What do you think?
Rate this book
Godforsaken: Bad Things Happen. Is There a God Who Cares? Yes. Here's Proof.
For a lot of people, the biggest question about God is not, surprisingly enough, whether he exists. Instead, it is about whether God is truly good. Dinesh D'Souza, in his debates with leading atheists, quickly realized that many of those debates revolved around the question of evil in this world--how God could create a world that allowed such suffering and evil. In Godforsaken, Dinesh D'Souza takes these questions head on: Does God act like a tyrant? Is God really responsible for the evil in this world? Why is there suffering in the world? For the first time ever, Dinesh D'Souza approaches this topic with historical and scientific proof and presents to the reader why God is truly worthy of our worship and love.
Republished in softcover as What's So Great about God.
Republished in softcover as What's So Great about God.
274 pages, Hardcover
First published February 14, 2012
49 people are currently reading
553 people want to read
About the author
Dinesh D'Souza
53 books905 followersDinesh D’Souza is a political commentator, bestselling author, filmmaker and a former policy analyst in the Reagan White House, Dinesh D'Souza graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Dartmouth College in 1983. He served as John M. Olin Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and the Robert and Karen Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. D'Souza writes primarily about Christianity, patriotism and American politics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews
August 3, 2012
With this treatise on evil and suffering, D'Souza confirms his status as one of today's top public intellectuals writing on religious philosophy. His delicate but forceful handling of the anthropic principle again reveals the skill that has earned him the respect of atheist debate partners, such as the late Christopher Hitchens. His aim here is not only to reassure believers but to dismantle atheism's frequent claim that Christianity is untenable because inconsistent (on the issues of a benevolent God and a suffering-filled world). He does a masterful job exposing the logical fallacies that plague typical conversations on these topics, but probably the enduring achievement of the book comes in chapter 6 when he investigates the consequences of free choice and the requirements of a lawful universe. (And in fact, his work regarding the Edenic “blindspot” in our modern cosmology should earn its place on the mental bookshelf of every Christian apologist.)
Sidenotes: D'Souza accepts macroevolution, but most of his cosmological and biological arguments should be of great interest even to those who don't agree with him on every point. Also, his struggle with Calvinism (or perhaps hyper-Calvinism) late in the book came off as cursory in a way that the rest of the book does not.
Sidenotes: D'Souza accepts macroevolution, but most of his cosmological and biological arguments should be of great interest even to those who don't agree with him on every point. Also, his struggle with Calvinism (or perhaps hyper-Calvinism) late in the book came off as cursory in a way that the rest of the book does not.
May 13, 2012
God Forsaken – the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
The constant debate between Christians and Atheists seems to always to orbit around the problem of a benevolent God with the reality of a broken, evil world. While this struggle has been going on for centuries, D’Souza brings some fresh perspective to the table, invoking modern day science as proof for theism. At first blush, this may seem counterintuitive, but D’Souza’s arguments are balanced and compelling. These insights would have inspired a 5 star review from me, that is, until I got to the last chapter of the book which talked about the afterlife. Here, D’Souza completely drops his logic utilized in the first 90% of his book and goes with a typical Evangelical pat answer. There is a tremendous amount of good in this book that should be praised. With that being said, there is some ugly in this book that needs to be addressed.
The Good
The biggest issue in defending the Christian faith is the problem of theodicy. Why did an all loving, all powerful creator make a world with so much pain and evil? This is typically the biggest arguing point from atheists and their concerns are legitimate. Yet D’Souza fearlessly tackles these concerns using empirical evidence from modern sciences like Astronomy, Biology and Geology. Many of his arguments are nothing incredibly new – he employs many of the typical free will defense logics and things like the anthropic view of the Universe in his case. However, while many of his arguments are often used to defend the existence of God, he uses them in a way to reconcile the problems between an all loving God and a suffering world. In modern Christianity, where tragedy and suffering is gratuitously met with the pat answer of, “it was God’s will”, D’Souza’s wonderful perspective is badly needed. I sincerely hope that more people run down the road he has pioneered.
Another important feature of D’Souza’s arguments is that he compellingly uses evolution as a theodicy defense. Not only does this make the case for Christianity much stronger, it should also help Christians come to grips with the seemingly obvious fact that evolution is scientifically proven and the world and universe are really, really old. Christians who believe in a literal six day creation may have some epistemological shock when reading D’Souza’s book since many of them were ingrained to believe that evolution threatens the Faith. Yet D’Souza argues that Darwin’s evolution was a gift and actually helps to prove the existence of God and the problem of theodicy.
There were pages upon pages of facts and quotes that were just begging to be highlighted (which was sad for me because the book was a loaner). D’Souza did a respectful job in presenting the case of his opponents before he attempted to refute them. His logic was seemingly free from any straw man arguments. Although many of his thoughts were particularly new, the way he presented them were wonderfully fresh. I particularly enjoyed his take on wounded theism and global perspectives of suffering.
The Bad
There aren’t many nuances to criticize in the book. D’Souza tackled quite a broad topic and because the book wasn’t all that long, some of his chapters felt crammed and glossed over. D’Souza admittedly tries to address both Christians and atheists, but I felt his writing was largely focused on refuting atheists. Not that there’s anything wrong with this, but some of the more theological aspects of the book felt rushed through. Certain aspects may leave Christians on edge, like his belief that God doesn’t have feelings. While this is a completely legitimate view, it can be quite a jarring statement if it’s not properly fleshed out. While he is against anthropomorphizing God, he does this very thing in trying to explain the Atonement. God “suffered the death and loss of his son”, D’Souza writes, but this statement is logically inconsistent with the fact that he stated that God does not have feelings in a few chapters prior.
While the majority of the book was logically coherent, some of his examples here found wanting. D’Souza devotes an entire chapter to the problem of evil in the Old Testament. His defensives were on the right track, but D’Souza sort of gave up the fight at the end. One can’t put too much critique on D’Souza since the issue of the Old Testament alone merits volumes instead of mere pages, nevertheless, I was left a little disappointed.
The Ugly
Up until this point, my review, with the exception of a few nuances, has been praiseful of this book. However I must say that I found the last chapter of the book, which deals with the concept of eternal hell, to be borderline disturbing. I will say that many Christians, particularly Evangelicals, would disagree with my critique. I can respect that. It is true that I passionately disagree with D’Souza’s view on some sort of eternal conscious torment. But I’m not one to just give a bad review because I disagree. I found his arguments on this topic to be woefully inconsistent and damaging to the rest of the book, thus my reason for criticism.
The entire scope and reason for D’Souza’s book was to address the problem of evil by using science as its chief argument. And yet, when it comes to the problem of a omnibenevolent God sending people to Hell for eternity, he throws his former logic right out the window. His response to Hell, put plainly, is the woefully Evangelical pat answer of “God wants to save everyone, but his justice prevent him from saving those who reject him”.
D’Souza admits that this is the biggest problem with proving that God is all loving, yet he spends the least amount of time defending it. In fact, his defense makes other parts of his book painfully contradictory. In previous chapters, D’Souza rightfully combats the argument that says the world is so full of suffering that it would have been better if God wouldn’t have created us at all. D’Souza uses the example of an amputee and compellingly argues that even in the face of suffering, there is still enough beauty in the world to make life worth living. This is well and good…if eternal suffering weren’t in the equation.
Life is indeed worth living, even at the risk of excessive suffering. But if by existing meant the possibility of eternal conscious torment, then it would be much more beneficial if none of us ever existed. To put it another way, if there were any chance that my two sons would go on from this life to experience eternal conscious torment, as much as I love them, it would have been morally repugnant for me to bring them into the world. This is a powerful and devastating argument held both by atheists and certain Christians, yet D’Souza glosses over it with one of the flimsiest church traditions.
