5 comments about The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World.

1. Alistair McGrath has written, for someone who enjoys history, an interesting look into the people and events of the past that made an impact on how theists and atheists view their respective philosophies. In that sense, the book deserves (imo) 5 stars. I gave it 3 stars because I think that Mr. McGrath gives too much credit to these forerunners of unbelief as far as modern atheism is concerned. Most of the atheists I know, and I know quite a few, came to atheism not from Freud or Feuerbach, but from being raised in a religious family and finding it all a bit suspicious. Most atheists were not raised by atheists. Many of them attended religious schools and entered adulthood as believers. It is not Voltaire that makes them change to atheism, but the Bible or the Book of Mormon or the Quran. One person can read the Quran and weep at the beauty and insight contained on its pages. Another person throws it aside as the ravings of a madman who heard voices. One person pores over the Bible as the Guide to Life, the Universe and Everything, while another person can't get over the stories of talking snakes, big fish that swallow people and a magician that walks on water and turns water into wine for parties to see what the big deal is about. It is all a matter of perspective. And of course atheists come across as angry -- they are usually treated like they're the devil by religious folk who hate and fear them. Why not be a little miffed? If Alistair McGrath expects atheists to accept his decision to believe in Jesus and be a Christian, one would hope that he would respect those who looked at the same evidence and came up with a different verdict.



2. I found this book very helpful in understanding the latest round of religion-intolerant books on atheism by such authors as Dawkins and Hitchens. After reading this book, I can now see those books, if anything, represent a high-decibel death knell of atheism as a credible unifying movement. McGrath does an excellent job of approaching the historical issues from a secular perspective and explaining the changing fortunes of atheism as they vary in place, in time or history, and in the lifetime of some of its proponents. The current wave of atheism is obviously even less attractive than its past manifestations and sadly lacking the arguably redeeming moral force that may have characterized atheists in the past as a natural reaction to cirumstances of oppression. In sum, a very enlightening book and necessary reading before any discussions on atheism between atheist and believer. No sense reinventing the wheel out of thin air when history explains much and can avoid much argumentation, there being little new of any value in the noisy current arguments for atheism that hasn't already been fully discussed and considered in the past. Atheists will continue to be a part of the diversity of life on this planet, at least on an individual basis, if not part of any mass movement. The role of religion in society and its moral underpinnings is an important subject, so understanding its critics and their misconceptions is a worthwhile endeavor.
   The book is intelligently and well written, an enjoyable read. I subtract one star mainly because this book is not a definitive study or very comprehensive given the scope of the subject. If there is a better history of atheism for the general reader, however, I am unaware of it.



3. McGrath, of all the theologians today, is qualified to address this topic. His style is accessible to most readers. His thinking is clear and provocative. However, his conclusion is not proving to be true in 2007. In fact, more books on atheism have been written and are great successes than in many years. Whether it is Dawkins' God Delusion or Christopher Hitchens' god is not Great, the fact is they are more successful than was anticipated. They open a new dialogue on what it means to be an atheist. McGrath has failed his case.



4. 
   This is the first book I have read on atheism by a believer and it has useful information. But there is more to be said on this subject



5. If you are expecting to find in this book good arguments for the existence of God you are better off just reading the Bible. This book is a waste of money.
   
   "Fall of Disbelief?," where have McGrath been? It's all in the news: fewer and fewer people are joining the ranks of ministers and priests, and fewer and fewer people are attending masses and Sunday services.
   
   Belief and non-belief are not clear-cut issues as believers would have us believe. While believers would gloss over this matter when tackling non-belief, among those who claim to be believers are themselves non-believers. The Jews, the Muslims, not to mention the Buddhists, the Taoists and the Hindi, are non-believers to the eyes of Christians who profess Jesus Christ to be God himself. The Jews, the Muslims, the Buddhists, the Taoists and the Hindi profess entirely different gods and are, therefore, unbelievers between and among themselves. Belonging to an organized religion does not make one a believer.

5 comments about Can Man Live Without God.

1. Ravi has probably reached the epitome of his philosophical genius with this monumental work. This is by far one of the most valuable resources and introductions to the Christian worldview in my library. Ravi sets a new course in the field of Christian apologetics by viewing and addressing secular worldviews in a way that really only he could pull off well. Instead of writing a book proving the existence of a God, a task that he has already shown he is well up to, he gives this idea very little ground in this book, really relegating that stream of argument to the Appendices. Instead, he seeks to demonstrate to the reader the consequences of their particular worldviews - he does not try to prove or disprove them (though some of that still shows up occasionally), but instead goes through the philosophies of not only atheists and Christians, but other religions as well, showing where each train of thought leads, both through logic and experience.
   Here there are more than a few critics that jump in and take issue with Ravi's treatment of the subject. For example, the issue of Stalin, addressed in earlier reviews on this site. However, I note to the reviewers that Ravi never said that Stalin's path was the only path of an atheist. No, in fact, repeatedly he states that in fact many atheists are just the opposite, people who are good, fair, and kind, who view the world with goodwill, not with hatred like Stalin or Hitler. But here is the ultimate question, then: Are the actions of Stalin and Hitler products of their worldview? The answer can only be yes. There is enormous historical evidence supporting this claim. Hitler did not admire Jesus - if for nothing else, he would have hated him for being a Jew! Hitler used false claims of personal faith in Christianity to advance his own ambition and force the Church to stay out of his affairs. Stalin did not even bother with that. Nothing in these men's worldviews were logical outflowings of the teachings of the Bible. Quite the opposite.
   On the other hand, though, there is an undeniable link between the philosophy of Nietzsche and the worldviews of these two evil men, a link that Ravi clearly outlines. The issue is not whether Nietzsche was a homicidal maniac obsessed with power or not; the issue is the fact that the philosophy of Nietzsche logically led to the deadly philosophy of Hitler and Stalin. Nietzsche, in effect, did not live his life in accordance with his philosophy on life - Hitler, on the other hand, did.
   The point? Ravi makes a brilliant case that the worldview of the atheist is just as ugly in its ramifications as the worldview of Hitler, whether or not its adherents are living according to the philosophy they hold or not.
   On this note, then, one can refute the counter-argument used in some of the reviews on this site. What about 'Christian' atrocities? The persecution of Jews in the Middle Ages? The horrific and bloody Crusades? The answer, Ravi states firmly, is that the men who ordered and carried out these acts were not living according to the Christian worldview they professed to hold - they simply used the banner of Christianity to advance their own greed and malice. The Bible does not endorse any of these atrocities, neither does a worldview firmly grounded in the Bible allow for these crimes.
   In addition to all of this, Ravi outlines a truly outstanding look at how, practically, the worldview of atheism leaves the man without God as without ultimate meaning, significance, hope, love, truth, or even lasting joy. How can there be any of these things when all we are is simply a bundle of skin, bones, muscles, nerves, and a puny brain that breaks down in a pathetic 120 years at the most, with no life after death, with no reason to live for others in a life where the most we can do is have as much fun as we can before its all over. Sure, we can have a fleeting sensation of joy, a passing stab of love, a misguided hope, but in the end, its all gone, and we are no more. How sad! How pointless an existence! Yet, logically, this is the path of atheism. Any atheist who claims otherwise, if his worldview is correct, is simply living under an illusion.
   But Ravi points out the alternative - the Christian worldview. In it, we have a logical and incredibly strong foundation for ultimate knowledge, meaning, love, hope, truth, joy, and so many other benefits!
   Again, as Ravi indeed reminds us, this is with the assumption that there is a God. If there is not, then Christians are merely fooling ourselves with an illusion, a fantasy land of happiness, when Hitler and Stalin had the right idea all along - live for yourself, and enjoy it while it lasts.
   Thankfully, Ravi gives a short, yet very powerful, list of proofs of the existence of God to back up the foundation of his book. Indeed, I found the Appendices one of the richest parts of the book! Take his recommendations and read the books he lists as further reading. Once one has established the existence of God as overwhelmingly true (and believe me, there are arguments out there that I have yet to hear any atheist refute), then this book has all the more power and punch to its message.
   In summary, this is a book to read, whether you are a Christian, Moslem, Jew, or atheist, or any other adherent to a belief system. Ravi is a masterful philosopher, an unmatched apologist, a sympathetic and easy-to-understand author, and a humble man. This is definitely one of the classics in its field.



2. The reason I have chosen to write this review is that I want express how depraved and offensive I found this book to be.
   
   Zacharias attempts to blame rationalism for immorality. So, therefore if one was to follow this train of thought to natural conclusion any Philosopher who attempts comtemplate human existence rationally and logically is encouraging immorality. Excuse me??? Any thinker who after honestly engaging in serious contemplation reaches the profound realization that they cannot ethically and honestly subscribe to a belief in God lacks a moral centre. Excuse me??? The role of the Philosopher is to search for the truth. It clear, however, that Zachiarias' purpose is to twist the truth to trick people into subscribing to organized religion, specifically Christianity. This is extremely obvious through his constant use of the term "anti-theist". Instead of referring to individuals who have decided that they cannot subscribe to a belief in God as Agnostics, Atheists, or nonbelievers. This is just one method which Zacharias uses to go out of his way to demean and harass such indicauls by any means he can.
   
   The claim that all nonbelievers lack a moral centre is absolutely insaine and repugnant. There are plenty of nonbelievers who live exceptionally moral live i.e. Oskar Schindler. Therefore this is a completely morally bankrupt and dishonest book.



