Read The Swedish Atheist, the Scuba Diver and Other Apologetic Rabbit Trails by Randal Rauser Online


The "textbook approach" to apologetics (teaching formal arguments in an "ivory tower" setting) can be very valuable. But then you discover that all the formal arguments you studied in an ivory tower can quickly become obscured in the rough and tumble of real life conversations with skeptics, atheists, humanists and the like. In recognition of the need for a primer for apolThe "textbook approach" to apologetics (teaching formal arguments in an "ivory tower" setting) can be very valuable. But then you discover that all the formal arguments you studied in an ivory tower can quickly become obscured in the rough and tumble of real life conversations with skeptics, atheists, humanists and the like. In recognition of the need for a primer for apologetics as it emerges in real conversations, The Swedish Atheist, the Scuba Diver, and Other Apologetics Rabbit Trails offers the reader an invitation to join in one long conversation between apologist Randal Rauser and an atheist named Sheridan. The setting is a coffee shop as apologetics in the real world unfolds with all the rabbit trails, personal baggage, and distractions that inevitably come (as well as the occasional distracting hiss of the espresso machine). The book brings together the best of argument-based apologetics with vivid illustrations and humorous moments. But it also highlights the importance of apologetics as a narrative as the reader gets to know Sheridan better and to understand the personal history that drives his atheism.The book covers a range of topics in the haphazard winding form that long, informal worldview conversations tend to take. As coffee is consumed and the afternoon wears on the conversation winds through such topics as faith and reason, the nature of morality, the idea of providence and miracles, biblical atrocities and the doctrine of hell, the nature of atheism and agnosticism, and trusting God. Through this extended conversation the reader really gets to know Sheridan and the kind of objections and issues that motivate his skepticism. Ultimately The Swedish Atheist, the Scuba Diver, and Other Apologetics Rabbit Trails is much more than an introduction to apologetic conversation: It is a transformative apprenticeship in the grand conversations where eternity touches down in everyday, caffeinated conversations....

Title : The Swedish Atheist, the Scuba Diver and Other Apologetic Rabbit Trails
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 9780830837786
Format Type : Paperback
Number of Pages : 226 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

The Swedish Atheist, the Scuba Diver and Other Apologetic Rabbit Trails Reviews

  • James
    2019-03-09 19:18

    The evangelicalism I grew up in placed a high premium on apologetics–being able to give a reasoned answer to the hope we have within us. For us, that meant defending the faith against any and all challengers. I had trite-answers-for-tough-questions which were silver bullets designed to shoot down any objection. I knew enough logic to explain to the heathen when they had committed various fallacies and I could tell you why the scientific worldview was wrong, The funny thing was whenever I engaged in apologetics I would sometimes win arguments but I didn’t win converts.Theologian and apologist, Randal Rauser also grew up where the basic understanding of apologetics was a battle against non-Christian belief systems. However he now understands apologetics as ‘the rigorous pursuit of truth in conversation. (12)’ Thus when he gets into an apologetic argument. . .er, I mean discussion, he and his dialogue partner are mutual seekers of truth and not opponents engaged in spiritual and intellectual turf warfare.In The Swedish Atheist, the Scuba Diver and Other Apologetic Rabbit Trails Rauser presents a fictional dialogue which demonstrates his approach. He takes us (the Reader) to the local coffee shop, the Beatnik Bean, where he engages one of the spry young atheists into the ‘grand conversation.’ He does this by strategically placing a copy of Richard Dawkin’s The God Delusion on the table. A guy named Sheridan (sporting a ‘there is a sucker born again every minute’ T-shirt) spots the book and is reeled in. And so the conversation begins.Sheridan has issues with religion in general and Christianity in particular. He is firmly convinced that science has dispensed with the need for the God-hypothesis and he thinks that there is no more basis for belief in Jesus Christ than there is in Zeus the thunder God. As the conversation unfolds, you discover that Sheridan has had his run-ins with Christian types before (included a step-dad who came on a little strong) and is bothered by the hypocrisy he’s experienced. The conversation which unfolds between Rauser and Sheridan is far ranging, covering the geographical particularity of religious beliefs (i.e. the experience of Swedish atheists and scuba divers are both governed by significant environmental factors), God’s sovereignty and human freedom, the hypocrisy of those in the church (and outside), heaven and hell, evaluating competing religious beliefs and what ‘signposts of the divine’ can be seen in the world. Like most conversations, the topics unfold in a somewhat circular way, and Rauser and Sheridan often come back to cover the same (or similar) ground.Rauser’s major contribution to the discussion is his insistance that Sheridan judge Atheism by the same standard and intellectual rigor that he judges Christianity and religious belief. The converse is also true. Rauser isn’t looking for special treatment for Christians and does at various points also scrutize the Christian tradition.You may be suspicious, as I was, about whether a Christian apologist’s fictional conversation with an atheist was merely setting up a straw-man; however, the conversation that unfolds between the two men seems thoroughly plausible ( and based in actual conversations). Neither Rauser or his atheist counterpart leave this conversation converted. If any change is brought to the character of Sheridan, he is a little less dismissive of religious belief and more thoughtful about what he actually believes about God and the world.I really like Rauser’s writing. Admittedly I may be biased. Rauser teaches at a seminary in the city I was born in (Edmonton), got a masters at the same graduate school I got mine at (Regent College) and he got a Ph.D. under one of my favorite theologians (Colin Gunton). He is witty and good humored throughout this fictional interchange and the conversational tone allows him to talk some hardcore theology and philosophy without talking over his readers head. This is not a book of apologetic answers to various philosophical and theological problems (read Peter Kreeft’s classic Handbook of Christian Apologetics if that is what you are looking for). Rather it is an example of a mode of apologetics which isn’t about trumping the competition but engaging them in a quest for truth. Not that Rauser doesn’t have good answers and ask some great questions along the way, but this is much more than an apologetic answer bookIf you have an interest in apologetics or wonder how to share your faith with those who do not share your faith or religious tradition, this is a great book with some great food for thought. You need not agree with Rauser on every point (I don’t) to find him a helpful resource. This also would be an okay book to give to your atheist friend (or read it with them). Sheridan and Rauser’s conversation could be good fodder for deeper dialogue and can help believers and unbelievers alike clarify what they really believe about God and the universe.Thank you to InterVarsity Press for providing me a copy of this book in exchange for this review.