It gets worse. D’Souza goes out of his way to argue that Hell is essentially a blessing from God. He says, “Hell, too, is a tribute to God’s generosity. How? By being a testament to God’s commitment to human freedom.”
There is no sliver of logic in this maddening quote. How can any sound-minded individual honestly believe that the invention of eternal torment is a gift from God because it upholds the integrity of human free will? If by having free will meant that the majority of history’s humans were consigned to eternal torment, I’d much rather God made us all robots.
But D’Souza doesn’t stop there. He spends approximately half a page in “refuting” the doctrines of annihilatationism and universal reconciliation. While these two doctrines are respectfully held by many Christians, fully arguable from a Biblical standpoint, and easily more reconcilable with theodicy, D’Souza writes them off by saying they’re “clearly opposed to what the Bible repeatedly teaches”. He then goes on to defend his view of hell that, by-and-large, renders much of his book null and void.
I was very excited for this book and loved it all the way up until the ending. Unfortunately, with all of his compelling arguments, atheists will always have an upper hand in the debate for exposing a doctrine that makes God a moral monster. I would still definitely recommend this book for Christians who wish to sharpen their apologetical skills and acquire a healthy view of why God allows suffering. However, I’m afraid that this book will do nothing in compelling an atheist to believe in God. The gravest concern about our faith was met with an underwhelming, and maybe even counterproductive, response.
The constant debate between Christians and Atheists seems to always to orbit around the problem of a benevolent God with the reality of a broken, evil world. While this struggle has been going on for centuries, D’Souza brings some fresh perspective to the table, invoking modern day science as proof for theism. At first blush, this may seem counterintuitive, but D’Souza’s arguments are balanced and compelling. These insights would have inspired a 5 star review from me, that is, until I got to the last chapter of the book which talked about the afterlife. Here, D’Souza completely drops his logic utilized in the first 90% of his book and goes with a typical Evangelical pat answer. There is a tremendous amount of good in this book that should be praised. With that being said, there is some ugly in this book that needs to be addressed.
The Good
The biggest issue in defending the Christian faith is the problem of theodicy. Why did an all loving, all powerful creator make a world with so much pain and evil? This is typically the biggest arguing point from atheists and their concerns are legitimate. Yet D’Souza fearlessly tackles these concerns using empirical evidence from modern sciences like Astronomy, Biology and Geology. Many of his arguments are nothing incredibly new – he employs many of the typical free will defense logics and things like the anthropic view of the Universe in his case. However, while many of his arguments are often used to defend the existence of God, he uses them in a way to reconcile the problems between an all loving God and a suffering world. In modern Christianity, where tragedy and suffering is gratuitously met with the pat answer of, “it was God’s will”, D’Souza’s wonderful perspective is badly needed. I sincerely hope that more people run down the road he has pioneered.
Another important feature of D’Souza’s arguments is that he compellingly uses evolution as a theodicy defense. Not only does this make the case for Christianity much stronger, it should also help Christians come to grips with the seemingly obvious fact that evolution is scientifically proven and the world and universe are really, really old. Christians who believe in a literal six day creation may have some epistemological shock when reading D’Souza’s book since many of them were ingrained to believe that evolution threatens the Faith. Yet D’Souza argues that Darwin’s evolution was a gift and actually helps to prove the existence of God and the problem of theodicy.
There were pages upon pages of facts and quotes that were just begging to be highlighted (which was sad for me because the book was a loaner). D’Souza did a respectful job in presenting the case of his opponents before he attempted to refute them. His logic was seemingly free from any straw man arguments. Although many of his thoughts were particularly new, the way he presented them were wonderfully fresh. I particularly enjoyed his take on wounded theism and global perspectives of suffering.
The Bad
There aren’t many nuances to criticize in the book. D’Souza tackled quite a broad topic and because the book wasn’t all that long, some of his chapters felt crammed and glossed over. D’Souza admittedly tries to address both Christians and atheists, but I felt his writing was largely focused on refuting atheists. Not that there’s anything wrong with this, but some of the more theological aspects of the book felt rushed through. Certain aspects may leave Christians on edge, like his belief that God doesn’t have feelings. While this is a completely legitimate view, it can be quite a jarring statement if it’s not properly fleshed out. While he is against anthropomorphizing God, he does this very thing in trying to explain the Atonement. God “suffered the death and loss of his son”, D’Souza writes, but this statement is logically inconsistent with the fact that he stated that God does not have feelings in a few chapters prior.
While the majority of the book was logically coherent, some of his examples here found wanting. D’Souza devotes an entire chapter to the problem of evil in the Old Testament. His defensives were on the right track, but D’Souza sort of gave up the fight at the end. One can’t put too much critique on D’Souza since the issue of the Old Testament alone merits volumes instead of mere pages, nevertheless, I was left a little disappointed.
The Ugly
Up until this point, my review, with the exception of a few nuances, has been praiseful of this book. However I must say that I found the last chapter of the book, which deals with the concept of eternal hell, to be borderline disturbing. I will say that many Christians, particularly Evangelicals, would disagree with my critique. I can respect that. It is true that I passionately disagree with D’Souza’s view on some sort of eternal conscious torment. But I’m not one to just give a bad review because I disagree. I found his arguments on this topic to be woefully inconsistent and damaging to the rest of the book, thus my reason for criticism.
The entire scope and reason for D’Souza’s book was to address the problem of evil by using science as its chief argument. And yet, when it comes to the problem of a omnibenevolent God sending people to Hell for eternity, he throws his former logic right out the window. His response to Hell, put plainly, is the woefully Evangelical pat answer of “God wants to save everyone, but his justice prevent him from saving those who reject him”.
D’Souza admits that this is the biggest problem with proving that God is all loving, yet he spends the least amount of time defending it. In fact, his defense makes other parts of his book painfully contradictory. In previous chapters, D’Souza rightfully combats the argument that says the world is so full of suffering that it would have been better if God wouldn’t have created us at all. D’Souza uses the example of an amputee and compellingly argues that even in the face of suffering, there is still enough beauty in the world to make life worth living. This is well and good…if eternal suffering weren’t in the equation.
Life is indeed worth living, even at the risk of excessive suffering. But if by existing meant the possibility of eternal conscious torment, then it would be much more beneficial if none of us ever existed. To put it another way, if there were any chance that my two sons would go on from this life to experience eternal conscious torment, as much as I love them, it would have been morally repugnant for me to bring them into the world. This is a powerful and devastating argument held both by atheists and certain Christians, yet D’Souza glosses over it with one of the flimsiest church traditions.
It gets worse. D’Souza goes out of his way to argue that Hell is essentially a blessing from God. He says, “Hell, too, is a tribute to God’s generosity. How? By being a testament to God’s commitment to human freedom.”
There is no sliver of logic in this maddening quote. How can any sound-minded individual honestly believe that the invention of eternal torment is a gift from God because it upholds the integrity of human free will? If by having free will meant that the majority of history’s humans were consigned to eternal torment, I’d much rather God made us all robots.
But D’Souza doesn’t stop there. He spends approximately half a page in “refuting” the doctrines of annihilatationism and universal reconciliation. While these two doctrines are respectfully held by many Christians, fully arguable from a Biblical standpoint, and easily more reconcilable with theodicy, D’Souza writes them off by saying they’re “clearly opposed to what the Bible repeatedly teaches”. He then goes on to defend his view of hell that, by-and-large, renders much of his book null and void.
