The title and the blurb had be extremely intrigued and excited to read this book. Such an interesting concept and I think if it would have been written by someone else that didn't include a heavy hand of his own opinions it could have easily been a 5 stars. I thought this was going to look at some of the more controversial books and look how it changed and/or challenged our views during the times from when they where written and now. How they were viewed then and how they are seen now. But it wasn't much of that. Felt it was much more of Benjamin Winkers opinions om different works with was not as interesting to read about

Briefly- this includes books I had never heard of as well as some I had. At first I felt Wiker was more attacking than arguing how these books had affected the world, but it was simply because it was books I wasn't familiar with. When the chapter covered books I knew, the arguments made much more sense. I appreciate how Wiker is able to sum up the thesis of the book, the intended purpose as well as why it was flawed and the effects that have come.
I gave it four stars instead of five because in some chapters Wiker's opinion takes over much and it may not have matched mine, or I couldn't get past his 'attack' tone.
There are many quotes from the books he includes, except for one person- and I for one am rather glad I didn't have the opportunity to read that person's twisted thoughts posed as science- which gave more insight as I read. This is definitely not a G rated book! Not suitable for teens unless gone through with an adult.

3.5 stars

In this time and culture, I thought that this was a brave work that endeavors to swim against the tide of thundering secularism. I was familiar with most of these books, but had never read any of them. I found this to be an excellent overview of each book and made me realize how much more insidious all of these works are. In fact, it has made me want to read some of the books so that I might have a better understanding of those I do not agree with. The book also challenged me to have more love in my heart for other people, as I realized the more you think less of others (and their intrinsic value) the closer you are to the evil thinking pervasive in all of these books.

I would have given the book 5 stars, but I found his concluding chapter a bit weak, even when I agreed with the author.

Criticized as atheist bashing by a Christian writer, Benjamin Wiker did chose books in which the subject matter defended materialism and hedonism over spirituality and carnal restraint.

What else could he have chosen? Most of the literature that he dissects are socially watershed pieces: Machiavelli, Descartes, Hobbes, Marx and Engels, Darwin, Nietzsche, Hitler, and others.

Altruism versus ego-centrism is a valid philosophical debate.

I never felt that he was forcefully touting a religious viewpoint. Wiker did, however, end his book with a "perhaps" that choosing a higher power, religious morality, etc. was the logical option. And he glaringly did not chose to dissect Judeo-Christian ethics and the injustices perpetrated in the name of religions.

As an historic touchstone, for the novice philosopher, this is a good start. To know all sides, you must seek alternate points of view. AND then decide think for yourself.

More like 2.5 stars. It's not that I didn't agree with most of what the author said, because I did. I was just kind of turned off by the one-sidedness of his agenda. Isn't extreme one-sidedness part of the problem with these terrible books to begin with? Not my favorite read, but definitely some good points.

I didn't technically finish this book. I read about 2/3 of it before I decided enough was enough.

First off: if you are Christian, you are more likely to agree. If you aren't, you are more likely to think he is an idiot.

Second: I'd like to address a critique put in one reader's review. He seemed shocked when he realized that the author's viewpoint was Christian, and then revealed that the author is a minister, the reviewers are Christian conservatives, and the publisher is a Christian bookseller. He presented this information as if he'd had to dig it up. Not so. Any pre-reading (look at the back, or the inside flap about the author) will tell you that much information before you even begin reading.

Third: I probably would agree with this guy over all, but I could only take so much of his writing style before I'd had enough. The one thing he said that I can agree with wholeheartedly is that -while these books maybe/are damaging to man's relationship to God and society- the best way to defend against them is not to destroy them, but to be familiar with their arguments, so that you will recognize them when you hear them, and will be able to refute them.