atheism

Atheism: The Case Against God (Skeptic's Bookshelf)
$22.98
This is by far one of the best books I have ever read on the subject of atheism. This is not a venomous, vitriolic attack on religion. Rather, the author just lays out the arguments in favour of rational scepticism. With impeccable logic and reason, Smith carefully analyses all of the arguments that have been put forward by the great christian thinkers of the past, and shows how shallow and self-contradictory they are. I cannot recommend this book enough, it is an absolute must for anybody seeking and in-depth philosophical discourse on the case for atheism.

Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins' Case Against God
$12.95
I hate giving one star reviews. I really do. This is especially the case when I am optimistic about a book and then at the end I get completely let down. That is the feeling I got as I read through this book. With the authors being two philosophical heavy weights I was expecting some challenging arguments, but I think their arguments could, at best, be called "sophomoric", to use Alvin Plantinga's term when he criticized "The God Delusion".

"Answering the New Atheism", by two theistic philosophers Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker, attempts to poke holes in the arguments of Richard Dawkins in his bestseller, "The God Delusion". Unfortunately, while criticizing Dawkins of his own 'assumptions' about the origin of life, the authors boldly display their hypocrisy because they failed (same as anyone else) to prove their god exists to begin with. This being the case, how can they say their god created the first life if they haven't even proven "he" exists yet? The authors seem to be skipping a few steps themselves...

I don't blame many of the one-star reviews on Amazon.com which are very short explaining how bad the book was; it truly was badly argued and the final chapter was one distortion after another about Richard Dawkins and the New Atheists, telling how, if in power, "King" Richard might ban religious services, holidays, try to keep kids from learning religion, etc. It's beyond absurd to say the least.

The majority of the book dealt with theistic vs. naturalistic morality and why the christian form of morality (with a god dictating the rules) is better. Again, their hypocrisy rears its ugly head because the assumptions they criticize Dawkins for are on display when the authors assume their god's commands are moral; what if god commanded one of the authors to kill the other? Would this action, then, be "moral"? Clearly, the authors have not thought this through very well, and they seem to have ignored the well-known Euthyphro Dilemma.

While all of the arguments were bad, one was particularly interesting (though still bad). They attempted to condemn Dawkins' supposed source of morality (a strawman they used throughout the book), that of natural selection, and condemn Dawkins' morality by leveling the same complaints against natural selection that Dawkins does against god: the god christians worship is a cruel monster, and the authors make the same case against natural selection. There is a problem with this argument however. The authors clearly don't understand that humans do not follow the cruel process of natural selection regarding morality; that cruel process is what created our innate morality. This innate morality can certainly be selfish, but altruistic tendencies are very pronounced (not to mention common), even towards those of the "out group", unlike what the authors claim.

All in all, despite the horrendous arguments, the book was an easy read and the authors did a fine job in explaining their arguments in a straightforward, and easily understood fashion. It's just the authors didn't seem to understand most of the arguments Richard Dawkins makes, nor understand his views about religion, particularly, what he terms "child abuse".

If this is the best theists have to offer by the way of philosophical argument, the theists are in big trouble.

The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason
$19.00
I just finished this book and I liked it very much. It was more of a page-turner than his previous book, God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. The book flowed very well and was entertaining to read, at least for an atheist. Stenger gives a good overview of what is called the "New Atheism" and he embraces the moniker, showing in this book some of the positive aspects of this social phenomenon and providing a defense of it.

The so-called "New Atheism" is new, really, only in that it is noisier than in the past and it has some high-profile, best-selling writers in its vanguard (Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins primarily.) Otherwise, it's just atheism. (There's really only one way to reject belief in gods: It's digital.) Another perhaps new feature is that people are becoming more willing to "come out" as atheists than it seems to me was the case in the past (note the many celebrities in recent years who have announced their atheism, such as Brad Pitt and Daniel Radcliffe and the recognition given by President Obama to "non-believers" in his inauguration speech.) These best-selling atheist writers have drawn a large number of rebuttal books, of which I have read several. (Dawkins has humorously referred to them as his "fleas." Search the web for "Dawkins' fleas.") Stenger makes a small attempt to answer some of the critics of the New Atheism. I think these rebuttals could have been much more extensive. I think the book would have been well-served by being divided into two: An overview of "New Atheism" and a rebuttal, of greater length and detail, of its critics.

