Product Description
In this stimulating book distinguished theologian Michael J. Buckley, S.J., reflects upon the career of atheism from the beginnings of modernity to the present day. Extending the discussion he began in his highly acclaimed At the Origins of Modern Atheism, the author argues that atheism as ideology was generated neither by the rise of hostile sciences in the Renaissance nor by the medieval and inferential theology of Thomas Aquinas.

Professor Buckley locates the origins of atheistic consciousness in modernity’s bracketing of interpersonal religious experience as of no cognitive value. Atheism was generated by the very strategies formulated to counter it. This dialectical character of modern atheism suggests the further possibility of the negation of this negation, thereby bringing about the retrieval of the religious in form and content along with a new admission of the cogency of religious experience.

Michael J. Buckley, S.J., is University Professor of Theology at Boston College. He has published extensively in systematic theology, philosophy, spirituality, science and theology, and the history of ideas.
... Read more

Product Description
Atheism has always been open to the attack that it is a sterile concept and that atheists clearly don t believe in anything. In this remarkable book, Daniel Harbour turns this disadvantage into the spearhead of his defense of atheism and incisive attack on religion, whether Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or Zen. He argues that the battle between the two has wrongly been fought on the narrow issue of the existence of God. In reality, the question is based on what is morally good and bad, i.e. whether a religious belief or an atheist belief puts one in a better position to do good. Using modern examples such as gay marriages and racial hatred, Daniel Harbour casts a light on the ideas atheism stands for.AcknowledgementsIntroduction1. Basics and Basis2. Discovering God3. The Price of Knowledge?4. Contra Compromise5. Individuals and Intuitions6. Consequences: Religion and Government7. Two Corollaries, Two Addenda, and A Note8. ConclusionEndnotesIndex ... Read more

Customer Reviews (15)

See how you learn
This book rotates your perspective on a/theistic debates.The book is self-consistent, but Harbour's use of the word "worldview" may confuse readers from different backgrounds.You know a word can have more than one definition, so bear with me while I walk through this.

Here I write "worldview(0)" to represent what Harbour means.Imagine yourself in the middle of a desert that represents the original state of ignorance we are born into.Imagine you have a compass but no map.We can choose a direction to walk, like north, or east, or a combination like northeast.This is what Harbour means when he writes Spartan versus Baroque, and meritocratic versus monarchical.He pairs the possible combinations into "Spartan meritocracy" and "Baroque monarchy" to serve as compass directions (or basis vectors), not that anybody walks along either direction exactly.In practice, everyone chooses different proportions of each (like northeast), and we may change direction from time to time.

Given a choice of compass direction, a person can start walking and collect some literature and/or music, some religion and/or science, and whatever else along their way to make sense of the world.Depending on their worldview(0), they might collect some science (as Harbour calls science the child of Spartan meritocracy on page 65).Now that we come to science, I write "worldview(1)" to represent what many other people mean by "worldview".For example, the Brights say their worldview is naturalistic.But Harbour writes on page 10, "a good Spartan worldview... would not say what there is, nor would it say what there is not.All it provides is a set of methods....".Yet the naturalistic "worldview" of the Brights *does* involve hypotheses about "what there is" and "what there is not", so what does Harbour mean?Harbour's book is self-consistent, we just need to see how the word "worldview" means different things to different people:

-- A worldview(0), as Harbour means it, is like a compass direction, a finger pointing to the horizon, your way *how* you go about learning.Where Harbour writes "worldview" his background is linguistics, where he consistently means a worldview(0) is a factor in forming your mind and defining your thinkable thoughts.You might not see your worldview(0), like you might go through most of a day without seeing your eyes.Candidate worldviews(0) could be "Spartan meritocracy" and "Baroque monarchy" as two examples orthogonal to each other.Harbour personally favors a "Spartan meritocratic" worldview(0).