I was very excited for this book and loved it all the way up until the ending. Unfortunately, with all of his compelling arguments, atheists will always have an upper hand in the debate for exposing a doctrine that makes God a moral monster. I would still definitely recommend this book for Christians who wish to sharpen their apologetical skills and acquire a healthy view of why God allows suffering. However, I’m afraid that this book will do nothing in compelling an atheist to believe in God. The gravest concern about our faith was met with an underwhelming, and maybe even counterproductive, response.
July 21, 2012
I have two Goodreads friends who have written excellent reviews of this book which I highly recommend:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
I had never read D'Souza before so I was not entirely sure what to expect. He writes in an easy-to-read style that covers a lot of ground but also shows that he has the depth to go into the various topics more deeply if he so wished. This book could be read by any person interested in the subject. At the same time, this introductory-level type book does gloss over some of the difficulties. This is apparent in the subtitle: "here's proof". To claim to prove something that has been debated upon since forever comes across as a bit over-the-top. Is D'Souza saying that any person with a brain who reads his book will be convinced? The truth is that there is no knock-down proof that will end all debate.
At the same time I read this I was working through Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga's God, Freedom and Evil . Plantinga admits, at the end, that you cannot prove God. You can show that belief in God is rational though. D'Souza should take a page from Plantinga and say his book shows it is rational to believe in God, even if he cannot prove there is a God.
There was a lot I liked about this book. D'Souza shows that atheists have their own problem of evil to deal with. He puts forth a free will defense, arguing that free will to do good or evil is necessary for God to accomplish the greater good. I think his explanation of natural evil by arguing for the necessity of many of the natural forces that cause evil is also decent. Using the Anthropic Principle to support his case, as well as appearing to embrace evolution, are both good moves. I think his discussion of the apparent rage of God in the Old Testament is helpful.
There were some places where I think D'Souza is a bit off. One example is his discussion of Adam and Eve, where he makes the statement that God does not want Adam and Eve to know good and evil. Perhaps it is because I just read Peter Enns' Evolution of Adam , but this statement seems wrong (though it is probably the way Christians have traditionally viewed it). It makes more sense to say God did want Adam and Eve to know good and evil eventually, but to do so in God's way and by taking the shortcut they failed. Overall, I was unimpressed with his discussion of Adam and Eve.
At one point D'Souza says that if God made his presence obvious then humans would be forced to believe in him. If the goal is for humans to grow into virtuous creatures, and allowing free will is essential in this, then the hiddenness of God makes sense. But later D'Souza talks about hell and affirms the traditional eternal conscious torment view. If this is the future for humans, then I do not see how God being hidden is just. If God wants people to choose good and not spend eternity in hell then free will and becoming a better person through free choices are irrelevant. I may want to teach my child how to make good choices, but if our house is on fire I am not going to stay hidden to see if she chooses - a loving parent would reveal himself to save. I think to retain God's love and justice the Christian cannot hold God being hidden, human free will and eternal hell all at the same time.
Another way hell nearly ruins his argument is when you compare it with what he said earlier in the book. He notes, in discussing amputees, that it is better to exist as an amputee than to not exist at all. True, but is it better to be in hell then to not exist at all? If faced with eternal hell or nonexistence, who would not choose non-existence? As a side note I wonder if he read Love Wins , since he says Rob Bell "embraced" universalism in it which is just not true.
Overall, this is a pretty good book even though I have mentioned some flaws I see in it. At the end of the day it seems there are two ways to deal with evil, from a Christian perspective, the philosophical way or the Jesus way. D'Souza joins a long tradition in the philosophical way and this is a valuable way to look at things. But I resonate, personally, much more with telling what God has done about evil and suffering through the work of Jesus. Thus, a book like Evil and the Justice of God by NT Wright moves me much more than D'Souza's. The Bible never says why there is evil and suffering, at least not the full theodicy we may desire that explains all evil and suffering. But the Bible does give us a story of what God has done about it.
The story of God suffering for and with creation may not answer why, but it does answer what God has done. D'Souza's book would benefit from a bit more about this than just an add-on at the end.
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
I had never read D'Souza before so I was not entirely sure what to expect. He writes in an easy-to-read style that covers a lot of ground but also shows that he has the depth to go into the various topics more deeply if he so wished. This book could be read by any person interested in the subject. At the same time, this introductory-level type book does gloss over some of the difficulties. This is apparent in the subtitle: "here's proof". To claim to prove something that has been debated upon since forever comes across as a bit over-the-top. Is D'Souza saying that any person with a brain who reads his book will be convinced? The truth is that there is no knock-down proof that will end all debate.
At the same time I read this I was working through Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga's God, Freedom and Evil . Plantinga admits, at the end, that you cannot prove God. You can show that belief in God is rational though. D'Souza should take a page from Plantinga and say his book shows it is rational to believe in God, even if he cannot prove there is a God.
There was a lot I liked about this book. D'Souza shows that atheists have their own problem of evil to deal with. He puts forth a free will defense, arguing that free will to do good or evil is necessary for God to accomplish the greater good. I think his explanation of natural evil by arguing for the necessity of many of the natural forces that cause evil is also decent. Using the Anthropic Principle to support his case, as well as appearing to embrace evolution, are both good moves. I think his discussion of the apparent rage of God in the Old Testament is helpful.
There were some places where I think D'Souza is a bit off. One example is his discussion of Adam and Eve, where he makes the statement that God does not want Adam and Eve to know good and evil. Perhaps it is because I just read Peter Enns' Evolution of Adam , but this statement seems wrong (though it is probably the way Christians have traditionally viewed it). It makes more sense to say God did want Adam and Eve to know good and evil eventually, but to do so in God's way and by taking the shortcut they failed. Overall, I was unimpressed with his discussion of Adam and Eve.
At one point D'Souza says that if God made his presence obvious then humans would be forced to believe in him. If the goal is for humans to grow into virtuous creatures, and allowing free will is essential in this, then the hiddenness of God makes sense. But later D'Souza talks about hell and affirms the traditional eternal conscious torment view. If this is the future for humans, then I do not see how God being hidden is just. If God wants people to choose good and not spend eternity in hell then free will and becoming a better person through free choices are irrelevant. I may want to teach my child how to make good choices, but if our house is on fire I am not going to stay hidden to see if she chooses - a loving parent would reveal himself to save. I think to retain God's love and justice the Christian cannot hold God being hidden, human free will and eternal hell all at the same time.
Another way hell nearly ruins his argument is when you compare it with what he said earlier in the book. He notes, in discussing amputees, that it is better to exist as an amputee than to not exist at all. True, but is it better to be in hell then to not exist at all? If faced with eternal hell or nonexistence, who would not choose non-existence? As a side note I wonder if he read Love Wins , since he says Rob Bell "embraced" universalism in it which is just not true.
Overall, this is a pretty good book even though I have mentioned some flaws I see in it. At the end of the day it seems there are two ways to deal with evil, from a Christian perspective, the philosophical way or the Jesus way. D'Souza joins a long tradition in the philosophical way and this is a valuable way to look at things. But I resonate, personally, much more with telling what God has done about evil and suffering through the work of Jesus. Thus, a book like Evil and the Justice of God by NT Wright moves me much more than D'Souza's. The Bible never says why there is evil and suffering, at least not the full theodicy we may desire that explains all evil and suffering. But the Bible does give us a story of what God has done about it.
The story of God suffering for and with creation may not answer why, but it does answer what God has done. D'Souza's book would benefit from a bit more about this than just an add-on at the end.
