My Photo
Mobilise this Blog





New Zealand Conservative


AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« Diversity of opinion cannot be tolerated amongst the enlightened | Main | Priorities »



I've been reading it with the purpose of reviewing it once I've finished, but I gotta say I find the early chapters rather boring so stopped and haven't picked it up in a while, but I loved the chapter on miracles and have also read some of the later chapters (such as the one on evil).


I'd review it, but I (cough cough) haven't had a chance to go to the bookshop...

John Boy

Being Christian makes it an easy read and it is encouraging as it sets out some "facts" about Christ from Roman records that support the biblical story.

Nexus stuck it to the Dalhai Lama (however its spelt) as well a while ago.


Ian misquotes Richard Dawkins on page 67, disecting a paragraph where Richard was mocking theologin Richard Swinburne. Remove the start and ends of the sentence and taking it out of context to make a point that Richard Dawkins does beleive in God.

Without going into the theological arguments, misquoting to make a point is just shoddy journalism

Ian Wishart

If you actually read the book properly Rob, you would see that I was pointing out how Dawkins uses the same logic he criticised Swinburne of, in order to explain away The Big Bang.


David Palmer

Enjoyed the book, thank you. It's a useful riposte to the atheists. I personally think Prof. Dawkins' book falls very early on with the statement, 'matter is the basic stuff of the universe' This is a theory - or a belief in Dawkins' case, with the emotional commitment that implies. Since he can't prove that assertion everything else in the book is irrelevant. Allow me to make one, hopefully constructive, criticism. Your Christian beliefs make you overly dismissive of other religions. I think I'd qualify as a 'Panentheist', and your chapter 6 came across as a rushed job to get through an unpleasant subject - other beliefs about God - as quickly as possible so you could get to the really meaty stuff. Well, okay, it's your book, but you're only making the same broad, ill-researched generalisations the likes of Dawkins et al, are prone to. But, otherwise, a useful book.

Ross Melles

Currently almost through your book Ian, having read Dawkins ("The God Delusion"). I find you totally reflect his belligerent attitude towards theism back at him (and his friends) and that is refreshing to see this done with some skill.
I wonder if a few of the Kiwi expressions might be lost on a more international audience. They struck me as a little cute.
I love the fact that you answered Dawkins' basic premise (which forms the raison d'etre of the whole "...Delusion" thesis, that dumb old fashioned people believe in creators and hip intelligent people don't- he comes clean on this in chapter 2 (on the "founding fathers").
I especially thought your chapters on the historicity of Christ and the miraculous events surrounding him, were given just the right weight ie. a lot! as was also pointed out by Paul points out in 1 Cor. 15.
I was also completely happy with your simple assessment of wooly theologians (Spong, et al) who simply rationalise a crisis of their own faith.
Not so sure about your arguments for the "divinity" of Christ. I think these were a little light. I am of the mind that he was God in an Old Testament "Jewish" ie. representative sense rather than Yahweh in person (for example as Thomas says after his resurrection). I don't think you convinced me of your view there.
Overall a very, very enjoyable read. Thanks a lot, it made the holiday...almost. Ad majorem Dei gloriam. Ross


The Divinity Code ...

Buried Cities ...

Atlantis ...

Stan is right - early chapters so boring you can't get into it.


Winston Lewis

I have just completed the book. Knowing Ian is a Christian, I expected a conservative leaning in the book, and so it proved. I need to declare that I am a Jew and a Rabbi, and a former professor in Jewish studies. There are many claims in the book that are simply untrue, though the one that stood out more than most was in regards to the resurrection. Paul, in 1Cor, clearly speaks about the natural and the spiritual body. To a Jew, the spiritual body has as much presence as the natural or physical body, though less presence or importance to a Christian. John Spong in particular understands the Jewish belief around this more than most of the writers I have reviewed. The second criticism is Ian's understanding of prophecy. Biblical prophecy is not a warning or prediction. Midrash is commonly used in Jewish writing and draws from the past to fulfil these prophecies. Finally, Jesus never calls himself God. In fact he is quoted as saying "he is my father and your father, my God and your God". I could go on, but I won't. Overall, the book is poor at best, even though I have enjoyed your other books.

The comments to this entry are closed.