-- A worldview(1), as many other people mean it, is more of an assembled object, a set of specific hypotheses, a template you hold up to see if the world matches, a shelving system for your garage or your closet.One person's worldview(1) might involve the naturalism of the Brights.Another person's worldview(1) might involve Rick Warren's belief in a creator-god who has a plan for you.Another person's worldview(1) might involve a Unitarian Universalist belief in a creator-god who decides nothing and lets you choose.

In thermodynamics, you know the 1st law (that energy is conserved) and the 2nd law (that entropy increases).But after writing the 1st and 2nd laws, they realized they forgot an even more fundamental principle, to define temperature (an equilibrium) and to say that heat flows from hot to cold (toward an equilibrium).So they named that principle the 0th law to avoid renumbering the 1st and 2nd laws.This is why I wrote worldview(0) with a zero to represent what Harbour means.When people find this book exciting, they see the book reaches farther back in our lives to our choice of a compass direction before we started collecting our favorite things.And when people find the book convincing, they see if you choose a worldview(0) that favors simple meritocratic explanations, then the various monotheistic worldviews(1) are moot, like some bric-à-brac you don't care to collect.Instead of proving or disproving the various monotheistic worldviews(1), you can ask yourself, what methods do you choose as the ways you learn?

Good intentions, but misses the mark
This books tries hard to approach atheism from a new perspective, and at first it's refreshing. But after a while, it just doesn't go anywhere. The metaphors and analogies are vague and overly theoretical, and Harbour's sentence structure can get rambling and confusing at times. This is intended to be a beginner's guide, but "What Is Atheism?" by Douglas E. Krueger does a far better job of outlining the arguments in a clear and concise way.

Good intentions, little follow-through
Daniel Harbour's An Intelligent Person's Guide to Atheism gets off to a good start, because he argues that atheism needs to be read against the backdrop of a broader, more inclusive worldview.This is an an entirely reasonable position.But the problem is that Harbour not only fails to really explain what that worldview is (presumably it's naturalism), but uses misguiding metaphors to contrast it with the theistic worldview.Atheism looks at reality from a "spartan" perspective, theism from a "baroque" perspective, says Harbour, and he will return to this vocabularly tediously throughout the book.All he seems to mean is that atheism doesn't unnecessarily complicate explanations and theism does.But there's little effort on his part to demonstrate the truth of these two claims, nor to justify his claim that the former is a better worldview.In Chapter 3, he claims that the spartan worldview is objective, broad, predictive, and utility-laden.But his discussion here seems to be utterly and curiously innocent of understandings of science other than the hypothetical-deductive model.

This is representative of most of Harbour's discussion throughout the book.His arguments tend to be either sketchy and rambling, or they fail to nail the lid on theism's coffin as he assures us they do.His discussions of arguments for God's existence, for example, are especially weak, as if he can't bring himself to take them seriously long enough to grapple with them.In speaking of design the ignores the argument from the anthropic principle.In dealing with cosmological arguments, he utterly ignores the kalam argument.His discussion of the ontological argument is particularly weak, ignoring as it does contemporary defenses such as Hartshorne's and Plantinga's, and resting content with Kant's old existence-isn't-a-predicate counter-argument.

I realize that Harbour's book is intended as a primer on atheism, and that there's only so much one can do in such a context.But there are other quite fine primers out there that accomplish much more.Julian Baggini's Atheism:A Very Short Introduction and David Ramsey Steele's Atheism Explained come immediately to mind.

Two Visions of the Reality: one a better explanation than the other
This book is particularly good on stating "two visions" to understand reality: one Dogmatic and the other Meritocratic. The first is an Absolute Baroque Monarchy and the second a Spartan Meritocracy. The absolutists do not demonstrate anything at all, while the meritocratics behold a view of the world "if and only if" it is demonstrated. In the first kind of vision one finds religion, in the other, science. Read it, and you will find the conclusions very clear, un-dogmatic and ready for any additional questions to be answered.

Unrefutable
Insightful and simply stated. It puts the debate between atheism and theism in a whole new context. Must read for anyone, atheist of otherwise. ... 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 (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

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

Opposition to atheism flourished in the seventeenth century, and famed scientist-philosopher Robert Boyle (1627?91) was so opposed to it that he had planned throughout his life to publish a work on his various objections, a project that never came to fruition. Despite this, a great deal of his thought on atheism still exists within the manuscripts he left behind after his death.

