Rating: 
Summary: A fascinating tale
Review: Loosing Faith in Faith is the story of one man that went from devoted evangelical Christian to humanist (atheist). This book is not for everyone. If you have never doubted the existence of God or are afraid to do so, I'd recommend avoiding this book. But, if you are open-minded or are looking to test your faith, jump on in. This book is a good test of faith, because Dan Barker presents a credible case, examining aspects of history, morality, and logic. His references are clearly documented for those that feel the need to verify his facts. Most of the arguments within can be found in other atheist/humanist works, but LFiF is an entertaining read. Barker knows his stuff; he ought to considering how it dominated his thinking for so long. The best thing about this book is, whether you subscribe to atheism or not, it shows that belief in a supreme being does not make one moral. For me, that is the most fascinating thing about humanism. Mr. Barker has some lingering anger towards Christians, but any refugee from a fundamentalist church can identify with him.
Rating:
Summary: Great-pay no attention to the bunnyman behind the curtain
Review: It is unfortunate that 'the bunnyman' (Jan 6, 2000 review) felt his innate need to express his own ideological whims (which are unclear; foggy at best) and utilize LFIF/amazon.com as a sounding board for his unabashed and misguided anger. Barker's book is, whether you agree with him or not, the story of a journey. To say this man was 'not a Christian' or 'never knew God' is ludicrous. The emotional pain and suffering that this man went through was/is real. Christian take heart; to criticize this man is to crucify him. If 'ye shall know the truth' and 'the truth shall set you free' then you certainly have nothing to fear from Dan Barker and LFIF. If you wish to gain introspection on what it is like to think without subjection, without fear of eternal retaliation, then LFIF is a book that you will thoroughly enjoy.
Rating: 
Summary: Read this book to open your mind
Review: I must admit, in this book Dan Barker comes across as being very narrow minded indeed. The only reason I got anything out of this book, is because it's obviously important to be aware of all the different view-points and opinions out there - no matter how extreme they may be. It is simply impossible for one book written by a narrow minded individual, who has yet to find God anyway, to undermine a faith as significant and spiritually deep as the Christian faith. At any one time in the world, there will always be people who will write books like this, and this shouldn't surprise Christians. There will also always be people who think that books like this have finally 'debunked' Christianity. But how wrong they are. I've just read an insightful quote which may give Barker insights into how the existence of suffering can be compatible with a all-loving God. - That "God's omnipotence is understood from the Christian perspective as God's capacity to enter into love with all its costs." Dan Barker seemed to think that an omnipotent God could stop the existence of any kind of pain - but as was noted by a previous reviewer, this view seems to be logically incoherent with the nature of 'real Love'. It seems that fundamentalists like Dan Barker have had the wrong line of focus all along. I would recommend all Christians read this book. It can only open one's mind, and hopefully it will prevent other Christians from having the same narrow minded focus as Barker. This means that we can get closer to the Lord - without blinkers, without dogma, but with spirit and with heart. That's what Jesus asked of us all along. That's what the Christian faith is all about. If only Dan has seen it.
Rating: 
Summary: What a mess!
