`The Jesus Family Tomb' is a hypothesis written in a format suitable for a general readership.

A brief review cannot possibly do justice to this book - it's scope and wealth of evidence are impressive as is the manner in which the subtle arguments are conveyed - it's an exciting read too. I will merely try to entice or interest a potential audience - as I think that it deserves wide circulation.

So, would it stir your interest if I mentioned that in his preliminary paper a professional statistician calculated the odds at 2,400,000:1 in favour of this hypothesis?

The evidence for this hypothesis includes in depth scientific analysis (spectral analysis and comparison of the chemical composition of the ossuary patinas, for example. Don't worry it gets explained very clearly.); expert opinion and general consensus on certain key points (for example the provenance of the tomb, the number of ossuaries, the authenticity of the inscriptions); well documented archaeological data and clear, educated and well-presented explanations of the speculations involved.

`Speculations?!', you may cry. Yes, it is worth noting that this case is not, never has been and never will be about certainty. It is about probability. What is the probability of this being the family tomb of Jesus - high or low? Statistically significant or not?

Perhaps statistical probability ratios are not your thing?

Here's another teaser:

People raise the popular objection,

`These were all common names! Jesus and Joseph were common names back then - you'd expect to find loads of them turning up in tombs'.

Okay, but just how common? How many have been found in tombs to date, and given educated estimates of the population density of males in the time period in question, what percentage may have had these first names?

The book goes in to great detail on this subject (amongst many others), but just for starters consider this question:

Given that there have been hundreds of ossuaries recovered from provenanced tombs in the past 200 years, how many do you think bear the inscription `Jesus, son of Joseph'?

A couple of dozen, perhaps? You'd expect at least a handful given these names are supposedly so common.

In fact, only one ossuary exists that bears this inscription - the one discovered in 1980 by the Israel Antiquities Authority, at a freshly uncovered site catalogued IAA 80/500 - 509, in other words - our hypothetical Jesus Family Tomb.

That this ossuary, and eight others (five with significant inscriptions also), was filed away in a warehouse and ignored for 16 years is testament to the fact that even the IAA specialists thought `this is not significant, the names are common'. Thankfully, some people who were a little more curious than that decided to investigate further. This book is their story, told in their own words.

So, given that...

a) the tomb has an uncontested official provenance;
b) the six ossuary inscriptions have all been authenticated with consensus opinion;
c) four of the names are significant/uncommon spellings or nicknames;
d) the names fit a list of potential candidates for a Jesus Family Tomb based on detailed textual analysis;
e) the tomb fits the right time period;
f) the statistical probability of this cluster of names arising in a single tomb is very low ranging from millions to one to a `super conservative' 600:1*

and,

g) there is a strong possibility based on scientific evidence and background information that a tenth ossuary, inscribed `James, brother of Jesus' belongs in the Talpiot tomb. If correct, as one statistician put it - `the case is an absolute slam-dunk', meaning the probability goes through the ceiling. This would effectively close the case for all but the most unreasonable, cynical or dogmatically incapable.

...what do you think?

Easy to dismiss out-of-hand as `utter rubbish'?

Or, worth further investigation?

Notes:

* This final equation actually excluded some of the more interesting inscriptions, such as one inscribed Joseh, a nickname for Joseph (much like `Joey') that is unique among the thousands of ossuaries discovered; it also excludes the `son of Joseph' patronymic on the Jesus ossuary. It also includes negative factors such as the brothers of Jesus not present in the tomb grouping. This is statistically significant as two of the missing names are relatively uncommon. Further, the total was divided by a factor of four to allow for `unintended bias' in the historical sources. It was then divided by 1000 to allow for the maximum number of tombs that may have existed in the 1st century. This is how we get from millions to one down to this 600:1 figure. In other words, it is a very conservative estimate, yet still making the conclusion highly probable. Scholars who wish to factor in even more negative powers whilst eliminating all positive ones are being unreasonable and are probably driven by other agendas.

In an extensive survey conducted by Gallup in 1981, eight million people claimed to have had a near-death experience (N.D.E.). Of course, such figures are highly controversial, but even if we assume 99% of these claims are unfounded, hallucinatory or hoax we'd still have 80,000 cases to explain.

My point is this: NDEs seem to be a relatively common phenomenon. However you choose to explain them (or explain them away, if you're a materialist), there is definitely something going on here that needs investigating.

If you're going to pick one particular NDE to write an entire book about, then it would be sensible to pick one that was among the more convincing. Some of the criteria that you might be looking for are:

1. The subject's account contains verifiable details of events that occurred whilst the subject was unconscious or pronounced clinically dead. Ideally, these details will be verified by a relatively impartial person, such as a nurse or doctor.

2. The subject relates the experience in their own words.

3. The account is recorded (written down or taped) as close to the NDE occurrence as possible so as to prevent memory loss or embellishment over time.

4. The account is placed in some context or comparison with other NDE accounts.

These criteria might seem a bit limiting, but given the number of NDEs experienced it shouldn't be too hard to find some that fulfil all these characteristics. Indeed, there are many recorded instances that do match these criteria, many involving children.

So, how does `Heaven Is For Real' stand up to these criteria? Well, with the possible exception of the first one (although Colton's possible OBE is related to his father - a Christian pastor and certainly not an impartial witness), it largely fails on the other three.

