The End of Reason: A Response to the New Atheists

by Ravi Zacharias, Lee Strobel (Foreword)

When you pray, are you talking to a God who exists? Or is God nothing more than your “imaginary friend,” like a playmate contrived by a lonely and imaginative child?



When author Sam Harris attacked Christianity in Letter to a Christian Nation, reviewers called the book “marvelous” and a generation of readers—hundreds of thousands of them—were drawn to his message. Deeply troubled, Dr. Ravi Zacharias knew that he had to respond. In The End of Reason, Zacharias underscores the dependability of the Bible along with his belief in the power and goodness of God. He confidently refutes Harris’s claims that God is nothing more than a figment of one’s imagination and that Christians regularly practice intolerance and hatred around the globe.



If you found Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation compelling, the audiobook you are holding is exactly what you need. Dr. Zacharias exposes “the utter bankruptcy of this worldview.”



And if you haven’t read Harris’ book, Ravi’s response remains a powerful, passionate, irrefutably sound set of arguments for Christian thought. The clarity and hope in this audiobook reaches out to listeners who know and follow God as well as to those who reject God.

Genres: Christian, Religion, Nonfiction, Christianity, Philosophy, Theology, Faith

Audio CD

Published August 20, 2013

About the author

Frederick Antony Ravi Kumar Zacharias was an Indian-born Canadian-American Christian evangelical minister and Christian apologist who founded Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). He was involved in Christian apologetics for a period spanning more than forty years, authoring more than thirty books. He also hosted the radio programs Let My People Think and Just Thinking. Zacharias belonged to the Christian and Missionary Alliance (C&MA), the Keswickian Christian denomination in which he was ordained as a minister. After his death, allegations of sexual harassment against him emerged, were investigated, and found to be true.

Reviews

[brunch hashbrowns · Rating 1 out of 5]

I saw glowing reviews of this book. It was recommended to me for Ravi Zacharias's "intelligent response" to Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation.

First, I am biased. Everyone is. A big part of why I didn't like the book is probably because I'm an atheist, and I've heard arguments like Zacharias's for a long time. Also, it began with an introduction by Lee Strobel, whose Case for Faith already made me groan and shudder in revulsion. Not because I disagree with his conclusions (which I do), but because they are just bad arguments made worse by poor execution. I'm willing to debate every one of them, but not here. So on to the very biased book review!

The highlight was Zacharias quoting King Crimson near the end. Nearly everything else was riddled with logical fallacies that could be spotted by anyone who stayed awake through Philosophy 101. Ad hominems, non sequiturs, straw men, appeals to authority, and sweeping generalizations in every chapter. But the most common problem (except maybe the out of context quotations), and my biggest pet peeve during atheist/christian debates in general, was Zacharias's combination of equivocation and scare tactic.

Basically, "Christianity must be true because if it weren't true, THE WORLD WOULD REALLY SUCK!" We had all better believe Zacharias's arguments, or else these terrible atheists would swoop in and plunder all the meaning from life.

Well, I have good news for you. Not worshiping a god does not logically necessitate a lack of meaning in one's life, nor does it mean that all morality must be abandoned. The notion that the only way for objective morality and meaningful existence to survive is to be championed by a patron deity is a rather short-sighed view which ignores a great deal of philosophical discourse.

Zacharias is simply wrong about what a great many atheists actually believe. "Oh," I say, "I didn't know I had to be a nihilist in order to call myself an atheist. I wasn't aware non-theistic philosophy hasn't progressed at all since the foundation of Existentialism. Well that sucks."

And then there's Zacharias's appallingly ignorant misrepresentation of other religions. I suggest anyone actually read about Buddhist philosophy before they accept his summary. Similarly, his response to Jainism was (paraphrasing) if you believe animals are like humans except lower on some spectrum of consciousness, you have to be a vegetarian. He then sasses Harris about passing on steak. I would love to point out to readers that Harris IS a vegetarian (as am I), so I'm sure that the idea has occurred to him. Thanks, though. Regardless, this is a great example of begging the question. Zacharias's stated objection to Jainist morality is their denial of meat, implying that this is a moral flaw (which already assumes Jainist morality is wrong), therefore Jainist morality is wrong.

I could go on. Really, you could write a book in response to the logical problems on each page of the End of Reason. But this is not necessary. These books have already been written, and Zacharias seems to have ignored them for this one. Even with all of the faulty logic, it's the plain ignorance of the beliefs of others that really grates me. Or worse, if it ISN'T ignorance, then Zacharias has chosen to misrepresent them (in other words, deceiving readers) on purpose. And that's no way to make an argument. In fact, it's called a "straw man" argument. (Again, please see Philosophy 101.)