Review: Wooah! How can a man go from one narrow minded extreme to the other, and then claim he has written this book on rational grounds? His chapter 'Dear Theologian' is the perfect example - oh heck, every chapter in this book is the perfect example. It's all too easy for Barker to undermine extreme Christian fundamentalism. Undermining the fundamentalist claim that "all non-Christians will burn in hell forever" is no different to undermining the claim that "the world was made in 7 days flat - anyone who disagrees is wrong!" It is this level of Christianity, (with its narrow minded focus on dogma, literalism and spiritually bankrupt regulations) which Dan Barker 'embraced' in his Christian years. He realised it all meant nothing, ridiculed it, claimed that all religions are "wrong", and then wrote a book about it called 'Losing Faith in Faith'. It is blatantly obvious that Barker never found spirituality in the first place! He completely missed the Christian spiritual heart (Jesus Christ), and instead he discovered nothing more than the dogmatic framework of fundamentalism. Whenever Barker refers to the Bible, he completely fails to comprehend the nature of figures of speeches and metaphors, which (normal) Christians believe reflect deep, spiritual truths. Instead, he reads them as he would read a scientific, literal account and then exclaims the passages are "irrational". I'd like to cover a few general issues which Barker harps on about all the way through his book. Firstly, the nature of the infinite. He asks the old chestnut - "Who created God?" Barker realises that he cannot answer this question so he quickly concludes that "belief in God is irrational". A previous reviewer wisely noted that Barker has not lost faith at all - rather, he has merely shifted his faith. Barker seems oblivious to the fact that he has not rid himself of the dilemma because he also does not know "Who created the Universe". In his Chapter 'The Great Escape', Barker writes: "Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on it's own merits. It is intellectual bankruptcy." But the only way anybody would have a faith-free understanding is to be infallible - to know everything - which is a characteristic given only to God. Barker is denying the fact that faith is part of the human condition. As it happens, the difference between saying "the Universe was always there" and "God was always there" is significant. It lies within the limits (or ends) of materialism. With regard to the existence of a mathematically ordered cosmos such as ours, (which includes the existence of self aware beings, intrinsic value, love and friendship), which exists, rather than nothing at all, then it is clear that the theistic hypothesis is far better than the materialistic hypothesis, because the theistic hypothesis makes the existence of a cosmos such as ours more probable than the materialistic one. In short, Christians believe that the ultimate Source possessed intelligence, power and Spirit, and that He cannot fail to exist. He is the Infinite - and HE MAKES SENSE! Barker's question "Who created the creator?" does a grand job in hinting that the ultimate creator transcends materialism and the laws of physics - an existence beyond man's puny understanding, but not beyond man's FAITH. Next, Satan and Hell. Barker spends a lot of time asking "Why would a loving God create Satan and Hell?" To get insights into this issue, just consider the nature of love. Firstly, fundamentalists (such as Barker) claim that God is 'omnipotent' in the sense that God can do absolutely anything - including the notion that God can make square circles, or that He can make 2 + 2 = 5. But normal Christians (as opposed to Barker) would accept that a 'self-limiting' (or a divine 'self-giving') attribute to God is central to the Christian faith. An infinite Love cannot manipulate the beloved, which means equally as much as God cannot create square circles, He also cannot prevent 'pain' from being a consequence of self-giving love. An opposing evil force is the inevitable consequence of the Infinite Love, and this force manifested itself as Satan. Revelations 12.7 states that such a spiritual force (metaphorically labelled "The huge Dragon, Satan") was removed from Heaven and was separated from God. All evil is inimical to God, so 'Hell' is a spiritual realm where God is not. Of course, I'm not being dogmatic here and saying "Anyone who disagrees with this is wrong!" Everyone has the right to their own faith. I'm merely describing central Christian issues from a deeper, more spiritual perspective - the perspective which Barker completely missed and failed to comprehend. No wonder Barker didn't find spiritual fulfilment in Christianity! 'Sin' is another issue which Barker fails to comprehend. He asks "What did Jesus save us from?" It is clear that 'sin', in the Christian context, is anything inimical to God / Love. Due to human FALLIBILTY, sinfulness is intrinsic to the human condition (after all, we are not divine). So to break down the barrier of sin, God made the ultimate sacrifice of all time (John 1.14; and John 1.29) - hence, we could enter into communion with Him. When all is said and done, the Christian faith is not "irrational", neither is it "spiritually bankrupt". Barker just needs to start searching deeper.
