Malc
Added to listWant Hard Copywith 5 books.
A fine enough primer on presuppositional apologetics. The first half of the book is very careful to lay down the groundwork for the approach, which is helpful for people who may not be familiar with apologetics at all.
I've got to say that my favorite part of this book is when Bahnsen describes how people can convince themselves that they believe something, when they in fact believe something completely incompatible with that. I feel like I observe this all the time with people, so it's a very useful concept to have in the back pocket. It's also a good thing to keep in mind for the consistency of my own beliefs.
Bahnsen also describes the logical aspect of Romans 1; that is, how the unbeliever reveals himself to know the truth when he uses logic. Pointing out this inconsistency leads straight into the suppression of the truth and therefore a conviction of sin on the unbeliever's part. What a great way to apply that passage.
However, Against All Opposition feels incomplete as a whole. The ending chapters that finally use all of the previous concepts to disprove alternate worldviews are far too brief for my liking and don't cover all of the angles that I had hoped for. The buildup seemed too lengthy for such brief conclusions.
The final two chapters on the mystic religions and biblical counterfeits were especially far too short. They left me with the initial impression that the presup approach is very useful for materialistic atheism, but not much else. The way that Hinduism, Buddhism, Mormonism, and Islam are debunked feels much more like classical apologetics than presuppositional. For example, based on this book, I think I would refer someone to David Wood rather than Greg Bahnsen for approaches to logically oppose Islam. Not that Bahnsen's arguments are invalid, but they are less varied and don't give you the idea of the sheer scope of Islam's internal inconsistencies.
It could be that I'm being too harsh on something that may only be intended as a "starter guide". Either way, I will eventually pick up Bahnsen's Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended for what I hope is a more comprehensive education on this method.
As a very brief side note, this book had a number of grammatical errors/typos that seem unprofessional. I hope that American Vision has caught these by now and newer printings no longer contain them.
A fine enough primer on presuppositional apologetics. The first half of the book is very careful to lay down the groundwork for the approach, which is helpful for people who may not be familiar with apologetics at all.
I've got to say that my favorite part of this book is when Bahnsen describes how people can convince themselves that they believe something, when they in fact believe something completely incompatible with that. I feel like I observe this all the time with people, so it's a very useful concept to have in the back pocket. It's also a good thing to keep in mind for the consistency of my own beliefs.
Bahnsen also describes the logical aspect of Romans 1; that is, how the unbeliever reveals himself to know the truth when he uses logic. Pointing out this inconsistency leads straight into the suppression of the truth and therefore a conviction of sin on the unbeliever's part. What a great way to apply that passage.
However, Against All Opposition feels incomplete as a whole. The ending chapters that finally use all of the previous concepts to disprove alternate worldviews are far too brief for my liking and don't cover all of the angles that I had hoped for. The buildup seemed too lengthy for such brief conclusions.
The final two chapters on the mystic religions and biblical counterfeits were especially far too short. They left me with the initial impression that the presup approach is very useful for materialistic atheism, but not much else. The way that Hinduism, Buddhism, Mormonism, and Islam are debunked feels much more like classical apologetics than presuppositional. For example, based on this book, I think I would refer someone to David Wood rather than Greg Bahnsen for approaches to logically oppose Islam. Not that Bahnsen's arguments are invalid, but they are less varied and don't give you the idea of the sheer scope of Islam's internal inconsistencies.
It could be that I'm being too harsh on something that may only be intended as a "starter guide". Either way, I will eventually pick up Bahnsen's Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended for what I hope is a more comprehensive education on this method.
As a very brief side note, this book had a number of grammatical errors/typos that seem unprofessional. I hope that American Vision has caught these by now and newer printings no longer contain them.
A fine enough primer on presuppositional apologetics. The first half of the book is very careful to lay down the groundwork for the approach, which is helpful for people who may not be familiar with apologetics at all. However, it feels incomplete as a whole. The ending chapters that finally use all of the previous concepts to disprove alternate worldviews are far too brief for my liking and don't cover all of the angles that I had hoped for.