June 7, 2023
This book is a philosophical argument for the premise in the title. Enlightening. The author covered many points on both sides of the argument that I had not considered before.
July 9, 2012
For a lot of people, the biggest question about God is not, surprisingly enough, whether he exists. Instead, it is about whether God is truly good. Dinesh D'Souza, in his debates with leading atheists, quickly realized that many of those debates revolved around the question of evil in this world—how God could create a world that allowed such suffering and evil. In Godforsaken, Dinesh D'Souza takes these questions head on: Does God act like a tyrant? Is God really responsible for the evil in this world? Why is there suffering in the world? For the first time ever, Dinesh D'Souza approaches this topic with historical and scientific proof and presents to the reader why God is truly worthy of our worship and love.
Godforsaken was a carefully researched book that really spoke to both the intellectual and emotional side of any person, Christian or otherwise. Dinesh D'Souza broke his book into six parts. The first part is an introduction to the reality of suffering in this world and how all people groups everywhere at some point both experience and struggle with suffering and evil. The second part quickly yet thoroughly analyzes the typical Christian and atheist both approach the conundrum of how a good God can exist and yet the reality that there is evil and suffering in this world. This part also shows how each Christian and atheist argument is flawed and cannot truly satisfy people's questions about evil and suffering. The third part addresses the moral evils that exist in this world as pertains to both people's free will, God's sovereignty, and the consequences of a fallen world. The fourth part of Godforsaken looks at the crimes that occur in nature and how those relate to the power and character of God. The fifth part deeply analyzes the character of God and how the evil and suffering in the world do not contradict the characteristics of God or lead to the conclusion that a loving God does not exist. Finally, the book concludes in the sixth part by emphasizing that we are not godforsaken, but rather, loved and ultimately saved by the God of mercy and grace.
Godforsaken is written in a way that is both enjoyable and stimulating. I was able to understand what the author was saying and still think critically about whether or not I agreed with his points. I liked D'Souza's organization of the book and his liberal use of quotes, research, and his experiences to drive home and complement what he was saying. I also appreciated his critique of atheist arguments about God and suffering, and his inclusion of his own experiences debating with world renowned atheists.
Overall, I thought Godforsaken was well written, organized, intellectually stimulating, and one of the best arguments and discussion on God, evil, and suffering that I have ever read. I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants an intellectual yet emotionally resounding explanation of evil and suffering.
Godforsaken was a carefully researched book that really spoke to both the intellectual and emotional side of any person, Christian or otherwise. Dinesh D'Souza broke his book into six parts. The first part is an introduction to the reality of suffering in this world and how all people groups everywhere at some point both experience and struggle with suffering and evil. The second part quickly yet thoroughly analyzes the typical Christian and atheist both approach the conundrum of how a good God can exist and yet the reality that there is evil and suffering in this world. This part also shows how each Christian and atheist argument is flawed and cannot truly satisfy people's questions about evil and suffering. The third part addresses the moral evils that exist in this world as pertains to both people's free will, God's sovereignty, and the consequences of a fallen world. The fourth part of Godforsaken looks at the crimes that occur in nature and how those relate to the power and character of God. The fifth part deeply analyzes the character of God and how the evil and suffering in the world do not contradict the characteristics of God or lead to the conclusion that a loving God does not exist. Finally, the book concludes in the sixth part by emphasizing that we are not godforsaken, but rather, loved and ultimately saved by the God of mercy and grace.
Godforsaken is written in a way that is both enjoyable and stimulating. I was able to understand what the author was saying and still think critically about whether or not I agreed with his points. I liked D'Souza's organization of the book and his liberal use of quotes, research, and his experiences to drive home and complement what he was saying. I also appreciated his critique of atheist arguments about God and suffering, and his inclusion of his own experiences debating with world renowned atheists.
Overall, I thought Godforsaken was well written, organized, intellectually stimulating, and one of the best arguments and discussion on God, evil, and suffering that I have ever read. I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants an intellectual yet emotionally resounding explanation of evil and suffering.
July 27, 2012
“God Forsaken” deals with a very old issue, the problem of evil. How can God be considered a good God and allow so much evil. Either he is not good or he is simply unable to do anything about it. Dinesh D’Souza writes very well and I thought the book was good. His approach is straight forward, he is not dodging any issues. The author states that it is not his goal nor is he required to offer irrefutable proof that God is innocent. He says the burden of proof, so to speak is on the atheist. All he needs to do is show that the Christian answer is consistent with itself; that our view of God and how he operates comports with reality and our answer is logically consistent our view and understanding of God and His world.
I really like what he says I think it goes rather well with John Fienberg’s book on the problem of evil. Fienberg’s book I believe is the best one written, it’s entitled “The Many Faces of Evil: Theological Systems and the Problems of Evil”
I don’t like how the author gives a lot of ground (I mean a great deal) when dealing with evolution, besides not wanting to get side tracked I think he may have some faulty ideas but that really may be another issue.
It is worth having and reading, but if you only can read one read John Feinberg’s book it really is far better.
I really like what he says I think it goes rather well with John Fienberg’s book on the problem of evil. Fienberg’s book I believe is the best one written, it’s entitled “The Many Faces of Evil: Theological Systems and the Problems of Evil”
I don’t like how the author gives a lot of ground (I mean a great deal) when dealing with evolution, besides not wanting to get side tracked I think he may have some faulty ideas but that really may be another issue.
It is worth having and reading, but if you only can read one read John Feinberg’s book it really is far better.
June 17, 2012
Fantastic study of Christianity.
Dinesh argues convincingly that human suffering does not run counter to the existence of God - but rather is a direct and necessary result of the creation of mankind. The work moves way past simple platitudes regarding human suffering and explains in detail solid arguments for the existence of suffering as a requirement for human freedom and choice.
I had read Bart Ehrman's work on suffering as a case for his atheism and I admit I was concerned - but Dinesh has totally changed my mind in this regard.
Wonderful and satisfying analysis!
Ray
Dinesh argues convincingly that human suffering does not run counter to the existence of God - but rather is a direct and necessary result of the creation of mankind. The work moves way past simple platitudes regarding human suffering and explains in detail solid arguments for the existence of suffering as a requirement for human freedom and choice.
I had read Bart Ehrman's work on suffering as a case for his atheism and I admit I was concerned - but Dinesh has totally changed my mind in this regard.
Wonderful and satisfying analysis!
Ray
August 5, 2012
I followed his arguments closely and liked when he acknowledged the most problematic passages of the Bible, instead of saying "that must be a metaphor," or other ways that some theologians attempt to dismiss the inconsistencies of the Bible. D'Souza manages to make everything consistent within the narrow construct of a just and benevolent all-powerful God in a world with evil and suffering. His use of recent scientific discovery appealed to me. I think peeps of all faiths, agnostics and atheists would find this interesting to understand and consider. I recommend it highly to Christians.
February 24, 2015
A very good and encouraging read!
The author lists the three purposes of this book on page 245: First, to answer the atheist argument that evil and suffering in the world somehow contradict the idea of a God who is both omnipotent and good. Second, to convince both unbelievers and believers that there is reason and purpose for evil and suffering, that even these bad things have their place in God’s great providence. And, third, to specifically address Christians who are suffering.
The author lists the three purposes of this book on page 245: First, to answer the atheist argument that evil and suffering in the world somehow contradict the idea of a God who is both omnipotent and good. Second, to convince both unbelievers and believers that there is reason and purpose for evil and suffering, that even these bad things have their place in God’s great providence. And, third, to specifically address Christians who are suffering.