  • David
    2019-02-22 20:19

    I want to start this review off in a very cheesy way, so here we go: If you only read one book on Christian apologetics this year, maybe even in your life, read this one!Yes, it is that good and I did enjoy it that much. Come on, just reading the title of the book has you curious, doesn’t it?There are numerous books out there on Christian apologetics. These books seek to defend the faith, answering questions in defense and providing positive reasons for the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I’ve read a good many of these books during my own faith journey. Like most who grow up in the church, I eventually had questions and I sought answers in books by the likes of Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig, JP Moreland and others. Through this I found answers, though nothing of the knock-down, full-proof variety.To this day I still enjoy a good apologetic book. But as the arguments have become familiar, I read now with a few questions in the back of my mind: would my students at PSU Berks read this? Would people who may only read a few books a year read this? Would Christians who are not pastors, who do not read many books, read this?I think they would read and enjoy Randal Rauser’s book. It is written as a dialogue between Rauser and a young atheist named Sheridan. The two go back and forth having many of the usual arguments, though not always in the usual ways. Rauser is not afraid to show vulnerability in places, admitting where the standard Christian answer is unsatisfying (such as in the case of God’s violence in the Old Testament). Thankfully the book does not end with Sheridan’s conversion, instead he walks away with a lot to think about, but still an atheist. Of course, this reflects real life where people are too complex and truth cannot be reduced to a simple formula that once presented will change people’s views quickly. Instead Rauser sees the Christian apologist as joining others in pursuit of truth.I read books like this because I am still searching for answers. I have many beliefs, some I hold to more strongly then others. Rauser offers us a great way to do apologetics, a way where we do not have to convert or change people, but where we can come alongside of others as we seek truth together.Check this book out if you are at all interested in truth, apologetics and the like.

