This book was lying in the underside compartment of a desk in one of my classes for weeks, so I decided to pick it up and give it a read. Its a shame to see a book go without a owner, but after reading it I can see why someone would just leave it there and forget about it.
The premise of the book was strange from the get go. It's obviously a piece of evangelical propaganda, but it targets agnostics and their supposed beliefs and talking points. Which is new, I guess? Agnostics are a pretty niche community, and if this book were to to be distributed to random people for ministry purposes, I doubt that very many of them will be self identified Agnostics.
Anyway, on to the actual content of the book itself. I don't think the author has really spent any time talking to agnostics are even fully understands what Agnosticism is. He put it on the same spectrum as Theism and Atheism as some sort of middleman between the two, which isn't the case at all. Theism and Atheism deal with the belief or lack of belief of deities, while Agnosticism is on the knowledge spectrum of Agnosticism and Gnosticism.
The author proceeds to make all of these assumptions about the underlying beliefs of agnosticism and agnostics that just come off as ignorant of how they actually view the world. I don't know where he gets the idea that Agnostics are considered the most intelligent worldview. Who goes around saying this exactly? He would go on to make this idiotic comparison saying that uncertainty is illogical because you want to make sure airplane pilots are certain they know how to fly a plane. I fail to see how he even thought that was making a point? Yeah obviously experts should be confident about their respective fields, but there's plenty of things people are uncertain about all the time, its perfectly natural.
The book then goes on to make the same old half-ass arguments about Gods existence and how obviously any creator is the God of Christianity because well the Bible says so. You can make that same argument for nearly all creator deities, its circular self-serving logic. It became glaringly obvious to me that the author is incapable of understanding how anyone can see the world differently then himself because the idea of the Christian god is so self evident to him. The logic of the arguments presented only make sense if you already subscribe to a Christian worldview, which makes the whole thing come off as lazy as ineffective.
In the end, it comes off as more of a book for Christian affirmation then a book that would convince a nonbeliever to convert. This work may work for some extremely impressionable fence sitters (which I suspect is what he's aiming for), but the author severely lacks any understanding about why more critical non-believers lack belief and addressing those issues. As long as the author continues to believe non-believers are just people who don't believe in God because they want to lead hedonistic lifestyles, he'll never be able to engage them with any meaningful dialogue. My suggestion, learn how to put your own beliefs to the side to truly understand why others have worldviews different then your own.