True, a few sections include a reconstructed dialogue between Todd, the father, and Colton the subject, but these feel heavily edited. Watching Colton in interviews online

([...]),

he tends to be either very vague, say he's forgotten certain details or uses pre-prepared phrases. For example, when asked in one interview, `what did Jesus look like', Colton replies:

`Well, with Jesus, he has a rough, kind face and sea-blue eyes that look really pretty and a smile that lit up the heavens.'

This will either sound sweet or sickly sentimental depending on your tastes, but the main point is that Colton repeats this phrase virtually word for word in another online interview. This is not to say his experience wasn't real, but it does suggest that over time it has become somewhat formalised and rigid. When asked to describe God, Colton says something like: `he was big enough to hold the whole world in his hands', which is both vague and abstract and has the ring of a Sunday school saying rather than a description of a genuine experience. Indeed, if taken literally Colton's description would mean God was practically unseeable and yet he also reports that God has wings and that two figures (Jesus and Gabriel) are sat either side of him.

In other sections we are told that Colton relates details about religious figures, such as John the Baptist, that he couldn't possibly have known. This is despite the fact that both of Colton's parents are Christian, his father is a pastor, Colton attended Sunday school regularly prior to his experience and was read bible stories at bed-time since a very early age.

Elsewhere, we are told that Colton related information about an unborn baby that his mother had lost, information he could not possibly have known. Again, whilst this may be info gained from a genuine NDE, a sceptic would note that Colton's older sister had been told about the lost baby. This indicates that the rest of the family had openly discussed it and the information could have been picked up either subconsciously by Colton or through direct relay from the sister. In other words, not very convincing details.

Bear in mind that all of this is relayed via Colton to Colton's dad (over a period of years) then via him to a ghost writer - Sarah Palin's ghost-writer no less (yikes!).

Any room for embellishment there?

Much is made of Colton's apparent inability to find a matching image of Jesus when shown pictures by his family. This part of the story is built up over several chapters until the climax where Colton finally finds the perfect image of Jesus. This happens to be a painting by a child called Akiane Kramarik, an alleged child prodigy who has claimed to have visions of heaven since an early age.

They say a picture speaks a thousand words. Perhaps a video speaks even more. I would urge potential readers or those who have read the book to watch both Colton, Todd's and Akiane's interviews online, as these speak volumes. Notice Todd's uncomfortable demeanour throughout, and the interaction between him and his son. In all the interviews I watched, Colton appeared almost doped. I'm not suggesting he was literally drugged, but his body language is very strange and uncomfortable to watch. Could be put down to nerves, but his dad, at least, should be comfortable in front of audiences (especially favourable Christian ones) - that is, after all, his natural profession.

Regards Jesus' portrait, the book leads one to believe that Akiane's vision was somehow a vision of the same heavenly realm that Colton visited. However, when Akiane describes her painting in her own words (in an online interview) it seems a lot more down to earth:

Akiane: `For many years I was looking for a Jesus model, and I couldn't find anyone who present Jesus my Lord, well...and one day, I decided to pray all day....the next day a seven foot carpenter came through the front door...

Interviewer: Seven foot!

A: Yes!

I: Wow, he's a wonder, wow, that's big

A: I asked him to model for me, but it took the carpenter a few weeks to decide and he made a decision to model for me and that's how these two paintings came along.

I: amazing..that he was a carpenter

A: Yes!

I:..and he came to your door?

A: Yes

I: Now, is he a family friend?

A: Yes

( [...] )

At this point the interviewer rapidly changes tack. The interviewer notably failed to follow this interesting detail. Was the `carpenter' a family friend prior to his turning up at Akiane's door, by any chance?

Overall, the impression left after reading this book, is that it has been written as a lucrative comforting device for Christian believers.

My own suspicion is that Colton did have some sort of genuine experience, but this has become layered, adapted and edited in varying degrees by a slightly desperate parent and then written up by a ghost writer whose main focus is story-telling not fact-finding. NDEs seem to be partially subjective. Reading other children's NDE accounts balances out this partiality. For instance, not all children report Christian details - non-religious and other religious figures crop up regularly. In an interview, Colton himself says something along the lines of - `God showed me things that made me comfortable'. My own speculation is that the afterlife is both non-physical and partially mind-formed and that like minded spirits/souls are attracted to one another. If correct, this may be a source of comfort to many - though personally I will be disappointed if I cannot spend at least some of eternity laughing in Richard Dawkin's face :).

This book does contain some interesting discussions on, for example, epistemology, the basis for moral values, Eastern religions, cultural relativism etc..

I get the sense that it may have been a worthwhile book when it was first published in 1976. But now, despite attempted revisions, it is looking decidedly dated. This is most apparent in the chapters on New Age and Postmodernism, and the total lack of information on the emergent Integral Worldview (which has progressed radically in the past 15 to 20 years and is now, arguably, at the forefront of cultural evolution.)

Also, it is generally weighted down by the author's own bias - worldviews are shot down in their introductory paragraphs - presented as having no value whatsoever (postmodernism being a case in point). Is there really not a single piece of wisdom salvageable from the entire postmodern enterprise?

Although I fully recognise it is written as a cross comparison from a Christian perspective, I don't believe that need result in unfair representation of opposing or differing views. In fact, I believe doing so is counter productive and morally dubious.

More importantly, and hence the one star award, the book contains some pieces of misinformation so profoundly misleading (or downright false) that the entire project must be thrown in to doubt.

