Paul Mayer

Whether you believe in God or not, this book does a great job explaining concepts from a variety of different fields. This includes philosophy of science, history, biology, chemistry, cosmology, physics, mathematics, statistics, and even epistemology. While this book can get technical at times, Meyer does his best to make the content understandable for those without a science background with analogies and diagrams. It reminds me a lot of Richard Feynman’s physics lectures in its clarity. Return of the God Hypothesis does go quite a bit deeper than most other books engaging with these ideas. For instance, those familiar with Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument or the Fine Tuning argument will find chapters explaining the background, history, and even some of the mathematics of these arguments in a way that helps dispel the notion that the book (or its ideas) are simply religious propaganda. As a result, those who think the idea of God is outdated and unscientific may be surprised by the level of rigor here and how such a case can be made. For the most part, I thought Meyer was fair and charitable to opposing views, even anticipating and conceding certain challenges to the views he proposes. I thought this made the book stronger, as it showed he is doing serious philosophy and looking for truth, not trying to be manipulative or deceptive. He spends entire chapters explaining alternative theories (like the multiverse theory) and explaining why his theory is a better explanation of the evidence. However he starts by explaining the theories themselves before attempting to refute them, so one can understand and appreciate the motivation for why they were proposed. For instance, I had never understood why Stephen Hawking proposed “imaginary time” for his cosmology until reading this book. Overall, I highly recommend this book to anyone, whether they believe in God or not, to understand more about the debate and to learn some science and philosophy in the process. I was surprised to learn how strong of a case could be made for the “God Hypothesis.”

Hunter is the one who coined the term “Culture War,” and this is the book that describes it. It was written 30 years ago (before I was born) but I’d argue it is even more relevant today. Some of the ideas in this book have come up again and again, such as crowd size arguments (which we saw in the 2016 election). Hunter goes through almost every aspect of culture, from the arts, religion, higher education, the media, politics, etc and shows how different sides (what he calls “orthodox” and “progressive”) are locked in an endless battle. Hunter does a great job of remaining unbiased, he explains how there are moderate voices on both sides and has collected painstaking surveys and interviews all over the political spectrum. In my view this book should be required reading by all political science and sociology students. I found this book to be incredibly eye opening.

James Davison Hunter once again challenges us to look deeper and farther than we normally do. In this book, he teams up with philosopher Paul Nedelisky to offer a powerful critique of scientific approaches to morality. The book also contains a concise but useful history of ideas from western moral philosophy; while it may be easy to consider this history boring and unnecessary, it is written in a clear, engaging, and insightful way, and there were some connections the authors comment on that I had never made or known between these ideas despite studying them at length. I highly recommend this book, especially to those who enjoy reading Sam Harris. It will certainly challenge one’s views and concludes with advice that doesn’t overstep or seek to manipulate. The book is consistently thoughtful yet challenging and prodding, and maintains Hunter’s distinct objectivity throughout. My only con of this book is it takes some of the interesting philosophical details to the notes/appendix (which are excellently explained bur likely not read by most readers, despite being important). That, and as a personal preference, I would have loved to see at least some engagement with the work of Alasdair MacIntyre (though the authors do mention GEM Anscombe) plus moral critics and skeptics such as Richard Joyce and Sharon Street (though these latter two would likely have helped their case and perhaps the authors did not feel the need to invoke them for support). If you are remotely interested in the relationship of morality and science, this book is one of the best (and best written) around.

Some books affirm things you already believe. Better ones challenge them. However, unlike those, this book provided an entire new way of thinking that was completely new, yet I wonder how I couldn’t have seen it in hindsight. It is both affirming and challenging, but overall insightful and thought provoking - it does not settle for easy answers or simple platitudes. I was introduced to Hunter’s work from a librarian friend of mine, and I enjoyed Culture Wars so much that I read all of his subsequent books, which are all fantastic (Before the Shooting Begins, The Death of Character, Science and the Good). This is Hunter’s best work yet, synthesizing perspectives from his previous work and providing positive advice rather than just diagnosing or describing the current state of the world. Many of the ideas present in Culture Wars, Before the Shooting Begins, and The Death of Character in particular are fully fleshed out and given the time and space to expand into a cohesive picture of what Hunter believes the problems and possible solutions are. Whereas I found part of the middle of The Death of Character to be a bit dry (not saying it was not important, but the painstaking history of character formation was probably longer than it needed to be), every section in this book was essential in my opinion. As a result this is, in my view, Hunter’s magnum opus, a culmination of his thought spanning three decades, and a deeply interdisciplinary work drawing from sociology, philosophy, theology, and history. This is also Hunter’s most technical work, drawing from sociological and philosophical theory that I had never heard of before (luckily he defines his terms and writes clearly). However this is always done in the context of his argument - in particular his use of the Nietzschean “Will to Power” and “Ressentiment” allow him to draw parallels between the Christian Right and the Christian Left. It is not a difficult read but it does require serious attention and reflection while reading - it was not a book I could blaze through, and I did have to take breaks. I’ll admit as an engineering student, I used to have a somewhat dim view of sociology as lacking rigor and being too politically motivated. This book helped me understand the value of sociological theory by demonstrating the how such theory can give us a way to discuss what we observe and help us make sense of the world. It is especially humbling when reading a passage that put a thought I had into words better than I probably could have done. It is one thing to make an argument - it is another to give a voice to the reader’s own thoughts, and then provide further analysis citing relevant studies or literature. Whatever this book lacks (and I am hard pressed to find anything negative to say about it), it is certainly not rigor or insight. It is not that this book changed my views - more fundamentally, it forced me to reconsider the way I thought about the world, and in particular Christianity’s place in it. It is one thing for a book to provide a compelling argument or offer an easy answer - it is another for it to offer a new way of conceptualizing issues by asking the right question, and let the reader come to their own conclusion with the clarity offered by wrestling with such a question. This is one book whose ideas will stay with me for years to come. I certainly hope I do not forget the insights learned here.

This is a profound and deeply troubling book. It challenged me to think about modern society in a new way, challenging assumptions about what I thought were obvious values. Hunter makes a compelling case for why Character is dying, and was destined to do so under the current cultural framework we have inherited. The book spends a lot of of space painstakingly detailing the history of character in the U.S., and while I found this section long and dense, I understand its importance. The book concludes with a rewarding synthesis of all the material and is worth getting to. Hunter cites philosophers and sociologists from across history, and the sheer breadth and scope of this work is impressive. Hunter’s citations of Charles Taylor were particularly thought provoking (though I had not read the books mentioned). I believe more people need to read this book. Dr. Jonathan Haidt suggested it to me, and I am glad I read it. This is a rare book that will likely cause you to think deeper about the current cultural conflict.

This book is a worthy follow up to Hunter’s 1991 work “Culture Wars,” which is also worth a read. Though you can read this on its own, you should read Culture Wars anyways because that book is a classic. In Before the Shooting Begins, Hunter takes the ideas developed in “Culture Wars” and applies them to the abortion debate. While “Culture Wars” went for breadth, this book goes for depth, exposing the rhetoric of Pro Life and Pro Choice, differing moral commitments, and its relationship to democracy. What is incredible is how relevant this book is, especially post roe. It is well researched, with plenty of social theory, surveys, and research statistics as well. Most impressive is how unbiased Hunter is. He spends time criticizing pro lifers and pro choices for unhelpful rhetoric. At the end of the book, I still had no idea where he stood on abortion and what he thought about it.