With Boyle on Atheism, J.J. MacIntosh has culled the Boyle manuscripts held at the Royal Society Library in London and transcribed the portions that relate to atheism, arranging them in the order Boyle appears to have intended (as outlined in one of the pieces). The volume contains Boyle?s views on the causes (and remedies) of atheism, the nature of God, various possible arguments for God?s existence, the excellency of Christianity, and the character of atheists and the deficiencies to be found in their arguments.

To round out the volume, MacIntosh has added a short biography of Boyle, a general introduction to the text, introductions to the various sections, and explanatory footnotes. Boyle on Atheism provides, for the first time, and at length, publication of the material that Boyle himself thought worth marshalling on a subject of great personal importance.

Customer Reviews (1)

A compilation of writings by seventeenth-century scientist-philosopher Robert Boyle
Boyle On Atheism is a compilation of writings by seventeenth-century scientist-philosopher Robert Boyle (1627-91), who throughout his life felt a deep opposition to atheism and planned to publish a text delineating his objections. Though he died before publishing a book on the subject, his many writings rationally resisting atheism survive. Now J.J. MacIntosh (Professor, Dept. of Philosophy, University of Calgary) presents Boyle's transcribed and edited papers, with extensive and informative notations. Boyle On Atheism presents Robert Boyle's views on the causes and remedies of atheism, the nature of God, arguments for God's existence, the virtues of Christianity, and deconstructs the character of atheists as well as the deficiencies in their arguments. A valuable insight not only into philosophical and religious debate, but also greater understanding of seventeenth century society.
... 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

Customer Reviews (2)

THE MAJOR WORK OF ONE OF THE "DEATH OF GOD" THEOLOGIANS
Thomas Jonathan Jackson Altizer (born 1927) taught religion at Wabash College, then he taught English at Emory Universityfrom 1956 to 1968. He is currently Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, and has recently written a memoir (Living the Death of God: A Theological Memoir).

He begins this 1966 book by saying, "Let me confess that this book was written with the conviction that it is an expression of a new and profoundly radical theological movement in America."

Here are some representative quotations from the book:

"Thus the radical Christian reverses the orthodox confession, affirming that 'God is Jesus' rather than 'Jesus is God.'" (pg. 44)
"The 'atheism' of the radical Christian is in large measure a prophetic reaction to a distant and nonredemptive God who by virtue of his very sovereignty and transcendence stands wholly apart from the forward movement and the historical presence of the Incarnate Word." (pg. 62)
"True, every man today who is open to experience knows that God is absent, but only the Christian knows that God is dead, that the death of God is a final and irrevocable event, and that God's death has actualized in our history a new and liberated humanity." (pg. 111)
"Radical Christianity poses the real question which must now be addressed to the Christian: is faith speakable or livable in the actuality of our present?" (pg. 134)
"If we can truly know that God is dead, and can fully actualize the death of God in our own experience, then we can be liberated from the threat of condemnation, and freed from the terror of a transcendent beyond." (pg. 145)
"Thus, ultimately the wager of the radical Christian is simply a wager upon the full and actual presence of the Christ who is a totally incarnate love." (pg. 157)

Gospel of Christian Atheism
Product was shipped promptly and in the condition specified.(The book itself isn't too great, but that's no slam on the seller :P). ... Read more

Product Description
In this volume, eighteen of the world's leading scholars present original essays on various aspects of atheism: its history, both ancient and modern, defense and implications.The topic is examined in terms of its implications for a wide range of disciplines including philosophy, religion, feminism, postmodernism, sociology and psychology. In its defense, both classical and contemporary theistic arguments are criticized, and, the argument from evil, and impossibility arguments, along with a non religious basis for morality are defended. These essays give a broad understanding of atheism and a lucid introduction to this controversial topic. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (7)

Good but not great
Plenty of interesting ideas but I found some places bogged down in symbolic logic which makes it difficult for the layman. Still worth the read though.