One star reviews are often a sign of an over-reaction on the reviewer's part - but, as an analogy, imagine you had bought an encyclopaedia only to find that one chapter was full of false information and misleading accounts. Would you then trust the rest of the book as providing sound, reliable information? Or would you bin it and buy a decent encyclopaedia?

In `The Universe Next Door', the author mentions American philosopher and Integral Theorist Ken Wilber on a number of occasions, mostly within the chapter on New Age. I'm pretty certain that Wilber would have a lot to say about being placed in that chapter, for starters, but let's get down to specifics with a direct quote from Sire's book - in order to see the level of misinformation I'm talking about:

`Some of the most sophisticated new consciousness proponents, like Ken Wilber, are not occultists in the usual sense.'()'Rather they accept the languages of all systems of reality - the languages of sorcery and science, of witchcraft and philosophy, of drug experience and waking reality, of psychosis and normality - and they understand them all to be equally valid descriptions of reality.'...'So there is no critique of anyone's ideas or of anyone's experience.' p212 `The Universe Next Door'

This is such utter nonsense it beggars belief. Not only is it bordering on slander - implying that Wilber might be some sort of drugged up, psychotic sorcerer, but it is so utterly, bewilderingly mis-representative of Integral Theory that I can only conclude the author is either a) deliberately attempting to mislead his readers or b) has not read a single book by Wilber or c) some combination of both. Either way, it's shameful scholarship.

Firstly, and most importantly, the whole purpose of Integral Theory and practice is to orientate (the individual and collective) towards the awareness of nested holarchies (hierarchies that transcend and include). The Integral Systemic Worldview (which is entry level integral awareness as it arises in the individual) `realises that some views are more true, and less partial than others. In other words, every view is not equal' (p95 Integral Life Practice') this is so basic to the Integral Approach, that not even the most cursory glance at its propositions could miss this. It is explained in varying degrees of complexity and subtlety in every piece of Wilber's writing. It is the ground zero of Integral thought and awareness.

Secondly, the Integral worldview is not synonymous with the so-called New Age. If, as Sire suggests, New Age's prime reality is `the self', then Integral Theory does not subscribe to even the most basic prepositions of New Age. The prime reality of Integral Theory is Source, or Non-Dual Spirit - otherwise known as God. Is this too confusing to the author? Or perhaps it doesn't fit his preconceived notion that all `New Agers' are narcissistic adolescents suffering from an inflated ego and a god-delusion?

As it emerged in the sixties and seventies, transpersonal psychology was certainly influenced by New Age thought. However, things have moved on quite considerably since then. Sire has either not been paying attention, or is aware of those changes and has decided to ignore or deliberately obscure them.

None of this does Christianity, the author's chosen worldview, any favours. In fact, it is entirely counter-productive. Integral Theory is only threatening to certain levels of the Christian worldview. There are already a number of leading Christian thinkers who are embracing the Integral approach as an embellishment to their faith. Richard Rohr, Jim Marion, Carl McColman and Father Thomas Keating spring to mind. Of course, the notion of levels of consciousness might be one the author rejects, but the evidence is quite considerable and I would like to see him write off developmental psychologists such as Jean Piaget, Abraham Maslow, or Harvard professor Robert Kegan as occultists!

This book was first written in the 1970's and has gone through five revised editions. I feel it is now in need of a serious overhaul, if it is to make it to a sixth edition. One suggestion, for starters, is to try and write an account that presents the respective worldviews in ways that the holders of those views would not feel cheated, slandered or misunderstood. In other words, the author needs to grow up and get real. Next, the author should consider a complete re-write of the New age chapter removing all reference to people for whom the New Age worldview described is not representative - for example - Ken Wilber, Andrew Cohen and to a lesser, but still significant degree, Eckhart Tolle.

The names mentioned are not New Agers (as defined) because - for one - their prime reality is not the `self', as the author states. Nor does their world revolve around drugs, Age of Aquarius theories, astrology, or crystals, as the chapter would tend to (heavily)imply to those who had not previously encountered the people in question.

A new chapter needs to be included, that encapsulates the Integral (meta)worldview - a system of thought and practice that has matured and progressed incredibly in the past 10 to 15 years. The evidence for levels of consciousness cannot be ignored or swept under the carpet and since it is crucially relevant to the entire concept of worldviews it definitely needs to be addressed. I also suggest that the author either leaves that chapter to someone else to write or gets it previewed by someone suitably knowledgeable. If the author cannot bring himself to write a reasonably non-biased, informative and balanced account of the current state of affairs, just as he couldn't bring himself to write about Islam (which displays a level of passionately held faith perhaps, but is pathetic scholarship) perhaps he should consider a career elsewhere.

The fact that this book has sparked a debate amongst Christians is probably the thing that makes it most worthwhile.

The main questions that seem to have arisen are `is Rob Bell a universalist?' and `is he an orthodox Christian?' The two questions are closely linked.

However, the more pressing question and the one the book is really concerned with is:

do we believe an all-loving God would send anyone to eternal punishment?

As far as I understand it, Orthodox Christianity has, for at least the majority of it's history, held to the worldview that states: death is either the gate to life with God and his people or the gate to eternal separation from God, in Hell.

Now, I fully agree with Bell that this `story' is a little bewildering, to put it mildly.

I, like Bell, find it impossible to square with the notion of an all-loving, all powerful, omniscient creator God. God created human beings with the foreknowledge that some of them - the majority, if we take the biblical laws literally - have one relatively short (and often painful) life on earth followed by an eternity of torment and suffering in Hell - with no hope of redemption.

