This from David Libby concerning his new book, "Apologize Without Apologizing":

Thank you for being willing to help launch my new book “Apologize Without Apologizing.” We are looking for as many reviews as possible by the official launch date of March 25th. Unfortunately, Amazon may not allow you to leave a review without purchasing the book, and I can’t be the one to make the purchase. However, I would be delighted to reimburse anyone who is willing to help out by leaving a review before the launch date. You don’t need to read the entire book, and reviews need not be more than a sentence or two. I’ve included a brief synopsis below.

Thanks much, and blessings!

If you would like to find the book, here is the link:  published on Amazon

Synopsis

Everyone walks through life regularly making faith-based assumptions without even realizing it. This fact was showcased for us by some of the humanist philosophers themselves, who rigorously sought sound justification for knowledge from a foundation of human autonomy. It was their aim to build a house of knowledge in dependence upon human reason and experience alone, independent of any revelation from a transcendent God. Their attempts have failed, and continue to fail.

Secular humanism would have us put our faith in nothing more profound than the credo of Protagoras: that “man is the measure of all things.” The humanist takes too much for granted. His philosophy rests on a foundation of faith-based assumptions, without any competent object for that faith. From his own autonomous foundation, he cannot escape a trap of subjectivity that necessarily reduces his worldview to nihilism – a worldview that cannot admit absolutes of either ethics or epistemology.

Here we find the roots of the post-modern relativism that permeates our culture. It is now unquestioningly accepted that truth and ethics are staunchly individualistic and subjective: I have the right to define truth as that which is true for me, even if it is in contradiction with what is true for you. That there are no absolutes is the necessary conclusion that comes from a rejection of a transcendent ethical and epistemological Law-Giver.

But there is a conspicuous monkey wrench in the works. Nihilism is untenable, even in theory: it is self-refuting, ending in utter self-defeat. It is impossible to argue against the existence of absolute epistemological normativity without the very act of argumentation depending entirely upon the absolute norms that are being argued against. You cannot argue against absolute norms of rationality without doing so in utter dependence upon absolute norms of rationality. And so, humanist philosophy exists in a state of cognitive dissonance. From a foundation of human autonomy, justifiable knowledge is unavailable, while at the same time, it is unavoidable.

There is a solution to this dilemma. Absolutes of ethics and rationality cannot exist without a transcendent Law-Giver. If we give up human autonomy as a philosophical foundation, and submit to the fact that there truly is a God who has revealed Himself to us, then we will find solid justification for objective rationality, and therefore knowledge of objective truth. Without Him we are hopelessly lost in a fog-bound sea of self-defeating nihilism; in submission to Him we find epistemological safe harbor.

There is a vitally important implication: it is logically impossible for God to not exist. It is impossible to even argue against His existence without utter dependence upon absolute norms of rationality that cannot exist without Him. This means that to argue against the existence of God unwittingly presupposes the existence of God. The atheist could not have his faith if the Biblical faith were not true.

The implications run deeper. To acknowledge the necessary existence of God demands that we take the only reasonable next step: that we submit to Him as Sovereign King, through faith in Jesus Christ as both Savior and Lord. “For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” Mat. 16:26.

“Apologize Without Apologizing” explores these philosophical concepts in some depth. But conceptual truths are only useful to the Christian apologist if they can be practically applied. With this in mind, the last few chapters focus on real-world boots-on-the-ground application.