The End of Reason: A Response to the New Atheists

I didn't start out enjoying the book until I realized how broad the scope of Atheist beliefs are.
I believe if you have any question of Is there a God then take time to read this book and each
argument to the Atheist understanding. No Question, There is a God.

I believe it's simple and direct, The structure is logical and biblical, allowing you to be confronted by the word of God. Recommend it for a short journey anywhere, I guarantee it's gonna be worthwhile reading.

This is one of the worst books I've read in recent memory. I was brought to anger at times by the ridiculousness of Ravi's argumentation precisely because I expected so much better from him. If the book had a fraction of its content devoted to substance rather than Trojan horses, ad hominems, cute anecdotes and fables, and general reactionary hollowness then it may have been worth the read.

While you can't judge a book by its cover, you often can by its content's functional bookends. If you want to know how vapid most of this book is then simply read the first two paragraphs and then the last two. Pointless stories with little substance and even less relevance rule the day.

As it stands, the book's only mercy was being as short as it was. This terseness (though it arguably could have forgone the first 116 pages) mixed with a couple glimmers of Ravi's true brilliance and probably more prior personal attachment to Ravi than I'd care to admit all work to gain its second star

I love this book, but I agree with some of the other reviewers that Ravi Zacharias uses some of the same kind of arguments as he says the atheists use-still I like the book, I agree with him, and generally like his approach.

I love how Ravi uses common sense to stop the mouths of those who hate Jesus Christ and Christians. May God bless him and his family. His reasoning is so on point. I would urge supposed to be atheist to take a step back and try to stop hating God because you have not gotten what you wanted from Him. Please rethink your bias and your hate because God loves you all.

Although I'm a great fan of Ravi Zacharias and listen to him often on the radio,this book falls short of expectations. The likes of atheists Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Dennett will forever be with us. Their ferocious attacks on Christianity are so distorted and malignant that most unbelievers, even atheists, find their tirades excessive and unbearable. Giving more than a paragragh or two to rebut these amoral and unrepentant cretins is almost more than pen and paper can tolerate.

Ravi would do well instead to concentrate his energies, as he does in his contributions to to "The Apologetics Study Bible", on those confused and misled individuals who think that any form of tolerance or religious thinking will insure their place in heaven. Most people have a sense of God-consciousness but are oblivious to God's plan of salvation through the shed blood of His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. As the scripture clearly states:"There is one God and One Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus". Also, "He that hath the Son hath life; he that hath not the Son hath not life". Can it be any simpler than that. One does not need to have an advanced degree from a theological seminary or be particularly articulate to proclaim the gospel message to a lost and dying world, searching for origins, meaning, and hope.

Let it be known that I love Mr. Zacharias' previous works, yet this book is far too concise and incomplete and also too "off topic" for one to read and be absolutely assured of one's faith in God. The first question of "Where we come from?" is inadequately answered. It would have been better if Ravi simply utilized a Presuppositional Apologetic and carried each presupposition to its logical conclusion since this is exactly what Ravi quickly does in dismissing the Materialists for not having an answer for the beginning and moves to its inconsistencies in application. He misapplies the argument of chance in that in a given eternity the chance of something occurring is possible regardless of its improbability. Just like our faithful predecessors, no one has or should even attempt to disprove another's theory on the beginning of origins (since finite experience does not lend oneself to this knowledge) but one merely asserts such and moves from that premise.
Although I find Mr. Harris' comments repulsive, Ravi sadly also uses the same methods he criticizes Mr. Harris of committing in appealing to emotion and carrying on with hypothetical and/or true personal examples.
This book is clearly Ravi's personal grudge against Harris in his attack of Mr. Harris' obvious lack of knowledge and unconcern with moral issues. Although these may be true they serve no purpose in the dismantling an argument. It would have been more helpful to the reader if Ravi simply addressed the atheist's premises in a more formal manner and demonstrated their contradictions.

Yes, good book but a little difficult reading for me. Sometimes this book stretches my brain power and it's a little difficult reading. I would very much recommend it though. It was recommended to our Bible class by a extremely well read teacher/counselor. As you know there is the anti-Christian movement in the USA today by atheists!

Ravi Zacharias does it again with this book, succesfully defending the Christian Faith against skeptics from the Atheistic world. Skillfully combing both anecdote and fact, Ravi presents a strong position that appeals to both the heart and the mind. The only minor issue is that it is pitched at a level slightly higher than the average layman. However, it is still understandable and definitely readable. A must-read for all serious Christians and people from other religious Faiths alike!

Zacharias books have a dreary sameness to them: he uses the same "where does morality come from" argument over and over again along with the "you can't be a relativist because relativism excludes itself" observation repeatedly. Coupled with his penchant for ad hominem attacks on non believers, his work can really only appeal to those of faith who need a bit of cheerleading rather than the informed seeker or outright non believer

Ravi is an inspiration to us all as he takes on the Godless that want to destroy our souls and offend our spirits. By taking on tough issues, Mr. Zacharias shines a spotlight in the darkest corner of human society, the one the atheist lives in, and strikes from. Thanks Ravi, may God strengthen you for the fights ahead.

Ravi Zacharias lacks original thought and stands on the shoulders of other "original" intellectual author's. I was disappointed to also here that this author has been outed for padding his credentials and claiming he earned a PhD when he did not... Very sad that someone who is this insecure should argue with other people's quotes. Perhaps his insecurity arises from his Indian experiences growing up after British rule(?). This rating is my opinion and it deserves a low rating because I could have simply found most of the referenced works as free books (which I will BTW) and make my own observations. This book is mostly quotes from other sources and really very thin at that His thoughts are circular with no in-depth analysis and reflective thought as to why Christian philosophy is superior to other philosophical standards. Just because you ask questions like Christ doesn't mean in a modern age that you can get away with this technique to point fingers at others and ignore that three are pointing back at you....

Ravi is quickly becoming one of my favorite Christian Apologists. This book did not disappoint. And I think I read it in a couple of hours. That's the positive side of this. The negative is that the target audience probably won't waste their time reading this.

Sure, the Christian community will applaud this, but will the non-believer take it seriously? Their ears are already deaf to the truth of Jesus Christ, so I would have a hard time believing that they would want to waste their time on sound theological arguments that rail against the lies that they so strongly shout out about.

Nevertheless, I enjoyed this little book. A good read with some sound arguments, for those that would actually care.

Ravi Zacharias's response to a book that made him angry (Sam Harris's "Letter to a Christian Nation") was to write an angry book. My recommendation is to read neither book. Instead read anything by Karen Armstrong, Thich Nhat Hanh or Marcus Borg.

This is easy to do since Zacharias includes page numbers from Harris' book. What you will find is that Zacharias often quotes part of a passage by Harris and then paraphrases the rest. If you don't follow along with Harris' book, you could easily get the impression from the quotation that Zacharias is accurately representing Harris' opinions. However, in many cases, Zacharias' paraphrasing completely changes Harris' meaning. I'll give Zacharias the benefit of the doubt that he simply does not understand Harris and is not deliberately misrepresenting him.

This work is a response to the atheist Sam Harris, playing on Harris' title "The End of Faith." The author, Ravi Zacharias, is a capable writer and expresses clear and calm thinking throughout the book. Those who are familiar with Zacharias' other work will expect to find the author's tact, logical deconstruction and personal winsomeness, and certainly such readers will not be disappointed here. Those who spend some time following the New Atheist crowd will immediately notice the difference of tone and rhetoric that Zacharias display throughout the book versus those of the radical New Atheists. I've enjoyed the fact that the book's approach was not a line by line refutation of Harris, but rather an attempt of a critique in terms of atheism as a worldview. This is helpful, and Zacharias' strength of cultural and philosphical literacy is displayed in this work. Like many of the response to the New Atheist, this work is short (coming in a little over a hundred page) but I believe it is still powerful. Readers who want to engage more of Zacharias' line of arguments or wish to see his ideas flushed out more elsewhere should read his other works, in particular "Can Man live without God" and "The Real Face of Atheism."

The title says it all. This book's prologue relates how a young man tells his family that he has become an atheist after reading a book, presumably Open Letter To A Christian Nation by Sam Harris. This son's revelation somehow ruins the entire family. "Before long this family that was once close and peaceable is now broken and hostile." The boy's mother commits suicide! Can you be any more unreasonable? Zacharias tells you after he relates this horror story that "... this particular scenario is imaginary..." The End Of Reason is meant, I guess, to be a refutation of Sam Harris's book, The End Of Faith, a book that clearly shows that only thoughtful reasoning should be how you seek to understand the world. Faith doesn't teach you anything but the circular reasoning of believing what the Bible says because the Bible says it's true. Reason can tell you why something is true, or isn't true.

I mean this as kindly as possible, if you gave this book by Zacharias a 5 Star you clearly haven’t read Harris books or heard his arguments. I was open minded to this from both sides of the argument and decided that reading both authors might shed some light on these deep issues. Meanless to say Harris won this hands down for reasons stated below.
1) Zacharias could not write convincing arguments without consistently demonizing Harris and appealing to purely emotional impulse. This was very cheap and ineffective, he would consistently write on how he was “offended” by Harris ideas... your offense does not equate you’re beliefs to be true and is rather childish way to debate.
2) The first part of the book is depicting a son who losses his faith and his Christian family is so distraught it ruins their family and eventually ends the mothers life to suicide. This was a scene laid at the feet of Harris as a “consequence” of his ideas. However anyone rational could easily see this scenario should have been laid at the feet of the families clearly insane ideology. The idea that “if you don’t believe what I believe I’m going to kill myself” should seem clearly insane to any normal person! This was not apparent to Zacharias!
3) the clear amount of straw man arguments was insane! Had you not read Harris maybe these weak representations of his ideas would convince you. However where Harris will take the religious argument and debate it at its strongest points this consideration is not returned in his favor. His ideas are briefly discussed and more discussed of how they offended Zacharias and not how they were actually wrong. Using logic and rational clear debate would had helped...
4) this list could go on forever so i’ll summarize it this way, you owe it to yourself to read Sam Harris and to see how you are being very deceived by this poor representation of his work. Do not get over emotional and easily offended, THINK about what you are reading! A teenager is easily offended and appeals to the emotional with no bases, however they are not a reservoir of wisdom and neither is Ravi Zacharias!

This is a terrible book. Very shoddy reasoning. The writing is sloppy, sentimental and filled with colloquial nonsense. He writes things like "I have seen statistics that say 40% of scientists are religious...." and then quotes the completely biased Francis Collins. He attacks Sam Harris ad hominem and with the most sophomoric logic. If you want a smart answer to the new atheists, don't look here. A 10 year old could write a better response. Sam Harris's The Moral Landscape has answered all of this book's flimsy objections. In the last pages of the book he delivers a xenophobic diatribe against Muslims. Don't waste your money.

I was happy to see respected Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias take on the most sarcastic "new atheist" of them all - Sam Harris. While the book occasionally takes stabs at other popular atheists, Sam Harris is definitely the favorite target. Ravi devastatingly critiques Mr. Harris' work. He exposes the blunders, flawed reasoning, and blatant misrepresentation of certain religions, that Mr. Harris presents. Even if you are not a Christian, but still are disturbed by people like Sam Harris, this is the book for you. I highly recommend!

