Can Man Live without God by Ravi Zacharias

Note: I rank books differently than Goodreads: 3 stars is "it's okay".

A pen pal sent me this, so of course I had to read it :-).

Before opening it, my conclusion has always been that yes, man needs faith, but not necessarily in the Christian God. After completing it, I'm at the same place. Since I'm a Deist, the existence of a God wasn't an argument he had to win with me. Unfortunately for whatever his point in writing was, it was the only argument that I actually bought.

He starts out completely misrepresenting what it means to be atheist. I've decided that he gives a purely philosophical view, but that view doesn't translate to the everyday life of an atheist and therefore invalidates his arguments. Besides, he uses atheism and anti-theism synonymously and according to /r/atheism, that isn't accurate.

His entire argument for the existence of Jesus as a deity is dependent on Jesus and the Bible being TRUTH, and he fails to prove this claim. If Jesus word were TRUTH, then it would be possible to show why they aren't false. His only defense seems to be that "if they were false, his "enemies" wouldn't also say that they're true"--so what evidence is there that these "enemies" weren't lying about that status? There was a complete lack of analysis here.

For all the bold claims he made in the introduction, he unfortunately fell short. As always, I went into this book blind and tried to be unbiased, hoping that he'd convince me, but it wasn't there.

On an interesting note, while replying to the pen pal in question, she had said that people can never have enough guns. What I found intriguing by this statement is that on pg. 36, in describing how "Reasoning Failed the Test on Reasoning", Zacharias laments the fact that skeptics forget the second qualifier of Kant's claim that morality can be found purely through reason, that "an individuals moral choices were not to be determined by the happiness test, meaning that one ought not to choose a certain path for life just because it makes one happy." He goes on to bash Marxism which apparently based a lot of itself on Kant (I haven't done this research, so I take his word for it) and (perhaps laughingly) finishes by saying our "new world of democratic utopia inscribed the pursuit of individual happiness as a fundamental right for all individuals at the cost of the collective good. In both arenas, Kantian ethics were deviously mangled."

I'm not a philosopher and will quickly admit that strictly philosophical reasoning often goes over my head, but I interpret this passage as, to some extent, agreeing with Kant (though I doubt Zacharias would admit to this) in that it's important to put the collective good above the happiness of the individual. So since I enjoy complicating arguments, wouldn't we agree that it's in the interest of the collective good to put reasonable restrictions on gun ownership (such as waiting periods, more thorough background checks, etc) even if it means inconveniencing legal gun owners? Granted, my argument is dependent on my reading Zacharias correctly and since he's vague more often than not, I cannot say that I did with certainty.

Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz

2009: Banned or challenged for occult/Satanism, religious viewpoint and violence.

2007: Banned for insensitivity, violence, being unsuited to age group, and occult/Satanism.

2001: Banned for violence, being unsuited to age group, and occult themes

I personally like the morals held within some of these stories. I also like that Schwartz included an interesting section at the end that gives a brief history of ghosts and ghost stories showing that they aren't just for fun, but hold cultural significance. I'm also laughing because there is a list of sources, something distinctly lacking in the work of "non-fiction" also on my reading list this week.

The Evolution of Human Intellect: Discover the Information that Schools and Religions Aren't Yet Teaching by L.N. Smith

The author sent me a "coupon" to read this book for free.

I find the method used to tell this story (the roller coaster ride) to be different, but useful and, to some extent, fun. But since I came into this book blind (in terms of the author's background and intent), I also find it to be questionable. 

There are two aspects to this book: evolutionary history and evolution of thought. I have a problem with the evolutionary history aspect because without a solid bibliography, we're left with a tale that is at best a thought provoking piece of fiction (by my own definition) and at worst a piece of blatant plagiarism. I personally demand evidence for any piece of information, even if it's just, "based on this, this, and this, I conclude this". I do not question the validity of evolution based on my own research, but I do not particularly condone any "non-fiction" which does not show it's own train of research since no scholar reaches a conclusion purely through their own abilities.

I do not know what work has been done by others on the evolution of thought, nor do I know how much is philosophical and how much is based on scientific evidence. Since this book lacks a bibliography, I do not know what parts are purely from Smith's own reasoning and what parts come from other research done and that troubles me. 

His, I assume, philosophical conclusions are the reason I rate this book so highly. I like the idea of human intellect being metaphorical bridges evolving over time and I like that Smith does build his argument on good foundations...I just wish those foundations had better foundations themselves. 

I rank this a 5 for enjoyability and thought provoking conclusions. I rank it a 3 for scholarship.

Full disclosure: I link to the books below because I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they're very similar to the book I reviewed which at 52 pages (at the link I was provided) seemed like it was a chapter or two from a much longer work, either one or the other or maybe some combination of both. I have no desire at this time to read either book I'm offering links to.

"Race to the Top" and Alaska

So apparently Obama's "Race to the Top" education campaign is to reward schools who preform well with cash incentives and to remove limits to charter and alternative schools. I don't understand why Alaska WOULDN'T participate when Palin says herself that Alaskans want to leave school curriculums in the localities where they exist. My "stupid" question for her would be to ask how Obama's plan doesn't encourage the same ideas. If Alaska has the best schools because they encourage individuality, then what possible way does Obama's plan interfere with their way of life? All they're doing is turning down more money.

Vanderpump Rules/Bravo Bio

Umm...yeah. If I haven't mentioned it before, I'm a big fan of the Real Housewives. It's so ridiculous, I'm actually surprised that there's a spin-off that I think I'll enjoy watching: Vanderpump Rules. I now know why SUR has been mentioned on Beverly Hills so much with the staff actually being allowed to speak.

Anywho, I'm reading up on it on Wikipedia and I see that the staff have bios on Bravo. Yeah...folks, here's my 2 cents--your profession is what pays the bills--PERIOD. I mean, you don't see The Big Bang Theory fans calling Penny an Actress (notice the laughs this gets from the studio audience whenever she tries it)--she's a Waitress at the Cheesecake Factory. So, get it together and revise those bios, Bravo. Only an "actor" describes themselves as such when the reality is that it's a pipe dream.