Perhaps there are exciting new frontiers of Christian apologetics. Perhaps I will soon come across the argument that will convince me to put my trust and faith in YHWH. But I'm reasonably certain I won't find it from books of this sort. Thank you for trying, Zacharias, but please get a new editor.

[Kimberly Dawn · Rating 4 out of 5]

In The End of Reason, former atheist Ravi Zacharias makes a very compelling and powerful case for Biblical truth and Christianity.

——————————————


🌍 ☀️ 🌝 🌊 🌍 ☀️ 🌙 🌊 🌎 🌞

I ❤️ this quote:

”We live on a blue planet that circles around a ball of fire next to a moon that moves the sea, and you don’t believe in miracles?”
—Unknown

[Ben · Rating 1 out of 5]

The subtitle to this book is “A Response to the New Atheists”. Actually, it’s a response to one atheist’s (Sam Harris) book (Letter to a Christian Nation). This just felt like a giant ad hominem attack. The book is full of these, along with false citations, unfair generalizations, conjecture, and tired arguments for the existence of God. Zacharias, a former atheist, found Christ when he was confined to a hospital bed after a botched suicide attempt. He is of the belief that atheists lead an empty, pointless, hopeless, and hollow existence. He regularly equates atheism with nihilism and narcissism. He claims that atheists smuggle moral objectivity from the bible, and that they cannot love in the “true” sense of the word. I once saw Ravi Zacharias speak on the dangers of Islam, and I had much respect for his intelligence. That respect is now obliterated after reading this worthless book. The End of Reason is an apt title. His anger at being “insulted” or “disrespected” by Sam Harris, along with his delusion that Christianity is the only path to morality, love, hope, and meaning, have ended reasonable thought in his mind, and in the minds of many of his readers.

[Scotterwick · Rating 1 out of 5]

Horrible. This will only be compelling to people who already believe. Also...”The End of Reason?” Really? Did anyone consider what a terribly embarrassing title that is? Sam Harris argued for The End of Faith, so that would suggest that Zacharias is arguing for…The End of Reason? Anyway…

Too many people have probably read this book without first reading Harris (or at least, without reading him very carefully and with an open mind). I’m not looking to defend atheism so much as I’m trying to show some examples of precisely where Zacharias gets it wrong, so you can see how he’s mistreating Harris' work, especially The End of Faith and the very short Letter to a Christian Nation, which I highly recommend. If you really want to read a book against atheism, as opposed to reading a book by an atheist and thinking through the arguments for yourself, it would be better to get a different one, because this book is simply no good. Whether or not you agree with Sam Harris, surely you at least want to read an honest criticism of his views instead of this (preferably after you read his work for yourself, of course).

Zacharias 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’s 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 very short book, he writes,

Questions of morality are questions about happiness and suffering. This is why you and I do not 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.

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’s 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’s right that Harris would protest that, but he did not seem to know that Harris 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, a common tactic among Christian apologists. 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’s 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. If you want a more in-depth argument from Sam Harris on objectively morality without God, his next book was called The Moral Landscape and I recommend it!

I hope you don't bother with Zacharias’ book. It’s 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 Christians would prefer to find a book that’s actually honest and worth the time. Though I have yet to find one that is, this is certainly not one of them.

[jjmann3 · Rating 1 out of 5]

I picked up The End of Reason to “second-guess” my 15-year-long move from Catholicism, to agnosticism, to atheism. Zacharias’s missive woefully lacks the empirical depth and objective rhetoric required to stand as a substantive response to a Sam Harris’s The End of Faith. For me, The End of Reason was 150 pages of feelings, fears, and tongue lashings, all marinated in a stew of abject rage against those who think differently from the author. In short, Zacharias's premise is thus: believing in a deity makes us humans feel good. If it feels good, do it.

For the first third of the book, Zacharias calls out at what he posits is the true core of atheism — that we are nothing other than some sentient matter that just happens to exist. “But eventually, belief in a world birthed by accident, a life that has no purpose, morality without a point of reference except for those absolutes that have been smuggled in—well hidden behind the mask of relativism—and death that ends in oblivion made me prefer the possibility of this oblivion to the sheer weight of the emptiness of a God-less world.” In short, without meaning or a purpose, let's just go kill ourselves.

But the author then turns to lamenting that people without a god (or gods) are unconstrained to seek pleasure as an end in and of itself. True to form, the gay-bashing then begins. Zacharias insinuates that the gay philosopher and sociologist Michel Foucault was a pedophile by contextually misquoting him (“To die for the love of boys ... what could be more beautiful.”) and then doubles-down that Foucault’s death from AIDS evidenced “his lifestyle of mindless abandon ended pitifully, dissolute to every cell of his being. Ravaged by AIDS, he self-destructed.”

