
Reserve it at BN.com & pick it up in 60 minutes at your local store.
Enter a zip code
(Hardcover)
When Sam Harris wrote his book Letter to a Christian Nation, stating that Christians display “murderous intolerance,” Dr. Ravi Zacharias felt called to answer. The End of Reason is a clear and powerful response to the “utter bankruptcy” of Harris’s New Atheism as it explains the true nature of God, the foundation for evil in the world, and the basis of true morality.
More Reviews and RecommendationsFor over thirty-five years Ravi Zacharias has spoken all over the world in great halls and universities, notably Harvard, Princeton, and Oxford. He is listed as a distinguished lecturer with the Staley Foundation and has appeared on CNN and other international broadcasts. The author of several books for adults and children, he powerfully mixes biblical teaching and Christian apologetics. His most recent works include Walking from East to West, a memoir, The Grand Weaver, an exploration of God’s intention and pattern in both the ordinary and the startling elements of life, and The End of Reason, a rebuttal of the claims of the so-called New Atheists. His weekly radio program, Let My People Think, is broadcast over 1,500 stations worldwide, and his weekday program, Just Thinking, is on almost 400. He is founder and chairman of the board of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, with additional offices in Canada, India, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and the United Arab Emirates. Dr. Zacharias and his wife, Margie, have three grown children and reside in Atlanta.
Ravi Zacharias, master en divinidades de Trinity International University, es un orador reconocido así como presidente de Ravi Zacharias International Ministries. Su programa semanal de radio, Let My People Think, se retransmite por más de mil quinientas emisoras de todo el mundo. Es autor de varios libros para adultos y niños. Su último libro, De Oriente a Occidente, fue editado por Editorial Vida en el año 2006. El Dr. Zacharias y su esposa residen in Atlanta, Georgia.
Reader Rating:
See Detailed Ratings
July 08, 2009: There is nothing insightful in this book. Ravi has not presented a single aregument which has not already been dragged through the mud and back several times over. This book is so riddled with poor arguments that I'd need more pages than he used himself to expose the foolishness of it all. For the purpose of this review, I'll use only one example.
Here, from page 56, is an example of some of the worst circular arguments I've ever encountered by a published author: "Objective moral values exist only if God exists. Objective moral values do exist. Therefore, God exists. An examination of these premises and their validity presents a very strong argument for God". (pg 56)The entire argument depends on the validity of the first statement, but he provides no basis to establish the validity of that premise. He is basically saying "you can't argue against the fact that morals depend on god, so since there are morals, there is god". Well, actually, we can argue against the need for god for morals. The most common argument against morality without god is that altruism doesn't make sense if there's no utlimate accountability. That's ridiculous, because there is accoutability in the here and now. For example, let's start with four plausible Darwinian explanations for altruism in nature (then we'll follow with empirical evidence). First, altruism toward kin helps propogate genetic code (parent child for example). Second, reciprocal altruism makes sense, as in the case of humans and farm animals. Farm animals produce food goods, humans give them steady meals, and both benefit. Third, altruism in higher cogniscent species builds reputations that can benefit the individuals. For example, a ramora (cleaner fish) that fails to clean its host fish is less likely to be selected by other hosts who observed it while it failed to perform it's task of cleaning. Therefore, by cleaning well, ramoras ensure a great number of host fish whom will welcome them, increasing their chance at a steady food source. A fourth argument for altruism in nature is bragging rights. Individuals who act altruisticly can "afford" to do so, therefore are regarded by other individuals as strong, and therefore increase thier chances of mating.If Darwinian explanations aren't enough, then we can turn to the empirical evidence collected by a number of moral psychologists over the years strongly suggesting that morality is innate in almost all humans (certain rare exceptions of course as in all things psychological). I'll just link to wiki for that - http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Moral_Psychology -, since it's a topic far too large to go into for a book review.Unfortunately, most people don't have enough (if any) education in morality or ethics to even consider the facts, so they argue from ignorance, just like previous generations did. While their ignorance could be excused by the lack of evidence available to them, Ravi Zacharius can't get away with the same excuse.Reader Rating:
See Detailed Ratings
May 30, 2009: This book was intended as a response to Sam Harris' "The End of Faith", as well as to several other prominent atheist writers. However, Zacharias seems to have a particular bone to pick with Harris, attempting to portray him as some wild, angry man who hates God. As anyone who has read "End of Faith" could tell you, Sam Harris writes calmly and rationally (even if one doesn't agree with his point). And Harris' statements are misquoted frequently, at length, throughout this book. One of the most often-referenced complaint is that Harris hates "all religion, specifically Christianity" - I certainly don't remember that passage. The strongest Harris gets is pointing out the potential damage that could arise if Islam (note: not "Christianity" as Zacharias is referencing) as a whole does not continue to grow more moderate; the growth of militant factions, fanaticism, etc. Zacharias' book reads like a knee-jerk reaction to an imagined offense; the two authors clearly disagree, but it truly feels like Zacharias is interpreting a differing opinion as a personal attack. How very "Christian" of him.