And this is good news? This is a loving relationship?

So, yes, the traditional story is a bit freaky.
But is that the true story?
Bell seems pretty certain it isn't.

The start of the book is concerned with Bell's attempts to convince the reader that the story of eternal punishment is actually a misinterpretation of Scripture. I found the bits where he analysed particular passages and sayings were interesting.

A lot of this came down to a perceived mistranslation or mistaken context. Unfortunately, many readers (including myself) will lack the theological and scholarly knowledge to judge whether Bell's interpretations have real credibility or are merely wishful thinking.

Common sense suggests - if the mis-translations were so obvious why has this not been addressed before - where did the idea of eternal damnation arise and why has it been so prevalent? These questions are not addressed. Bell's lack of detail and depth on the historical and theological side left me suspecting he hasn't fully looked into all this. Either that, or he's trying to keep the book simple and appealing to a mass audience. If it's the latter then he could have included footnotes for the more inquisitive reader.

After trying to persuade that eternal damnation was never the real story, Bell moves on to
his central portrayal of an all-loving God who ultimately gets his way (and, hence, `love wins').

Now, this is undeniably a much more appealing story. Many contemporary Christians have already begun to question the notion of an all loving, all powerful God who is also jealous, judgemental, wrathful, tribalistic and occasionally downright petty.

But what about jesus?

The problems arise (for Bell, that is) when he tries to fit this all loving, all inclusive God into the implicit exclusive path of Christianity i.e. `only through Christ do all people ultimately go to heaven'. Bell, certainly doesn't want to discard that bit of the traditional story.

This is where the book moves on to the nature of Jesus and how he redeems all humanity, hence avoiding that nasty eternal judgement stuff.

Unfortunately, Bell is extremely vague as to how this actually might work or have worked in history ( before jesus appeared on earth, is an obvious example, geographically distant cultures, another ) and what it means for other religious and non-religious paths. He doesn't seem to be an inclusivist or a pluralist, but how exactly does his explanation pan out?

He states that first it's important to know which Jesus we're talking about and then goes on to describe a Jesus that is `a mystery', `supracultural' and `as wide as the universe'. So, who we're talking about is essentially pretty ineffable, right?

His conclusion that Christianity's exclusiveness remains but that it is `an exclusivity on the other side of inclusivity' is definitely a step into the mysterious.

It's a paradox, perhaps - two opposing truths ( absolute inclusivity / exclusivity) operating on a continuum. To me, this would have to be a matter of faith to be explored in a relationship of contemplation, prayer and worship - a mystery, a belief deeply held to be true, but not provable in the sense that certain statements can be proven to be true (beyond reasonable doubt).

Bell however, states it is `absolutely, unequivocally, unalterably not true' that Jesus doesn't matter.

This absolute insistence is designed to counter the obvious objections:

if conscious rejection of Christ as our one and only saviour still results in an eternal loving relationship with God, then why and how does Jesus matter?

If Atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists etc. are all ultimately redeemed, then what does it matter which path we choose in this life?

Hell might be a place of conscious choosing (as Bell suggests) but this does not explain the blissful relationships some non-Christians claim to have with God. Or happy, life-loving, charitable, selfless athiests! Are they actually just responding to Jesus but in another name? Or are they experiencing some sort of hell that is actually rather pleasant??

Bell doesn't really answer any of this. He just states that it is the case that Jesus matters - absolutely - no question.

Dogmatic insistence is often a sign that you're losing the argument - or trying to end the discussion before it gets too tricky.

Don't question!
It's the truth - end of.
Which is weird,
Because Bell seems to like questions.
He's all for mystery and openness
when it suits.

So, has Bell subscribed to his own version of liberal, universalist Christianity - a worldview that improves on some of the inherent problems of the orthodox version but threatens to make itself redundant in the process? Bell claims that Christ transcends all stories and attempts to confine him but doesn't fully acknowledge that this itself is another story.

Countering this with dogmatic assertions that his worldview is absolutely, unequivocally and unalterably true doesn't begin to deal with the new internal problems.

Nor does it deal with all the 'orthodox' Christians on his doorstep wondering what's happened to their old story...

One Christian review on the net, from a Christian pastor, criticised bell's unorthodoxy, accused him of dodgy theology, prayed for his soul and asked,

`where is the fear, where is the wrath?'

Other irate reviewers on here are certain it's all rubbish.
They don't seem at all happy with this new 'exclusivity' that means everyone is included!

Bell will have his work cut out if he wishes to convince such people to sway his way. To do it, he may have to stop asking so many questions and start clarifying his answers.

Whatever the outcome, let's sincerely hope love wins.

(For what it's worth, I don't believe `Love Wins' takes things far enough - to the absolute inclusivity beyond exclusivity on the other side of inclusivity!

God's love is absolute, infinite and always. Eternally ever-present. There is nothing apart from God and God transcends all things.

Original sin is the mistaken identity of the separate self - separate from God. No being is separate from the infinite and absolute, hence there is nothing we can do to gain, earn or get any closer to God's love except drop the illusion of the separate-self (which is ultimately a choiceless choice beyond effort - we experience it through grace). All sin results from fear of a separation that is tragically mistaken. Yet it is all ultimately part of the Divine plan. The human mind cannot ever fully comprehend this as it is in the mind's very nature to separate; it can only be known, beyond words, transcending mind, beyond beliefs and stories (including this one).

