Product Description
Starting with Freud's "projection theory" of religion-that belief in God is merely a product of man's desire for security-Professor Vitz argues that psychoanalysis actually provides a more satisfying explanation for atheism. Disappointment in one's earthly father, whether through death, absence, or mistreatment, frequently leads to a rejection of God. A biographical survey of influential atheists of the past four centuries shows that this "defective father hypothesis" provides a consistent explanation of the "intense atheism" of these thinkers. A survey of the leading intellectual defenders of Christianity over the same period confirms the hypothesis, finding few defective fathers. Professor Vitz concludes with an intriguing comparison of male and female atheists and a consideration of other psychological factors that can contribute to atheism.

Professor Vitz does not argue that atheism is psychologically determined. Each man, whatever his experiences, ultimately chooses to accept God or reject him. Yet the cavalier attribution of religious faith to irrational, psychological needs is so prevalent that an exposition of the psychological factors predisposing one to atheism is necessary. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (35)

Faith of My Father?
Paul C. Vitz is a professor of psychology at New York University and was himself an atheist until his late 30's. The simple but compelling thesis of his new book is that the major barriers to belief in God are not rational but psychological of which the unbeliever may be unaware. Vitz reverses Sigmund Freud's "projection theory" of religion (belief in God is an illusion that derives from our childish need for security) and argues that "the atheist's disappointment in and resentment of his own earthly father unconsciously justifies his rejection of God" (p. 16).Stated in concrete social terms, Vitz's thesis is that absent or deficient fathers predispose their children to intense, if not philosophical, atheism.

A good part of the book consists of 20 biographical sketches of prominent post-Enlightenment atheists, focusing on their relationships to their fathers or father figures. This group whose fathers died when they were relatively young includes Friedrich Nietzsche, David Hume, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, and H.G. Wells.For example, Jean-Paul Sartre's father died when he was just 15 months old. Throughout much of his adult life he mentions fathers, and denigrates fatherhood. More than one biographer has noted his obsession about fathers and his atheism may well tie in to his own absent father.

Please visit my website at, Delight In Him, for more.

Makes His Case
Paul C. Vitz makes the case that Atheism is rooted in fatherlessness.Quite simply, he does a case study of famous Atheists and Theists and their relationships with their fathers.He shows that Atheism is prevalent among those who lost their father's to death or abandonment.The problem is show to be more acute if one becomes fatherless between the ages of 0-6.His study of famous Theists shows that in general they had a good relationship with their fathers.Vitz makes a good case that atheism is linked to psychological factors and not to evolved intellectual reasoning.

Interesting Premise
The premise of Paul Vitz is that Atheists have father issues that led to their not believing in God.Vitz does a case study of prominent Atheists of the so-called Enlightenment period.He shows how that these men either lost their father's through death, or abandonment (especially between the ages of 0-6), or in some circumstances the father was distant or abusive.He does a comparison study of well know theists and shows that these men had good experiences with their fathers.The argument is not air tight, but it does serve as a counter-point to the idea that Christianity and Theism is a crutch that the weak and unintelligent lean on.This work also show the importance of father's in the lives of children, especially boys.

Not What It Says It Is
I read this book in my studies of trying to determine how my growing up affected my subsequent life. I found it informative and helpful, but not for the reasons the book purports. I think their choice of title (a pun on the Christian hymn "Faith of Our Fathers") gives a false impression.

What I got out of the book is that people's relationships with their fathers profoundly affect who those people are and who they become. For some people who grow up without a father around, or have a bad father, their feelings get extrapolated toward God and that becomes the first step in their turning away from faith.

I think that is true of some people. But I also think that some people turn *toward* faith, building a surrogate Dad and naming him God. And for some people, their relationship with their father has nothing to do with their faith life.

I would rather the book have been titled something like "Father-Child Relationships: Their Effect on Religious Belief and Behavior," and that it had included all varieties of experiences, not just the atheism-bad father variety. OK, that would have been a boring title, but the book itself would have been more balanced and more interesting--and probably more helpful to different types of people.

BTW, in case you're wondering, my parents got divorced when I was 12, we had regular (and pleasant) visitations with my dad, and I ended up an Agnostic/Atheist while my brother is an Evangelical Christian. Go figure!

A short, interesting read but not something to get too excited about.
(I read this book Fall 2005 so it's been a while)

I would recommend this book.It's interesting, for the history and short biographies alone really, and somewhat provacative.It's also short so even if in the end someone was to disagree or think it was all hogwash, one wouldnt have wasted too much of their time coming to this conclusion.

One thing a few of the reviewers on here either seem to not understand or seem to forget is that this book isn't necessarily applicable to post-modern atheist's psychology--many post-modern atheists do in fact have good relationships with their fathers and are atheists for various reasons, often intellectual or emotional ones.This book simply tries to show that there is a pattern in the lives of the Great Atheistic Thinkers, the people who more or less brough atheism to the intellectual mainstream, such as Russell, Freud, Nietzche, etc who all more or less lived and became famous and respected in the 19th and early 20th century (the modern age, I guess).Also of course the author goes through the lives of some of the more well known theists (who if I remember right were mostly from the Enlightenment period).

I definitely think the author is aware of the extent that his book can show.I even think he explicitly tells the reader.More or less he, and other people too, can see something there, a pattern, but its probably safer to not read too much into it at this point.