  • Lee Harmon
    2019-03-18 00:16

    My kind of Christian apologetics! A friend on Goodreads recommended this book to me, and he guessed right. I loved it.Rauser leads us into a quaint little coffee shop for an afternoon of friendly argument, where he spies the perfect target: an atheist named Sheridan who is versed in apologetics just enough to make the conversation interesting. Sheridan argues that the geographic distribution of various types of believers proves that religion isn’t objective; he wonders why Zeus isn’t just as likely to be a real god as Rauser’s Most Perfect Being; he insists that morals are an evolutionary accident, with no need for divine intervention; he confronts Rauser with the problem of evil, and in particular the absurdity of everlasting punishment; and he argues that what Christians recognize as signs from God are no more than coincidences. Except for the whole “Yahweh condones evil” thing (where Rauser’s best defense is to shrug and admit that he’s not a defender for the “home team” but rather a pursuer of truth), Sheridan’s objections to Christianity get shot down.You might recognize already that Rauser’s idea of apologetics is not about debating atheists until they succumb to logic and beg for baptism, but “rigorously pursuing truth in conversation.” This book isn’t going to shoot the moon. None of that “I can prove Jesus rose from the dead” stuff. Just reasonable exploration leading to a reasonable conclusion that Christian beliefs are not unreasonable.I hope you don’t take this as a spoiler, but here’s my take on the coffee house conversation: Rauser provides some solid argument for the possibility of some sort of unexplained, intelligent creator and guide, who could be just about anyone but Yahweh of the Old Testament (as least the way its writers understood Him, since surely a “perfect being” wouldn’t really condone the genocide that was done in His name). Some arguments are better than others, and like I said, Rauser provides no conclusive proof that Christianity is the One True Religion. So, we’re left with a mystery, but one that should at least keep us from sneering at those who choose a Christian interface with this mystery.All in all, this is a really fun book. Randal, if you write more, please consider more Dubious Disciple reviews!

  • Jonathan B
    2019-02-27 23:04

    I have *a lot* of disagreements with Randal Rauser when it comes to theology. However he's an excellent apologist and this is a great book with a (somewhat) unique format that addresses issues that don't always come up in other apologetics books. The book is structured as a dialogue between Randal and an atheist, Sheridan. You, the reader, are depicted as being present, but inactive. This format has some advantages over traditional didactic apologetics books. For one thing, it puts flesh on the principles being taught. In my experience a lot of Christians can read an apologetics book and then be totally clueless when it comes to an actual apologetics dialogue. It's like a CS major who can do formal proofs, but couldn't use logic to reason his way out of a paper bag when it came to ethics (something I've also run into before). The dialogue format might help Christians know how the common ideas of apologetics apply or can get them around an objection. Another advantage is that it encourages more thinking on the part of the reader. Because virtually all the principles are being illustrated for us, they aren't being spelled out for us. That means the reader will have to abstract the principle himself. (This doesn't mean I think all apologetics (or didactic works generally) should follow this format. I just think this format can be useful. And Randal makes good use of it here.)As I mentioned, the book also addresses issues that don't always come up in other apologetics books, but which I constantly hear from internet atheists. Why not Zeus? What about Occam's razor? Should we take the Outsider test? These are issues internet atheists are constantly harping on but which most other apologetics books (that I've read) don't take the time to address since they are concerned with spelling out the major offensive case for God (Kalam, Teleological, Moral arguments). That's not to say apologists haven't addressed these issues countless times (they have), but that book length treatments of apologetics (or the ones I'm familiar with) haven't bothered to do so.The book starts off simply trying to demonstrate that a person can be within their epistemic rights to be a theist and a Christian theist. At this point, Randal makes good use of Reformed Epistemology. Eventually Randal does get around to presenting some arguments for theism (e.g., moral argument) and he presents several arguments against naturalism. However, as I said, I have a lot of disagreements with Randal Rauser's theology. Being familiar with Randal prior to reading this book (and having interacted with him on a few occasions) I was expecting to have disagreements with him here too and so I probably wasn't as effected by it as someone might be if they have no familiarity with Randal. Still, I think his theology is seriously flawed and since apologetics flows from theology, it's inevitable that these flaws should poke their head out in this book. Randal denies the infallibility of Scripture (he claims he doesn't but I don't think this can be substantiated. I won't bother spelling this out here), he questions the doctrine of hell, has a bit of an axe to grind with Calvinism, and suggests that the imaginary Sheridan can reject something the Bible teaches because it's not "at the heart of Christianity". (I think Randal might want to object to the way I've framed this last issue, but I think it can be substantiated. Again, I won't bother spelling that out here. But if anyone is interested they can ask me to do so and I will.Over all, great apologetics book held back in some latter portions by poor theology.