Busy bashing the dirty gays, Zacharias’s treatise hop-scotches over the moral turpitudes of the crusades, the Thirty Years War, the Inquisition, the slave trade, colonialism, and the Native American "experience," only to hold up the tired argument that those without beliefs (Stalin! Pol Pot! Hitler!) are capable of widespread human destruction and immorality. Without a god, man is apparently left a raving, goose-stepping savage. And then The End of Reason becomes it’s title, abandons rationality, and devolves into a stew of affirmations supported by biblical citations.

I feel bad for the author, who states that he only found Jesus after trying to commit suicide. This review isn't an attempt to disparage or rip off his (or any other person's) cognitive security blankets. But for me, The End of Reason underscores my atheist beliefs. Indeed, why must there be answers? Why can’t we just enjoy our time on this world, in this existence, and not hate one another because of fairy tales?

[Rod Horncastle · Rating 5 out of 5]

What an incredible book - I can see why some people hate it (because they are ignorant morons). Sorry, but that had to be said.

Here Ravi gets to the heart and logic of the matter, the stuff that Sam Harris laughingly attempted to force feed to any American that would listen. Ravi carefully goes through each issue and shows how Mr. Harris failed to comprehend simple truth or honesty.

What a great quick read, If only more angry atheists would read this and comprehend it - but we all know they won't. They're all too biased and busy blaming others for their own errors, like schoolyard bullies. Thankfully Ravi Zacharias has the ability to show us clear truth a midst the insanity.

[Stephen Reed · Rating 1 out of 5]

The first paragraph of the prologue is telling of the ensuing bias and gross over-generalizations -- not to mention what could only be willful ignorance of scripture. We are given an imaginary scenario in which, briefly, a university student renounces "his family's faith". This causes a massive rift in the family as "beliefs that have been held dear in the family for generation crumble", culminating in our hypothetical atheist's dear Christian mother taking her own life. First off, this is grotesque (He gets even more disgusting in relating a parable on pages 69-70 that I won't even repeat). That aside, I have three issues with this:

1) It places a very strong emphasis on the family beliefs. From my understanding, if a Muslim teen is converted to Christianity, we are to pray that they will withstand the ensuing persecution, and not simply revert to Islam because of family pressures. I see no deference there to the family or the family religion, regardless of the fact that they are enormously intertwined. Well, this is different you say. We have the truth, whereas they are believing a lie. Ask a Muslim soon-to-be-martyr if what he believes is a lie, or even if it could possibly be a lie. He will probably say exactly what you would if asked the same question. Please do not think that I place Islam and Christianity on equal footing. I am merely pointing out that his little story fails because the same emotional 'reasoning' could be used to prove that no Christian should attempt to convert a member of a Muslim family.

2) If someone was to take their own life, surely there must be more factors than that one of their children has rejected the family faith? If Ravi had stopped short of this shocker ending to his story and perhaps cited deep sorrow and concern for the son, then his story would have lost a lot of oomph, but at least kept me on board for that part. In fact, the sorrow of a mother for a lost son is a very compelling force in itself, and doesn't really need to be exaggerated to the point of being incredulous by the suicide narrative. Perhaps this is the most compelling reason that I have considered returning to Christianity, but would that really be honest? Is it selfish of me to put personal honesty above the feelings of those most important to me? These are questions I wrestle with.

3) Jesus himself claimed that he did not come to bring peace but a sword. Then he gets even more specific to the story at hand: a man's enemies will be the members of his own household. But yet on page 99, Zacharias explicitly states that "[i]t was never [Jesus'] intent to encourage a breakup of the home". Jesus was almost certainly talking about Christian members of a home being persecuted by the unbelievers. Regardless, Jesus clearly put the truth on a higher pedestal than familial bliss. We should always strive for mutual respect and understanding in families - I don't at all mean to downplay the beauty of the ideal of peace in a family. Again, this point is made only to show the futility of the story with which Ravi opens his book as compelling evidence of his POV.

Additionally, and by no means exhaustively:

Ravi admits to feeling "outrage" and "deep sadness" and wonders "if anything was too sacred for [Harris] to mock" (pg. 22). He states that his conversion to Christianity came on the heels of his own suicide attempt, and gave his life meaning and purpose. With such an obvious emotional vestment, not to mention egotistical -- with his name gracing the helm of his international ministry -- we would almost certainly be engaged in wishful thinking if we wanted a fair review of Harris's decidedly anti-religious material.