I never heard of the author Harris and have no inclination to read his books. Whenever I struggle with my faith I always look at what the secular world has to offer versus what Jesus has to offer. No contest.
Thank you Ravi for your thoght provoking book.

In culling my books to make more room, I ran across this slim volume which I was given several years ago by the well-meaning pastor who conducted my father's funeral (at the conclusion of the service, no less). He was and still is clearly worried about my soul, as well as those of my wife and kids. Too bad he isn't more concerned with expressing his concern with a solid argument for Christ rather than this drivel!

The basis of Zacharias's hollow argument hinges on two premises: the Bible is completely true and human beings must have answers in order to be happy. So, if you believe one or both of these premises (and the book does seem to target believers, rather than non-believers), you will probably love this book. If, however, you are educated enough to know how the Bible was compiled and modified, you will have serious reservations about his first premise (which he never supports, by the way, but simply assumes) and easily dismiss the majority of his argument. Further, if you are intelligent and comfortable enough to understand that there are some things that we (the human race) will simply never know, you will easily be able to dismiss the remainder of his argument. In fact, one of his biggest points is that Atheism is flawed because it does not provide definitive answers. Guess what? Nothing does! So, you can either take comfort in an "imaginary friend" named God (which he argues without hesitation has simply always existed) or you can accept that the universe is a vast and mysterious place far beyond our comprehension. I prefer the latter.

With The End of Reason, Ravi Zacharias has written a brief but articulate argument responding to "the new atheists." In just under 130 pages--a read of an hour and a half--he refutes many of the claims and charges laid against religion in general and Christianity in particular. But Zacharias's book is not just negative, arguing against atheism, he eloquently argues for belief in God. The result is a well-rounded, thoughtful little book and one of the best apologetic works in recent years.

The End of Reason is primarily a response to Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. Zacharias uses Harris as a starting point, skilfully countering not only Harris's arguments, but also those of other well-known atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.

The book is divided into several distinct sections. To begin, Zacharias notes the particular kind of atheist to which he is responding--those that make others "embarassed to be an atheist." He also describes his own past as an atheist and the suicidal hopelessness to which such thought brought him. The second and longest section describes this atheism in philosophical terms. Zacharias outlines this worldview's stance on life's origins, the meaning of life, morality, and hope in a painful world. In the third section, Zacharias sets out to confront and debunk a number of Harris's specific claims, whether of Christianity's inferiority to religions like Buddhism or Jainism or that the Christian doctrine of the virgin birth is erroneously founded on a mistranslation and the root of Christian "anxiety about sex." Zacharias also discusses Pascal's Wager--that the fulfilment brought by Christianity is worthwhile even if the universe turns out to be meaningless--and a number of other major issues.

The final section is perhaps the best, and the lynchpin of Zacharias's book. In the closing pages, Zacharias puts forward a simple, understandable argument for the existence of God and discusses the true meaning of the Eucharist, at once the most important rite of the Christian church and the symbol of the unity brought through Christ to believers around the world. And, in closing, Zacharias suggests that in the end the final decision will not be between atheism and religion, but between Christianity and Islam.

I found this book encouraging and refreshing--encouraging, because it fed my desire to not only believe but to believe for good reason, and refreshing because of its brevity and coolheadedness. What perhaps encouraged me most about the book is the overwhelming tone of reasonableness that Zacharias maintains throughout. Never once does he stoop to the level of crassness and vitriol demonstrated by polemicists like Harris. Instead, Zacharias proves by his own example the kind of peace and fulfillment of which atheism is devoid and only faith can bring. This book is a beautifully clear-headed respite from the current trend of "flame-war" argumentation.

The End of Reason is a good, quick read--like I said, I read it in perhaps an hour and a half. But packed into a very little space is the kind of brain-fodder on which meaningful reflection thrives. Christians will value this book as a defense of the faith; atheists will value this book as a civil counterargument in an ongoing debate.

Highly recommended.

I knew before I sat down to write this review that the judgment this book received would be polarizing. You can pretty much bet that the majority of the reviews would be split between one star and five stars. A quick survey of the rating provides just such a result. Atheists hate it and dismiss it out of hand. Christians love it and give it the perfect rating. The truth about the book falls between these two positions.

The book is nothing more than a response to Sam Harris and his anti-religion publications. With a broad brush, Harris outlines what he believes to be the irrationality of religion and calls on people to leave faith behind. Ravi Zacharias penned this book as a response to those assertions. His stated purpose is quite clear. Christianity is not an untenable position for a reasoned person to hold. He works through many of Harris' charges to expose the flawed logic which appear sound on the surface but fail to hold up under scrutiny. Did Zacharias accomplish his goal?

The book succeeds in large part by providing Christians with confidence that the Biblical worldview is not without support. Drawing on the fields of philosphy, science, logic, and history Zacharias shows that there is another side to the argument. While not delving into great depth on any issue, the author does raise important points which are handled in more depth by other authors. This is a general overview rather than a specific point by point dismanteling of Harris. It serves as a good introduction to the subject - not too technical in its language but weighty in its ideas. A good read.

This book was passed to me by a fellow Christian. I have known of Ravi Zacharias for many years, although this is the first of his books I have read, and I respect him as a scholar and as a Christian believer.

Having read several books in the past that deal with similar topics, I really appreciated reading this one. I found Ravi's arguments to be rational, polite and sincere, even when he clearly opposes the arguments of the new atheists. Although Ravi is clearly a philosopher - from a school of academia whose writings I find difficult to understand - I found The End of Reason easy to read and understand. That said, there are sections that were not always easy to grasp at a first reading, and warranted a second, more careful, perusal.

I recommend this book for the coherent, well-reasoned discussion that it provides. It exposes the contradictions and bias that are among the hallmarks of new atheism - or secularism, for that matter - in a logical manner. That said, my favourite sentence is: 'And I strongly suspect that Jesus would have said, "Whose portrait and inscription are on you?"'

I love watching the BBC TV series, Sherlock. In the episode, "The Blind Banker," the inspector detective on the crime scene indicates that the situation was a suicide at which point John Watson leads him with "That does seem to be the only explanation of all of the facts." Sherlock quickly and correctly interrupts, "Wrong! That's one POSSIBLE explanation of SOME of the facts."

This seems to illustrate the interchange between Sam Harris in his book Letter to a Christian Nation and Dr. Zacharias here. Harris is applauded for having seemed to come up with an, "Aha! Got you!" to Christianity (and other religious worldviews). But Zacharias aptly and poignantly responds by indicating that there are a lot of facts that Harris is simply, either by fear or ignorance, refusing to take into consideration. Zacharias concludes that not only is it completely rational and moral to believe in and have a relationship with the God described in the Bible, but also that the logical conclusion of Harris's worldview is an existence derived of love, hope and even morality.

Harris frequently, much like a bully in school, without understanding, uses humor to belittle his opposition to make it seem worthy to be the target of mockery. But with all seriousness and, might I add, a gracious amount of gentleness common in his books, Dr. Zacharias boldly defends Christianity against this new atheism using not zingers and jabs, but sound reason and rationality, calling into question the very foundation upon which Harris's arguments lie.

Ironically, here on the store one of the reviews for Letter to a Christian Nation is entitled "Well-written, but not worth the price." I submit that this is precisely the bottom line of The End of Reason. Whether the book is well-written or not, placing ones faith and belief system into Sam Harris's worldview, Ravi Zacharias quite ably contends, is most decidedly not worth the price.

I have no doubt that religious faith provides a good deal of comfort and consolation to true believers, but if this book is anything to go by, it certainly doesn't teach a person to write decent prose, or to construct a rational argument. The opening example of the mother who commits suicide because the son returns home no longer a believer is, well, let's just say it like it is: it's distasteful, disgusting, dare one say, unChristian. The joke that follows soon after--about the sailor and the men entering the London pub--is at once atrociously told (it's a very old joke, but never before told quite this badly) and offensive. No English person (and I speak with some experience, being English) would ever use the expression, "Say, bloke." I couldn't get any further than that, because the tone was so blatantly manipulative and insincere. Any atheists who might happen to read this rubbish are likely only to be further convinced that certain people of faith are distinctly creepy. Those who already share Dr. Zacharias' ideology will, predictably, love it. One thing is sure, however. It is not likely that Harris, or any of the other bete noire of the religious right, would ever have occasion to begin one of his books by presenting a hokey hypothetical in which a family of 'devout" atheists is irrevocably broken by a prodigal son returning home to say he has been converted to Christianity by a professor who assigned Dr. Zacharias "response." That would be a completely absurd, and unbelievable, scenario. If you really want to learn about Christianity, here's a novel idea: READ THE BIBLE. There are several excellent, and beautifully written, translations widely available. I especially love the King James' version. But do NOT get your Christianity via in the intermediary chicanery of charlatans like Dr. Zacharias. Ditto if you want to understand Koran: read it. Sam Harris has read both, to his credit.

After reading reviews on this book here, many seem to have missed the reason for Dr. Zacharias' writing. This book (really a letter) is not a compendium of apologetic thought in relation to atheism, but is instead a response to Harris' two works that proselytize New Atheism. His writing is not a point-by-point parallel to Harris, but instead responds to several concepts Harris brings forth in "End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation." Please keep this in mind when deciding whether to read/buy this book. This is what spawns many of the reviews that cite incompleteness or brevity.

Dr. Zacharias writes from his own experience as a former atheist. While many in the US may not have similar experiences (increased suicide in light of rise in popularity of atheism or moral relativity), statistics show that suicides in ages 14-24 have more than doubled since the influx of moral relativity to the US in the mid-20th century (suicide.org). Since Dr. Zacharias dealt with this issue in the most intimate way (he attempted suicide as an atheistic teen), his book deals with this topic up front and throughout. In fact, he has a section titles "Atheism Led to My Suicide Attempt."

Dr. Zacharias, like William Lane Craig, writes on multiple levels of complexity. This text is his "easiest read." One can sit down and run through this text in a few hours without having to stop to ponder the depth of what Dr. Zacharias is saying. (Some of his other writings are rather deep.)

After his introductory remarks, Dr. Zacharias responds to Harris through four generic topics: Origin, Meaning, Morality and Hope. In each of these, he jumps around to different references in Harris' writings and counters Harris' postulations on these topics.

Next, Dr. Zacharias deals with Harris' ideas on Christian topics such as The Christ of Scripture, evidence for God, morality of the Ten Commandments, controversial aspects of science (abortion, genetic engineering, cloning and design behind the universe.) Each of these is treated very briefly and in response to Harris' ideas. Discussing each of these in detail would take hundreds of pages and Dr. Zacharias uses less than 130 pages of large font text. So, his treatment is brief.

Is he convincing? That depends on the objections one has to Christianity, and the fervency with which one holds to these objections. His closing salutation to his letter is "With my prayers for a world of reasonable faith." With this, he points to the desire that people will understand through his writing in response to Harris that Harris' loud voice pointing to what he sees as the unreasonable nature of faith that faith truly does have reasonable foundations. One must simply investigate the evidence and decide rather than relying on a one-sided and heavily slanted point of view of Harris.

The audience for this book are seekers who want to read a reasonable response to the loud voice of Harris. Also, Christians who have read Harris can benefit from the basic arguments postulated by Zacharias and build better responses to help those in their community that may have been exposed to Harris' writings.