  • John
    2019-03-22 23:07

    I really liked the first chapter of this book, where the author described his evolving definition of apologetics. The short version is that it went from combative/win the argument to evangelistic/win the convert to a seeking of the truth. I liked that, because as Christians we have nothing to fear in a discussion which seeks the truth, and we also never know which part of the truth will be the tipping point for a particular person. So far, so good.Then we go into the actually 'grande conversation' and he lost me fairly quick. The fictional atheist was an arrogant jerk, and clearly hadn't considered his own positions in any depth. I didn't see much value in seeing such a truly ignorant person's arguments dissected. I think using a caricature for the antagonist was a mistake, and if it was that off-putting to me (when I agree with the author), I can't imagine what a skeptic would think.

  • Rod
    2019-03-07 22:08

    This is a book that shows the true results of most apologetic discussions: that no one wins or has their mind changed no matter how great the information and evidence provided. But we must agree with the book (and the Bible) that it is still worth doing. After all: how many debates did Jesus win? Definitely NOT all of them.It is fun to know that almost every point of discussion our author makes has its own separate books in the Apologetic realm of Christian literature. The Swedish Atheist...just crushes all these issues into one Starbucks type encounter. I do think the author has very accurately portrayed the arguing atheist. The only problem I have with the book and author is that he doesn't fully trust the Bible. So i'm not exactly sure what it is all of his apologetic opinions are standing on. I guess he's just defending parts of generic belief in Jesus and God.

  • Adam Omelianchuk
    2019-02-23 22:08

    The first time the rationality of my Christian belief was challenged was in high school; I was ill-equipped to handle the objections. Flustered by being unable to answer the hard questions posed by my exceedingly clever friends, my dad took me to the local Christian bookstore to buy an apologetics book. “Apologetics” was a new word in my limited vocabulary, and all I really knew about it was an ostensive definition–CS Lewis did something like that. I don’t remember why, but I didn’t buy Mere Christianity, a book that had a profound effect on my father and my grandfather before him. Instead, I bought Answers for Atheists, Agnostics, and Other Thoughtful Skeptics by E. Calvin Beisner. The big red-lettered words ANSWERS grabbed my attention: “Hey! That’s just what I’m looking for,” I thought!I was not a savvy book buyer then (why didn’t I read the first chapter before buying it, I don’t know), but when I got it home, I was sorely disappointed (you can read the Amazon reviews to get a sense of why). The book was written as an imaginary dialogue between two friends, one a believer, the other a “skeptic”–if you could call him that–which was supposed to model how certain knock-down, drag-out arguments for the Christian faith were supposed to go. It was awful. First, the sorts of answers I was looking for weren’t there; second, I felt as though I had to learn how to manipulate a conversation to go the way the author did and then remember how to deploy a form of reasoning I did not fully understand; third, I realized that if I was ever going to learn how to talk confidently with smart friends, I would have to learn some philosophy, something I thought would be impossible.Nearly twenty years later, with a freshly earned Master’s degree in philosophy in hand, I am faced with reviewing a book that is of the same genre: Randal Rauser’s The Swedish Atheist, the Scuba Diver and Other Apologetic Rabbit Trails. Reading it brought back all the memories rehearsed above, and I kept wondering if it would have helped me if I had picked it up then. I think it probably would have faced the same challenges from my clumsy, immature self–but this book is much, much better.Swedish Atheist is an imaginary dialogue between Rauser and a skeptic named Sheridan in a coffeehouse called Beatnik Bean. Sheridan is well-versed in the popular arguments atheists use to challenge Christianity; it is clear that he is the sum of many conversations Rauser has entertained on his blog. The first half of the book consists of a protracted discussion over religious epistemology, which is one of the best ‘introductions’ to the topics I’ve read (if it could be called that). In a very short amount of space, Rauser takes on such topics as scientism, the ethics of belief, the nature of faith, Reformed epistemology, theology and falsification, God as a “hypothesis,” Ockham’s razor, and the “outsider test of faith.” If you haven’t heard of any of those things, don’t worry: Rauser paints a vivid picture of how they are deployed in the mouths of their proponents and how they matter (or not) in our beliefs about God. In the short space of a casual conversation, the uninitiated can be introduced to some of the larger, more complex discussions about how belief in God can be rationally justified. (His treatment of John Loftus’ outsider test of faith is worth the price of the book, in my opinion).Another feature of Swedish Atheist that I found superior to books like Answers is that Sheridan remains skeptical. While his reasoning certainly comes across as simple-minded at points, some of his reasons are not. Sheridan cannot bring himself to believe in a God who torments someone like his deceased father in hell forever or commands his followers to exterminate another people-group like we see in Joshua. Just about everyone who has faith or not is puzzled by these long standing theological difficulties, and Rauser is no exception. Surely, Rauser’s treatment of these topics will be disappointing to many, and would probably have been disappointing to me as a teenager. But there is something refreshing about Rauser’s own skepticism towards apologetic projects that try to justify such violence. Whatever theories we might spin or arguments we might formulate, we cannot escape our brute moral intuitions that judge such things as unbecoming of the Being than which none greater can be conceived. We seem to know these particular judgments better than we know any of the premises of arguments to the contrary. Again many Christian apologists will not be happy, because Rauser is willing to countenance evidence that counts against Christian belief. To be sure, he offers some strategies for undermining that evidence (annihilationism, hopeful universalism, re-imagining the intent behind Joshua, and suspending judgment about interpretation are explored), but in the end he remains tentative and shows how this may be a virtuous posture to take when talking with skeptics.Rauser also explains how there can be outweighing evidence for Christian belief from the cosmological argument and an argument from the resurrection of Jesus. He saves the discussion about what to do with the Bible for another day, though he clearly affirms its authority.At times the discussion becomes a bit prosaic, especially near the end. I am not sure why, but I had trouble finishing the book’s sections on prayer and God’s guidance. I think the reason for this is because I had already read a similar sort of argument in God or Godless? (Loftus & Rauser, 2013), so this is no knock on the book.So can I recommend it? I most certainly can, but I am not sure I would want my teenaged-self to read it as his first apologetics book. I’m still not sure what that would be, and perhaps there is no such thing. What is needed, I think, is a friend like Rauser who would invite you to Beatnik Bean for some coffee and let you fire away.Thanks to InterVaristy Press for the complimentary copy for review.

