What do you think?
Rate this book
A Shot of Faith (to the Head): Be a Confident Believer in an Age of Cranky Atheists
A Shot of Faith to the Head provides Christians with clear and powerful ways to address atheism's most ardent proponents, and it shows that believers can remain calm, confident, and effective in the face of contemporary attacks on faith. But more than just offering defensive tools, the author provides the Christian with powerful means for launching offensive strikes on unbelief. After providing the reader with an update from the front in the war between faith and unbelief, the book presents a fundamental lesson about the very nature of evidence, a lesson extracted from the recent revolution in Christian thought. The book then turns to a handful of the most important specific issues in the debate between belief and unbelief: the surprising implications of naturalism (the view that only the natural world of space and time exists) the universe's remarkable mathematical design the necessary religious nature of science the possibility of good and evil in a purely physical world With this information, Stokes arms readers with the weapons to go on the offensive against unbelief and to be able to use these with kindness for evangelistic purposes.
222 pages, Paperback
First published April 17, 2012
64 people are currently reading
1073 people want to read
About the author
Mitch Stokes
15 books76 followersDr. Stokes received a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Florida in 1992 and an M.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Central Florida in 1994. While serving as an advanced and senior engineer in Florida in the 1990s, Dr. Stokes took theological courses at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando. He went on to complete an M.A. in Religion (Philosophy of Religion) at Yale University under Dr. Nick Wolterstorff in 2001 and an M.A. in Philosophy at University of Notre Dame in 2003. He completed his doctoral studies in Philosophy at Notre Dame under Dr.Alvin Plantinga and Dr. Peter van Inwagen in 2005, prior to joining the New Saint Andrews faculty.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 101 reviews
July 23, 2024
“Faith without some doubts is like a human body without any antibodies in it.”
A SHOT OF FAITH (TO THE HEAD) is not for the casual reader. This is a philosophically dense read, meant to buck up those who struggle with the intellectual arguments against faith. Its arguments are good, thoughtful, even profound…but frankly, I am not sure that this is a good text for the average reader. I had to take my time with it, however, I appreciated its rational bedrock and its delight in meeting the arguments of the “new atheists” head on.
The book is organized along the following lines-
First, the author, Dr. Mitch Stokes, catches the reader up on the latest in the faith vs. unbelief debate, (as of 2012 when the book was published) and then the book dives into a key lesson about what counts as evidence, based on recent shifts in Christian thinking. It then tackles some major topics in the belief vs. unbelief discussion, like the unexpected twists of naturalism (the idea that only the natural world exists), the mind-blowing mathematical design of the universe, (easily the text’s strongest section) the surprisingly religious side of science, and whether good and evil can exist in a world that's just physical.
That's a lot to digest.
Each chapter also ends with a section called ‘For Your Arsenal”, which is essentially a highlight of some of the key points in support of belief that were addressed in the preceding chapter.
Quotes:
• “The real wonder is why anyone believes. The explanation, of course, is that God has begun to repair humanity, at an unimaginable cost to Himself. And that is really good news.”
• “Humans can’t be the standard of absolute right and wrong.’
• “And the conclusion is simplicity itself: if there is no God, there is no evil. Nor is there any good.”
• “…to some degree, the war between belief and unbelief exists in microcosm inside every believer.”
Most anything that takes on the argument that faith in God is irrational or intellectually dishonest will get support from me. I appreciate what I took away from this text, but I am not sure that A SHOT OF FAITH (TO THE HEAD) is for any more than a limited audience within the Christian community.
A SHOT OF FAITH (TO THE HEAD) is not for the casual reader. This is a philosophically dense read, meant to buck up those who struggle with the intellectual arguments against faith. Its arguments are good, thoughtful, even profound…but frankly, I am not sure that this is a good text for the average reader. I had to take my time with it, however, I appreciated its rational bedrock and its delight in meeting the arguments of the “new atheists” head on.
The book is organized along the following lines-
First, the author, Dr. Mitch Stokes, catches the reader up on the latest in the faith vs. unbelief debate, (as of 2012 when the book was published) and then the book dives into a key lesson about what counts as evidence, based on recent shifts in Christian thinking. It then tackles some major topics in the belief vs. unbelief discussion, like the unexpected twists of naturalism (the idea that only the natural world exists), the mind-blowing mathematical design of the universe, (easily the text’s strongest section) the surprisingly religious side of science, and whether good and evil can exist in a world that's just physical.