The final two chapters on the mystic religions and biblical counterfeits were especially far too short. They left me with the initial impression that the presup approach is very useful for materialistic atheism, but not much else. The way that Hinduism, Buddhism, Mormonism, and Islam are debunked feels much more like classical apologetics than presuppositional. For example, based on this book, I think I would refer someone to David Wood rather than Greg Bahnsen for approaches to logically oppose Islam. Not that Bahnsen's arguments are invalid, but they are less varied and don't give you the idea of the sheer scope of Islam's internal inconsistencies.
It could be that I'm being too harsh on something that may only be intended as a "starter guide". Either way, I will eventually pick up Bahnsen's Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended for what I hope is a more comprehensive education on this method.
I've got to say that my favorite part of this book is when Bahnsen describes how people can convince themselves that they believe something, when they in fact believe something completely incompatible with that. I feel like I observe this all the time with people, so it's a very useful concept to have in the back pocket. It's also a good thing to keep in mind for the consistency of my own beliefs.
As a very brief side note, this book had a number of grammatical errors/typos that seem unprofessional. I hope that American Vision has caught these by now and newer printings no longer contain them.
A fine enough primer on presuppositional apologetics. The first half of the book is very careful to lay down the groundwork for the approach, which is helpful for people who may not be familiar with apologetics at all. However, it feels incomplete as a whole. The ending chapters that finally use all of the previous concepts to disprove alternate worldviews are far too brief for my liking and don't cover all of the angles that I had hoped for.
The final two chapters on the mystic religions and biblical counterfeits were especially far too short. They left me with the initial impression that the presup approach is very useful for materialistic atheism, but not much else. The way that Hinduism, Buddhism, Mormonism, and Islam are debunked feels much more like classical apologetics than presuppositional. For example, based on this book, I think I would refer someone to David Wood rather than Greg Bahnsen for approaches to logically oppose Islam. Not that Bahnsen's arguments are invalid, but they are less varied and don't give you the idea of the sheer scope of Islam's internal inconsistencies.
It could be that I'm being too harsh on something that may only be intended as a "starter guide". Either way, I will eventually pick up Bahnsen's Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended for what I hope is a more comprehensive education on this method.
I've got to say that my favorite part of this book is when Bahnsen describes how people can convince themselves that they believe something, when they in fact believe something completely incompatible with that. I feel like I observe this all the time with people, so it's a very useful concept to have in the back pocket. It's also a good thing to keep in mind for the consistency of my own beliefs.
As a very brief side note, this book had a number of grammatical errors/typos that seem unprofessional. I hope that American Vision has caught these by now and newer printings no longer contain them.
Edit 2025-07-30: I've been made aware of some theological concerns with Chan, including his sharing the stage with prosperity gospel teachers. I still like this book well enough, but encourage people to be careful about him and his beliefs. My original review is below.
A brilliant exhortation that's been extremely formative to my pattern of thought in the faith. It's nothing but pure orthodoxy when Pastor Chan says that lukewarm Christians are actually not Christians at all, but the fact that he has to add a warning before that truth shows how desperate the situation in the modern American church really is. I think this book should be read not as telling you to do the exact same thing as many of the examples, but instead really counting the cost of following Christ and how you can apply that radical worldview to your own life. Will be reading Bonhoeffer’s "The Cost of Discipleship" as a follow-up to this.
Edit 2025-07-30: I've been made aware of some theological concerns with Chan, including his sharing the stage with prosperity gospel teachers. I still like this book well enough, but encourage people to be careful about him and his beliefs. My original review is below.