Mr. Zacharias does raise a very good point in criticizing Harris's connection of the doctrine of the virgin birth to sexual repression. However, much of the time he raises a straw man then proceeds to shoot it down, perhaps hoping his readers haven't actually read Harris. Ravi's strongest points are experiential, and could be used with equal force to demonstrate the validity of Buddhism if not Islam.

I would recommend this to anyone who is not really interested in whether or not Christianity is true, but rather would like to hear someone say emphatically and with the pseudo-appearance of logic that it is. Such a reader will delight in Ravi's headshot accuracy against the many straw men he raises, and of course in the few points he makes that do accurately criticize Harris.

[Andrew · Rating 1 out of 5]

I've recently read The End of Faith by Sam Harris and The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I have found Dawkins enlightening and the answer to the question of God that I've been struggling with. Harris is a little too extreme for me so I thought I'd try reading this response see if I'm making a mistake in my beliefs.

Ravi Zacharias failed miserably in this response, now I'm convinced of the truth of Atheism more than ever. The primary argument of Zacharias is Christianity provides an absolute moral framework. However he never describes what that moral framework is, or how is applies to the moral questions of today.

Where is this list of moral guidelines that he assumes exist? He admits that Jesus did not speak on many subjects, any Christian scholar will tell you the Mosaic law is obsolete, and any Jewish scholar will tell you the Mosaic law only applies to Jews. Paul's letters can provide some guidance but again have a very limited scope.

Ravi decries the immorality of abortion, prostitution, and cloning but has no justification for WHY they are immoral. The closest he gets is saying "life is sacred" A generalization like this is not "a framework" and does not help answer questions like When does life begin and end? Is it ok to sacrifice one to save many? Should prostitution be legal?

Toward the end Ravi makes a case for God's existence, I was hoping for some real arguments that would make me question my Atheism. Again, I was horribly disappointed. His argument referenced a website, but then went like this: "Something cannot come from nothing, therefore the Christian God must have created the universe." This line of reasoning is insulting to my intelligence, the obvious questions were not even attempted. Why can't something come from nothing? Then where did God come from? Why your Christian God when there is Baal, Zeus, The native American Great Spirit, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc.

The end of faith is near if this book is a typical defence of religion.

[Amanda Birdwell · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked this book a lot -- read it in one night and plan to go back to read it again. I would have ranked it higher, but I do think, much as I like it, that Dr. Zacharias falls into some of the rhetorical pitfalls for which he critiques Sam Harris -- for example, the opening story of a mother committing suicide over her son's loss of faith.

My biggest difficulty with the book is that it simultaneously tries to address Harris's charges that believe in God is unreasonable and that religion is toxic. As a response to Harris, the book probably needs to do both, but I think it needs to do so more self-consciously, because these are too really different issues -- and atheists love to point out how faithful people ultimately fall back on the argument that life without faith is depressing and/or that faith makes people better.

I happen to think both of those things are true, but struggle sometimes with the idea that even if they are, they don't actually prove God's existence. I wish Zacharias would have structured his book in such a way that it was clear that he sees these issues as distinct and has a response to each of them. I think Harris is so inflammatory that that might have been hard to do -- I wish the book had gone through another edit to tighten and clear up the arguments.

Having said that, I don't get the sense that Harris's arguments were any more clearly structured or effectively argued or organized. I'd like to read more of Zacharias's work to see if this is a problem in other books or if he was just responding to Harris in kind.

[Laurel · Rating 5 out of 5]

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?"'

[Michael Munns · Rating 1 out of 5]

If you take seriously some of Sam Harris' attacks on Christianity, this book answers some of them. But this book raises many questions of its own and, I think, some of the core philosophies espoused only work if beginning with the assumption of a God. It's not very convincing to prove to an Atheist that God exists using an argument reliant upon first assuming that God exists.

[Winston Jen · Rating 1 out of 5]

I listened to this audiobook twice before writing this review (it's only about 150 minutes long).

The book begins with a disingenuous foreword from Lee Strobel, whose "magnum opus", The Case for Faith, has already been thoroughly debunked. Not only does Strobel have a strong vested interest in Christianity, but apologists like Zacharias and Craig would lose their livelihoods if they lost their faiths.

For a full refutation of Strobel's work, simply google "case against faith."

There is no evidence for Christianity outside of the bible, theologians and New Testament "historians." I would trust them no more than I would trust Muslim apologists.

Ravi opens his "case" with an emotional tug, introducing us to a fictional case study about how atheism can lead to pain, suffering, family breakups and suicide. Wow. His only saving grace here is his clarification that his story is indeed completely fabricated.