July 23, 2012
This is an amazing book that does the best job I have ever seen explaining why there is suffering and pain in God's good world. The author, a Christian, uses science and philosophy to answer the objections of critics and atheists. The author's style is delightful and makes one want to keep reading.
June 30, 2012
D'Souza scope is formidable and he offers a wealth of information regarding the finely tuned universe. Unfortunately he flubs it when trying to address the problem of evil, as if God could not have constructed a world where death is not caused by natural events.
July 23, 2012
I thought I was a pretty deep thinker but D'Sousa answers questions I haven't yet asked. I'm glad he is here debating the hard questiins. I am fascinated at the science he incorporates. And yes, I know a loving caring God. Good to see the big picture.
January 28, 2021
Powerful and so thoroughly thoughtful! Love it.
April 5, 2012
-Tyndale House Publishers has provided me with a complimentary copy of this book in exchange for an honest review-
I will admit I wasn't expecting much when I requested to review this book. But I was pleasantly surprised that it ended up being a mostly pleasant read with an engaging style, despite the topic being focused on the idea of suffering.
There are three purposes to this book, the author tells us on page 245:
1 - "to answer the atheist argument that evil and suffering in the world somehow contradict the idea of a God who is both omnipotent and good"
2 - "to convince both believers and unbelievers" (a term I feel to be a little inconsiderate) "that there is reason and purpose for evil and suffering"
and 3 - "to specifically address Christians who are suffering"
In fact, we are told, on page 14, that, in this book, the author proposes to "draw on remarkable advances in physics, astronomy, brain science, and biology to offer a fresh answer to the problems of evil and suffering," and on page 29 he claims to "offer a solution to the problem of evil that, to my knowledge has not been offered before. It is not a solution that displaces existing answers; it is one that complements them and integrates them into a persuasive whole, considering both the Atheist and the Christian perspective of the problem." Through the majority of the text he applies the Anthropic Principle to his arguments in attempts to prove that the existence of evil and suffering do not negate the existence of a loving, compassionate creator God worthy of love and relationship.
Granted, there were places I disagreed with the author, and even a few places I felt the author was being almost dismissive or arrogant in relation to Atheist viewpoints (like saying Atheism doesn't produce much charity, or claiming the idea of compassion as a Christian morality, even though such a virtue has been encouraged through faiths older than even the Jewish religion, references to the idea of "rejection" of God, as though belief is some sort of choice) or the few references to Islam that I found to be projecting one side of the coin, when the whole (or even majority) of adherents to the Muslim faith may not even agree with his statements. There just seemed to be an oversimplification of other beliefs or belief systems, IMO... And knowing Atheists, I'm not sure how comfortable I am with his claims that many are just "angry" with God or disappointed, that some are merely "wounded theists," because while I'm sure that this is sometimes this case, my experience hasn't proven to be the norm, and I don't feel it's my place to judge whether one truly doesn't believe, say out of a lack of evidence, or whether one is just "angry" - it also seems needed to be mentioned that one can be disgusted with or angry at the representation of the Christian religion or beliefs without being angry at God Himself. And I found the page addressing the idea that Atheists are somehow wrong for sticking their noses into religion - he compares it to the ridiculousness of someone writing books to refute the existence of unicorns, for example - and implying they should "ignore it" to be callous and disrespectful because whether or not Atheists believe in God or religion, they live in a world where they are constantly confronted with it, and should have every right to express their disbelief as any of us has to express our belief. But once he got away from that the book was an interesting one to read.
I enjoyed the scientific approach of this book (any Christian who supports the idea of evolution gains some respect in my eyes, lol), as well as the consideration of the various points of view on the topic of suffering and evil and how God relates to them. I may not agree with everything the author seems to state as his own opinion (we vary when it comes to theology as well, in ideas like the fall, the idea of taking up one's cross to follow Jesus, etc), but there were some places and theories where our thoughts did align, such as the importance of the natural laws in the universe when it comes to the development, health, and habitability of our world, the idea that God making Himself obvious would remove the choice of whether or not to believe and change the nature of our relationship with Him, etc. Even when I don't agree with him, most of the times his arguments are reasonable and don't feel quite as "cliche," in my opinion, at least. Though I do believe that some of the arguments he made don't exactly prove his points - like the idea of those in positions of suffering being more religious could have more to do with the psychology of suffering itself than with the actual existence of God, even though I do personally believe in such a Deity. As well, the idea of a moral lawgiver, just because we have morals, isn't in itself proof, as I do believe morality would have developed on it's own even without Divinity. And I disagree that a "purely evolutionary account... cannot account for a degree of human evil that radically surpasses biological necessity."
I did especially like where he touched (starting on page 82) on the idea of soul making, though, as such an idea is foundational to my personal beliefs. So the pages relating to that, even if I see it a little differently from the author, were pleasant for me.
The part I most disagreed with was the section on hell - being a Universalist myself, I disagree with his claims in regard to the history of Universalism throughout Christianity's own history.
(the history of Christian Universalism can be found here : http://christianuniversalist.org/arti...)
I personally believe that looking at the original language one realizes words that the author uses himself, such as "hell" itself, and "eternal" aren't even the original meanings of the original text, and I understand the references in the Bible (for example, sulfur (brimstone), which had healing properties) to be more restorative in nature, not destructive (I'm working on a blog post about this very topic, and perhaps when I am done I will add it to this review, but there are many books out there already that address the issue), and I disagree that eternal punishment for "offenses" that last only so long could be considered just or righteous. I understand that hell is one of the largest complaints against the idea of a loving, righteous God, but I disagree with the author greatly on the subject, so such explanations on how such a thing could be justified just didn't do it for me, especially since it sounded more like an alter call than a justification, if you get what I mean...
All that aside, the book itself was interesting and engaging, and I do think that anyone interested in the idea of suffering and evil would be interested in giving it a read through.
I will admit I wasn't expecting much when I requested to review this book. But I was pleasantly surprised that it ended up being a mostly pleasant read with an engaging style, despite the topic being focused on the idea of suffering.
There are three purposes to this book, the author tells us on page 245:
1 - "to answer the atheist argument that evil and suffering in the world somehow contradict the idea of a God who is both omnipotent and good"
2 - "to convince both believers and unbelievers" (a term I feel to be a little inconsiderate) "that there is reason and purpose for evil and suffering"
and 3 - "to specifically address Christians who are suffering"
In fact, we are told, on page 14, that, in this book, the author proposes to "draw on remarkable advances in physics, astronomy, brain science, and biology to offer a fresh answer to the problems of evil and suffering," and on page 29 he claims to "offer a solution to the problem of evil that, to my knowledge has not been offered before. It is not a solution that displaces existing answers; it is one that complements them and integrates them into a persuasive whole, considering both the Atheist and the Christian perspective of the problem." Through the majority of the text he applies the Anthropic Principle to his arguments in attempts to prove that the existence of evil and suffering do not negate the existence of a loving, compassionate creator God worthy of love and relationship.