A brilliant exhortation that's been extremely formative to my pattern of thought in the faith. It's nothing but pure orthodoxy when Pastor Chan says that lukewarm Christians are actually not Christians at all, but the fact that he has to add a warning before that truth shows how desperate the situation in the modern American church really is. I think this book should be read not as telling you to do the exact same thing as many of the examples, but instead really counting the cost of following Christ and how you can apply that radical worldview to your own life. Will be reading Bonhoeffer’s "The Cost of Discipleship" as a follow-up to this.
Project Hail Mary is undoubtedly the most enjoyable piece of fiction I've read in a long time. The first chapter hooked me right in and I was immediately invested. The whole book definitely required some self-control so that I didn't just binge chapters until well after my bedtime, which is definitely a witness to how compelling it is!
Spoiler warning for this review, I intend for it to be read by those who have finished the book. I won't bother individually-marking spoiler text as the whole thing is riddled with it.
The good
One of the things I first noticed about this novel is that Andy Weir makes every effort to ground the events of the story in reality. The events of the book are well-grounded in math, physics, and chemistry. Naturally, I as the reader suspend my disbelief at the presence of alien life (especially sentient alien life like the Eridians), but the careful way in which he presents that life makes it believable. It's as though he wants the reader to believe that there is life out in space in the real world.
The book is not only grounded scientifically, but is also seemingly set in the present-day. Taken together, these things should result in a book about the world we live in, with our current space-travel limitations. Weir does start there chronologically, but this "present-day", mathematically-grounded book soon has astronauts traveling 12 light-years to a foreign solar system with technology powered by alien microbes. Again, part of the appeal is just how reasonable it's all made out to be. Wouldn't this be incredible to see in real life?
The book's events feel constantly critical and rarely superfluous. Pretty early on, Weir sets up the expectation that a problem will be solved by our two main characters Dr. Ryland Grace and Rocky, despite whatever extreme difficulty and high risk it presents. So, whenever a new crisis appeared, I was rarely left wondering if it would be solved, but rather how. Thankfully, problem-solving isn't flawless and consistent throughout the book, and the near-deaths of both Grace and Rocky do a good job of communicating that success is not guaranteed. The stakes driving everything forward are a big part of what kept the pages turning. I was never as enthralled with the "flashback" portions of the story, but I understand that they were critical for context as Grace's memory returned.
The goofy
There are not really parts of the book that I'd consider outright bad, so I'll elect to call them goofy instead.
As I previously established, this book is very scientifically grounded, and I respect that a great deal. What I don't respect is the fixation on macro-evolution as the explanation for the origins of everything. This isn't presented as part of the book's speculative fiction elements, but as a part of the book's scientific assumptions. It would be out of this review's scope for me to do a full-length critique of Darwinian evolutionary theory, but suffice it to say that macro-evolution has not been seen or tested scientifically, and thus doesn't have a rightful place alongside the well-tested formulae and observational science in the rest of the novel.
But it gets goofier from here. Chapter 14 features Paris climatologist Dr. François Leclerc, whose dialogue is almost exclusively unvarnished preaching on climate change. This made me laugh out loud at several points. Here is one of his lines verbatim:
And just like that another climate denier is born. See how easy it is? All I have to do is tell you something you don't want to hear.
More of this is repeated during the section where Antarctica is being nuked to release methane. Again, me dunking on climate science isn't something to include in this review. I just think that Weir could have quite easily rewritten Leclerc to be less annoying about it.
The Weir Worldview
The previous notes on evolution and climate change make Weir's views about such things abundantly clear. Fair enough; I expect an author's worldview to be reflected in his writing. He stated himself to be an agnostic in 2012, so assuming this has not changed, such commonly-accepted modern-day beliefs make sense for him to have adopted. However, despite this, it seems the contents of the book itself betray him.
Returning to Chapter 14, Dr. Grace is discussing with Rocky how humans and Eridians may be related. Grace then briefly describes his theory:
The panspermia theory. I argued with Lokken about it all the time. Earth life and Astrophage are way too similar for it to be coincidence. I suspected Earth was "seeded" by some ancestor of Astrophage. Some interstellar progenitor species that infected my planet. But it never occurred to me until now that the same thing might have happened to Erid.