Philosophical essays published by Cambridge University Press
Many Atheists or those curious about Atheism have read books by the "four horsemen" of the so-called "New Atheism," and while those are entertaining, there is nothing in those books on the same level as what is found in this book.Of course, nothing in any of the books actually prove there is no god, but the burden of proof is not on those that do not believe an exceptional claim, but on those that make the exceptional claim.Most people would agree that the existence of an all-powerful god would be quite exceptional, presumably far more than dragons or unicorns . . . or even Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster.

Not all of the essays are philosophical arguments for or against a god, but that takes up the majority of the book.The essay by Zuckerman on statistics of the religious or nonreligious is an enlightening and thoughtful essay that provides much food for thought, just based on the numbers.One of the essays is by William Lane Craig, the premier theist philosopher that debates all the persons that express thoughts on the side of doubt, and that essay may be enlightening to those that are not familiar with Craig or theistic arguments for a god.In my opinion, having read this essay as well as his arguments in debates (even while I was a theist), his arguments are embarrassingly inadequate to convince anyone that has the slightest grasp on reason and logic.

If one is interested in reading a higher level of theistic or atheistic discourse, this book covers many areas and introduces many ideas in a scholarly form.As a compilation of scholarly essays, this is for the more serious thinker, while being accessible to those that are not currently familiar with the philosophy in question.This book undoubtedly deserves five stars.

A rigourous study that will give atheists something to believe in...
Atheism involves far more than people screaming "God is dead!" and stamping their feet. As this dense collection demonstrates, scholars have heaped oodles of diverse brain power onto this subject. Three main sections, each containing numerous erudite essays, provide enough intellectual girth and breadth to quell disparate curiosities. Theists and atheists alike can hone their knowledge and expand their understanding of this firebrand topic that has recently crept into the mainstream. As of last year, many bookstores even have sections dedicated to atheism, from which this book's purple-blue spine often juts out like neon.

The book opens with a short general, and unattributed, introduction that delineates the definitional nuances that riddle the terms "atheism" and "agnosticism." It also discusses the etymological roots of "atheist" back to the Greek "a" and "theos," roughly meaning "without gods." Later essays build on the definitions presented, which include "positive" and "negative" atheism and "skeptical" and "cancellation" agnosticism. A glossary also helps keeps these terms in line. The subsequent essays can be read in any order, but keeping to one section at a time will aid comprehension of the major issues.

Part I, called "Background," looks at ancient and modern notions of atheism. Jam Bremmer's "Atheism in Antiquity" discusses the Greek, Hellenic, Roman, and Christian attitudes. As expected, the term was often used in disparaging ways against enemies. For example, Socrates was accused of atheism in Plato's famous "Apology." Next, "Atheism in Modern History," by Gavin Hyman, explores the link between theism, atheism, and modernity. He thinks they may all be inextricably linked, and the essay ends with the provocative claim: "the fate of atheism would seem to be inescapably bound up with the fate of modernity." He also traces the origins of modern atheism back to the transition from Augustinian notions of God as a "great mystery" to Dun Scotus' more theologically and epistemologically accessible God. In this way modern atheism, Gavin claims, began within theism itself. Part I closes with an intriguing demographic overview of global atheism by Phil Zuckerman. Though the numbers fluctuate based on the various surveys and studies, they contain few surprises: Sweden, Vietnam, and most of europe seem to have greater concentrations of "non-believers" than the Middle East and the United States.