Another reason this book is provocative and kind of interesting is that it seeks to figure out the origins of modern atheism.Tons and tons of books are written about how religion is stupid, irrational, wrong and how, why and where its based in the human context but as far as I am aware few books have been written on the subject of the origins of atheism, with the exception of books with a heavily atheistic bias defending atheism or books that simply state that atheists just don't see God's or Jesus' light.Another thing, I do feel that the author tried very much to remain as unbiased as he could and more or less succeeded.

Basically something is there but it's not fair to say just what it is thus far.

This probably didn't help. Heh. ... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (1)

Thought-Provoking and Helpful
I suspect both committed agnostics who lean toward atheism, and committed christians will find this book annoying. Vernon has been both. For me, I found it very helpful on my journey. Readable, full of insights I hadn't come across, and great quotes, eg

"He who reverently pursues the Boundless, even though he will never attain it, will himself advance by pushing forward in his pursuit" - St Hilary

He draws on philosophy of science for his chapters in this area, which may be challenging for rationalists who haven't come across this well-founded discipline. Mark Vernon has a PhD in philosophy, and deals well with various thinkers, for example there's a full chapter on "Following Socrates". He uses a light touch, and educated readers who aren't familiar with some lesser-known philosophers won't find it too difficult.He concludes with a very practical and winsome chapter on "How to be an agnostic".

Some may simply dismiss him as a "woolly liberal", but I think this would be premature and unfair.Engaging with his thoughts may allow for the discomfort of agnosticism to be a valid and solid third way. This book won't be completely satisfying to everyone, but simply for its novelty, thoughtfulness and realness this earns five stars from me. ... Read more

Product Description
In this new book, Ian Markham analyzes the atheistic world view, opposing the arguments given by renowned authors of books on atheism, such as Richard Dawkins. Unlike other responses to the new atheism, Markham challenges these authors on their own ground by questioning their understanding of belief and of atheism itself. The result is a transforming introduction to Christianity that will appeal to anyone interested in this debate.

• A fascinating challenge to the recent spate of successful books written by high-profile atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris
• Tackles these authors on their own ground, arguing that they do not understand the nature of atheism, let alone theology and ethics
• Draws on ideas from Nietzsche, cosmology, and art to construct a powerful response that allows for a faith that is grounded, yet one that recognizes the reality of uncertainty
• Succinct, engaging, but robustly argued, this new book by a leading academic and writer contains a wealth of profound insights that show religious belief in a new light

Customer Reviews (6)

Great start but no substance
Markham starts off the book with a great presentation comparing atheists to color blind people.However, he never produces any reasoning of any depth while not bothering to structure his arguments in a logical manor.He appears to miss or misunderstand many of the New Atheists' arguments (such as Dawkins' meme concept).In some cases his responses just don't make sense.For instance, Dawkins claims that the bible is not a great moral reference as it encourages genocide, slavery, and child sacrifice.Markham responds that we need to interpret the text carefully. For instance, when the bible tells us to destroy our neighbors and show them no mercy (Deuteronomy 7), it really does not mean that. He does not even handle standard arguments well, such as the anthropic principle or the ultimate moral authority.The book is also filled with many references to god's desires and intentions, but Markham never tells us how he knows god's feelings.

Markham certainly does paint faith, belief in god, or a transcendental spirit as worthy things.However, he never addresses whether these feelings are the result of the world independent of people or an artifact of humanity.I was disappointed.

If someone gives you this book, read the introduction and chapter 1 and forget the rest.

A Disappointing Read
I began this book looking for excellent arguments and tough questions to answer. Unfortunately, I found myself completely disapointed.

Here are the major problems I found in the book:
-The author builds a philosophical facade to give him credibility, and completely fails to understand and correctly interpret multiple texts and concepts.
-He constantly "modifies the meaning" of various parts of the Bible to suit his arguments.
-He spends a great deal of time ad hominem attacking Hawkings, Hitchens, and Harris.
-Finally, he spouts a cacophony of supposed defenses for his views without ever providing anything close to sufficient supportive discussion.

I give this book two stars because it does manage to introduce a few interesting ideas worth looking into, and it provides a few useful tidbits of information on three major world religions. Overall though, I found it to have absolutely no swaying concepts, and more than likely will serve to further bludgeon a person into holding their concepts/beliefs.

Forgive them, for their need to believe is blinding
Believers have a hard time believing what is patently obvious to the rest of us.And so books like this will continue to be published, to reassure those with a stake in the god industry that the fairy tale still has legs.

Like all arguments for religion, a sad waste of the intelligence with which the author was - inexplicably - provided at birth.

A good book, and a major challenge to atheists.
This is an excellent book. It is powerful and polite challenge to atheism as a belief system.

The book is well produced, well written and fully referenced. It is easy and straightforward to read. The author makes his arguments briefly and well. He acknowledges the strengths of his opponent's positions, and so accepts the challenge to respond to them with proper argument. His main opponents in mind are Dawkins. Hitchens and Harris.

I think the author succeeds in achieving the aim expressed in the subtitle of showing "Why Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris are fundamentally wrong." I suspect my atheist friends will disagree with my assessment, and that's fair enough. Markham is a considered and considerate author, and keen to encourage conversation, not polarities.

To summarise the content for readers Markham makes his case against atheism on six main grounds, namely:-
1. We have a spiritual sense- this doesn't come from nowhere.
2. His analysis of the problem that our knowledge is always local and rooted, but that we have beliefs (hopefully held tentatively and humbly) that go far beyond our locality. (Think about Kant in Konigsberg...and how far round the world his thoughts have gone!)
3. Science is now one of the best reasons for faith
4. His answer to the problem of suffering. (a version of the "free will" defence)
5. The problem of Islamophobia- and how we can better understand Islam and its followers- and why Muslims and Christians need to listen more to each other's ideas.
6. The implications of Nietzsche's thought about how far reaching and damaging the consequences of the death of God are- he thinks Dawkins et al have failed to fully understand the seriousness of the death of God both for morality and science.