I particularly liked his discussion of the fine-tuning argument (for the existence of a god.) The assertion that the universe/planet is fine-tuned to life (especially human life) is refuted by evolution by natural selection, which, extremely well supported by data and nowhere falsified by the data, shows how life on earth is fine-tuned to its environment, not the other way around. (With Stenger, I'd be much more impressed by the "design" assertion if we existed where conditions were adverse to our existence: Now THAT would show outside design.) Stenger goes after the "fine-tuned universe" assertion from two angles: First with a discussion of the physical constants that are purported to be "fine-tuned," showing that they aren't; and second pointing out the obvious fact that 99.99999999 ...% of the universe is uninhabitable by humans. If this universe is "designed" for humans, why are we restricted to this one dust mote in a corner of one galaxy amongst billions? Why aren't humans common? Why didn't "the designer" design us to be able to live in the conditions on Mars and Venus (or the vacuum of space)? (He's supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent.) He also discusses the fact that the Big Bang singularity shown by Hawking and Penrose in the 1970s did not include quantum mechanics and when they are included, the singularity does not result, as publicly noted by Hawking. (Creationists like to point to the now-abandoned Hawking/Penrose singularity calculation as the moment of God's special creation of the universe.)

I also particularly liked his discussion of how absence of evidence, in some cases, can be evidence of absence. (Contra the old saw: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.") When a hypothesis is expected to have certain outcomes in the real world, and it doesn't, this does count as evidence against it. This is essentially the same as performing an experiment to test the hypothesis. We look for an expected outcome, it isn't there, and the conclusion is that the data tend to refute the hypothesis: It's not a neutral result.

Many believers will assert the old saw that people will run amok if they don't believe in (that person's particular flavor of) God (that is: morality is derived from god or religion). As wrongly attributed to Dostoevsky: "If God does not exist, everything is permitted" (though this sentence does capture the thinking of Dostoevsky's character Ivan Karamazov, and some characters in the book do say "everything is permitted/lawful.") Stenger points out that the real-life data do not support this assertion. Among the countries with the highest scores for quality of life and happiness are the most atheistic ones. There is a negative correlation between quality of life measures and religiosity among nations. There are, at a minimum, 30 million American atheists now. Are they running amok? Of course not. And they are, in addition to being your neighbors, friends, and coworkers, represented in prisons and psychiatrists' offices proportionally to their fraction of the population. Atheists and religious people test out exactly the same when given moral dilemmas to solve in controlled psychological experiments. In addition, all the aspects of morality described in the Judeo-Christian Bible predate it in many (probably all) societies around the world. Religion conforms to evolved human morality, not the other way around.

Stenger's book succeeds in showing what the "New Atheism" is and outlining some of the criticism it has drawn. Where he comes up short is in his attempt to provide a positive atheist alternative to the worldview provided by religions. He introduces a Taoist-flavored naturalism as a model, which didn't make much sense to me. I've read the Tao Te Ching several times, and though decent poetry and, like most books of proverbs, filled with some good (and universal) wisdom/thoughts, I certainly don't find a world-view in it. (It is consistent with naturalism though.) When you understand "spiritual" feelings to be a product of brain activity, the need for "spirituality" goes away.

I agree with some of the other criticisms of this book, in some places. It does read rather choppy ("choppily" seems really awkward) in a few places. Some of his assertions made me raise my eyebrows, such as the assertion that Stalin reached a working accommodation with the Russian Orthodox Church. He gives a reference, which I admit I did not follow up, but it seems far-fetched based on other data. His count of the number of atheists in the world seems open to questioning by critics as well (though not his numbers for the US.) And, as other's have noted, his choice of sources for some of his discussion leaves him open to criticism (although I would not propose using religious apologists as sources either, except to examine their criticisms.)

Recommended.

50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God
$17.98
I stumbled across this book while perusing a dark, tucked away corner of my local Barnes and Noble. This is the "Atheist" section as I call it, although they won't even label it that. You almost feel naughty traveling back there, to that quiet corner, as if someone has tried to put these books in a place no one will likely go looking for them.

Harrison writes his book with a modest triumph in spite of society's animosity for the topic. You open it up and find that the raving atheist looney author simply isn't there (not to say that Hitchens, Dawkins, and like are insane, but their tactics are at times a bit tact-less). No, instead what we find ourselves with is an incredibly intelligent conversation with people's beliefs. Its a straight forward, intellectual hard-ball approach, don't get me wrong. However, instead of slaughtering the village in his crusade, Harrison sits them down for tea and thoroughly explains himself in their native tongue before sending the villagers on their way.

I've used this book in just about every religious conversation I've found myself in. Its a high recommendation for believers and non, and I truly wish more people would have a go at it. I couldn't help but underline and write in the margins while reading it.

If you have read this review you are clearly interested enough in the topic that I would definitely recommend you to BUY THIS BOOK! :)