I'm stopping half way through. Although I agree with his answers, his arguments might just convince me to change my mind.

His arguments are weak, and have often enough been shown to be inadequate. Most of the books he references are popular works that are decades old. He does mention that NT Wright wrote a scholarly book on the resurrection, but recommends reading a popular book from the 30's instead. If you are going to publish theology in the 21st century, you should know some theology and 21st century theology at that.

His language also comes from the 60's or 70's. He constantly uses 'man' to mean human. This may win him points with males who are at least as old as he is, but it will not win him readers among younger people or women. It will merely convince them that Christianity is outdated.

Oh, yes, suffering does not of itself 'beget wisdom' or 'draw us to God.' Like most of his other arguments this is too shallow and is very disrespectful of those who suffer. ( )

One of the best, most reasonable books arguing for Christianity I have read. The author talks about probabilities rather than a fundamentalist arrogant certainty. Refreshing! ( )

Have begun a series of reviews, section by section in no particular order, on my Vridar blog here.