That's a lot to digest.
Each chapter also ends with a section called ‘For Your Arsenal”, which is essentially a highlight of some of the key points in support of belief that were addressed in the preceding chapter.
Quotes:
• “The real wonder is why anyone believes. The explanation, of course, is that God has begun to repair humanity, at an unimaginable cost to Himself. And that is really good news.”
• “Humans can’t be the standard of absolute right and wrong.’
• “And the conclusion is simplicity itself: if there is no God, there is no evil. Nor is there any good.”
• “…to some degree, the war between belief and unbelief exists in microcosm inside every believer.”
Most anything that takes on the argument that faith in God is irrational or intellectually dishonest will get support from me. I appreciate what I took away from this text, but I am not sure that A SHOT OF FAITH (TO THE HEAD) is for any more than a limited audience within the Christian community.
September 28, 2018
Surprisingly delightful. Stokes brings Plantinga and Wolterstorff down for simple folk like me to enjoy. Insightful and witty.
August 27, 2012
This is a thoughtful, clearly communicated, witty and well written response to the new atheists. This response doesn't agree to argue with the atheists from the ground of their own assumptions but shows how those assumptions are themselves highly suspect and depend more on faith and less on observable, objective fact then any of them would like to admit. In fact, Stokes makes it clear that the new atheists aren't actually doing science when they argue for the non-existence of God, since that can't actually be objectively proven. Rather, they are doing philosophy and they are doing it very poorly. This book does a good job of exposing the flimsy philosophy of new atheism.
As part of helping to equip Christians to be able to defend their faith, the author introduces the reader to the work of Alvin Plantinga, and to a lesser degree, Nicholas Wolterstorf and Peter van Inwagen. These are three very intelligent and articulate Christians who also happen to be stellar philosophers by anyone's measure and who successfully defend their Christianity in the academy. One of the key ideas Stokes brings forward is the idea of warrant. Plantinga argues (and Stokes boils it down for the reader) that there is reasonable warrant for belief in God and that, far from what the new atheists claim, and which they themselves cannot live consistently with, not everything ought to be disbelieved until proven by incontrovertible and observable fact. Stokes shows how Plantinga argues convincingly that there is much in life and thought that people, including the new atheists, take on the testimony of someone else or by the authority of a document (like the time and place of their birth, or who their parents are).
Stokes does an effective job of pointing out that so much of the atheist's case against God is actually just bald pronouncement and then a whole lot of yelling and intimidation to "support" their arguments. This book and the arguments and strategies presented herein are a much needed shot of faith to any Christian's head (think "reason enhancing steriods") and its also a shot of faith to the head (think philosophical "right hook") of any atheist who is brave enough to engage the arguments it contains. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend this book to Christians everywhere. It will also serve as a helpful guide to honest searchers and as a bucket of cold ice water down the back of the shirt of some overheated, tirading, cranky atheists as well.
As part of helping to equip Christians to be able to defend their faith, the author introduces the reader to the work of Alvin Plantinga, and to a lesser degree, Nicholas Wolterstorf and Peter van Inwagen. These are three very intelligent and articulate Christians who also happen to be stellar philosophers by anyone's measure and who successfully defend their Christianity in the academy. One of the key ideas Stokes brings forward is the idea of warrant. Plantinga argues (and Stokes boils it down for the reader) that there is reasonable warrant for belief in God and that, far from what the new atheists claim, and which they themselves cannot live consistently with, not everything ought to be disbelieved until proven by incontrovertible and observable fact. Stokes shows how Plantinga argues convincingly that there is much in life and thought that people, including the new atheists, take on the testimony of someone else or by the authority of a document (like the time and place of their birth, or who their parents are).
Stokes does an effective job of pointing out that so much of the atheist's case against God is actually just bald pronouncement and then a whole lot of yelling and intimidation to "support" their arguments. This book and the arguments and strategies presented herein are a much needed shot of faith to any Christian's head (think "reason enhancing steriods") and its also a shot of faith to the head (think philosophical "right hook") of any atheist who is brave enough to engage the arguments it contains. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend this book to Christians everywhere. It will also serve as a helpful guide to honest searchers and as a bucket of cold ice water down the back of the shirt of some overheated, tirading, cranky atheists as well.