An advanced species that came and "seeded" what would become human life? Sounds like a substitute God to me.
Later in the same chapter, Eva Stratt discusses with Grace and Leclerc what will likely become of her after the launch of the Hail Mary:
"...Once the Hail Mary launches, my authority ends. I'll probably be put on trial by a bunch of pissed-off governments for abuse of power. Might spend the rest of my life in jail. [...] We all have to make sacrifices. If I have to be the world's whipping boy to secure our salvation, then that's my sacrifice to make."
What's this? An all-powerful person being unjustly condemned, yet willingly sacrificing him/herself for the salvation of the world? Sounds awfully familiar.
Truly Weir's biggest self-contradiction is the glorification of self-sacrifice and redemption in this book. The flashback sections clearly establish Dr. Grace as someone very proud and protective of his reputation, and towards the end of the flashbacks, we learn that he was a selfish coward right up through the Hail Mary's launch. But by the end of the book, he not only forfeits the accolades and fame surely awaiting him on Earth, but also is willing to give up his own life for Rocky and the Eridian race. That redemptive character development is nothing short of explicitly Christian.
Concluding thoughts
All of this taken together, it seems that Weir's agnosticism isn't enough for him. I certainly can't blame him. While I don't know the man's heart, I do know that we all speak and write from it, and his writing seems to betray the longing for meaning and virtue we all feel. Those Christian elements tie his whole story together and undoubtedly make this a better book. Really, I can forgive the evolutionary theology and climate change bits in light of this.
Project Hail Mary is tremendous fun and an utterly riveting read. I have high hopes for next year's film adaptation.
Now, relativity is a bit over my head. Maybe I'll understand it someday. But I would be remiss to not conclude with a quote from the eccentric Steve Hatch in Chapter 18:
"Do you believe in God? I know it's a personal question. I do. And I think He was pretty awesome to make relativity a thing, don't you? The faster you go, the less time you experience. It's like He's inviting us to explore the universe, you know?"
Project Hail Mary is undoubtedly the most enjoyable piece of fiction I've read in a long time. The first chapter hooked me right in and I was immediately invested. The whole book definitely required some self-control so that I didn't just binge chapters until well after my bedtime, which is definitely a witness to how compelling it is!
Spoiler warning for this review, I intend for it to be read by those who have finished the book. I won't bother individually-marking spoiler text as the whole thing is riddled with it.
The good
One of the things I first noticed about this novel is that Andy Weir makes every effort to ground the events of the story in reality. The events of the book are well-grounded in math, physics, and chemistry. Naturally, I as the reader suspend my disbelief at the presence of alien life (especially sentient alien life like the Eridians), but the careful way in which he presents that life makes it believable. It's as though he wants the reader to believe that there is life out in space in the real world.
The book is not only grounded scientifically, but is also seemingly set in the present-day. Taken together, these things should result in a book about the world we live in, with our current space-travel limitations. Weir does start there chronologically, but this "present-day", mathematically-grounded book soon has astronauts traveling 12 light-years to a foreign solar system with technology powered by alien microbes. Again, part of the appeal is just how reasonable it's all made out to be. Wouldn't this be incredible to see in real life?
The book's events feel constantly critical and rarely superfluous. Pretty early on, Weir sets up the expectation that a problem will be solved by our two main characters Dr. Ryland Grace and Rocky, despite whatever extreme difficulty and high risk it presents. So, whenever a new crisis appeared, I was rarely left wondering if it would be solved, but rather how. Thankfully, problem-solving isn't flawless and consistent throughout the book, and the near-deaths of both Grace and Rocky do a good job of communicating that success is not guaranteed. The stakes driving everything forward are a big part of what kept the pages turning. I was never as enthralled with the "flashback" portions of the story, but I understand that they were critical for context as Grace's memory returned.