Part II, "The Case Against Theism," contains essays dealing almost exhaustively with arguments for and against theism. All of the most ominous brain scratchers receive aptattention here: ontological arguments, compatibilities with naturalism and physicalism, evolution, ethical autonomy, arguments from evil, cosmological arguments, and impossibility arguments. This section's first essay, William Lane Craig's "Theistic Critiques of Atheism," gives theism a chance to air its grievances, as it's written from a theistic perspective. Hardcore atheists may have trouble making it through this one. The rest of the section critiques theist arguments with the overall tone of logical analysis as exemplified in what's known as Anglo-American Analytic philosophy. Throughout, many arguments get picked apart, analyzed, and critiqued in sometimes minute detail. The collection doesn't get more technical than these essays. One of the more challenging essays here is Quentin Smith's "Kalam Cosmological Arguments for Atheism," which utilizes Bang Bang cosmology to critique arguments concerning "uncaused causes." In contrast, one of the more accessible is Daniel Dennet's "Atheism and Evolution," which argues that evolution provides a plausible explanation for the origins of life contra teleological arguments from design.

Part III, "Implications," loses the logical focus and explores atheism's other impacts, including editor Michael Martin's survey of potentially "atheistic religions," namely Jainism, Buddhism, and Confucianism. His analysis concludes that, though atheism is not a religion, atheism and religion do not necessarily stand in irreconcilably stark contrast to each other, as often thought. Other subjects covered include: atheism and feminism, atheism and freedom of religion, atheism and postmodernism, anthropologies of religion, and a psychological profile of atheists. Of all these, John D. Caputo's "Atheism, A/theology, and the Postmodern Condition" stands out as the most challenging, especially for those not versed in Continental or Postmodern thought. He challenges the notion of atheism as a "grand narrative" and thus subject to some of the same postmodern critiques as theism. Lastly, Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi's "Atheists: A Psychological Profile," the closing essay, describes atheists as more likely to be male, highly educated, and filled with existential angst. He uses voluminous studies (some of which seem very dated) to support these conclusions. The volume closes on a considerable high note with: "...atheists show themselves to be less authoritarian and suggestible, less dogmatic, less prejudiced, more tolerant of others, law-abiding, compassionate, conscientious, and well educated. They are of high intelligence, and many are committed to the intellectual and scholarly life. In short, they are good to have as neighbors." Whether this holds water or represents mere self-congratulation remains for the reader to decide.

"The Cambridge Companion to Atheism" provides a great overall view of this controversial topic. Certain parts remain more dense and technical than others, but nothing is beyond comprehension. Though accessible throughout, a more academic than popular tone pervades the majority of the writing. Nonetheless, this never detracts from the collection's readability. The book's some 300 pages provide more than an overview; they dig deep into many granular issues affecting the subject of atheism. As such, this collection delivers detailed and in-depth knowledge, not just a 10,000 foot view. It's more than an introduction: it's a considerably rigorous study of atheism, its foundations, and its implications. It will definitely give atheists something to believe in.

Useful exploration of atheism's implications
This is a very thought-provoking collection of essays, edited by Michael Martin, Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Boston University. Eighteen leading scholars, mostly from the USA, discuss aspects of atheism and its implications for philosophy, religion, law, anthropology, sociology, psychology, biology and physics.

Sociologist Phil Zuckerman estimates that there are about 500-750 million atheists, agnostics and unbelievers, which is 58 times the number of Mormons, 41 times the number of Jews, 35 times the number of Sikhs, and twice the number of Buddhists. Atheists, agnostics and unbelievers are the fourth largest group, after Christians (two billion), Muslims (1.2 billion) and Hindus (900 million).

Daniel Dennett examines the relationship between atheism and evolution. He shows how matter has evolved to produce mind, rather than matter being produced by an originating mind.

Philosopher David Brink discusses the need for a secular ethics based on objective standards. He notes that in ethical subjectivism, ethics depends on the beliefs of an appraiser, but God is an appraiser too. So religion brings subjectivity into ethics. Also, if ethics depends on God's will, then it is relative to God's will, so religion brings relativism into ethics.

Again, if God commands an action because it is good, then God and his commands are unnecessary. If an action is good because God commands it, then ethics is unnecessary and obedience to God is the only virtue. So religion, which supposedly sets ethics on an objective basis, with independent values and standards, in fact reduces ethics to subjective opinions, with no independent values or standards.

Also religion compromises morality. When eternal bliss is the reward for goodness, then selfish considerations cannot but intrude, inevitably corrupting goodness. Belief in God becomes an insurance policy.