February 9, 2018
This book tackles the fallacies of unbelief in three main arenas - rationality, design, and absolute standards. These fallacies line up with three of the most common charges leveled against Christianity - belief in God is irrational, science renders belief in God unnecessary, and the existence of evil contradicts the very idea of God (at least the Christian God).
I am just a few books into my first exploration of the world of philosophy, so please accept this review with all the appropriate disclaimers that accompany a newbie. I know from my other reading that Stokes tackles some pretty high-level concepts in this book (especially in the first section), and although I did have to re-read a few chapters, I didn't drown. So that must be a mark in his favor, right?
I really enjoyed the author's writing style, which helps when you're tackling a book on philosophy. I learned a lot about the history of philosophy, and more importantly, how it is inseparably linked to the history of Christianity. Along the way, I was introduced to some people that I did not know. People like Thomas Reid. So this book has been a helpful guide as I continue plodding my way forward. There are very few things I enjoy as much as chasing the footnotes in a good book.
One last note. I really appreciated the tone of this book. Stokes meets the "cranky atheists" objections head-on, and he does this while frequently quoting their exact words. He does this carefully, clearly, and (I think) fairly. I will undoubtedly revisit the book (or at least parts of it) in the months ahead, and I am very happy to add it to my arsenal.
I am just a few books into my first exploration of the world of philosophy, so please accept this review with all the appropriate disclaimers that accompany a newbie. I know from my other reading that Stokes tackles some pretty high-level concepts in this book (especially in the first section), and although I did have to re-read a few chapters, I didn't drown. So that must be a mark in his favor, right?
I really enjoyed the author's writing style, which helps when you're tackling a book on philosophy. I learned a lot about the history of philosophy, and more importantly, how it is inseparably linked to the history of Christianity. Along the way, I was introduced to some people that I did not know. People like Thomas Reid. So this book has been a helpful guide as I continue plodding my way forward. There are very few things I enjoy as much as chasing the footnotes in a good book.
One last note. I really appreciated the tone of this book. Stokes meets the "cranky atheists" objections head-on, and he does this while frequently quoting their exact words. He does this carefully, clearly, and (I think) fairly. I will undoubtedly revisit the book (or at least parts of it) in the months ahead, and I am very happy to add it to my arsenal.
April 9, 2012
What a fine book! Lotsa fun, and I will do a more detailed review on my blog sometime soon.
April 12, 2012
It is no secret that since the twin towers fell just over ten years ago, certain atheists have gotten louder and much more forceful in their opposition to religion. The late Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett, are dubbed the four horseman of the new atheism and have set to work showing up religious believers for their lack of evidence, failure to reckon with modern science, and the manifold ways that religion drives war, injustice and cruel acts (like Sept. 11, for example). In the face of such vitriolic opposition what are believers to do? Does belief in God even make sense?
Mitch Stokes has written a thoughtful book aimed at bolstering the faith of ordinary believers by augmenting their beliefs in God with some of the thoughtful arguments provided from Christian philosophy. Senior Fellow of Philosophy at New St. Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho, Stokes was an engineer before earning a masters in religion at Yale under Nicholas Wolterstorff, and a Ph.D in philosophy at Notre Dame under Alvin Plantinga and Peter van Inwagen. If these names ring a bell then you know that Stokes has a good academic pedigree, but this is not a book of academic philosophy. Rather it is meant to present the insights of Christian philosophy at a popular level.
Stokes organizes his book into four sections (3 parts with an intermission between Part One and Two). In Part One, Stokes tackles the conjecture that belief in God is irrational by demonstrating that neither Christians and atheists simply trust the evidence, but have to accept certain facts as ‘basic beliefs.’ The motto’follow the evidence’ in bequeathed to us from the Enlightenment, but it is impossible for us to only believe what we have personal evidence for. Rather we accept certain things as basic. Christianity can be ‘rational’ and not reliant solely on evidence for faith in God. In fact, according to Scripture it is the Spirit that reveals Himself to us and not our reading of the evidence.
In a short intermission, Stokes lays out what you can expect or not expect from an argument. He doesn’t think that you can argue an atheist into the kingdom of God (not the purpose of this book) or dismantle every argument but does see the importance of argument for intellectual engagement and giving believers confidence that there are actual reasonable supports for the faith.
