Product Description
Here, for the first time, in his new book The Rage Against God, Peter Hitchens, brother of prominent atheist Christopher Hitchens, chronicles his personal journey through disbelief into a committed Christian faith. With unflinching openness and intellectual honesty, Hitchens describes the personal loss and philosophical curiosity that led him to burn his Bible at prep school and embrace atheism in its place. From there, he traces his experience as a journalist in Soviet Moscow, and the critical observations that left him with more questions than answers, and more despair than hope for how to live a meaningful life.With first-hand insight into the blurring of the line between politics and the Church, Hitchens reveals the reasons why an honest assessment of Atheism cannot sustain disbelief in God. In the process, he provides hope for all believers who, in the words of T. S. Eliot, may discover 'the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.' ... Read more

Customer Reviews (38)

More Memoir than Apologetic
Part memoir, part apologetic, part indictment against the New Atheism, Peter Hitchens' The Rage Against God is a unique and interesting tale of how atheism ultimately led one man to faith. A tale in three parts, it first dives into the author's history, then addresses three atheistic arguments, and concludes with an indictment against "The League of the Militant Godless." Now many people could write a novel such as this, I'm sure, but few would have either the professional or personal credentials this author has. As a journalist, he has lived and worked in countries where the state religion of atheism affected every detail of life; and in his personal life, he is the brother of infamous antitheist Christopher Hitchens.

Hitchens' own personal history his quite interesting, as he gives us some unique cultural insights into what was going on in Britain during the time of his childhood. His journalistic background helps him trace the history of secularism well, and serves as a warning to a United States fast following Britain's heels.

Hitchens continues his narrative by asking three questions. "Are conflicts in the name of religion conflicts about religion?" Countering the arguments of the antitheist who see religion's existence as a source of conflict, he details that while the answer is sometimes yes, that is not always the case. He concludes that war is ultimately fought as a power struggle for material gain, not spiritual. "Is it possible to determine what is right and what is wrong without God?" Hitchens answers no, positing that an absolute moral code must transcend society and outlining in detail the antitheist's failure to uphold a moral standard. Last question was "Are Atheist states not actually Atheist?" Here Hitchens counters the atheist counterargument that atheist states are really based on religious principles.

In the end, Hitchens' gives us an interesting personal story from a journalist's perspective. Considering that part of the hook was that Christopher Hitchens, a militant antitheist, is Peter's brother, I expected a bit more interplay with Christopher's ideas and writings. The epilogue sort of explains why he shies away from that, and while I certainly respect those reasons, such an avoidance was not the impression I'd gotten from the back cover, which contrasts the two brothers. Overall, this book is most beneficial for its look into the decline of Christianity in Britain in the post-WWII era. - 3.5 stars

Fair and exuberantly unfair
The author is seen by me as very fair in his criticism of atheism as associated with his well-known brother, and in his criticism of the general trend toward permissiveness and relative values; I see him as unfair in, somewhat inconsistently, lashing out against some accepted understandings of history, and some policies by conservative leaders.

His objections to contemporary trends are well expressed at the end of the book (pp.213-14), by decrying "the cause of personal liberation, born in the 1960s cultural revolution, and now inflamed into special rage by any suggestion that the sexual urge should be restrained by moral limits or that it should have any necessary connection with procreation. This utopianism relies for human goodness on doctrines of human rights derived from human desires and--like all such codes--full of conflicts between the differing rights of different groups". He attributes this loss of higher standards to atheism, concluding: "The Rage against God is loose and is preparing to strip the remaining altars when it is strong enough."

His attack on conservative leaders has the appearance of wanting to dispute his brother Christopher on every point, even where his brother unexpectedly condones such as the Iraq war. The author, Peter, writes (p.159): "We might cite the Presidency of George W. Bush, which combines noisy religiosity with ruthlessness... Something similar could be said about Britain's Prime Minister Anthony Blair, who was ostentatiously pious while conniving with his intelligence services to manufacture pretexts for aggressive war". This sounds like an utterance by far-left secularists. But I haven't heard even them calling President Bush ruthless or either of the two leaders noisily religious or ostentatiously pious, although their opponents might accuse them of "conniving...to manufacture pretexts for aggressive war". To my knowledge, though, at least in the U.S. both political parties approved of the wars, in the belief it was a necessary response to aggression by enemies.

Maybe still more surprising is Peter Hitchens's reconsideration of historical events, possibly because of a naiveté about happenings before his time. He writes (p.142) about "The Second World War, in which the good side committed dreadful crimes and the bad side worse ones", as if the two sides were almost equivalent. And he writes (pp.66-7): "I had heard of something called "The Blitz", in which German Nazis (they were always Nazis, a special kind of human being deserving of death) had killed our women and children by dropping bombs on their homes" and, "I had no doubt at all that Matt Braddock [a fictionalized RAF pilot] and his fellow pilots were heroic warriors as they unloaded their bombs upon the evil Nazis", and then, "What I did not then grasp, and now do, is exactly what Matt Braddock's bombs did when they reached their targets". This is to mean (p.80) "that the second time [during WWII, after WWI], the mass-murder was inflicted on--and directed against--women and children in their houses. Perhaps worse than the deliberate, scientific killing of civilians was the sad, desperate attempt to pretend to ourselves later that it was right and justified". He also (p.72) speaks of "brilliant Churchillian propaganda", as if like the propaganda of Goebbels.

Churchill's "blood, sweat and tears" can hardly be considered propaganda, and the two sides in World War II can hardly be considered committing equivalently "dreadful crimes". "Blitz" stems from "Blitzkrieg", "lightning war", coined by Germans, and the Nazis were indeed an evil "special kind of human being deserving of death" and against whom the war was fought. It was not fought against Germans per se, although GI's referred to the enemies as "Gerrys". That civilians be killed in war did not begin with WWII, but extends boundlessly back in history. And in WWII civilians were not targeted by the Allies maliciously for its own sake, but indeed because the actions were held, rightly or wrongly, to facilitate speedy victory and save countless more lives. Instead, the Axis had no concern for lives, but thought it an achievement to annihilate as many of the enemies as possible.

Notwithstanding all these disagreements with the book's author, he does a specially good job in countering the "new atheism", his brother's in particular. His return to religion is in this reviewer's eyes fully justified, although he understandably cannot, and doesn't attempt to, demonstrate the existence of the Deity beyond any doubt. Perhaps it is possible to find universally acceptable values without looking to a higher power, but he makes very good arguments for the difficulty, if not impossibility, of doing so.

Trouble ahead.
mainstream media is filled with fears about the US becoming a 'Christian theocracy' whenever a politician or pastor dare advocate prayer in school, there are no shortage of secular columnists warning us that 1933 and hitler are just around the corner.

Any look at the elite of the US - and even more so - Uk - know if that unlikely prospect did occur, it certainly is not coming to come from the elite.

Peter Hitchens book clearly articulates the far more likely threat- of which we have example after example- the suppression of Christianity (for this alone, every atheist who reads this will fly into a fit and mark my review 'not helpful').

Hitchens draw parallels between the behavior of the new atheists and the aggressive secular liberalism and the Soviet Union (and as the negative reviews here don't mention, (because they didn't read the book, only a review in the GUardian or something) French revolution.).If the trend continues where does it lead?

For example, RIchard Dawkins, Chris Hitchens and several other prominent atheists have equated parents teaching their children religion with child abuse. If they really believe that what could be the only logical outcome of their beliefs, should they become more widely accepted among the power elite?

In other parts of the book Hitchens offers his insight on the curious alliance of muslims and the left (an alliance, if brought to the successful end of bringing down the west will not have the outcome the left expects) and why the left's 'anti religion' is really 'anti-Christianity' (or Anti-christ, if you prefer) .

in the french republic it was 'liberty, fraternitie, equality' today its 'diversity, tolerance and sensitivity' - the mask has changed, but the objective remains.

Atheists reading this book should actually be rather happy (that is, if they actually read it) because according to Hitchens, the french/bolbhisik revolution - the utopia here on earth movement - has, after near 200 years of resistance, started to break the back of the Anglosphere- given the results of the early efforts the rest of us should not be so jolly.

** one side note- this book's focus is largely on the greater effects of anti-theism on society- rather than a personal journey (as the subtitle of the book implies 'how atheism lead me to faith- but given that Peter Hitchens has spent his life as a journalist that is not surprising. The first chapters,however do deal with his more personal experiences. They arebeautifully written. I do think the US publish should get rid of the subtitle though.

Nostalgia and The Soviet Fallacy
Russia seems to have ruined atheism for Peter. Peter writes of the horrors he saw when he lived in Soviet Russia and how despite said horrors, certain atheistic elitists in the West still saw fit to apologize for and defend that country. There are other aspects of his case against the New Atheists, but this is his main argument, and it is one which disappoints for the reason the argument that atheism is inherently linked to Stalinism always fails in debates with New Atheists like Christopher -- atheism isn't a sufficient condition for dictator-worshipping. In fact, Peter is honest enough to include -- near the end of the volume -- a quote from Bertrand Russell about how scared he was of not just religion, but the sort of certainties he'd seen in Russia too. This quote seemed to me to refute Peter's entire case; New Atheists are arguing for exactly the sort of skepticism Russell promoted, not the willy-nilly acceptance of every group which proudly proclaims it is not religious.

I should not be unkind to Peter's arguments by only noting how weak his main one is. I should note that Peter has a stronger attack on the New Atheists for saying religious education is as bad as (and it is implied by Dawkins, probably worse than) the grave and legally actionable sin of child sexual abuse. Even here though, he is not particularly articulate in making his own case, ridiculously comparing homosexuality among the younger generation to child abuse.

A good part of this volume is dedicated to discussing Peter's personal journey. Having almost nothing in common with Peter, I found his narrative to be an emotionally compelling one. He waxes nostalgia about the past while candidly sharing some of his less-glorious moments as a young atheistic Trotskyite. He discusses how he, like so many others of his generation, realized at a young age how the Bible's myths seemed to be based off of myths of other cultures. He never explains how he reconciles that with being a Christian, but he describes his appreciation of old Christian prayers with a devout passion.

Peter converted away from atheism because of what he saw in Russia. He decided that he really like Christianity due to a painting. These are emotional responses, not logical ones. This book is emotionally compelling, but does not manage to logically refute the arguments of the New Atheists. Christopher has surely won this debate.

EDIT: I wrote that Peter "decided that he really [sic] like Christianity due to a painting." What I meant was that the painting led him to think of Christianity as a real system which works; in instilling the fear of God in him, it brought him to think of Christianity as a religion for modern people and thus indirectly brought him to appreciate, and ultimately like, Christianity. I was horribly vague and I apologize; that sentence was a lapse in my review. I am indebted to the commenter JSD for pointing out my error.

England Goodbye
One reviewer thought this book would be arguments against atheism. I thought it would be all biographical. Actually, it's both. Part One, "A Personal Journey Through Atheism", is 125 pages of biography. Part Two, "Addressing the Three Failed Arguments of Atheism", is "apologetics" or arguments against atheism. Part Three examines more closely "The League of the Militant Godless", and the Soviet Union's persecution of the church. This last part continues topics touched on in part one, where Hitchens recalls his time as a correspondent for a UK newspaper in the USSR.

Why such an odd structure? Hitchens penned a UK bestseller, "The Abolition of Britain", and this bio in some ways draws on or continues from it. In the epilogue, he muses on a debate with his brother, Chris, in April 2008 in the US. I suspect that some parts of the book germinated at that time. Surprisingly, Hitchens' stint in the USSR bears some similarity to the account of Malcolm Muggeridge, who was also stationed there as a British journalist, in his autobiography, Chronicles of Wasted Time Chronicles of Wasted Time. Hitchens' tone, however, when not ruminative in the biography, is polemical, and clearly he is no stranger to debate. Muggeridge's Chronicles (previously published in two volumes) are a masterpiece of English prose, and rank among the most delightful memoirs of the last century. For that reason his revelations perhaps seem less disturbing.

There is another similarity,too. In part three Hitchens comments on Beatrice Webb's book, Soviet Communism: A New Civilisation? particularly to note the great deal of disinformation about the Soviet state her work provided to the UK reading public. Muggeridge, making the same observation, has also written a biography of Sidney and Beatrice Webb, who were, in their day, leading Fabian Socialists. Hitchens notes that the USSR's government-induced famine was at the time denied by, for instance, the Soviet correspondent for the New York Times. Muggeridge was the only Western reporter who exposed it at the time, and was denounced for so doing.

Hitchens' book is disturbing, even for those who've read the news elsewhere. As goes Britain, so goes the US, one tends to think. And who but Richard Dawkins wants Britain to go that way? To US readers, he appears simply as an elite anxious to take away the simplest freedoms--even of believing--of the masses. To US readers, this looks like more of being shoved around by the British upper classes, but then, we were raised reading Dickens. The third part draws parallels between the Soviet strategy and events in modern day Britain. Providing more evidence of how thin is the veneer of civilisation.

But the biography part, the part I read it for, is engaging and enlightening. If it seems somewhat incomplete, it's because it's reduced to a mere 125 pages. I would think it would take another book to tell it properly, and searching I find there is more Hitchens biography. At any rate, this reader is ready for more of Peter Hitchens. ... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (115)

the devils delusion
Very interesting book, very educational and for people who want to learn about the problems that concern this generation.


















very interesting, but not any truth in it.Larry York










l

Sublime and Insightful
I sympathize with the faithful atheists; this book commits blasphemy against their chosen faith system. I do not sympathize with their "reviews," as it is extremely doubtful any of them have touched the book, let alone read it.