`Be still and know that I am God'.

Love wins, not because there is a linear sequence in which at some points love is winning and at others losing, God is all-powerful, omnipresent and pure perfect Love after all. Love wins because there is, ultimately, no linear sequence. Time is an illusion - only relatively real. The self, separate from God, is an illusion too (it separates to relate to the relatively real!), and all is Ever-present Divine Love in a relationship of the one and the many that is not-two.

But that is another story :).)

Are you a Christian who is a little worried about Evolution Theory and its implications? Don't fret, Mr Davis has explained it all for you in two pages and dismissed its implications in one paragraph.

Do nasty NeoDarwinists and Atheists keep accusing you of being dumb? Relax, nice Mr Davis will tell you about some New Testament writers who have done lots of thinking for you. None of this thinking will be placed in a critical or historical perspective (as that is apparently the most arrogant thing a person can do) and any difficult issues regarding contradictions with other New Testament writers will be ignored, but don't let that trouble you.

And don't forget - whenever you're thinking about God or reading your Bible you're using your mental capacities - so how can you be accused of non-thinking?? (Of course an Atheist is also using their mental capacities when considering the natural processes of cause and effect, in fact every moment of your life from birth to death involves a corresponding brain signal, but let's not be too rational about this.)

Still concerned? Let Mr Davis comfort and bamboozle you with the exciting new prospect of NeuroTheology. Surely this will prove that our brains were designed by God? Nevermind that only a handful of scientific papers have been produced so far, or that most interpretations of the data are reductionist and materialistic i.e. the completely opposite conclusion.

But maybe you're still not sure your faith is 100% watertight and unassailable?

Here's Davis again with the ultimate defence mechanism: all other ideas that differ from yours are the work of Satan. Non-believers, under the influence, have been

`called to embrace reason and intellect and thus to reject God.'

They have fallen for the `oldest con in history', namely believing they can think for themselves and gain knowledge. But hopefully we can save them from eternal damnation for misusing the brains God gave them - presumably with a call to reject reason or intellect....

Okay - apologies for the Dawkins style tone, but sometimes you've got to stir people up to get a proper debate going.

Sadly, `Why Faith Makes Sense' doesn't encourage believers to engage in rational debate or pursue independent enquiry. It is the literary equivalent of a comfort pillow, a pacifier. It seeks to comfort Christians that their faith is unarguably the Truth. It does this largely by ignoring, distorting, misunderstanding or demonising the main counter claims.

The six so-called `holes in evolutionary theory' are all shop-worn Creationist arguments. Most of these issues e.g. insufficient time, improbability, insufficient evidence have been dealt with in depth and countered (with supporting evidence) by not only Neo-Darwinists, but also many Christian evolutionary biologists.

Davis' take on evolution seems to be that God pops up now and again to create new species. The trouble with this is that it's a `God of the Gaps' - a solution which has proven time and time again to be a bad theological move. Religion won't trump Science with Bad Science or more the case - a non-science claiming to be science.

The Theory of Evolution does not disprove God (it cannot - it is out of the realms of its explanatory power), nor does it out-rule a faith-based perspective. However, it does pose a highly significant obstacle to the type of Creationist perspective Davis seems to be promoting.

Theistic Evolution is a different approach to the problem, but not Davis' cup of tea, presumably, as he fails to investigate it, other than a cursory dismissal.

Interestingly, this is despite quoting from Dr Francis Collins (the director of the Human Genome Project), on the very first page and thanking him in the Acknowledgements. Collins, unlike Davis, is an advocate of Theistic Evolution and a staunch critic of Intelligent Design and Literal (young earth) or (god of gaps) Creationism. Is the author trying to mislead readers into thinking a prominent scientist supports his views?

Again and again, Davis fails to address the real challenges and misinforms the reader on a number of issues. Contrary to Davis' claim, it appears that macroevolution, for example, has been demonstrated in the laboratory:

`Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature'
Wikipedia on Macroevolution

His argument regarding the Second Law of Thermodynamics has been categorically refuted as false and totally misleading. Don't take my word for it: in `The Language of God' (p.173) Collins states that the Second Law of Thermodynamics `clearly does not' rule out the possibility of evolution. Again, Davis' acknowledged correspondent and `inspiration to many believers' Dr Francis Collins is in disagreement with the author. Mr Davis claims to have been in dialogue with Dr Collins prior or during the writing of this book. It makes you wonder what they were discussing.

At other points in the book the author descends towards the bottom of the barrel. In chapter 6 (p97) Davis seems to be insinuating that Hitler was a perfect example of Humanist ethics at work. This is a cheap ploy and an attempt to demonise opposing systems of thought. He may argue that he is making a reasonable point, but the implication is clear. If we want to get into cheap point scoring, let's just say that any Christian willing to drag Hitler into the argument is treading on very thin ice. Do they really want a discussion regarding the influence of Christianity on Hitler's Anti-Semitism?

One of the main things that strikes me on reading this book is the process by which apparently reasoned, flexible and open thinking can rapidly descend into closed, dogmatic assertions.

A good example of this is the chapter on natural revelation - the possibility of God revealing Himself through nature. Davis begins with a story of his own spiritual experience as an eleven-year -old in which he felt God's presence whilst climbing in the Rocky Mountains (p65).

