[books i've been reading]

Freedom Road, by Howard Fast. "Gideon Jackson, a former slave, returns to the home of his youth in order to begin his post-war life. His wife and children await him and they take their first, halting steps into a free future. Then the notice comes that all the men over age 21 are meant to go into town to vote. From this simple act comes more change than Gideon ever counted on, and maybe more than he wanted, at least at first. Based on historic facts for those who care to dig deeply enough, Freedom Road presents a searing, alternative view of Reconstruction, using the words and work of the people it helped; the people for whom freedom was recently earned with great difficulty, and not to be forsaken at any price." (from Amazon)

Spartacus, by Howard Fast. "Everyone knows the basic story of Spartacus, the anonymous third-generation slave sold to a gladiator school to fight for the amusement of decadent Romans, and how he ended up leading a gigantic slave rebellion that nearly destroyed the Republic. What Fast explores in the novel is how and why this rebellion came about, and what effect it had on the psychology of the Romans, whose culture even during the years of the Republic was enormously dependent on slavery. Most importantly, Fast explores the moral climate of Rome by following around the "victors" of the Servile War as they reminisce about Spartacus and how he was defeated. It is in this backward-looking manner that "Spartacus" unfolds. Fast draws his characters, most of whom are real-life figures, with wonderful clarity: Crassus, the general who crushed Spartacus' rebellion, is shown as "the bronze hawk of the Republic" -- ruthless, sensual, grasping, yet ultimately hollow; Cicero, the historian-philosopher, as a scheming opportunist of the worst sort; Gracchus as a basically decent man turned cynical and decayed by the evils of his society. The lesser Roman characters are much worse: empty-headed, venal, vain, cruel, parasitic, sexually depraved, almost unspeakably vicious and treacherous, all holding onto illicit fortunes wrung from the sweat and labor of slaves, and all desperate to increase their wealth, power and position relative to each other. Nor are the common folk of the cities and towns spared: Fast depicts them in passing as a lazy, bloodthirsty, amoral mob who live for cheap wine and the grain dole and the games, who "strangle their children at birth" and whore themselves on the streets for pennies. In contrast, Fast holds the slaves as being rendered pure and noble by virtue of their suffering. Spartacus is depicted as almost Jesus-like in his simplistic divinity; Varinia (his lover) as a pillar of wifely and motherly virtue; David (the Jewish gladiator) as a hate-filled soul brought to love and redemption through his apprenticeship at Spartacus' side. Once freed, the slaves live in perfect socialistic harmony, sharing their property, keeping no more than they need, living as equals and brothers, and -- inflamed by their passion for freedom -- fighting like lions against the numerically superior and better-equipped Roman legions. If all of this seems rather heavy-handed to you, it is. Fast's Rome is metaphoric. The Romans are modern-day capitalists, the slaves the modern-day working class; and in attacking capitalism and imperialism he is suggesting, as most Marxists did, that the triumph of socialism/communism is a "historical necessity"....not because it is stronger (the slaves are defeated), but because it is righteous (the slaves will rise again). It hardly comes a surprise that this book was required reading for many Soviet schoolchildren." (from Amazon)

[books i've been reading]

The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism, by Edward Feser. "New Atheists Richards Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris get their comeuppance from philosopher Feser in the spirit with which they abuse believers. “Their books stand out for their manifest ignorance” of the Western religious tradition, he says, “and for the breathtaking shallowness of their philosophical analysis of religious matters.” Far better than such no-quarters rhetoric, however, are the review of pre-Aristotelian philosophy and the summary of Aristotelian metaphysics and Thomas Aquinas’ refinements of Aristotle that make up the heart, soul, and bulk of the book. Feser chooses to argue from Aristotle because he was not arguing from any religious perspective and because Aristotle’s logic, his rationality, hasn’t been improved upon or refuted by modern philosophy. Aristotle’s proof that there is a prime mover or pure being—God—remains solid. Ignoramuses like the four horsemen of the apostasy, whose factual errors, half-truths, and mischaracterization Feser highlights with contemptuous glee, “refute” Aristotle only by changing the playing field from metaphysics to science, from philosophical realism to materialism. With energy and humor as well as transparent exposition, Feser reestablishes the unassailable superiority of classical philosophy." (from Booklist)


The Dawkins Delusion: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine, by Alister McGrath. "When authors write books that criticize other books, they have usually already lost; the original book has set the agenda to which the critics respond, and the outcome is foretold. Not in this case. The McGraths expeditiously plow into the flank of Dawkins's fundamentalist atheism, made famous in The God Delusion, and run him from the battlefield. The book works partly because they are so much more gracious to Dawkins than Dawkins is to believers: Dawkins's The Blind Watchmaker remains the finest critique of William Paley's naturalistic arguments for deism available, for example. The authors can even point to instances in which their interactions with him, both literary and personal, have changed his manner of arguing: he can no longer say that Tertullian praised Christian belief because of its absurdity or that religion necessarily makes one violent. The McGraths are frustrated, then, that Dawkins continues to write on the a priori, nonscientific assumption that religious believers are either deluded or meretricious, never pausing to consider the evidence not in his favor or the complex beliefs and practices of actual Christians. They conclude disquietingly: perhaps Dawkins is aware that demagogic ranting that displays confidence in the face of counterevidence is the way to sway unlearned masses." (from Publisher's Weekly)