Berlinski is his usual sarcastic self, but done with humor and style -- and always making a point. A worthwhile read on the subject. The best "rebuttals" I've read about the book is that (a) Berlinski is a "fundamentalist Christian" and everyone knows they are very dumb (he's an Ivy League secular Jew, and a postdoctorate fellow in mathematics and molecular biology) and (b) and he has done work for the Discovery Institute, and since they support Intelligent Design Berlinski is obviously very dumb and very, very bad (you see, if you support intelligent design or doubt materialistic, atheistic neo-Darwinism, you are a very bad person -- where that moral law comes from has not really been stated...and even in the unlikely event you aren't "bad" you are by definition dumb because if you were smart you'd accept materialist, atheistic neo-Darwinism...nice and tidy, albeit it is rowing with one oar in the water).

Lies and ad hominem. Substantive and thoughtful rebuttals to his critiques, those I have not yet encountered. Read the book for yourself, enjoy a thoughtful and well written critique of the philosophical system known as neo-Darwinism and be that much better informed on the subject.

Blowing the doors off pseudo-science
Berlinski is a man of dry and sometimes knee-slapping wit, and maybe the best mathematician breathing.He is an intellectual of the first rank and knows the difference between poop and payola.And so do his many sources, which he cites with professionalism and insight.

The facts about the dead-end and death knell of "biological evolution" and other pseudo-science Berlinski posits are out there for the mainstream media to print, were they so inclined to report reality instead of politically correct bias.So Berlinski's work is actually news reporting that is ignored by those outlets for which scientific inquiry is simply a way to prop up their cultural point of view.And science's progress has not helped the cause for atheism in the last century, much less the last decade.

Read Berlinski's book.It is one you will find helpful when you need to call nonsense on "know-it-alls" who get their science from Richard Dawkins' website and talk-show.

5-stars!

Ironically Pretentious
I picked up this book after seeing Berlinski in Expelled. I found his arguments against evolution and against the scientific community's resistance to alternative ideas in the film very compelling, But this book was not a good follow-up. He complains that the scientific community is pretentious and close-minded, but makes the same errors when criticizing his own opponents! For example, he cuts into Sam Harris and Letter to a Christian Nation, but if he'd read Harris' first and longer work, End of Faith, he would have seen Harris had already addressed those. He accuses Harris of being a moral relativist, but Harris writes vigorously against moral relativism in End of Faith. Also, Berlinksi spends too much time criticizing his opponents' writing styles instead of criticizing the content of their arguments. Incidentally, his own writing style isn't that hot accessible either. He seems to go out of his way to use erudite language, odd for a book aimed at the mass market.

Best philosophy of science book I have read
This is the best philosophy of science book I have ever read. It is extremely well written and is the first book that I have read that seeks to curtail what has become the wholesale worship of science in western culture. Science is a wonderful tool and has given us a standard of living that is likely the best this world has seen, however it has its limits and these limits are under assault in the modern age by those who should know better. It stands in stark contrast to books that have become popular of late that make large, sweeping statements generally based on a set of assumptions with little evidence to back up their claims. In reading Dawkins in particular (as a mathematician) it is a constant frustration to read the "proofs" that are continually offered up by someone who clearly does not know what a proof is. We are directed to have our "imagination" inspired by Darwin in order to come up with outlandish schemes about how things might have happened. Quite frankly it is hard to believe that anyone can put any stock in this kind of reasoning. Speculation is fine and imagination is a wonderful thing but it is not science and claims such as those that are too frequently made need to be backed up with something other than "imagination". This is what has been typically known in the past as science fiction and that seems to be what Dawkins is best at.
Berlinski makes this argument better than I can as he is clearly better read and has been immersed in the fields of mathematics and philosophy for some time. Dawkins and the rest are intellectual lightweights compared to Berlinski and this is evident even in a casual reading of the book, though most of Dawkins arguments can be picked apart even by myself. The most refreshing part about this book is that Berlinski clearly understands the limits of science and is willing to talk about them where most seem to not be willing to go there. I have had several conversations, particularly with biologists, that when pressed on many issues dealing with evolutionary evidence, or the lack thereof, they put up a fight for a few minutes then state in the end "well, that isn't really my field of focus". It is a constant frustration that there seems to be no interest in solving any of these issues within the scientific field. While Dawkins complains that ID supporters run to God for cover...anytime anything hard comes up they just say "God did it", Dawkins has reversed this to say that "Darwin did it". In the end we have exchanged God for Darwin and it seems to me that we have got the worst end of the deal.
The book is very refreshing in that it seems to honestly be seeking to reveal where we are now, what science has accomplished, what it has not accomplished, and what it cannot accomplish. Unlike the popular writings that it is critical of, it is not condescending or arrogant but clearly reveals where these other authors have overstepped their bounds often in a way that is quite witty and piercing in it's critique.
It is a truth that we each approach science with our own pre-conceived notions that larely shape what we are looking for, where we look, and in the end what we see. Berlinski has the advantage of being agnostic and so quite possibly is approaching the issue with the most objective mind. In reading the book it seems that he is coming to the defense of God and, though He doesn't need it, it is nice for those of us on this temporal globe to see someone this deep in the field bring forth a book that at least makes the attempt to be objective. If he seems to come to the defense of God it is only because God's attackers have become somewhat rabid in their attack and in using "science" to do so have undermined all of science by using it in a manner that it was never intended to be used. It is more to the point that Berlinski is coming to the defense of science because he understands that if this hijacking of our universities and centers of academic thought continues then scientists will soon have no more influence than our mainstream modern "journalists". ... Read more

Product Description

Product Description
In this book two philosophers, each committed to unambiguous versions of belief and disbelief, debate the central issues of atheism and theism.

• Considers one of the oldest and most widely disputed philosophical questions: is there a God?
  
• Presents the atheism/theism issue in the form of philosophical debate between two highly regarded scholars, widely praised for the clarity and verve of their work.
  
• This second edition contains new essays by each philosopher, responding to criticisms and building on their previous work.

Customer Reviews (6)

A good introduction to the issues
This is a good introduction to many of the main arguments concerning theism and atheism. Smart and Haldane manage to cover most of the main issues while at the same time making original contributions to the debate. The book is especially helpful for giving clear account of the issues surrounding the "fine-tuning" argument due e.g., to Richard Swinburne.

As they mention in the Introduction, neither Smart nor Haldane is a specialist precisely in philosophy of religion--both are well known especially for contributions to philosophy of mind--and this affects the book's overall approach. Smart begins with a defense of physicalism (the view that only objects whose existence is required by physical theory exist), arguing that this position should be accepted on the methodological ground that it is most compatible with the results of modern science. Smart also responds to various theistic arguments and defends a version of the "problem of evil" objection to theism. Haldane follows this with a series of arguments against materialist reductionism, taking the failure of reductionism to entail some kind of design and so theism. Haldane also defends versions of the cosmological ("firt cause") argument and attempts a solution to the problem of evil. Smart then briefly responds to Haldane and Haldane to Smart. For Smart, atheism is part of a general commitment to physicalism, whereas Haldane seems no less interested in defending a general antireductionism (e.g., with respect to intentionality) than in defending theism specifically.

The book covers a great deal of ground and offers much food for thought. The downside to this is discussions of particular issues are sometimes sketchier than one would like. Perhaps it would have been more effective to focus the book more tightly on the aspect of the debate that raises issues of reductionism vs. antireductionism. I also wish the book had been organized so as encourage a more extended response from Smart to Haldane's antireductionist arguments. Smart's methodological principles may well establish a presumption against theism, but surely this presumption is defeasible, and Haldane's contribution is effect an attempt to defeat precisely this presumption.

Most intelligent debate on existence of god so far
This is the way atheism vs. theism debates should always be. First, Smart and Haldane are very respectful of one another, as well they should be. Second, they are not afraid to delve deep into the true complexities of philosophy of religion, and are both equal to the task. This debate is very unlike typical debates, in which scholarship is subordinated to rhetoric, and readers are likely to come away having learned something about how truly difficult philosophy of religion is.

An Interesting Read, but Misses the Needs of Most Audinces
I have some reservations about giving this title only three stars, for I greatly enjoyed reading it, but the work has some significant shortcomings.Parts of the essays are highly technical, which suggests a target audience of professional philosophers.Nonetheless, recent scholarship is often covered either inadquately or not at all.An example is Smart's treatment of the argument from religious expreience.While Smart is discerning and even witty, he shows no awareness of the positions of thinkers such as William Alston and Alvin Plantinga who have pursued the discussion on a much deeper level and who (some might even say) have made treatments such as Smart's irrelevant.Other parts of the book are marred by similar omissions.

For a person with some experience reading contrmporary analytic philosophy, I would recommend the title.Just don't think you're getting anything even close to an overview of what cutting edge thinkers have to say about the atheism/theism debate.That being said, it is well written, interesting, and thought inspiring.

Greg Klebanoff

Debating at its best.
Thorough and respectable debate. In-depth with little rhetoric

Smart has a highly refined philosophy of atheism
The present book by Smart and Haldane, appearedthe same year as Robin Le Poidevin's _Arguing forAtheism_ and testifies to a renewed interest inatheism in philosophical circles. The present bookalso testifies to interest in theism inphilosophical circles. But theism has generallybeen given pride of place in books on thephilosophy of religion, whereas atheism ordinarilyhas not been given the same attention in suchbooks. Still, atheism as well as theism are partsof the philosophy of religion. And books on thephilosophy of religion that do not pay muchattention to atheism are eo ipso inadequate.

Now Smart and Haldane's book is not intended to bean introduction to the philosophy of religion. Thebook is rather a new installment in a seriesentitled "Great Debates in Philosophy" and whichearlier has been devoted to topics like personalidentity, consciousness and causality, agency andnecessity, critical theory, and moral relativi! smand moral objectivity. The series is edited byErnest Sosa who seems to have managed to establisha good series. In any case, the present book ishighly interesting particularly in the partswritten by professor Smart.

Smart (b. 1920) has for many years been aprofessor of philosophy in Adelaide and inCanberra, but is now retired. In 1963 he publishedthe book _Philosophy and Scientific Realism_.(London & NY). This book made a deep impression onme, and I can say that Smart converted me tomaterialism. I had been an atheist before I readSmart's book, but having read the book I alsobecame a materialist.

In the book from 1963 Smart mentioned that he hadturned away from a roughly neo-Wittgensteinianconception of philosophy towards a moremetaphysical one, with a much more intimaterelation to the sciences. Philosophy should notonly unravel conceptual muddles but should alsoformulate a world view. And this world view, asSmart saw it, had!to be a kind of materialism, orrather physicalism.

U! sing ideas taken from the prominent Americanphilosopher Quine, Smart argues that mathematicsis a part of physical theory as a whole. Thismeans that we must regard mathematical objects asphysical, even though they are not material. Thus,for Smart physicalism is more basic thanmaterialism. Hence, he in his last book prefers todescribe himself as a physicalist rather than as amaterialist, except in the context of thephilosophy of mind where he holds that thedistinction is not important (p. 10).

Smart mentions in the book under review that heonce was a theist, and he would still like to be atheist if he had been able to reconcile theismwith his philosophical and scientific views. So hewould not be too sorry if his opponent, professorHaldane, would win the argument. From the presentbook it is clear that Haldane has not been able toconvince Smart, but the same is the case the otherway around: Smart has not been able to convinceHaldane who re! mains a theist and even a RomanCatholic. Haldane probably sticks to RomanCatholicism because of old habits and forsentimental reasons. Philosophically RomanCatholicism is not stronger than Lutheranism orIslam. John L. Mackie and Michael Martin havesmashed theism in books which appeared in 1982 and1990 respectively, but Haldane does not go intotheir arguments. Nor does Smart, unfortunately,discuss Mackie's and Martin's arguments in anydetail. Both are mentioned in the bibliography,but they do not get much attention apart fromthat. This is unfortunate, because Mackie's andMartin's books illustrate different ways in whichone may approach or advocate atheism. Of othercontemporary philosophers and atheists, AntonyFlew is mentioned a few times in the text and inthe bibliography, but Kai Nielsen has only made itto the bibliography. Well-known atheists likeFeuerbach, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Freud etc. are noteven mentioned in the book. Smart's past!as atheist still hangs on.

Smart is a distinguished ! and profound contemporaryphilosopher who has published a number ofimportant books. One of these is a book on ethicaltheory, written together with anotherdistinguished philosopher, Bernard Williams:_Utilitarianism_, for and against (Cambridge Univ.Press, UK, 1973). I must confess that I, before Isaw the book which is reviewed here, never hadheard about professor Haldane. Richard Swinburneand Alvin Plantiga have published moresophisticated defences of theism than Haldane, butboth have also been sharply criticized by John L.Mackie, Michael Martin, and others. I may bebiased as I am an atheist and a materialist. But Ithink that Smart is much more profound thanHaldane. Smart has a highly refined philosophy ofatheism, metaphysics, and ethics. From contactswith "atheists in the street", particularly asthey can be found in contemporary freethoughtcircles, I suspect that Smart's philosophy is tooprofound and too difficult for most of th! em. Quitea pity!

... Read more

Product Description
This book is for everyone: Atheists will find excellent arguments to help them defend their positions; Agnostics will appreciate the clarification it brings; Christians who are struggling will find this book a great help in breaking free from their shackles as they learn exactly why there's no possible way Christianity is true and why they don't have to worry ever again.

The Bible says that the world's languages began with the Tower of Babel. Today we know better. But how could the Bible contain stories that aren't true? Author Jeffrey Mark was a devout Christian throughout his life until, during his early 30s, he began studying the Bible more seriously than he ever had. And that's when he made the disturbing realization that so many stories were simply untrue. For him, this realization started with the Tower of Babel. That in turn launched a series of events that eventually led him to abandon his long-held beliefs. Letting go of his beliefs resulted in pain, anger, and distrust towards everyone around him. But slowly he was able to rebuild his life and come to terms with the realities of the world and ultimately find happiness. If you've ever questioned your beliefs, Jeff's story will inspire you. Travel with him through his journey as he explores the deeper truths behind the Bible while discovering science, logic and reason, and ultimately revealing Christianity for what it really is. This is a book that every Christian must read! ... Read more

Customer Reviews (25)

This one is a keeper
This book covers the subject in a different way then many others I have enjoyed.The author goes further back into the pre-Hebrew world to look at the earlier cultures from which they emerged - including an interesting look at myths and legends that predated the stories that made their way into the "old Testament". He also takes a good look at the many offshoots that have sprung off of that body of material and still influence people and events today.