3. Despite what many will say about this book, Ravi Zacharias is one of the best writers found within Christianity today. Can man live without God? No. But, sadly enough, there's plenty of people (such as such popular Christianphobics and Godphobics like Dawkins and Sam Harris) out there willing to give it a try. Thus a book like this is both helpful and, sadly, not helpful to Christians such as you and I. It is helpful because, truth be told, not truth made by man but truth brought forth by God, only (as God Himself points out aplenty) a fool could look around and say there is no God. One of the biggest problems with apologetics is that you can have all the proof in the world for such things as Jesus Christ, Intelligent Design, and so forth, but a blind man will still be a blind man if there is no recognition of blindness. And thus the atheist and the humanist sinks deeper and deeper into his own self worship--worshiping himself as his own god because there is no other god but the atheist's/humanist's ego. Worship that involves nihilism dressed as "reasoning," while believing such matrixes as evolution as the Genesis of man.
   
   Still, a work like this by Zacharias helps you and I to realize just how sinful we ourselves are and our sinful the world is. The world around us is filled with poverty, school shootings, war, rumors of war, and so much more--and if the humanists truly bring America into being a secular nation, a nation that is politically correct toward all but Christians (which is what the atheist and the humanist liberal wants to do), then we will indeed see more of these social and global travesties. I dare say that this is true, that the more the atheists and the humanists secularize the world, the more kids you will see shot at schools, the more drugs you will see sold in the corporations, the more teen pregnancies and abortions you'll see in the clinics. Why? Because to try to live without God means that you have no comprehension of morality, truth, and life everlasting. We cannot live without God, and we who call upon the Lord through Jesus Christ must recognize this empirical paradigm--we cannot live a life in this world, truly live a life in this world, if we do not recognize our base need to be with our Heavenly God through Jesus Christ. We must have God just as we must have breath, we must have God just as we must have our blood coursing through our veins. We cannot live life without God because we would be turning our back on true life, eternal true life, that is found only in God through Jesus Christ.
   
   As Zacharias points out in chapter after chapter, the atheist truly has no reasoning and "logic" and "comprehension." The atheist has no answers toward those pressing questions that we all feel--from questions about suffering, questions about loneliness, questions about insecurity, questions about history and the lives of man in history. The atheist only believes that man must always be his own god so that man will know (or so the atheist believes, as Zacharias points out) how to truly live life. Yet man is blind. Man is deaf. Only God, as Zacharias points out, can fully answer our questions if we truly seek Him to answer these questions. We may have doubts, we may have tears, but if we truly allow God--in the fullness of time and place and station--to bring us the answers, then indeed we will have those answers. And those questions will always lead to the utmost of truths, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Son of Man who came into this world through virgin birth, lived a life of sinlessness, healed the sick, made the blind man see, spoke to the heart and the mind and the soul, then died upon the Cross and rose again on the Third Day so that we (through Him who brings us to the Father) will have eternal life.
   
   Still, though we truly must stand against the humanist and their full desire to destroy by their own version of apologetics this country and our children in this country and this world. This can be done only through faith in God through Christ and living a life for our Lord God. We must not be egotistical ourselves, nor must we think of ourselves as better than them. We are just as poor as they are, spiritually, physically, we need God just like they do...the only difference is that Christ has opened our eyes because we have truly desired for Christ to open our eyes to our own self poverty. Yes we must have love for these sinners who are just as sinful as we are. For these people are those who need God through Christ just as much as we need God through Christ. Furthermore, we must also have pity toward these poor misguided fools (not my words, but God's position toward those who fail to see Him when He is there clear as day) who only desire is for their own self interest.
   
   Thus I say to you that you must witness to the atheist, not through badgering or through heckling, but through love...the love of Christ that is suppose to shine in our hearts and minds and souls. We must do this because we must show the world that God so loved the World that He gave His only Son so that we wont have to die eternally, but instead have everlasting real life reasoned life in Him. Read this book by Zacharias, and I dare say to read his other fine books. His works will help you to understand your own need, your own desires, your own doubts, and your own hopes that can be answered by just laying them before the Resurrected One.



4. I personally really enjoyed this book. I found Ravi's arguments compelling and thoughtful. So, I gave a copy of the book to an atheist friend. A few weeks later he returned it with a note that said "You may wish to sow this in more fertile ground."
   
   What's one man's treasure is another man's trash. I believe the best use of this book will be for Christians to read and understand Ravi's arguments, and be prepared to use them in personal discussion with friends and loved ones. Man can't live without God, but men/women who are without God don't realize it.



5. In a nutshell, Ravi Zacharias's Can Man Live Without God is a work whose premise is that we as individuals and as a society need God, the Christian God, to live meaningful lives. The main thrust of the reasoning in this book is that atheism, or "antitheism" as Zacharias puts it, is harmful or even deadly. "Antitheism" is defined as the denial of God's existence.
   
   Some of the key points presented in this book include
   
   Material affluence results in "anguish."
   Living without God makes life unlivable if antitheism is "consistently carried through."
   Hitler "lived without God" which explains his genocidal actions.
   Stalin's genocide was a result of his being an atheist.
   Antitheists have no "rational basis" for morality.
   Antitheism provides no solace for hurting people.
   Antitheistic philosophers like Nietzsche and Russell are at fault for social problems such as divorce.
   For antitheists, life has no meaning.
   
   You can make what you wish of the above assertions, but Zacharias does a good job of writing about the issues raised. His book is interesting and provocative, and he fills its pages with many heart-tugging examples to illustrate some of its most salient points. I found myself taking time out from other activities to read it.
   
   Who will like Can Man Live Without God? I'd recommend it to anybody who's interested in the debate waged between atheists and Christians regarding not only the existence of God but how the ideas that may result from belief and disbelief can impact society. I believe that Christians in particular might appreciate this book because it may strengthen their faith when it comes under fire by skeptics.
   
   Being a skeptic myself, I unsurprisingly have some criticisms of this work. First and foremost, I must call Zacharias to task for not providing data for his claims. All of the evidence he provides is anecdotal, and anybody with a modicum of scientific knowledge may ask where the statistics are to demonstrate that "antitheists" are more likely to be violent or despotic than those who believe in the Christian God.
   
   What might possibly be even more obviously amiss with this book is Zacharias not explaining which Gods we presumably cannot live with or without. As a former Hindu, he should be acutely aware that there are more than two viewpoints on the existence of God, atheism and Christianity. What of Jews, Muslims, and Hindus? They have their Gods yet they don't believe in the Christian God. Do they suffer from the same maladies that antitheists allegedly do? If so, then one can believe in God but still be as bad off as Zacharias believes antitheists are. If not, then the Christian God is not necessary to live one's life with morality and meaning.
   
   In closing, I'd recommend Can Man Live Without God. It's interesting, provocative, and reflective of the ideological struggle between modern rationalism and traditional Christian belief. It does leave me with a question for debate: Can Christians live without apologists like Zacharias?

5 comments about Away With All Gods!: Unchaining the Mind and Radically Changing the World.

1. For those who believe that God is a creature of the human imagination, this is your book. Bob Avakian has done his research well. Drawing from history and theology, Avakian makes his case without the flaming rhetoric often heard from the Christian Fundamentalists.
   
   He notes that under the Judeo/Christian/Islamic religions, exploitation, oppression, violence and poverty continue to be widespread, and that the concept of "sin" teaches the suffering that their misery is their own fault.
   
   You may not agree with Avakian's solution - Communism - but the people who would buy this book probably have open minds, and no author could ask for more.



2. Author is preaching to the choir, those who've already broken with religious belief. That's fine, but if this is supposed to be an agitational work drawing people away from religion, it probably won't. In its crude depiction of religious concepts, and basic errors reflecting lack of study and sensitivity, it will immediately alienate religious believers. It may provide some readers with a laugh or two but it's unlikely to move many from religion to atheism. It's also not likely to convert many to the RCP political line that depicts "Christian Fascism" as a major pressing threat. This is a sloppily conceptualized and written book.



3. Is religion far more harmful than it's worth? "Away with All Gods!: Unchaining The Mind And Radically Changing The World" certainly believes so. Calling out Religion as a roadblock to scientific, moral, and political progress that oppresses people on terms of race, beliefs, and gender, author Bob Aviakian makes a call to action against all belief systems that stand in the way of social progress and world peace, stating that religion is not a necessary element to solid moral values and peace of mind. "Away with All Gods!: Unchaining the Mind and Radically Changing the World" is a must for any who seek a dissenting opinion for religious studies shelves and for anyone who is disillusioned with their God or gods.



4. This book was a disappointment from both a philosophical and atheist point of view. The writer in no way addresses all gods but rather just the most crude understanding of the Christian God.
   
   One long empty rant!



5. I found this to be a rather boring rant. The author has a point of view that I did not find interesting or helpful. He was prone to go on long boring discussions of irrelevant topics.

5 comments about Why I Rejected Christianity: A Former Apologist Explains.