He goes on to deduce from this that `natural revelation makes belief in a God rational', which is a perfectly reasonable assertion and a common Theological claim. However, within a few paragraphs this has descended into a dogmatic insistence that `every person sees the evidence. Every person is led to the same conclusion' and the `inarguable evidence of God in nature' (also p65).

So we have gone from an ineffable experience of an eleven-year-old child to the highly dogmatic assertion that all humans must conclude the same thing.

More worryingly, the conclusions that he draws throughout the book seem to be fuelled by a fear that is almost paranoid and an `us and them' separation that positively discourages rational discussion.

How are we to judge which worldview is more advanced or morally superior to another?

The sort of people that seem to have been attracted to Keller's church, and hence form the background of this book - these `sophisticated New Yorkers' - seem to have succumbed to an extreme version of moral and cultural relativism. They have concluded that we cannot judge another person's worldview as `each are equally valid'. This leads to an inherent contradiction - a worldview that cannot validate itself as superior by its own terms.

The author does pick up on this repeatedly throughout the book and it's a valuable realisation. However, he than makes a rather odd leap of reasoning (or a reasoned leap of faith perhaps?). Because these people cannot seem to account for why their worldviews are `better' - then why not accept the worldviews of the Bible? At least the Bible has a reason why it's superior - it's the word of God.

Keller doesn't seem to acknowledge that there is an implicit danger in claiming that the Bible is inerrant and also a viable source of moral guidance. Just for starters - which bible are we talking about? Which bits of moral guidance?

I'd hazard a guess that Keller's confused New Yorkers would wake up from their relativist slumber pretty quickly if he started directly eroding their hard-earned human rights or liberal outlooks and replacing them with dogmatic biblical laws - many of which were implicitly sexist, homophobic, bigoted and ethnocentric.

On this subject, Keller goes on to argue that just because contemporary readers are shocked by many of the things done in God's name within the Bible we should not reject it (or God) on that basis (as why should God be subservient to our moral outlook?). Again, this is warped reasoning and I suspect he only gets away with it because his audience have been stunned by the unexpected revealing of their own inadequately reasoned worldview.

I am not being entirely dismissive of all of Keller's arguments (or the Bible, for that matter). His `clues for God's existence' are valid (though not original) and his initial point about the contradiction of cultural/moral relativism is also correct.

There are rational reasons to believe there is a God. There are rational reasons to believe there is an afterlife. But given those two beliefs there is no direct rational reason to then conclude the Bible is the direct, inerrant word of God, or further - that God is a triune God who sent his only son to be sacrificed for our sins.

Keller repeatedly plays on the performative contradictions of extreme relativity because, frankly, it's his strongest hand to play. When he has to tackle such thorny issues as the historical Jesus and the context in which the New Testament evolved he descends into a simplistic either/or argument in which he whitewashes over any opposing views with broad dismissive swipes.

For example, he doesn't mention the general consensus amongst those who practice and teach the Historical Critical Method in seminaries all over the world - views that have been established for hundreds of years - i.e. that, amongst many things, the Bible is certainly not inerrant: it is full of discrepancies, inconsistencies, and contradictions, plus examples of human error and deliberate manipulation.

Following C.S. Lewis - who is quoted extensively - (and Bono - who is he trying to impress with that one?! ), Keller also re-issues the old argument that non-believers have only three basic choices regards their interpretation of Jesus. With regards to Jesus' claim to be the Son of God - we must conclude he is either a) a liar b) a lunatic or c) telling the truth.

Or as Keller puts it `if Jesus was not a lunatic, then our only alternative is to accept his claims and centre our entire lives around him'.

Really? That's the only rational alternative?

Of course it isn't. Another alternative, which actually stands up to close analysis, is that Jesus never claimed to be the literal, one and only, Son of God. Jesus is indeed referred to as `son of god' in the early synoptic gospels but we cannot know if these are the words of jesus or a later overlay (even the earliest gospel was written decades after his death). Besides, ancient Jews would have interpreted this phrase to mean `a human being in a close relationship with God - one through whom God does his work on earth'.

The proto-orthodox interpretation that was gradually evolving in the decades after Jesus' death had, arguably, more in common with the then existent mystery cults of Mithras and Isis - both human/divine figures who supposedly were born of virgins and supposedly suffered, died and were resurrected for our sins. Keller neither mentions nor considers any of this.

Another of Keller's arguments is equally weak. He argues that given that it would have been embarrassing for the early Christian believers to acknowledge that the main eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection were two women - then we can reasonably conclude that those accounts are true.

Actually this is a valid point (as far as it goes). The criterion of embarrassment is one of the tools biblical scholars use to determine which bits are more likely to have occurred. Fair enough - but then what? A very basic horizontal reading (cross comparison) of the Gospel accounts illustrates how inconsistent these so-called eyewitnesses were. What did the women see when they went to the tomb? A man? Two men? Two angels or one angel? Was the stone already rolled back or did they witness this event. Who were the women present and how many of them were there (gospel accounts don't agree on this basic point)? And what did these varied possible figures they claimed to see (man, men, angels?) actually say or do (again, very different accounts)?

We have four very differing accounts - written by unknown authors - the earliest of which (Mark) simply has the women running away from an empty tomb...no body, no resurrected Christ at all.

The Gospels had been handed down over a period of decades in oral form (often under intense outside pressure and opposition) - then written in a different language to that used by Jesus and his disciples - and then the originals have been lost.