The goofy
There are not really parts of the book that I'd consider outright bad, so I'll elect to call them goofy instead.
As I previously established, this book is very scientifically grounded, and I respect that a great deal. What I don't respect is the fixation on macro-evolution as the explanation for the origins of everything. This isn't presented as part of the book's speculative fiction elements, but as a part of the book's scientific assumptions. It would be out of this review's scope for me to do a full-length critique of Darwinian evolutionary theory, but suffice it to say that macro-evolution has not been seen or tested scientifically, and thus doesn't have a rightful place alongside the well-tested formulae and observational science in the rest of the novel.
But it gets goofier from here. Chapter 14 features Paris climatologist Dr. François Leclerc, whose dialogue is almost exclusively unvarnished preaching on climate change. This made me laugh out loud at several points. Here is one of his lines verbatim:
And just like that another climate denier is born. See how easy it is? All I have to do is tell you something you don't want to hear.
More of this is repeated during the section where Antarctica is being nuked to release methane. Again, me dunking on climate science isn't something to include in this review. I just think that Weir could have quite easily rewritten Leclerc to be less annoying about it.
The Weir Worldview
The previous notes on evolution and climate change make Weir's views about such things abundantly clear. Fair enough; I expect an author's worldview to be reflected in his writing. He stated himself to be an agnostic in 2012, so assuming this has not changed, such commonly-accepted modern-day beliefs make sense for him to have adopted. However, despite this, it seems the contents of the book itself betray him.
Returning to Chapter 14, Dr. Grace is discussing with Rocky how humans and Eridians may be related. Grace then briefly describes his theory:
The panspermia theory. I argued with Lokken about it all the time. Earth life and Astrophage are way too similar for it to be coincidence. I suspected Earth was "seeded" by some ancestor of Astrophage. Some interstellar progenitor species that infected my planet. But it never occurred to me until now that the same thing might have happened to Erid.
An advanced species that came and "seeded" what would become human life? Sounds like a substitute God to me.
Later in the same chapter, Eva Stratt discusses with Grace and Leclerc what will likely become of her after the launch of the Hail Mary:
"...Once the Hail Mary launches, my authority ends. I'll probably be put on trial by a bunch of pissed-off governments for abuse of power. Might spend the rest of my life in jail. [...] We all have to make sacrifices. If I have to be the world's whipping boy to secure our salvation, then that's my sacrifice to make."
What's this? An all-powerful person being unjustly condemned, yet willingly sacrificing him/herself for the salvation of the world? Sounds awfully familiar.
Truly Weir's biggest self-contradiction is the glorification of self-sacrifice and redemption in this book. The flashback sections clearly establish Dr. Grace as someone very proud and protective of his reputation, and towards the end of the flashbacks, we learn that he was a selfish coward right up through the Hail Mary's launch. But by the end of the book, he not only forfeits the accolades and fame surely awaiting him on Earth, but also is willing to give up his own life for Rocky and the Eridian race. That redemptive character development is nothing short of explicitly Christian.
Concluding thoughts
All of this taken together, it seems that Weir's agnosticism isn't enough for him. I certainly can't blame him. While I don't know the man's heart, I do know that we all speak and write from it, and his writing seems to betray the longing for meaning and virtue we all feel. Those Christian elements tie his whole story together and undoubtedly make this a better book. Really, I can forgive the evolutionary theology and climate change bits in light of this.
Project Hail Mary is tremendous fun and an utterly riveting read. I have high hopes for next year's film adaptation.
Now, relativity is a bit over my head. Maybe I'll understand it someday. But I would be remiss to not conclude with a quote from the eccentric Steve Hatch in Chapter 18:
"Do you believe in God? I know it's a personal question. I do. And I think He was pretty awesome to make relativity a thing, don't you? The faster you go, the less time you experience. It's like He's inviting us to explore the universe, you know?"