This brief summary is outline only, and does not do justice to the quality of Markham's presentation of evidence.

Markham's book is a demonstration of the fact that Christianity is a coherent, sensible and rational response to the complex world we find ourselves in. As such it will surprise atheists, and in the same way that atheists force Christians to sharpen their arguments, I think this book will make some atheists come up with better arguments for their views.

I can recommend this book to Christians for encouragement, and to atheists as a spur to their thinking.

Very good critique of atheism
This may be the best or one of the best critiques of atheism. In my opinion it presents atheism very truthfully and acknowledges the problems of both religious and atheistic world-views. Markham is also very open to different religions, though clearly states his own belief. It seems to me that the fundamentalist atheists want to fight until the very end. What it is I do not know. They want their opponents to be similar than they are. Not an inch must be given in! The first reviewer states that reading this book strenghtened his atheism. I can say the same about my Christian belief. This makes one wonder about our mind. It does curious things. It is amazingly closed to different opinions. I recommend this book warmly.
Markku Ojanen, professor of psychology, Finland ... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (1)

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ... Read more

Product Description
The rise of atheism and unbelief is a key feature in the development of the modern world, yet it is a topic which has been little explored by historians. This book presents a series of studies of irreligious ideas in various parts of Europe during the two centuries following the Reformation. Atheism was illegal everywhere. The word itself first entered the vernacular languages soon after the Reformation, but it was not until the eighteenth century that the first systematic defences of unbelief began to appear in print. Its history in the intervening two centuries is significant but hitherto obscure.The leading scholars who have contributed to this volume offer a range of approaches and draw on a wide variety of sources to produce a scholarly, original, and fascinating book. Atheism from the Reformation to the Enlightenment will be essential reading for all concerned with the religious, intellectual, and social history of early modern Europe. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

indispensable
This is a most important book. Any person interested in (the history of) atheism should read it at least once. It opens a whole new world of ideas and perspectives. Yes, atheism has a history, and it goes back a long, long way! You will not find a better guide for this most important period.

The book is unfortunately very hard to find, even in specialized university libraries. And it is expensive. There are large excerpts available on Google Books, but as usual with missing pages and nothing of the second half of the book. All that is frustrating, very much so. I will probably end up buying the darned book because it is so important (and well written), but a book like this should be neither so hard to find nor so expensive. That's the world we live in, I guess. ... Read more

Product Description

Who are atheists? How does atheism relate to various aspects of our social world, such as politics, feminism, globalization, and the family? And what is the current state of atheism internationally? Atheism and Secularity addresses the growing interest in the non-religious world by exploring these and related questions. It is a comprehensive and compelling look at atheists and atheism both nationally and internationally, covering a range of topics often overlooked in other books on the subject.

Atheism and Secularity is not a philosophical, polemic work, but rather an exploration of who atheists are, what they believe, how they relate to the world, and how the world relates to them. The first volume focuses on topics such as family life, gender, sexuality, politics, and social movements. The second volume looks at atheism and secularity around the world, exploring the lives of non-religious people in North America, Japan, China, India, Europe, the Arab World, and other locations.

Product Description
In this book, Michael J. Buckley investigates the rise of modern atheism, arguing convincingly that its roots reach back to the seventeenth century, when Catholic theologians began to call upon philosophy and science-rather than any intrinsically religious experience-to defend the existence of god. Buckley discusses in detail thinkers such as Lessius, Mersenne, Descartes, and Newton, who paved the way for the explicit atheism of Diderot and D'Holbach in the eighteenth century. "[A] capaciously learned and brilliantly written book...This is one of the most interesting and closely argued works on theology that i have read in the last decade."-Lawrence S. Cunningham, Theology Today ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

The Persistence of Erroneous Definitions of Atheism
A correction like this should not necessary, but in the interest of truth, it must be made yet again--atheism is not a theory.In its strong form, it is an ontological consequence of some theories, e.g. metaphysical naturalism.But the consequence itself is not a theory in any sense of the word.In its weak form, atheism is neither a theory nor a belief.

A Masterly Study
In an age where atheism is generally taken to be the 'default' or 'neutral' position and where the burden of proof is presumed to rest with theism, it is invigorating to read a book that treats atheism as a theory or school with its own intellectual history. Buckley's concern is not to trace atheism to its very origins but rather to explore the way in which early modern thinkers such as Descartes in their attempts to place theism onsecure 'scientific' foundations unwittingly gave rise to exactly the opposite position. Buckley's study is a major achievement in the history of ideas.

Brilliant. Mandatory reading!
This is probably the most influential book I've read, and I've read quite a few.It is a trenchant bit of historical work, explaining how the question of the existence of God became translated out of theology andultimately into physics and science.This book will rock any atheist'sworld. ... Read more

Product Description
Early Christians were called "heretics" and "atheists" when they denied the gods of Rome, in particular the divinity of the emperor and the statism he embodied in his personality cult. These Christians knew that Jesus Christ, not the state, was their Lord and that this faith required a different kind of relationship to the state than the state demanded. Because Jesus Christ was their acknowledged Sovereign, they consciously denied such esteem to all other claimants. Today the church must take a similar stand before the modern state. ... Read more

Product Description
Atheism Advanced answers many questions, including: Why must Atheists stop 'speaking Christian?' -- not only to prevent religionists from setting the terms of debate but also to prevent them from determining the very thoughts we think? Are there any religions without gods? How are gods created, and are they being manufactured today? Why is science necessarily atheistic? Why must Atheists advance from being simply 'without gods' to being 'Discredists,' thinkers who reject belief-based reasoning altogether? Includes an anthropology of comparative religion. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (14)

Atheism is not a word that describes the "New Atheist."
One of Eller's main points was that Atheism indicates only a lack of belief in god(s). The larger number of religions are actually non-theistic, such as Buddhism. In fact most religions started out worshiping ancestors. I have met several atheists who believe in ghosts and astrology. Eller tries to coin a better term, discredism, or one who believes in nothing that cannot be substantiated.