In Parts Two and Three, Stokes engages the two main arguments against the existence of God from athiests: the challenge of science and the challenge of evil. He argues that science no where disproves God and that the inference for design may be made from many findings. He challenges the claims of purely naturalistic evolution. He argues that the existence of evil is due to human freedom and that God’s ways transcend our own (he might have good reasons for allowing evil that we don’t understand from our vantage point).
I really enjoyed this book and thought that it would be accessible to a general audience (though not necessarily an easy read for all). I think that Part One, where Stokes dismantles evidentialist claims. I think his weakest section is part three where he tackles the problem of evil. I generally agree with his conclusions but he introduces the problem of evil as a cosmic problem (the existence of parasitic wasps observed by Charles Darwin) but then seems to restrict most of his discussion to human evil (in two short chapters!). I think he should have unpacked this problem a little more.
That being said, I think this book is welcome apologetic resource for Christians who are perturbed by the claims of the New Atheists and other antagonists.
Thank you to Thomas Nelson for providing me a copy of this book in exchange for this review.
Mitch Stokes has written a thoughtful book aimed at bolstering the faith of ordinary believers by augmenting their beliefs in God with some of the thoughtful arguments provided from Christian philosophy. Senior Fellow of Philosophy at New St. Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho, Stokes was an engineer before earning a masters in religion at Yale under Nicholas Wolterstorff, and a Ph.D in philosophy at Notre Dame under Alvin Plantinga and Peter van Inwagen. If these names ring a bell then you know that Stokes has a good academic pedigree, but this is not a book of academic philosophy. Rather it is meant to present the insights of Christian philosophy at a popular level.
Stokes organizes his book into four sections (3 parts with an intermission between Part One and Two). In Part One, Stokes tackles the conjecture that belief in God is irrational by demonstrating that neither Christians and atheists simply trust the evidence, but have to accept certain facts as ‘basic beliefs.’ The motto’follow the evidence’ in bequeathed to us from the Enlightenment, but it is impossible for us to only believe what we have personal evidence for. Rather we accept certain things as basic. Christianity can be ‘rational’ and not reliant solely on evidence for faith in God. In fact, according to Scripture it is the Spirit that reveals Himself to us and not our reading of the evidence.
In a short intermission, Stokes lays out what you can expect or not expect from an argument. He doesn’t think that you can argue an atheist into the kingdom of God (not the purpose of this book) or dismantle every argument but does see the importance of argument for intellectual engagement and giving believers confidence that there are actual reasonable supports for the faith.
In Parts Two and Three, Stokes engages the two main arguments against the existence of God from athiests: the challenge of science and the challenge of evil. He argues that science no where disproves God and that the inference for design may be made from many findings. He challenges the claims of purely naturalistic evolution. He argues that the existence of evil is due to human freedom and that God’s ways transcend our own (he might have good reasons for allowing evil that we don’t understand from our vantage point).
I really enjoyed this book and thought that it would be accessible to a general audience (though not necessarily an easy read for all). I think that Part One, where Stokes dismantles evidentialist claims. I think his weakest section is part three where he tackles the problem of evil. I generally agree with his conclusions but he introduces the problem of evil as a cosmic problem (the existence of parasitic wasps observed by Charles Darwin) but then seems to restrict most of his discussion to human evil (in two short chapters!). I think he should have unpacked this problem a little more.
That being said, I think this book is welcome apologetic resource for Christians who are perturbed by the claims of the New Atheists and other antagonists.
Thank you to Thomas Nelson for providing me a copy of this book in exchange for this review.
May 23, 2016
This is a valuable book. In my experience reading Christian apologetics books (which has been somewhat disappointing in recent years) I have yet to come across anything quite like this. I would call it something like "Reformed Epistemology/Plantinga for Dummies" but Stokes includes so much more, especially his words on Quine and the importance of mathematics in philosophy of religion.
This would make for a great introductory text for philosophy of religion/theology students as it caters to those unfamiliar with technical terminology. Although not immune from critique (is any book?), this book makes some great arguments and really represents the Christian intellectual well.
This would make for a great introductory text for philosophy of religion/theology students as it caters to those unfamiliar with technical terminology. Although not immune from critique (is any book?), this book makes some great arguments and really represents the Christian intellectual well.
