2 comments about Atheism Advanced: Further Thoughts of a Freethinker.

1. While Christopher Hitchens', Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins are entertaining the masses with their warranted and timely attacks on religion, Mr. Eller has established a philosophical fortress to deal with the entire religious/atheist debate. I recommend that anyone looking for a serious and intellectually sound discussion of atheism (and religion) read David Eller's Natural Atheism and his follow-up book Atheism Advanced. Mr. Eller gets down to the essential philosophical concepts behind religion and makes you proud to be a free-thinker instead of a moron. Pseudo-philosophy and mass-market diatribes only go so far in advancing understanding and while useful, these are far from complete. Intelligent humans (and the entire human species) deserve better if we hope to maintain any type of intellectual purity. If there's a better dissection of the morass called religion out there somewhere, then please clue me in, because I haven't seen it yet. In this most recent book, Mr. Eller begins by deconstructiong religion, exposing both the positive and negative aspects. Anyone seeking to understand our past attractions to religion, along with our present need to get past it, will do well to immerse themself in Atheism Advanced. However, his previous book is definitely a prerequisite for this one.



2. If objective thinking and reading ever become a universal norm, then Eller's two books, Natural Atheism, and Atheism Advanced, would also be considered, historically, two of the greatest achievements of atheist literature. His research and references, both requisites to credibility, are exhaustive and prestigious. However, those are only half as amazing as the insight and clarity by which he presents his findings and conclusions. Eller's genius and hard work have gone into making a combined scientific, anthropologic and philosophic mark on history.Tent Revival For Agnostics

5 comments about The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens.

1. A short review.
   
   The book is unreadable. Illiterate, full of ad hominem attacks and just plain silly.
   
   As Winston Churchill once replied to an author, "Sir, I am on the lavatory and your book is behind me!"



2. Holy Cow!
   
   A poorly written mean spirited diatribe. The author was apparently following the advice of Samuel Clemens to "let others lie, wantonly, gratuitously, if they will, but let you and me make it the rule of our life to lie for revenue only" when he wrote this book.
   
   There is at least one fact in the book, however. To quote the author, "Speaking as a member of Mensa myself, I can state with some authority that most of my fellow Mensans are functional idiots, their high IQs notwithstanding."
   
   We now know of at least one.



3. Vox really nails Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and other militant atheists to the wall! His arguments are really well thought out and researched. Vox exposes the hidden agenda behind militant atheism and reveals these atheist authors for the rabid Anti-Christians that they are. He debunks their claims that they are writing in the interest of defending science, when they are really driven by a hatred of anything Christian.
   
   Vox uses good, hard facts to debunk the "Unholy Trinity's" ridiculous claims about Christianity, which are all based on their own opinions and conjecture, not any actual physical evidence.
   
   If this book was just all about bashing the militant atheists, it would not be very interesting and kind of pointless (they really are easy pickings). However, this book is much more. Vox gives some great history lessons and makes some interesting comments on the misguided views of the "enlightenment", socialism, etc. His wit and sense of humor make this book an entertaining read.
   
   I lent my copy of this book to an agnostic friend of mine who is a big Dawkins supporter. After reading it, he had to admit that it was a very interesting read and well researched.
   
   Well done!



4. As I am neither an atheist nor an evangelical, I tried to read this book with an open mind. In it, Vox Day states his case that Christianity is the best defense the West has against Godless totalitarianism, so he has a moral and civic duty to "dissect the unholy trinity" lest the world be destroyed. I found his efforts lacking, primarily because while accusing his atheist opponents of faulty reasoning, hasty generalizations, unfounded assumptions, and flippant arrogance - and therefore wrong - the author was guilty of all the same crimes!
   
   Still, to be fair, I found the criticisms of Sam Harris presented here to be well-reasoned and valid, and Vox Day does advance a rather interesting theology in chapter 15. As the author's stated goal was to defeat "the new atheists" in an "intellectual deathmatch" and I find my opinions of Dawkins, Dennett, and Hitchens essentially unchanged after reading this book, I must conclude that it is of little value... the non-believer can dismiss it with ease, and the believer needs no convincing.