I have been hoping that someone would do this for my own personal knowledge and journey - and I hope he is thinking of writing further on the topic.

His thoughts on all of this are a very clean breath of air and I am only left wondering how such fairy tales managed to stay out of the Fantasy section of the library.

Good Logic and Reasoning
I think Mr. Marks accomplished his task of sharing with others the hows and whys of his journey from Christianity.A couple of readers were a bit hung up on Jeffrey Mark's biases to such a point that they failed to enjoy the journey. Remember it's "his" journey therefore "his" biases. All writers have biases..subtle or in your face.

Well, Mr. Marks thanks for allowing most readers to appreciate such cogent logic and reasoning.Sadly, reason and logic too often are suppressed in the minds of Christians.It's only when they use their eyes to see, ears to hear and brains to reason that true enlightenment prevails.

Stick to the facts
Jeffrey Mark has written an excellent and well researched 200 page book on his journey from believer to non-believer. Unfortunately the book is 267 pages long and contains personal rants, poorly constructed sentences and a political view point that the reader is ironically expected to take on faith. I am an atheist and almost put this book down after the first 100 pages because of just how poorly it was written. I was shocked to see that this was Mark's thirteenth book. In my mind I can see my freshman composition teacher giving the first part of this book an F and writing "wordiness" across the cover. Mr. Mark's, please get a new editor.

I am neither a democrat or republican but I found his on going, unsupported political opinions, presented as fact throughout the book nauseating. For example, on page 227, trying to equate the mid 90's U.S. congress with potentially starving children. On page 229 he said that many Muslim clerics decried the horrific events of 9/11. Please Mr. Mark's direct me to a web page listing the names of those Muslim clerics. I respect that Mr. Mark's has political opinions, but in this forum he almost destroys the point he is trying to make. On the bright side, he has taken material already written in many other books and contructed an understandable argument that may help those taking their first steps towards non belief. I also found his web site listings excellent. This is not a book for the advanced Christian apologist or non believer.

Christian No More:A Former Devout Christian Dismantles Christianity
I was brought up as a Christian, but in my early twenties I began to feel that there was too much inconsistency and outright contradiction within the scriptures, doctrine and dogma which was thrust at me at every turn.
From that time forward I have studied the origins and developments of religions...including Judeo-Christianity... in more than a dozen disciplines over nearly fifty years andI am delighted to see that there is a new honesty coming from some of those who, during their lifetimes,have been directly involved in disseminating thedeception created by these (originally) "shaman"-originated fallacies.
Jeffrey Mark has done a good job of presenting some of the facts which demonstrate those fallacies, and there are many more available to anyone who seeks to discover the truth.
If there is a "god"it most certainly does not reside in any of the "beings"to which that name has been attributed in ANY of the writings and doctrines of ANY of the religions which mankind has heard of to this point in our existence, every one of which is man-made from start to finish.

Incredible!
This is essential reading for any believer who is having doubts about their faith. The author does an excellent of examining where many core christian ideas originated i.e Satan and hell. The material is presented in a clear and concise format and makes for for very enjoyable reading. The book shows the outright absurdity and illogicality of the beliefs that are held by many christians worldwide. Strongly recommended to believers and non-believers alike! ... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (2)

A shameful waste of paper!
I've bought dozens of other books about atheism from Amazon, all of which have been in some way informative, stimulating, thoughtfully provocative or downright entertaining.This book lacks any of those features.The writing consists of what appears to be randomly strung together phrases with a few lucid sentences or paragraphs occasionally making an appearance.As I read it, the style struck me as somewhat familiar.Then it suddenly dawned on me, the style is exactly the same as that produced by a computer program, the Dada Engine, which randomly generates meaningless essays in a postmodernism style.

You can for free generate your own similarly styled random rubbish as this book at: [...]
You might also enjoy reading about the Social Text Affair, where NYU Physics Professor Alan Sokal submitted a randomly strung together hoax article which was accepted by a cultural criticism publication.

By the way, this is my second attempt at writing a review for this book.The first one which I rated at one star was not posted by Amazon, so I have raised the star level to three, although I do not believe this book merits it in any way, but in the hope that this review will make it through the Amazon censors.

Recommended Reading
Antinoff's description of the sensation of doubt, consciousness, and the mysterious need for God is both original and compelling.I have found in the reading of this book a renewed appreciation of spiritual practice and it would be my guess that others entangled in the the big questions would feel similarly. I don't claim to be knowledgeable about zen practice or theory, but having practiced some I can say that the overriding state of its practitioner is anxiousness.It is this way with myself and those I have sat with.It is with those I work and live with. For the most part, I and the majority of those I know find ways away from it- for tackling one's own anxiety is as elusive as catching one's own shadow. In any case, I would say this book is a truly honest and incisive display of the fortitude involved with the spiritual practice when faced against what looks like a guaranteed failure.
Whether one believes in God or not, whether one is a layman, artist, or corporate business person, the very real and singular obstacle embedded in one's being is a universally human trait that leaves no person unburdened. It is this 'call to duty' which, I believe, Antinoff makes his strongest case for action despite all logical odds. ... Read more

Product Description
Many questions and concerns arise when believers question the purpose and meaning they suspect is lacking in the lives of nonbelievers. Douglas Krueger contends that atheism is a powerful alternative to religion, yet it is also one of the most misunderstood because people harbor preconceived ideas about atheism. This concise introduction to subject has been designed with the general audience in mind. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (32)

Atheism makes more sense
It seems to me that any open-minded person who reads *What Is Atheism?* will at least doubt whether it's reasonable to believe in a god.

Krueger dispassionately responds to questions such as "How can atheists have morals?" and "What's wrong with believing on faith?"The answers are strictly logical, in the sense that they are unemotional and unexciting.But, to me, they are also persuasive that theists should question their religions.

This is not a scholarly work in the sense that it's jam-packed with footnotes and endnotes and citations, a fact Krueger does not deny.Sometimes you have to take his word for certain assertions, but even if it turns out he got some of them wrong, the entirety of the work is still persuasive.

If you are unwilling to doubt your religion, don't take this book seriously.

An Absolutely Essential Book for Lovers of the Truth!!!
+++++

This book by philosophy teacher Doug Krueger answers eight questions "which are important for an understanding of atheism and representative of the type of questions which are often asked of atheists."Thus this book fills a need for a concise introduction to atheism "which avoids the technical analysis of the professional philosopher yet which sacrifices little accuracy."

To represent the theistic view, Christianity is most often used.Why?Because "in our culture Christianity is the most widespread religion which asserts the existence of God."But the author stresses that what can be said of Christianity "may also be said of other versions of theism, their claims about their gods, and their holy books."

Is the author trying to convert theists?NO.Krueger says this more eloquently:

"I harbor no illusions about the possibility of changing the minds of theists.Most have believed in [G]od since childhood and will [probably] never abandon that belief...it is my hope that this work may free some theists from the intellectual domination born of fear and ignorance and allow [them] to make an informed choice about how they should view their lives and the universe in which they live."

The eight questions posed deal with atheism and atheists (three questions), God's existence (four questions), and faith (one question).

The answers to each of these questions take up an entire chapter.These answers are extremely well laid out with each major point Krueger making having a separate subheading (indicated by a an upper case letter) and explanatory points (indicated by some other character such as a number, lower case letter, etc.) to discuss that major point.The result:this book is very, very easy to read.

For example, here are the subheadings of the answer to the first question "What is Atheism?:"

A. *Atheism may be defined as the view that there are no gods.
1. Theism will be defined as the view that the traditional God exists.
2. There are two definitions of atheism.
a. The atheist does not assert that there are gods.
b. The atheist denies that there are gods.

B. *There are common misconceptions about atheism.
1. People become atheists so they can do whatever they want.
2. An atheist is one who hates God.
3. An atheist is one who worships Satan.
4. Everyone worships something.An atheist must have some god.
5. A person becomes an atheist because of a fight with a priest, pastor, etc.
6. All atheists believe in the same thing, a certain view.

Each chapter ends in most cases with a helpful conclusion.As well there are notes to document the footnotes indicated throughout each chapter.

A brief but excellent conclusion ends the book.At the end of this conclusion is a "Summary of the argument Against Belief in Gods."I found this to be concise, elegant, and logically valid.

Finally, there are two problems I found with this book:

First, even though each chapter is referenced quite well, there are still some assertions that Krueger makes that are not documented.All assertions have to be thoroughly documented especially when dealing with this subject.

Second, this book is not indexed.Even though this book is supposed to be "a short introduction" to atheism, Krueger still presents a wealth of information that I feel should be indexed to make the book more user friendly.

In conclusion, this book presents a concise introduction to atheism, an important and intellectually powerful alternative to the religious outlook so prevalent today.

(first published 1998;preface;acknowledgements;9 chapters;main narrative 220 pages;suggested readings)

+++++

Logic or Salvation
Krueger's arguments in favor of atheism over theism may play well with atheists. Theists, however, seem more likely to either deny the logic or remain certain that a convincing argument in favor or God will appear.

Desperate longings are not ended by logic.

Atheists need to address, not why God doesn't exist, but how to help theists deal with their desperate longings that do exist. We're all in this together and those longings should be understandable by all of us, even if some of us feel certain that theism doesn't answer them.

An atheist has not just mind but also heart: a heart that can suffer just as much as the heart of a theist. How we manage and why we don't escape into theism is something rich within one's atheism and our common humanity that needs to be communicated to theists. Not that there is an atheist worldview to share but that each atheist has found a way to be in the world without the liabilities of theism. We can exercise our imagination in profound ways, use science wisely, live together without division, and face our mortality without forgetting what we have created and without hurting each other in the name of a fiction.

Needing to be right could be the desperate longing of atheists that takes us off course just as belief takes theists off course. Logic such as Krueger's is important but atheists need also expose their hearts.

A response to John Fuller's review below
As a doctoral student in philosophy who has taught the philosophy of religion at two universities, I recommend this book very highly.At the risk of bringing further attention to the comments of an ignoramus, I feel the need to rebut the incompetent review of John Fuller (which can be seen further down).

To begin with, Fuller claims that Krueger uses the Euthyphro dilemma as the "anchor" for the rest of this book.But as anyone who has studied philosophy or read the book knows, this argument is only relevant to the question of the source of morality.Therefore, it cannot be (and is not) related to any chapters in this book after chapter two.Fuller then tries to attack this supposed 'anchor' by saying that it only applies to polytheism.But this is downright false, as any competent philosopher will know and as any good introductory ethics text will explain.

After some petty comments on capitalization (the merit of which anyone reading this can judge for him/herself), Fuller continues with eleven further errors, all conveniently numbered by him:

1.Fuller claims that utilitarianism, Kantianism and virtue ethics all 'fail to describe the concepts of good and bad'.No justification is given for this extraordinary claim (it certainly flies in the face of the general consensus of philosophers), and no alternative definition of these concepts is given.
2.Fuller claims that Krueger makes a confusion between a purpuse IN life and a purpose TO life -- when Krueger's position is that the latter reduces to the former. This objection simply begs the question by assuming life must have an externally mandated purpose, which is just what Krueger is contesting in Chapter 3.
3.Fuller claims that Krueger recommends the admiration of the "racist eugenics-obsessed" Margaret Sanger.Not only is this a distortion of what Krueger says (he claims only that her tireless devotion to her work was a life of purpose), but Sanger was in fact _opposed_ to racism and racist eugenics and attacked racists.While it is true that she did advocate some by my standards unethical measures (advocated more strongly, incidentally, by Christians at the time), these were not connected with racism.Fuller has fallen for a Christian smear job here, and it is not even relevant to Krueger (who again says nothing about admiring Sanger in his very brief mention of her).
4.Fuller claims that Krueger doesn't understand claims about biblical prophecies, and that he ignores counter-evidence (none of which, conveniently, is substantiated by Fuller).The reader should read Krueger's work itself and then judge: this is an entirely unsupported allegation by Fuller.
5.Fuller chides Krueger for following the scholarly consensus that the bible is mostly composed by anonymous sources and is not inerrant.In other words, he would have Krueger reject the opinions of the most serious scholars in the field over the past century in favor of -- whom?The "acknowledged master in the field", F. F. Bruce, who is certainly not acknowledged by mainstream historians as any sort of authority at all.For a good debunking of Bruce and his tactics, see Chapter 5 of Robert Price's 'Beyond Born Again'.
6.Fuller accuses Krueger of 'trotting out all the cliched objections about biblical errancy'.True -- they are cliched at this point because they have had to be repeated over and over again to Christian apologists who can't overcome them but continue undaunted anyway.Wonderful what faith can do.
7.Fuller claims that Krueger's objections to the design argument beg the question.But he doesn't explain why, and it isn't clear he understands what 'begging the question' even means.
8.Fuller objects to Krueger's treatment of the cosmological argument because it misunderstands the implications of the divine character, but doesn't say just why.Surely, any attribute of a divine character would have to be quite remarkable if it actually could explain the origin of the universe without itself demanding an explanation by the same logic.Fuller calls Krueger's attempts to prove that an infinite regress is possible 'laughable', without seeming to notice that the whole laughable business was raised by Aquinas, to which Krueger is merely responding.At any rate, it isn't germane to the objection Krueger is making, and if Fuller had taken the time to read that section at all carefully he would have noticed that the cosmological argument is demolished anyway.
9.Fuller claims that Krueger is wrong not to mention the theodicy of Alvin Plantinga, which Fuller claims is "generally accepted by philosophers as conclusive in favor of theism".Not only does Plantinga's defense do no such thing (the standard refutation of this rather silly theodicy can be found in J. L. Mackie's classic work _The Miracle of Theism_), and not only do the great majority of philosophers consider Plantinga's defense to be bogus, but even if it were successful, it doesn't even claims to present an argument for theism, as Fuller claims.This seems to show Fuller's familiarity with the scholarship in the relevant fields.
10.Fuller, apparently finding no way to respond to the powerful argument from nonbelief, dismisses it as 'absurd', despite its logical force.Presumably this is in contrast with the claims of Christianity, which are far more absurd and have no logical force.
11.Fuller's last point also makes a serious mistake.He claims that Krueger is attacking a straw man by mis-defining faith.But contrary to what Fuller says, there _are_ many Christians who define 'believing on faith' as 'believing in the absence of strong reasons'.As for those who use 'faith' to mean 'belief with fairly strong supporting reasons but in the absence of absolute geometrical proof', the rest of the book was already devoted to their refutation.

