To begin with let's look at the introduction - Why did I do that?
As Hugh explains, this book is essentially a secular version of Tim Keller's Counterfeit gods. Although, as one would expect, since it is written from a secular perspective there is some divergence. Generally I think Hugh's observation and diagnosis is spot on, but it is his solutions where the gospel really bites.
The book is all about the powerful desires that drive us. Ones so powerful that
'we sometimes do things that we know will bring misery upon ourselves and others.'These desires sound a lot like the idols that Keller refers to. Especially so when Hugh explains that every desire has a shadow -
"none of the ten desires is inherently good or bad. Each of them has the power to bring out the best in us, and the worst..."
This is just like Paul's explanation of idolatry in Romans 1. Idols are good, but they are not God.
However, Hugh back tracks at the end of his introduction. He says that he has chosen the word 'desires'
"to convey the idea that although these are things we want - sometimes quite passionately - they do not rule us in the same way as our basic bodily needs."
Ummh. They don't rule over us Hugh? Are you sure? I thought you began by talking about desires so powerful that they could make us bring misery to ourselves? Sounds more like an idol to me.