July 6, 2019
Really solid book. Reminded me at times of Keller’s “The Reason for God,” but might have a little bit more of a philosophical bent to it. Definitely worth reading for anyone who enjoys apologetics and philosophy—Stokes will give you a shot of faith to the head.
January 9, 2020
Love Mitch's careful treatment of the many ideas that some believe "debunks" Christianity but which, in fact, strengthen its case. Each chapter contains a fantastic summary of the main points of the chapter. Good ammunition for the mind.
July 18, 2020
Quite good.
July 1, 2012
Every year there's a book that comes across my desk of which I have little or no expectations for but ends up being one of my favorite books of the year. In 2009, it was Notes From the Tilt-A-Whirl by N.D. Wilson. In 2010, it was Marks of the Messenger by J. Mack Stiles. In 2011, it was A Meal With Jesus by Tim Chester and Red Like Blood by Joe Coffey and Bob Bevington.
Without a doubt, the strongest contender for the title so far this year is A Shot of Faith to the Head by Mitch Stokes, PhD. While I had heard nothing about the book (or the author, for that matter) before receiving it, once I had picked it up and started in, I couldn't put it down.
"Finally," I thought to myself as I read, "someone who's matching the atheists not only on the level of arguments (which many good Christians apologists have done), but also on the level of wit, sarcasm and biting intellect." After all, if the New Atheists have done anything well, they have so ridiculed the supposed anti-intellectualism of Christianity that even smart Christians feel they must compromise or live a contradiction. Stokes has now begun to level the playing field and not only show that we have reason on our side, but that the New Atheists should be ashamed of their scathing condescension and perhaps consider their own contradictions for once.
If I may give a spoiler by way of summarizing the book, A Shot of Faith to the Head broadly covers three areas: rationality, design, and absolute (moral) standards. Stokes shows how the atheist depends on one or more of these ideas every time they present their arguments, yet all three of these ideas have no grounding in the atheist's world, only in the theist's. As Stokes concludes:
"The notions of design, rationality, and absolute standards cannot exist in a naturalistic world, the world of the atheists. Without absolute standards—of which there must be many—their worldview would entirely collapse.
"And this poses a serious problem for any atheist who claims that belief in God is irrational. In fact, it takes the legs right out from under such a claim. If there is no designer, then there is no proper function, and therefore there is no such thing as irrationality. But then there’s no such thing as rationality either. There’s only a sterile, impersonal “desert landscape. Beliefs are neither rational nor irrational. They just are."
Without a doubt, the strongest contender for the title so far this year is A Shot of Faith to the Head by Mitch Stokes, PhD. While I had heard nothing about the book (or the author, for that matter) before receiving it, once I had picked it up and started in, I couldn't put it down.
"Finally," I thought to myself as I read, "someone who's matching the atheists not only on the level of arguments (which many good Christians apologists have done), but also on the level of wit, sarcasm and biting intellect." After all, if the New Atheists have done anything well, they have so ridiculed the supposed anti-intellectualism of Christianity that even smart Christians feel they must compromise or live a contradiction. Stokes has now begun to level the playing field and not only show that we have reason on our side, but that the New Atheists should be ashamed of their scathing condescension and perhaps consider their own contradictions for once.
If I may give a spoiler by way of summarizing the book, A Shot of Faith to the Head broadly covers three areas: rationality, design, and absolute (moral) standards. Stokes shows how the atheist depends on one or more of these ideas every time they present their arguments, yet all three of these ideas have no grounding in the atheist's world, only in the theist's. As Stokes concludes:
"The notions of design, rationality, and absolute standards cannot exist in a naturalistic world, the world of the atheists. Without absolute standards—of which there must be many—their worldview would entirely collapse.
"And this poses a serious problem for any atheist who claims that belief in God is irrational. In fact, it takes the legs right out from under such a claim. If there is no designer, then there is no proper function, and therefore there is no such thing as irrationality. But then there’s no such thing as rationality either. There’s only a sterile, impersonal “desert landscape. Beliefs are neither rational nor irrational. They just are."
May 4, 2012
Interesting insight better used for contemplation and strengthening ones own faith.