Ravi Zacharias has, as the first reviewer says, done an able job in answering Sam Harris's book length rant against religion (mainly Christianity). Ravi, as always, writes with intelligence, keen logic, grace and aplomb, none of which can be said about the author or book Ravi is refuting. Ravi is perhaps uniquely gifted to apply a sharp slap in the face to the modern hostile atheist authors all the while making it feel like a warning from a concerned wiser, older friend. As Ravi takes Harris's atheistic tenets to their logical conclusion, he shows that atheism always has and always will lead to a world of individualistic license, unrestrained evil, loveless existence and empty despair. Also well done is Ravi's job of showing how whenever Harris makes a morality statement or a pronouncement of the "evils" of religion, he has to import categories (good and evil, right and wrong) that his own worldview has no explanation for and therefore no right to employ. Harris's whole argument against religion has to spend borrowed moral capital from Christianity. Harris can only say and believe the things he does because many of his presuppositions are still all too Christian.

When Ravi systematically unravels Harris's arguments (often merely unfounded assertions), one is left wondering how Harris's book could ever have been taken seriously by a half way intelligent person much less become a best seller. I find it amusing to watch how the "new atheists" argue for a world of pure secular humanism with all the passion of a pack of religious zealots. As the likes of Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens flog their rabid atheism they sound more like wild-eyed desert prophets than anything. It is clear, perhaps to everyone but them, that they are every bit as religious as the most extremist religious practitioner they rail against, and just as dangerous should their views ever receive wide subscription. The only difference is that their god is themselves but labeled and masquerading in their writings as "science". All this Zacharias does a masterful job of exposing. Although Ravi admits to this being his most edgy book, one cannot read it without detecting the genuine love and desire on his part to see the new atheists wake up to the bankruptcy of their worldview.

For those interested in another excellent rebuttal of Harris's rant, here is a much punchier contribution that focuses more on exposing the internal inconsistencies of atheism than on positively proving Christianity Letter from a Christian Citizen: A Response to Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris.

Ravi Zacharias's brilliant perspective on life is the stuff of which great philosophy is made. "The End of Reason", his latest work, is compelling, engaging, thought-provoking and entertaining. In it, Zacharias takes on the current generation of influential atheists such as Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and especially Sam Harris through lines of reasoning that one moment had me laughing out loud and the next pausing to reflect on their grand profundity.

Zacharias unabashedly sets out "to unpack the systematic contradictions between the atheistic worldview Sam Harris espouses and the assumptions he makes." Indeed, Harris's popular best-seller, "Letter to a Christian Nation", is full of sophomoric claims and mockeries. Zacharias begins by attacking Harris's foundational assumptions with quotes from other powerful scientists and philosophers from around the globe. He shows that even the some of the most learned scholars, ironically from the opposite side of the debate, find Sam Harris to be an embarrassment to their atheistic cause.

The author then proceeds to answer many of Christianity's critics' most appealing arguments. His godly confidence, sprinkled with a refreshing dose of levity, is the perfect antidote for some of life's most troubling quandaries. Zacharias doesn't shy away from even the most controversial subjects as he addresses questions about the existence of pain and suffering, human cloning, the pursuit of pleasure, abortion, morality, Jesus' deity, Evil, and even other religions.

Ultimately however, regardless of empirical evidence, science, mathematics, and philosophy, the crux of atheism's bankruptcy is its hopelessness. Ravi Zacharias, in stark contrast, shows the beauty of Jesus' love for us and its inherent hope for the security of our future. My favorite quote from "The End of Reason" succinctly expresses this idea: "Given a starting point of primordial slime, one is forced to live apart from a moral law, with no meaning, no real understanding of love, and no hope."

This little hardback will be the ideal addition to the library of any Christian who wants to better defend and understand his faith in the world's constant onslaught of opposing "facts". "The End of Reason" is chock full of food for thought for those, too, who have found themselves dazzled and tempted by the rationale of the new atheism as touted by the likes of Dawkins and Harris.

Ravi Zacharias is not the sort of person to shrink back when someone is propounding anti-Christian views in a public forum, and this short book is a fine example of his argumentative style. The book is written as a letter to America in response to Sam Harris's atheistic diatribe Letter to a Christian Nation.

As a defender of the Christian faith, Zacharias has an interesting background. He was born in India, with ancestors who were priests from the highest caste of Hinduism. He found religion to be a bore, and lived as a practical atheist, but came to believe that a world birthed by accident, a life without purpose, and morality without a point of reference, lead to a heartless, pointless and hollow existence. After a failed suicide attempt he read the Bible and trusted the Christ of the Scriptures.

The book discusses and responds to numerous different arguments made by Sam Harris and his fellow atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens against religious belief and Christianity in particular. One thing which stands out is the emotional manner in which the "new atheists" make their arguments. If their atheistic beliefs really are based solely on reason, why is there so much anger and emotional antagonism behind the way in which those beliefs are expressed? And why do people who claim to be scientists assert as scientific facts propositions which cannot be established by scientific evidence?

A quick glimpse of the reviews for this book reveals the same polarization as is found under Harris' 'Letter to a Christian Nation'. Generally speaking, Christians will find this book persuasive and atheists will find it simple-minded and distorted. The reverse assessment will be made of Harris' book by the same groups. The polarization was predictable.

I read this book after first reading Harris' work to which this is a response. Harris' book is not sophisticated and appears to be aimed at the popular-level reading audience. The same could be said of Zacharias' response in this book. It probably accounts for each books' degree of popularity.

Harris doesn't like Christianity, or any other religion for that matter. He doesn't even begin to attempt to ground that preference in any sort of prescriptive normativity, but does do a sufficient job to point out his objections to Christianity. As a work of sociology, I found his writing helpful and relevant. Why someone with a Christian worldview would expect more from someone like Harris is utterly beyond me. Harris' objections are not intellectual, they are psychological. Even so, I find Harris deeply interesting and would love to have a cold draft with the guy.

The thrust of Zacharias' book is to point out the arbitrariness of Harris' preferred ethical normativity. Harris doesn't like Christianity. The attempt of Harris to persuade others of his behavioral and sociological preferences ultimately demonstrates the futility his philosophical precommitments. He has nothing behind his preference and Zacharias capitalizes on this.

I only rated this book three stars because, although I love to listen to Ravi, I found this book painfully shallow and only successful as a reductio. There are weak allusions to the cosmological argument and a quasi-argument for the transcendental necessity of God's existence, but other than that, it offers little more.

Should you read it? It certainly will not be on anyone's top ten list. It is however, much like Harris' book, something you can read in one sitting. If you have read 'Letter to a Christian Nation', then you might as well read this one.

"Skilled Apologist" still using Pascal's Wager and straw-men as his key points. The title says it all; there is no reasoning in this book. It's a shame to see so many positive reviews by people who obviously aren't looking for real truth and are simply interested in hearing someone agree with their poor arguments. Hard to call yourself reasonable when you outright reject any claims that make you uncomfortable, which as it turns out is another core argument in this book.

Starts with a voice of reason and open-mindedness. Then turns into a rant for the Christian Right. It's supposed to be a reasoned reply to Sam Harris" book on the end of faith, which I highly recommend as he show why the Muslims are going to kill all infidels and run a religion which is stuck in the 14th century. REASON is same old, same old. Harris, although he takes a reality and atheistic stance on most things, presents whole new, well-documented, well and passionately written book which is extremely relevant today in light of what is happening in Gaza with the Hamas and their ceaseless examples of devaluing human life while trying to make Israel look heartless. Remember after 9/11 when the mothers of the pilots of the planes that killed over 3K people cheered their martyred sons? That's what Harris explains and what Zacharias completely ignores in this book. Irrelevant! You want to find out why we need to look carefully at blind faith? Read Harris and concentrate on what he says the faith of Islam will do to the world if we treat their faith with the same respect we treat faith in Christ.

This book is a response to Sam Harris' book "Letter to a Christian Nation" which I attempted to read some time ago. I had to put the book down because I was laughing so hard. While this book is fairly slight in its tone, it does a decent job of rebutting Harris. Harris' problem is that he treated the scriptures he used in "Letter" as fundamentalists do--every word is to be taken literally. Most Christians, and those with high school level reading comprehension skills can tell that not all of the Bible is to be taken literally; figurative language is used and people speak openly of having dreams and visions, which surely aren't literal. Because of this, Harris' book is easily refuted. Zacharias speaks of how he converted from atheism to Christianity as well, and apologist Lee Strobel contributes the foreword of the book. It's not bad, but I preferred "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" and "What's So Great About Christianity" more.

Ravi Zacharias is not the sort of person to shrink back when someone is propounding anti-Christian views in a public forum, and this short book is a fine example of his argumentative style. The book is written as a letter to America in response to Sam Harris's atheistic diatribe Letter to a Christian Nation.

As a defender of the Christian faith, Zacharias has an interesting background. He was born in India, with ancestors who were priests from the highest caste of Hinduism. He found religion to be a bore, and lived as a practical atheist, but came to believe that a world birthed by accident, a life without purpose, and morality without a point of reference, lead to a heartless, pointless and hollow existence. After a failed suicide attempt he read the Bible and trusted the Christ of the Scriptures.

The book discusses and responds to numerous different arguments made by Sam Harris and his fellow atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens against religious belief and Christianity in particular. One thing which stands out is the emotional manner in which the "new atheists" make their arguments. If their atheistic beliefs really are based solely on reason, why is there so much anger and emotional antagonism behind the way in which those beliefs are expressed? And why do people who claim to be scientists assert as scientific facts propositions which cannot be established by scientific evidence?

A quick glimpse of the reviews for this book reveals the same polarization as is found under Harris' 'Letter to a Christian Nation'. Generally speaking, Christians will find this book persuasive and atheists will find it simple-minded and distorted. The reverse assessment will be made of Harris' book by the same groups. The polarization was predictable.

I read this book after first reading Harris' work to which this is a response. Harris' book is not sophisticated and appears to be aimed at the popular-level reading audience. The same could be said of Zacharias' response in this book. It probably accounts for each books' degree of popularity.

Harris doesn't like Christianity, or any other religion for that matter. He doesn't even begin to attempt to ground that preference in any sort of prescriptive normativity, but does do a sufficient job to point out his objections to Christianity. As a work of sociology, I found his writing helpful and relevant. Why someone with a Christian worldview would expect more from someone like Harris is utterly beyond me. Harris' objections are not intellectual, they are psychological. Even so, I find Harris deeply interesting and would love to have a cold draft with the guy.

The thrust of Zacharias' book is to point out the arbitrariness of Harris' preferred ethical normativity. Harris doesn't like Christianity. The attempt of Harris to persuade others of his behavioral and sociological preferences ultimately demonstrates the futility his philosophical precommitments. He has nothing behind his preference and Zacharias capitalizes on this.

I only rated this book three stars because, although I love to listen to Ravi, I found this book painfully shallow and only successful as a reductio. There are weak allusions to the cosmological argument and a quasi-argument for the transcendental necessity of God's existence, but other than that, it offers little more.

Should you read it? It certainly will not be on anyone's top ten list. It is however, much like Harris' book, something you can read in one sitting. If you have read 'Letter to a Christian Nation', then you might as well read this one.

