I felt that Piper made a compelling case that if we have a good appreciation of the majesty of God, joy and happiness that transcends individual circumstances is not only possible, but logical. It results in genuine life change that permeates all we are.

Piper even got me thinking about other areas that I don't necessarily agree with him about. His position on the problem of evil in Chapter 1 is one I don't think I agree with. But I'm happy his position is articulated in this book, because it has gotten me to think about this issue much more deeply, and that is to my benefit.

Overall, an outstanding book that presents an impassioned defense of the joyful Christian life. A very good read.

For me, this book is very tough to review. It's approach is unique, and this tends to impact how the subject matter is addressed. I think the uniqueness of its approach had great potential, but ultimately, I found that it was this unique approach that kept the book from getting over the hump.

The book represents a fictional dialogue between a moral absolutist and a moral relativist. The book contains a series of fictional interviews where each side presents their own case, while attempting to refute the other's case. If done right, this is a very vibrant and intriguing approach to dealing with a highly charged subject. But in order to do this right, one must adequately and fairly represent the views of each side, in order to avoid strawmen and incompleteness. And it is here where I thought the book did not totally succeed.

There are a few sections of the book that are super. I felt that the best chapters, by far, were the ones where the fictional relativist makes her case for relativism, and then watching the fictional absolutist dismantle each positive assertion for relativism. I felt that this section was very fair to the relativist view, and that the positive assertions offered for relativism are indeed commonplace assertions that accurately reflect the thinking of many relativists. As indicated previously, the integrity of the book rests almost entirely on presenting an accurate and adequate picture of each side of the debate. In this particular section, Kreeft succeeds and I felt that this section alone makes the book good enough to read.

However, I personally found much of the remaining material to be both mediocre, distracted, and confused, thus the 3 star rating I've given the book. I found Kreeft's extended arguments for experience as a proof of absolutism to be weak and on shaky ground philosophically. I think that it does make sense to appeal to 'experience' as an argument for moral absolutism, but this must be done very carefully. I felt that Kreeft did not adequately sharpen his experience argument in such a way as to make it a concise proof for absolutism.

In regards to the 'distracting' concept identified above, I felt there was simply too much needless banter from both sides of the fictional debate that served no useful end. I'm aware that some readers may view the ad hominems from both sides as being entertaining, but I found it to be very distracting and disrupting to the flow of the book. The ad hominems emanating from both sides could have served a useful purpose had these ad hominems themselves been refuted. But many were not, and appeared to have been inserted into the fictional dialogue for entertainment value, rather than as legitimate points for debate and refutation.

Lastly, I felt the book was confused about what it was trying to do. The dialogue at times delves into philosophical theory, both past and present, but also clearly delves into layman arguments as well. As a result, I felt as if the book couldn't make up its mind as to whether the emphasis was going to be on debating philosophical concepts, or down to earth opinions of everyday people. It tries to dabble in both, but I found the result to be an inadequate examination of both. I think Kreeft should have clearly decided at the outset who he was trying to talk to here - a philosophically and logically oriented group, or a layman opinion-based group. The issue of moral relativism is one where significant and lengthy treatises could be written to either audience. But in this book, Kreeft writes a very short book that tries to reach both, and I think this confused the analysis and examination and shortchanged both sides.

In summary, a number of chapters were quite good. But for the reasons outlined above, I thought that the book could have been much better, and thus represents only a partial success.

Bruce Ware has been one of the more prominent evangelicals leading the charge against open theism in evangelical circles. He was one of the key speakers at the most recent meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society which ultimately voted better than 2 to 1 to reject open theism's proposal of a God of limited omniscience. This book is Ware's written attempt to discredit the theology, philosophy, and claims of open theism. For the most part, I think he succeeds.

For everything that is taken up in this book, Ware's analysis is devastating to open theism. Ware effectively cuts through much of the sweet talk that's popular in open theism and methodically exposes the many negative ramifications of the openness view in terms of theology and daily Christian living. Ware's critique is very good in taking somewhat complex theological and philosophical material and making it accessible to lay people without watering down the concepts. He also does a good job of quoting extensively from a number of prominent open theism apologists, particularly Greg Boyd. In my view, after reading this book, it would be highly difficult for someone to try and suggest that Ware was erecting a strawman and arguing against that, rather than fairly discrediting the actual premises of open theism as articulated by its leaders.