Granted, there were places I disagreed with the author, and even a few places I felt the author was being almost dismissive or arrogant in relation to Atheist viewpoints (like saying Atheism doesn't produce much charity, or claiming the idea of compassion as a Christian morality, even though such a virtue has been encouraged through faiths older than even the Jewish religion, references to the idea of "rejection" of God, as though belief is some sort of choice) or the few references to Islam that I found to be projecting one side of the coin, when the whole (or even majority) of adherents to the Muslim faith may not even agree with his statements. There just seemed to be an oversimplification of other beliefs or belief systems, IMO... And knowing Atheists, I'm not sure how comfortable I am with his claims that many are just "angry" with God or disappointed, that some are merely "wounded theists," because while I'm sure that this is sometimes this case, my experience hasn't proven to be the norm, and I don't feel it's my place to judge whether one truly doesn't believe, say out of a lack of evidence, or whether one is just "angry" - it also seems needed to be mentioned that one can be disgusted with or angry at the representation of the Christian religion or beliefs without being angry at God Himself. And I found the page addressing the idea that Atheists are somehow wrong for sticking their noses into religion - he compares it to the ridiculousness of someone writing books to refute the existence of unicorns, for example - and implying they should "ignore it" to be callous and disrespectful because whether or not Atheists believe in God or religion, they live in a world where they are constantly confronted with it, and should have every right to express their disbelief as any of us has to express our belief. But once he got away from that the book was an interesting one to read.
I enjoyed the scientific approach of this book (any Christian who supports the idea of evolution gains some respect in my eyes, lol), as well as the consideration of the various points of view on the topic of suffering and evil and how God relates to them. I may not agree with everything the author seems to state as his own opinion (we vary when it comes to theology as well, in ideas like the fall, the idea of taking up one's cross to follow Jesus, etc), but there were some places and theories where our thoughts did align, such as the importance of the natural laws in the universe when it comes to the development, health, and habitability of our world, the idea that God making Himself obvious would remove the choice of whether or not to believe and change the nature of our relationship with Him, etc. Even when I don't agree with him, most of the times his arguments are reasonable and don't feel quite as "cliche," in my opinion, at least. Though I do believe that some of the arguments he made don't exactly prove his points - like the idea of those in positions of suffering being more religious could have more to do with the psychology of suffering itself than with the actual existence of God, even though I do personally believe in such a Deity. As well, the idea of a moral lawgiver, just because we have morals, isn't in itself proof, as I do believe morality would have developed on it's own even without Divinity. And I disagree that a "purely evolutionary account... cannot account for a degree of human evil that radically surpasses biological necessity."
I did especially like where he touched (starting on page 82) on the idea of soul making, though, as such an idea is foundational to my personal beliefs. So the pages relating to that, even if I see it a little differently from the author, were pleasant for me.
The part I most disagreed with was the section on hell - being a Universalist myself, I disagree with his claims in regard to the history of Universalism throughout Christianity's own history.
(the history of Christian Universalism can be found here : http://christianuniversalist.org/arti...)
I personally believe that looking at the original language one realizes words that the author uses himself, such as "hell" itself, and "eternal" aren't even the original meanings of the original text, and I understand the references in the Bible (for example, sulfur (brimstone), which had healing properties) to be more restorative in nature, not destructive (I'm working on a blog post about this very topic, and perhaps when I am done I will add it to this review, but there are many books out there already that address the issue), and I disagree that eternal punishment for "offenses" that last only so long could be considered just or righteous. I understand that hell is one of the largest complaints against the idea of a loving, righteous God, but I disagree with the author greatly on the subject, so such explanations on how such a thing could be justified just didn't do it for me, especially since it sounded more like an alter call than a justification, if you get what I mean...
All that aside, the book itself was interesting and engaging, and I do think that anyone interested in the idea of suffering and evil would be interested in giving it a read through.
July 20, 2012
Hmm... much of the book was so, so. I am still wondering if it all holds to gather. He is an evolutionist and the main point of the book, is to use the anthropic principle and the fine tuning of the universe to show this is the only kind of world in which humans could have evolved. Therefore, it is necessary for there to be evil, for if no evil, than there is no us. For example Plate-tectonics is responsible for earthquakes, but without plate-tectonics, human life would be impossible for the whole world would be submerged by the ocean, so it is a necessary natural evil. As far as moral evil, he leans to the free will solution, which I whole-heartedly agree with. But yeah, the reason I don't know if it works, is because he still believes in Heaven, in which somehow there won't be the evils anymore, which to me unravels the argument. Are our natural laws really necessary, could God have logically made a different world with different natural laws, in which there was no disasters and suffering? We'll, it seems we have to say yes, if we believe in heaven (the New Earth). Also, it seems that unless there is a sanctification time in heaven (Purgatory), then God evidently can instantaneously change the inclinations of the heart, to love good and hate all evil (think of the criminal on the cross who believed right before dying). So still, i wonder, why didn't he create Adam and Eve with good inclinations, they still would have been free. I don't feel D'Souza did a good job answering this question, though he raised it.
His thoughts on the hiddenness of God were interesting. But I would need to review that section again to share my thoughts.
I did like an insight he shared at the end of the book, concerning how an aspect of Christianity is to suffer with Christ. what he mentioned is to love is to suffer, for the more we love others, the more we hurt when they hurt. in fact if one was a father and lost a daughter in a car accident, it would be deeply troubling not to suffer. So maybe, since to become a Christ is to start loving others more fully, than this could be part of what it means, when Paul wrote that only "Those who suffer with him will be glorified with Him." I hope, for I am rather disturbed by the New Testaments love affair with suffering, the way it glorifies it, says its necessary and that we should practically look forward, embrace and enjoy it. But dang it, these writers of the bible must have really be high on the holy ghost to talk such talk. Of course when they wrote, to be a Christian meant to be tortured, crucified or thrown to the lions.
I almost wanted to give this book 1 star, because Dinesh D'Souza takes the unbiblical view of Calvin, that God is Impassible (utterly indifferent, unable to feel emotions or to be moved by man) and that he is timeless, static and unchanging in the Greek Philosophical sense, in outright contradiction to the Hebrew scriptures. He thinks this solves some problems with the jealously, changing of mind, regret, heartbreak, anger, wrath and emotional outburst God express all throughout the Old Testament. But yeah, if you want to see the bottomless can of worms this opens, read "Time and Eternity: exploring God's relationship to time" by William Lane Craig. Dinesh is merely jumping from the frying pan into the fire, by claiming God is the 'perfect' god of Aristotle. Also, the only way to say God is timeless is to say he can't know everything, for a changeless god, can't know the present, for the present is constantly changing, nor can this god relate with changing human beings, nor can this god have free will, for his static knowledge has always been there frozen and he is a slave to it. also this god never got to create, have a thought, speak a word, be in relationship or do anything, for to do such would mean, there was a BEFORE, DURING and a AFTER which is impossible for this timeless god. This god can't do anything, Aristotle's god is not the God of the bible, it is a shame that D'Souza joins with the Calvinist to affirm this completely absurd and unbiblical view of God.
The other thing that made me want to give the book one star, is his deplorable section on hell. He portrays the Annihilation perspective as a desperate attempt to escape what is to him is the clear doctrine that people are eternally tortured for finite sins and that this is somehow this is just and biblical. But the annihilation interpretation I have now learned is much more in harmony with scripture and the fact that people are so hellbent on holding their precious classical view of hell, instead of being open minded to the obvious, is bothersome to me. Especially since the traditional understanding is so blasphemous and have caused so many to rightful reject God, because they were sold a load of lies about him. Its extremely irresponsible for D'Souza to so quickly dismiss the Annihilationist perspective, for it is the ONLY solution to this part of the problem of evil. This solution not only fits with the Character of God, human reason, justice and love but also is in complete harmony with the bible. Dinesh D'Souza, you need to read "The Fire the Consumes" By William Fudge and you'll get 500 pages of Biblical evidence that the bible does teach that after the judgment God will destroy the wicked completely. But yeah, the Atheist are right in attacking Christians, who go to such length and do mental gymnastics to concocted absurd, laughable arguments to justify and excuse the most wretched and vile idea man has ever conceived. It is horrible when Christians for the sake of holding on to a disgusting, unjust, irrational and unloving belief, defend grotesque evil. God really is worst then the devil, FAR WORSE then the devil if D'Souza is right and no this is NOT a god we can love or worship. D'Souza somehow thinks, the fact that God is not only loving, but also holy and just, shows hell is fine. But what? there is NO justice in an eternity of torture, PERIOD, NONE AT ALL! Also, believing this rest on the assumption that the soul immortal, which is an assumption. Jesus said, fear him who can kill both the body AND THE SOUL in hell. Now one thing I find interesting about D'Souza and others, is that after insisting on the classical view of hell, they say God sends no one to hell, but we all choose to go there. Oh come on! No where does the bible say this, the wicked, after being judged are cast into hell according to scripture, they don't jump of their own free will, but praise the Lord this is for the utter destruction of the wicked.