Pushing Naturalism/Atheism to new heights
In this book, Eller refuses to simply rehash the same old perspectives, analyses, and investigations of religions and their attendant concepts.Instead, he seeks to genuinely advance the naturalistic camp, and rather than steal any of his considerable 'thunder', I merely suggest that you read this book, regardless of your preexisting dispositions.And to be quite sure, even if you are a thorough-going naturalist like myself, there is still MUCH to learn and gain from reading this book.

So, by all means, read this masterpiece, although if you haven't already, perhaps read his 'Natural Atheism' first.That said, this book is the REAL feast, so if you only have the time to read one, get this one.

Anyway, just know that Eller's work represents some of the best material regarding naturalism that I've read anywhere, and I've read (literally) several score of books in this field (including works from, among others, Michael Martin, George Smith, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Victor Stenger, James A. Haught, S.T. Joshi, Hitchens, Harris, and several more...).

As such, please buy this masterpiece.

Peace,
a fun-loving, reason-using, knowledge-seeking, science enthusiast.

He's right!
One of the most erudite and balanced treatises I have ver read on religion, its origins and lack of validity.

A Welcome Advance--And Another Possibility
I concur with the eight favorable reviews given thus far. Interestingly, the two negative reviews did not disagree with Dr Eller's arguments, but only with the style. I like both the pungent style of Dawkins or Hitchens, as well as the more academic style of Dennett or Eller. Both approaches are needed.

However, I wonder about the rhetorical effect of saying something like, "I don't know what you mean [in talking about God], and you don't either." The second part of this is true, but I think I know what God-talkers "want" to mean (though they fail), and I think there are several meaningful notions of "God" that are simply different from traditional theological "meanings." Saying "I don't know what you mean" might suggest (especially to theists and maybe to neutrals) some sort of ignorance. Inadvisable?

Rather than abstaining from God-talk, it might be productive to
engage in it, perhaps in such forms as "no genuine God would ever approve of religious fictions." Although I know of no evidence for a "genuine God," it is possible to conceive of such a being without violating the criteria of internal consistency or contradicting observable reality.

I will try both approaches and see which seems to be more effective. Kudos to Dr Eller on this incipient (I hope) classic. I plan to order "Natural Atheism" as well.

Ponderous and preachy.
This is the worst New Atheist book I've encountered in ages.There is a definite upward trend in the quality of atheist writing thanks to Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and the like.One does not have to agree with what they say to agree that they create lively, well-written prose.I have tried earnestly to read "Advanced" and have found that not only is the turgid language limp and listless, but the paltry ideas that drift within it are simply not worth the effort to sieve them out.There might be some especially patient and scholarly atheists who will find notions to celebrate in this volume, but for the new atheist, the atheist who has left a religious background, and the atheist who prefers to be bouyed along by crisp writing and fresh ideas, other books might better meet your requirements. ... Read more

Product Description

On October 19, 1876 a group of leading French citizens, joined together to form the Society of Mutual Autopsy, with the aim of proving that souls do not exist. With this group as its focus,The End of the Soul is a study of science and atheism in France in late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It shows that anthropology grew out of a struggle between tradition (especially Catholicism) and modernism, and that it became for many a secular religion, with such adherents as Emile Zola, Margaret Sanger, and Arthur Conan Doyle.

Customer Reviews (2)

Very Disappointing
I purchased this book thinking it was a study of the death of an idea, namely the idea that human beings have an immortal soul. This is not that book.Rather, this book attempts to distill into a single narrative all the complex political, scientific, and philosophical issues surrounding atheism and anthropology in late nineteenth-century France.No small task, to be sure.Unfortunately, I cannot say it is successful.

Hecht deserves praise for her thorough research and her willingness to tackle such an ambitious project.That is about where my praise for the book ends, however.Ultimately, I found this study to be poorly reasoned, extremely unorganized, dryly written, and offensively unsympathetic to its subject. At times, it reads more as a polemic against atheism than as a sober evaluation of any moment in history.This is quite surprising, since Hecht is herself an atheist.

She makes repeated assertions that the primary subject of her study, the passionately atheistic Society of Mutual Autopsy, founded their own religion. Yet, she doesn't provide the reader with a definition of "religion," so we have no way of knowing what qualifies as a religion in her book. For most scholars and lay people, religions are based around a belief in the supernatural. That means the atheists studied in this book were not in any way religious, a detail Hecht overlooks.When she then offers phrases like "evangelical atheism" without any justification or explanation, Hecht seems set on diminishing her Society's values.As an atheist myself, I found this extremely annoying.

There are many other unsupported conjectures and highly questionable conclusions offered here (and even a number of blatant misrepresentations of the facts), and none are intended to give her subjects the benefit of the doubt.For no apparent reason, she mocks the Society's interest in brains and skulls, and suggestively emphasizes the lack of useful scientific information garnered by their research.She claims that they were not truly interested in science because they failed to further our understanding of neurology, as if success were a mark of sincerity.