Most telling, perhaps, is Fuller's warning that Krueger's book "should not be approached by those with inadequate knowledge".What exactly is he afraid of?I would say, by contrast, that people should read Krueger's book _and_ the opposing books.That way they will be able to compare for themselves the preposterous claims of Christianity with their simple refutations.

Why Christianity is wrong
This book is not really an introduction to atheism, but rather an introduction to what is wrong with Christianity, ignoring other variants of theism. This book is not useful as an introduction to atheism, but should rather be used as a reference when debating Christian fundamentalists.

Unfortunately, the book is full of assumptions with no references (such as the declaration that most of the books in the New Testament are *known* (emphasis his) to be forgeries. Though I honestly think he is right about that, he doesn't give any reference to the claim so it is impossible for the reader to find out if it is true. When claims such as these are not backed up by evidence they can't be used in a debate and therefore, no matter how good, the arguments presented by Krueger can hardly be used in a debate.

I fear that the author's hostility to Christianity may scare christians off from reading the book, which makes them unable to grasp the arguments. (Some of the references below confirm this apprehension). From the first to the second paragraph Krueger openly admits this hostility to Christianity.

However, the book replies to many of the most common arguments from Christian Fundamentalists aganist atheism, and this makes it very useful. It is almost impossible to enter a debate forum about religion on the Internet without encountering arguments such as those Krueger rejects. Hence, this book is a goldmine for any atheist who needs a quick reference to why these arguments fail.

I fear that many atheists will say this review is not useful only because I'm critical to Krueger. Please understand that I think this book is great reading. It gave me many arguments that I will use in debates on the Internet, and I will surely use the book as a reference. I just wish that he would not be so militant. Christians will denounce the arguments because of the hostility against them expressed in this book; and no matter how useful in debates, this book fails to give a good understanding of atheism. The impression will be that atheism is really about hostility to Christianity, and that is not a very good introduction to atheism.

If it wasn't for the dogmatic language, I would have given this book five stars. I also think the title is a little bit misleading. It should rather be "What is Wrong With Christianity? A Short Introduction". ... Read more

Product Description

Is a life without religion one without values or purpose? Julian Baggini emphatically says no. He sets out to dispel the myths surrounding atheism and to show how it can be both a meaningful and moral choice. He directly confronts the failure of officially atheist states in the twentieth century, and presents an intellectual case for atheism that rests as much on reasoned and positive arguments for its truth as on negative arguments against religion.

Customer Reviews (2)

An outstanding short work
One of the best short works on atheism that I've come across.But beware, the text was previously published as Atheism: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions).This edition has new illustrations and is hardcover.

Very convincing
Makes a strong case for atheism.I was very pleased to see many of the arguments I was already using put in such a clear and convincing fashion.

This morning, I traded my copy to some Jehovah's Witnesses -- I made them promise to read it if I promised to read their copy of the Watchtower and Awake.I've now read both, and found them significantly less convincing than Baggini's _Atheism_.

Perhaps I will write to Baggini and ask if he would put together a shorter version of _Atheism_ and sell it inexpensively, so I could always have a copy on hand for door-to-door missionaries. ... Read more

Product Description

The central contention of the "New Atheism" of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens is that there has for several centuries been a war between science and religion, that religion has been steadily losing that war, and that at this point in human history a completely secular scientific account of the world has been worked out in such thorough and convincing detail that there is no longer any reason why a rational and educated person should find the claims of any religion the least bit worthy of attention.

But as Edward Feser argues in The Last Superstition, in fact there is not, and never has been, any war between science and religion at all. There has instead been a conflict between two entirely philosophical conceptions of the natural order: on the one hand, the classical "teleological" vision of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas, on which purpose or goal-directedness is as inherent a feature of the physical world as mass or electric charge; and the modern "mechanical" vision of Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, and Hume, according to which the physical world is comprised of nothing more than purposeless, meaningless particles in motion.The modern "mechanical" picture has never been established by science, and cannot be, for it is not a scientific theory in the first place but merely a philosophical interpretation of science.

Not only is this modern philosophical picture rationally unfounded, it is demonstrably false. For the "mechanical" conception of the natural world, when worked out consistently, absurdly entails that rationality, and indeed the human mind itself, are illusory. The so-called "scientific worldview" championed by the New Atheists thus inevitably undermines its own rational foundations; and into the bargain it undermines the foundations of any possible morality as well. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (23)

Best Lay Introduction to Traditional Philosophical Theism
As everybody knows, there is now a cottage industry in little books arguing for or against theism. Most of these books are terrible. Dawkins book "The God Delusion" sounds impressive to a person with a shallow philosophical foundation, but is embarrassingly bad to serious physicalist thinkers like Thomas Nagel and Quentin Smith. Daniel Dennet IS a professional philosopher of some repute, and one might think he would therefore attempt a serious philosophical trouncing of classical cosmological arguments, but he barely mentions these and what's worse, straw man's the arguments he does mention. His book is mostly devoted to giving a certain impression of theism, not refuting it.

On the other hand, most popularly written theist argument books are themselves fairly shallow. Where the atheists pile up examples of bad things theists have done (as if this were and argument against the theism per se), these theists try the opposite tactic, piling example of all the naughty s**t that atheists have done in the 20th century. Stalemate, at best. To make matters worse, the arguments presented in these books are mostly defensive (trying to show that atheists haven't proved God doesn't exist) or attempt to be "scientific" and thus are usually God-of-the-gaps arguments ("natural processes could NEVER have produced X!")

These new theists are either too incompetent and philosophically unsophisticated to understand the classical deductive proofs for God's existence, or too chicken-hearted to defend them (because of the false impression that they've been refuted). For example, the argument from contingency (properly explained) is an extremely powerful argument for the existence of an immaterial, ontologically necessary being. It is a deductive proof, not an inductive "hypothesis" or an "inference to the best explanation". Disputing its premises means holding positions that seem to undermine reason in general.

Feser doesn't use that particular argument, but he defends several of Aquinas' proofs (making sure to distinguish the actual argument from atheist caricatures). He also demonstrates the sense of traditional Aristotelian metaphysics, formal and final causality, etc. Again, distinguishing b/n their actual content and physicalist mis-characterizations ("Ha, ha! Stupid Aristotle thought fire wanted to go up".)

Feser argues that junking of Aristotelean/Scholasticism and specifically formal and final causes, has created or exaggerated a host of problems in ethics, epistemology, metaphysics and philosophy of the mind. He also shows how feeble are the arguments for atheism/physicalism in general and that of Dawkins' and Dennet's arguments in particular.

I highly recommend this book for lay people who want to have a better grasp on these issues.

I didn't want to hate this book so much
I'll start with the one small point Feser may be right about.I tend to think myself that various "moderate" metaphysical views like non-Humean accounts of causation are more closely linked to extreme metaphysical views like Feser's God than most moderate metaphysicians are willing to admit.But "more closely linked" is not the same as "mutually entailing," and Feser's actual arguments don't even manage to do much to establish the closer link; as best I can extract it from the incredibly thick polemic in which it is buried, he argues that without final causation, there's no non-Humean causation, and all final causation must terminate in God.But neither of these steps could be convincing without considerably further explanation and support than he offers.

That is probably what I found most disappointing about the book.I expected him to misunderstand and misrepresent the naturalist position, but I hoped that he would at least present some fairly clear and detailed account of what his alternative was.Sadly, his presentation of his Thomistic view was far too sketchy to give one the slightest inkling of how he might respond to countless obvious (and frequently raised) difficulties.

Further, of course, he did misunderstand and misrepresent the naturalist position very badly.I was particularly unimpressed by his discussion of Dennett; Dennett may be prone to some rhetorical excesses of his own, but he does actually present real arguments.Feser does not even begin to show that the functional minds and evolutionary purposes of Dennett (and Millikan and others) are inadequate; he simply dismisses them and insists that it is somehow obvious that minds and purposes have to be something else, and even slyly implies that Dennett and Millikan really mean something else by purposes, when it is quite obvious that they do not.He equally distorts Hume in the course of dismissing him, and if he can't be accused of distorting Kant very much, it is only because he considers it appropriate to dismiss Kant after a discussion far too short to contain any great number of distortions.

Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that all this mass of stilted rhetoric and terrible argument is advanced in the cause of bigotry; the first paragraph of his preface establishes the importance he attaches to his anti-gay agenda.

An Outstanding and Entertaining Primer
I've read this book twice now. I am an Engineer and most of the material was new to me.The second time I read it I wrote down the "four causes" on a card and used that as a bookmark. They are referred to throughout the book once introduced.

The book is a great introduction to classical and scholastic philosophy and then as to where the 'moderns' went wrong.It is quite concise and short for all that he covers and in some depth, in my opinion.I found the style very entertaining although most atheists will not (see one star reviews).He well supports his conclusions and those who say he doesn't either didn't read the book or understand his explanations (see one star reviews). The author also gives a very good explanation of the 'first mover' and explains that it applies continuously to the universe, not just is some distant past.

The book really helped me understand a world view that I never even knew was there and really demolishes the `religion or science' myth.As an interesting aside, he mentions several times that the Intelligent Design movement really gives too much away before it even starts and is arguing from a severely weakened position of its own choosing.

I now understand why every philosophy student I meet can't answer any of my questions and why every atheist I meet begins to sound like he made up his mind before he looked at any evidence (see one star reviews).

I highly recommend this book.

Bad Science vs. Bad Theology
The Good:
Feser knows Aristotle and Aquinas very well, and does a great job of summarizing their arguments. He takes Dawkins to task for misrepresenting Aquinas. And, I agree: Aquinas deserves a more thoughtful rebuke than that given in The God Delusion. If you're interested in an introduction to Aquinas, Feser is hard to beat.

Some people may be put off by Feser's rhetoric (lots of personal digs and whatnot). Personally, I found this amusing, and it livened up what could easily have been a dry read.

The Bad:
He criticizes Dawkins for misrepresenting Aquinas, and for having little knowledge of metaphysics. But, in this book, Feser misrepresents Hume, and has very little knowledge of science. His discussion on cause/effect contradicts what we know from mathematics (zorn's lemma, inverse limit spaces, properties of triangles resulting from man-made axioms, etc),or quantum mechanics (spontaneous symmetry breaking, particles shifting to low energy states, etc). His views on rationality (treating it as a discrete phenomenon) run contra to what we know from evolution or zoology. His take on `thought' is antithetical to what we've learned from neuroscience. He boldly claims that neuroscience cannot prove that thoughts are material processes in the brain, because he gives an ``obviously'' sound argument that this is not the case. I'm sorry, but Feser's/Aquinas's argument is not sound. (eg, one of his crap premises is that thoughts are the same form as that which they're grasping. Hence, if you're pondering immaterial things, your thoughts are necessarily immaterial).

If knowledge we've gained from science is at odds with Aquinas's metaphysics, I'm siding with science, and betting that Aquinas's argument has a hole. I hope Feser never requires brain surgery, since he's so convinced that the knowledge-base of a neurosurgeon is incorrect.

My Review of Edward Feser's work The Last Superstition
First, I would like to thank Dr. Feser for producing a philosophical work that effectively (for the most part) dismantles the fragile straw house of ideas that has been constructed by the so-called "new atheists" (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, etc). Feser employs wit, mental acuity and reason to refute the atheistic claims made by Dawkins and company. I have enjoyed reading this work, although like any other book, it has its strengths and weaknesses. In reviewing this publication, I will point out what I perceive to be its strong and weak points.

1. The discussion on nominalism versus realism (theory of universals) was one of this book's best features. While I do not agree with Feser's depiction of nominalism in toto, I believe that he has a knack for making philosophy relatively easy to comprehend. His illustration of realism using the example of a rubber ball was excellent. Since I teach undergraduates, I really appreciated the example and how it helps one to understand the Aristotelian or Platonic claims regarding universals. See pages 57-62 for Feser's treatment of hylomorphism along with a discussion of both moderate and extreme realism.

2. Feser also critiques the Humean "attack" on causation/causality (pages 105-110). David Hume (1711-1776) argues that he is able to conceive a thing (a bowling ball, for example) coming into existence without a cause. However, Feser addresses this "argument" by noting that Hume is conflating or confusing the verb "conceive" with the verb "imagine." But the two actions delineated by the respective verbs "conceive" and "imagine" clearly are not the same acts. As Feser aptly points out, it is possible to grasp the concept of a "chiliagon" (a thousand-sided figure) but that does not mean it is conceptually possible to form a distinct mental image of a chiliagon. Hume's argument suggests that he fails to understand this important distinction.