But yeah, I am looking forward to reading "Satan and the problem of evil" By Gregory Boyd, I am expecting it to be much better. But yeah, still D'Souza did have some original thoughts, and I applaud him for putting them on the table, for what they're worth
His thoughts on the hiddenness of God were interesting. But I would need to review that section again to share my thoughts.
I did like an insight he shared at the end of the book, concerning how an aspect of Christianity is to suffer with Christ. what he mentioned is to love is to suffer, for the more we love others, the more we hurt when they hurt. in fact if one was a father and lost a daughter in a car accident, it would be deeply troubling not to suffer. So maybe, since to become a Christ is to start loving others more fully, than this could be part of what it means, when Paul wrote that only "Those who suffer with him will be glorified with Him." I hope, for I am rather disturbed by the New Testaments love affair with suffering, the way it glorifies it, says its necessary and that we should practically look forward, embrace and enjoy it. But dang it, these writers of the bible must have really be high on the holy ghost to talk such talk. Of course when they wrote, to be a Christian meant to be tortured, crucified or thrown to the lions.
I almost wanted to give this book 1 star, because Dinesh D'Souza takes the unbiblical view of Calvin, that God is Impassible (utterly indifferent, unable to feel emotions or to be moved by man) and that he is timeless, static and unchanging in the Greek Philosophical sense, in outright contradiction to the Hebrew scriptures. He thinks this solves some problems with the jealously, changing of mind, regret, heartbreak, anger, wrath and emotional outburst God express all throughout the Old Testament. But yeah, if you want to see the bottomless can of worms this opens, read "Time and Eternity: exploring God's relationship to time" by William Lane Craig. Dinesh is merely jumping from the frying pan into the fire, by claiming God is the 'perfect' god of Aristotle. Also, the only way to say God is timeless is to say he can't know everything, for a changeless god, can't know the present, for the present is constantly changing, nor can this god relate with changing human beings, nor can this god have free will, for his static knowledge has always been there frozen and he is a slave to it. also this god never got to create, have a thought, speak a word, be in relationship or do anything, for to do such would mean, there was a BEFORE, DURING and a AFTER which is impossible for this timeless god. This god can't do anything, Aristotle's god is not the God of the bible, it is a shame that D'Souza joins with the Calvinist to affirm this completely absurd and unbiblical view of God.
The other thing that made me want to give the book one star, is his deplorable section on hell. He portrays the Annihilation perspective as a desperate attempt to escape what is to him is the clear doctrine that people are eternally tortured for finite sins and that this is somehow this is just and biblical. But the annihilation interpretation I have now learned is much more in harmony with scripture and the fact that people are so hellbent on holding their precious classical view of hell, instead of being open minded to the obvious, is bothersome to me. Especially since the traditional understanding is so blasphemous and have caused so many to rightful reject God, because they were sold a load of lies about him. Its extremely irresponsible for D'Souza to so quickly dismiss the Annihilationist perspective, for it is the ONLY solution to this part of the problem of evil. This solution not only fits with the Character of God, human reason, justice and love but also is in complete harmony with the bible. Dinesh D'Souza, you need to read "The Fire the Consumes" By William Fudge and you'll get 500 pages of Biblical evidence that the bible does teach that after the judgment God will destroy the wicked completely. But yeah, the Atheist are right in attacking Christians, who go to such length and do mental gymnastics to concocted absurd, laughable arguments to justify and excuse the most wretched and vile idea man has ever conceived. It is horrible when Christians for the sake of holding on to a disgusting, unjust, irrational and unloving belief, defend grotesque evil. God really is worst then the devil, FAR WORSE then the devil if D'Souza is right and no this is NOT a god we can love or worship. D'Souza somehow thinks, the fact that God is not only loving, but also holy and just, shows hell is fine. But what? there is NO justice in an eternity of torture, PERIOD, NONE AT ALL! Also, believing this rest on the assumption that the soul immortal, which is an assumption. Jesus said, fear him who can kill both the body AND THE SOUL in hell. Now one thing I find interesting about D'Souza and others, is that after insisting on the classical view of hell, they say God sends no one to hell, but we all choose to go there. Oh come on! No where does the bible say this, the wicked, after being judged are cast into hell according to scripture, they don't jump of their own free will, but praise the Lord this is for the utter destruction of the wicked.
But yeah, I am looking forward to reading "Satan and the problem of evil" By Gregory Boyd, I am expecting it to be much better. But yeah, still D'Souza did have some original thoughts, and I applaud him for putting them on the table, for what they're worth
November 29, 2020
theodicy - the branch of theology that defends God's goodness and justice in the face of the existence of evil. theology, divinity - the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth.
Referencing philosophers, theologians, and atheists - past and present - and quoting from the Bible, D'Souza's dust jacket explains: "It's not that they refuse to believe in God; rather they are angry and disappointed with God. Many unbelievers are wounded theists. And their main complaint is that God, who is supposed to be all-powerful and good, seems in reality to be uncaring and even malicious. They fault God for allowing so much evil and suffering in the world....Here Dinesh D'Souza draws on new discoveries in modern science to offer an original solution that will satisfy believers and challenges the most hardened skeptics."
A fascinating book that will strengthen your faith.
Referencing philosophers, theologians, and atheists - past and present - and quoting from the Bible, D'Souza's dust jacket explains: "It's not that they refuse to believe in God; rather they are angry and disappointed with God. Many unbelievers are wounded theists. And their main complaint is that God, who is supposed to be all-powerful and good, seems in reality to be uncaring and even malicious. They fault God for allowing so much evil and suffering in the world....Here Dinesh D'Souza draws on new discoveries in modern science to offer an original solution that will satisfy believers and challenges the most hardened skeptics."
A fascinating book that will strengthen your faith.
July 2, 2017
The strongest argument that can be made against God is the problem of evil and suffering that remains in a world that believers say God created, and if He is all-powerful and all good, could change. D’Souza is an excellent thinker who is friends and debating partners with prominent atheists. He contends that human freedom of choice is the ultimate source of all moral evil, but human choice is also the necessary prerequisite for any act of moral virtue. In our God-permitted dignity of choice is the very vehicle for any true humanity. Only Christianity has any explanation and any in-depth solution for the problem of suffering, only Christ bridges the chasm.
June 25, 2024
A must read to understand why you suffer.
Dinesh D’Souza again knocks it out of the park with another boom on Christian understanding.
D’Souza is a true gift from God and this book will help you understand why suffering is key to your spiritual, emotional, physical, and mental growth.
Proverbs 8:35-36
For whoever finds me finds life and obtains favor from the Lord,
but he who fails to find me injures himself;all who hate me love death.”
Dinesh D’Souza again knocks it out of the park with another boom on Christian understanding.
D’Souza is a true gift from God and this book will help you understand why suffering is key to your spiritual, emotional, physical, and mental growth.
