I didn’t realize this was the third book in a trilogy. I also thought this would be a more objective look at various religions. However, the author writes with a distinctly Christian perspective.

I have been reading this book selecting chapters that interest me. The one on Islam is well done. It is very informative and offers a well thought evaluation based on the criteria presented by the author. I look forward to reading the rest of the chapters.

I really wanted to like this book, because I was looking forward to an unbiased view (ie. lawyer view) on the major religions. Although the author does admit that he’s Christian, I appreciate his honesty, but I was leaning towards his defense lawyer perspective. But, it’s not bias free at all. In just about every chapter of a religion, he compares that religion to Christianity. He opens the book with Christianity, but doesn’t put it through a skeptical lense like he does with the others. (And for some reason, Mormonism is a separate category from Christianity). The chapters on secular spiritualism and secular Christianity are good reads. Overall, if you’re already Christian and just want to cement your belief some more, this book is it. But if you want facts, not feelings, skip this book. ( )

Great courtroom/legal examples. A very interesting read. The reason for writing the book was also given. This book will make you think long and hard about religion/life. ( )

The author, an attorney, uses a framework, or at least language, informed by legal practices, to compare various religions to his own in an attempt to discover whether each one is .....reasonable, provable or disprovable, I think. As someone without any formal education in "comparative religion" (and a general distaste for religion) I appreciated the introductory notes on the difference between showing a preponderance of the evidence, showing proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and a mathematical proof. I appreciated the notes on how to weigh evidence and so on. And I also appreciated the direction to not take one's own personal opinion into consideration when judging the facts. Unfortunately I think the book devolved from these very important principles in judging religion, both by offering passages from the Bible as "evidence" by which to judge other religions (versus the assumed rightness of his own), as well as by insufficient quotation and citation of authoritative sources on the other religions themselves. That is to say, he is acting as prosecutor, defendant and judge, despite telling the reader early on, more or less, to decide for himself. I believe practitioners of some of these other religions might put up different arguments than the author puts up for them. Could the author's arguments not be dismissed as likely straw men?
Still, a good theory on how to evaluate religion that is likely to resonate with the left-brained folks like scientists, and a lot of fairly-easy-to-digest information on quite a few religions plus hippie "secular spiritualists" and the Piltdown men representing "secular Christianity", despite the down side of the author apparently getting to play both offense and defense. ( )