A couple of friends of mine from graduate school, Nate King and Robert Garcia, edited this book, published in 2009 by Rowman and Littlefield.

After the introduction, the book includes a revised version of a debate between Christian theist philosopher William Lane Craig and secular humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz. Kurtz and Craig interpret the question in different ways. This would be a problem for the book, but it is not because the ensuing discussion of the relevant issues (by Craig, Kurtz, Louise Antony, John Hare, Donald C. Hubin, C. Stephen Layman, Mark C. Murphy, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, and Richard Swinburne) is able to cover more philosophical territory. Kurtz interprets the question as focusing on whether or not a person can be moral without belief in God. He argues that such belief is neither necessary nor sufficient for personal morality. Craig agrees with this. However, he interprets the question in a different manner. The issue for Craig is the ontological foundation for morality, and he argues that theism soundly provides such a foundation, whereas atheism does not.

The commentary on the debate from various theistic and atheistic philosophers is provocative and insightful. The concluding responses from Craig and Kurtz, which did not appear in the original debate, are also helpful. My take on the book is similar to a point made by Craig in response to Sinnott-Armstrong's chapter. The latter argues that a morality based on harm-avoidance is a modest but still sound morality. We can know that harm is wrong without God, and we can avoid harming others in unjust ways without God as well. The bone of contention, so to speak, is whether or not this is a suitable terminus, or stopping point, of explanation. For Craig, it is not. Why is it wrong to harm others, especially if in so doing I can get what I want? And if naturalism is true, and we are the by-products of blind natural processes, why care about harming others? For the theist, such an attidude is justified because other human beings have inherent value and dignity as made in the image of God.

In closing, I really enjoyed this book and found it to provide important challenges for people on both sides of the debate. I would have preferred that the original debate focus on the same conception of the question, "Is goodness without God good enough?" However, with the additional contributions made by the original participants and the other commenters, in the end a we are left with a substantive and insightful work on this metaphysically and existentially important issue. ( )