Proverbs 8:35-36
For whoever finds me finds life and obtains favor from the Lord,
but he who fails to find me injures himself;all who hate me love death.”
May 24, 2025
This is a good book! I enjoyed variety of thoughts on pain and suffering from Christian believers and Non-believers alike.
With wanting to read further into other thoughts of philosophers mentioned, this was a good starting point.
I liked that the author tried to provide a balance of both Scripture from the Bible and other secular texts to provide an answer to how and why humans suffer pain. He also provides answers to the existence of God and why He cares about human suffering.
With wanting to read further into other thoughts of philosophers mentioned, this was a good starting point.
I liked that the author tried to provide a balance of both Scripture from the Bible and other secular texts to provide an answer to how and why humans suffer pain. He also provides answers to the existence of God and why He cares about human suffering.
June 26, 2018
I wish Dinesh would stop writing books about Christianity. They have devastated my previously-Christian family. Every time a person of faith in my family reads one of his books, it leads them AWAY from Jesus and straight into the arms of SATAN!
January 17, 2024
Very readable and practical, as D'Souza presents arguments in a dialogue-like prose. He also really does present unique arguments to, say, why he doesn't believe man was set up by God to sin though God is omnipotent. Would read again to sharpen my own beliefs.
June 25, 2019
Very much enjoyed.
June 9, 2023
a decent theodicy, with some innovative ideas and refutations
September 1, 2023
“Intellectual answer to the problem of suffering
Seeks to make suffering intelligible. We will still mourn but we won’t blame God for it. Rather we will see why he permits it and we are more likely to draw close to him. A rational ground for Hope and hope is a very powerful medicine.”
Seeks to make suffering intelligible. We will still mourn but we won’t blame God for it. Rather we will see why he permits it and we are more likely to draw close to him. A rational ground for Hope and hope is a very powerful medicine.”
April 5, 2018
Excellent apologetics. He is a clear, concise writer.
October 17, 2014
I do tend to get both sick and tired of the very same continual conversation with any given atheist.
Here's how it generally plays out: After some precursory back-and-forth statements about values and core beliefs the atheist then plays, and say it with me here, the burden of proof card.
"If such a deity does really exist then where is he?"
Obviously, at this point, the coup de grace in this back-and-forth would be for me to physically grab the higher power by either His cufflinks or His lapels and drag Him through the seedy downtown off-street bar to where any given atheist would, and does, continually reside.
But rather than give up/give in to this absolutely awesome burden of proof statement, thus providing both check and mate to any given loud-mouthed non-believer, I typically like to reply with the following: "How else could you possibly explain either colostrum or The Clancy Brothers and Tommy Makem?"
"I can't," my atheist friend would then respond, "It's umpossible. Are you going to eat that last donut?"
Note: If you're in the suburbs and not downtown, I'd recommend subbing out The Clancy Brothers and Tommy Makem with that of Cheap Trick, but otherwise it's a pretty airtight blanket statement. And you could do without that last donut, anyway.
Here's how it generally plays out: After some precursory back-and-forth statements about values and core beliefs the atheist then plays, and say it with me here, the burden of proof card.
"If such a deity does really exist then where is he?"
Obviously, at this point, the coup de grace in this back-and-forth would be for me to physically grab the higher power by either His cufflinks or His lapels and drag Him through the seedy downtown off-street bar to where any given atheist would, and does, continually reside.
But rather than give up/give in to this absolutely awesome burden of proof statement, thus providing both check and mate to any given loud-mouthed non-believer, I typically like to reply with the following: "How else could you possibly explain either colostrum or The Clancy Brothers and Tommy Makem?"
"I can't," my atheist friend would then respond, "It's umpossible. Are you going to eat that last donut?"
Note: If you're in the suburbs and not downtown, I'd recommend subbing out The Clancy Brothers and Tommy Makem with that of Cheap Trick, but otherwise it's a pretty airtight blanket statement. And you could do without that last donut, anyway.
February 11, 2016
evangelical atheist when disappointed with God what expectations humans have, lost children and atheists lost faith hope, theodicy God’s justice and what of evil and suffering, Bible narratives with stories not arguments using metaphors and hyperbole, cosmic justice is what goes around comes around, character forged thru suffering, poor more depend on God verses wealthy self-sufficient, arrogant atheists and horrendous evil, evil as absence of good, of 105b 2%bc 98%ad, torture by animals incapable, without freedom what good what conscious, free to disagree is free will, original sin deny God and pride, delicate earth balance incredible water just 6#’s, God’s divine mercy enabling evolution, insect central nervous system voids, suffering is human gift of lepers, relationship with creator, perception as illusion, win lottery or lose leg happiness as expectations, stoics and no emotion, tragedy then put trust in God, evil not dealt with will metastasize, reject God and do own way reject God though God implanted in every heart as love and good, pain inevitable suffering optional, suffer as much as care.
November 21, 2013
This was a thought provoking read that rightly centered on free will. It discussed the reasons why God might create a world with evil and suffering in it. I found the overall book to be less rigorous in its reasoning than I would have preferred and have marked it down accordingly. The author, who stated clearly at the beginning that he was championing God's side in the debate fell victim to lopsided reasoning in several places in the book. He would dismiss significant arguments from the atheist side on technicalities, yet would often over extend his reasoning in proving a point for his side. This was especially apparent several times when he used science to "prove" a thesis of his. He might have made more solid arguments leaving science out in many cases.
That said, the book challenged me to think about my own understanding of why God allows suffering in the world and to consider some of the attributes he ascribes to God in more detail. Hence it gets three stars for giving me something to think about even if it lacked the rigour I was hoping for initially,
That said, the book challenged me to think about my own understanding of why God allows suffering in the world and to consider some of the attributes he ascribes to God in more detail. Hence it gets three stars for giving me something to think about even if it lacked the rigour I was hoping for initially,
December 30, 2013
I'm a big fan of D'Souza. His treatment reconciling pain/suffering with the Christian faith is well done for the most part. He has definitely made a solid case from the Christian perspective and clearly demonstrated how evil and Christianity can coexist without there being any logical inconsistency.
Personally, I felt his biblical exegesis in the chapter pertaining to 'divine evil' was inadequate. Him and I disagree on a couple key points relating to examples he provides. Other than that, I felt it was a thoughtful and articulate treatment.
I would certainly recommend this book however there are other authors that have provided better commentaries on the subject. Overall, it was a good read.
Personally, I felt his biblical exegesis in the chapter pertaining to 'divine evil' was inadequate. Him and I disagree on a couple key points relating to examples he provides. Other than that, I felt it was a thoughtful and articulate treatment.
I would certainly recommend this book however there are other authors that have provided better commentaries on the subject. Overall, it was a good read.
Read
February 11, 2018This is D'Souza's attempt at a workable theodicy. His basic argument for the presence of evil is that for human beings to enjoy the freedom to choose God over themselves, there is only one way God could have created the world, and unfortunately, that way allows for the presence of evil.
I didn't care much for the theory, though it was well-presented. But it seemed rigid and simplistic. I picked up a few valuable tidbits here and there, making the book worth reading.
But D'Souza's argument sounds old (though I'll admit I can't remember where I've read it before) and doesn't quite suit me. Then again, he is a bit more educated on the topic than I am.
I didn't care much for the theory, though it was well-presented. But it seemed rigid and simplistic. I picked up a few valuable tidbits here and there, making the book worth reading.
But D'Souza's argument sounds old (though I'll admit I can't remember where I've read it before) and doesn't quite suit me. Then again, he is a bit more educated on the topic than I am.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews