Subjective, personal morality?

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Yesterday I had a discussion with my husband about morality and would love to hear your thoughts on this and maybe get some suggestions on how to continue this conversation and strengthen my argument.

My husband doesn’t believe in God. He thinks that Nietzsche was wrong when he said that with killing God we have killed morality, because people can be moral without God. I argued that morality can only exist if it is objective and external to us, because if morality is not external and objective, than we are only dealing with personal whims and power play of certain individuals who happen to be in a position to impose their morality on others. I claimed that in such instances things inevitably lead to utilitarianism and convenience. People will do something if it suits a purpose, and will fail to do something if it doesn’t work for them. I said there is no reason to hold on to one’s moral code, because if we take relativism to the next logical step, our own personal morality is not better or worse than any other person’s. Why should my husband’s morality *essentially *be any better than Hitler’s? It is all personal after all. We are free to decide what is true and good for ourselves.

However, he does not believe that all ideas are equal and equally good, and the same goes with morality. He said that he thinks that Christian morality is superior to all other systems out there, and that he is very happy to be a product of the western world, which itself is a product of Christianity. But he sees Christianity as only another human ideology that happens to be better than others. He thinks that morality is just like our consciousness, our mind. We have this awareness that right and wrong exist but that doesn’t point to God or any other external source. It is simply the product of our evolution. I brought up the ‘selfish gene’ idea which he rejected but failed to give me a better explanation.

He said he’d rather live in a community governed by Pope Francis than Richard Dawkins when I asked what he would choose if he had to make a decision. He is also against abortion because he is convinced that is a killing of a human being, so I’m not sure how that fits with his relativistic attitude.

My husband has an academic background in political philosophy so he would be open to reading something in that field. My knowledge of political philosophy is rudimentary so I have no idea what to suggest. Is there anyone out there who has convincingly come up with an explanation on how at the same time morality can be subjective and context specific and universally valid? I didn’t get that impression from him, and have never come across a solid argument for that myself. (Maybe that is because it is not possible to make that argument. )

Any thoughts on how to proceed and what to ask next?

TIA!

 

[ccmnxc]

Yesterday I had a discussion with my husband about morality and would love to hear your thoughts on this and maybe get some suggestions on how to continue this conversation and strengthen my argument.

My husband doesn’t believe in God. He thinks that Nietzsche was wrong when he said that with killing God we have killed morality, because people can be moral without God. I argued that morality can only exist if it is objective and external to us, because if morality is not external and objective, than we are only dealing with personal whims and power play of certain individuals who happen to be in a position to impose their morality on others. I claimed that in such instances things inevitably lead to utilitarianism and convenience. People will do something if it suits a purpose, and will fail to do something if it doesn’t work for them. I said there is no reason to hold on to one’s moral code, because if we take relativism to the next logical step, our own personal morality is not better or worse than any other person’s. Why should my husband’s morality *essentially *be any better than Hitler’s? It is all personal after all. We are free to decide what is true and good for ourselves.

However, he does not believe that all ideas are equal and equally good, and the same goes with morality. He said that he thinks that Christian morality is superior to all other systems out there, and that he is very happy to be a product of the western world, which itself is a product of Christianity. But he sees Christianity as only another human ideology that happens to be better than others. He thinks that morality is just like our consciousness, our mind. We have this awareness that right and wrong exist but that doesn’t point to God or any other external source. It is simply the product of our evolution. I brought up the ‘selfish gene’ idea which he rejected but failed to give me a better explanation.

He said he’d rather live in a community governed by Pope Francis than Richard Dawkins when I asked what he would choose if he had to make a decision. He is also against abortion because he is convinced that is a killing of a human being, so I’m not sure how that fits with his relativistic attitude.

My husband has an academic background in political philosophy so he would be open to reading something in that field. My knowledge of political philosophy is rudimentary so I have no idea what to suggest. Is there anyone out there who has convincingly come up with an explanation on how at the same time morality can be subjective and context specific and universally valid? I didn’t get that impression from him, and have never come across a solid argument for that myself. (Maybe that is because it is not possible to make that argument. )

Any thoughts on how to proceed and what to ask next?

TIA!

I’d say subjective morality can certainly exist w/o God. It is, however, meaningless and holds no obligatory force. I wanted to key in on this:

We have this awareness that right and wrong exist but that doesn’t point to God or any other external source. It is simply the product of our evolution.

If right and wrong or simply products of evolution, then they become meaningless terms. There are things the enable and aid human flourishing and things that hurt it. These are objective. However, a moral code seems incomplete if it cannot account for reason to have us flourish. It presupposes intrinsic value, which I cannot see in a world without God. This flourishing is what I assume he is referring to when talking about “better morality.” Perhaps it is happiness, but it runs into the same problem.

So when it comes down to it,I think it depends on what he believes makes a “better” or “more successful morality.” If it is something that presupposes intrinsic value, it seems to fail.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

There are things the enable and aid human flourishing and things that hurt it. These are objective. However, a moral code seems incomplete if it cannot account for reason to have us flourish. It presupposes intrinsic value, which I cannot see in a world without God. This flourishing is what I assume he is referring to when talking about “better morality.”

Thank you for your comment.

He seems to think that intrinsic value to human life exists within an atheistic mind-set. I’m not sure how that can be. It sounds like an oxymoron to me.

 

[Morwenna]

CS Lewis gives some excellent arguments for the existence of a universal, unchangeable morality (and how it ultimately points to God) in Mere Christianity.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

CS Lewis gives some excellent arguments for the existence of a universal, unchangeable morality (and how it ultimately points to God) in Mere Christianity.

It is time I read this. I know he wouldn’t read it so I should familiarise myself with Lewis’ argument and use it when an opportunity arises.

 

[Portofino]

He thinks that Nietzsche was wrong when he said that with killing God we have killed morality, because people can be moral without God.

He’s absolutely right that people can exhibit moral behavior without belief in God. Indeed, part of what we call goodness is innate; you can see that goodness in young children, even before they grasp arguments as to whether or not God exists. The question, though, is whether moral obligation exists without God, whether nature can impose moral obligations. If it’s only society that can impose moral obligations, then we can’t say that something is wrong, but that (certain) human beings and (a certain) society views it as wrong.

argued that morality can only exist if it is objective and external to us, because if morality is not external and objective, than we are only dealing with personal whims and power play of certain individuals who happen to be in a position to impose their morality on others. I claimed that in such instances things inevitably lead to utilitarianism and convenience. People will do something if it suits a purpose, and will fail to do something if it doesn’t work for them. I said there is no reason to hold on to one’s moral code, because if we take relativism to the next logical step, our own personal morality is not better or worse than any other person’s.

I think a replacement for morality, in such a scenario, is what is called wisdom. Convicts in prison often have great clarity about this, that their own behavior has caused them suffering, in more ways than they could have ever anticipated. One career criminal talked about how, as a criminal, all of his friends were criminals. He would have stolen property in his apartment, and it would constantly disappear! No one would fess up about it; why should they? It was inevitable that the company he kept was untrustworthy; if it were any different, it wouldn’t take long for more honest individuals to learn his true character, and to move away from him. So that is just one example of the vicious circle of what the Buddhists call “karma”, the law of cause and effect – to the extent that no one can trust me, I can’t trust anybody (which plays out, almost humorously, in mob movies, with betrayals and double-crossings, wanting to keep the ‘take’ for oneself, each trying to bump the other off, etc. You can barely keep up with the number of betrayals and “stabbings in the back” that occur, because the whole lifestyle is premised on dishonesty). But I don’t think the typical criminal realizes this, when he gets into the life; to the contrary, criminals often have a hair-trigger threshold of feeling persecuted, put-upon, and “taken advantage of” by others. A typical criminal often goes on at length about how everyone has wronged him, how he has a long list of people he needs to take revenge on.

should my husband’s morality essentially be any better than Hitler’s? It is all personal after all. We are free to decide what is true and good for ourselves.

Well, in fairness, Hitler was like an Einstein of evil-doing – what he got away with, is something that the vast majority of people could not have gotten away with. And his behavior carried its own negative consequences, for himself – dissatisfaction, anger, paranoia; “inner peace and a deep, abiding sense of contentment” are not qualities one would associate with someone like a Hitler or a Stalin, a Mussolini or a Saddham Hussein, but rather with someone like Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, or Pope Francis. Hitler died in some bunker; Mussolini was dangled outside a window by his ankles; Saddham Hussein was devoured, like Mussolini, by an angry mob; Stalin lived until old age, but one commentator writes, “Paranoia had already become a part of his daily routine, as integral a part of him as breathing.” It was an infernal case of cause and effect – because everyone had cause to fear him, he had cause to fear everyone.

Of course, a conception of true “wisdom” is that happiness comes from within, in spite of the most adverse external circumstances. Thus, although Gandhi or Martin Luther King were killed for their beliefs, they nonetheless had reaped the internal fruits of peace and contentment. Meanwhile, someone like Stalin could live until advanced old age and die in his bed, and one would still believe (peering into one’s inner life) that the martyred saint was still happier, still the one that was the more to be envied.

So, yes – if God doesn’t exist, one is free to do whatever one wants, as long as one is willing to accept the consequences. Since we have free will, the same inevitably applies in a Christian context; if I do not care about the possibility of going to hell, then there’s really nothing stopping me from doing whatever I want (hell is supposed to be a disincentive, just as jail is supposed to be a disincentive). Even from the perspective of an absolute morality, one could take the defiant attitude that “rules are meant to be broken.” It may not be a “wise” way of proceeding, but there is nothing preventing it.

 

[Pugsly]

TIA…I’m writing a book on this very subject. I just finished an essay summarizing the first draft of the book…“Physical ethics” or how to get morality from a turnip.

A summary of my 10 page essay would go something like this…

If there is no God, Survival becomes the first and most powerful ethic.  The second ethic is ME...getting what I want by any means--Utility. Thus, we look about us and see a world where the Strong dominate the Weak throughout nature.  Most of us are not Strong enough to dominate...most of us MEs are in danger!  Thus we strive for Survival via a third ethic.......the "herd"--hence, government is the key to ME insuring Survival and getting what I want.

Now, for ME to get into a herd with YOU there must be a common cause.

1. Survival against the forces of manipulation and dominance
2. ME and YOU getting what we commonly want–food, shelter, healthcare…etc

Thus, secular or physical ethics rally the herd AGAINST a common enemy…and FOR a commonly perceived NEED.

Now, you are right…morality requires a moral absolute. Secular ethics has 3…1) Safety and Survival is an absolute good …2) Dominance and manipulation of others for personal satisfaction threatens everyone and therefore is evil…3) Everything that we see in nature (seemingly evolved randomly and without purpose) is of Equal value…a boy is a tree is a fish…my flesh can be cut into a female shape…a man can marry a man…etc.

Thus, the moral absolute of physical ethics in a society would look like this:
   Safety...including basic needs
   Equality
   Natural balance 
   enforced by an empathetic government....a powerful herd--keeper like Obama

However, the world is littered with a billion bones of the WEAK who empowered god-free but “empathetic leaders” who then became STRONG and dominated the populace…to the point of mass murder. For example Mao is responsible for over 60 million deaths.

Ps…Yours sounds like an uncommonly smart family! If you would like a copy of the essay I wrote…just email me ferd453@aol.com…and I will pass it along to you.

 

[Pugsly]

Yesterday I had a discussion with my husband about morality and would love to hear your thoughts on this and maybe get some suggestions on how to continue this conversation and strengthen my argument.

My husband doesn’t believe in God. He thinks that Nietzsche was wrong when he said that with killing God we have killed morality, because people can be moral without God. I argued that morality can only exist if it is objective and external to us, because if morality is not external and objective, than we are only dealing with personal whims and power play of certain individuals who happen to be in a position to impose their morality on others. I claimed that in such instances things inevitably lead to utilitarianism and convenience. People will do something if it suits a purpose, and will fail to do something if it doesn’t work for them. I said there is no reason to hold on to one’s moral code, because if we take relativism to the next logical step, our own personal morality is not better or worse than any other person’s. Why should my husband’s morality *essentially *be any better than Hitler’s? It is all personal after all. We are free to decide what is true and good for ourselves.

However, he does not believe that all ideas are equal and equally good, and the same goes with morality. He said that he thinks that Christian morality is superior to all other systems out there, and that he is very happy to be a product of the western world, which itself is a product of Christianity. But he sees Christianity as only another human ideology that happens to be better than others. He thinks that morality is just like our consciousness, our mind. We have this awareness that right and wrong exist but that doesn’t point to God or any other external source. It is simply the product of our evolution. I brought up the ‘selfish gene’ idea which he rejected but failed to give me a better explanation.

He said he’d rather live in a community governed by Pope Francis than Richard Dawkins when I asked what he would choose if he had to make a decision. He is also against abortion because he is convinced that is a killing of a human being, so I’m not sure how that fits with his relativistic attitude.

My husband has an academic background in political philosophy so he would be open to reading something in that field. My knowledge of political philosophy is rudimentary so I have no idea what to suggest. Is there anyone out there who has convincingly come up with an explanation on how at the same time morality can be subjective and context specific and universally valid? I didn’t get that impression from him, and have never come across a solid argument for that myself. (Maybe that is because it is not possible to make that argument. )

Any thoughts on how to proceed and what to ask next?

TIA!

The main thing to remember about god-free ethics vs. moral absolutes based on God…is that god-free morality is a FEAR-BASED philosophy that seeks to control the dangerous variables of life on Earth. There is a huge difference in opening a soup kitchen out of love for God and our weaker brothers and sisters…and opening a government kitchen by confiscating money from one’s percieved enemy…“the Rich”…to give to the poor. one action is based on an overarching sense of brotherhood under God…while the other is defensive and authoritarian

 

[Morwenna]

It is time I read this. I know he wouldn’t read it so I should familiarise myself with Lewis’ argument and use it when an opportunity arises.

I can’t recommend it enough. It was the final ‘push’ that got me over the finish line (or perhaps I should say “through the starting gate” ) of admitting that Christianity is real and true. Considering that I had been not just an ‘unbeliever’, but actually hostile toward Christianity for about 25 years, that change was nothing short of miraculous. I don’t attribute my change solely to this one single book, of course … but it was definitely the double-triple-quadruple final ‘whammy’ that brought me to my knees.

I’ve since re-read it several times, and still glean something new with each reading.

I’d love to hear your thoughts after you read it.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The main thing to remember about god-free ethics vs. moral absolutes based on God…is that god-free morality is a FEAR-BASED philosophy that seeks to control the dangerous variables of life on Earth. There is a huge difference in opening a soup kitchen out of love for God and our weaker brothers and sisters…and opening a government kitchen by confiscating money from one’s percieved enemy…“the Rich”…to give to the poor. one action is based on an overarching sense of brotherhood under God…while the other is defensive and authoritarian

I don’t think this is true and I don’t think that this will be convincing to her Husband. It seems to falsely dichotomize the motivations that one may have for making a decision that he or she finds to be moral. Sticking with your soup kitchen example, some one could also open up the soup kitchen out of empathy, to repeat the kindness that he or she had received before, or for a number of other reasons that are not rooted as fear. These motivations are not exclusive to those that invoke or don’t invoke a god-concept when making moral decisions.

That’s not to say that fear is never a consideration when making moral decisions. But it’s also not exclusive to those without or without a god-concept; you can find examples of where fear has been invoked by both.

 

[edwest2]

Yesterday I had a discussion with my husband about morality and would love to hear your thoughts on this and maybe get some suggestions on how to continue this conversation and strengthen my argument.

My husband doesn’t believe in God. He thinks that Nietzsche was wrong when he said that with killing God we have killed morality, because people can be moral without God. I argued that morality can only exist if it is objective and external to us, because if morality is not external and objective, than we are only dealing with personal whims and power play of certain individuals who happen to be in a position to impose their morality on others. I claimed that in such instances things inevitably lead to utilitarianism and convenience. People will do something if it suits a purpose, and will fail to do something if it doesn’t work for them. I said there is no reason to hold on to one’s moral code, because if we take relativism to the next logical step, our own personal morality is not better or worse than any other person’s. Why should my husband’s morality *essentially *be any better than Hitler’s? It is all personal after all. We are free to decide what is true and good for ourselves.

However, he does not believe that all ideas are equal and equally good, and the same goes with morality. He said that he thinks that Christian morality is superior to all other systems out there, and that he is very happy to be a product of the western world, which itself is a product of Christianity. But he sees Christianity as only another human ideology that happens to be better than others. He thinks that morality is just like our consciousness, our mind. We have this awareness that right and wrong exist but that doesn’t point to God or any other external source. It is simply the product of our evolution. I brought up the ‘selfish gene’ idea which he rejected but failed to give me a better explanation.

He said he’d rather live in a community governed by Pope Francis than Richard Dawkins when I asked what he would choose if he had to make a decision. He is also against abortion because he is convinced that is a killing of a human being, so I’m not sure how that fits with his relativistic attitude.

My husband has an academic background in political philosophy so he would be open to reading something in that field. My knowledge of political philosophy is rudimentary so I have no idea what to suggest. Is there anyone out there who has convincingly come up with an explanation on how at the same time morality can be subjective and context specific and universally valid? I didn’t get that impression from him, and have never come across a solid argument for that myself. (Maybe that is because it is not possible to make that argument. )

Any thoughts on how to proceed and what to ask next?

TIA!

I think the root of the problem stems partly from the thought that all belief systems and religions have common threads in them. This means man thought them up. Not believing in God but believing the Church is the best or most practical belief system out there is like saying, “I don’t believe in God but this Catholic Church idea is the best package for me.” This suggests the Church just sprung into existence through the work of some men, and Jesus, what about Him? A a priest on Catholic Radio said so well, we have three alternatives regarding who Jesus was/is:

1. Lunatic.
2. Liar.
3. Lord.

Yes, there are people who believe they are someone else, including historical figures. And today, there are liars who will convince you of something for your money or to build a group of followers for political ends. If Jesus Christ lived, died and rose again as He foretold, raised the dead, gave sight to the blind, cleansed/healed the lepers, then aren’t those things only God can do?

We are surrounded by a great deal of noise from the media, some of it good but a lot of it bad. We can see the work of God in the things He created.

biblehub.com/romans/1-20.htm

Finally, intellectual discussions, while helpful, are just part of it. You need to add prayer, and patience, so that a turning to God may occur. Fortunately, by being married, your unbelieving husband shares something with you.

biblehub.com/1_corinthians/7-14.htm

The following is a long read but highlights the fact that truth is truth and how a disconnect has occurred with people regarding the authentic basis of dealing with others on the micro-personal level and in the larger, macro level. I was raised with all these things and watched the connectedness of people erode over the last 40 years.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html

Ed

 

[Pugsly]

I don’t think this is true and I don’t think that this will be convincing to her Husband. It seems to falsely dichotomize the motivations that one may have for making a decision that he or she finds to be moral. Sticking with your soup kitchen example, some one could also open up the soup kitchen out of empathy, to repeat the kindness that he or she had received before, or for a number of other reasons that are not rooted as fear. These motivations are not exclusive to those that invoke or don’t invoke a god-concept when making moral decisions.

That’s not to say that fear is never a consideration when making moral decisions. But it’s also not exclusive to those without or without a god-concept; you can find examples of where fear has been invoked by both.

Generalizations are the key to understanding large ideas…I used the soup kitchen example with the Social Gospel movement in mind.

When someone goes from caring for the “poor, the widow, the orphan and the stranger in your land”…which is a Biblical principle…to envy and covetousness of the 1%…then we have a clearer understanding of the divide between religious motives and defensive secular ethics.

Ps…I can always tell when I’m speaking with someone of the fear-based philosophy because when they are most polite…they still CLOUD the argument with attacks on clarity…especially generalizations.
Discussing general trends and the vast sweep of philosophies can clarify…but saying we can never know anything for certain destroys all rational discussion.

 

[Pugsly]

I think the root of the problem stems partly from the thought that all belief systems and religions have common threads in them. This means man thought them up. Not believing in God but believing the Church is the best or most practical belief system out there is like saying, “I don’t believe in God but this Catholic Church idea is the best package for me.” This suggests the Church just sprung into existence through the work of some men, and Jesus, what about Him? A a priest on Catholic Radio said so well, we have three alternatives regarding who Jesus was/is:

1. Lunatic.
2. Liar.
3. Lord."

you forgot…4) Lore or myth… The spirit of antichrist is already filling many a head with the idea the Jesus never came in the flesh…that there never was a Jesus of Nazareth

 

[edwest2]

Good point. But there’s plenty of non-Christian writing that confirms He existed, and the Catholic Church was founded by Him.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

If I could add to my last post:

thedevineevidence.com/jesus_history.html

Ed

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Generalizations are the key to understanding large ideas…I used the soup kitchen example with the Social Gospel movement in mind.

I’m thinking of kind acts in general. People do at time voluntarily engage in acts that they find to be good often without fear of punishments/consequences without expectation of recognition or rewards beyond improving some one else’s condition.

If the person of interest doesn’t find that his ethics and morality are fear based then he may find the previously presented dichotomy to be non-applicable to himself.

Discussing general trends and the vast sweep of philosophies can clarify…but saying we can never know anything for certain destroys all rational discussion.

Don’t worry, I’m not a radical skeptic.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Thank you all who have replied so far. I’m sorry for abandoning my own thread, but I was without internet for a few days.

Ps…Yours sounds like an uncommonly smart family! If you would like a copy of the essay I wrote…just email me ferd453@aol.com…and I will pass it along to you.

LOL Thank you. This is what happens when you get two PhD students to meet, fall in love and get married. We have some intense and interesting conversations

I’d like to read your essay and will send you an email. Thanks

The main thing to remember about god-free ethics vs. moral absolutes based on God…is that god-free morality is a FEAR-BASED philosophy that seeks to control the dangerous variables of life on Earth. There is a huge difference in opening a soup kitchen out of love for God and our weaker brothers and sisters…and opening a government kitchen by confiscating money from one’s percieved enemy…“the Rich”…to give to the poor. one action is based on an overarching sense of brotherhood under God…while the other is defensive and authoritarian

I agree with this 100%. Fear can be sugar coated and hid in all sorts of rhetoric but when you scratch beneath the surface you find it in all its glory. Looking forward to your essay.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

He’s absolutely right that people can exhibit moral behavior without belief in God. Indeed, part of what we call goodness is innate; you can see that goodness in young children, even before they grasp arguments as to whether or not God exists. The question, though, is whether moral obligation exists without God, whether nature can impose moral obligations.

I think a replacement for morality, in such a scenario, is what is called wisdom.

Several interesting points here.

About innate goodness: we call it the natural law. We are simply wired this way - to seek goodness, to be moral. That is why an atheist also seeks to be moral in a sense that we define it: seeking absolute good. What you have written is in accordance with what the church teaches: human beings are essentially good, but fallen. Thus the gap between what we strive for and what we get. We need God to transcend our fallen, sinful state.

Wisdom. Interesting, I see what you mean. But I would still argue that wisdom comes from one’s experience. And experience depends on a particular social context within which we live. So wisdom can’t be completely divorced from context, and therefore we again can’t talk about objective, universal values.

That’s really interesting what you said about Hitler and Stalin and other great murderers. They all suffered because of their actions. I guess this is the best proof that we reap what we saw. However, what I was saying that Hitler’s or Stalin’s morality is not any different that Regular Joe’s in its essence, because they all invent it for themselves, regardless of the severity of consequences.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Sticking with your soup kitchen example, some one could also open up the soup kitchen out of empathy, to repeat the kindness that he or she had received before, or for a number of other reasons that are not rooted as fear. These motivations are not exclusive to those that invoke or don’t invoke a god-concept when making moral decisions.

That’s not to say that fear is never a consideration when making moral decisions. But it’s also not exclusive to those without or without a god-concept; you can find examples of where fear has been invoked by both.

What you say is very true. We have moral atheists who do good out of love of people, and terrible Christians. Nobody can argue against that, right? I know both types. But what it gets down to is that atheism can’t explain altruistic behaviour outwith the boundaries of utilitarianism. People come up with all sorts of theories: that morality is a product of evolution, for example. But when we look into the theory of evolution more closely we see that there is no intrinsic relationship between evolution and morality, except again as a survival instinct. But this is not morality that we are concerned with here: doing good for good’s sake.

Again, this points to what we call the natural law. It is written on our hearts and there is nothing we can do

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I can’t recommend it enough. It was the final ‘push’ that got me over the finish line (or perhaps I should say “through the starting gate” ) of admitting that Christianity is real and true. Considering that I had been not just an ‘unbeliever’, but actually hostile toward Christianity for about 25 years, that change was nothing short of miraculous. I don’t attribute my change solely to this one single book, of course … but it was definitely the double-triple-quadruple final ‘whammy’ that brought me to my knees.

I’ve since re-read it several times, and still glean something new with each reading.

I’d love to hear your thoughts after you read it.

I’ve heard wonderful things about this book and it seems that it had a similar effect on many people. I’m glad it helped you move forward. (I have to say that getting to the other side of the Tiber is wonderful and I hope you dog paddle there eventually. You’ll probably wonder what took you so long once you get there

Many thanks for your recommendation. I really must read it.