But Keller would probably object - if these accounts are not true - then how do we explain the growth of early Christianity? Surely the only possible explanation is that Jesus was actually resurrected in bodily form? Again - simplistic either/or reasoning. Ask yourself this: how many new Christian believers arising in the world today have actually seen and touched the body of the resurrected Christ? Perhaps you're a Christian reading this. Have you ever touched Jesus' actual body? No? Then why believe?

That's not the same? Things were different back then? Well then - how do we account for the thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of people living in the first century C.E. who believed in the divine/human figures of Mithras or Isis or Dionysus? These divine saviours were supposedly resurrected and also died for our sins. Must these accounts also be literally true? How else could these cults have started?

The reality is - people then, as now - were just as eager to believe things that gave them comfort or hope or meaning. It was often enough that somebody said there were eyewitness accounts. I am not denying that many of those early believers might have seen something or had powerful spiritual experiences. But as Keller himself points out - sightings of the recently deceased by the living are extremely common and well documented.

Keller may argue that the cults of Mithras and Isis were religious cults followed by Gentiles not Jews and that `Jesus' resurrection would have been unthinkable to the Jews'. This is a valid interpretation, which is possibly one of the reasons so many Jews rejected the claims of Christianity and continue to do so until today.

True, many early followers of Jesus (before and after his death) were Jews, (as Jesus himself was a Jew, albeit a revolutionary one) though not all placed the same emphasis on his resurrection as, say, Paul or John did. The Ebionites, for example, are thought to have descended from the earliest followers in Jerusalem (via James, the brother of Jesus). They believed Jesus was a human - an apocalyptic prophet, teacher and healer. Their main emphasis was not on his resurrection, but rather his teachings whilst alive. For example, they followed Jesus' directions regarding the Torah (as recorded in Mathew), unlike later Christians.

Keller seems to presume an across the board orthodox consensus for early Christians (with all its theological claims instantly emerging) - something which clearly did not exist.

Obviously, the development of early Christianity is a highly complex and contentious issue and one that cannot be summed up with sweeping statements such as Keller seems to want to do.

Talking of sweeping statements, I am not saying that orthodox Christian beliefs cannot be true. I am saying that, in my opinion, the arguments and evidence that the author in question presents for accepting or entertaining those beliefs are much less conclusive or simplistic than he suggests. They do not seem to have been subjected to adequate critical reasoning or to have been placed in a fully examined historical context.

In conclusion, Keller's `reasons' for God are good, if not original (or conclusive). His awareness of the problem of moral relativism is also relevant. But any reasoning sceptic worth their salt should seriously question his solutions. On top of this, his arguments for orthodox Christianity are not as strong or as clear-cut as he claims and actually weaken his other arguments and hence the overall claim of the book's title.

On the whole, Alister McGrath does a fine job of pointing out the most glaring flaws in Dawkins' book `The God Delusion'. A lot of the material is similar to McGrath's `Dawkins' God', although the forcefulness is increased (though never descends into childishness or arrogance, unlike Dawkins) and the argument is a little more concise and specific.

McGrath `wins' hands down on the majority of points raised but, to be honest, these points are the more obvious ones. Hopefully it was clear to anyone `Bright' enough that Dawkins was often being incredibly one-sided, simplistic and distorting the facts to fit his own worldview. His arrogant tone, his black/white simplicity, his lack of philosophical muscle, his contradictory worldview, his category confusions, his reductionism. These are often apparent to even the Dawkins fans.

Atheist fundamentalism, like any form of fundamentalism, needs to be examined in the light of reason. It's one-sided reductionism needs to be revealed in a broader context without descending into it's own world of `us vs. them'. McGrath manages that to some degree.

However, the deeper issue of Reductionist-Materialism (which is often the foundation of Atheism) is not really tackled at all and surely this is the main intellectual obstruction to the acceptance of the possibility of divine spirit.

Also, I feel McGrath fails to convince on the matter of faith. He comments that Dawkins' conception of faith is simplistic, biased and uneducated and he does point out several specific errors of interpretation and poor research to back this up. He also alludes to the irony that much of Dawkins' own hypothesis is closer to a personal belief than an objective fact - the `God virus' and the meme have not been scientifically verified or even generally accepted by the scientific community (their explanatory value is highly debatable and there is much doubt that they could ever be empirically tested). But McGrath doesn't clearly explain how faith can be rational, he just sort of says `many intelligent and respected people believe it can be'. This is just not good enough if he aims to convince any die-hard atheists or even open-minded agnostics.

Perhaps that is beyond the aims of this book - which is less a `case for God' than a direct addressing of the flaws and faults in Dawkins' book, but I felt it was the weakest link in McGrath's counter-argument and could have been addressed in more depth.

Unlike dawkins' book there are no major flaws here. It is all well-written and gracefully argued, yet it doesn't go far or deep enough to warrant five stars (despite my grievance that it's got less amazon stars than Dawkins' god-awful trash!).

There may not be any conclusive knockout blows in the ring of popular opinion (few will have their minds changed), but if it's a philosophical fight I know who my money's on.

In other words, you might not appear to win many casual arguments with Ward's considered and subtle approach but the genuine seeker of truth will recognise he's thought things through fully, whereas Dawkins beefs himself up with belligerant and irate rhetoric and is often lacking in depth (especially when it comes to philosophy or the understanding of spiritual experience).