Another one of her ideas is that atheism is not caused by scientific discoveries, but that science is rather more likely to be influenced by atheism.This claim is not supported by anything close to a compelling argument, however.Ultimately, Hecht offers very little insight into the end of the soul or atheism.Her views seem to be based on questionable assumptions about human psychology, and there is a sore lack of coherent argument throughout.

Worst of all, the book does not seem to be organized around a main idea, and the reader is likely to wonder why one chapter or section is followed by the next.The entire book is greatly lacking in focus, a truly tragic flaw considering the breadth of material Hecht covers.The whole thing feels like something of a mess.

Again, the research that went into this book is impressive.There is a wealth of information here for anyone interested in the subject matter.However, wading through it--and separating the facts from Hecht's questionable assertions--is not an enjoyable task.I could not finish the book, and I would not suggest anyone try.

This writer is just too much
This writer is as even handed and fair as she is brilliant. I read Doubt: A History and was left feeling the same way. In addition to being a history of French anthropology this book is an example of the very finest writing. ... Read more

Product Description
Spectres of False Divinity presents a historical and critical interpretation of Hume's rejection of the existence of a deity with moral attributes. In Hume's view, no first cause or designer responsible for the ordered universe could possibly have moral attributes; nor could the existence (or non-existence) of such a being have any real implications for human practice or conduct. Hume's case for this 'moral atheism' is a central plank of both his naturalistic agenda in metaphysics and his secularizing program in moral theory. It complements his wider critique of traditional theism, and threatens to rule out any religion that would make claims on moral practice.

Thomas Holden situates Hume's commitment to moral atheism in its historical and philosophical context, offers a systematic interpretation of his case for divine amorality, and shows how Hume can endorse moral atheism while maintaining his skeptical attitude toward traditional forms of cosmological and theological speculation. ... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (3)

Not Bad, 3 1/2 Stars
One thing you need to keep in mind is the author is a theistic evolutionist (God used evolution to create) and so he is very critical of most forms of Biblical Creationism (especially young-earth) and many of the arguments of the Intelligent Design movement.

At less than 100 pages, this is a quick and easy read.I know that was the desired result, but I found it to be too quick and easy.There is no doubt that he makes some good points, but I didn't feel that he developed them well or thorough enough.On some, he barely scratched the surface.I would have liked the book to be almost twice the size it is.Also, a few of the "10 arguments" were very similar and could have been put together in the same chapter; this would have given the opportunity to add some of the other arguments used today and still keep the catchy title.

That said, there is plenty I agree with in this book.As he stated toward the end: "So, apart from being more vociferous, what's new about the 'New Atheism'?This question, posed at the outset, is itself also the answer, albeit in a different tone of voice:'What's new?'"

Delivers with economy of words
Michael Poole advertises in the beginning that this book is aimed at those who don't have a lot of time to read but need to be briefed on the New Atheism (Dawkins, Hitchens, and Dennet).He delivers in 96 pages total (that includes end notes and an index).He covers 10 arguments that the new atheists make which he doesn't believe hold water.He gives quotes for the authors (mostly Dawkins with a larger smattering of Hitchens and less of Dennet).Then, he begins his brief analysis.Mostly, he shows that the Arguments are by and large Assertions which the guys in question don't support with evidence.In several cases, he finds them dabbling in the very practice that they are criticizing the Christians for.He points out logical fallacies, such as the excluded middle and dismantles Dawkins' infinite regress and arguments against the anthropic principle.If you want a brief book that is an excellent primer on argumentation and critique of logical arguments, this book is for you.I highly recommend it.

A good summary of new atheism
Michael Poole succeeds in only 89 pages to summarize the counterarguments against new atheism. He has an ability to say his opinions clearly and shortly. I liked especially the chapter 6, where he shows that we do not have to choose between creation and evolution. These are two different levels of explanations. He also shows that all world-views are based on faith. There is no such world-views which are based only on science. Recommended for those who want to crasp the basic questions without long philosophical discussions. ... Read more

Product Description
The subject of atheism has been much in the news recently with the highly publicized release of radically atheistic books. This helpful book highlights points of agreement and disagreement between Alister McGrath and Daniel Dennett on the topic of the present status of atheism and which worldview, atheism or Christianity, is preferable.
American philosopher Daniel Dennett is currently the Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies and the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University. Oxford theologian Alister McGrath is Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford and directs its Centre for Christian Apologetics. A transcript of the dialogue featuring McGrath and Dennett on the subject allows the reader to see in print how both men present their positions in light of the other's.
The volume also provides the reader with a thoughtful assessment of atheism as over against Christian atheism by an interdisciplinary team of philosophers and theologians. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (6)

Title is misleading
Blinn E. Combs' review (June 22, 2009) of this book is careful and accurate. I, too, had hoped to find a selection of agenda-free essays dedicated to exploring the respective territories of theistic and atheistic thought. A browse to the publisher's website, Fortress Press, which is the publishing ministry of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, would have disabused me of that notion.

Except for Dennett's comments, atheistic thought is underrepresented while the majority of the contributions are theistic in escalating degrees of evangelical zeal. The dialogue between Alister McGrath and Daniel Dennett in the book's subtitle forms a very small portion of the work.

The chapters following the McGrath-Dennett dialogue don't begin too badly. Keith Parsons' chapter, "Atheism:Twilight or Dawn?" seems balanced enough. And Evan Fales' chapter, "Despair, Optimism and Rebellion" openly states that it will not predict the future of atheism; rather he explores the three attitudes in his chapter title as he finds them in society and concludes with the question of whether God can see the face of suffering humanity and live.