3. Feser exploits the notion of Aristotelian final causality throughout his book. The final cause is the telos (i.e. end, result, goal, function, purpose) of a thing or event. One might say that an oak tree is the final cause of an acorn or that the final cause of a human embryo is a full grown adult. Aristotle believed that everything in our natural world has a final cause: trees, humans, animals, and artificial objects all have a final cause. Thomas Aquinas used Aristotle's thought on causes to build a case for the existence of God by the use of unaided natural reason. See pages 114-119 of Feser's work.

4. Having mentioned some positive things about Feser's work, allow me to include some critical feedback in response to his work. Feser has a wry sense of humor: sometimes his jokes hit the mark and sometimes they do not. There are paragraphs in this book wherein the sarcasm and cockiness just drips abundantly like water. Some remarks are indeed amusing. Moreover, Dawkins and company probably deserve the sarcasm. Nevertheless, I would love to see less sarcasm, less of a smart-alecky tone and more seriousness pertaining to the task at hand.

5. Feser might also have stayed on task a little more rather than being diverted by political issues or didactic moralizing about contemporary moral topics. The arguments that he makes, for example, against abortion do not contribute directly to his general thesis, although I agree with his take on abortion. I guess he is thereby making a critique of secularism or what has putatively happened to the world since the rejection of final causality. However, I am not sure that there is a directly proportional relationship between not accepting final causality and advocating the right of women to have abortions.

6. Finally, Feser responds to the new atheists on the subject of mind. He contends that universals must exist and if they do in fact exist, then our thoughts about abstract objects like triangularity or squareness (two universals) must be immaterial. After making these observations, Feser maintains that neuroscientific findings cannot rightly be used to refute the Aristotelian-Thomist conception of universals since Aquinas is not doing science (understood in the modern sense of the word) but metaphysics when he insists that universals especially qua concepts and the mind cannot be material things. But I do not agree when Feser says that the findings of neuroscience which are largely materialistic should not count against Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysical demonstrations. Nor does it seem that one must per force construe mental concepts as immaterial, based on what neuroscience and reflections from modern philosophy of mind have yielded. Granted, the findings of neuroscience (like other forms of human knowledge) are admittedly provisional. But accounts regarding consciousness being a higher-level brain process have already been developed by some philosophers and neuroscientists. ... Read more

Product Description
In this book, Robin Le Poidevin addresses the question of whether theism - the view that there is a personal, transcendent creator of the universe - solves the deepest mysteries of existence. Philosophical defences of theism have often been based on the idea that it explains things which atheistic approaches cannot: for example, why the universe exists, and how there can be objective moral values. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (12)

Confusions in Jason Beyer's Review
Some other reviewers have opined that Le Poidevin's discussion of the problem of evil is inadequate because the problem of evil, itself, has largely been rejected by apologists for atheism, both popular and professional philosophers. This is false. Le Poidevin's book has an up-to-date discussion of the problem of evil.


This being said, Le Poidevin's discussion of the problem of evil is sorely lacking, from a philosophical standpoint. It has much rhetorical force, and I am sure that all who read it will feel the power of the argument. But Le Poidevin leaves out discussion of the most important forms of the argument in circulation today. William Rowe and Paul Draper barely receive any column space, becuase Le Poidevin focuses his discussion on answering the deductive problem of evil, and discussions of metaphysical free will &etc. This is a great disservice, if the book is intended as an introduction to philosophy of religion.

In the end, I must concur with other reviewers in saying that Prof. Le Poidevin's work presupposes too much to be an introduction, and is too uninformative and weakly argued to be an argument for atheism.

Arguing with Oneself
The book is small (146 pages) and a very swift read. Unfortunately, being so short is nothing more than simple 30 second style sound bites into the normative atheistic look at their classical arguments. In the end the book really does not provide much argumentation instead it regurgitates talking points; you should believe this because these other atheist believe the same thing.

When I got to the skinny, but typical chapter on the problem of evil (17 pages) I was aghast the author is a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Leeds and I truly had expected his best work in the book to be in the areas of his expertise - philosophy. I could easily give him a pass when he was writing about physics, or biology, but now we are in his arena, the main course you could say. But the meat has turned suddenly rancid.

Perhaps a slight history is due the reader of this review, the problem of evil used to be the crème de la crème of the aspiring atheist. Beginning atheists feel it it the final nail to theism's coffin; their strongest and unassailable argument. The problem with the argument as they begin to acknowledge in most cases is that it is a straw man and this as and has been known and shown for centuries.

Most intellectually honest atheists know this; you will note that many modern day writers have actually dropped this form of argument from their books. I was surprised to see it still contained here and worse yet still defended.

The so called problem of evil's error is in class confusion. In other words:

What is the taste of blue?
What is the smell of light?
What is the color of pity?

Now let me explain it another way

You buy a house. You buy a wood stove and have it installed in your house that provides your heat. You tell your 8 year old child not to touch or play around the stove because it is hot and can burn them.

Sure enough several months later you hear a blood curdling scream. Your child has fallen against the wood stove, he is taken by ambulance to the hospital and he has third degree burns. The child protection service worker is called in (a atheists) and proclaims

You bought the house
You bought the stove
You warned your child, so you knew that the stove was dangerous.
You knew that you could have heated with a gas furnace which is safer.
Therefore, you CAUSED the child's injury.
You CREATED this EVIL.
You are UNJUST.

This is the same charge that atheist are bringing onto God.

Did you really cause the child's injury?

(The argument that God could intervene is of course valid, and God has intervened in history. But if he intervenes every time then we would just be a bunch of automata with no free will and real purpose which most atheists agree to.)

Did you really create evil by buying the stove?

Is the stove inherently evil?

Is fire inherently evil?

What is evil? (You would be surprised at the answers you will receive on this one)

One last question: If you were God how would you make a world with humans in it that had moral free agency and no evil? Just try to get an atheist to answer this one - it can sometimes be absolutely hilarious ;) So let's at least be fair and not complicate a strawman argument with another strawman argument to bolster that one.

Once you begin to break down the analogy you get into a deeper philosophical discussion. You will find that the real reason class confusion exists is because atheists like the author are imposing manmade epistemological rules onto an ontological being.

If they wish to truly challenge the problem of evil intellectually honestly they must do so from an ontological perspective. It only makes logical sense since they are trying to disprove an ontological being they must do so on an ontological basis. They need to define evil biblically as God has defined it.

Once that is done the intellectually honest atheist admits as many have about 90% of all their arguments are effectively destroyed.

The last 10 % of the arguments usually focus on does he have knowledge of evil in him? Did he create beings with the propensity for evil or just free will? While most of these questions are fun to debate they will honestly be answered with a I THINK or this is what I BELIEVE. These are areas that we may never know until we ask God ourselves.

By the way, I don't assume for one minute that the author doesn't know what I have written, he's too smart. What he does know is that ontologically speaking there is NO problem with evil and the atheists has lost as the author puts it "the most powerful and convincing argument for atheism." (88)

An exemplary text on atheism
In his book "Arguing for Atheism", Le Poidevin has accomplished what few authors have succeeded in; he has written a powerful but thoroughly respectful criticism of theology.This is far and away the finest book I have ever read on atheism.Le Poidevin introduces each theistic argument as fairly and thoroughly as possible, often overlooking inconsequential flaws, and even offering modified arguments that overcome such flaws.He then proceeds to examine each argument in depth, exposing both valid points and flaws.As the title of the book suggests, however, precious few theistic arguments are found to withstand scrutiny.

What sets this book apart from other books that critically examine theology is that Le Poidevin clearly has no interest in securing cheap victories over ill-conceived apologetics; rather, his aim is to examine the most cogent theistic arguments that can be constructed, even if he must lend a hand in bolstering them, which he does with humility and earnestness.

This book is a model of how apologetics and its criticism ought to be conducted.I wish more authors on both sides of the debate would follow his lead.This is the book I most wish that religionists would read and atheists would emulate, both for its penetrating criticism and for its exemplary tone.

Best philosophical introduction to atheism
Robin LePoidevin has produced the best philosophical introduction to atheism. While ARGUING FOR ATHEISM is technical compared to most other introductions to atheism, it more than repays any effort the reader puts into it, as LePoidevin very clearly shows how the problems in philosophy of religion are firmly connected to other deep and complicated philosophical problems. Were everyone to read LePoidevin's book, far more people would approach philosophy of religion with humility, and the average level of discourse on the subject would be raised substantially.

From an atheist: Blatant Subjectivism and Misrepresentation
I would not recommend this book to anyone.The author misrepresents atheism and also religion.Le Poidevin is also an outright subjectivist as is shown by entertaining the ideas of "Why something rather than nothing?" and "Possible Worlds" to name just a few.

I would recommend George Smith's "Atheism, The Case Against God" instead.Smith takes on most of the same questions, but in a much more straight forward, to the point, objective way. ... Read more

Product Description

Product Description
LCCN: 2009936698This volume asserts that if there is no God then certain absurdities follow. For example, humans possess no unique value, there is no objective morality, the existence of humanity has no meaning. Without the transcendent,pursuits and values are delusions of the human species. The information required for the intricate complexity of the universe from the single cell to the structure of the cosmos, has no contributor in the absence of a transcendent intelligence.In the year of his death in 1955, the revered scientist Albert Einstein clarified his formerly ambiguous views: "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God" (Calaprice, ed., The Quotable Einstein, pp.195-6). ... Read more

Product Description
A philosopher as well as a poet, Shelley argues that the divine attributes of God are merely projections of human powers; life everlasting cannot be empirically demonstrated, for it runs counter to all the evidence for mortality given by the natural world, which is the only world we know. During his brief life, Shelley affronted the armies of Christendom with a single-minded purpose. As Shelley observes in his dialogue "A Refutation of Deism", there can be no middle ground between accepting revealed religion and disbelieving in the existence of a deity - another way of stating the necessity of atheism. In all, these essays provide an important statement of the poet and freethinker's enlightened views on skepticism, faith, and the corruption of organized Christianity. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (4)

THE NECESSITY OF ATHEISM

What Shelley tried to establish in the essays of this volume was the logical necessity of atheism, that is, from commonly accepted premises, atheism necessarily follows.Though I found in Shelley an unexpected kindred spirit, I must admit that he does not succeed.Shelley states that "the senses are the sources of all knowledge" (p. 32), and declares, "Locke has proved that ideas result from sensation" (p.86).However, Locke's tabula rasa is a model rather than a proof, and it is not indisputable.Since irrational numbers, for instance, cannot be sensed, how can this model account for the idea of them?(Yes, I know Hume's explanation; I just do not find it convincing).In another instance he writes, "In the language of reason, the words God and the Universe are synonymous" (p. 87).Though I agree with this, Shelley's premise for this conclusion was "that which is infinite necessarily includes that which is finite."This is not true; for example, the infinite set of odd integers does not include the even integers between 2 and 20.* Though many of Shelley's arguments are based on the premise of materialism, he emphasizes that his atheism only negates a creative Deity; "The hypothesis of a pervading Spirit coeternal with the universe remains unshaken" (p. 31), which certainly contradicts the doctrine of strict materialism.Shelley does not expound upon this Spirit, though he implies that Christ spoke for this Spirit, and that Christ's authentic wisdom was distorted by hypocritical dogma."Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God," does not mean that after death those who have faith that Christ died for their sins will stand before the Creator, butthat whosoever "aspires to that which the divinity of his own nature shall consider and approve - he has already seen God" (p. 5).He declares that the doctrine of the pointlessly cruel eternal torture of Hell is necessarily at odds with Christ's exhortation to "Love your enemies, bless those that curse you." For Shelley, "God is a model through which the excellence of man is to be estimated, whilst the abstract perfection of the human character is the type of the actual perfection of the divine" (p. 14).Shelley was more like a Buddhist than an atheist.

A main point of Shelley's argument is that "Belief is not an act of volition, nor can it be regulated by the mind: it is manifestly incapable therefore of either merit or criminality" (p. 68).I became an atheist at the age of eleven, and I recall being especially impressed with the truth of the assertion that belief is not an act of free will.I had been indoctrinated into Christian mythology in conventional Sunday school classes, which means that the idea of questioning what I was taught never occurred to me, and certainly it was never suggested that I should.Yet when I first heard the arguments of an atheist, after no more than minute or so of defending my belief in God, I was shocked to realize that I no longer believed in Him.This was no free choice; I could not possibly have chosen to continue to believe.I have spent much time wondering why belief in God strikes me as ridiculous, and even repugnant, while it clearly has the opposite affect upon the majority of people.I am sure that Christians have no more control over their belief than I have over my disbelief.However, to say that belief or disbelief is incapable of merit is extreme.After all, most criminals justify themselves in their own minds.It negates any possibility of free will.It is commendable to at least try to regulate one's beliefs by weighing them against available evidence.What would be the point of Shelley's essays if this were not so?Such diverse thinkers as Richard Dawkins, Kurt Gödel, and Colin Wilson have observed that dogma acts as a mental virus.However, for the materialist, the memes constituting the virus are the mind; hence there can be no free will.Shelley's hypothesis of a "pervading Spirit coeternal with the universe" suggests that the mind transcends a mere haphazard conglomeration of memes and sensations.If consciousness exists in its own right, rather than as a mere epiphenomenon of physical processes, then free will is possible.But free will is not a gift; it can only be achieved with great effort.