He touches briefly on the Problem of Evil and Suffering, ONCE AGAIN IGNORING the definitions of "omnipotence" and "omniscience." He presents the example of CIPA - Congenital Insensitivity to Pain, with Anhydrosis. Doesn't he believe in heaven? Will we be suffering in heaven? If not, then this planet, this life is just a soul-filter for his deity.

Free will is no excuse - if god exists, then he valued Ted Bundy's free will more than that of his victims.

He then attacks Harris' statement on eradicating religion before rape. Well, eliminating religion would certainly reduce the rape rate. Just take these verses from the "good" book:

Genesis 34:31: Dinah's brothers, to justify the massacre of a town for the rape of their sister, say: "Should he deal with our sister as with a harlot?" To the author of Genesis, rape is a crime against the honor of men rather than against a woman.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24: If a betrothed virgin is raped in the city and doesn't cry out loud enough, then "the men of the city shall stone her to death."

Deuteronomy 22:28-29: If a man rapes an unbetrothed virgin, he must pay her father 50 shekels of silver and then marry her.

And how DARE Ravi equate atheism with paedopillia and eugenics!? Without a single solid quote (save Peter Singer's) to back this up!?

He equates the ENTIRE sex industry with human trafficking. Unsurprising that such a socially fascistic conservative is also so Puritanical, and disrespectful of informed consent. In *every* jurisdiction with easy access to pornography (and lower rates of religious sexual repression), sexual crimes have either fallen or remained constant.

When it comes to slavery, his pat platitude non-answer is that Jesus was silent on slavery as he was on many other issues. What a cop-out. What Ravi is implying here is that if he lived in the US before slaves were emancipated, he would either do nothing to free the slaves, do nothing to protect slaves who escaped, capture and hand over escaped slaves, fight on the side of the Confederates, or perhaps a mishmash of those options.

Even if atheism is a naked Emperor, at least there is substance behind it.

Ravi seems to have inspired Dinesh D'Souza's belief that Christianity made it possible for religious freedom to exist. Utter bunkum. A look at religious theocrats of WLC's stripe and the Tea Party would completely refute this. Mr. Craig would have us trust the internal witness of the holy ghost over proper evidence.

Ravi addresses the issue of abortion by giving his god a pedestal above his own moral law: "God has the power to restore life. I don't." Wow. So it someone killed god, under Ravi's "clenched fist" morality (a phrase from this very book), Mr. Zacharias would have to bow down and worship that individual. Ravi has no case for objective morality here.

Almost every minute of this audiobook is filled with the very demagoguery and lies that he condemns. Harris is quite right to be angry and emotional when it comes to Christianity; after all, which segment in society has the most clout, and which is trying to strip and deny civil rights from everyone else?! Conservative, gay-loathing Christians, naturally.

While respect is warranted towards individuals because of their contribution to society, their religious beliefs (baseless by definition) do not deserve any such preferential treatment.

Although Ravi's suicide attempt was tragic, wouldn't Christianity and its eternal carrot of Heaven be more likely to encourage one to leave this life sooner rather than later? Ravi also doesn't seem to view the many millions of atheists who have NOT ended their own lives and who HAVE found meaning in their mortal lives to be worthy of comment.

Avoid at all costs, save to refute Ravi and his disciples.

[Ashish Jaituni · Rating 2 out of 5]

What should I say? Ravi is a good writer and expresses his thoughts very well. But there is a problem that all his books more or less have the same content, some changes in the words but more or less they have nothing new to offer except the changes in the 'names' of the books. For this reason reading his books has become a monotonous task.

[Mark · Rating 3 out of 5]

A response to Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation" - while there's flashes of brilliance here, I think pulling apart Harris' argumentation is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel. Harris is so angry & bitter that his arguments lunge wildly and often without thinking through the implications of the point he is making... Ravi Zacharias points those things out in the book.

My reaction to the book as a whole is two-fold:

1. I don't think it is a terribly good apologetic for atheists themselves. Ravi Z. does a nice job in dealing with some questions about faith but his focus is on pulling Sam Harris' fangs. As he admits in the opening of the book, a lot of atheists are embarassed by Harris - so defanging this beast isn't necessarily a step forward with the majority of folks who choose not to believe in God. This book is primarily aimed at believers who are struggling with Harris' works.

2. At one point, he suggests that Harris' anger & vitriole is counter-productive to his goal to win people over to atheism. I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding at work here - I don't believe Harris wants to win people over. I think he wants to reset the acceptable bounds of conversation to include the abolishment of religious belief as a meaningful and/or accepted component of a "normal" society... and the only way to do that is to "push the envelope" and make a big splash. Harris' flashy "take no prisoners" approach moves the markers, so to speak, letting other more "reasonable" folks advance these ideas in calmer, softer tones.