I gave the book 4 stars instead of 5 because I thought that Ware's analysis, while outstanding in the areas that are covered, could have been more exhaustive. To me, among the most problematic ramifications of open theism is the reality that open theism, by definition, must acknowledge at the very minimum the possibility of biblical errancy and fallibility. In my view, one cannot consistently be an open theist as well as a believer in biblical inerrancy, since a great deal of the prophetic material written in the Bible requires the exact kind of divine foreknowledge of the future that open theists say God doesn't possess. At the very least, open theism has to acknowledge that their view requires, for example, that the entire book of Revelation MIGHT prove to be wrong, since by their own view, the prophetic proclamations only represent God's best guesses of what might happen, rather than being part of a divine blueprint that's already in place. In addition, the other major theological problem with open theism is that it requires a fundamental redefining of the substitutionary atonement of Christ's death on the cross. If God doesn't know the future, that means that God could not know with absolute certainty that Christ's death would accomplish anything, since it is conceivable that nobody could have responded to it and believed. This raises huge problems both about the character of God (what are we to think of a God who willingly allows His only Son to be brutally sacrificed if He didn't know for sure that anything good would come from it), as well as what Christ's death on the cross is supposed to represent.

Ware has verbally expounded on these critical points in various speeches and lectures, but neither issue is discussed in this book. Because I believe these issues represent monumental theological deficiencies in the openness view, a book worthy of 5 stars would have comprehensively explored these issues. Because Ware does not, I am compelled to give the book 4 stars instead because of its non-comprehensive critique.

But having said that, I strongly stress that what Ware DOES cover in this book is outstanding and represents a very able and formidable refutation of open theism and its implications on the faith overall, as well as individual believers. He effectively shows that open theism is purely a human concoction that requires repeated caveats in order to cover up its rather obvious shortcomings - caveats which are actually in contradiction with the stated principles of open theism. Similar to Geisler's refutation of 'neotheism' in another book, Ware effectively shows not only that open theism is an internally inconsistent mess as a matter of scholarship, but also that open theism cannot deliver on many of the rosy promises it makes to undiscerning Christians who are intrigued by this redefinition of God. Ever since this book came out, Boyd and company have been playing defense, and it is clear why this is.

William Lane Craig is well known inside scholarly circles. Christian scholars regard him as one of the elite. And atheist scholars, along with prominent atheist websites, feel compelled to pay a great deal of attention to the writings and debates of Craig, in my view, because he has demonstrated himself to be one of the sharpest pins to regularly burst the atheism balloon. There is no serious debate about Craig's scholarly credentials and abilities, and Reasonable Faith makes that abundantly clear.

Reasonable Faith is a methodical, meticulous, sometimes impassioned defense of the existence of the Biblically based Christian God. In this book, Craig not only challenges the views of various atheist scholars (whether they reside in science, mathematical or history disciplines) but also challenges the views of deism and 'liberal Christianity'. I felt that the book represented a very logical and easy follow stairway from the issues of faith and reason, to the inescapable reasonableness of the resurrection of Jesus. In between, Craig conducts a quality appraisal of the Godless worldview and where it leads, and an outstanding analysis on the existence of God where he takes on the views of Hawking and others. Craig Blomberg contributes a very good chapter on the reliability of the New Testament, with Craig concluding with a good chapter on the self understanding of Christ and a masterful chapter on the resurrection. Each chapter provides a very compelling chronology of how the debates revolving around these topics have evolved over time, giving the reader a good sense of how thinkers on multiple sides of the issues have formed their various positions. Craig then does an assessment of this chronology in each chapter. I found this approach to be very strong and persuasive.

Craig also does a good job referencing his book, and offers a very good bibliography of other readings that go into further detail on the issues that Craig examines here. When reading this book, the reader may very well want to conduct further investigation and research into a number of areas that Craig touches on, and the bibliography in this book allows the interested reader to do so easily.

The problem of miracles was the one area where Craig could have been a little stronger, in my view. This area is not weak by any stretch, but could have stood for further exploration and examination, in my opinion.

Overall, this is an outstanding book. Craig wrote this book on a more popularized level to make it more amenable to laypeople, but potential readers should not be lead to believe that this is an easy or fluffy read. While written at a more popularized level than much of Craig's high scholarly material, this is still a book that deals with complex issues in a meaty way, and requires the reader to carefully think things through. After reading this book, I hope that even those who remain unconvinced about their need for the Christian God will at least acknowledge that Craig clearly demonstrates that the historical Christian religion can be effectively and articulately defended against the highest level of opposing arguments thrown against it. Christianity is a religion that more than stands on its own intellectually, and Craig shows, in my view, that its competitors in the world of scholarship have long since been lapped. An excellent resource!