1. John W. Loftus delivers a very in-depth, thoroughly researched account of why he left christianity. Loftus presents a very informative and detailed analysis of critical sections of the bible, both from the old and the new testament. There is no discernible anger or bitterness with regard to the author's rejection of christianity, he simply reached a point where he could no longer ignore his intellectual doubts. Overall, I found 'Why I rejected christianity' to be very interesting and insightful from beginning to end. Loftus corroborates his arguments with references to esteemed bible scholars like Bart Ehrman, and provides readers with suggested reading lists throughout the book. Similar in many ways to Dan Barker's book 'Losing faith in faith', 'Why I rejected christianity' is written from the perspective of somebody who spent years defending christianity from intellectual attack. All in all, I found the book to be very thought-provoking. This book is not written with the express purpose of making people reject their faith, rather it is intended to stimulate christian readers to critically reexamine traditional tenets of christianity. Recommended.



2. Excellent book. When I first ordered it, I was teeter-tottering on my faith, well leaning towards atheism truthfully, but he shreds the principals of Christianity so logically; this author is bound to leave anyone spellbound. I recommend this book to any Christian having doubts about their faith, or even a devout Christian to get another perspective. Shane Lindsley, author of Enemies Among Us.



3. The summaries already written by other buyers pretty much cover what I want to say about this book. My only real qualms with it are some typos that occasionally pop up...
   
   It's a great summary of all of the arguments one can muster against the Christian faith. Some astounding things about this book...
   
   -Loftus still loves and respects most of his Christian friends despite being rejected by his community and accused of rape that he did not commit./
   -Loftus has an incredibly rich source of material. Every paragraph is ridden with reference after reference after reference. The person most likely to read this kind of book will recognize many of the titles Loftus cites, but he's got a few dozen more up his sleeve! He recognizes that what he wants to say has already been said to a much more effective degree than how he might be able to say it, so he quotes a lot. No problem there! He's also got some great lines of his own: "If Christians want to maintain that God doesn't curtail our free human actions, then how does prayer get answered at all? When we pray for safety as we leave our house, how does that prayer have even a remote chance of being answered, if there is a predator out there who is going to meet up with us? If God does not stop this predator's free choices, or anyone else's for that matter, how can any prayer that involves free human choices have a remote chance to be answered?" He treatment of many topics like this is brilliant.
   -Loftus does not get bogged down in a lot of the science one can mount against Creationism/YE Creationism/ID; one should read "Scientists Confront Creationism" for all the science they can take!
   
   
   I'm only about halfway through and am very impressed.



4. ***THE OUTSIDER TEST FOR FAITH (OTF) (pp. 40-46) [Updated: June 13, 2008]
   (From `Why I Rejected Christianity' and soon to be `Why I Became an Atheist' by John Loftus)
   
   
   The OTF may work on simpler things like investigating a murder case but not on religious issues, comparatively speaking. When it comes to religious inquiry, people (theists and non-theists alike) can never truly have the eye of the "outsider." Michael Shermer is right in saying that "the facts of the world come to us through the colored filters of the theories, hypotheses, hunches, biases, and prejudices... ALL of us do this" (p. 43, emphasis added).
   
   
   We are all trapped in the world of presuppositions due to our individual world views, etc. that there is no way to truly detach ourselves from them and do an "outsider's eye" approach, without assuming a particular position (e.g., theism, agnosticism, or atheism).
   
   
   Two responses follow.
   
   
   [1]..........John Loftus wants us to put our religious beliefs aside and adopt what he calls "the assumption of skepticism." He argues that such presumption "is justified by the religious diversity around the globe" (p. 46).
   
   
   How does one actually do the OTF without assuming agnosticism or atheism? Loftus suggests that using the OTF leads one to agnosticism and then onward to denial of his religious faith and an embracement of atheism, like it did Loftus. But, of course, if one starts out with the presumption of skepticism (which seems tantamount to agnosticism), then the end product is - - - Guess what? The presumption of skepticism!!!
   
   
   As to the author's answer to a possible vicious circularity on his part, he says it is not, "For I have very good initial grounds for starting out with skepticism in the first place, given the RDVT and the RDPT" (p. 46). Is Loftus successful?
   
   
   Notice that Loftus' initial grounds are not the data found in RDVT/RDPT per se; rather, it is his own skepticism in view of RDVT/RDPT (that is to say, his own INTERPRETATION of the data colored with his BENT TO AGNOSTICISM/ATHEISM). Here, Loftus fails to escape the vicious circularity, and it continues to haunt him. Why? Because, in his skepticism, he cannot detach himself from his bent to agnosticism/atheism.
   
   
   [2].........Loftus admits that his own skepticism is not exempt from cultural conditioning. He writes, "I don't object to being skeptical of my own skepticism" (p. 46). Yet he claims that this does not undercut his point; rather, it supports it. Really?
   
   
   The author does not seem to realize the fact that - - - the vicious circularity of his advancement of the OTF approach (namely, he interprets RDVT/RDPT data with his agnostic/atheist glasses on) - - - RENDERS his whole point as SELF-DEFEATING.
   
   
   Norman Geisler rightfully points this out: "Loftus does not seem to be aware of their self-defeating nature... The truth is that the outsider test is self-defeating since by it every agnostic should be agnostic about his own agnosticism and every skeptic would be skeptical of his own skepticism" (Christian Apologetics Journal, Spring 2007, p. 105).
   
   
   Loftus, in his debunkingchristianity site, complains, "But I had already acknowledged and dealt with this type of argument in that same chapter.... How Dr. Geisler can say that I'm not aware of this objection astounds me, even if in the end he disagrees with me." But Loftus did NOT even attempt to justify his agnostic view (masked with `presumption of skepticism'). He merely ASSUMES it to be true.
   
   
   A contributor to Loftus' website, Former_Fundy, comes back with a critique of Geisler's review of the book. He says that people "should try to see their world view as someone outside of their particular belief system would see it. They should read those from opposing world views and talk to people from different cultures and religions. By doing so, it will shed light on the true weaknesses of their particular system of thought (whether that system be evangelical Christianity or atheism)." So far so good.
   
   
   But Former_Fundy fumbles in his next footstep. For he continues, "Geisler seems to be arguing for assuming something to be true until it's proven false whereas Loftus is saying to assume something to be false until its proven true. In my opinion, more advances in human thought and understanding are made by following the latter methodology."
   
   
   First of all, Former_Fundy misses Geisler's point. One can see this in the context of Geisler's writing. (By the way, the journal can be purchased at www.ses.edu.)
   
   
   Second, the fact is, Loftus is going above and beyond the latter methodology. For he is ASSUMING, did you get that, ASSUMING agnosticism as THE TRUTH. In fact, he is advising religious people to do the same: "Since it's overwhelmingly true that the presumption you being with will be the one you will end up with, I suspect that if someone is wiling to take the challenge of the Outsider Test then her religious faith will be found defective and she will abandon it" (p. 44).
   
   
   Third and finally, at best, the OTF allows us to question other people's points of view. The OTF does NOT logically allow us to arbitrarily start with the assumption that agnosticism or atheism is that which corresponds to reality.
   
   
   Thus, John Loftus' "Outsider Test for Faith" does not work logically. One's attempt to apply the OTF will find himself making self-defeating and circular claims, as embodied in Loftus' arguments. If you, dear reader, wish to abandon Christianity via the OTF approach, that's your choice. But you are sorely mistaken for reasons provided above. And realize that you might be gambling your own soul; but that is a separate discussion altogether, of course.
   
   
   I'd strongly recommend the book for Christian apologists to study and be familiar with and have fun in doing so!
   
   
   P.S. - As soon as the updated version (being published by Prometheus) comes out, I'll update my comments here. Among others, it might have a better argument for the OTF. I might comment on other parts of the book when I find the time.



5. This book takes real determination to get thru. His philosophical aurguements are outrageously tough to follow. They reminded me of the proofs in my old college Calculus text. I never got a thing out of them either. And what's worse, he doesn't bother to define his specialized philosophy terms. As a Philosophy instructor, he should know that that's unacceptable. I think he's too emotionally tied to the topic. His desire to prove himself right overwhelms his duty to write a readable book.
   
   However, I gave it 3 stars, because I still managed to get a lot out of it.

5 comments about Doubt: A History: The Great Doubters and Their Legacy of Innovation from Socrates and Jesus to Thomas Jefferson and Emily Dickinson.

1. I was excited to read this book after reading the review on it and I wasn't disappointed. This book is a must read for all atheists, free thinkers, brights, or humanist. It makes you feel proud to know that us skeptics or unbelievers, have a great history of people who have been skeptics about religious claims. You hardly ever hear about the history of atheism and its a shame because we really do have a a great history to be proud of, and this book tells you about it.
   
   PS- It's not surprising that the people who gave this book a bad review are religious people. It's hard to read about the history of atheism and realize its more beautiful then the history of religion.



2. This book has been called 'magisterial' (Publisher's Weekly) and the ever interesting-and-quirky Garrison Keillor calls it 'bold and brilliant'. This praise is deserved, I think, because Hecht addresses an important, neglected subject. And she's hot, in a nerdtastic way -- I love her photo on the back of the HarperSanFrancisco paperpack.
   
   'Doubt' is an excellent ramble through history, and the bibliography gives you a good source for further reading. Hecht hits most of the high points ably, and she manages to pull off the difficult trick of being both passionate and objective.The index is well-done. She writes very well, if sometiimes *too* simply.
   