[Bonnie · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author begins the book by explaining it is a response to "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris, a "diatribe against religion." I'm only familiar with Dr. Ravi Zacharias (apologist for Christian thought and belief)from watching him on tv and completely unfamiliar with Sam Harris (his first publish "The End of Faith").

The most important message I received was Zacharias' explanations, arguments, philosophies, Scriptural wisdom and answers to questions that, as a Christian, I should know. How do I defend something I have no, or enough, knowledge about?

I can't summarize it any better than the author so I'll quote: "His [Sam Harris] book, like many books in America, has succeeded more because of its controversial nature than because of any real substance. I also want to try to bridge the huge chasm that separates hostile atheists from those of us who believe in the Christ of the Scriptures and in the provision made in our Constitution and culture for those who wish to investigate the claims of any major religion and evaluate its truth or falsehood".

He ends with: "Islam is willing to destroy for the sake of its ideology. In the end, America's choice will be between Islam and Jesus Christ. History will prove before long the truth of this contention."

I wholeheartedly recommend this book.

[Kevin Hu · Rating 4 out of 5]

Presents many valid and interesting arguments to consider, but presented in a slightly aggressive manner. I don't imagine this will cause people to change their beliefs, but a good introduction to the Christian perspective on many such issues.

[Chris Hokanson · Rating 1 out of 5]

While Harris’s writing has plenty of problems, if this is the best that popular Christian apologetics has to offer, then it’s in a sad, sad state. This book reads like a parody of apologetic writing.

[Kris · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great seminar that asks piercing questions to critique the ultimate results of atheistic thinking.

[Steve Goble · Rating 1 out of 5]

Not well argued. Lots of unwarranted assumptions, and tired arguments.

[Dawn Weaver · Rating 4 out of 5]

A rising tide of ‘new atheists’ scathingly indict religion as the source of all ills. Their rallying purpose is to free the world of all traces of religion. Mockery is the prescribed tool and nothing is held sacred. Some actually proclaim rape to be preferable to religion and pedophilia to be less harmful than teaching a child about Hell. The Holocaust is declared the fault of Christianity. The atrocities carried out by Stalin and Mao are said to be the result of wrong beliefs, (thus religion) not atheism! And they proclaim themselves to be the pinnacle of morality, superior to Jesus Himself. Is this a new brand of ‘intellectual supremacists’ merely 'masquerading as spokespersons for science' or are they just rabble-rousers out to make a buck from an unwitting public? Either way, who will give a well-reasoned answer to their volatile rhetoric?

To this end Ravi Zacharias has written his small but powerful book, The End of Reason, which specifically responds to Sam Harris’ claims in The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. Ravi’s reasoning is refreshingly gracious without any loss of potency. He demonstrates atheism’s bankruptcy as a worldview using both logic and references to atheism’s own disillusioned proponents. He deftly outlines the contradictions implicit in Harris’ views and underlines his blatant ignorance of the world religions he so confidently derides.

The first half of The End of Reason discusses the four essentials of a coherent and credible worldview with reference to atheism. These are: #1 Origin—how did life come to be?, #2 Meaning—is life random or does it have purpose?, #3 Morality—what’s good and evil? and on what basis do we define these?, and #4 Hope—what is man’s destiny? A realistic worldview must offer answers to these questions which are consistent with reality. With great clarity Ravi discusses atheism’s inability to provide credible answers to each of these big questions, concluding that: “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.”

The remainder of the book addresses such misunderstood (and misrepresented) topics as Pascal’s Wager, ultimate justice, Christianity’s views on slavery, and genetic engineering. Each is addressed with a mix of humble inquiry and thoughtful rationale in a tone full of compassion. “Wise as serpents and harmless as doves” is a befitting description of Ravi’s apologetic style, and I would add a refreshing alternative to the often shocking and profane verbiage of some of the recent proponents of atheism.

Zacharias concludes this address to his fellow Americans by presenting a brief case for the existence of God and of Jesus Christ. His closing remarks address the schism between religion and radical secularism, calling for open dialogue so that individuals can evaluate the relative truth claims and decide for themselves, and re-affirming that science and religion need not be at odds. He concludes his argument with a striking statement of personal opinion re: Islam, as this is the example of ‘religion’ that Harris is fond of citing and making the stereotype for all religions, including Christianity. Ravi says: “Islam is willing to destroy for the sake of its ideology. I want to suggest that the choice we face is really not between religion and secular atheism…. Secularism simply does not have the sustaining or moral power to stop Islam [as now demonstrated in secularized Europe]. In the end, America’s choice will be between Islam and Jesus Christ. History will prove before long the truth of this contention.” (p126-7)

