User Profile

The followup to The Reason for God, this book is excellent when it is focused on Christianity. When it goes into the flaws of "secularism" it gets weaker. Why? "Secularist" is a label put upon people outside of the church by people within the Church. There is an enormous variety of thoughts and philosophy outside of Christianity - a lot of which many Christians agree with. There are some popular viewpoints that contend with traditional Christianity but they aren't necessarily cohesive with each other. The moment something is labeled as "secular" in the text, Keller's whole argument strikes me as weak. The argument could be very valid, but he has pulled up this category that is somewhat flimsy. He might be trying to use some short hand, but it would be more useful for him to just say "Here's a common place idea that we can challenge and think about." It doesn't need to be all within a label. In this case being precise is more valuable than categorization.

Mere Christianity is often held up as the gold standard of the modern Christian apologetic. I suspect this text will always hold a place of esteem. It captures certain thoughts and cases so well. Lewis finds a good balance between erudition and genuine feeling. It is not overly academic, but it follows academic rules. The questions around Christianity haven't changed, but Lewis' style and what he specifically addresses is dated. For example, he defaults to the masculine when discussing all of humanity and his portrayals of women aren't stellar. I think this comes across more as a product of his era rather than as a product of Christianity itself. Where Lewis falls short, it is his own fault and the fault of the society he lived in rather than insurmountable facet of his convictions. He never links to the two consciously. He doesn't even attach the objectionable views common to his time to his arguments. I'd recommend that if someone was exploring this genre, definitely read Mere Christianity, but also explore other authors.

This is close to my 10th introductory text to Wicca that I have read this year. These books range from being so bad they work against their viewpoint to a couple of books (including this one) that aren't just good books about witchcraft. They're good books in general.

In The Spiral Dance, Starhawk manages to thread the needle of being confident in her case without being strident about things nobody could possibly know without a scientific test. She explains her thinking rather than just leaving you to guess. She acknowledges weaknesses in her case, but argues well why we should look past them. Her lived experience is very valuable too. It is distinct to her experience in 1970s West coast America, but it brings a lot of depth to what she's talking about. It is not just a recipe book for mystical stuff to do. She has reasoning behind each of her topics. She brings up other religions, but not in a childish mock-snark sort of way. When she brings up other religions she brings up her objections without being disrespectful. She gives a well-thought out reason. She challenges traditional outlooks on gender and incorporates these thoughts into her faith as she presents it. This was a refreshing read.