If you have read anything by Peter Kreeft and enjoyed it, especially his Socratic dialogue books, "The Unaborted Socrates", "Between Heaven And Hell" and "The Best Things In Life", then you will also enjoy Paul Chamberlain's (Ph.D, Assistant Professor of philosophy and religious studies at Trinity Western University in Langley British Columbia) Can We Be Good Without God?

Chamberlain looks at the classical apologetical argument for the existence of God, "The Moral Argument". The characters of Ted (a Christian), Graham (an atheist), Francine (a moral relativist), William (an evolutionist) and Ian (a secular humanist) come together by secret invitation to meet for coffee, refreshments and to hash out the basis of morality. The reader as well as the characters haven't the faintest idea of who invited them until the end of the book.

With unswerving commitment to the truth, Ted cuts through the fallacies of each of the worldviews held by the others. Not only does Chamberlain obliterate the "secular sacred moral cows" in this book, held by our postmodern culture, but he builds a strong case for the one and only basis for morality-God. If you have ever carried your argument only so far, this book will assist you past that point and bring you to the logical conclusion of the particular worldview that you may have uncritically and unwittingly accepted.

For example, some say that the basis of morality is ourselves. Even many Christians uncritically fall for this subtly flawed but prevalent foundation of morality. It can be found in the (mis)use of expressions like "Live and let live" and "Do unto others as you would have them do to you". A great deal of natural law theory and the passing of the laws of the land are based on this presumption.

But is this a good foundation? As Ted points out, this commits one of the common fallacies of argument - begging the question. It simply assumes what it is suppose to be proving. Ask yourself, simply because something violates human nature (i.e. slavery) is it for that reason immoral? What do you say to the person who disagrees with that position? Simply coughing up that this person would be a joke is only a personal reaction; "After all what one person find incredible another sees as perfectly acceptable," says Ted. And it would help to remember that some have constructed moral viewpoints on this basis that do indeed..."disregard this assumption. The fact that their actions have violated human nature has not been a problem for them." Adolf Hitler is a good consequential example of this as it is later on pointed out.

There needs to be something a lot more solid for ones' basis of morality. Ultimately, Ted argues that God is the reference point of morality with the use of the "Euthyphro" argument. The question is asked, is something good because God commands it is or God commands it because it is good? For those Christians versed in this argument, they will see the through this question to where the answer really lies. For those not versed, well...I guess you will have to buy the book!

My sole reservation: While it is obvious that the intent of this book is not simply fictitious storytelling, by the time I got to the end of the book, I thought I had just finished a half-hour prime time situation comedy -- as if the great questions of life are answered by the end of the show and all is hunky dory. It ends that fast. While the book is great on philosophic morality, I personally don't think Chamberlain ought to go into writing any novels -- nor do I think this book ought to be viewed as portraying real life. It is food for thought and should be read as such.