Jim Cymbala draws from personal stories from the Brooklyn Tabernacle, along with a number of his own life experiences, in seeking to demonstrate God's grace in the midst of 9/11. While this book is far from a comprehensive Christian response to the events of 9/11, it mostly succeeds in painting an inspirational portrait of God and how He has been working throughout New York City and the nation, and also within the halls of Brooklyn Tabernacle in the wake of the tragedy.

Various portions of this book read like a powerful sermon, which makes sense given that Cymbala is a pastor. In particular, his discourse on persevering in Christ today by drawing upon various Biblical examples such as the life of Paul or the Hebrew enslavement in Egypt are especially moving and inspiring. Cymbala also takes a bold stance against what he calls 'make believe prophets' who tried to affix earthly and mostly ideologically based reasons and/or judgments to the attacks.

The book is not quite as good as it could have been for at least one reason. Cymbala could (and should) have gone farther in providing tangible reasons for folks to trust God even in the midst of tragedies that are not entirely understandable. He does touch on this, and attempts to demonstrate God's faithfulness in working through great tragedy by pointing to a couple of specific things in history, but this section could have been elaborated on in much greater length to show the reader that God has turned tragedy into victory over and over again, and that this gives us very reasonable and tangible reasons to trust God to do the same thing now. Instead, Cymbala deemphasizes this and stresses more of a 'trust God because we know God is good' approach without really supporting this assertion adequately for those who may not consider this view to be a given.

But with this exception, I think this book is good for conveying a sense of God's grace, how we need to be responding to it, how others have already responded to it, and how we can continue to have joy and hope even in the midst of great sorrow and tragedy by focusing on an eternal perspective. This book is short and not very deep, but there are many good truths that are conveyed in it, along with powerful personal stories that are very authentic, and that makes it worth reading.

To his credit, John MacArthur is a man who often speaks boldly and is willing to challenge conventional thought and say things that may not be popular or easy to hear, while effectively arguing his point and backing up what he says. Unfortunately, in this book, he only partially succeeds in doing this.

The stated purpose of this book is to provide answers to why God allowed the 9/11 tragedies to occur, why Islam is hostile towards the West generally and Israel and the US specifically, and can we possess any hope going forward given what's happened. The book has some strengths and I think it hits on a few important themes, but in the end, I felt that this book, like much of the Christian response to 9/11, was half baked and missed the mark.

The one sustained strength of the book was MacArthur's analysis of the history of Islam. He examines Biblical geneologies, along with a brief summary of the life and attitudes of Mohammed, coupled with an analysis of Islam's spread to the present day. The reader should be warned that this analysis is at a very top level. MacArthur further expounds on Quranic teachings relative to waging a holy war, or jihad. MacArthur's contention is that the Quran is very clear that jihad is acceptable and even admirable, and that Islam actually teaches that the only way a Muslim has a guarantee of going to heaven is by dying while fighting a holy war - and that this heaven is a highly sexualized experience. MacArthur contends that this is one of the main reasons why so many young Muslim men seem willing to die in this way, since MacArthur's contention is that Islam provides no guarantees about the believers eternal state if they die any other way.

The other modest strength of the book is in MacArthur's examination of the response of the world, and Americans in particular, to the tragedy. He makes a very good point that the total number of people who died in the tragedies were actually less than the average number of deaths in the US on any given day. MacArthur makes a compelling point that Americans have gotten very good at ignoring or minimizing death when it gradually occurs one person at a time. It's only when many folks die suddenly and simultaneously that many of us take the time to think about our own mortality. MacArthur would have been wise to expand on this point, as it would have been very relevant to what he was trying to address in the book.