   I have only a couple quibbles with the book. First, maps should have been included -- especially when she discussed the clockwise migration of doubt around the Mediteranean from the fall of Rome until the Renaissance. Here, here 'hands of the clock' metaphor is a bit strained, and without maps it's downright vapid. Second, she perhaps over-corrects, emphasizing women free-thinkers. Although I think this correction is needed, sometimes it drifts free of context, and the book seems to be about the role of women in free thinking, rather than free thought itself -- especially in the 17 and 18 hundreds. Finally (and significantly, I'd say), Hecht totally misses the boat on Darwin: a few scant sentences are granted him, and as his biographers have compellingly argued, he was a quintessential doubter. I would have been perfectly happy if she'd said something like 'Darwin, great doubter, see other sources', but she ddn't. She just breezed by. Fundamentally, I think she is much more comfortable in letters than in science, and it tells here. (Yes, her discussion of Einstein is better than that for Darwin -- but less essential, and therefore it compounds the omission).
   
   Overall, a well-orgainzed, lucidly written overview. My copy won't be going to the library book sale.



3. This is my first review for [...], but I feel like I need to share my thoughts on Jennifer Michael Hecht's survey of doubt because of my response to how she has done us a great favor in putting this before us.
   This is not intended to be a complete, in-depth treatise on the entire history of doubt. What Hecht has done is to illustrate the surprising ways that doubt has informed our societies over the past 2600 years. Doubt has led to change, to revolution, to enlightenment and to freedom. None of these things could have been achieved by faith in revealed religion.
   Hecht includes the philosphers we have never heard much of, people who lit candles in the darkness and said "Wait, this doesn't make sense!" It is a history of challenge, courage and seeking further answers than provided by our priests, gods and kings.
   And it is a survey. It can't be all-inclusive, but what it has inspired in me is to seek out further readings of the men and women who came before us and dared to ask what the universe was made of if not the manifestations of gods. So, read it and keep it as a reference.
   The author lets in glimpses of her own personal beliefs and so it is not a purely scholarly work; but I hope it does for you as it has done for me in opening up pathways of exploration that may never have occurred to you in the past. And finally, a brief excerpt from the final chaper:
   "People should be able to speak to each other about doubt without having to establish all of the old arguments every time the conversation begins again. Doubters and believers alike should know that Epicurus and Lucretius, the books of Job and Ecclesiastes, and the teachings of the Buddha have been remarkably constant resources in the history of unbelief. So has the whole history of Skepticism and doubt in our ability to know the world from the Carvaka, Socrates, Pyrrho, Sextus Empiricus, Montaigne, Charron, Hume, Bayle, through to all of the modern skeptics."



4. *If you're a doubter, you belong to a very old tradition!
   This book is excellent: it's exhaustive and interesting, the only imperfection being that some sections are overly detailed (and thus LONG).
   
   *I found a really clumsy mistake towards the end of the book. On page 472, the author quotes two very different Zen masters, both with the same family name, Suzuki (first Daisetz Teitaro, then Shunryu), erroneously thinking they are one and the same person!
   
   *Read this book if you want to know about your intellectual ancestry.



5. I hate the term "popular" history. It seems to imply something written in a back room for mass consumption. Perhaps this book will give it its good reputation back.
   
   The history of Doubt is certainly not a subject you would think communicable to the average person, but Hecht does it with wit and clarity, without sacrificing objectivity and scholarly authority. My only objection is that one might wish she had gone a little deeper in some spots but, in order to take along the average reader, she would have risked taking them into a forest of the arcana and the trivial, along with doubling its length. Guides to further reading are plentiful in the bibliography.
   
   There is no doubt this doubter was pleased by the journey, and instructed along the way.

5 comments about Philosophers without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life.

1. The first half of Philosophers Without Gods - Journeys - introduces a range of issues pertaining to the debate between theists and atheists with engaging, first-person narratives of how the philosopher in question moved from faith to atheism. Without saying so explicitly, these autobiographical essays reinforce the connections between philosophy and the lives of the real people from which it emerges. (Interestingly, the beginning point for most of these journeys is faith rather than neutrality or indifference.) For some the movement towards atheism was a source of unmitigated liberation while for others the movement entailed genuine costs. The acknowledgement by atheists that theistic belief, whatever its shortcomings, can nevertheless offer consolation and moral guidance is one of the collection's strengths.
   
   The second half of the collection - Reflections - contains more conventional philosophical essays that raise issues such as how one goes about defining the God in which one does or does not believe, alternatives to theism such as Aristotle's notion of human flourishing, self-deception, and how much "respect" theism deserves. Like all collections, some of these essays are more compelling than others but there are several gems here, such as David Owen's essay "Disenchantment" and Elizabeth Secord Anderson's survey of the morality in the Bible.
   
   Overall, this is a well-written and accessible collection that exposes the issues between theists and atheists largely without philosophical jargon and the unfortunate, but all too frequentr, rancor that typically characteriszes those debates. (The reviewer is the author of The Search for Meaning: A Short History.)The Search for Meaning: A Short History



2. Narrow-mindedness, smug feelings of superiority, intolerance and more. Exactly the things they accuse theists of being and, yet, they somehow fail to see it in themselves. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? (Matthew 7:3)
   
   Now, if that was all you were to read, you might think that I disliked this book. Any time I say something negative about atheist writings, people assume I'm saying it from a knee-jerk theist position. I am not so far removed from being an atheist, myself, but there is something in all of the atheist writings that I've encountered which really bothers me.
   
   I enjoyed most of this book. In fact, there is something worth reading in each of the essays. My favorite essay, if I had to pick one right now, would be Reasonable Religious Disagreements by Richard Feldman. Too bad that, in the end, he turned out to be less reasonable than his students, whom he found fault in for being too respectful and tolerant of others beliefs. My least favorite requires no reflection at all... that would be Thank Goodness! by Daniel C Dennett. Regardless of his personal beliefs, the scope of his ingratitude toward others and their kindnesses toward him is unforgivable. He is exactly the type of person that fosters feelings of wariness and mistrust toward atheists.
   
   What I most disliked about the book is that it seemed so many of them were using the same playbook. The same terms, the same arguments. If I never hear/see the term "fellow feeling" again it will be too soon.
   
   I don't think there was really much new in the way of their arguments against God. Well, actually, I should say against Christianity because that really seems to be the object of their criticisms. On the other hand, the book is not overly offensive (and I say this, not as a theist, but as a de facto atheist) and so is likely to actually be read by theists. Still, I would like to see someone come up with an original argument. Arguing that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence", as Georges Rey does, just doesn't fly. His assertion that everyone knows this is a bit disingenuous. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
   
   I have no issues with the atheist belief that there is no God. I do think, however, that, at least in the writings that I have seen, they hurt their own cause with their intolerance of theists beliefs and their sarcastic and ridiculing attitude toward those who hold religious beliefs.



3. One of the readers complains in his review that this book presents no new arguments against the existence of God. Well, that's asking a bit too much. Throughout history all the arguments have been clearly stated - it would be like wondering why nobody has invented a pair of trousers with three legs. There are the standard proofs for the existence of God and the refutations of these. But let's not in the rush forget what the word `atheist' actually entails. To my understanding it means nothing more than the absence of belief in God. You can also have a positive belief that God does not exist, but to actually deny his existence is untenable. Not even Richard Dawkins goes further than to say that `God almost certainly does not exist'. (The God Delusion p.158)
   PHILOSOPHERS WITHOUT GODS is a wonderful collection of essays. Some are more philosophical than others. Personally I enjoyed the first part, `Journeys', the most. Here the writers describe their departure from belief into a secular life. Most of them hold no grudge against religion but rather lost their faith through youthful inquiry or perhaps a change of environment. One writer describes the clash of influences when he left the Jewish `yeshiva' and went to public school in Los Angeles. After years of studying the Talmud he found himself making friends with the hippies of the 1960s counterculture.
   Most reviewers point out that the tone is milder than in many other books and even if that's generally true, it's not always the case. In part two, `Reflections', you'll find some more rigid reasoning and the essay by David Lewis is uncompromising, to say the least. He argues that a theist has to take Scripture literally to be able to call himself a Christian. There is no middle ground for a more liberal or modern interpretation. You just cannot explain away God's evil ways in especially, but not exclusively, the Old Testament. And here it is; not a `new' argument, but what Lewis presents as a `neglected' one. Usually when considering the question of evil, we focus on the evil that God fails to prevent. But Lewis turns it around and concentrates on the evil that God himself perpetrates. He compares God with the Führer and concludes that the good people he knows to be Christians, must be smitten to follow such a leader. He talks, Dawkins-like about these believers as being `infected' and states that ecumenicism will only make things worse because it engenders tolerance, for example towards a literal reading of the horrors of Scripture. Uncompromising stuff indeed.
   Then Georges Rey gives us eleven reasons why believing in God is actually a form of self-deception. It seems to me, that no matter how well you argue this case, it's bound to be fruitless to anyone of faith.
   Apart from this, PHILOSOPHERS WITHOUT GODS is a book for believers and non-believers alike.



4. Intended largely for a general audience, this is a collection of essays on atheism written by a group of philosophers who are themselves atheists. The essays fall into three categories, reflections on the life of atheists, with both its costs and benefits, psychologically satisfying atheistic alternatives to theism, and critiques of religion. The authors are a broad spectrum of philosophers, some whose professional work is directly related to philosophy of religion and most whose work is in other fields. Among the authors is the late David Lewis, regarded widely as one of the most important philosophers of the last half century. All the essays are written well and thoughtful. Recurrent themes are the general incoherence of theistic views and the danger of religion in authorizing immoral acts. While written in a much less polemical tone than popular works by Dawkins and others, the basic points are much the same.