"Skilled Apologist" still using Pascal's Wager and straw-men as his key points. The title says it all; there is no reasoning in this book. It's a shame to see so many positive reviews by people who obviously aren't looking for real truth and are simply interested in hearing someone agree with their poor arguments. Hard to call yourself reasonable when you outright reject any claims that make you uncomfortable, which as it turns out is another core argument in this book.

Starts with a voice of reason and open-mindedness. Then turns into a rant for the Christian Right. It's supposed to be a reasoned reply to Sam Harris" book on the end of faith, which I highly recommend as he show why the Muslims are going to kill all infidels and run a religion which is stuck in the 14th century. REASON is same old, same old. Harris, although he takes a reality and atheistic stance on most things, presents whole new, well-documented, well and passionately written book which is extremely relevant today in light of what is happening in Gaza with the Hamas and their ceaseless examples of devaluing human life while trying to make Israel look heartless. Remember after 9/11 when the mothers of the pilots of the planes that killed over 3K people cheered their martyred sons? That's what Harris explains and what Zacharias completely ignores in this book. Irrelevant! You want to find out why we need to look carefully at blind faith? Read Harris and concentrate on what he says the faith of Islam will do to the world if we treat their faith with the same respect we treat faith in Christ.

This book is a response to Sam Harris' book "Letter to a Christian Nation" which I attempted to read some time ago. I had to put the book down because I was laughing so hard. While this book is fairly slight in its tone, it does a decent job of rebutting Harris. Harris' problem is that he treated the scriptures he used in "Letter" as fundamentalists do--every word is to be taken literally. Most Christians, and those with high school level reading comprehension skills can tell that not all of the Bible is to be taken literally; figurative language is used and people speak openly of having dreams and visions, which surely aren't literal. Because of this, Harris' book is easily refuted. Zacharias speaks of how he converted from atheism to Christianity as well, and apologist Lee Strobel contributes the foreword of the book. It's not bad, but I preferred "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" and "What's So Great About Christianity" more.

After reading "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris I needed guidance on where Harris is wrong. The entire response by Zacharias is that he is offended because his faith is being questioned and the evils of religion are on display. I had hoped for more.

I hoped to find some support for belief in this essay. It is not there. Zacharias clearly is offended by Hari' book, but fails completely to refute any points made in the book. His basic thesis is that believing makes him feel better. He selects Bible comments to challenge statements, and proves that he, like most people, only selects the passages in the Bible that support his point of view. Finally, his proof of God's existence is a classic case of circular reasoning. If you assume the need for a sentient being, it is not hard to show it is God, though he doesn't demonstrate the connection to the anthropomorphic God we all pray to.

Zacharias provides no suipport for a Christian belief, or for Christian religion.

The air is thick with tension and angry rants. I'm discussing the epistemic necessities of reason, with a caustic atheist, during a one-on-one conversation, on the heels of reading Ravi Zacharias' book on the argument from Reason (obviously not all the new atheists are acerbic and pugnacious). Yes, I'm a Christian apologist trained to engage unbelief with careful analysis and sound arguments. One of my primary tactics is to demonstrate the untenable position of atheism's use of reason. One needs a resource that helps constrain atheistic fury while refuting their epistemic base. And this little book by Zacharias furnishes plenty of critical questions that exploit the flaws of atheism's epistemic ground in a congenial manner.

The author describes the numerous suicides among unbelieving university students (p. 16) and he proves that "atheism is bankrupt" (p. 17). He employs numerous humorous stories and powerful passionate philosophical inquiries and arguments. This international lecturer contends that the new atheists advocate "outdated, overused arguments" (p. 21).

Notable aspects of this volume are:
- The Forward is by Lee Strobel
- Michael Ruse is quoted as saying that the new atheists make him "embarrassed to be an atheist" (p. 22)
- Zacharias vehemently attacks the irrational notion that "reason comes from non-reason"

Additionally he:
- Deconstructs and confutes the argument against God from evil (p. 51)
- Discusses modern genetics and the need of theism
- Furnishes a form of a verificationist proof (almost cumulative formulation) and provides an explanation for the existence of God.
In this approach he contends that theism is true utilizing:
- Logical consistency
- Empirical adequacy
- Experiential relevance (p. 117).

The author may not extend indisputable or undeniable evidence for theism (I personally prefer certain and necessary proof from a priori essentials), but he does deliver a very enjoyable, capable, and profound evaluation of the new atheism's lack of epistemic capacity to account for reason.
Letter to an Atheist Nation: Presupositional Apologetics Responds To: Letter to a Christian

Again, Ravi Zacharias hits every nail on the head. Brilliant, inspired and blessed as always with deep wisdom and sound logic.

I often muse at the weak reasonings and angry ramblings of atheist anti-Christian bigots and Secular Humanist Propagandists (often shades of the same). They often angrily berate theists (and always usually Christians, occasionally Jews, but tend to not bother other religions much either out of cowardice, ignorance or simply exposing their bigoted hatred by what they DO attack) and mock them for believing a God they don't believe in, while blissfully ignorant of the fact that they have zero empirical evidence for their faith in absolute nothingness + chance + time = everything. Comically foolhardy at best, painfully sad at worst, they are often seen quoting famous atheist evangelists such as Richard Dawkins, and never once realizing that people such as Ravi Zacharias have long ago refuted their very best arguments and asked questions that they cannot answer. When it comes down to it, no matter what God, force, or nothingness that you believe in... you still need FAITH to fill in the dots. And to attack one side of an argument for having faith while being blind to your own? Hypocritical.

Ravi's response to Sam Harris' bestselling "Letter to a Christian Nation" offers the in-depth explanation anyone familiar with Ravi's teaching would expect. It is a challenge to be able to read Ravi's work one time through and soak it all in ... almost an impossible challenge. Sometimes the circular responsive rationale seems to echo the original misinformation. However, woven between the philosophy lessons are nuggets of distinct truth which are invaluable to understanding one's faith. Ravi makes the statement in his prologue that Harris has enjoyed success, like so many other books in America, "more because of its controversial nature than because of any real substance." How unfortunately true and perhaps a good basis for the title of this letter/book ... "The End of Reason." Ravi goes on to counter Harris' claims piece by piece pulling resources from his education, personal experience and in the power of the Word. I'm glad Christianity has Ravi on this side of the divisive argument. Ravi systematically lays out the reciprocal and logical side of the atheist argument but, ultimately, it is up to every individual to make his/her own decision on what to believe. Ravi is highly educated and at times, the tone of his argument may be interpreted as defensive rather than stating the facts and letting the reader make a choice. Jesus had a radical approach to delivering His message ... we should learn likewise. Here is the Truth - which can set you free - which can give you abundant life. Choose wisely.

In this short read [I'm a slow reader and it only took a few sittings] Zacharias lays out his intentions and then proceeds in dissecting the falsehood of Harris' vociferous rants, all the while progressing toward a build of Christian theism.

As a believer not much impressed by the silly fallacies prevalent among the New Atheists, I was glad to see Ravi not grant Harris too much credit. In fact, I found myself laughing out loud occasionally at the ridiculous atheist quotes scattered throughout, as well as the sloganeering gems all of my wanna-be-smart-false-convert-turned-intellectual-skeptic friends have been testing out on me recently.

If you're familiar with Zacharias you likely won't find an immense amount of new insights, though I will say the few new tidbits are captivating. I can say Ravi does seem a tad flabbergasted at the sophomoric incredulity posed by the David Cooks of Atheism, and that may be why he didn't grant us a D.A. Carson sized rebuttal!

I might suggest beginning around page 80, where Ravi starts to school Harris on biblical prophecy, as well as eastern religiosity, the cesspool out of which Ravi grew. It is at this juncture the gavel starts pounding.

Just as it's disingenuous for an atheist to paint the Rick Warrens or the Joel Osteens of so called evangelicalism as the unique beacons of theological integrity, it's just as unfair to consider Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, or the aforementioned Harris as the logotypes of so called atheism. And that's probably why Ravi's response is so concise.

A rebuttal to a book written by Sam Harris titled The End of Faith. I have read the book titled The End of Reason written by Ravi Zacharias. I have never read any work by Sam Harris or Dawkins. I make these statements since the author of The End of Reason chooses to define what defines a `New Atheist' his agreement of the constructs of the presentment made by those two authors in their works. This work is therefore a rebuttal to the particular type of Atheism and a particular book. This is a rebuttal from a particular Christian perspective; a Roman Catholic, or Liberal theologian would have a different slant of the topic; A Buddhist, an Islamist, Hinduism, or some with another religious faith may have on this topic. A more traditional Atheist would and could write a rebuttal to the New Atheist on the topic moral decision making. Ravi Zacharias makes the distinction of the new and old of the philosophy of the Atheist perspective in deciding right and wrong. The End of Reason is a rebuttal to the arguments made by Sam Harris in the book titled The End of Faith; More specifically the arguments of how one determines what is right and wrong. Dr. Zacharias has come to the conclusion that Dr. Harris blames all religion and Christianity specifically for the World's social and political ills, although the author does take exception to some of Dr. Harris' characterizations and conclusions about Islam. The book does devote a couple pages about the moral ground differences between Christianity and Islam. It is important since much of the book deals with how Dr. Harris characterizes certain political world events to Christianity and Islam yet does not blame certain other atrocities to the atheistic world powers involved to regimes atheism and lack of moral anchors. Apparently Dr. Harris considers Hitler and Nazism as Christian when much of Nazi philosophy leans of Nietzschean pronouncements and mythology. Catastrophes would end if people would now that all religion is mythology and dangerous.

The author of The End of Reason takes issue with Dr. Harris saying no one who believes in God should be admitted as a student to Oxford, that one who would clearly argue for such a position.

This work is an interesting read. It does an adequate job arguing against the logic of moral pronouncements of an Atheist.

Being familiar with Ravi's work, I was satisfied with the content of this short and concise book. While other reviewers criticized it for being shallow, I actually found it to be quite pithy and to the point. Rather than producing a sprawling and exhaustive seven-course-meal tome on apologetics, Ravi has boiled the salient points down to a quickly digested, high-caloric, high-energy snack. This book is designed to get the answers into people's hands quickly and easily in order to engage the enemy. This is a weapon for quick, special-forces, minute-man warfare rather than an all out WMD.

I found this book to be well written and objective in giving clear, concise answers to the atheist's worn out, broken record philosophy of "There is no God, but we blame him for all of the problems in the world". I don't need to read Sam Harris's book to feel the hate that he has toward Christians in particular...it exudes from the quotes Mr. Zacharias cites in his work. That being said, there was one point the author made that I had not heard of before...that the atheist wants to create God in his own image and likeness. This is not new, for the Bible records in several places in the Old Testament where the wicked wanted God out of their lives when they couldn't mold him to their desires. God is still on the throne and they are not. I do have some questions for Sam Harris: If there is no God...plain and simple, what are you in business for? Why do you write your books and rail on about someone that doesn't exist? Why are you trying so hard to convince the world that religion, and Christianity in particular are to blame for the ills of the world if the central figure of their belief system is only an "imaginary friend"? Thank you, Dr. Zacharias for your book, and I'll be praying for you Sam! Thank you.

As an atheist, this book ultimately failed to convince me of anything, other than to ponder futility and meaninglessness of life on this 'Godless' earth. Mr. Zacharias makes a good case that absolute morality cannot exist without a moral law giver, and I accept that point. The problem is that Ravi Zacharias does nothing (NOTHING!) to even try to prove that this law giver, in fact, actually exists.