Is this the ultimate counter-argument to Dawkins' 'The God Delusion?'

No, mainly because (sadly) it just won't sell as many copies. It's audience is more select, I suspect - those who desire a cogent argument against religious fundamentalists and creationists (Dawkins fans) probably outweigh those who are looking for an open-minded, rational quest for insight into ultimate reality.

The vast percentage of the book is written from an essentially non-religious, Theistic perspective. It's only towards the end that Ward mentions his own Christian beliefs. Personally, this is where I depart from Ward's beliefs but I am still interested in how Christians rationally and intelligently defend their faith.

It would undoubtedly be fun if someone could rip into 'The God Delusion' with the ferocity that Dawkins regularly displays.

But personal reactions aside, the truth is - none of these arguments (from either side) have the grounds for dogmatic certainty. Ward acknowledges this with grace - the title of his book is just an attention grabber in many respects - what he really means is - his 'certainty' is no less (and arguably much more) rational than Dawkins' own claim. So..not as explosive or controversial a claim as Dawkins makes, but in my mind a more reasonable, realistic and intelligent one.

I would have liked to have seen more emphasis on consciousness, the evolution of mind/spirit and the distinction between interior/exterior aspects of contemplation and personal experience of spirit (and the subsequent philosophical and ontological implications), but this was still an enjoyable and welcome book that can be read in one or two sittings.

Contains a number of interesting accounts of NDEs experienced by children. Many of these include OBEs in which the child accurately describes events that occured whilst they were unconcious or effectively dead.

His research suggests that NDEs only occur where the patient actually 'dies' for some period with no comparable experiences for seriously ill children or children whose treatment includes mind altering medication.

Morse manages to counter the common alternative/ reductionist explanations for NDE's (for example 'the endorphin model', hallucination, anesthetic or drug effects).

Dawkins is rather fond of referring to Darwinian evolutionary theory as `consciousness raising', one of the ironies being that he himself states that consciousness maybe one of the `gaps' that Natural Selection cannot explain. Nor, it seems, is his beloved theory capable of explaining the `momentous' and `statistically improbable' development of the eucaryotic cell, the evolution of the `moral zeitgeist' or indeed, `the origin of life'(p140). Ooops. Not that I'm promoting a `God of the gaps' or I.D., but the nature of consciousness, morality and why there is something and not nothing aren't just minor side issues when it comes to discussing the meaning of life.

These rather large and conspicuous gaps would be enough for most thoughtful scientists to resist conclusions on the nature of ultimate reality, but not the dogged Dawkins. He battles on beyond his theoretical limitations, his `amateur psychology and sociology' (philosophy too, methinks) and the limitations of rational thinking to proclaim with the utmost confidence the `nature of God'. On what basis? Good old common sense, reason, logic and a smattering of bible reading. What other tools are there?! Since Dawkins has relegated all possibility of trans-rational awareness to either deranged nonsense or the unfortunate after effects of temporal lobe epilepsy (p163) then he has nowhere else to go.

When it comes to God, Dawkins is (unconsciously?) convinced that a literal, mechanical way of thinking is the only option - God `cannot be, whatever else he may be, simple'. Really? Oh...'common sense' I suppose? He also seems to define God as a `separate' being `living' in an `other worldly domain' `crashing through into our world' - a simplistic and dualistic understanding and a bit of a straw man / God.

So, according to Dawkins, God has to be `complex' and since `the only process ultimately capable of generating complexity out of simplicity', `as far as we know' is Natural Selection then God is not required and obviously a `delusion'. That this is the backbone of Dawkins' argument and belief system is really rather frightening when he's supposedly one of the most intelligent humans currently alive (not my supposition by the way). It's not that his argument is false or illogical, but it's simply nowhere near as strong, convincing or enlightened as he imagines it to be.

Dawkins seems to be so fixated on dismembering fundamentalist Christianity and a literal Old Testament perception of God that he falls into a very two dimensional worldview. This is exacerbated by his lack of knowledge regarding other, especially non-western religions and particularly any form of serious trans-rational enquiry.

From Dawkins' rational viewpoint all he percieves are lower forms of consciousness (pre-rational, pre-scientific, medieval, illogical and non-evidence based). Within this worldview, science / reason has elevated him to the highest possible level of awareness. From this pedestal he dismisses those below, often with acerbic (and grating) glee, oblivious to any possibility of higher forms of awareness than his own and his so called `Bright' pals.

He's willing to admit that `our imaginations are not yet tooled up to penetrate the neighbourhood of the quantum' where `common sense lets us down'; but is noticably silent regarding the other area where common sense lets us down, that is, the direct experience of God, (the possibility for which there is considerable evidence, if you seek it).

He deliberately (and quite rightly, I believe) exposes the factual errors of fundamentalist religion, using the tool of rational enquiry and evidence based knowledge. Fair enough. However, that's hardly a novel concept and more importantly, that's as far as he goes. He then becomes mired in his own dogmatic and ultimately equally fundamentalist position.

Perhaps Dawkins is ignorant where it comes to the documentation of authentic trans-rational experience or perhaps he is totally convinced in his temporal lobe epilepsy hypothesis. If it's the latter then be a scientist Richard and show us the evidence - otherwise it's just rhetoric,dogma and subjective bias. If it's ignorance, then his whole `God Delusion' project appears more like a non-evidence based belief than a well rounded objective judgement.

A damaging book...if taken as gospel.