[books i've been reading]

The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism, by Timothy Keller. "In this apologia for Christian faith, Keller mines material from literary classics, philosophy, anthropology and a multitude of other disciplines to make an intellectually compelling case for God. Written for skeptics and the believers who love them, the book draws on the author's encounters as founding pastor of New York's booming Redeemer Presbyterian Church. One of Keller's most provocative arguments is that all doubts, however skeptical and cynical they may seem, are really a set of alternate beliefs. Drawing on sources as diverse as 19th-century author Robert Louis Stevenson and contemporary New Testament theologian N.T. Wright, Keller attempts to deconstruct everyone he finds in his way, from the evolutionary psychologist Richard Dawkins to popular author Dan Brown. The first, shorter part of the book looks at popular arguments against God's existence, while the second builds on general arguments for God to culminate in a sharp focus on the redemptive work of God in Christ. Keller's condensed summaries of arguments for and against theism make the scope of the book overwhelming at times. Nonetheless, it should serve both as testimony to the author's encyclopedic learning and as a compelling overview of the current debate on faith for those who doubt and for those who want to re-evaluate what they believe, and why." (from Publisher's Weekly)

What's So Great About Christianity?, by Dinesh D'Souza. "Is it reasonable to have faith in God? Can intelligent, educated people really believe what the Bible says? Or do the atheists have it right―has Christianity been disproven by science and discredited as a guide to morality? Best-selling author Dinesh D'Souza (The Enemy at Home; What's So Great about America) responds head-on to the anti-God arguments of prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens and defeats them on their own terms. What's So Great about Christianity provides believers with a straightforward tool kit for meeting the challenge of modern atheism and secularism; for nonbelievers, it offers a compelling apologetic that will challenge their assumptions and affirm that there really is something great about Christianity." (from Amazon)

[books i've been reading]

The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World, by Alister McGrath. "Oxford University's McGrath has distinguished himself not just as an historical theologian, but as a generous and witty writer who brings life to topics that would turn to dust in others' hands. Here he explores the history of atheism in Western culture, observing that atheism seems to be succumbing to the very fate—irrelevance and dissolution—that atheists once predicted would overtake traditional religion. How did atheism ("a principled and informed decision to reject belief in God") become so rare by the turn of the 21st century? McGrath leaves no stone unturned, nor any important source unconsulted, in tracing atheism's rise and fall. Beyond the usual suspects of Marx, Freud and Darwin, McGrath surveys literature (George Eliot, Algernon Swinburne), science (Jacques Monod, Richard Dawkins) and philosophy (Ludwig Feuerbach, Michel Foucault), managing to make such intellectual heavy lifting look effortless. As a lapsed atheist himself, McGrath is a sympathetic interpreter, but he also relentlessly documents what he contends are the philosophical inconsistency and moral failures of atheism, especially when it has acquired political power. Yet believers will find no warrant here for complacency, as McGrath shows how religion's "failures of imagination" and complicity with oppression often fostered the very environment in which atheism could thrive. Indeed, he warns, "Believers need to realize that, strange as it may seem, it is they who will have the greatest impact on atheism's future." Readable and memorable, this is intellectual history at its best." (from Publisher's Weekly)

God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, by John F. Haught. "The recent spate of books from atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and (most stridently) Christopher Hitchens has prompted many pundits and scholars to label the trend the New Atheism. Haught uses the term, but argues that there is nothing really new about the New Atheism; it is instead a rehashing of antireligious arguments that are as old as the Enlightenment. In fact, Haught criticizes the New Atheism as being theologically unchallenging, its all-or-nothing thinking representing about the same level of reflection on faith that one can find in contemporary creationist and fundamentalist literature. Haught draws upon theologians such as Tillich, Bultmann, Ricoeur, McFague and Pannenberg to refute some of the New Atheists' most common contentions. Through most of Haught's book, his approach is straight theism, with the exclusively or specifically Christian arguments coming near the end. Although this book is more accessible than some of Haught's earlier theological work (e.g., Is Nature Enough?), it is still challenging and serious; readers will need to follow scientific, theological, philosophical and logical threads to keep up. The reward is worth it, however, as Haught lays out the fundamental issues clearly and without the vitriol that has characterized Hitchens et al. as well as many of their interlocutors." (from Publishers Weekly)