Philosopher Andrea Weisberger writes, "The existence of evil is the most fundamental threat to the traditional Western concept of an all-good, all-powerful God." If we are morally obliged to reduce evil, then God must also be obliged. If he is all-powerful, why doesn't he prevent unnecessary suffering? Those who argue that God uses evil for some greater good are saying that God immorally uses people and their suffering as means to ends.

Philosopher Patrick Grim shows that God's traditional attributes - omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection - are all intrinsically impossible, self-contradictory idealist fantasies.

Rigorous and nonpolemical,
The theism/atheism dialogue in recent years generates a good deal more heat than light.Too frequently, champions of either position seem to think that polemics trumps rational analysis.The authors in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism refuse to treat the issue as if it were a high school debate, however.Their reasoning for the most part is rigorous and civil.That's why the collection, edited by philosopher Michael Martin (a long-time and distinguished advocate of atheism), is a genuine contribution to the conversation.

An earlier reviewer has given an good summation of the collection's contents.I would add that the essays tend to be a bit uneven in quality.Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi's "Atheists:A Psychological Profile," for example, curiously appeals to quite dated data.Christine Overall's claim that a consistent regard for liberation demands that feminists also be atheists strikes me as underdetermined.Patrick Grim's essay on impossibility arguments is solidly argued, but is impenetrable for anyone without a hefty course of logic under their belts.

On the other hand, Quentin Smith's reductio of the kalam cosmological argument is an exceptionally strong piece, and Evan Fales does a good job in a short amount of space of summarizing the naturalistic/physicalist foundation of atheism (at least atheism in the Anglo-American tradition).But perhaps the most intriguing--and important--essay in the entire collection is Gavin Hyman's "Atheism in Modern History."One of Hyman's main points is that both theism and atheism may in fact be more products of modernity than either believers or nonbelievers recognize.This is an important observation, because both theists and atheists tend to be unhistorical, thereby totalizing their claims.

All in all, a strong collection, although it's too bad that editorial modesty inhibited Michael Martin from contributing an essay.Anyone looking for rigorous analysis of atheism should focus on this volume or The Impossibility of God, also edited by Martin, and give more popular but polemical collections--such as Christopher Hedges' The Portable Atheist--a miss.
... 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
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
Anders Bjorn Drachmann (1860-1935) was a Danish classical philologist, son of the physician Andreas Georg Drachmann and half brother of the poet Holger Drachmann. In 1887 A. B. Drachmann studied classical philology and won a competition for a professorship at the University of Kristiania. In 1892 he became an associate professor at Copenhagen University. His works include: Moderne Pindarfortolkning (1891), Scholia Vetera in Pindari Carmina (1903) and Christendommens Oprindelse (1919). ... Read more

Product Description
Introduction by Carl Olson

British author Philip Pullman is widely acclaimed by critics and readers for his best-selling, award-winning trilogy, His Dark Materials. But he has been criticized by some for attacking Christianity and promoting atheism. What is the truth about Pullman and his books? What does he believe about God, religion, the Catholic Church, and atheism? What does he hope his books will accomplish? Why does he express such strong disdain for the fiction of C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien? Should children be reading the His Dark Materials trilogy, or watching the film version of The Golden Compass, the first book of the trilogy?

These are just some of the many important questions addressed by Pete Vere and Sandra Miesel in their accessible, concise, and thoroughly-researched analysis of Pullman's fiction and beliefs. The authors provide a literary critique of His Dark Materials and reveal the many premises, and often surprising literary and philosophical sources of that popular work, as well as explain the symbolism present throughout. They also compare Pullman's fiction to The Chronicles of Narnia, the Harry Potter books, and other famous works of children's fiction. And they examine the metaphysical premises and moral propositions found throughout His Dark Materials, and point out the many objectionable aspects of the books--including violence and sensuality--about which every concerned parent should know. Readers looking for a fair, firm, and non-sensational critique of His Dark Materials will find it in Pied Piper of Atheism. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

Book is fair and enlightening
Oxford man? Not sure why this matters. Pullman is not a fellow of any of the Oxford colleges and is probably, like me, one of the legions of Oxford MAs floating out there.