After these few chapters, the all male Christian apologists more fully armored of God get to work. The rhetoric is cloaked in philosophical terms, but the writers' lapses into street language give their biases away. For example, "...[Thomas] Nagel's specific version of a dismissive strategy is a complete failure" (J.P. Moreland, page 132), while "Plantinga wisely focuses his arguments on a hypothetical population..." (J.P. Moreland, page 138). And "Dennett and his ilk" (Paul Copan, page 149). And "For all their huffing and puffing, naturalistic moral realists are mistaken..." (Paul Copan, page 160). And "...the new breed of aggressive atheists..." (Ted Peters, page 181).

For any reader looking for essays in which those with an opposing position are not represented by a few elliptical references but are fully permitted to speak for themselves, this is the wrong book.

Unbalanced
When you see a title like "The Future of Atheism," that purportedly features a dialogue between two different ideological starting-points, you might well expect just that--a dialogue.Sadly, the main title doesn't capture the general purpose of the book at all well. It would have been more honest to call it "The Future of Atheism is Bleak."

Upon a cursory read, it quickly became apparent that the book had an obvious ideological goal:To convince readers that a goodly number of contemporary philosophers find the atheistic/naturalistic stance (whichever and whatever that may be) to be intellectually indefensible.I give the book two stars because the editor does include the initial discussion between McGrath and Dennett, and because Fales' essay is, as other reviewers have noted, a genuine gem.The editor fails, though, to include any more polished follow-up essays by either cover author, and instead contains a number of rather out of place pieces by an assortment of Christian apologists, several of which (e.g. Moreland's) involve technical disputes in contemporary analytic philosophy which are sure to cause more confusion than clarity for a non-specialist audience.

The work has something of a Gotcha! feel.It promptly displays Dennett's name on the cover, but, beyond his informal debate remarks, contains very little to clarify the project of scientific naturalism and its relation to religion.Worst of all, it attempts to convey the impression that Dennett is a real outsider among the professional philosophical community; and while that is true in some respects (I don't get the impression that he's won over a huge number of adherents to his "theory" of consciousness), among the camp of practicing analytic philosophers, the Christian apologist camp is, despite some recent Plantinga-related growth, still the clear minority.To put the point somewhat more accurately, there are a large number of people in the philosophical community actively engaged in issues in naturalism and the philosophy of science who (professionally, at least) neither say nor apparently care much one way or another about religion, which is just what anyone would expect from a highly specialized, mostly secular community of experts.

The imbalance probably has something to do with the setting of the initial debate, the Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum.Readers would do well to preview their wares at their web site.

For readers interested in the contents of the debate, I would recommend downloading freely available debates or debate transcripts featuring the speakers. (Notably, it appears that a number of previously available online mp3 copies of this debate have been deleted, no doubt in response to this book's publication.)Both Dennett and McGrath have widely debated the same topic, and their thoughts are but a google or you-tube search away.For readers who are genuinely interested in the outlines of a naturalistic approach to religious belief, Andy Thomson has an excellent talk about the ways in which religious belief makes use of regular (indeed, mundane) and well-studied cognitive processes.The talk is both informative and accessible in ways already mentioned.

A civilised debate
This book is a welcome civilized debate between Christians and Atheists. The articles are fascinating, well informed, and well written. McGrath and Dennett are well known and both lead their side well.

The supporting articles add greatly to the opening dialogue. The book is a great overview of the current best arguments for and against both Christianity and Atheism.

Needless to say no definite conclusion either for or against either side is reached. However what this book shows is that each side of the argument needs the other to stimulate and sharpen their own thinking. There are lazy default positions on both sides, none of which will be happy being challenged by the powerful thinkers in this book.

Perhaps the conclusion of this book is that the future of Atheism is about as good or bad as the future of Christianity.

The perspective of this book is very much Western world, and in future I suspect the Islamic world will want a strong foot in the debate too.

Balanced and interesting
Though not without its flaws, Stewart (the editor) has assembled an excellent collection of essays in addition to the central exchange, which is well-managed and productive.Stewart and Fortress Press (the publisher) come from the theist standpoint - the latter being a publishing house of the Evangelical Lutheran Church - yet there's an honest attempt to engage with, and avoid misrepresenting, the positions of atheist critics.One does sometimes get the feeling that McGrath wants to debate Richard Dawkins rather than his actual interlocutor, but he's too serious a thinker not to tailor his commentary directly to Dennett's points once the real exchange begins.Dennett, as usual, offers a much better (and less stridently uncomprehending of belief) atheistic perspective than most of his compatriots.

There's an interesting criticism of Christian ethics that I'm not equipped to evaluate but suspect to be somewhat irrelevant to most Christians' experience of morality informed by faith.William Lane Craig's update to traditional proofs of God's existence in response to modern criticisms strikes me very much as an unconvincing set of question-begging patches.Even where they (apparently) fail, however, the essays seem highly illustrative of where modern theology stands relative to reasoned unbelief in the 21st century West.

A great book
The future of Atheism is a great book.It is brief, thought provoking without going too far into the direction of technical philosophy, and well written throughout.The book is based on a 2007 conference given at the New Orleans Baptist Theological seminary, and includes the dialogue that occurred, as well as papers that were presented at the event.There are also a few papers included as a sort of postscript to the event.The introduction by Robert Stewart is to introduce the dialogue and occasionally introduce elements of the debate that he thought were either insufficiently covered or poorly argued.This is followed up by the discussion that forms the subtitle of the book and that is the discussion/debate between Daniel Dennett and Alister McGrath.Their talk was interesting throughout, cordial between the two gentlemen, and on occasion genuinely funny.Much of the debate hinged on the concept and explanatory power of memes, if you are looking somewhere to see the subject debated this is a good book to start with.

