The End of Reason: A Response to the New Atheists

By Ravi Zacharias (Foreword by Lee Strobel)

Donated hardcover 128 pages plus notes and index

Published: 2008

Genre: non-fiction, theology

 

This was perhaps a bit too theological for me. I'm not really interested in Christian apologetics, (Grace Theological Seminary defines it as, "Christian apologetics is the intellectual, reasoned defense of the Christian faith, derived from the Greek word apologia (a formal defense or answer). It seeks to provide logical justifications for Christian beliefs, remove intellectual obstacles to faith, and counter objections, usually based on 1 Peter 3:15, which calls for gentleness and respect in dialogue.")

 

But our pastor had mentioned this author a few times and when someone was donating books, I grabbed it out of curiosity. It's pretty well-written in terms of clarity. I especially liked when the author related what he was teaching to something in his own life. 

 

Page 39: As individuals and collectively as cultures, we humans long for meaning. But if life is random, we have climbed the evolutionary ladder only to find nothing at the top.

 

I would be curious to hear how an atheist would respond to this, but I really do not enjoy that type of dialogue / debate. I know why I believe in Jesus, but I also understand some of non-believers' barriers to belief.

 

Page  41: Pleasure without boundaries produces a life without purpose. That is real pain. No death, no tragedy, no atrocity - nothing really matters. Life is sheer hollowness, with no purpose.

 

I think my teenage brain would have enjoyed wrestling with these ideas more. The meaning of life is a big deal and raises lots of questions! (It did for me, anyhow.) Part of the reason Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy appealed to me as a teen is because of this wrestling about the meaning of life. Trying to re-read it as an older adult, it just seemed inane. The pursuit of pleasure for pleasure's sake does not provide fulfillment.

 

Page 55:   

• When you assert that there is such a thing as evil, you must assume there is such a thing as good.
• 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.
• When you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver - the source of the moral law.

 

This was one of those places where his arguments seemed so logical and straightforward. He goes on to anticipate the challenges an atheist would make to these points. It gets very confusing for me. My aging brain does not love the mental gymnastics.

 

Page  63: Isn't it ironic that when Islam is in a position of power, Islamic beliefs are forced on everyone, and that when atheism has the upper hand, atheistic beliefs are enforced on everyone? Only in Christianity is the privilege given both to believe and to disbelieve without any enforcement.

 

This is part of why I think many non-believers are rejecting the new Christian Nationalism that some people are espousing. People want to be free to believe or disbelieve without coercion. That said, I'm glad I live in America and enjoy more freedoms than many other humans on Earth.

 

Page 77: Using his same argument, he may as well say that the problem in the world is males - if we could just eliminate all males under twenty-five, we would have a better world.

 

This seems out of context, but Zacharias is responding to Sam Harris' assertion that Muslims are responsible for a long list of ills. Zacharias is extrapolating his remarks to other groups and pointing out that Harris wouldn't be able to be published if he said such things about African-Americans, for example. But I started thinking about it . . . if the United States got rid of one population to make the world a better place, which would it be? I'm not sure males under the age of 25 would be the place to start. (Plus, I would defend my grandsons with my own life.)

 

Page  82: The boundary-less life of sensual pleasure is a field of landmines, fraught with the real risk that even the very possibility of pleasure might be blown away.

 

That idea of boundaries again. I don't know if I've ever really known a true hedonist, but to be so focused on your own wants and pleasures seems incredibly selfish and ego-driven.

 

Page 88:  It seems to me that the gospel writers understood the likes of atheists better than atheists understand themselves or, should I say, better than atheists care to understand themselves. Those of us who have spent half our lives wrestling with these kinds of arguments recognize hostility for what it is and know when arguments go beyond the boundaries of what is believable.

 

I think I flagged this because I don't want to wrestle with these arguments! And that's okay. God has a plan and a purpose for me, but I don't think it's to become a theologian.  I sometimes worry that I'm dumbing down my own thinking, but there are only 24 hours in each day and there are so many things to do! I'd rather read those gospels and ponder God's Word than dig into argumentation.

 

Page  99: Jesus worked by changing the heart, not by legislating. Legislation can only force compliance. It can never produce the love necessary to change an attitude.

 

Praise God! Jesus has changed my heart. And He's still working on me. 

 

Page 123: I plead with society to allow the diversity of religious beliefs to be heard in the marketplace of public dialogue. Let the individual weigh the facts for himself or herself and see where the truth lies.

 

 I enjoyed reading this book and appreciate his approach (He used to be an atheist himself!) in sharing the reasons to refute Sam Harris' book The End of Faith. This entire book is basically refuting Harris' book. I'm fine with donating this. I won't re-read it.