The point is Pullman does have an agenda that is explicitly anti-Christian and uses his books to make his case. It is a little ironic to see the atheistic-agnostic left jump and down crying "foul" when the Narnia movies come out but to purr approvingly when the shoe is on the other foot.

predictable and mean-spirited
Philip Pullman has, perhaps, said a bit too much about his own atheism.As a consequence, defenders of the faith pounce upon his books, reading for the "evils" they seek to find and ignoring the overall ethical and even potentially Christian message they impart (if loving one's neighbor remains the second great commandment).The two essayists in this book, Peter Vere and Sarah Miesel, come at Pullman's trilogy prepared to find it specifically designed to indoctrinate children to atheism and anti-Catholicism.Vere provides the clumsiest attack as it seems he really hasn't read the novels carefully.For example, he asserts that Roger is "seeking solace from the Church during a harsh Arctic blizzard" when Roger shows up at Lord Asriel's house on Svalbard, never mind that Asriel's home is about as far from the Church as anyone could get in that world--physically or spiritually. That is, alas, not the only gaffe.Miesel's essay makes for some interesting reading as she ties the novels to gnosticism and other heresies and attempts to rebut Pullman's attack on the Narnia novels.Yet like Vere, she straps the novels to her own pre-interpretation and ignores what doesn't work to her purpose of denigrating the books.

Neither writer assumes that children have the critical intelligence to read fantasy as fantasy.

The novels are open to scrutiny for their heavy-going attacks on organized religion and the Judeo-Christian world view.Christian parents might well want to discuss the issues raised by the novels with their children.Many others have written commentaries criticizing Pullman's irreligiosity.For a far stronger, more balanced, and more intelligent critique of His Dark Materials from a Christian perspective, readers would be well-served by picking up Tony Watkins's Dark Matter.

Well, alright.
It is a book that helps one think about Mr. Pullman's trilogy. But there were moments, when I read this book, where I could not help but sympathize with Mr. Pullman, as they make him to be a darker devil than he ever hoped to be. Certainly more than I hope him to be. Christians nowadays, for reasons unknown, give this Oxford man far too much credit, and a great deal too much attention. I don't suggest ignoring the man (goodness no): but why not swallow his trilogy with a smile? It is quite hard to stumble across Pullman's books without knowing what he preaches.

Furthermore, read this book AFTER reading through His Dark Materials. Whereas if you have read the trilogy, you can shuffle through this book and think to yourself, "Yes, alright, that's well and good," or "No, no; I don't think Pullman ever intended that." But for parents who desire some insight into Pullman's own head, the book does what it says. But I suggest reading Pullman himself to figure out the mind of Philip Pullman. ... Read more

Product Description
1922. Contents: Conception and Treatment of Denial of the Gods in Antiquity, Accounts of Deniers; Naive Criticism of Popular Religion, Xenophanes; Ionic Naturalism, Diagoras; Sophistic and Its Influence; Socrates and the Socratics; Hellenism; Period to the Roman Empire; Middle Ages and Recent Times; and Retrospect. ... Read more