'New Atheism' if such a thing exists, is a global consiousness raising effort (to borrow Dawkins term) to show that the existence of God is very unlikely. Mr. Zacharias, however, considers 'New Atheism' to be a cultural revolution dedicated to the Church of Hedonism. His assumption is wrong, and it is therefore not surprising his book is a failure.

That being said, the book is very lucid, short, and easy to read. There is no reason to avoid it. All us New Atheists must read books like this if we are going to continue to be outspoken...

Like D'Souza or Berlinski, Ravi Zacharias is responding to the "new atheists". Ravi's format is mirroring Sam Harris's letter-like format used to promote Harris's atheistic views. Unlike Harris, Zacharias has a harder job using this tighter format of writing a letter to promote his Christian faith.

With Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, and Dennett, all they really have to do is lash out, shame the reader as an unintelligent, irrational, intolerant, person who is doing the world great harm by believing in any form of God. After their attack, they can simply walk away and leave the reader to hold the shards of a brittle belief. They do not have to answer any worldview questions.

This can be done in a convincing manner to an uncritical mind.

Ravi wants to do two things in this book. One is proclaim why he, as an atheist, saw the world as pointless and tried to take his life but now views the world with hope coming strictly from Jesus. Second, he wants to point out the philosophical, unreasonable, irrational proclaimations made by Harris and poke holes in Harris's logic and understanding. Ravi does the second well. The problem is the book is too short to give a convincing understanding to the first goal.

Overall, this is a very good book that is worth giving to those you know read any of the "new atheists" like Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, and Dennett.

You will always find the same thing; they cannot give even 1 argument for atheism - they will setup "strawmen" such as religion and give you a list of reasons why it is so dumb, but this is not a reason "for" atheism? (not even a very good reason for agnosticism)
--I have asked this question time and time again and I always get the same basic answer "Well... I admit I don't have a real reason, but religion is stupid!" Wow... At least some will say something to the effect of evil/suffering, but then when it is pointed out "doesn't this mean there is also good/joy?" Or if you say "Why does suffering matter anyway if there is no God?" Needless to say, I think this is one of Ravi's better books that simply goes straight to the point on challenging Sam Harris' book and his mostly weak arguments. Bravo.
(IntelligentWonders dot Com)

This is a small but powerful book. I would'nt advise recommend this to someone that is looking for the scientific arguement for theism but for the philosophical("The devils delusion" is a great book for those of the scientific mindset that are interested in the subject). Understand also that this book is written as a response to the works of another author, Sam Harris. In this book Ravi puts together a very cohesive argument against some lines of thought that are becoming very popular as of late. If you are new to the debate between atheism and theism this is a great resource to challange your way of thinking about the world and this great question. If you are are a Christian that is underfire and looking for some encouragement this is also a great resource.

Ravi has one of the brightest minds on the planet today. Whether or not you choose to reach the same conclusion as him, this brilliant essay should forever silence those who claim that Christianity, and the Gospel, is for the uneducated and simple-minded. Ravi's sharp analysis and sound philosophical reasoning undeniably proves otherwise to any rational, thinking person.

Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias writes an eloquent yet firm response to author Sam Harris's LETTER TO A CHRISTIAN NATION, in which Harris debunks Christianity by telling readers that "science has the answers to our questions about life and that religion is the bane of existence." In rebuttal, Zacharias states that he has "Always found it fascinating how relativists who say they love the idea of tolerance ultimately reveal themselves to be among the most bigoted."

Zacharias writes not only in response to Harris's work but also to refute other well-known atheists, such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, whose work runs along the same lines as those of Harris's. He opens his text by sharing his personal story of growing up in India, which some say is the most religious country in the world. Zacharias, though, says that many live there as practical atheists. He recalls listening to priests who were Hindu, Buddhist and Christian, and finding them (and their message) completely boring and inconsequential.

After following "only one serious philosophical question" as purported by Albert Camus, Zacharias watched two close friends commit suicide and then tried himself, but ended up in a hospital in New Delhi. It was then that he was handed a bible and was read the gospel story. Four decades later, he has traveled the globe lecturing and teaching in universities, finding Jesus "more beautiful and attractive than ever before."

Zacharias tells of his extensive study of atheism researching the world's best scholars and begins dismantling Harris's premises one by one, starting with "origin." Nothing cannot produce something, writes the author, and at this very starting point the laws of science begin to break down. Even the staunchest atheistic contenders cannot explain why there is "something" from "nothing."

Next, Zacharias tackles the "odds of random life," where Nobel laureate and atheist Francis Crick believes a spaceship delivered spores to "seed the earth." He shares more examples of well-regarded atheists' postulations on beginnings, each more far-fetched than the previous one. From there, he discusses the meaning of life and morality, posing important questions such as these: Does the reality of evil mean there is no God? Can morality exist apart from a moral lawgiver? Can reason alone provide a moral framework? Are atheists more "moral" than others? How do we define love?

Zacharias presents a study of the Christ of scripture, prophecy and the inherent morality of the Ten Commandments. He then tackles Jesus' method for changing hearts, along with current hot topics such as genetic engineering, abortion and cloning, before presenting his argument for the existence of God. Readers, whether Christian or not, will find Zacharias's work to be most necessary and enlightening reading in response to the "new atheists" teaching, which is gaining more credibility with society as a whole.

--- Reviewed by Michele Howe

I read this book as a Christian that was looking for answers to the very real difficulties so eloquently raised by Sam Harris. I was particularly concerned with the problem of evil, since I did not believe in Young Earth Creationism, I could no longer blame the fallen world on Man's sin.

Ravi Zacharias starts by painting a fictitious scenario of a college student leaving the faith, due to Harris' teachings. This then destroys the student's family life. - This story was nothing other than a blatant appeal to emotion.

Zacharius's response to Harris on the "problem of evil' is along the lines of "how dare you even ask" and "how do you know what evil is without God" or "Who decided what morality is, Harris or Hitler". This is not a satisfactory response to Harris' statement: "Nine million children die every year before they reach the age of five due to disease and disaster." It would not be difficult to persuade anyone that this is bad.

I was bitterly disappointed that even this hero of Christian apologetics does not really have any good answers to these very important questions.

Zacharias makes a well written and passionate case for the believe in (his) God but fell short while trying to reconcile so many of mankind's religion with its many God, not to mention its many more denominations. When he uses the word "God" Zacharias assumes Yahweh, the god of Abraham. As such he, like Harris discredits all the other God concepts as foolish and delusional. As a Christian, Zacharias MUST gives credence to the God of the Abrahamic religion that affirms one personal eternal God who created the universe. Without as much as a mention, all other religions and their gods must be false and therefore untrue.

Harris, an Atheist, Zacharias a Christian, both writers are quick to discount the many childish and silly god concepts that have infected the minds of mankind over the millennia. The biggest difference between Ravi Zacharias and his rival Sam Harris is that Harris believes in one less God than he dose. As Sam Harris showed us, the Christian God like all the rest dose not stand up to rational scrutiny.

Very early in his book, The End of Reason, Ravi Zacharias makes the bold claim that (I paraphrase) being a Christian makes him a good Father, and husband, and all-round good citizen. It should stand to reason then that us Atheists must be the dregs of society. This we know is not true.

Read Zacharias scenario (all be it fiction) After reading Sam Harris' The End of Faith a collage student announces to the family that he (she) is now an Atheist, he (she) no longer shares in the family's long cherished belief. The once healthy family bond unravels and the Mother kills herself out of grief and despair. The implication being "See what can happen if you become an Atheist"

Take the same scenario. The family member announces that he (she) no longer shares the family's long-held Shinto or Hindu or Islamic religion.
"I am now a born again Christian" the person proclaims.
In this scenario, would everyone else jump of joy and rejoices in the newfound faith??? Would it make the family bond any tighter???? ....Or, would everything descend in chaos just like it did when the person announces his (her) Atheism? Dose converting to Christianity from a non-Christian faith make it any easer on the other family members? No it dose not. So why did he paint a doom and gloom picture if one becomes an Atheist??

A Well-written book but the bottom line is this. Trying to by poking holes in Sam Harris line of reasoning dose not make Zacharias own book anymore believable.

The End of Reason cannot stand on its own merit without taking potshots at Sam Harris.

"The End of Reason" offers itself as a book addressing the problems with Atheism directly. It mentions the fact that it is mainly a rebuttal to Sam Harris' book, but insists that it is informative regardless to this reference. This claim could not be more wrong.

The book is nothing but an angry response to Sam Harris' letter. It is riddled with poorly phrased attacks, and arguments that simply fall short of making any sort of a serious point.

If you're a Christian, I wouldn't recommend this book on account of its blatant hypocrisy in charging Harris with intolerance and hateful words, then with Zacharias doing the exact same thing to Atheism.

If you're an Atheist, don't waste the few hours it will take to read this book.

Sam Harris' most powerful argument is arguably not to be found in neuroscience, still in its infancy, but rather his explicit and implied logical connections between the following phenomena:

--monotheism as a human reaction to terror/fear of death and what comes after
--monotheism as a human reaction to suffering and injustice
--the consequent setting-up of a religion based on (1) an omniscient God believed in only by faith (2) a human figure (Mohammed, Christ, Judaic Prophets) in whom one must absolutely believe or one is damned forever; and (3) a heaven AND a hell where the damned go

Harris is in company with brilliant social scientist Barrington Moore in saying that these factors contribute to a mass culture based on concerns with purity and impurity, rigid belief systems, and lack of logical thought (for many followers, at least, if not all), with the most pernicious consequence being that a follower comes to believe in "sectarian truth claims" that INHERENTLY AND INNATELY lead most (though not all) followers toward the "logical" conclusion that if one's own monotheistic religion/human figure is absolutely right as the "unifying principal" for humanity, than all other monotheistic or even non-theistic religions must be wrong, and the other religion's followers are therefore at the very least wrong and at the worst, amoral, immoral, impure, and sinful....the latter judgements of which naturally leads over time to violence and repression towards the inherenty impure/sinful/amoral/immoral citizens at home and abroad.

Alas, the good Reverend in this publication displays this very tendency toward "sectarian truth claims" by stating that (1) only Christ is the true unifying agent for humanity in peace (implying that human peace in societies and between societies is impossible without Christ as intermediary) and (2) Islam is wrong and the "real" competition is between Christianity and Islam -- as the first reviewer above notably points out (in favor, not against, this argument). Obviously, this last parting note by the author against Islam makes Harris' points for him! -- by resorting to the very sectarian truth claims that Harris believes contributes to belief rigidity, social inflexibility, social injustice, and violence.

All this said, Harris (and many atheists) are sadly deficient in exactly this area: social justice and peace. Notably, Harris writes as if (and his followers act as if) once one gets rid of monothestic or theistic practices in society, justice and peace are achieved or at least far more likely. However, there are plenty of other SECULAR ideologies out there -- notably, and especially, libertarianism under Ayn Rand -- that can and have led to mass death and suffering (in IMF policies, in the first years of US occupation of Iraq, under secular positivistic beliefs of Cheney/Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld/Bremer) and must equally be fought against for their distorting effects on human cultural practices and relationships (essentially, making materialism and individual human abilities their God or Deity, rather than communral peace and prosperity). And, I would just add: absolute gun rights in the U.S. do not have to be connected to Christianity to be potentially dangerous. At issue here is: how do you suppress tribalism, violence, and poverty IN GENERAL, not just specifically by putting an end to Theism (although that's certainly a start). The latter is where there should be a concerted critique against the "new atheists," not from Islam or Christianity. What socioeconomic reforms do the new atheists embrace? Why? How will this fill the hole left by the end of Theism?