Rating:
Summary: Great Story
Review: It's quite clear that many of the detractors posting "reviews" have never actually read the book. The book has three sections. In the first section Barker describes his deconversion from Christianity after spending 17 years of his life converting people as a minister. This section is worth the cost of the book alone. The often angry and arrogant responses he often got from close friends demonstrates the true underbelly of Christian evangelism. He also honestly points out the not so nice things he did as a Christian in the name of God. His change from christianity to atheism is described as painful, and difficult. He describes the process to atheism as occurring over a long period of time. It reminds one of an alcoholic kicking his/her drinking habit. You get good emotional picture of a true change in world view in one person's heart. It is quite clear that is was not an easy experience for Barker but he appears to give us an honest picture of his pain.
Rating:
Summary: Good books don't require smears in their defense
Review: I'd really enjoy reading a positive review of an atheist book that didn't try to smear people who disagree with it. Unfortunately the following is all too typical: "Those who do not want their beliefs challenged, who fear they will begin to ask the same questions Dan did, others who do not believe in forgiveness for anyone who accepts reason over faith or who simply don't want to be bothered would not find Losing Faith in Faith to be pleasant reading. The rest of us can read, learn and even embrace what Dan has to say." Interesting that this reviewer has omitted an entire class of readers who belong to "the rest of us" - namely, those of us who enjoy questioning our beliefs, aren't at all afraid of asking even _difficult_ questions (let alone Barker's sophomoric ones, which most of us asked and answered long ago), and like reason just fine but aren't convinced by Barker's sporadic (and trivial) use of it. (And what believing in *forgiveness* has to do with it is more than I can fathom.) This level of review is about what one would expect in perhaps a high-school newspaper. Sad to say, it is also at about the level appropriate for this book.
Rating:
Summary: The beat goes on
Review: I have read, enjoyed and reviewed this book. I found it an excellent articulation of the answers to my own questions. The fact that, at the time of this writing, there are 49 reviews of the book, both praising and condemning it, are testament to the fact that my man Dan has struck a chord, that people care about what he has to say, that his message is being heard if not always embraced. It interests me that those who promote the bible as an alternative to critical thinking believe that one must be a believer to win the right to evaluate the it. This is akin to a lawyer demanding a jury believe in his clients innocence before being impaneled. What we see as absurd in the courtroom some feel it is appropriate in matters of faith. Several elements leap from Dan's text. First is the difficulty he had in coming to grips with his own doubts. Second, the seriousness with which he undertook a radical rethinking of what was clearly central to his life. Third is an acknowledgment of the very real price he paid in alienation from friends, family and social connections as a result. Finally there is the strength with which he embraces his new convictions. It is not a book for everyone. Those who do not want their beliefs challenged, who fear they will begin to ask the same questions Dan did, others who do not believe in forgiveness for anyone who accepts reason over faith or who simply don't want to be bothered would not find Losing Faith in Faith to be pleasant reading. The rest of us can read, learn and even embrace what Dan has to say.
Rating:
Summary: Lost Faith is no Real Faith
Review: I have not read all the book but I came across the part of the book that talks about the Easter Story and what was described as contradictions between the 4 gospels in regards to several details which were outlined. This shows over and over again the same mistake that people reading the Bible commit knowingly or unknowingly. Any person who would like sincerely to reach the truths in regard to different topics and incidents the Bible talks about must take into consideration the following principles : 1- One must not approach it with any preconceived ideas but with a willingness to come to the truth which in this case has an effect on one's eternal destiny 2- Every single verse must be read and interpreted as part of the whole idea or concept that God is trying to convey. One of the easiest and most common mistakes is interpreting single verses out of context which is an easy task 3- When it comes to the new testament the presence of 4 gospels , rather than one let's say, is one of the most evident manifestation of the wisdom of GOD. It would have been easier and probably makes more sense, from the human wisdom point of view, to have just one gospel telling the whole complete story of Jesus Christ and all that He did and taught. God wants you and me to approach His Word as "children". This does not mean at all that he does not want us to question and try to understand his word. What it means is that He wants me to believe Him first and then ask Him to explain to me what I do not understand second. This is REAL FAITH. When my six years old daughter asks me to explain something to her. She believes and trusts that what I said is totally true. She then asks me to explain the truth that I just stated which did not make sense to her. It's the same thing with GOD. This is why Jesus says (Matt 18:2) "..unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" I have personally applied the above principles for years of Bible study and I can say with all sincerity that I have not come so far across ONE SINGLE contradiction in the whole Bible. I have several times come across very difficult verses. By applying the above principles and specifically No. 3 I always found the answer . In the same talking I can tell you that the Easter Story that the book talks about is one of the most perfect and amazing stories that I came across. There is not one single contradiction between any of the Gospels. On the contrary when you put the whole thing together in chronological order you will end up with one consolidated complete and perfect story. This is one of the miracles of the Bible. To have 4 different writers report incidents of a certain story each writing in a different time, place and from a different perspective and end up with perfect description without errors is not amazing but Divine. I think if we try to do that today with 4 reporters reporting on the same story, and it has been done several times in the past, we most probably will end up with contradictions and errors. I will be more than willing to send the transcript of the whole story in chronological order as it appeared in the gospels to any person interested to compare it to what the book says and see how verses could be manipulated to show errors in the Bible
Rating:
Summary: The key to the whole sorry mess . . .