Product Description
This title moves beyond the polemics to present an overview of atheism that is rigorous yet accessible. Interest in atheism has surged since the 'New Atheism' trinity of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens launched their attack on religious belief. Their militant, in-your-face style has delighted readers who are already nonbelievers and infuriated theists, and in the process made them best-selling authors. But the cost of their approach is that the current cultural and intellectual dialogue about atheism frequently generates more heat than light: acrimony replaces reasoned investigation, polemic overpowers philosophical analysis, and too often the outcome is confusion rather than truth. "Atheism: A Guide for the Perplexed" moves beyond the polemics to present an overview of atheism that is rigorous but still accessible to the educated layperson as well as the undergraduate student in philosophy and theology courses.After a preliminary investigation of what atheists mean when they use the words 'atheism' and 'God' - a much more complex investigation than one might suspect - the book: explores the differences and similarities between 'old' and 'new' atheism (the primary distinction is that the latter relies heavily on science whereas the former relied on philosophy and is uncompromisingly hostile to religion); places atheism of either variety in context by examining the naturalistic worldview that grounds it; provides a short historical sketch of atheism; examines a number of arguments against God-belief; investigates whether an atheist worldview is consistent with ethics and a sense of purposefulness; asks is an atheist 'spirituality' is possible; inquires into whether the current militancy against religious belief is pertinent or a red herring; and, concludes with a few suggestions for continued dialogue between believers and nonbelievers. The goal throughout is to present a balanced, non-partisan introduction to the worldview, principles, and arguments of atheism that highlights the positions strengths as well as its weaknesses."Continuum's Guides for the Perplexed" are clear, concise and accessible introductions to thinkers, writers and subjects that students and readers can find especially challenging - or indeed downright bewildering. Concentrating specifically on what it is that makes the subject difficult to grasp, these books explain and explore key themes and ideas, guiding the reader towards a thorough understanding of demanding material. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

very good introduction
This is indeed a very balanced introduction to atheism, without the polemics of dawkins et al. If you just want to know the main arguments and thoughts of atheism, i recommend this book. Easy to read, written for non academic readers. It really helped me to find my own position in the matter, without forcing . ... Read more

Customer Reviews (5)

Best Summary of Atheistic Philosophy I Have Found
"The Gods of Atheism" is an excellent book. I have not seen a more organized and honest assesment of the various philosophical objections to Christianity anywhere. Some may object to Miceli's recurrent theme, that atheisim is merely replacing God with a pagan philosophy, but his summaries of more than a dozen atheist thinkers arevery complete and honest. He fully states each thinker's case without interruption before attempting a rebuttal.

Many, many people have criticised religion over the years, and few people (myself included) have the time and energy to understand to understand the details of each point of view. Miceli does that nicely and succinctly. This alone makes the book worth reading. His criticisms of each argument are good but grounded in Catholic orthodoxy and so may not appeal to every reader. Still, very much worth reading.

Comprehensive & insightful
This is a thoroughly researched and scholastic compendium of the thought of the major atheistic philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries.One of the most excellent on the subject that I have read.

Hard to read...
...but worth it if you have an interest.No philosopher can escape from their own dogma, but the author really shows some depth of understanding in the logic of atheist philosophies.True, this book is constantly trying to discount atheist philosophies and cannot refrain from trumpeting the mores of Catholic faith at every opportunity as well.To have put forth so much effort in the study and dissection of something you don't agree with completely...well I admire the author's persistence even if I don't agree with all of his conclusions.

An Opposite Point of View
I have read the "Gods of Atheism" by Vincent Miceli, SJ, and was impressed with the approach that he took; I think my fellow philosophy book reader has overlooked some of the important nuances that Father Miceli authored.Philosophy is not written in a vacuum, nor do philosophers live in white towers; by describing the lives of these men and revealing their attitudes as well as their principles, one can better understand the impetus and force their particular philosophical approach took.Their individual philosophy lends itself to a self jusitification of their living, and, for whatever merit their rationalization has, it can hardly be separated from their everyday concrete experiences.Though brilliant in thought, nevertheless, their psychology and desires are more often served by their philosophys than not.And as a result what can be said is that we can "see" a reason for a Feuerbach, a Nietzsche, a Marx or Comte, but there is no reason to be a Feuerbachian, a Nietzschian, a Marxist or Comtean.

Bigotry dressed up as scholarship
Priest Miceli simply offers another rehash of the usual charges that unbelievers deify themselves, humanity, and their own perverted desires.In reality, it is Miceli who ends up claiming, without sufficient facts orreason, that he magically knows that his own Roman Catholic faith is theOne Truth.I had hoped to find something more imaginative and morethought-provoking than this, but that's really all he's arguing.And so itends up being nothing but an angry, delusional, and a rather patheticattack on those who don't agree with the Vatican's doctrines and dogmas. ... 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

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