The very fact that it is even possible to doubt God's existence is the best evidence that he does not.This was one of my first original thoughts as an atheist.What possible reason or justification could He have for hiding?Since God is omniscient, He had to have known that Satan would rebel, and in fact He had to have created Satan with a jealous, rebellious temperament that made Satan's fall inevitable.God created a set of rules that man was to follow, though He knew that He had created man with a temperament incapable of following those rules.So in order to avoid having to condemn all of mankind to eternal torture, a punishment we richly deserve for disobeying rules that we could not possibly obey, God sent His only begotten Son to die and go to Hell in man's place.All of mankind is condemned to die for a crime committed by our distant grandfather, and only innocent blood will redress our guilt for sins that we cannot prevent ourselves from committing no matter how hard we try.The only way we can avoid eternal torture is by having faith that Christ died for us, even though the ability to have such faith is a matter of God's grace, completely beyond our control. We learn to love God from boring sermons, from child-molesting clergymen, from a multitude of petty self-righteous sects that haughtily denounce each other as guilty of heresy, from a book that describes God commanding His minions to atrocious acts of massive slaughter and God Himself causing disasters "of Biblical proportions." The history of the powerful Christian nations has been just as rife with cruelty, rapaciousness, and genocide as it could possibly have been.This is the Christianity, visible for anyone with eyes to see, that I rejected while barely pubescent, and that Shelley rejected two hundred years ago.Yet Shelley was expelled from Oxford for atheism, and today's atheists have President Bush telling us that we have no right to be American citizens.I am way past the point of being polite.If Christians actually possessed the free will that they boast of they could not possibly believe this damned nonsense.

*My own argument:If God is "that which nothing greater can be imagined," as He is commonly defined, then a God that contains corporate reality is greater than one that does not.In HOW TO THINK ABOUT GOD, Mortimer Adler, who accepted this definition, insisted that God has necessary existence while corporate existence is merely contingent. The consequence of necessary existence is that all of God's actions are necessary, so He could have done nothing differently than He did.If this were true, then how could God's creation be any less necessary than Himself?This is not proof that the words God and the Universe are synonymous, but it does demonstrate that their existence as distinct entities involves a contradiction.

Shelly prose
I didn't realize such modern ideas existed in the days of the great ones.

bertrand russell is more accessable...
Frankly, I'm more impressed with Bertrand Russell's _Why I am not a Christian_ than with this book...Shelley's writing is couched in such period rhetoric (early 19th century / late 18th century style) as to be rather clumsy and turgid for the modern reader, and the assumtions and argumentation rely on premises that are often faulty or no longer seem valid in the contemporary world.

All that having been said, the short essay "On Life" was most impressive indeed and in many ways seems a foreshadowing of Postmodernism.Very startling to see that Urquelle in a text like this.

This book looks great on a bookshelf, but is a little dissapointing in the actual reading of it, save for "On Life". The title essay is especially disappointing. Oh well...

Shelley's thoughts on Life and God
This book is an excellent introduction to Shelley's existencial thought, containing some impressing essays such as "The necessity of atheism" and "On Life". It also helps the reader tounderstand the marvellous personal "animus" that hiddened beneathShelley's great poems. ... Read more

Product Description
Geroge H. Smith, author of the influential contemporaryclassic ATHEISM: THE CASE AGAINST GOD, continues his defense ofreason, freethought, and personal liberty by answering the age-oldquestion: why atheism?Why would anyone question the existence of asupernatural diety?Smith reviews the historical roots of unbeliefdating back to the ancient Greeks, argues that philosophy can serve asan important alternative to religion, and defends reason as the mostreliable method we humans have for establishing truth and conductingour lives.

WHY ATHEISM? tackles a wide range of subjects, some of which havenever been thoroughly analyzed from an atheistic point of view.Beginning with the problem of atheism's credibility, Smith points outthe various ways in which religious opponents have sought to excludeatheism from serious consideration.He also analyzes a number ofclassical philosophical issues, such as the nature of knowledge andbelief, concluding that modern atheism is largely an unintendedconsequence of the religious diversity brought about by the ProtestantReformation.

Two chapters are devoted to ethics, one focusing on the ethics ofbelief with particular attention given to the views of Thomas Aquinasand John Locke.Other chapters discuss the persecution of religiousdissenters as well as the nature and content of an ethical systemdevoid of belief in God.Smith's characteristic lucidity, analyticalrigor, and piercing wit make WHY ATHEISM? an accessible and enjoyableguide to living a positive life without belief in a supreme being. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (16)

shallow
Does not address any of Aquinas' major arguments for God's nature .His infinite nature proceeds from his absolute nature.

Not for the layperson of Philosophy
I'm somewhat biased, if I hadn't read "Atheism: The Case Against God," I doubt I'd have ever finished this book. The writting in the book is good, I suppose, but it was beyond my grasp.The book for the most part deals heavily with philosophy, and the understanding of most of the philosophy is beyond the reach of Joe Average.

Most of his 'arguments' in the book seem to be an analysis of 17th and 18th philosophers, and applying their arguments towards his ideas about Atheisms contemporary relevance.This is by no means bad, but for people lacking background the reading is incredibly dense, and somewhat uninteresting.

Where he succeeds the most is near the end of the book in a short chapter where he adresses 'silly' issues.He talks about 'silly issues' like whether God himself is an Atheist (he is!) and whether Satan is actually a Christian.His wit in this very short chapter was great, and I wished he'd written more on the topic of strange concepts like that.

Overall, this isn't a bad book, but unlike "Atheism: The Case Against God" This book is much harder to grasp for people not grounded in philosophy, and is more an analysis of philosophers then a refutation of Christianity.

Not bad, but not his best work
I raved on and on about Smith's earlier book "Atheism: The Case Against God", so I thought I could not go wrong with reading another from him...

Sadly, I was mistaken.While this book does have its moments (such as the excellent critique of Ayn Rand and the hilarity of the second-to-last chapter), I must say that overall I was disappointed in this book with respect to his original work.I can't quite place my finger on what I didn't like, but at times the book felt repetitious and mundane.

I highly recommend Smith's earlier work, but only mildly recommend this.It will fill out some gaps of knowledge, but only at the expense of a fairly unexciting read.

Study of the Place of Atheism in the History of Philosophy
For readers seeking an introduction to the basic ideas of atheism this book is probably not what you are looking for. Instead it is more a history of philosophy and the beliefs of the most important philosophers such as Bacon, Descartes, Kant, Spinoza, Locke and Schopenhauer. George Smith attempts to make the case for atheism by challenging those he disagrees with, such as the theist Descartes who attempted to "prove" the existence of God through his theory of knowledge. Others, like the atheist Schopehauer, he obviously agrees with. All of this is interesting enough, especially for the serious student of philosophy.

But I was hoping to find a more accessible book with more widespread appeal. For me, the case for atheism is simply a matter of common sense. There is no logical reason to believe in the existence of an external, creative diety. Of course, theists always fall back on the concept of faith. But faith in God is a weak argument when a person has no factual support to bolster his claim. For example, I can have faith that the moon is made of green cheese. But just because I believe it doesn't make ittrue or mean that this belief is something other people should take seriously. Darwin's theory of evolution, on the other hand, uses the scientific method, including a large, verifiable fossil record, to prove its case. To say that a person's unsubstantiated belief in God is equal to Darwin's much more verifiable theory of evolution is simply irrational thinking.


Prior to science, people made up mythological stories to explain how the world was created and why we are here. Fortunately, science is now able to explain much of how the natural world functions, how humans and other life forms evolved and even how the universe itself came into being. Of course, this only explains the "how" of existence and not the "why". But, to me, the doctrines of religion are a childish cop out. Instead the truth is that it is ultimately up to each individual to find meaning, purpose and happiness in life. We are now living in the "brave, new world" of secularism. It is our challenge to leave behind the dogmas of religion to create a world of freedom, ethics and community based on reason rather than superstition.

Not nearly as brilliant as The Case Against God!
As good a writer as Smith is, this book was not half what his "The Case Against God" was. It does not offer the same deep insight as I would have expected. It is funny at times and still slightly imformative, but only by a small margin does it justify the time and effort it takes to read it. Sadly, I have to say, it barely makes the cut of getting a recommendation by me at all!

(JH)
www.ministerturnsatheist.org ... Read more

Product Description
Atheists are frequently demonized as arrogant intellectuals, antagonistic to religion, devoid of moral sentiments, advocates of an "anything goes" lifestyle. Now, in this revealing volume, nineteen leading philosophers open a window on the inner life of atheism, shattering these common stereotypes as they reveal how they came to turn away from religious belief.
These highly engaging personal essays capture the marvelous diversity to be found among atheists, providing a portrait that will surprise most readers. Many of the authors, for example, express great affection for particular religious traditions, even as they explain why they cannot, in good conscience, embrace them. None of the contributors dismiss religious belief as stupid or primitive, and several even express regret that they cannot, or can no longer, believe. Perhaps more important, in these reflective pieces, they offer fresh insight into some of the oldest and most difficult problems facing the human mind and spirit. For instance, if God is dead, is everything permitted? Philosophers without Gods demonstrates convincingly, with arguments that date back to Plato, that morality is independent of the existence of God. Indeed, every writer in this volume adamantly affirms the objectivity of right and wrong. Moreover, they contend that secular life can provide rewards as great and as rich as religious life. A naturalistic understanding of the human condition presents a set of challenges--to pursue our goals without illusions, to act morally without hope of reward--challenges that can impart a lasting value to finite and fragile human lives.

'This Atheists R Us compilation differs markedly in tone from Hitchens and Dawkins. Excellent fare for Christian small groups whose members are genuinely interested in the arguments raised by atheists.'--Christianity Today

'Rather than the foolishness of Dawkins or Hitchens, these [essays] are compelling and sophisticated arguments that religious people ought to confront....'-- Tikkun

'Taken as a group, these readable, personal, and provocative essays make it clear that there are many kinds of non-believers, and even many different elements that make up a single skeptical outlook.Contrary to the popular image, atheism isn't all rebellious trumpets and defiant drums.That part of the orchestra is essential, but here we have all the varieties of unreligious experience, a full symphony of unbelief.' -- Free Inquiry

'This collection strikes me as an excellent example of how comprehensible philosophical writing can be at its best. By and large, the essays are written in a clear and direct style, free of philosophical jargon. Many who read it will find themselves also engaged at a level that is not merely academic.'--George I. Mavrodes, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews ... Read more

Customer Reviews (11)

Original
The first half of the volume consists of mostly personal stories by atheist philosophers, starting with stories of 'coming out' and gradual de-conversion, then expanding into other tales of life as an atheist. All were decently written (Daniel Dennet's brush with death was the most perfunctory, but I assume the editors got what they could from a big name). Most were reasonably enjoyable, and brought forth empathy from me, though none stand out in the mind now. I imagine these would be consoling for a new or isolated atheist who wonders if others are like him (though with the internet, are any such people left?). They might be useful for theists trying to understand unbelievers.

The second half is more philosophical per se. While there was one clumsy piece of academese, most were lively, and several were deeply provoking; especially those on religious disagreements and the unethics of belief.

None of the items here could be described as standard atheist writings. I have been reading about atheism for many years, and found new ideas. There are no dry, tired lists of arguments against god from overly literal-minded bores. Rather, it is intellectual in bent, not combative. This is refreshing to me, but should also recommend it to any theists who, even if curious, are turned off by the "New Atheists" (and I say that despite liking most of them). These are indeed "meditations," various and not forming any great whole, but worthwhile individually.

Dull, Boring
I found this book to be dull and boring.To be fair, I only got through half of it. But I just couldn't go any further.
It's the rambled musings of professors of philosophy. I hope their classroom lectures are more interesting than these essays.
Not recommended.
.

The World Could And Maybe Would be a Nicer Place Without a God
Essays, written by Atheist-Philosophers, which convinced me that human beings can be Spiritual without a God.
The essays are written with great respect for the beliefs of religious people who are inclined, mostly, to be good and kind people. But since individual religions conflict in some respects it would be better to use the human being and the latent good in him/heras the common denominator. No God can fix the dysfunctional (man-made) aspects in the world - only we as humans can.

Good reading, but not for me.
Interesting in a general sort of way, but culturally, does not fit my background and lifestyle.

Red meat for the thinking mind
This anthology contains rich, red meat for the inquiring mind, provender for a feast of thinking. Not all of the twenty essays in it are equally good, but all are written in accessible language; all deal with significant issues; and many of them are full of illuminating, surprising ideas and approaches.

Editor Antony asked nineteen other professors of philosophy to write on some aspect of "Atheism and the Secular Life." Some of the responses were biographical, recounting the passage from childhood devotions to adult atheism. Some delve into the old arguments for and against belief, but always with original slants. A few (and the most interesting) describe a constructive philosophical basis for "the secular life." The following are cursory descriptions of some of these essays.

Stewart Shapiro opens with what could be a downer, "Faith and Reason, the Perpetual War." He examines three possible relations between religion and reason. The first is that they are necessarily and perpetually at war; the second that they are incommensurable (Gould's non-overlapping magisteria); the third a rationalist tradition that they can somehow be interpreted as pulling in the same direction. Shapiro finds good reasons to reject the latter two, so only the stance of perpetual war is left, and Shapiro leaves us no more than a hope for "grudging, mutual respect."

Following this dour start, several writers sketch their passages from different kinds of belief to different kinds of atheism. Joseph Levine describes with feeling and sympathy the satisfactions of being a devout rabbinical student and the comforts of living in a strict orthodox community, and the slow process of divorcing from these. He makes the key observation that, as he now sees it, belief in God is morally wrong because it "expresses a rejection, or denial... of one's humanity [and] ... makes servility to authority the ultimate aim of human life."

Louise Antony describes her childhood struggles with the illogic of Catholic doctrine with a bright humor that reminded me of Julia Sweeney. She found her true calling in her first college philosophy class: "Imagine my delight, then, when I discovered that philosophy was all about arguing! ... I could scarcely believe that I could earn credits just for doing what (to me) came naturally."

