I am a thinker, and I love a good challenge to better understand what I do or do not believe. I have found many philosophical books to be very difficult to follow though as they are written in academic language or at the level of intelligence that surpasses the general public. This is not so with Is Belief Believable? Reasoning About God from Plato and Aquinas to C. S. Lewis and Jordan Peterson by Christopher Kaczor. The book is divided into three sections, Obstacles to Belied in God, Reasons for Belief in God, and Believing in the God of the Bible, and each chapters answer a singular question. Personally, I found it most helpful to digest one chapter at a time. There is so much depth, truth, and concepts to pray and ponder. The takeaway for me though, while these are really tough questions, the logic, explanations, and writings of Kaczor serve to eliminate some of the barriers in order to lead to a better understanding of deep philosophical questions. I will still need to read and reread many of these chapters, but in my opinion, that is part of the draw and beauty of this book. It is an informative tool to challenge and equip me to better understand my beliefs.
I received a complimentary copy from the publisher via NetGalley, and all opinions expressed are solely my own, freely given.

Kaczar's book is a great exploration about history and philosophy, exploring why people believe religion and whether that conforms to reason. He begins with Aristotle and Avicenna and explores other thinkers' views on belief throughout time. While the organization of the book threw me for a bit of a loop, each chapter is a different foray into the exploration of belief thinking. I really liked the chapter that critiqued Dawkins, as I think he stands as the New Atheist and often just accepted based on an appeal to authority. The argument of God's perfectibility being similar to the force was intriguing as well. The writing is not dense; don't fear the book because you don't have a strong philosophical or theological background. If anything, it will help you build up that lack of knowledge. Know that Jordan Peterson pops up throughout the book. This will turn people away from it unfortunately. I encourage all readers to set aside whatever preconceived notions of these thinkers they might have and allow their minds to think about them in a new way (even Aristotle, who I personally would see as important, but never could feel captivated by as I read his work). It's good to roll through from one chapter to the next, but I would recommend using this as a small book club reading or even taking it chapter by chapter and letting the ideas mull in your mind a few days at a time.

I'm not one to read many books like this, but this was engaging and insightful, with never feeling like I was reading something that took me as ignorant. (For instance, thank goodness there aren't pages devoted to who Augustine was). If you are looking for a more intellectual way to read about religion and perhaps struggling with how to explain why you believe what you believe, this might get your brain thinking.

Is Belief Believable? by Christopher Kaczor explores the question of whether belief in God is reasonable. Drawing on thinkers like Plato, Aquinas, C. S. Lewis, and Jordan Peterson, the book presents both classical and modern arguments for the existence of God and aims to show how faith and reason can complement each other.

The topic is fascinating, and it’s definitely something I want to keep learning more about. Kaczor explains some ideas very clearly, and a few arguments—especially those rooted in classical philosophy—were particularly well presented and thought-provoking.

However, the book isn’t always easy to follow. Some sections are quite dense and could be challenging for readers who are new to philosophy or theology. I found that I understood certain parts better because I already had some background knowledge. Without that, I think the book might feel confusing in places.

Another point is that I sometimes wished for a broader range of arguments or authors. While the book covers some key figures, there are other voices and perspectives in the debate about belief in God that could have enriched the discussion.

Overall, reading this book was a mixed experience. Some chapters I found engaging and helpful, while others were harder to get through. Still, it gave me a lot to think about, and I’m glad I read it.

Most of all, it made me want to go deeper into the subject. I’ll definitely be looking for more books that explore the connection between belief, reason, and philosophy from different angles.

In conclusion it’s a good starting point for further exploration.


*Thank you NetGalley for providing a free-copy for a honest review.

The only thing I will say about Kaczor's affinity for Peterson is that he writes like him - in circles. Otherwise, by now he knows of Peterson’s reputation, and fanaticism of Peterson is…interesting. I don’t need to say anything more on this subject.