While the above strengths are sufficient enough for me to grant the book 3 stars, I frankly expected more from MacArthur, and was a bit confused about his target audience. The book is very short and summary oriented, which leads me to believe that this was an attempt at a purely evangelistic tool, almost like an expanded tract. But if that was his intention, he should have included a list of suggested resources which would complement his book, since this short summarized treatise left many areas where the inquisitive reader would have additional questions or concerns. Similarly, some of his language was unnecessary and would likely turn off someone who is being witnessed to (intimating that Satan was behind the creation of Islam does nothing to further loving outreach to seekers, and does lots to turn them off - nor is it even vital to the premise of his book, it was unnecessarily inflammatory). Such language might be okay if the book was intended for mature Christians, but if this was his target audience, it is likewise a book that does not get the job done in terms of extensively critiquing Islam and how it differs from Christianity and how Christianity is better equipped to explain the 9/11 tragedy.

At the end of the day, I just didn't think that there was a lot of "there, there" with this book. It struck me as a book that was put together rapidly in order to get into people's hands while the wound was still fresh, and like much of the Christian church's response to 9/11, comes across as a bit stale and as an evangelistic rush job. With 'religious activity' levels today returning to their pre attack levels according to various polls, it is becoming increasingly clear that the church's response to the tragedy was insufficient. I would argue that a great deal of the reason is because the church was not thoroughly addressing the questions and issues that people were raising in the aftermath of 9/11. The church was providing too many canned answers for a wide audience that had been heard before, rather than presenting a meticulous apologetic for the truth and viability of the Christian faith as not only our best hope for humanity, but also as the best explanation for what happened on 9/11 and why. Unfortunately, this book by MacArthur struck me as being a good example of the former, rather than the latter.

Carroll and Shiflett have done a good job of trying to set the record straight in this book about Christianity, Christians, and the impact of both on human history. It was very refreshing to read a book that goes beyond superficial caricatures to really explore the history honestly. I think the authors mostly succeed in balancing the scales a bit and demonstrate a proud history of the faith that is based on many facts that have long since been forgotten by much of society.

The authors devote one chapter to each specific issue that is analyzed. One of the major strengths of the book is the authors insistence on devoting the first part of each chapter to present the view of the anti Christian forces, whether they be in the media, academia, or cause advocacy. The summation of the anti Christian view is especially illuminating and piques the interest of the reader to hear what the authors have to say about such strongly held views. In my view, the authors succeed pretty well in taking the criticisms on in a succinct and factually based way. Where appropriate, they acknowledge the shortcomings of the church and do not attempt to rationalize these shortcomings away. They lay them out there for the reader to digest. But the authors also introduce a tremendous amount of supplemental evidence that goes a long way toward factually deconstructing many of the more popular negative one liners that people trod out to discredit Christianity.

After reading this book, I think a number of people, if they are open minded and willing to be challenged where their preconceived notions are concerned, may find themselves modifying or even completely rethinking some of the reflex opinions they have held to in regards to Christians and Christianity. When reading this book, I found myself amazed by how completely it seems some people are looking to find a way to blame Christianity for any injustice or ill that troubles them. What I found by reading this book is that in our modern day emphasis on surface level scholarship, Christianity fares much better than the efforts of its critics to discredit it.

Having said all this, I feel the need to comment on what I perceived to be one significant weakness of the book that compels me to give the book a 4 star rating. In all frankness, the authors were very sloppy in their referencing approach, and in a book like this, this is a huge problem. In every chapter of the book, there are quotes the authors use to try and advance their points which are not referenced back to any source material. This serious oversight leaves the book very susceptible to criticism from those who don't like what they read in here. In particular, the chapter that discusses the relationship between Christianity and the Third Reich contains a number of quotes that Hitler allegedly made which were hostile to Christianity that are not referenced to any source material at all. This is a serious problem because someone reading this book could easily dismiss the authors entire line of argumentation by saying that because these quotes aren't referenced back to any source material, there's no way to verify their accuracy, and maybe the authors made them up completely. I'm not suggesting that this is what the authors did, but by not doing a better job in their referencing, they unnecessarily leave themselves open to charges like this and provide opponents of their book with an easy way to dismiss much of the content. This is particularly inexcusable in a book like this which attempts to take on and refute societal views, since the authors had to know that their book would strike at some sacred cows. As such, it is even more critical to write a book that is airtight in terms of its facts in order to really challenge people to rethink their views in light of factual evidence that they themselves can personally verify if they choose. But because the authors did not thoroughly reference their material, the book comes up short in this area to a degree that causes me to lower the rating from 5 stars to 4.

But while the book is clearly deficient in its source material referencing, it is sufficient enough in this area that both sincere believers and open minded skeptics can read this book and validate enough of the facts presented to make it an effective tool for setting the record straight. It's not perfect, but it's good.