  • Steve
    2019-03-11 20:56

    The title of Randal Rauser’s book The Swedish Atheist, the Scuba Diver and Other Apologetic Rabbit Trails raises the expectation of an innovative approach to Christian apologetics that presents new arguments from provocative directions. But in essence the book presents old arguments dressed up in a dialogue that favors the Christian apologist.The book takes a somewhat Socratic form with the Reader as a silent observer in a coffee shop listening to an argument between Randal and a “random” passerby called Sheridan who is enticed into the conversation when seeing Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion sitting on the table. A range of topics are explored with uneven treatment in what becomes a “teaching” session where Randal becomes the professor and Sheridan is the “student”.The positive elements of the book are that 1) Sheridan is not ultimately converted – instead, the culmination of the argument leaves Sheridan to go away and think more about what he has heard and 2) it provides an engaging survey of the most common arguments in support of theism and, in particular, a form of Christian theism that is, at least, not fundamentalist in nature.The most disappointing aspect of the book is that it pits a well-read, well-informed, contemporary professor with a wide background in philosophy against an “average” educated guy who has to constantly admit not knowing concepts and offering weak arguments in order for the apologist to teach the reader basic ideas of Christian apologetics. If, instead, an equal “opponent” had been the dialog partner, some serious objections could have been raised against the arguments offered.I was, however, particularly impressed with the discussion of Old Testament stories of genocide and other elements that modern people would consider highly immoral if not downright evil. Randal takes a genuinely humble and necessarily non-inerrantist approach to this issue. And the dialog on hell at least presented the annihilationist alternative as a viable biblical option.The worst part of the book, in my view, was the discussion of providence which failed to explore the logical implications of the author’s view and strained credibility.In my opinion, The Swedish Atheist, the Scuba Diver and Other Apologetic Rabbit Trails will be most valued by the already convinced Christian and provides a pleasantly humorous (if somewhat cheesy) introduction to contemporary Christian apologetics for the beginner. There is no doubt that the author attempts to freshen up apologetics with contemporary cultural references, some dipping in to classic literature, and a few interesting analogies.