There is much to ponder in this small volume, and to refer back to in any discussion with those of an atheistic leaning. Many such have not pursued their want of belief in God to its logical ends. Ravi provides references to those who have and have come up empty. The ‘new atheists’ tend to borrow from a worldview richer than their own so as to have a moral standard to live by. Ravi demonstrates why this is inconsistent with a god-less worldview. Perhaps most importantly this small volume provides a reminder that there are well-reasoned answers to those who call faith in God irrational and dangerous.
--DW

[Scott · Rating 1 out of 5]

Well...this book is really disappointing. I'm not really sure what I expected to get out of this book, but I can confidently say there is absolutely no value in these pages. The End of Reason is an apt title, considering Zacharias's arguments consistently fall flat and contain zero rational thoughts. Considering this book takes its title in response to Sam Harris's strong book, The End of Faith, you might expect him to respond to Harris's claims in that book, but unfortunately Zacharias focuses heavily on Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation, a short, relatively insignificant letter that was written due to Christian outrage over The End of Faith. Zacharias constantly berates Harris for "appealing to [the readers] emotions", an irrelevant facet of Harris's methods, even though almost every single one of his own arguments rely on boring parables and personal experiences that do exactly that! Zacharias hardly spends more than ~500 words in response to each issue he raises against Harris's claims, severely limiting his ability to properly lay out an argument. In fact, this entire "book" (if you can call it that...it reads more like an angry blog post) consists of a religious nut being all pissed off about atheists and saying how evil they are, relying heavily on the argument that Hitler, Stalin, and other similar figures were atheist...an argument which Harris has addressed multiple times in the past (arguments which Zacharias ignores completely).

Zacharias spends the last ~10 pages putting forth his argument for the existence of God and the truth of Jesus, which turns out he just takes from a professor at the University of Southern California (he does give credit). His argument is this: something came from nothing - therefore there is "a non-physical entity that explains its own existence and is uncaused", that something shows intelligence! It must have been designed! And the big whammy argument for the truth of Jesus is literally, a bunch of people said Jesus is who he said he was, therefore (in combination with the two previous arguments) it is absolutely true . No, I am not kidding, this is literally his argument for the truth of Jesus Christ. Somehow this is all supposed to prove the existence of God and the truth of Christianity. Wow! Such insightful and original, compelling arguments. I'm sure that nobody has ever heard these claims and been able to successfully refute them befo-oh wait...the very same people that Zacharias rants against in this very book each have their own arguments against these very claims, something he again completely ignores.

tl;dr: This book is a complete waste of paper, and one of the first books in a while that I honestly regret spending my money on and supporting financially.

[James Cloyd · Rating 1 out of 5]

The irony of this book is too much, if you didn't get that already from the title. I wonder if Ravi knows what the founding father of his protestant faith thought about reason. According to Martin Luther, "Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has," "Reason should be destroyed in all Christians, " & "Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his Reason." Or how about one of the founding fathers of America, since he wants to remind the west who we are. Has he read Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason? Maybe he should've written a response to that book before taking on Sam Harris, which was itself a defense of & call to reason. See apologists like Ravi respond to new atheists & actual scientists by trying to flip the script.
Ravi spends most of his time ridiculing Sam's book & worldview as bankrupt, recklessly aggressive, & void of content rather than actually responding to his arguments with reason based answers. Having read Sam's book, Ravi's sounds more like a critique of itself, as he pretty much does everything he accuses Sam of doing. I'll provide examples, lest I be guilty of the same.
Ravi starts with a story he made up of a mom killing herself bc her son became an atheist, & blames this imaginary scenario on Sam's book. He then goes on about how meaningless & depressing life would be if there were no God. Shortly after, he accuses Harris of making emotional appeals when citing relevant & real atrocities (hurricanes, rape, etc) & God's lack of intervention. In regards to Harris not having any basis for morality, maybe Ravi should read the Moral Landscape. No doubt he will write a bulletin sized book to rebut it. Ravi is right, the problem of evil, pain, & suffering is an old objection, as is Ravi's answer. Free will, though it can explain some evil, has nothing to do with natural disasters for which no amount of victim blaming will absolve God of responsibility. People inevitably point to the Devil, who some reason is permitted unrestrained control over natural forces. By this reasoning, sin & evil is an inevitable result of giving human & angels free will, then one has to wonder how there can be free will in heaven. When pressed, theologians admit that they do not know why God allows evil, but they assert that He must have a good reason. So on the one hand, they pretend to have this problem solved, but when asked for the answer, they appeal to God's mysterious & unknowable intentions. This book is indeed the End of Reason.