Edwin Curly was raised Episcopalian and, at age 16, turned to the back of his prayer book and for the first time gave the Articles of Religion a critical reading. Here he details the many problems he found, arguing that the the doctrines of Original Sin, Predestination, Salvation by Faith, Hell, and Exclusivism (that all but believers go to Hell) -- all of which are well-supported in scripture and are official parts of the creed for at least Catholics and Episcopalians -- are offensive to reason and justice and morally repugnant. He says well-intentioned Christians who downplay or discount these doctrines can only do so by drastically reinterpreting their own scriptures.

Marvin Belzer argues, not against belief in God, but against trust in dogma. He describes how a comforting childhood faith lead him, gradually and by natural stages, to shed all the trappings of Christian practice and dogma as superfluous. He gives clear arguments why no specific creed can ever be what God wants people to focus their lives on.

Where the first half opened with Shapiro's grim analysis, the second opens with two upbeat and constructive essays based in Aristotle. Anthony Simon Laden in "Transcendence without God" interprets Aristotle's Ethics to mean that the virtuous person is so because he pays excellent attention to those things that repay excellent attention. Transcendent experience can arise from expanding and developing our capacity for attention to include the full humanity of others.

Marcia Homiak makes it more explicit: "Aristotle's key idea is that the best life for a human being (the most human of human lives) consists in the full realization of [our] distinctive human powers." She draws out the need for community, for ethical virtue, and for continual effort to improve, all trending toward a life of "Aristotelian flourishing." The benefits of this life are comparable to the similar benefits claimed for the religious life.

Kenneth A. Taylor tackles the concept of Divine Providence, the source of so much of a believer's emotional comforts. The notion that there is a God who loves humanity and guarantees eventual triumph of good over evil turns out to be philosophically empty when combined with the idea of radical free will (required by many Christian philosophers to explain why evil exists). But if there is no Godly guarantee of a future perfection, and if our lives lack the significance they would gain from contributing to that end, what's left to give meaning? In a crucial passage that I find deeply meaningful Taylor writes:

"Suppose we grant that we live in a finite, merely material universe, containing at its core nothing of intrinsic or objective value, governed by no purpose and no universal or absolute moral law. Still, whatever else the universe does or does not contain, we exist in it and through it. And we are creatures who value things. We do not find or discover value in the universe, as if values were antecedently present inpendently of anything that we do or are. ... We create values ... simply by engaging in the merely human and entirely natural activity of taking things to matter to us. ... We may cry out with longing and despair to the cold uncaring universe to embrace our value, to vindicate our right to value what we value. But we will hear only silence in return.... So be it. We do not matter to the universe. Still, we matter to ourselves and sometimes to others who sometimes matter to us in return. And that is all the mattering that it is worth our while to concern ourselves about."

Still, absent a divine lawgiver, how do we avoid a chaotic moral relativism? Taylor details a philosophical basis for the formation of "moral communities." He shows how each person has the ability to choose to bind herself to a given norm; and how that act also grants to others the right to hold one to the self-chosen norm. A web of such reciprocal grants of moral holding and binding creates a stable moral order "entirely of our own constituting.... The work of building from the bottom up an all-encompassing moral order is heroic work, invigorating work, work that calls upon the best of ourselves."

The same moral ground is plowed in a different direction by Elizabeth Anderson, who tackles the issue of how, without God to sanction moral rules, moral rules can be anything but personal opinion (as W. L. Craig holds they would be). Her first approach is to advance a "moralistic argument," namely that if any line of evidence leads to something morally repugnant, that entire line of evidence should be rejected as untrustworthy. Then, taking the Bible with "fundamentalist sincerity," she lists in detail and at length the heinous, unjust, barbarous acts and practices described both in the Old and New Testaments. (Many of these citations will be familiar to the non-believer, but one was new to me: In 2nd Thess. 2:11-12, it is said that God deludes some so they cannot believe. So God deliberately overrides the free will of some, in order to send them to Hell -- which rather weakens the ideas of both free will and divine justice.)

Anderson examines the different strategies believers adopt to explain or justify these "hard sayings," but concludes that there is always a residue that will lead to a moral offense, and so nothing in the Christian line of evidence is trustworthy. And the evidence advanced by every creed since Thor, Baal and Zeus has been of the same kind and is no more reliable.

That still leaves the problem of what can ever make a difference between good and evil and so counter Craig's argument? Anderson, like Taylor in the previous essay, argues that the key is reciprocity. Although none of us have the authority to compel obedience on another, all of us have the authority to make moral claims on others, calling them to account for their acts; but in doing so, we automatically open a reciprocal right for others to call us to account in turn. It is the reciprocity that creates morals. If there is a person who asserts that "all things are permitted," as Craig claims they should do, that person, in denying others the ability to call him to account, also resigns any ability to judge others. We deal with such people with physical deterrence -- and they cannot complain when we do, because they have opted out of all moral claims!

Anderson concludes that "morality, understood as a system of reciprocal claim making ... does not need its authority underwritten by some higher, external authority.... Far from bolstering the authority of morality, appeals to divine authority can undermine it."

To end an over-long review I want to give a (surely inadequate) summary of the late David Lewis' "Divine Evil," in which he advanced what was to me a novel twist on the well-known Argument from Evil: that we should at least be skeptical of the existence of a benevolent God in the light of the suffering that billions of sentient beings have endured for millions of years and continue to endure. Add up all of that suffering that God has permitted to happen, Lewis says, and it is yet trivial beside another kind of suffering: a type which God not only permits but positively decrees. There is in all varieties of (Bible-based) theisms some concept of damnation, a punishment for those who are in some fashion insubordinate to the divine. This punishment is promised to consist of eternal suffering. There is ample biblical support for this idea; Lewis cites several passages (Matt. 13:49-50, Matt. 25:41ff, etc. etc.).

Damnation is the promised lot of a considerable fraction of humanity, but even if it were only for a single soul, it is eternal; ergo the sum of it will, in the infinity of time, add up to more than all the suffering of mortal lives since time began. Thus the evil of damnation is immeasurably greater than the evil of ordinarysuffering -- and it is not merely permitted, but positively decreed by God. Lewis writes of God that "He places people in a situation in they must make a judgment that binds them for eternity, and he knows that some will be so inadequately informed that they will opt for an eternity of torment... It is hard to distinguish between God and the parent who equips the nursery with sharp objects galore and plenty of matches, fuses, and dynamite."

Lewis examines the arguments of "incompatibilist" free will (that God must let people choose to damn themselves) and finds injustice remains; and the arguments that, despite the explicit texts, damnation is not a barbeque but a state of being isolated from God, saying if it is a state of suffering in any sense, it is still infinite in sum, and an unjustly permanent punishment for transient error. If the biblical texts are granted any credibility at all, it has to be that God intends to deliberately create more suffering in the future than has ever occurred in the past. Well, so what? So this, Lewis says: would you have respect for a person who professes to admire the careers of Hitler or Stalin? No? Then consider: Christians profess to admire God, who (they have to admit) intends to hurt far more people, infinitely longer than Hitler or Stalin could have dreamed of doing. Should you then respect Christians?

Unlike books by the celebrated "New Atheists" this book does not contain colorful, slashing language and easy pejoratives against religion. Instead, it contains powerful ideas, many of them positive, all carefully worked out with measured langauge. It is a demonstration of the value of philosophy and the use of philosophers: to really think things through in an original way, and show us how to do the same. ... Read more

Product Description
In the tradition of Voltaire’s Philosophical Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce’s Devil’s Dictionary, and Joseph McCabe’s Rationalist Encyclopedia, this accessible dictionary addresses the contemporary need for a reference book that succinctly summarizes the key concepts, current terminology, and major contributions of influential thinkers broadly associated with atheism, skepticism, and humanism. In the preface, author Bill Cooke notes that his work is intended "for freethinkers in the broadest sense of the word: people who like to think for themselves and not according to the preplanned routes set by others." This dictionary will serve as a guide for all those people striving to lead fulfilling, morally responsible lives without religious belief.Readers are offered a wide range of concepts, from ancient, well-known notions such as God, free will, and evil to new concepts such as "eupraxsophy." Also included are current "buzzwords" that have some bearing on the freethought worldview such as "metrosexual." The names of many people whose lives or work reflect freethought principles form a major portion of the entries. Finally, a humanist calendar is included, on which events of interest to freethinkers are noted.This unique, accessible, and highly informative work will be a welcome addition to the libraries ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

Concise, Thorough, Comprehensive Biographical and Conceptual Dictionary
This book is extremely good.Entries are very readable, and cover all different types of material from biographical data of important freethinkers; history of freethought; philosophical concepts; ideas in sociology, psychology, and political science, and even modern neologisms.

A valuable reference and a just plain fun to pick up at any point and start reading.

Humanist wit and wisdom
Bill Cooke has written a wonderful and insightful book which is much more than a reference book on humanism, atheism and skepticism. Cooke shows that there is a wealth of humanist insights in different cultures and times. The style of the book is marvellous: funny and witty: 'The ability to talk to oneself without feeling sliiy.' [prayer]. This book can (and should) be read cover to cover. You will learn about many thinkers and activists which are not mentioned in most history and philosophy books (like Robert Green Ingersoll) but who have done more to improve the human condition than most philosophers. In many entries on modern culture Cooke gives his own ideas on humanism and what it means to be a humanist. According to Cooke for example you can't be a humanist and drive in a hummer [check out the entry]. ... Read more

Product Description
"Thousands of philosophers--from the ancient Greeks to modern thinkers--have defended atheism, but none more comprehensively than Martin. . . . Atheists should read it to bolster their creed, and theists should read it to test their faith against the deadly force of Martin's attack."--Martin Gardner, The Humanist. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (34)

The most comprehensive treatment going
Professional philosopher Michael Martin consistently and rigorously defended atheism long before the advent of the comparatively shallow New Atheists (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and to a certain extent Dennett) made atheism fashionable.Whereas the New Atheists focus more on what they see as the depredations of religion than on the philosophical caliber of theistic arguments, Martin, correctly seeing that religion and God's existence are two separate issues, scrutinizes arguments for the latter.

In his Atheism:A Philosophical Justification, he encyclopedically analyzes traditional as well as contemporary negative and positive arguments against the existence of God.By "negative," he means arguments which deny the strength of standard theistic arguments: ontological, cosmological, teleological, experience, miracles, and so on.By "positive," he means arguments that deny the existence of God:incoherence, argument from evil, and atheistic teleological arguments.Martin also considers claims that, from a linguistic perspective, God-talk is meaningless.He thinks that both general arguments--that talk about God is meaningless, and that positive and negative arguments against the existence of God are valid--should be considered, with the latter serving as a fallback position if the former is rejected.There's a bit of tension here, since of course the two positions are incompatible.If God-talk is meaningless, it's meaningless regardless of whether one is arguing for or against God's existence.But Martin is well aware of this, which is why he goes with the default argument.

Martin's analysis of standard positive and negative arguments is sandwiched between helpful introductory and concluding chapters which discuss the varieties of atheism, issues about atheism and meaning of life, common criticisms of atheism, and nonbelief in general.

Atheism:A Philosophical Justification is without doubt the single best analysis of philosophical arguments for atheism available, and serious inquirers would do well to read the New Atheists for fun but Martin for erudition.But there are sections of the book which will be tough-going for those who have no familiarity with symbolic logic.And it can't be denied that Martin's dry and academic style makes his volume a bit off-putting.

Solid Defence of Atheism
Published in 1990 Michael Martin's `Atheism a Philosophical Justification', surveys philosophical arguments in support of an atheistic worldview.Martin is a well known American philosopher.I offer the following comments for potential readers.

From an overall perspective the book is a useful introduction to the atheism - theism debate from an atheistic perspective.It is ambitious in scope (touching on most of the major and minor arguments) and respectful in tone.From my vantage point, the latter point is particularly noteworthy in a genre that is, all too often, characterized by superficial analysis and emotive and vitriolic language (e.g. Atheism the Case Against God).

Martin discusses the de facto (evidentiary) arguments (teleological, cosmological, ontological, the problem of evil, etc), as well as the de jure (rational) argument.The author's effort to cover all the bases in one volume (approx 500 pages) is appreciated.The result of this daunting scope of material, however, is an analysis that is sometimes rushed and skimpy. Given this limitation, Martin's overview of the various arguments is relatively even-handed.These types of discussions tend to misrepresent opposing perspectives (stemming from either misunderstanding or intent).An earlier reviewer had remarked that the book was occasionally technical.While this is true, the author generally does a nice job of explaining terminology - it is accessible to the general reader.

The book does have some drawbacks.Martin is a skilled communicator and is at his best when summarizing and cataloguing the views of others.His abilities as a conceptual thinker are more modest.Martin recounts an impressive amount of information; however, his commentary and analysis often has a superficial and unsophisticated feel.For example his attempts to dismiss the works of thinkers such as Wittgenstein, Plantinga, Mackie, Craig, etc. will strike many knowledgeable readers as ranging somewhere between presumptuous and silly.

His counters to the classic theistic arguments will not likely be compelling to anyone who has seriously considered these views.Additionally, he overuses polytheism, pantheism and deism as potential alternatives to the Christian view of God.The use of other supernatural options (in a defense of atheism) smacks of desperation and may strike more orthodox atheists as an unappealing tactic.Though I like Martin's writing style, his conclusions are frequently overstated and unwarranted.For readers new to this issue I recommend some of the excellent debate books (Craig-Flew, Craig-Synott Armstrong) as a better and more balanced starting point.

Interestingly, at one point, Martin tries to resurrect verificationism as a means to argue against the meaningfulness of religious language and concepts.Kudos for the attempt, certainly some religious language can seem empty; however, the overall result is far from convincing (for an opposing view see Church or Plantinga).At the end of the day the attempt to dismiss the idea of God by linguistic means seems doomed.Martin falls prey to a common error of analytic philosophy - using language to determine reality, rather, than recognizing that language is an important but limited means of describing reality.