This book was very thought provoking and the author Stokes covers many topics including those common arguments atheists use when in reference to God not existing. Some of the topics in this book include views from the West's first philosopher Thales of Miletus to evidentialistic views used by Hume and Russell, the senses divinitatis by Plantinga, scientific views from Galileo, Newton and others including Plato, Aristotle, Daniel Dennett, Hitchens, Dawkins, Stenger and Daniel Dennett.
Stokes breaks this book down into three chapters with one intermission which he titles, "The Art of Self Defense." My favorite chapter in this book is chapter three titled "Evil and Suffering Show There's No God." This chapter hit home for me because I hear it all the time from atheists, how if there is a God why does he allow evil, suffering and premature death. Other interesting topics for me were on evolution and the issue on whether our universe looks designed.
In the conclusion Stoke comes back to a point he made earlier about atheism being a form of cognitive dysfunction. My view on this is that the atheist might find this offensive. As no Atheist wants to be told something is wrong with their cognitive functioning even if it is due to sin. Although I found this book very informative I cannot see myself using most of the information in this book when presented with the argument that God does not exist. As I found most of the concepts presented in this book to lengthy for one to use during a heated argument. I would however recommend this book to anyone wanting to give their noggin some insight and overall those who would like to strengthen their faith.
This book was very thought provoking and the author Stokes covers many topics including those common arguments atheists use when in reference to God not existing. Some of the topics in this book include views from the West's first philosopher Thales of Miletus to evidentialistic views used by Hume and Russell, the senses divinitatis by Plantinga, scientific views from Galileo, Newton and others including Plato, Aristotle, Daniel Dennett, Hitchens, Dawkins, Stenger and Daniel Dennett.
Stokes breaks this book down into three chapters with one intermission which he titles, "The Art of Self Defense." My favorite chapter in this book is chapter three titled "Evil and Suffering Show There's No God." This chapter hit home for me because I hear it all the time from atheists, how if there is a God why does he allow evil, suffering and premature death. Other interesting topics for me were on evolution and the issue on whether our universe looks designed.
In the conclusion Stoke comes back to a point he made earlier about atheism being a form of cognitive dysfunction. My view on this is that the atheist might find this offensive. As no Atheist wants to be told something is wrong with their cognitive functioning even if it is due to sin. Although I found this book very informative I cannot see myself using most of the information in this book when presented with the argument that God does not exist. As I found most of the concepts presented in this book to lengthy for one to use during a heated argument. I would however recommend this book to anyone wanting to give their noggin some insight and overall those who would like to strengthen their faith.
December 21, 2012
A Shot Of Faith (To The Head): Be A Confident Believer In An Age Of Cranky Atheists is a book I got through the Booksneeze Blogger reviews program. I was looking for another good read on faith and Christianity and thought that this book might be a good one.
I like that the author is very structured. Mitch Stokes opened the book by telling about people being converted to Christianity and then later on being unable to defend their faith or even expound their beliefs. He also gave a history of known intellectual people famous for criticizing the Christian faith, quoting the arguments presented by these known people, with one common belief in requiring perceivable and tangible evidence of a thing prior to believing in it.
Still on Mr. Stoke's being structured, after presenting the points of view of these famous atheists, he then moves on to present counter arguments to show how flawed the points raised by mockers of the Christian faith. Also, he sums up each chapter by take home points for each believer referring to it as the items we should have for our arsenal.
What I do not like though about the book is the fact that I am no philosophy major and at so many times, I found myself reading the words and yet completely spacing out. I've had to read and re-read certain chapters to get the point. I guess I'll have to re-read the entire book someday to fully appreciate it.
I like that the author is very structured. Mitch Stokes opened the book by telling about people being converted to Christianity and then later on being unable to defend their faith or even expound their beliefs. He also gave a history of known intellectual people famous for criticizing the Christian faith, quoting the arguments presented by these known people, with one common belief in requiring perceivable and tangible evidence of a thing prior to believing in it.
Still on Mr. Stoke's being structured, after presenting the points of view of these famous atheists, he then moves on to present counter arguments to show how flawed the points raised by mockers of the Christian faith. Also, he sums up each chapter by take home points for each believer referring to it as the items we should have for our arsenal.
What I do not like though about the book is the fact that I am no philosophy major and at so many times, I found myself reading the words and yet completely spacing out. I've had to read and re-read certain chapters to get the point. I guess I'll have to re-read the entire book someday to fully appreciate it.