The book then takes the direction of a series of papers, usually alternating between an atheist and a theist.
Keith M. Parsons' article is a critique of Alister McGrath's work in the debate as well as his written work.

William Lane Craig presents his takes on the Kalaam and Leibniz versions of the Cosmological argument as well as the teleological, axiological, and ontological arguments.Much of this article is just a word for word reprint of the information contained in the third edition of Reasonable Faith.

Evan Fales' article is a well crafted treatise on what are the implications of how an atheist ought to behave in light of atheism, it was well written and builds masterfully, the other reviewer is quite correct that this is one of the stand out articles within the book.

Hugh J. McCann article is on how science and religion could be brought together in a sort of compromise to test miracles, but not religious experiences.

My personal hero J.P. Moreland responds to an argument by Nagel that rationality is a brute fact that cannot be understood in a naturalistic framework but exists there nonetheless.

Paul Copan spends a lengthy time on the axiological/moral argument as well as addressing the Euthyphro dilemma.

Finally, Ted Peters analyzes the New Atheists (or as he prefers evangelical atheists) claims about religion in general or that a new enlightenment could bring about a more peaceful utopian world.

A great, quick read with lots to reflect upon, for those interested in Philosophy of Religion and have some familiarity with the arguments (I think Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism was raised no less than three times in the articles) you will find much to enjoy here.
... Read more

Product Description
This work fills the gap for a much needed analytical philosophical work articulating and defending agnosticism as a critique of both theism and atheism. "The Errors of Atheism" is a response to the glaring gap that exists in the analytical philosophical literature on the problem of whether or not God exists. While on the one hand there is the large body of work by orthodox Christian theists such as Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne, and relatively few atheists like Kai Nielsen who challenge certain orthodox Christian theistic arguments and analysis, there is on the other hand a lack of analytical philosophical work articulating and defending agnosticism as a critique of both theism and atheism. Corlett argues that the conceptual depths of theism must be explored beyond orthodoxy in order to re-open the debate about whether or not God exists. "The Errors of Atheism" is a piece of analytical philosophy of religion that seeks to disrupt the prevalent way of thinking about the problem of God amongst atheists and theists alike.Philosophy of religion has been dominated by well-intentioned analytical philosophers, most all of whom presuppose various traditional Christian doctrines and thus do not take non-orthodox theism seriously, and by a few atheists who also presume that orthodox Christian theism is the only theism worth addressing. Professor Corlett, however, argues that the truth lies somewhere between these two positions. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

A peculiar agnosticism
This reads as a poorly edited and poorly thought out philosophy dissertation.The author strawmans both theism and atheism.The agnosticism used to fill the gap has several conceptual problems, not the least of which is the theistic assumption that a "good" creator deity would necessarily care individually.Further, Corlett widely ignores, and then subsequently tramples, related work on deism and pantheism.This is in no way an adequate rebuttal to the new atheism as Corlett suggests, nor is it a substantially revised theism. In its most basic sense, it's a piece written by a thoughtful protestant who wants to tell the new atheists, "you aren't talking about MY god" without actually addressing the genuine critiques of the wholly human conceived specie of deity, which includes the authors.

Evolution Fairies and Evil God
"Atheists can't just go for orthodox Christianity's jugular and then proclaim that they have somehow justified atheism. They have to attack the best possible theism and I think I've come up with one. Unless they logically defeat that particular theism, then they ought to join the tradition of Bertrand Russell, agnosticism -- an intellectual tradition which I have developed. Atheists like Dawkins have dismissed this tradition, but in doing so, they demean the worldview of Russell himself! 'In the spirit of Russell's claim that he is not an atheist because he cannot disprove the existence of God, I argued that to point out that the traditional idea of God's nature is self-contradictory is insufficient to disprove theism and thereby prove atheism (139).'"
Most of this volume can be boiled down to my above summary; hence, most of this volume is annoyingly superfluous. Only in Chapters 5 and 6 do we get down to the nitty gritty of Corlett's theology.

The whole idea behind this volume seems silly to me. There will always be another theology which people will say is better than the last, but the point atheists are making is that there is no reason to believe any of them; we are "de facto atheists" because while there might be a god, there is no reason to believe there is one of any kind -- just as there is no reason to believe in fairies. Hypothetically, we could say that even though we've seemingly refuted supposed instances of extant fairies (e.g. the Cottingley fairies), perhaps there are real fairies out there. In fact, with an evolution which seems to be so guided towards purpose, perhaps animal development comes from the waving of the fairy's wand which causes the animal to develop in response to the conditions it faces (i.e. natural selection); I haven't studied fairyology, so I apparently have to remain agnostic on the matter, but Corlett can theorize as to the nature of these fairies. Or perhaps, instead of the tentative theology which Corlett comes up with which involves a good god who deserves our prayers, perhaps god is evil. Perhaps the entire universe which eventually ends in all life dying out is just the capricious plan of a malevolent deity. So these are possibilities, but there's no reason to believe either of them. If we are to remain agnostic about Corlett's god, then we must remain agnostic about evolution fairies and the evil god. Prima facie, I think we must realize that we simply have no reason to believe any of these theologies and count ourselves as "de facto atheists" with regards to all of them.