5. This anthology contains rich, red meat for the inquiring mind, provender for a feast of thinking. Not all of the twenty essays in it are equally good, but all are written in accessible language; all deal with significant issues; and many of them are full of illuminating, surprising ideas and approaches.
   
   Editor Antony asked nineteen other professors of philosophy to write on some aspect of "Atheism and the Secular Life." Some of the responses were biographical, recounting the passage from childhood devotions to adult atheism. Some delve into the old arguments for and against belief, but always with original slants. A few (and the most interesting) describe a constructive philosophical basis for "the secular life." The following are cursory descriptions of some of these essays.
   
   Stewart Shapiro opens with what could be a downer, "Faith and Reason, the Perpetual War." He examines three possible relations between religion and reason. The first is that they are necessarily and perpetually at war; the second that they are incommensurable (Gould's non-overlapping magisteria); the third a rationalist tradition that they can somehow be interpreted as pulling in the same direction. Shapiro finds good reasons to reject the latter two, so only the stance of perpetual war is left, and Shapiro leaves us no more than a hope for "grudging, mutual respect."
   
   Following this dour start, several writers sketch their passages from different kinds of belief to different kinds of atheism. Joseph Levine describes with feeling and sympathy the satisfactions of being a devout rabbinical student and the comforts of living in a strict orthodox community, and the slow process of divorcing from these. He makes the key observation that, as he now sees it, belief in God is morally wrong because it "expresses a rejection, or denial... of one's humanity [and] ... makes servility to authority the ultimate aim of human life."
   
   Louise Antony describes her childhood struggles with the illogic of Catholic doctrine with a bright humor that reminded me of Julia Sweeney. She found her true calling in her first college philosophy class: "Imagine my delight, then, when I discovered that philosophy was all about arguing! ... I could scarcely believe that I could earn credits just for doing what (to me) came naturally."
   
   Edwin Curly was raised Episcopalian and, at age 16, turned to the back of his prayer book and for the first time gave the Articles of Religion a critical reading. Here he details the many problems he found, arguing that the the doctrines of Original Sin, Predestination, Salvation by Faith, Hell, and Exclusivism (that all but believers go to Hell) -- all of which are well-supported in scripture and are official parts of the creed for at least Catholics and Episcopalians -- are offensive to reason and justice and morally repugnant. He says well-intentioned Christians who downplay or discount these doctrines can only do so by drastically reinterpreting their own scriptures.
   
   Marvin Belzer argues, not against belief in God, but against trust in dogma. He describes how a comforting childhood faith lead him, gradually and by natural stages, to shed all the trappings of Christian practice and dogma as superfluous. He gives clear arguments why no specific creed can ever be what God wants people to focus their lives on.
   
   Where the first half opened with Shapiro's grim analysis, the second opens with two upbeat and constructive essays based in Aristotle. Anthony Simon Laden in "Transcendence without God" interprets Aristotle's Ethics to mean that the virtuous person is so because he pays excellent attention to those things that repay excellent attention. Transcendent experience can arise from expanding and developing our capacity for attention to include the full humanity of others.
   
   Marcia Homiak makes it more explicit: "Aristotle's key idea is that the best life for a human being (the most human of human lives) consists in the full realization of [our] distinctive human powers." She draws out the need for community, for ethical virtue, and for continual effort to improve, all trending toward a life of "Aristotelian flourishing." The benefits of this life are comparable to the similar benefits claimed for the religious life.
   
   Kenneth A. Taylor tackles the concept of Divine Providence, the source of so much of a believer's emotional comforts. The notion that there is a God who loves humanity and guarantees eventual triumph of good over evil turns out to be philosophically empty when combined with the idea of radical free will (required by many Christian philosophers to explain why evil exists). But if there is no Godly guarantee of a future perfection, and if our lives lack the significance they would gain from contributing to that end, what's left to give meaning? In a crucial passage that I find deeply meaningful Taylor writes:
   
   "Suppose we grant that we live in a finite, merely material universe, containing at its core nothing of intrinsic or objective value, governed by no purpose and no universal or absolute moral law. Still, whatever else the universe does or does not contain, we exist in it and through it. And we are creatures who value things. We do not find or discover value in the universe, as if values were antecedently present inpendently of anything that we do or are. ... We create values ... simply by engaging in the merely human and entirely natural activity of taking things to matter to us. ... We may cry out with longing and despair to the cold uncaring universe to embrace our value, to vindicate our right to value what we value. But we will hear only silence in return.... So be it. We do not matter to the universe. Still, we matter to ourselves and sometimes to others who sometimes matter to us in return. And that is all the mattering that it is worth our while to concern ourselves about."
   
   Still, absent a divine lawgiver, how do we avoid a chaotic moral relativism? Taylor details a philosophical basis for the formation of "moral communities." He shows how each person has the ability to choose to bind herself to a given norm; and how that act also grants to others the right to hold one to the self-chosen norm. A web of such reciprocal grants of moral holding and binding creates a stable moral order "entirely of our own constituting.... The work of building from the bottom up an all-encompassing moral order is heroic work, invigorating work, work that calls upon the best of ourselves."
   
   The same moral ground is plowed in a different direction by Elizabeth Anderson, who tackles the issue of how, without God to sanction moral rules, moral rules can be anything but personal opinion (as W. L. Craig holds they would be). Her first approach is to advance a "moralistic argument," namely that if any line of evidence leads to something morally repugnant, that entire line of evidence should be rejected as untrustworthy. Then, taking the Bible with "fundamentalist sincerity," she lists in detail and at length the heinous, unjust, barbarous acts and practices described both in the Old and New Testaments. (Many of these citations will be familiar to the non-believer, but one was new to me: In 2nd Thess. 2:11-12, it is said that God deludes some so they cannot believe. So God deliberately overrides the free will of some, in order to send them to Hell -- which rather weakens the ideas of both free will and divine justice.)
   
   Anderson examines the different strategies believers adopt to explain or justify these "hard sayings," but concludes that there is always a residue that will lead to a moral offense, and so nothing in the Christian line of evidence is trustworthy. And the evidence advanced by every creed since Thor, Baal and Zeus has been of the same kind and is no more reliable.
   
   That still leaves the problem of what can ever make a difference between good and evil and so counter Craig's argument? Anderson, like Taylor in the previous essay, argues that the key is reciprocity. Although none of us have the authority to compel obedience on another, all of us have the authority to make moral claims on others, calling them to account for their acts; but in doing so, we automatically open a reciprocal right for others to call us to account in turn. It is the reciprocity that creates morals. If there is a person who asserts that "all things are permitted," as Craig claims they should do, that person, in denying others the ability to call him to account, also resigns any ability to judge others. We deal with such people with physical deterrence -- and they cannot complain when we do, because they have opted out of all moral claims!
   
   Anderson concludes that "morality, understood as a system of reciprocal claim making ... does not need its authority underwritten by some higher, external authority.... Far from bolstering the authority of morality, appeals to divine authority can undermine it."
   
   To end an over-long review I want to give a (surely inadequate) summary of the late David Lewis' "Divine Evil," in which he advanced what was to me a novel twist on the well-known Argument from Evil: that we should at least be skeptical of the existence of a benevolent God in the light of the suffering that billions of sentient beings have endured for millions of years and continue to endure. Add up all of that suffering that God has permitted to happen, Lewis says, and it is yet trivial beside another kind of suffering: a type which God not only permits but positively decrees. There is in all varieties of (Bible-based) theisms some concept of damnation, a punishment for those who are in some fashion insubordinate to the divine. This punishment is promised to consist of eternal suffering. There is ample biblical support for this idea; Lewis cites several passages (Matt. 13:49-50, Matt. 25:41ff, etc. etc.).
   
   Damnation is the promised lot of a considerable fraction of humanity, but even if it were only for a single soul, it is eternal; ergo the sum of it will, in the infinity of time, add up to more than all the suffering of mortal lives since time began. Thus the evil of damnation is immeasurably greater than the evil of ordinary suffering -- and it is not merely permitted, but positively decreed by God. Lewis writes of God that "He places people in a situation in they must make a judgment that binds them for eternity, and he knows that some will be so inadequately informed that they will opt for an eternity of torment... It is hard to distinguish between God and the parent who equips the nursery with sharp objects galore and plenty of matches, fuses, and dynamite."
   
   Lewis examines the arguments of "incompatibilist" free will (that God must let people choose to damn themselves) and finds injustice remains; and the arguments that, despite the explicit texts, damnation is not a barbeque but a state of being isolated from God, saying if it is a state of suffering in any sense, it is still infinite in sum, and an unjustly permanent punishment for transient error. If the biblical texts are granted any credibility at all, it has to be that God intends to deliberately create more suffering in the future than has ever occurred in the past. Well, so what? So this, Lewis says: would you have respect for a person who professes to admire the careers of Hitler or Stalin? No? Then consider: Christians profess to admire God, who (they have to admit) intends to hurt far more people, infinitely longer than Hitler or Stalin could have dreamed of doing. Should you then respect Christians?
   
   Unlike books by the celebrated "New Atheists" this book does not contain colorful, slashing language and easy pejoratives against religion. Instead, it contains powerful ideas, many of them positive, all carefully worked out with measured langauge. It is a demonstration of the value of philosophy and the use of philosophers: to really think things through in an original way, and show us how to do the same.