April 16, 2012
This was a really, really fun book.
Primarily written from a Christian worldview to Christians, I found that this book would be a helpful source to show any person--believer or unbeliever alike--that belief in God is rational. I can already tell that I'll be milling over some of the thoughts therein for some time and have already added books cited to my Amazon wishlist. I'd encourage for Christians who want to dust off the old noggin and apply a shot of faith straight to the dome.
Also, this book made me love/appreciate math, which is a monumental task!
Primarily written from a Christian worldview to Christians, I found that this book would be a helpful source to show any person--believer or unbeliever alike--that belief in God is rational. I can already tell that I'll be milling over some of the thoughts therein for some time and have already added books cited to my Amazon wishlist. I'd encourage for Christians who want to dust off the old noggin and apply a shot of faith straight to the dome.
Also, this book made me love/appreciate math, which is a monumental task!
November 13, 2012
Mitch Stokes makes a case for Christianity amidst all the skepticism of religion today. This book aims to prove the rationality of applying Christian beliefs to science and to life in general.
This book was an enjoyable read, it was interesting and well reasoned. I recommend it to anyone with an interest in Christian apologetics and to curious non-believers.
* I was provided a complimentary copy of this book through Booksneeze in exchange for an honest review.
This book was an enjoyable read, it was interesting and well reasoned. I recommend it to anyone with an interest in Christian apologetics and to curious non-believers.
* I was provided a complimentary copy of this book through Booksneeze in exchange for an honest review.
January 31, 2013
4.5 stars. Loved this. Complex and witty. Approaches defense of the Christian faith against atheism through larger philosophical lenses, rather than bullet-point rebuttals and tactical maneuvers. The back-to-back chapters on our mathematical universe and Platonic Forms was quite good, establishing how science itself opened the door to Something beyond nature. Really enjoyed this!
July 4, 2012
woefully bad, some nice trivia at times, some nice quotes but alas a lot of exceedingly poor thinking , the author seems to have read some philosophers but seems constrained by his religious mental fetters to say anything much that is useful or interesting.
Want to read
November 21, 2014I loved this book. So much up to date information and so well written!!
March 31, 2016
Utterly brilliant. What a book! Thanks for the early Christmas present, Jess! :) Definitely going on the favourites list.
Second time through March 2016. Superb.
Second time through March 2016. Superb.
December 4, 2012
Brilliant.
September 22, 2017
This book is very well written and I enjoyed reading it for the most part. Stokes is a scholar and a gentleman, however, I closed the book feeling like he gave up too much ground to the cranky atheists he was writing against. What this book puts forth is basically the view known as Reformed Epistemology. Now, let me say that I agree with Stokes (and Plantinga) premise that belief in God is properly basic. However, in my estimation, this should naturally lead to a Presuppositional or Covenantal approach to engaging with unbelievers. What I believe is going on here, and my biggest problem with the Reformed Epistemology crowd is that I believer that we're allowing our Epistemological Philosophy influence our engagement a little more than it should. Yes, we have warrant for believing that belief in God is properly basic, but when it comes to drawing swords with the cranky atheists, we should follow what the Bible says in Romans 1 about Epistemology. That is, that the unbeliever knows that God exists. He sees it in the creation, and he suppresses that truth in his unrighteousness, and he's without excuse for doing so. Stokes, like Plantinga, however, wants to argue for properly basic belief in God, and then turn around and use evidential apologetics to prove his faith. Essentially, he's assuming that there is neutrality, like all good evidentialists. However, the problem is that neutrality is a myth. Bahnsen destroys the myth of neutrality in his apologetic works (See Always Ready). If Stokes would adopt a Bahnsenian apologetic along with his beliefs that belief in God is properly basic, he'd have a bullet proof work.
December 31, 2025
It’s been a few years since I read any Alvin Plantinga works, and for better or worse it appears that much of his work has been overshadowed by Presuppositionalism’s resurgence, and the return to Classical views (my position). This is unfortunate because Reformed Epistemology is a position that deserves recognition. Understanding things like the sensus divinitatis, properly basic truths, and the desire for warrant over justification. What Stokes is able to do here is to popularize and bring to surface many of those ideas that Plantinga championed, provides explanations on defeaters and major philosophical arguments, and differentiates itself from other apologetic views.