Ravi is one of the best apologist of our time. I enjoy how he takes each point that the atheists makes and breaks it down so you can see the inherent flaws in the logic. This book reminds me of the proverb, "One seems righteous until another comes to plead their case." Highly recommended read.

I always want to like Zacharias' works, because they are always presented as the best counterpoint to difficult issues. Like always this volume disappoints. Despite the name, this book passes itself off as a response to Letter to A Christian Nation, but it does a miserable job. The most difficult issues are never touched upon and the issues that are responded to receive treatment with anecdotes, include Ravi's old chestnut 'Atheism made me attempt suicide.'

Don't bother.

I assume that the heading on the back of this book: "Is God Real or a Creation of Your Imagination?" was added by Dr. Zacharias's editor in an attempt to sell more books. Make no mistake, this book is not an argument about whether or not a personal God exists. Sure, Dr. Zacharias restates some of the tired old arguments, my favorite being that if atheists (more specifically scientists) can't prove with certainty how everything got here, God (Christian God?) must have done it. But he presents nothing new on this front. Otherwise, this is a book about the evil consequences of atheism.

To that end, I must say that I find Dr. Zacharias totally unconvincing. He comes off as someone taking advantage of the fact that most readers of his book have not read Sam Harris, and he engages in the same broad brush nonsense that these sort of books have become known for. He imagines that all atheists are the same (or even share a mind), and thus uses quotes from one atheist to "refute" another. He doesn't acknowledge that not all atheists share the same worldview, nor do they always agree. Indeed, he paints atheists as relativists and "naturalists," while apparently ignoring the fact that Sam Harris, a staunch moral absolutist, is neither. I've included a few examples that I think highlight Dr. Zacharias's ridiculousness.

On page 68, Dr. Zacharias cautions his readers: "And be careful not to judge a philosophy by its abuse. The difference between someone who calls himself or herself a Christian and yet kills and slaughters and an atheist who does the same thing is that the Christian is acting in violation of his or her own belief, while the atheist's action is the legitimate outworking of his or her belief." And just like that, Dr. Zacharias absolves Christianity of responsibility for the slaying of abortion doctors, the crusades, the inquisitions, and every other piece of violence carried out in the name of Christianity. Of course, remember that atheism is to blame for each and every evil committed by an atheist. A silly position.

On page 92, Dr. Zacharias pretends that Harris knows nothing about Jainism: "Sam Harris reveals a similar lack of understanding about Jainism when he addresses what he judges to be the positives about that belief system. He says he finds Jainism utterly harmless as compared to the horrible things that Christianity has done and that Jainism has a superior ethic to Christianity. Does he know that Mahavira, a great teacher of Jainism, wore a mask over his mouth so he wouldn't swallow any insects, which are only different in degree to what he thinks a human being to be?" The answer is that Harris is well aware of the Jain practice of nonviolence; he includes the mask example in his book! This is Dr. Zacharias taking advantage of the fact that most of his readers will never read Harris. All Harris was saying is that Jainism, followed to its utmost, is virtually harmless to all forms of life. Christianity, as history has shown, is not.

Finally, Dr. Zacharias reaches the height of his incredibility on page 63, where he blames atheists for--I kid you not--radical Islamic terrorism. The foolishness of such a position needs no further exposition.

This is a great book, I haven't finished it, but so far very good. Now, anyone giving this a bad rating is an atheist. Atheists don't disbelieve based on lack of evidence, they REFUSE to believe out of the will.

In _The End of Reason_, Ravi Zacharias ultimately fails to counter arguments put forth by the so-called "new atheists," particularly Sam Harris, who authored _The End of Reason_ and _Letter to a Christian Nation_. Zacharias offers two major arguments in favor of a theistic worldview, but neither one is ultimately persuasive.

Zazharias's first argument is that a life without God has no meaning. In Zacharias's view, the inevitable conclusion to this worldview is suicide. No meaning? No reason to live. Zacharias further excoriates those who, confronted with meaninglessness, instead seek meaning through empty hedonism.

Zacharias's conclusion seems simplistic. This seems overly simplistic, and entire schools of philosophy -- existentialism in particular -- confront the question of whether a person should suicide, given a lack of meaning in the universe. Moreover, I suggest that if a person concludes that there is no God to grant meaning to life, then perhaps that person can find that meaning elsewhere. Through family or through friends. Through work or through craftsmanship. Through intellectual debate, if nothing else.

Zacharias's second argument also largely fails. Zacharias argues that without a divine lawgiver, there can be no morality. In particular, Zacharias spends inordinate amount of ink claiming inconsistency in Harris's belief in moral standards and denial of God. If there is an absolute moral standard, Zacharias reasons, there must be a God. There are moral standards, therefore there is a God.

Again, Zacharias's ship of argument cracks open against the shoals of complication. For some reason, Zacharias chooses to ignore entire theories on the origin of morality, any numebr of which lack a divine origin. Social contract theory? Non-existent. Consequentialism? Not a chance. Deontology? Only in the context of a divine lawgiver. Evolutionary development of morality? Absent.

Again and again and again, Zacharias assays simplistic approaches to complicated philosophical issues. And again and again and again, Zacharias's approach is unsatisfactory and unpersuasive. I cannot recommend this book as a suitable rebuttal to the "New Atheists."

That said, Zacharias still merits a two-star, rather than one-star rating for one thing. Both of Harris's works are replete with an attitude just short of outright hatred toward the faithful and organized religion, and Zachrias rightfully takes Harris to task for this religious bigotry.

Yep, it's a quick read. It's sound bite calumnious style coupled with syllogistic logic makes it the best argument in support of what Harris, Dawkins, or even Chris Hedges rail against. I recommend it highly.

For the sake of immediate disclosure, I self-identify as an atheist -- thus my opinion will surely be considered suspect by some parties. Nevertheless please bear in mind that my views are highly sympathetic toward theism and I do not truck with the militant "new atheists".. This book caught my eye because religious apologia (and the philosophy of religion generally) are topics of great interest to me, it was short, easy to read, and inexpensive.

However: For someone who comes to the discussion from an atheistic perspective, wishing to understand and perhaps be convinced by the theistic point of view, this book simply doesn't offer much. It is one long letter addressed to atheist popularizer Sam Harris, against whose work Zacharias has taken no small insult; in response he offers a great deal of indignant heat but not much light.

Most irritating, I suppose, is his treatment of the problem of evil. There *are* good theistic answers to this but he chooses a well-trod canard -- the implication that atheists have no objective moral standard and thus contradict themselves when positing any extant evil -- which is not only unconvincing but invalid. The user of the problem of evil intends to show that an omnimax god cannot exist *on its own terms*. The atheist's own moral standards just aren't relevant, so this whole discussion becomes an ad hominemistic misdirection.

There are further problems: he does not argue for the proposition that an atheist cannot have an objective moral code, which may be true but isn't necessarily obvious. Many philosophers would disagree -- some virtue ethicists, egoists, and intuitionists at least, and even some forms of utilitarian. Even if atheists couldn't in principle have an objective moral code the falsity of atheism would not necessarily follow. And that argument lurks around every corner of this book -- atheism is false because it cannot ground morality. (Throw in a few more or less oblique argumenta ad Hitlerum for good measure.)

Well, if that's true, *show* it. Zacharias's keenness for telling rather than showing gives this book very little apologetic value. Perhaps the already-convinced could be entertained by his treatment. Genuine questioners should look elsewhere.

(Aside: another reviewer says that atheists should look at this book as a "civil counterargument", but frankly I don't see what's civil about this book. An atheist reader could easily get the impression that Zacharias believes him to be downright *evil* or at least an empty, amoral creature slouching towards eventual attempted suicide. He *begins the book* imagining a family torn apart by the works of new atheists, and implies that Harris doesn't care one whit about the damage he would cause [in such an imagined scenario]. Zacharias is responding to incivility on the part of Harris and others, so maybe it's the correct tone to effect. But civil it sure as heck ain't.)

Let me pretense my review by first explain my frame of reference. I was raised Christian and as I say fell for it hook, line and sinker. I still have very fond memories of church and like the companionship it provides, but could not find truth or reliability in the Bible after reading it the second time cover to cover. I slowly became more outspoken and eventually was given this book as a trade by my religous friends(they read "why I Believed" by Kenneth Daniels for me).
To say the least I was dissapointed in this book. Ravi does not have a good understanding of science and anyone with a higher education in biology or like fields will be taken aback by his baseless assertions. Other than baseless science I felt like just about every arguement boiled down to... atheist don't believe anything they all commit suicide so they are wrong. He never showed why we were wrong with evidnece or proof.
To say most free-thinkers don't believe in anything is offensive, I find that most of us believe in just about everything most christians do except the super natural claims. We want to treat others the way we want to be treated including homosexuals and others who we can't understand. If you don't know an atheist and only read this book you'd think we are baby killers.
Ravi never attempts to reconsile the horrendous verses and views in the Bible and expects the reader to either be ignorant of them or not care. He acts like it paints a perfect picture of morality but does not explain what that is. If its treating others the way you want to be treated why then be against gay marriage or women having authority over men in the church? Why does the Bible not only condone but structure slavery?
Ravi fails to show why it should even be considered a moral code, and only succeeds in straw-manning a few of Harris's points. If you actually read his book first I think even a Christian would find Ravi's responce lacking.

Bottom line, I'd recommend CS Lewis and many other apologists any day over this guy. Might be a good read if you are already sold on the Christian dogma but if you are on the fence or trying to bring someone back to christianity I can't think this is worthy of a read.

If you're looking for a forceful response to the "New Atheists", try something else. FYI, I am not an atheist, but I read Sam Harris' book first and found it to be an effective presentation of his point of view. I came upon Zacharias' book while browsing recently, and was very interested to see how people of faith would respond, but this book focused more on what the author thinks is wrong about atheism, not what is compelling about faith.

This book does little to combat Harris's arguments but does a lot to miss-label anyone who does not agree with Ravi's religion. I was amazed how little he seems to understand science and honestly seems to run away from it. His arguments are almost all rooted by only anecdotal evidence and I'd be surprised if he knows or understands what peer review research is.
In conclusion I think a Christian who does not understand or know the other-sides arguments could enjoy this book, but it will be viewed as dishonest and incomplete for anyone on the fence or out of the Christian dogma.

I was anxiously awaiting the delivery of this book as I've read Letter to a Christian Nation several times in order to understand the arguments made by Harris. I expected a direct and articulate rebuttal to Harris' arguments. I did receive rebuttals, but to the wrong arguments. The End of Reason cherry picks quotes from Harris' book and never really gets to the point of Harris' argument and reveals a deep misunderstanding of what atheism really means: the rejection of a belief in God, that's all. Zacharias seems to think that Harris' believes there is absolutely no God and ultimately makes this general statement about atheists: in atheism, there is no hope, no meaning, no ultimate answers, and no morality. All in all, The End of Reason doesn't offer an objective rebuttal to Sam Harris' main arguments, but rather claims that atheism offers an alternate worldview that leads to no reason for life.