Within Corlett's theology, he offers an intriguing an intriguing ethical vision. I found his discussion of how reparations are necessary for repentance to be quite thoughtful; I also was personally moved (for personal reasons) by his discussion of how societal integration is not necessarily always a good thing, but sometimes a society should have the option to remain outside of those who oppressed it in the past. For these reasons, I give the book two stars instead of one.

(I must succumb to the temptation to note that Corlett is playing hide-the-ball with Russell's worldview. Corlett quotes the following line of an essay by Russell: "As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God." That sure does sound consistent with Corlett's idea that agnosticism is the proper position and atheism is intellectually unjustified, but he conveniently forgets Russell's next line: "On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods." Dawkins' position of de facto atheism is the same as Russell's position construed here. There is no reason to come up with a new theology; there is, quite simply, no god.)

Falling between two stools
The Errors of Atheism ("EOA") rejects conventional Christianity and accepts atheistic arguments against the Christian God. At the same time, it rejects the atheistic position that God does not exists. Furthermore, while professing a new position which its author Corlett calls "The New Agnosticism", it is not conventional agnosticism which holds the position that "God" as a supernatural being may or may not exists because there is no proof that he or she exists and no proof that he or she does not exists. The traditional agnostic simply does not care and goes about his business on the basis that until proven otherwise, God is irrelevant to how he lives his life on earth. Corlett's "New Agnosticism", contrary to its name, leans in favour of an assumption that God exists. However, the God he envisaged is even more mysterious than the conception of God in the Christian world. He challenges as unreasonable all the assertions of God in Christian theology, but then goes on and makes equally unsustainable assumptions in his "hybrid minimalist theism" a term that is not easy to grasp though one might read his thesis many times over. He acknowledges that central to the theist-atheist debate is the question of the nature of God, yet he skips around this question and although he claims to have consistently described the nature of his minimalist God, he has been evasive about it. This is a claim the reader will not find substantiated in the book. He will find assumptions that God is a spirit that is not responsible for the good or the evil in the world. God, in the minimalist state is the most powerful being but not an all-powerful being. Corlett draws a great deal from liberation theology for his construction of the "hybrid minimalist God", yet he does not accept fully the basis of liberation theology, which is essentially the belief that God always comes on the side of the poor and the oppressed. Consequently, EOA is a book that alienates everyone concerned - the theist, the agnostic, and the atheist.

The hybrid minimalist theist is a fascinating idea, but it seems that much more work needs to be done to give it any substantial credibility. Until then, Corlett has just created a new God that will be attacked by both Christians and atheists alike. EOA also suffers a little from self-aggrandizement, and the author's claim that "One benefit of my analysis of the existence of God is that, unlike most philosophical accounts, mine is better informed theologically. And unlike most theological accounts mine is well-informed philosophically and places no restrictions on the employment of reason in this context of discourse" must be judged by the reader. I voted with two stars; one for uniqueness and the other for audacity.
... Read more

Product Description
Frank Schaeffer has a problem with Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, and the rest of the New Atheists - the self-anointed ''Brights.'' He also has a problem with the Rick Warrens and Tim LaHayes of the world. The problem is that he doesn't see much of a difference between the two camps. As Schaeffer puts it, they ''often share the same fallacy: truth claims that reek of false certainties. I believe that there is an alternative that actually matches the way life is lived rather than how we usually talk about belief.'' Sparing no one and nothing, including himself and his fiery evangelical past, and invoking subtleties too easily ignored by the pontificators, Schaeffer adds much-needed nuance to the conversation. ''My writing has smoked out so many individuals who seem to be thinking about the same questions. I hope that this book will provide a meeting place for us, the scattered refugees of what I'll call The Church of Hopeful Uncertainty.'' ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

Balancing Dawkins
I am a seeker and this book was recommended to me by another seeker when I mentioned that I had just read Dawkins "The God Delusion."I appreciate this more centered viewpoint. Schaeffer was much more gentle with the subject and I enjoyed his personal family stories.

Disappointing
I heard the author on NPR and I was struck by our similarities in our religious vision.At the time he seemed like a really rational man that had a good middle ground approach to religion.I bought the kindle edition of the book.I was very disappointed to find that most of the book was just a diatribe about different celebrities and authors.Instead of trying to understand their points of view and finding common ground, he rips them up basically and almost ridicules them.

Patience with God
I just finished reading Frank Schaeffer's book titled"Patience with God."It is excellent. It is somewhat autobiographical and is a heart-felt testimony about Frank Schaeffer's journey from once being an arrogant fundamentalist evangelical to where Mr. Schaeffer is now theologically-- a man of faith who embraces the sacred as well doubt and paradox. Mr. Schaeffer takes no prisoners. He is equally merciless on the so-called "New Atheists" and the Christian fundamentalists. But Mr. Schaeffer does not stop there. He offers a real, sensible way of looking at faith issues in the post-modern world in which we live. I do not agree with everything that Mr. Schaeffer says-- if I did, I get the sense that he would not be pleased as one of his pet peeves seems to be people who do not have the fortitude to make up their own minds and decide for themselves. But I have to say that I do agree with the manner in which Mr. Schaeffer approaches complex issues of faith-- he leaves room for mystery. For him, that mystery, (which is most evidenced by the love that he feels for his granddaughter, his wife and all of his family) surpasses all human understanding is not merely a series of chemical reactions as many atheists would describe it.I highly recommend this book to anybody who has become disenchanted with the church and organized religion. There is an alternative. Frank Schaeffer certainly did not discover that alternative, but he did articulate it in a unique and refreshing way. ... Read more