[Joe · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ravi makes 4 points against atheism (What dies with it)

1) Origin - Science cannot answer how everything came from nothing

pg 36 why doesn't atheism take root among the masses?
It might be that it offers no real answers to life's biggest and most important questions.

Pg 37 Evolution does not disprove God.

2) Meaning
Page 39 if we are a random accident no meaning or purpose can ever exist.
Why then do we long for meaning as humans?

pg 39 Muggeridge says - "All news is old things happening to new people"

Note even pleasure (not only pain) leaves us empty.

Pg 45 Life w/o God is ultimately life w/o reference point or beginning.

3) Morality
I think Atheist should be careful what they ask for, you may get it and lose everything that makes life good.

Pg 48 Harris in his book criticizes the belief in God by use of the wrong done to innocents like a baby girl being raped. Where does this right and wrong come from?

Pg 50 if God does not exist who is to say what is right and what is wrong.

pg 52 not how some of the atheist are selective about history and atrocities.
in the case of Pol Pot, Stalin (atheists) they were just plain crazy. But Christians who like Hitler and religion caused them to do it.

pg 54 could atheist be finding this ability to discern right and wrong from the law hidden in their hearts?

pg 61 Ravi points out what atheist like Harris want is really a world where God does not exist

pg 67 - point of pain is to see what can hurt us.

pg 69 Harris in his book seems to really agree with Marx that religion is opium of the masses.

How does atheist explain love?

4) Hope
Why do we even hope?

pg 75 Ravi admits that faith is needed. quote from C.S. Lewis:
God has given us enough to make faith in him quite reasonable. But left enough out to make it impossible to live by reason alone.

pag 76 Question Ravi's summary of Islam.
He seems to be more pro islam than I can see reason for.

[J.J. Richardson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great response to Sam Harris with Ravi's typical head/heart mix of communication. However Atheists will most likely be put off by his initial illustration. Likely they wouldn't be happy if it was a purely logical response with no heart as they'd just appeal to the problem of pain and evil. As it is, it was a good listen (audio book) with some fairly good deconstructions of Harris and his peers common arguments. Ravi is a one of a kind apologist.

[Greg Miller · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ravi is obviously a fantastic apologist, and he lays out his arguments in a very easy to read fashion. His arguments are for the most part well crafted and revolve around the atheist having no moral law giver to differentiate good from evil. However, it sometimes feels as if Ravi is arguing on the basis of his emotions inadvertently. Nonetheless, fantastic book regardless of a few flaws.

[Joseph · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm not sure I get the logical flow of this book, if there is one.

[Derrick · Rating 2 out of 5]

From time to time, I like to check out what Christian apologists are saying, especially in response to "the New Atheists". Zacharias is a name I have heard before. And at 3 hours on hoopla audio, this one seemed worth a look.

Nothing new here. The author aims his discussion primarily at Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation. His stated audience is any person who's been led astray by Harris's arguments. In the end, it's the same series of arguments you always get in this kind of pop theology:

Complexity.
Suitability of environment.
No Morality without a Divine Lawgiver.
Jesus is real because the Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled.
Scientists don't know how to create life. Therefore God.
Atheists just want to be free to act as immorally as they feel like.

And so on.

The printed version is less than 150 pages, so none of these topics is tackled in much detail. And as is common in this sort of anti-antitheist work, Zacharias gets a bit sarcastic. But then, the Bible is sarcastic towards non-believers. So what is one to expect?

[Marco · Rating 5 out of 5]

I regret that I waited so long to read Ravi Zacharias. After his passing, I was determined to become more familiar with his writing. This is my first read (actually listen). I'll say this: Brilliant and articulate. There was so much depth to Ravi. He was obviously so well read and it shows up in his writing. I'm amazed how effortlessly he pulls together quotes, stories, poetry, literature, history and philosophy to make his case in responding to Sam Harris. Reading him is not just an academic exercise but a lesson in communication.

[Abbie · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed listening to this audiobook on apologetics. Ravi’s arguments and stories were compelling. I was surprised by how sad the atheist must be - he has no real answers, no lasting hope, and no true purpose in life. Yet, with Christ.. we find all three of these.

[Dan Banana · Rating 1 out of 5]

Wow! An overly religious science denier and facts denier writes a book. Seems to blame porno, sex traffic and the Holocaust on atheists. Apparently atheists are cannibals and murderers of babies and are hostile....I have never met a hostile atheist but, Christian yes. The over the top pro-life dribble is a pathetic tirade with his extreme religious agenda. The fact a book needed to be written about an atheist, Sam Harris, and his opinions shows the complete narrow mindedness of this writer... I suggest this book for all religious extremists and pro-life extremists.