Review: . . . is that Dan Barker, like many other atheists, simply cannot stand the idea of what he calls a "judgmental God." Somehow, then, we are supposed to care about behaving morally, but without any standard above our own behavior against which we might be "judged." Were Barker consistent (no atheist is), he would also reject morality altogether. In fact he uses morality to dismiss the God of the Bible as immoral -- an argumentational fallacy that Barker's fellow atheist Ayn Rand would have called the "fallacy of the stolen concept." But Barker's reading of the Bible is just plain silly, though at its best it is good for a few laughs. He gets annoyed that God is said to "punish unto the third and fourth generations," but it never crosses his mind to inquire whether biblical Hebrew differentiates between "punishment" and "consequences" (it doesn't). He rages that God commands mass murder, but rips passages out of context and fails to determine whether God _actually_ commanded the "murders" in question. (Two examples: The previous inhabitants of the Holy Land were themselves child-murderers many times over, so killing them wouldn't exactly qualify as "murder." And the passage in Exodus in which Moses, following the Golden Calf episode, sets the Hebrews to killing each other makes _no mention whatsoever_ of this act's being divinely commanded; in fact it was apparently Moses's own idea.) All in all, this book is just a record of the depths of intellectual confusion to which one may fall through rejecting religion for emotional reasons. Guess what, Dan Barker: the God you don't believe in, I don't believe in either. You made him up.
Rating: 
Summary: Freiheit?
Review: I read this book and found it to be an interesting story of events but neither convincing nor worthy of thinking on in the subject of religion. I am not a deeply religious person, but I find something to be strangely ill about men who have nothing better to do with their lives than strain at defeating other peoples system of belief. I do not say this as though the authors lines of reasoning are utterly flawed, but because by the conclusion of the book one can see the profoundly futile nature of arguing such matters. For example, can a few lines of argument prove, disprove, support, or refute anything as infinite as the nature and existence of God without being mere intellectual toys? Most who believe consider God to be infinite in an infinite number of dimensions and beyond all temporal space, time, and quantitative logical understanding. Can one truly depend on finite rationale alone? No. In fact, I would wager that if a person were to exhaustively study all branches of logic, history, psychology, language, science, complex mathematics, religion -- or better yet, if someone had in themselves the entire sum of human knowledge -- would even that person be able to give a reason why some have faith, why some don't have faith, and whether or not there is a God? Once again, no. To attempt to do so would be in vain as is similarly the case with this book. The author has not lost faith, he has only changed what his faith is in. There is a difference. Now is the faith he has any different than the faith he had before? Not at all! Only the object of adoration has changed. He has just as much faith as before, only now he worships other humans and himself. And in matters of specific Christian claims -- let those who believe believe and let those who disbelieve write funny books. I imagine that free-thought works both ways.
| 