  • Elizabeth
    2019-03-22 00:22

    This book is not just a book; it's an experience. At my surprise, I have found this book both profound and entertaining. Hilarious and educational. Rational and conversational. The basic concept for this book is also well-thought and refreshing: learning apologetics (or as the author puts it, how to have a "Grande Spiritual Conversation") through conversation. I loved the redefinition of apologetics suggested by the author: both sides merely pursuing truth. Coming from a job that includes daily spiritual conversations, most details of the settings and issues addressed in the conversation felt very realistic. The discussions were at times dry (serving the purpose of the book but this is not something necessary to replicate), may be too intellectual for some types of people you meet, and has too much sarcasm for most healthy conversations (could easily become a rather emotional debate in real life). I loved how the author was honest about certain doubts he had or when he explaining to his atheist friend that no Christian has the same level of certainty for all doctrines (ie. There's more pointing to the doctrine of God than to Interpretation A or B of the Lord's Supper), which is not something you hear a lot in apologetics: I applaud it for the transparency/authenticity lessons it contains! Randal's book actually one I would recommend to students interested in this topic. Overall, great read!

  • Luke
    2019-03-12 19:03

    Found it annoying. There are a lot more helpful apologetic books out there. Much of the book relied on philosophical arguments and I do not have a master's degree in philosophy, so it wouldn't be helpful for me. Perhaps it is helpful to show how arguments and objections can shoot all over, and how sarcastic people can be. There were some points where I felt they were close to making progress, when they were getting close to the real objection - when the atheist talked about his bad experiences with religion and Christians. Progress was possible when the Christian admitted he didn't have all the answers, was humble and vulnerable. The Christian, after pulling out all sorts of philosophy books and other materials out of a magic backpack, finally finds a Bible at page 151. He thought they made progress, but it seemed to point out the impossibility and act of frustration of arguing someone to faith.

  • Bob Wolniak
    2019-03-12 01:08

    A fictional coffee house conversation between an aggressive but in the end amiable atheist and a theologian with apparently too many books to refer to in his bag. I think the author does a really good job framing real life intelligent objections to some cliched traditional defenses of Christian truth, and furthers the conversation in some helpful ways in certain areas. At times I think he does better capturing the postmodern doubt than what would be considered an orthodox Christian defense (especially with hell and OT genocide issues) but overall forces both sides to think more deeply and not accept notions that would only satisfy those already entrenched in their views. I'm quite certain that parts of this book's ongoing conversation will not make everyone happy--even the author seems to be aware there is much more to be said, but I think it achieves its goal.

  • Tristan Vick
    2019-03-01 21:16

    Perhaps too haphazard as Randal neglects to address many of the points he raises just in time to raise new ones. This constant changing of subjects without adequately addressing previous points raised made every chapter feel disorganized. Also, Sheridan the atheist was such a poor caricature of atheists that I know that I couldn't help but feel the author doesn't really understand the other side's position, although he does know how to phrase their arguments.This made it doubly annoying because a philosophical objection to theism will often be laid out more or less correctly, but then the answers you get devolve into strawman stereotypes, making nearly every topic raised a let down.Not a book I'd recommend to Christians or atheists.

  • Brian Davis
    2019-03-17 19:16

    Fantastic read. I especially enjoyed the way in which it was written so the reader is in the room with the characters. I thoroughly enjoyed the book however two chapters highlighted some specific theological talks about considering a reinterpretation of some historical narrative in the Old Testament based on what the author perceives actions commanded by God. The other is along the same lines in its questioning of the doctrine of Hell. Both ideas have theological consequences that are very dangerous. However, this one stays on my bookshelf and I do recommend to any who can chew the meat and spit out the bones.

  • John Hanscom
    2019-03-17 23:01

    3 1/2 to 4. We'vee all been in conversations where, looking back, we think, "Gee, I wish I'd said ..." The author sets up a fictional dialoge with a fictional atheist, and, I would assume, over however long it took to write, was able to do so, in the manner of Plato's Dialogues. The topic is Christian apologetics. The author is honest; the atheist does not suddenly covert, and the author admits his doubts. It was a good summary of apologetics, however, on occasion, "too-cute-by-half."

  • Godly
    2019-03-01 21:18

    This is essentially one long conversation between the author and a fictional skeptic set in a coffee shop. Deep theological questions discussed with humor is what sets this book apart. I dont agree with everything Randal espouses but I love his humility and attitude. Proves winning arguments is not everything. Good fun read!

  • Peter
    2019-03-11 23:19

    My first kindle book! First half I found not that interesting, maybe read all these arguments before. Second half he takes on some troubling aspects of Christianity (genocide in OT, hell ECT) with remarkable condor. Book is styled as a conversation at a coffee shop with a skeptic.

  • Josh Barkey
    2019-02-28 23:19

    A solid, meandering, whimsical, humorous take on apologetics. For a more detailed review, check out