Assembling arguments from history, philosophy, theology, and science--yes, science!--he builds a modern and compelling case for faith in a loving God.
Alas, I haven't been able to dig quite deep enough to get to the good science, but I have read enough to get a taste of what D'Souza is getting at. In part I he tries to scare you into believing that there is a liberal conspiracy among the academics to indoctrinate your children with atheism. It's really quite funny. Here's a typical excerpt:
So, the secularization of the minds of our young people is not, as many think, the inevitable consequence of learning and maturing. Rather it is to a large degree orchestrated by teachers and professors to promote anti-religious agendas.
Consider a timely example of how this works. In recent years some parents and school boards have asked that public schools teach alternatives to Darwinian evolution. These efforts sparked a powerful outcry from the scientific and non-believing community. Defenders of evolution accuse the offending parents and school boards of retarding the acquisition of scientific knowledge in the name of religion. The Economist editorialized that "Darwinism has enemies mostly because it is not compatible with a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis."
This may be so, but doesn't Darwinism have friends and supporters mostly for the same reason? Consider the alternative: the Darwinists are merely standing up for science. But surveys show that the vast majority of young people in America today are scientifically illiterate, widely ignorant of all aspects of science. How many high school graduates could tell you the meaning of Einstein's famous equation? Lots of young people don't have a clue about photosynthesis or Boyle's Law. So why isn't there a political movement to fight for the teaching of photosynthesis? Why isn't the ACLU filing lawsuits on behalf of Boyle's Law?
This guy is unreal. If teachers were explaining an alternative theory to photosynthesis that was based on some nomadic tribe's mythology and not on science, then, yeah there would be -- and should be a movement to stop the teaching of that theory and to start teaching some real science! And, I actually might call the ACLU if a teacher claimed that Boyle's Law was "only a theory" and that the relationship between the pressure and volume of a gas is better described by how much you pray about it, or is dependent on what the eagle whispered to the coyote, or is controlled by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. (Well, actually if she brought up the FSM I would cheer for her.) Anyway, I don't believe he doesn't get it; I think he's just full of shit.
In part II he explains how Western culture is entirely based on Christianity (at least all the good parts) and that the ancient Greeks and Romans gave us nothing except pantheism and homosexuality. I'm not kidding at all here, he equates Greece and Rome to NAMBLA. Then he goes on to describe how Christianity invented "romantic love" and a whole bunch of other steaming, squishy stink.
I probably won't read any more, so you'll have to take that as my review for now. The good news about that is that I already wrote more than you wanted me to about it. The bad news is that you are now welcome to have the book yourself to read or to do anything else with that you see fit.