The forward is by Lee Strobel, author, who writes:
Together with a wave of other books promoting militant atheism, authored by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens and others, these books by Harris have confused spiritual seekers and even rocked the faith of some Christians.
* How are these authors in any way militant? As a result of their writings has anyone been tortured, killed or imprisoned?

Ravi Zacharias' (RZ's) letter opens with an imaginary story of a mother committing suicide because her son recognizes that Christianity is factually false. RZ uses the subject of suicide repeatedly to evoke strong emotions.

Elsewhere within RZ's letter, here are some excerpts (in quotes) I found significant:

"I have always found it fascinating how relativists who say they love the idea of tolerance ultimately reveal themselves to be among the most bigoted."
* 1) an unsubstantiated claim and, 2) not at all accurate in reference to the atheist authors he previously mentioned. Scientists he targets discuss at length moral behavior arising from evolutionary psychology which has shown moral and ethical behavior to be largely fixed rather than relative and is, in fact, highly predictable.

"Academic degree after degree has not removed the haunting specter of the pointlessness of existence in a random universe."
* Much of the universe isn't at all random and much of it we still don't fully understand but invention of a deity won't accomplish anything except console ourselves that a spirit inhabits our gaps in knowledge (Gap Worship). Also, how does RZ know highly trained atheist scientists live pointless lives?

"His America would ban our belief, leaving room only for the sovereignty of his materialistic or matter-driven vision of all human existence."
* This is just inflammatory and dishonest. Harris never advocates banning Christian belief.

"As I read Sam Harris's books, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, I felt as though I was being dragged through a vortex of emotion--from incredulity to outrage to a deep sadness."
* Much of RZ's objections are laced with his emotions that lend nothing to the argument.

"Is it possible, however, that Harris's disrespect is justified because in an atheistic world, love for one's fellow human beings is a foreign concept?"
* Presumptive and emotional

"Contrary to what atheists imply, the dead weight of their beliefs leads to a heartless, pointless, and hollow existence."
* Another unsubstantiated assumption that lends no explanation as to why belief in a deity makes existence more meaningful and why the lack of a deity is a dead weight.

"Atheism Led to My Suicide Attempt"
* RZ must assume that many atheists will attempt suicide because he did.

"Now, after reading the likes of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett in their anti-theistic outbursts, I have concluded that there are big bucks in the atheist racket as well."
* Not even comparable! A handful of atheist authors will make only a tiny fraction of that generated by the Protestant/Catholic religious industry. Most of Dawkins' work is in the field of biology with atheism advocacy as a sideline. Sam Harris is a neuroscientist.

"Big Bang cosmology, along with Einstein's theory of general relativity, implies that there is indeed an "in the beginning.""
* Very simplistic and dated. In the century since Einstein published his theories, physics theory has changed radically. Humans can't easily conceive of existence without a beginning because we lead time-linear, 3-dimensional lives.

"As we know it now, all order did not evolve. Nothing in science supports this contention. Something had to exist as an explanation in itself. Nothing does not produce something--and never has."
* RZ here is way outside his field of expertise which is, after all, divinity. He has a master's degree in divinity. Science shows conclusively that in many cases order evolves out of chaos. Every snowflake self-assembles in beautiful 6-point symmetry out of a chaotic mess of water vapor.

"One would have to conclude that the chance of the random ordering of organic molecules is not essentially different from a big fat zero. Perhaps that's why they call it a singularity, because it is without definition or empirical explanation."
* No, it's a singularity because it proceeds to infinity.

"If life is random, then the inescapable consequence, first and foremost, is that there can be no ultimate meaning and purpose to existence."
* Harris never said that life is random and in fact, in his book "The Moral Landscape", makes a case for limited choice.

"Not only does atheism's worldview lead to the death of meaning; it also leads to the death of moral reasoning."
* Science is all about finding meaning. Moral reasoning is well studied and even predictable.

"Has Harris read about Hitler's own spiritual journey?"
* Hitler was an opportunist who sometimes cited elements of his Christian faith as reason to exterminate Jews.

"What would he say if two hundred years from now someone says that genocide against Christians can be traced back to the anti-Christian writings of Sam Harris?"
* An incendiary statement used to evoke emotion. What about the millions of those stabbed, burned, broken on the wheel, crushed, lashed, hanged, flayed, starved and drowned by Christians through the ages. It's still happening among Christians in Africa.

"there is no logical explanation for how that intuition toward morality could develop from sheer matter and chemistry."
* Correct. It also involved evolution of Homo sapiens.

"Let me put it in philosophical terms:
- Objective moral values exist only if God exists.
- Objective moral values do exist [a point Harris concedes in his letter].
- Therefore God exists."
* This is the old apologetic "argument from morality" for the existence of God. Several scientific fields are currently studying the origins of human and other animal morality and ethics. In fact in Sam Harris' own book, "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values", his goal is to show how moral truth can be backed by "science", or more specifically, empirical knowledge, critical thinking, philosophy, but most controversially, the scientific method.

"Therefore, we must agree with the conclusion that nothing can be intrinsically prescriptively good unless there also exists a God who has fashioned the universe thus."
* This is the old apologetic "argument from degree". About it, Richard Dawkins said, 'That's an argument? You might as well say, people vary in smelliness but we can make the comparison only by reference to a perfect maximum of conceivable smelliness. Therefore there must exist a pre-eminently peerless stinker, and we call him God. Or substitute any dimension of comparison you like, and derive an equally fatuous conclusion.'

"So on his own terms as an atheist, Sam Harris is either engaging in moral reasoning that is only valid if God exists, or he is being irrational in his assertions."
* The old "Moral law requires a Lawgiver" argument.

"Even Richard Dawkins, Harris's hero, admits that science has no methods or authority for deciding what is ethical."
* Not true. In fact, Dawkins dedicates a chapter to it in "The God Delusion".

"Only in Christianity is the privilege given both to believe and to disbelieve without any enforcement."
* Not true. Eternal agony in a fiery hell is the penalty for disbelief and thus belief is rigidly enforced.

"Has he not seen the violence that takes place during trade union strikes in Europe? There were atheists present, you know. Has he not heard of the riots in the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles and in other places? There were atheists present, you know."
* RZ thinks European trade union strikes and the LA riots were atheist riots.

"When I was at Oxford recently, I was told about an article written by Richard Dawkins in which he advocated that any prospective student with a creationist point of view should be refused admittance into Oxford."
* No citation given but even if it's true, so what? Dawkins is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford and thus has the obligation to express an opinion about whether or not a prospective student should be admitted if he advocates fantasy rather than scientific theory.

"The difference between someone who calls himself or herself a Christian and yet kills and slaughters and an atheist who does the same thing is that the Christian is acting in violation of his or her own belief, while the atheist's action is the legitimate outworking of his or her belief."
* The old "No True Scotsman" defense. He: "Ian is a Scotsman." She: "Does he eat haggis?" He: "No." She: "Well no true Scotsman would refuse haggis."

"Today it may be a failing business that is in need of God's intervention. Tomorrow I may want to be healed from cancer. The day after
that, I may even want a loved one to be brought back from the dead."
* So God ignores starving Christian children in Africa but saves his failing business? Also, I'd like to see the resurrection trick.

"Sam Harris betrays a rather amazing prejudice. How he has gotten away with making slanderous statements in his book --accusing Muslim communities of "misogyny, their anti-Semitism, . . . forced marriages, honor killings, punitive gang rapes, and a homicidal loathing of homosexuals"--boggles the mind (see Letter, 84).
* RZ criticizes Harris for this but then a few pages later in his own book writes:
- "Islam is a religion that is academically bankrupt, for it fails to meet the ordinary tests of truth. Those who critique it run the risk of being obliterated."
- "Islam is a religion of power; the Christian faith is one of communion and relationship with the One. Even now, Europe is demonstrating
that its secular worldview--one that Harris applauds --cannot stand against the onslaught of Islam and is already in demise. In the end, America's choice will be between Islam and Jesus Christ."

"Think of a world where there is no ultimate justice! Think of young Seung-Hui Cho, a student at Virginia Tech University, who slaughtered thirty-two students and professors and then shot himself. He has won in a world where there is no ultimate justice. Innocent people have been randomly shot, and their families have no recourse and no closure. Are you at peace with that?"
* The old "Pascal's wager" apology coupled with delight in the eternal burning misery of the mentally ill Seung-Hui Cho.

"The mass murderer at Virginia Tech University used a question mark in reference to his name. The logical outworking of the denial of God is to question the worth of every individual."
* RZ's psychological diagnosis is that Seung-Hui Cho murdered due to atheism. According to his pastor at Centreville Korean Presbyterian Church, Cho was a smart student who understood the Bible. On the other hand an actual psychologist diagnosed Cho with selective mutism.

"I have seen statistics declaring that as many as 40 percent of scientists do believe in God."
* Among members of the National Academy of Sciences, 7.0% expressed personal belief, while 72.2% expressed disbelief and another 20.8% were agnostic concerning the existence of a personal god who answers prayer. (Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998))

"The reason Jesus was silent on the issue of slavery is very simple. He was silent on many issues that the "law" could have addressed
without changing the heart, including the overthrow of Rome--the empire that had enslaved his own beloved Jerusalem and his people."
* This is a cop-out. History might have been much kinder had Jesus simply said, 'Don't have slaves.'

"On their own scientific terms, atheists should know that we do not change people's hearts by mocking them and castigating them."
* But...RZ did this to atheists throughout his letter.

"Science is lame when it comes to moral decisions; it limps as it walks, lacking an absolute moral law for life's purpose."
* Morality as outlined by modern science is far more orderly and kind than that of the Bible or Koran. Modern science doesn't advocate slavery, rape, genocide, infanticide, misogyny, or genital mutilation.

"I must go on to say some important things about Sam Harris's implicit assertion that only religious People have a strong bias against stem cell research and cloning."
* I searched Harris' letter and he didn't mention cloning.

"Einstein also cautioned that God "does not throw dice." Make no mistake about it, Sam Harris is throwing dice, and we are the pawns in
his kind of world."
* RZ took this completely out of context. Einstein was talking about quantum mechanics.

"It boils down to this: for the follower of Jesus Christ, the fact that the universe cannot explain itself, added to the obvious intelligence behind the universe, linked to the historical and experiential verification of what Jesus taught and did, make belief
in him a very rational and existentially fulfilling reality."
* 1) For those who take the time and effort, the universe explains itself very articulately through the language of mathematics. 2) There is no evidence of obvious intelligence behind the universe. 3) The historicity of Jesus is weak and all experiential evidence is based on ungrounded individual testimony.