5 comments about The Delusion of Disbelief: Why the New Atheism is a Threat to Your Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.

1. I am a Buddhist, and so my religion is not quite respected as such either by Aikman's ilk nor Dawkins. That said, my outlook is much closer to Dawkins' than Aikman's, although, as an engineer and a mathematician I have a few quibbles with Dawkins, none of which actually weakens Dawkins' case; but rather strengthens his points and would make them more coherent. (My position is that the entire question is irrelevant; celestial teapots and spaghetti monsters are as irrelevant as any deity. And no, the Buddha's no deity,...)
   
   But I digress.
   
   Aikman never gets around to refuting Dawkins' points made in The God Delusion. In fact, the paperback edition of The God Delusion makes mincemeat out of the dishonest and false claims by Aikman re: Einstein and Jefferson. Why is it that theist "apologists" such as Aikman wallow in such a moral sewer as to have to bear false witness? I dunno.
   
   The title of Aikman's book itself is a tell as to where the book is going: it is a play to the fears of readers. The evil atheists will get you.
   
   This is tiring. It is true that there should be more teaching in the schools and of our young against the kind of toxic waste spewed out by the agents of intolerance of conservative monotheism.
   
   But that's not encroaching on liberty. It's liberating itself. It's empowering.



2. I applaud David Aikman for his outstanding account of the 4 horseman and the
   rising numbers of new atheist belief's in our society today. He opens the
   reader's eyes to the lack of truths in their arguments. He reiterates the importance of faith and hope in an individuals life to know contentment. Only David Aikman could tackle such a sensitive and controversal subject with such tact. I highly recommend!



3. The idea that religious faith makes a person more moral is, of course, disproved by statistics. Prisons are full of Christians. There are probably less Agnostics in prison per capita than there are Christians.
   
   Christians have started numerous wars. Agnostics have started NO wars. Why would they? They don't profess to "know" what god wants, so they have no reason to force other people into their beliefs.
   
   Christians, Jews and Muslims are moral because of the "goodies" they are promised after death. Agnostics and Atheists are good not because they are promised anything but for the simple idea that doing the right thing is self rewarding.
   
   This book is pure opinion. Not based on anything but predjudice.



4. Having avidly read the literary output of all four of Aikman's horsemen, along with Ehrman, Michele Onfray and others, and being disappointed with Patrick Glenn's response "God: The Evidence", I read Aikman hoping for a meaningful attempt at repudiation of atheism (as an atheist, I try to stay current on both sides). What a disappointment: Aikman's responses are little more than ad hominem attacks-Hitchens' drinking, Harris's drug experiments, Dennett's olde worlde professoriality, and Dawkins' English academic stuffiness (particularly offensive to me as I am an academic Englishman myself). All I learned from reading this dreary diatribe is that Aikman is no horseman.
   Of course some of the observations made by the quartet so vilified by Aikman offend believers, but Aikman repudiates nothing: he merely bleats that the opinions given are unfair. Boo hoo. He clearly states (on more than one occasion) that (radical) Islam may well bring about worldly strife, that the few atheist leaders he mentions killed more people than Christianity in its long, bloody history, denigrates Buddhism as atheistic (it almost seems that atheism is acceptable provided it deals with all religions except the one), and some of his examples actually deconstruct his own argument.
   The worst example (of the many) is his proud retelling of Boniface and the felling of the pagan oak tree: "...[he] challenged the pagan god-if he existed-to strike him down. The oak tree fell. Boniface lived-for thirty one more years". After which, presumably, he was welcomed at the gates of Heaven. Oh, and thanks to Boniface Europe turned away from superstition and adopted Christianity. The obvious counter to this is the atheist who denied God and was struck down, but the fact that at least some unbelievers have survived such an action is not offered as evidence that the lack of divine retribution proves God does not exist.
   This book is little more than a small-minded attempt to justify the intrusion of religion into every fabric of society: little is said to refute atheism-of substance, that is-and Aikman confirms what I have all along suspected (along with, I am sure, the Four Horsemen)-that zealous religious scribes are OK, I suppose, but I wouldn't wish to be trapped in an elevator with one. Unless, of course, there was danger of cable failure.



5. I've been reading this book, and actually writing a refutation of it, and thus far his arguments are not persuasive at all. Some reviewers felt that his communist argument was his stronger one, but I disagree for the following reasons.
   
   First, communism, as developed by Karl Marx, did not advocate the oppression of religious people, or the outright banning of religion. To Marx, religion would just fade away because the state would replace it and no one would need it. Second, Aikman's claim that communist nations are an example of what would happen if atheism became the dominant ideology is false. The reason is because the basic nature of communist nations is totalitarianism which is, by it's nature, violent and oppressive. I don't think that is what would happen if a majority (or all people) gave up religion. The reason is because many studies show that countries with high levels of atheism and agnosticism are the most healthy, have the least amount of crime, etc.
   
   That's just part of his argument, and my refutation, but overall Aikman is a good writer and, for the most part, seems well versed in history. It's just that his religious bias causes him to have the skewed opinions that he does.
   
   I was very disappointed at the level of argumentation that Aikman used, and I felt much of what he had to say just wasn't logical. His constant references comparing the "new atheists" to communist leaders got a little old, and the comparison is false anyway. The "new atheists" don't want to force secularism upon people, as Dawkins has been quoted as saying, for example. And none of the four authors wants to kill any religious people (another false claim Aikman uses against Harris).
   
   Overall, he misses the mark on many of his arguments and so I think this is just yet one more book that falls flat in the defense of theology.

5 comments about Atheism Explained: From Folly to Philosophy (Ideas Explained).

1. I enjoyed much of this book but it does get tedious. Many of these treatise for atheism go over the same points ad infinitum. They also introduce terms that are probably common knowledge to professional philosophers but require the average reader to keep a dictionary at hand in order to make sense of the text. Without a fairly thorough, college level knowledge of philosphy, decoding the arguments takes away from the flow and enjoyment of the reading.



2. ...this book converts.
   
   I am currently an undergraduate philosophy student that was looking for a book that truly gave solid, adequate, epistemological, metaphysical, cosmological, and psychological arguments for the case for atheism. This book was precisely that. After reading Dawkins' "The God Delusion" in its entirety and skimming through Hitchens' "Portable Atheist", I was disappointed to find that these authors are more interested in pointing out the dangers of religion than really rolling up their sleeves and making strong arguments against theism (Dawkins' attempt to point out the "fallacies" in the uncaused cause is insulting to most modern educated theologians; he gives no recognition to transcendentalist theory at all). Don't get me wrong, these are brilliant men, but David Ramsay Steele, I think, puts their efforts to shame.
   
   I can honestly say that because of Steele, I am no longer a theist. His arguments are so exhaustive and thorough that you couldn't ask for more. He really satisfies the readers that want explanation in extensive detail while still managing not to bore them. He is quite the gifted scientist, philosopher, and persuasive writer.
   
   So, If you're scanning through the atheist books and wondering which to read, put Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett back on the shelf for now and pick up this overlooked and underappreciated gem.



3. Discussion of atheism has been hi-jacked these days by the likes of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, all of whom have produced bestselling polemics that, while enraging opponents and tickling fans, generate much more heat than light. David Ramsey Steele's Atheism Explained is a defense of atheism that takes seriously the need for rigorous and fair-minded analysis in sorting out the conflicting claims of believers and nonbelievers. The careful reader will find some arguments less convincing than others. But none of them are ill-framed or polemical. And some of them are very good indeed.
   
   Steele focuses most of his attention on examining the strongest arguments for God's existence. He tells us from the outset (p. xii) that he's bypassing obviously weak ones or ones that have been defended by popular apologists (it's also interesting that he barely mentions the New Atheist troika, reserving his only sustained comment on them to a couple of paragraphs [p. 259] in a chapter entitled "Bad or Feeble Arguments Against God") in favor of the strongest theistic defenses he can find. So he takes a look, for example, at contemporary anthropic revisions of the design argument (chpts 3-5), kalam revisions of the cosmological argument (chpt 6), the ontological argument (chpt 7), and the problem of evil (chpts 14-15). Steele is especially strong in his analysis of design arguments, and weakest in his treatment of the ontological argument (he ignores, for example, Hartshorne's and Plantinga's modal models). Although I think his criticisms of the kalam cosmological argument cogent, I suspect that readers new to the argument will find Steele's description of it confusing.
   
   Steele's analysis of the problem of evil's objection to God's existence is also quite strong (possibly the book's highmark), particularly his teasing out of the different scenarios in which human free will wouldn't necessarily inhibit God from alleviating suffering in the world (pp.187-213). Steele also takes a look at arguments against God's existence based on impossibility or incoherence of qualities such as omnipotence and omniscience attributed to God (chpts 16 and 17). Curiously, however, he only mentions in passing indexical arguments. But this could be because appreciating such arguments requires a pretty good grasp of symbolic logic.
   
   All in all, a very good book. I give it a rating of 4.5 stars.



4. Not just a book about atheism, but an engaging primer on philosophy and how to reason on these matters.
   This book is really categorically different than the typical atheist books out there that have gotten some notoriety. This is really a fun, readable, analysis of the position of theism and atheism.
   
   A good and fair accounting of the arguments undergirding the beliefs.
   