- One of my starting recommendations would be to refer to St. Thomas Aquinas as Aquinas, rather than Thomas. If Immanuel Kant is referred to as Kant, then Aquinas should be the same.
- I would also note that it is obvious from a neutral reader's perspective that this writing comes from a Catholic/reformed perspective and could be considered narrow or bias, as at many points arguments could be strengthened with other theologians/philosophers/scientists that are not as deeply dived into (i.e., Milton, Luther, Kierkegaard, Augustine, etc.).
- On this thought, the author uses Aquinas to describe objects in motion, where Isaac Newton may be more relevant and also has ideas of God's immoveability in his 12 Articles on God.
- One may find it funny that the author argues that a square circle is not something that can be simply understood because it does not exist, and yet the author assumes that it is easy to understand the idea of the 'uncaused cause' (i.e., God).
- One may read this piece with a fairly dismissive tone, noting that the author frequently imposes impossibilities (i.e., pg. 44 "The question, "What caused God?" does not actually make sense." - thank you, I on my faith journey, really needed to hear that I was an idiot.)
- I think there could be more references to biblical passages, and I would like to understand the author's intention for limiting references to the Bible . When discussing God's will he could cite passages related to Exodus (i.e., hardening Pharoah's heart), or Philippians (i.e., by prayer and petition).
- "Psychological considerations cannot replace the need for philosophy in sharing faith (p.29)" - While one can argue that faith and the Doctrine of Salvation can be a positive resource for many, I find this misses the mark and ignores the impact of the Doctrine of Hell. If we regard Milton in Paradise Lost, he says, “Infinite wrath and infinite despair. Which way I fly is hell; myself am hell,”.

In summary, this brief book may be beneficial for those of a specific audience, but ultimately does not address big questions in a meaningful way.

Starting with the principles of logic and the issues raised by Philosophy and Scientism, the book presses through Proofs and the Nature of God, followed by the Problem of Evil, Faith and Reason and finally The Bible.

That’s a very impressive scope for a single book of less than 200 pages. Skillfully selecting pertinent material, and equally skillfully avoiding the interestingly irrelevant diversions which pad out many similar books, the author takes readers on a thoughtful journey from literally first principles to an explanation for Christian Faith.

The contours of citations and explanations follow broadly Catholic authors and themes, although the issues are largely common to most Christian perspectives. Fans of Jordan Peterson will be particularly pleased by the rather prominent place that he seems to have in some chapters.

However, I think that there are three aspects which could have improved the book still further.

The book starts with the first principle of reasoning, ie the law of non-contradiction. And then it moves on as if ‘first principles’ are done. But there are many more critically important principles which people hold without evidence, but which are central to living human lives. The idea that we live in a physical world can’t be evidenced. Nor can the existence of ‘other minds.’ Hume famously queried the existence of causation, but without causation we couldn’t even have Science, leave alone proofs for the existence of God. This issue of principles is very important and it is one that Pope John Paul II flagged up in his encyclical Fides et Ratio, as a central issue in why some people cannot accept proofs for God’s existence.

In places a little more precision would have been helpful, too. For example, in chapter 10 we are told that the Kalam cosmological argument was ‘first put forward by Islamic scholars.’ Is that really so? Didn’t John Philoponus put forward a version of the argument and he died around 570, which was when Muhammad was just being born?

A third feature which I found a little wearisome was the attacks upon opponents. In Chapter 12 for example, we hear how Dawkins doesn’t understand this, and Dawkins doesn’t deal properly with that… etc. Dawkins… etc. Some of the criticisms were somewhat ad hominem (such as the fact that Dawkins doesn’t refer to Scotus’ proof for God’s existence). Part of the reason why I was disappointed by this style of arguing was that the author actually made an excellent point in the preface, about the importance of arguing in a style that is an ‘act of love.’ Surely arguing as an ‘act of love’ would focus on dealing with issues, rather than keep criticising an opponent?

Overall, this is an informative and useful summary of the main issues and arguments within Christian apologetics. It is written in a clear and simple style which means it is accessible to readers of any background, even older school students.

(These are honest comments on a digital ARC free version of the text).

I am very pleased with this book. It reminds me of C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity in the way that it puts complex philosophical and theological ideas into layman’s terms anyone can understand. The reasoning is sound, and the writing is clear and easy to read. I always get nervous when authors try to address the problem of evil (I believe we can’t really know why God allows some suffering, at least not yet), but Kaczor handles the topic with great thoughtfulness and sensitivity - except for one small, silly straw man argument about a hangover. In my opinion, the organization and conclusion could have been a bit stronger, but overall, this book is superb. The author is Catholic, but I think Is Belief Believable is an excellent resource for *anyone* seeking to understand reasons for faith in God. I give it 4.5 stars rounded up to 5.

Thank you to NetGalley and Ave Maria Press for the free eARC. I post this review with my honest opinions.

This review is cross-posted on Goodreads and will be posted on Instagram and Amazon within one week of the book’s publication.