Too many people have probably read this book without first reading Harris (or at least, not reading him very carefully and with an open mind). I am not looking to defend atheism so much as I am trying to show some examples of precisely where Zacharias gets it wrong, so you can see how he is mistreating Harris' work. It would be better to get a different book against the atheists if that's what you are so inclined to do. This one is simply no good.
In it, he notes Harris's arguments about the wrongness of Hitler's actions, and asserts that Harris does not put forth a criterion with which to judge moral actions. He writes, "For Harris to convince us that Hitler was wrong to do what he did, he has to borrow from an objective moral framework to support his point," (Zacharias 52). Ravi Zacharias is claiming that without God, there can be no objective morality. He is also claiming that Sam Harris has simply made up his own morality, "as if morality should be self-evident to everybody, regardless of whether God exists or not," (54). He thinks that Harris "cannot explain his innate sense of right and wrong - the reality of God's law written on his heart - because there is no logical explanation for how that intuition toward morality could develop from sheer matter and chemistry" (54-5). Nowhere does Ravi Zacharias see Sam Harris state what he thinks is moral, and thus he thinks that Harris has "concocted" his moral view "in his own mind" (54).
Interestingly, though, Sam Harris directly addresses this point in Letter to a Christian Nation. Early on in the book, he writes,
Questions of morality are questions about happiness and suffering. This is why you and I do no have moral obligations toward rocks. To the degree that our actions can affect the experience of other creatures positively or negatively, questions of morality apply," (Letter 8).

So, if Ravi Zacharias is trying to argue (and he is) that Harris never explains what he thinks is moral, then he must have missed this part early in the book. But in The End of Reason, Zacharias sets up this argument:
Premise one: "Objective moral values exist only if God exists."
Premise two: "Objective moral values do exist."
Conclusion: "Therefore God exists" (Zacharias 56).

The issue with the argument for an atheist such as Harris is in premise one, which Zacharias argues for on the prior page:
Premise one: "When you assert that there is such a thing as evil, you must assume there is such as thing as good."
Premise two: "When you say there is such a thing as good, you must assume there is a moral law by which to distinguish between good and evil. There must be some standard by which to determine what is good and what is evil."
Premise three: "When you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver - the source of the moral law" (55).

The issue with this argument lies in premise three, as we will see. But it is important to note that Zacharias thinks that "this moral lawgiver is precisely who atheists are trying to disprove" (55). He means the God of the Bible. The reason I bring Zacharias so heavily into this argument is because I believe that his views on morality are common among Christians with a literal interpretation of the Bible (it seems that atheists like Harris often must defend against such attacks). It is important to discuss what Zacharias claims because it is a real and prevalent mindset that must be philosophically combated.
It would be difficult to miss Harris's explanation of what he thinks is moral, as I stated above. It seems even more difficult to miss a later section in Letter to a Christian Nation, entitled "Real Morality," in which Sam Harris blatantly counters the rest of the position Zacharias posits about objective morality not being possible without a God (he seems to think that this has not been addressed by Harris in the book). Harris writes to Christians,
"You believe that unless the Bible is accepted as the word of God, there can be no universal standard of morality. But we can easily think of objective sources of moral order that do not require the existence of a lawgiving God. For there to be objective moral truths worth knowing, there need only be better and worse ways to seek happiness in this world. If there are psychological laws that govern human well-being, knowledge of these laws would provide an enduring basis for an objective morality" (Letter 23-4).

It is clear that Zacharias missed this as well, since he writes in his book, "Sam Harris may protest, `Why is a moral lawgiver necessary in order to recognize good and evil?'" (Zacharias 55). He is right that Harris would protest that, but he did not seem to know that he already does. In fact, Zacharias starts off this section by addressing Harris's arguments about God allowing rape, torture, and natural disasters, asking,
"Is he saying that such things are evil, ought to be evil, or ought not to be allowed by a loving God? In any of the three assertions he is at best saying, 'I do not see a moral order at work here.' But if there is no God, who as the authority to say where there is a moral order in operation? Sam Harris? Adolf Hitler? Who?" (50).

Again, Zacharias brings up Hitler. The other time, he claimed that Harris could not say Hitler did anything immoral without an objective moral system, which he believes Harris does not have (he does). This time, he is bringing up Hitler in an attempt to show the dangers of relative thinking like Harris's (it's not). He also continually echoes the claim throughout this section of his book that Sam Harris does not see moral order in the world. Harris goes on in Letter to a Christian Nation,

"While we do not have anything like a final, scientific understanding of human morality, it seems safe to say that raping and killing our neighbors is not one of its primary constituents. Everything about human experience suggests that love is more conducive to happiness than hate is. This is an objective claim about the human mind, about the dynamics of social relations, and about the moral order of our world. It is clearly possible to say that someone like Hitler was wrong in moral terms without reference to scripture" (Letter 24).

Harris has made it clear that he does see moral order in the world. He also has made it clear why he can criticize Hitler objectively. Now that Ravi Zacharias's mistakes, misinterpretations, and oversights have been plainly noted, I hope you don't bother with this book. It is simply not a good set of arguments, and it seems as if he did not read Harris closely at all. Whether or not you agree with Harris, this isn't even a decent book against him, and I think even Christians would prefer to find a book that actually is worth the read against atheism. Granted I have yet to find one that is, this is certainly not one of them.

The first critique I make of this book is that Zacharias confuses the titles of Sam Harris' books. Why would he name a book "The End of Reason" which is a play on the first book Harris "The End of Faith", when this book is an obvious response to "Letter to a Christian Nation." It is obvious that this book would be much better titled "A Letter to an Atheist." That is important, because the title of the book is nonsense. There will never, so long as reasonable humans are alive, be an end of reason. Reason is the defining feature of humanity. The title of the book makes the author seem like a mindless fool. It is obviously going to be a turn off for Christians and Atheists alike, much like the title of Harris' first book "The End of Faith" stirred emotions.

I won't argue that Ravi Zacharias makes some good points in response to Sam Harris. Harris' use of the Bible, for instance, is sketchy at best. He quotes it much like a fundamentalist Christian, which obviously is no way to treat any text. I also agree with Zacharias that Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens are not going to convince anyone to leave their faith by attacking them. By attacking, name calling, integrity questioning, etc. one is only going to make the other side fight even harder to defend one's beliefs. I also agree with Zacharias that Harris frames his discussion of evil incorrectly when he uses it to disprove the existence of God. In that sense, many, perhaps most, of the criticisms of Sam Harris are legitimate. The problem is that Zacharias attempted to take on Harris' condescending and abrasive personality as the tone of his book, which leads him to a lot of logical fallacies.

First of all, his defense of the existence of God is nothing more than a "god of the gaps" philosophy, which is shaky at best. For instance, he cannot understand why atheists are silent on the fact that they cannot explain where matter came from. His slogan is "nothing cannot produce something." His conclusion is that for this reason there must be a God. The silence of atheists is supposed to show that since atheists have no good answer as to why there is something rather than nothing, the atheist must be wrong. This cannot be considered good reason, because perhaps it is possible that there will some day be an explanation as to why matter exists that will have purely natural explanations; to use the fact that science has not produced any explanations to this point as evidence for God's existence is to set oneself up for disappointment if those explanations do come forth in the future because that will mean that one no longer has that particular evidence to use. Good evidences of God's existence have to avoid rhetorical questions like, "if God doesn't exist, how do you explain this or that?"

The other thing the author does not even seem to consider is that matter simply exists, and has done so from eternity. In fact, I am sure that is what scientists will claim is the case if they are asked to give a naturalistic explanation of why there is something rather than nothing. I have never found that positing the existence of a supernatural deity explains the question of why there is matter, rather it simply puts the focus somewhere else. Just like one might ask why is there matter rather than no matter, one might ask why there is a God rather than no God. That question is not a bit easier to answer without retreating into agnosticism by saying "I don't know why God exists, he just does." That is exactly what the scientist would say about physical matter, which is why this evidence for God's existence just does not work. It does not solve anything, just diverts one's attention to something else.

The author is also guilty of making appeals to his personal experience and the readers emotions in order to make his case against Sam Harris. I cannot argue with Ravi Zacharias' personal experience, so when he claims that he attempted suicide as a result of his despair over the apparent lack of answers in a world without God I have no choice but to believe him. What his experience does not do is prove that every person in the world must live a life of despair as an atheist simply because Ravi Zacharias did. Basically, what he is asking the reader to do is to look at his despair as indicative of how all atheists really feel, and if an atheist ever claims to have no problems despairing, then that atheist must be lying. It is an absurd double standard. We are to categorically accept the experience of the author, but question anyone else's experience if it is different.

Zacharias also declares that despair and insanity is the "logical conclusion" of atheism, because Friedrich Nietzsche died insane, and apparently Michael Foucault once had some drug induced point of despair and he died of AIDS. This is an absolute scream of Tom Cruise proportions! It totally denigrates those Christians who have at some point had to unfortunate experience to either have a mental illness or die of AIDS. It is absurd to think that mental illness or AIDS is the "logical conclusion" of any worldview. Most atheists have never went insane or acquired AIDS, but we are supposed to ignore that fact and accept that atheism leads to these sorts of things. This is not good reasoning, it is a scare tactic that I am sure most theists would be sickened by.

My last criticism for the purposes of this review, is to point out that Zacharias often critiques what he considers "atheist beliefs" (63) or "atheistic philosophy" (72). This is ridiculous, because anyone who knows anything about atheism realizes that "atheism" is a term that simply denotes one's lack of belief in God. There is literally no such thing as an "atheist belief," because atheism is a lack of belief. The only thing two atheists might share in common is the lack of belief in God. They might have opposite views on everything else. The reason that the author does this is to build up a straw man to tear down. It lumps someone like Antony Flew in the same ranks as Joseph Stalin. If you can convince the reader that the atheist at the university really has the same worldview as Joseph Stalin, then it is easy to convince that person that the atheist is really a terrible, horrible person. It is nothing more than guilt by association.

I find this book repulsive because it tries to prove the existence of God through dishonest means. He blasts Sam Harris for his methods, when in the end Ravi Zacharias' methods are not much better. If God is the epitome of all truth, then there is no reason to resort to inane emotional, ad hominem arguments to prove his existence. I suggest one stick with serious academics like Richard Swinburne if one wants to find reasons for the existence of God. In the end, most people do not care anyway about philosophical proofs; their beliefs are based on their personal and cultural experiences. That certainly is the case for me, at least to a certain degree. The difference between Ravi Zacharias and myself is that I do not pretend my personal experiences ought to convince everyone else to believe exactly as I do. That is a lesson both Sam Harris and Ravi Zacharias could stand to learn.

I was terribly disappointed by this book. I began reading with real excitement, hoping I would meet someone who could articulate some insights that make religious belief a compelling and legitimate position.
Sam Harris, whom Zacharias addresses in this book, is a powerful writer and a very sharp thinker - regardless of whether one agrees with him or not - and I hoped I would find here a worthy intellectual opponent. I like to see important ideas debated by strong champions; I like to read "both sides" expressed in their full glory. Sadly, Zacharias does not come close. I realize there will be people who applaud his book, because they agree with his basic beliefs, and want to fall in behind the "right side", even if it is argued so poorly. This book feels like it was dashed off in a huff of moral outrage mixed with supreme confidence in the author's being on the right side. Sadly, it is a half-baked (at most), undeveloped, slapdash ticking off of a few old arguments sprinkled with some emotional stories, and is completely unsatisfying as a response to the well-developed claims of Harris and the New Athiests.

It is a stretch to describe this religious screed as a book. An extended pamphlet would be more apt.

I would ask if morality based on fear of punishment in some sort of afterlife is real morality at all.

Like most theists the author cannot see the rationalism of a secular humanistic based ethos that does not need an invisible bully in the sky to act as an enforcer