   I met Dr. Steele about 10 years ago and he seemed the most knowledgeable guy in a pretty smart room. He continues this impression with this book. Recommended to balance those other atheist polemics.



5. Steele does a very thorough job of laying out all the arguments for and against belief in God. In general, he presents these arguments quite fairly - sometimes even criticizing the atheist position and granting theists certain points.
   
   The book focuses its critique on what he calls "classical theism", the belief in an all knowing, all powerful, infallible deity. Steele does a workmanlike job of dismantling this concept. While he also examines other theistic beliefs such as pantheism and deism, he offers a much less thorough critique of these alternatives.
   
   So the reader who has abandoned the church, synagogue or mosque, yet clings to some conception of God, can find an escape hatch in Steele's argument. But, while the theistic reader may finish the book unconverted, he will definitely find a strong challenge to his faith and may need to modify his concept of God if he wishes to remain intellectually honest.

5 comments about The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason.

1. This book is a must read. I encourage everybody who apologizes for every religion (especially Islam) to read Sam Harris. I found Chapter 3 to be most entertaining; it's called, "The problem with Islam." Harris provides a long list of quotes from the "religion of peace."
   
   I encourage everybody to buy this book, read it, and then pass it to a friend or family member. If you've got any questions, please email me at the below email address. Thanks!
   
   Zach Watkins
   zachw2007@gmail.com



2. My sister (an atheist) gave me (a practicing Catholic) this book and asked me to read it. She said someone at a bookstore thrust it upon her, practically begging her to read it and write a review of it. "No one reads this book," he said, "but everyone should!" My sister doesn't have time to write reviews so she gave it to me. (That's her story and she's sticking to it.)
   
   I have to admit, it's a lot better read than "The God Delusion," which I just finished struggling through. Harris is not as angry as Dawkins, and he has a solid background in philosophy, which is conspicuously absent in Dawkins' works. (In their own ways, they're both very good writers, actually, but Dawkins' anger really turned me off.) Harris is erudite, often open-minded, humorous and has a gift for language. He also addresses many of the counterarguments to atheism.
   
   That said, this book has glaring lapses in rationality. Harris is a good thinker on relatively small-scale matters but comes to bizarre conclusions on the big stuff. He's very good transmitting what he's learned about philosophy and neurobiology, but in regards to human history, either his knowledge is spotty, or he wears blinders when he reads. He asserts religion is an almost-altogether evil influence and must be abolished if the human race is to survive. He provides lots of evidence of the evils of religion: the Spanish Inquisition, of course, and the Holocaust (which, though Hitler called Christianity a religion of weaklings was, according to Harris, Christianity's fault because it encouraged Antisemitism). He spends a lot of time on Islamic terrorism. But for every example he raises, another one clearly could be found of religion's good effects: the brokering of peace (the Pope, Jimmy Carter, etc.); the protection of the defenseless (the Jesuits in the New World, etc.); the grass-roots works done by religion in inner-city schools, soup kitchens, hospitals, clinics, leper colonies....
   
   Harris argues that the few good things religious people do is not due to religion's effect on them: that they would still do good if religion didn't exist. So religion gets full credit for its failures and no credit for its successes? Not exactly rational or fair.
   
   The religionist's reply to the Spanish Inquisition example has always been that, in the 20th century, far more innocent people were murdered by atheists (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mussolini) than by religionists. I give credit to Harris for naming this objection, but his reply is inadequate, to my mind. He says that Stalin and Mao created movements that were religion-like. In other words, these atheist movements were capable of evil because they were really religious movements. But isn't that argument fallacious? Couldn't he, using this method, label anything that weakened his argument "religion"?
   
   And what about other examples of atheist violence? Marat, who perpetrated the September Massacre during the French Revolution? the Hebertists during the same? These men clearly had little creed other than, perhaps, anarchy. And what about the Bolshevik terrorists? Wasn't the word "terrorism" first used during the French Revolution and then coined during the Russian?
   
   Do we now have to relabel the international worker's movement a "religion"? Maybe we should just condemn all gatherings of people (other than at universities, of course).
   
   I remain entirely unconvinced that the world would be a better place without religion. Being religious is an aspect of being human. It's a tool for good or evil, depending on how we exercise our (God-given) free will. You could just as easily argue that art should be abolished because of what the Manson family got out of the song "Helter Skelter"; or the human family because of child and spousal abuse; or even science, because of global warming, Bhopal and Chernobyl, the ozone layer, antibiotic-resistent germs, the dangers of cloning,...
   
   Harris also seems to have some quite odd ideas on other matters. On page 52 - 53, he seems to say that it is okay to kill someone for having dangerous ideas. Could it be that I misread that? But what about pages 192 - 199, where he argues for the morality of torture? or pages 199 - 203, where he writes that pacifism, on the other hand, is immoral? and the long section (pp. 158 - 164) in which he shows complete disdain for opponents to the legalization of drugs - surely a debatable issue? - and blames drugs'illegality on, irrationally but not surprisingly, religion's influence on our society.
   
   At the end of the book, Harris offers his substitution for religion and his cure for the evils of the world: mindfulness meditation. He praises Eastern religions for having invented it and suggests that, if we adopt it, we'll find happiness and become more empathetic and, therefore, more moral. (He seems to see no problem, by the way, in reaching these states by using hallucnogens. Ever study the Mayan and Aztecan civilizations, Harris? They took a lot of hallucinogens, too, and were really into human sacrifice. A connection there? Possibly?)
   
   I myself meditate in the yogic sense as well as pray in the old-fashioned, Christian sense. But if meditation works so well, and the East has had access to it for thousands of years, why isn't the East a happier place? How did Mao, Pol Pot, the Japanese Empire, etc., rise to power? And there are many reports that life in some monasteries and ashrams is often no more admirable than in some of their western counterparts.
   
   I have a lot more to say but, alas, no room. I would recommend this book to others, as long as they're capable of questioning what they read.
   
   Okay, Sis, I've written my review. And I've got a few books to send your friend in reply: William James' "The Will to Believe" and "The Varieties of Religious Experience": Stephen Jay Gould's "Rock of Ages"; Dostoyevsky's "The Brothers Karamasov"; and a historical movie: Anchor Bay's "Amazing Grace." I wonder if your friend will read (and watch) them?



3. I don't normally write book reviews, even for books I enjoy. However, after having read "The End of Faith", as well as many of the reviews of it, I just HAD to recommend it. Apart from being an excellent writer, Mr. Harris' logic is so sharp and compelling, so utterly brilliant that I read most of it in absolute awe.
   None of the more negative reviews that have questioned his arguments have been in the least bit convincing, in fact, most seem to miss the point entirely. One reviewer mentioned all the good that is done by religious organizations and all the evil committed by atheists as though Mr. Harris doesn't even address these issues (which he does).
   The End of Faith is not just an argument against religion. It is an argument against FAITH. Blind, unverifiable, faith, in anything. This is why he mentions The Holocaust and other atrocities committed by "atheists". These people may not have believed in religion, but they're evil acts were committed as a result of unverifiable, illogical beliefs, that have a firm background in religious premises none-the-less. Furthermore, while many religious organizations do help others, public service and helping others would still occur even without faith, and for better reasons.
   In the end, this book makes so much sense that it's scary. This is probably why so many people of faith have found it so threatening. If you have even the slightest interest in the future of our species, please do yourself of a favor and read this book.



4. I wanted to like this book, and while I did agree with some of what Harris has to day, it seems superficial in many ways, particularly where he says:
   
   "It seems that if our species ever eradicates itself through war, it will not be because it was written in the stars but because it was written in our books; it is what we do with words like 'God' and 'paradise' and 'sin' in the present that will determine our future"
   
   In the not too distant past, I can cite the Vietnam War as one that had nothing to do with religion or god...and there are other examples to be had...perhaps if he had phrased this to mean it this has been the case in the past (but not exclusively) and will likely be the case in the future, especially given they myriad of conflict we are now enmeshed in. I think Harris book would have been much more effective had he stuck to the negative effect that religion can have/is having on our government (or any democratic government for that matter), which was, I feel founded on reason and logic. I also can't get 100% behind the idea that if we just got rid of those particular books and God that there would be no more terrorism or war in the world, I think it's in human nature (religion aside) to be warlike, selfish and cruel at times. I agree with him that it seems unbelievably foolish to think that any book contains the literal word of God, but that has been written by men. The idea that after 2000+ years they are in no way in need of updating and revising to take into account advances in knowledge and human understanding, is simply ridiculous. Overall it was an interesting read, but I don't think I'd recommend this or want it for my permanent library. I give it 3 stars.



5. I agree with most of Harris' thesis and was sympathetic to those views of which I am not in agreement up until Harris' argument regarding moral equivalency. Of course a moral equivalency between the bombing of the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan during the Clinton administration and the events of 9/11 is an atrocious argument to make, but I think Harris betrays the intellectual justification for his entire thesis by glossing over and discounting the discussion here.
   
   As enlightened as contemporary Christian nations may be when compared to their predecessors in centuries past, it is impossible to ignore, as it appears Harris does, the clout the idea of heaven has for American Christians. Harris implores his critics to simply take Muslims at their word and look at the motivations they espouse as justification for their actions, but then when it comes to Christianity and the West he ignores those same motivations. The implicit understanding in Christian cultures is not far off from that of the Muslims.
   