Where Plantinga might say that “You’re rational to believe in God even without arguments. Presuppositionalism would retort that “You can’t even reason without already presupposing God.” Or stated another way Reformed Epistemology would argue that “Vision works unless you have reason to think your eyes are broken.” Presuppositionalism would say that “Vision itself only makes sense if the world was designed to be seen.”
I only bring up these points to show that there are dramatic differences here that don’t allow for much overlap, especially in the case of Presuppositionalism and to a lesser degree Classicalism. Still, an eclectic apologetic approach should include Reformed Epistemology in their arsenal, particularly if that means dropping Evidentialism as a result. As complicated as that might be, Stokes would argue that it is just properly basic.
Where Plantinga might say that “You’re rational to believe in God even without arguments. Presuppositionalism would retort that “You can’t even reason without already presupposing God.” Or stated another way Reformed Epistemology would argue that “Vision works unless you have reason to think your eyes are broken.” Presuppositionalism would say that “Vision itself only makes sense if the world was designed to be seen.”
I only bring up these points to show that there are dramatic differences here that don’t allow for much overlap, especially in the case of Presuppositionalism and to a lesser degree Classicalism. Still, an eclectic apologetic approach should include Reformed Epistemology in their arsenal, particularly if that means dropping Evidentialism as a result. As complicated as that might be, Stokes would argue that it is just properly basic.
January 15, 2024
Good. I am unversed in philosophy so this was helpful in that respect. I can't get on board with the sensus divinitatus stuff, and was glad that Stokes isn't whole hog on board with it as well, summing up the book with the fact that "God has begun to repair humanity" instead of something like "the sensus divinitatus has begun to heal". It is not an entity. Another disappointment was that the third section of the book argues against atheism, which is not that difficult. It's much more difficult to argue against agnosticism or anti theism. But all in all this book is helpful, i just wish I had others to read it with so the arguments in here don't get lost in my head or fall to the floor. The solo mission to copiousness is a difficult one.
May 1, 2025
Witty, Well-Written, & Would-Read-Again
I must say, when our youth group read this book for a study, I wasn't exactly thrilled. I hadn't really read this type of book before, and it was a bit slow going for me. The book is divided into sections, and the first section wasn't as interesting to me, but by the time I got to the second or third section I was really enjoying it. Mr. Stokes' writing is superb and funny, and I am very glad I read the entire book instead of just skimming my friend's notes :)
I must say, when our youth group read this book for a study, I wasn't exactly thrilled. I hadn't really read this type of book before, and it was a bit slow going for me. The book is divided into sections, and the first section wasn't as interesting to me, but by the time I got to the second or third section I was really enjoying it. Mr. Stokes' writing is superb and funny, and I am very glad I read the entire book instead of just skimming my friend's notes :)
October 22, 2025
I really enjoyed his presentation of the history of Galileo and the history of the science-vs-religion storyline. I also really enjoyed the chapters on mathematics and felt that could use an even longer treatment (with approachable examples for the not-as-math-minded). I saw some critiques on here about this only for believers and not really "aimed" at atheists... from what I experienced reading it, that misses the point. I think Stokes is writing in order to sharpen, equip, and build up believers in particular, and he does a great job of that.
September 18, 2018
Good book, some excellent points that aren't approached by the less intellectual crowd. The ending chapter was a bit rushed and weak, and there is a hint of arrogance throughout the book which might prevent the book from sinking into an athiest, were they to read it. For this reason, I've knocked it down from 5 stars to 4 stars. Still a very good book however.
October 15, 2021
4.5 stars. The author uses logic, reasoning and humor to delve into and disarm the atheist mindset. Short chapters ending with brief summaries make this easier to read than other apologetics books I’ve read. I also like that he pointed to other books & authors to explore. I’ll probably be checking out this author’s other books.
February 26, 2022
Mitch Stokes does a great job of taking top-tier insights of Christian philosophers and making them digestible for the rest of us. Along the way, he exposes faulty reasoning of leading atheists and skeptics.
December 28, 2023
Philosophical, thorough, and straightforward. Loved the thought about Plato and his forms in the latter third of the book, how even in a materialistic age there is some sense where we can't escape these immaterial specters.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 101 reviews