What's So Great About Christianity shouldn't be read as a closely argued apologetic. (People make the same mistake with C. S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, and with some of my books.) This is a response to a series of popular, breezy attacks on Christianity. Like Dawkins, D'Souza has something to say about almost everything: human and cosmic origins, the mind, the origin of science, the Inquisition, Hitler, Buddha, Plato, the resurrection of Jesus. It wouldn't be fair to expect an in-depth or even equally informed discussion of all these issues in a single book: when you're on defense, you have to meet the other guys where they attack.
D'Souza's defense has many merits. First, he's an excellent writer. The book is colloquial, engaging, and lively. Nor is there anything mushy or wavering -- or defensive! -- about his defense. D'Souza stands toe to toe with the critics, and while he doesn't lower himself to some of Dawkins' nastier tactics, he also doesn't back down. Many of D'Souza's aphorisms have the Chestertonian quality of giving "conventional wisdom" a simple and well-earned tweek to the nose: "Indeed the Darwinian portrait of man is a remarkable corroboration of the Christian doctrine of original sin." "Shakespeare is our greatest dramatist, but there is no single character in Shakespeare who can match Christ's eloquence."
"Christianity made family life important in a way that it wasn't before." "In the context of the history of warfare, there is no warrant for considering the Crusades a world historical crime of any sort."
In general D'Souza also shows good sense. No one can be an expert in everything, which is why basic horse sense comes in handy here. In picking your way among the usual crowd of experts and pseudo-experts, you need to make good judgement calls, as well as own a fair store of background knowledge.
What D'Souza seems to know best is philosophy, in the sense of "the best (and worst) that has been thought in the Western tradition." (Curiously, though born in India, he shows little interest in Asian traditions, which I do, though born in the US!) He offers illuminating quotes and anecdotes, from Lucretius and Plato to Nietzche and Bertrand Russell and beyond. His defense of Aquinas and Anselm seem all the more poignant for their antiquity, the "chronological snobbery" of one critic below to the contrary. In this sense comparisons to C. S. Lewis (few good Christian writers can escape them) are illuminating: D'Souza also offers a simple and often eloquent summary of centuries of Christian thought. (Not that he quite matches Lewis as a writer, still less in his knowledge of the past. But he has his own strengths, which he plays to -- one reason such comparisons are unfair.)
I also found a fair amount to quarrel with here.
(1) D'Souza sometimes over-generalizes about "the atheists." Much of his sharpest criticism hits Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens right on the noggin; but doesn't fairly apply to more reasonable skeptics. But that's mostly a matter of rhetorical convenience; I think D'Souza knows his generalizations don't really apply to all atheists, even if it sometimes sounds as if he means them to.
(2) The most careful studies show there are probably about 50-55 million Christians in China, not 100 million, as D'Souza claims. (The lower figures also agree with my own research in China.)
(3) "One trend seems clear: God is the future, and atheism is on its way out." This is too triumphalistic. No one knows the future but God. And given that atheists have about doubled in the US, it seems silly to make such predictions. (Still, a little bombast beats dull writing!)
(4) D'Souza rightly credits Christianity with a broad range of social reforms; he does not always give enough evidence to back the claims up.
(5) D'Souza discussion of biological or human origins are pretty fair as a bare-bones introduction, but won't satisfy anyone on either side who knows much about these topics. He doesn't seem to understand Intelligent Design deeply. And despite his denial, his arguments against biogenesis, the material origins of consciousness and rationality, do I think reduce to a kind of "God of the Gaps" argument, and are unlikely to satisfy ardent evolutionists. (Though in my view calling an argument "God of the gaps" doesn't necessarily make it bad. When the gap between what your theory explains, and the data, grows wide, it's often reasonable to look for a new theory -- and it may well be that God is the best theory.)
D'Souza offers a sociological argument against ID. "This is what most biologists think, I'm not a biologist, I'll go with the majority." I find this frank appeal to authority refreshingly honest, but perilous. Given the complexity of the issues and the strength of biases (everyone has something to lose here), it'd be better just to say "I don't know" until you have the chance to study both sides of the issue thoroughly. (My book offers two chapters on biological evolution, then a chapter called, "Did God Evolve?" which responds to Dennett and the evolutionary social theorists behind him.)
(6) "Faith is a statement of trust in what we do not know for sure." (195, also in his debate with Hitchens.) In the strict philosophical sense, we don't know anything "for sure." But for great Christian thinkers down through the centuries, faith has always meant "holding firmly to what we have good reason to believe is true." Uncharacteristically, on this point D'Souza concedes too much to his New Atheist opponents -- and misses the heart of the Christian tradition.
(7) D'Souza may identify the Nazis with atheism a bit too closely. This is justified when he writes about communism, as I also argue. But even on the Nazis, D'Souza makes some good points. (On this subject, I recommend the book From Darwin to Hitler.)
(8) D'Souza repeats the popular cliche that "what is unique about Christianity" is its emphasis on grace. I disagree. Quite a few Hindu and Buddhist sects also emphasize grace. What is unique about Christianity is Christ. (See my Jesus and the Religions of Man for an unpacking of that koan!)
(9) I wasn't satisfied with D'Souza's defense of dualism. I personally would find a more empirical approach more helpful.
Despite these criticisms (some niggling, some essential), What's So Great About Christianity is well worth the read, both for Christians and for open-minded skeptics. It's also worth passing on to people with doubts -- even if it fails to satisfy the most demanding skeptics. (Such as the authors of the more critical reviews below.)
I am, as I said, biased. But between D'Souza, Lennox, and my own book (
The Truth Behind the New Atheism: Responding to the Emerging Challenges to God and Christianity), I think the "new atheism" is listing badly to port, for those who care to notice. These books also defend the intellectual and moral value of the Christian message to some extent, but for more depth, please follow footnotes. It's impossible for anyone to say everything in one volume, but there is often a wealth of additional evidence on a given topic; these are arguments with sound roots to them.