Although atheism remains the default worldview for many in themodern West, in recent years, the intellectual ground appears to have shifted toward the theistic position. The argument from evil, while still possessing some force, has been weakened, whereas the teleological and cosmological arguments in support of theism have been strengthened by developments in philosophy and science. Flew himself, once a leading atheist, has taken modest steps into the theistic camp (he appears to be advocating a broadly deistic perspective) - it is interesting to speculate where Mackie and Russell would be given current thought?

Overall, a solid introductory work with some limitations.It is clearly better than most atheistic defenses, but, Mackie's `The Miracle of Theism' remains the best serious challenge to theism in print.

Thoughtful and comprehensive
This is a thoughtful study of arguments for and against the existence of a monotheist deity.Of course, the title does bother me slightly, given that I regard Christianity, Judaism, and Islam as forms of atheism (I'm a polytheist and I see belief in one god as not really any different from belief in no god at all).

The first question the author addresses is whom the burden of proof is on.He's all in favor of discussing his views, so he does not press that argument.But I think the burden of proof begins with those who claim that a monotheist deity exists, at least until they define it.After that, the burden of proof may switch.For us polytheists, I think there are definitions of the Goddesses and Gods as perfections of attributes, but I think the burden of proof is on us to supply those definitions before we ask others to argue that they aren't cognitive or real.

Then we get into the question of meaningfulness of religious statements.This is the falsifiabilty argument that has been advanced by Kai Nielsen and positivists of all sorts.I think it is a strong argument.My counterargument for polytheism is that if you show that an attribute really isn't coherent, then I'll admit that its Goddess or God does not exist.Otherwise, I expect you to admit that its God or Goddess does exist.

The issue of falsifiability is simple.It's probably okay if others don't know what you believe.But if what you believe isn't falsifiable, that means that you don't what you believe.And that's more serious.

Next is the ontological argument.Martin spends only 17 pages on it, and he implies that it is 17 pages too many and that the whole argument is a joke.Well, all I can say is that it is my favorite of the anti-atheistic arguments.If you have read my previous paragraphs, you can see why.I feel that a coherent attribute can in theory be perfect.A well-defined being can be itself exactly, so it can in theory exhibit an attribute to perfection.And I agree that non-existence would be an imperfection, so I like the ontological argument.

After that, we get to the cosmological argument, namely that the monotheist god is The First Cause.Martin shows that this argument has some flaws.I think it has an extra one.Namely, suppose we said that the whole universe rested on the back of a huge turtle.We'd ask what that turtle stood on.A much bigger turtle?No good.That would imply a chain of turtles that kept getting bigger.What we need is a chain that gets smaller and smaller and finally vanishes.And that means to me that if God is really the First Cause, She is infinitely weak and powerless.No way would I worship something as unworthy as that!

Martin is at his best when he discusses the teleological argument.That's the argument that a complicated universe needs a designer, just as a watch needs a watchmaker.But the author points out that this argument has some problems.Better yet, given the complexity of the Universe, Martin says it makes far more sense to conclude that the Universe needed a bunch of designers, and that is more consistent with polytheism.

The author does spend some time on arguments from religious experience, miracles, and various other evidence.But I am not too interested in these.I consider them equivalent to claiming that one's listeners believe in them.If anyone disagrees with such a claim, they are right by definition.And Martin also discusses "Pascal's wager," in which it seems like belief in God is a good bet if one gets rewarded for it.But this makes no sense unless there is a reason to believe that such belief is well-defined and that a positive reward is actually likely.Otherwise, I think it is like asking someone how big a lie one must tell them before they will believe it.If they won't accept a hopelessly counterfeit hundred dollar bill, why should they accept a hopelessly counterfeit billion dollar bill?

I think the most devastating part of the book comes near the end, where the monotheist god is shown to be incoherently defined.That is, it is inconsistent to say that this god is omnescient, omnipotent, and moral.Matter of fact, I think it is inconsistent to say that God is perfect, given that something which is perfect at one thing is necessarily imperfect at its opposite.And that gets us into the argument from the existence of evil.The existence of evil appears to cast doubt on the existence of an all-powerful and good God.This is discussed at length, along with the question of free will.In any case, I think that Martin successfully argues for the non-existence of the monotheist god.Well, monotheists, my Goddesses and Gods are doing just fine.Sorry to hear about yours.

For serious readers only
If your an atheist this book is for you and if you have second thoughts about god this will get you over the hump. Although the math part was unnessary every thing else defends and demolishes theism and makes religion look like the dogma it is.

Encyclopedia of Atheism: Short on Substance
Michael Martin's book has many strengths, most of them lying in his comprehensive approach to the discussion of atheism.Martin covers just about every angle in the current debate about the existence of God, listing and rehearsing what he takes to be the most damaging, at least potentially, to the atheist's position.Naturally, the fact that book is a bit dated keeps it off the cutting edge, but the general form of these arguments has not changed-providing the beginner with a sense of the landscape.In the first part of the book, Martin covers the topic of negative atheism, striking down all of the arguments for God's existence with a sweep of his pen.In the second part, Martin defends positive atheism and provides various arguments for believing that God does not exist.

The problem with his "justification," as many readers have alluded to, is that Martin's arguments often fail to be compelling and rarely achieve the goals that he desires of them.One gets the impression while reading his book that the author himself became tired with the scope of his project and descended into quick refusals of positions without carefully examining the positions of his opponents.The principle of charity is, in some places, completely absent from this text, leading the uninformed reader to believe that the only intellectuals defending theism are half-wits who have no idea what they are talking about.After seeking out many of the arguments that Martin attacks, one finds that he has often misrepresented their views and fails to meet them at full-strength, choosing instead to argue against straw-men.

I keep this book on the shelf as a reference guide, because it provides a rough-and-ready resource to glance through whenever you need to quickly catch up on an argument.But I think most readers would be better off with a balanced anthology, or at least a mixture of both sides' responses to each other.
... Read more

Product Description
NATURAL ATHEISM contains an introduction explaining "What is Atheism?" plus 12 chapters and a bibliography. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (43)

More like a short course on Reason
This book goes more in-depth on reason itself then most books on atheism that I have read.

Where Richard Dawkins is scientific, Christopher Hitchins shows us of the ills of religion by how it "poisons everything". Sam Harris shows us the folly of unexamined beliefs. But no one discusses at such length reason itself like David Eller. So it fills a gap and I found it very educational. I should caveat that Michael Martin is very exhaustive in his works on the philosophy side of it, but I find his books (though good) a bit dryer and harder to work my way through.

David's book in some areas requires some deep thinking and pondering, so you can't just zip though it. You need to "think" about what he says, so it does require some level of commitment. I didn't really agree with his views on Agnosticism which seemed a bit contrived and goes against how most understand it, but found it rather interesting at least. He attempts to bridge the gap between positive and negative atheism which I think he succeeded successfully.

I am looking forward to David's other book "Atheism Advanced" when I get a chance.

A very sound, solid, refreshing, and deep book on Atheism
It is unique among so many atheism books that are popping out into the market nowadays that instead of trying to appeal to the masses, it is based heavily on academic philosophy, nature of logic, and naturalness of atheism without depending too much on natural science or social issues. I almost feel as if I am meditating when I am reading this book.

It is definitely deep, slow-reading, and not too much exciting so I encourage readers to take some time read it slowly, think about what the author is trying to convey because some of the topics get rarely covered by so many popular atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett.

Atheism is natural to human existence.
David Eller has revolutionized, and continues to revolutionize, the concept of atheism, by returning it to its natural state of existence.That is, like any other concept or idea within human reality, atheism serves a specific purpose and function within human evolution and cultural thought.Mr. Eller masterfully extrapolates this process, beyond the superficial arguments between atheists and theists.

Indeed he verifies how atheism is as natural (and necessary) for human beings as oxygen is for us to breathe and live.No human being is born believing in, knowing of, of embracing any kind of religion, spiritual system, or higher power.Such ideas, like religion and spiritual beings, are externally inculcated within the mind of the human being, whereas the idea of atheism is there from the very start, by the very absence of these ideas existence.

All of the above is what Mr. Eller shows, but perhaps more importantly he shows the necessity of living an atheistic lifestyle, rather than one through faith or belief.Human beings cannot survive through faith and belief, and progress beyond the limitations of their existence.Only an atheistic lifestyle can do that.I recommend this book for anyone who is teetering between agnosticism and atheism, and additionally for anyone who has an interest in the subject matter regardless of their position.For regardless of the position one takes, all who read this book will be transformed and enhanced in a better way, which ultimately leads toward a more prosperous and fulfilling human existence.

Excellent, but wordy
I was highly impressed with Eller's thinking throughout the book.He was able to put into words a number of things I had been mulling over, but was unable to adequately express.All Atheists, Agnostics and Theists worth their salt owe this book a careful reading.

The only complaint I could register was that there are just too damn many words, cover to cover.

Taking Steps Beyond The Heated Debate
This is a great book but I want to focus on one thing this books does at the end that other books on atheism I have read don't seem to do.It seems some people begin reading about atheism based on some negative interaction they had with religion.Of course the author brings out the usual point/counterpoints and presents them in a smart and reasonable way.But after a reader gets past his/her outrage, and sarcasm, and finger-pointing, and mind-opening... what's next?So you don't believe in X, what DO you believe in then?David Eller takes a step towards that.

Are all atheists dry, analyical, snooty, intellectuals who have no humanity or faith in anything?Or are all atheists hippie, human lovers who dance around the maypole and hug strangers on the bus?Neither.Atheists are people like you and I.And the author shows us it is okay to celebrate the great things humans do and decry the awful things humans do.And how there isn't really any need to bypass humanity and nature andattribute good OR bad things to some supernatural force or tradition.Then he wonders aloud about what atheists stand for besides just being anti-religion and pro free-thinking.And where it can all go from there.It is a fairly uplifting presentation that sneaks up on you as you complete the book.One of those "hey, that's right!" kind of moments you won't forget. ... Read more

Product Description
Visionary utopian thinker finds the atheist core of the Bible.In the twenty-first century, religion has come under determined attack from secular progressives in documentaries, opinion pieces and international bestsellers. Combative atheists have denounced faiths of every stripe, resulting in a crude intellectual polarization in which religious convictions and heritage must be rejected or accepted wholesale.

In the long unavailable Atheism in Christianity, Ernst Bloch provides a way out from this either/or debate. He examines the origins of Christianity in an attempt to find its social roots, pursuing a detailed study of the Bible and its fascination for 'ordinary and unimportant' people. In the biblical promise of utopia and the scriptures' antagonism to authority, Bloch locates Christianity's appeal to the oppressed. Through a lyrical yet close and nuanced analysis, he explores the tensions within the Bible that promote atheism as a counter to the authoritarian metaphysical theism imposed by clerical exegesis. At the Bible's heart he finds a heretical core and the concealed message that, paradoxically, a good Christian must necessarily be a good atheist.

Customer Reviews (1)

A theology for atheists
Ernst Bloch was a German Marxist philosopher, notable for his reflections on the theme of 'Utopia'. In this book he serves up a meal of one part theology, one part biblical criticism, and one part political philosophy. Not all of these ingredients are of equal quality, but when mixed together in this fashion they produce a memorable and satisfying experience.

Bloch's argument is that the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, while proclaiming a belief in an 'On-high' God of sovereignty and control, also contain subversive elements that can express and empower the liberation of oppressed people. He makes use of modern Biblical criticism to distil what he considers to be the valuable stratum of unedited messages in the Old and New Testaments that escaped the censorious hands of the priestly caste, messages of rebellion and freedom. He finds this in the Exodus story, the book of Job, the 'authentic' stories and sayings of Jesus, and the book of Revelation. He believes that the forward-looking, eschatological hope in the Bible should be released from the restrictive cosmological and mythical elements. Then Christians will realise that they were really Marxists all along, and dialectical materialists will be able to reclaim the sense of 'transcensus', the reaching out of the human spirit above itself, which is often lost in 'vulgar Marxism', the atheism that becomes coarse and nihilistic because it is mired in a mechanistic view of the universe.

As a Christian, I enjoyed Bloch's work immensely. He is right to place the centre of Christianity in its eschatology, and to rail against the use of the doctrine of 'God' to imprison people and deny them justice. His theological vision is more attractive to me than that of many Christian groups. And he is deeply knowledgeable about the Biblical text and the methods of modern criticism, and so able to build a thought-provoking exegesis of the passages he treats. However, his theological reasoning is too often one-sided and occasionally incoherent. The trope of blaming the Apostle Paul for all the faults of Christian theology is a very tired one indeed, and there is infinitely more to Christian reflection on the Cross of Christ than just a call for submissiveness to domination. Bloch's disciple Jurgen Moltmann explored these issues in far more depth and nuance. I also found Bloch's choice of 'heroes' in the story of the church strange, particularly his praise of the Gnostic Christian sects, who despised the oppressed, common people in a more thoroughgoing manner than anyone before or since. And reading this book, you would believe that priests in the Temple or Church had done nothing all day every day except oppress the people. While religious institutions are inherently conservative, they often provide frameworks of meaning and hope for generations of oppressed people who do not have the wherewithal to bring in the revolution.

Finally, in his use of the Bible, however interesting, Bloch relies too much on a highly selective use of source criticism to excise (some might say oppress) viewpoints that he finds objectionable. There is a saying that he who goes looking for the true, historical Jesus always finds himself in the end, and Bloch is no exception, though his Jesus is just as attractive and inspiring as Bloch himself. But a little more skepticism about the results of Biblical criticism is in order.

I have criticised this book on several fronts, but as I said earlier, taken together it is a very helpful work. An atheist who takes Christian theology seriously and sympathetically, and looks for reconciliation between believers and unbelievers, is to be commended. I do not believe that the utopia that Bloch hoped for will arise from the dialectic of history, but I do agree that without eschatological hope there is in the end no meaning for the human race.
... Read more