李德爾不認為人人憑藉理性的證據就會有真的信仰，他也不是不理證據，只管相信的“忠貞”者。在某種意義上說，你不能夠向北人證明基督教是真實的，然而卻可以舉出好些充分的理由解釋我們為什麼要信。信主永遠比不信更符合事實。

The author really tried to make a reasoned case for Christianity but just failed miserably. It didn't help that Little veered off on too many irrelevant tangents. This was a difficult read; not for its content but because it was so flawed. ( )

解開非信徒信仰上的理性疑問，幫助讀者認識信仰的真確性。

I was originally attracted to this title because it just felt wrong, disingenuous and backwards. Shouldn't we already know why we believe before espousing a belief? Must we be instructed about why and how to believe? Isn't this putting the cart before the horse? Why must faith be forced in this way? The title unwittingly reinforces a feeling that many skeptics hold; that our adopted faith is an accident of geography. We inherit our deepest beliefs and values from our families and our culture, and works like this just help to reinforce and fill in the missing pieces. The arguments presented herein are predictably one-sided and absent of the opposing arguments asked by alternative belief systems. It's topics span the usual arguments about the authenticity of the Bible, God's involvement in and responsibility for pain and suffering, the threats from modern science, the authenticity of miracles, archeological evidence of scripture and a few others. It is a good summary of the Christian stance on most of these issues, although one gets the impression that mainstream Christianity has moved beyond many of the simplistic answers presented here and that this is a Sunday School variety of apologetics. ( )

http://www.skepticalchristian.com/br_knowwhyyoubelieve.htm ( )