   With the same degree of certainty as the Muslims, American Christians feel that they are justified in their transgressions against humanity so long as they can hide behind a thin veil of rationalization regarding their intentions. "We weren't trying to kill thousands of people, so killing thousands of people is ok." You see this argument repeatedly advocated by our President, the one who thinks he talks to god, and other Christian politicians and pundits. They tend to think that since our crimes are crimes of the heart rather than crimes of the mind, that we had good intentions but the result turned out bad, we should be absolved of moral responsibility. Harris makes the same argument in this book.
   
   This arrogance and ethnocentrism leads us to pursue policies that we know will result in innocent death while providing our minds with a supposed moral disconnect from reality that allows us to believe that our crimes are not really crimes at all since we were well intentioned. All of your objections to the contrary notwithstanding, it makes no difference to the mother of a child who was killed in an air raid whether or not you intended to drop the guided bomb unit on her child's school. And then when, rather than accepting responsibility for it, you as a nation attempt to rationalize and justify this reprehensible act, you breed the hatred and contempt that is felt for the West, the United States in particular, in the Muslim world.
   
   Although a moral equivalency does not exist, we must realize that we cannot simultaneously preach the tenants of modern liberalism/libertarianism while arrogantly spreading that ideology through force and ignoring the negative consequences of that policy simply because we are not as morally reprehensible as the other guy.
   
   As much as I agree with most of Harris' arguments so far, his errors with respect to this topic have biased me against his subsequent contentions.
   
   Having read Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Russell, Harris' conclusion regarding mysticism and spirituality devoid of dogmatic religious faith is what makes him stand out among the crowd. What I find most frustrating about End of Faith, even more so than the problems I mention above, is that Harris concludes with that remarkable argument, but does not do it justice. Having established that dogmatic religious faith is a detriment to human happiness, his proposal of an understanding of our existence based on empirical evidence, rather than ignorant superstition, is the most valuable contribution of this book. Compared to the extended lengths to which he goes to establish his argument against Islam, he merely glosses over the concept of Eastern mysticism and a legitimate connection to our existence that transcends petty terrestrial bickering. He sells himself short on this front. Hopefully once Mr. Harris completes his doctoral work on neuroscience he will release a follow-on title elaborating on this topic.

5 comments about Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.

1. This is the third book I've read from the Four Horsemen of atheism, Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and Hitchens. I read Hitchens immediately after this one.
   
   Dennett takes a completely different view on religion. He considers it as a natural phenomenon. He steps carefully, but never shies away from discussing it as he sees it, that is, what does the evidence show us?
   
   This is unlike Harris, who said, "Come on! Why are well still talking about this?" and Dawkins, who says, "These are the facts, if you don't believe me, you're stupid."
   
   Dennett makes it very clear that he isn't out to abolish religion, just to understand it. He is also quite clear that if religion is useful and the analysis would remove that usefulness, then it would be a good argument for not continuing.
   
   He asks how do we study religion scientifically? Should we study religion scientifically? Defense of why we should study it. What current theories tell us. Examples of how religion could have arisen. What it is. What it accomplishes. How it propagates and eventually, where to do from that point.
   
   Of course, Dennett, as a philosopher doesn't really know and is really just giving an overview of what we know now and speculating on how these things might be related. He gives good reasons for all of his conclusion.
   
   Some interesting statements:
   - A shark and a dolphin look a lot alike but are completely different species with completely different origins. Islam and Buddhism looks a lot alike to an impartial observer (prayer, temples etc.. etc..) but might be a completely different thing with a completely different origin.
   
   - B.F. Skinner, a behavioral psychologist in 1948 did an experiment where he stimulated pigeons with a random "click" and the drop of a food pellet. After exposure to this, pigeons began assuming that something they were doing was influencing the sound and drop of the pellet and began to do all kinds of weird movements and neck craning and dances etc... Skinner saw it as primitive religion (rain dances, sacrifices to gods etc...)
   
   - "Belief in belief" - it isn't just about believing in God, it's also a lot about believing in the idea of belief. This seems related to the usefulness of religion.
   
   Dennett examines religions from several viewpoints and compares them to well known ideas in genetic evolution:
   
   - sweet tooth idea i.e. why humans' have a sweet tooth, maybe we like the "taste" or religion and it formed in a similar way.
   
   - symbiont (the way we biologically have symbionts like bacteria in our gut, so may religion be a symbiont idea that duplicates itself and survives) - maybe religion evolved as an idea that was useful for us the same way the bacteria is
   
   - sexual selection theory - are religious partners more stable and more sexy?
   
   - economic theories - this is a group selection idea where religion makes a more stable group where the elite are like the top of a pyramid scheme. Economically for a group, and certain members in it, religion is good for their wallets
   
   - Pearl theory - where religion is beautiful for its own sake
   and finally
   
   - religion may be a phenomenon or include phenomenon of human culture with no analog in genetic evolution
   
   Overall, the book is well written, has quite a few excellent points and is well researched with many interesting twists and turns. You don't always know where Dennett is going with his analysis, but it is often interesting, even if you don't agree.
   
   I did think that the book was unnecessarily top heavy with meme theory, which Dennett is a huge fan of. He makes his arguments for why he believes that they are worth discussing and several prominent scientists disagree with his use of memes.
   
   I also thought that while the ideas were good, he could have used a more aggressive editor and it could have been written better with fewer words.
   
   It was much more readable than Harris, who was dense and hard to read, but less readable than Dawkins who was very straight forward, well organized and clear. I found that it was far more subtle than the other two though and searched deeper into the phenomenon of religion.
   
   If you want to enjoy a book on religion and God, read Hitchens, which was my favorite of the recent atheist books.



2. This is a fantastic book, which really grapples with belief and why people believe what they do. Of the four major works on atheism out there (Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens) this was the most thought provoking and nuanced (although Dawkins was the most forceful and clearest.) Dennett's chapter on the strength of the belief that "a belief in God" is a good thing and therefore people choose to believe in God even if it makes no sense to them is just a magnificent insight, and useful in reading other books that argue for the existence of God. So many arguments are actually arguments about "Why it would be great if God did exist" rather than whether he actually does.
   
   The text can get just a little dense at times, but generally it's pretty easy going for a book as philosophical and thoughtful as this.



3. 
   
   In the God Delusion, Dawkins makes an argument against religion and articulates what he believes to be scientific theories that prove god does not exist. In God Isn't Great, Hitchens gives what reads more like an indictment of organized religion throughout history and spends less time trying to disprove the existence of god (at least as scientifically as Dawkins).
   
   In Breaking the Spell, Dennett spends most of his time articulating arguments that would explain the existence of religion. He does not really attempt to prove or disprove anything, including the existence of god. Rather he states repeatedly that his purpose is to "break the spell" of holding religion on a different level and keeping it immune from rational, scientific inquiry. As Mr. Woolard states before me, Mr. Dennett's central idea is that religion is a very important topic in the world today and is arguably the topic most in need of a rational, open, scientific discussion. This book is an attempt to make some of those rational arguments and foster discussion. Mr. Dennett concedes quite early in the book that that is his intent--to raise important questions and give possible answers that need research, not to provide definitive answers.
   
   Regardless of the fact that definitive answers aren't going to be found in this book, it is worth the read by anyone interested in the subject. Mr. Dennett does a great job of "breaking the spell" and bringing some illuminating arguments regarding the existence of religion and its continued ability to thrive in human society. I would also recommend doing a search of "Daniel Dennett" on youtube for an introduction to some of the arguments he makes in this book.



4. This book has a bit more scholarly depth than the other books by the so called "four horsemen" and requires more careful consideration than the other books simply because of the nature of Dennett's view on religion. He never comes across as attacking religion the way the other three famous recent writers do. Dawkins's book is just as good, but it may be for a different audience. This book has a more philosophical bent.
   
   The purpose of the book is to examine the phenomenon of religion from a scientific perspective in order to see if it can be adequately studied by science. He argues that religion should not be off-limits to scientific inquiry, and I think most people would agree with that assessment. Even intense religious believers, if they truly believe, should think that science would have something to learn from their beliefs. One would think so, but this is often not the case. Believers are more often offended by the inquiry.
   
   He discusses evolutionary theories for why religion may be, and how it possibly evolved into what it is today from the more simple beliefs of primitive peoples. His discussion also touches on morality and meaning of life as it relates to religion...or not.
   
   He thinks that a large portion of religious belief is really just belief in belief, rather than actual belief in a god. This assessment is probably correct because of the stigma associated with nonbelief. He advocates more scientific study of religious belief to get to the truth of why it exists, and that can hardly be criticized.
   
   This is a thoughtful book that should be considered by the religious as well as the nonreligious.



5. You don't have to be an atheist, an agnostic, or any type of believer to engage this book. That's the whole point, in fact. No matter what your belief (and they are all related to belief), subjecting it to scientific scrutiny can be fascinating and revealing, and especially so with this type of academic yet extremely accessible writing.
   
   A beautiful combination of serious purpose and playful joy in the arguments comes through here, and it's infectious. What does NOT come through is any kind of anti-religious agenda, which is easy enough to come by elsewhere and does nothing to advance anyone's cause.
   
   I read most books once or twice, and so I get them from the library instead of purchasing them, but this is a book to own. Dennett provides plenty of food for further thought here, and you will come back to his ideas again and again for just that purpose.