5. I actually read the book; I wish people who review books on Amazon would do the same. Vox Day gives multiple reasons why dogmatic views are held by the new atheists, and thus makes many of their assertions irrational. This isn't so much of a review but more of a thanks to Vox for the time he put into making this book. Berlinski's "The Devil's Delusion" goes nice with this piece of work.

5 comments about God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist (Point/Counterpoint Series (Oxford, England).).

1. This is a good introduction to the debate on the existence of God. If you're new to the issue, you'll find this book very informative, and it contains many of the common arguments for and against the existence of God.
   
   If you've been studying the issue for awhile, you probably won't learn all that much from this book, since the arguments are, as I mentioned above, mostly the common arguments - nothing too new, original, or surprising on either side.
   
   If you're only familiar with one side (or you're not familiar with either side), you'd probably benefit from reading this book. If you're already fairly familiar with both sides, you'll probably find that you've already heard most of the arguments before, so it's probably not worth the time to read.



2. This is not the first apologetic book I have read. I do not recommend this to people not familiar with apologetic reading. The angle to see into both the Christian's approach to God via logic and an atheist's is where I find this book so useful and unique. The point-counter-point format was invaluable. Each debater wrote a their opening pieces and stated their points and arguments as a formal debate but did so with such detail that would take several hours had they orated this book before an audience. It was more detailed than I would expect to see a live debate but each point was not developed to the point that one can grasp the full complexity of each point. I found it to be a healthy mix of detail but not too much as to go over one's head.
   While this is the first book I have read that shares the logical perspective of the counter point (Athiesm) of my own beliefs it was invaluable to see the developed arguments as they were presented. From the perspective of Christians interested in what the Atheistic/Naturalist viewpoints argue I highly recommend this book. I now look forward and can confidently approach Dawkins' and Harris's books.



3. William Lane Craig is one of my favorite Christian apologists. But he has his hands full in this debate over the existence of God. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong vigorously challenges Craig's five arguments for the existence of God, and he also gives three of his own arguments for atheism.
   
   Craig's strongest moments were his arguments for the causation of the universe and the fine tuning of this said universe so that it could contain life. Craig persuasively argues that the intricate design of the universe is evidence of a Designer. Sinnott-Armstrong argues vigorously against this conclusion, but the logic of Craig's argument seemed stronger. Score two points for Craig! (one for causation, one for fine tuning)
   
   I also think that Craig won the debate over the resurrection of Jesus, as Sinnott-Armstrong's replies showed that he wasn't overly familiar with the resurrection evidences. Others have had stronger arguments against the resurrection, and have still fallen short. Another point for Craig!
   
   However, I think that Sinnott-Armstrong did very well in showing that atheists can have moral values. If this is true, then Craig is wrong to show moral values as a proof for God. Point for Sinnott-Armstrong!
   
   Also, I felt that Sinnott-Armstrong outscored Craig on Craig's 5th argument, that God can be known experientially. While I personally accept Craig's statement, Sinnott-Armstrong effectively showed that these experiences are hard to evaluate, and at any rate, since people from all different belief systems have had experiences of some kind, this may not be sufficient proof for the existence of the traditional God of Christianity. It's close, but I give this point to Sinnott-Armstrong.
   
   Sinnott-Armstrong also does a good job raising questions about why a good and all-powerful God would allow evil in the world. Craig successfully countered by showing that there is no good reason to doubt from a theistic perspective why God would not have morally sufficient reasons for allowing and permitting certain kinds of evil. But nevertheless, these answers did more to strengthen the faithful than to convince others. This point was hotly contested, it could go either way, but you have to give it to Sinnott-Armstrong by a hair because Craig's line of thinking works only if you are already a believer in the traditional God under discussion.
   
   Of all the people that Craig has debated, this was definitely his toughest opponent. Sinnott-Armstrong exposed some flaws in Craig's thinking, and there were numerous times in the debate when Sinnott-Armstrong came across more clearly, and he definitely wins in terms of his use of humor and analogies.
   
   But since three of Craig's arguments seemed to establish sufficient evidence for God's existence (at least in my opinion), I would say that this is probably enough to say that Craig won the debate. But let's be truthful: I work for God, and I just talked with Him a little while ago, so I'm a biased bum! Get this sizzling book and judge for yourself. But put on your thinking cap, because even though the introduction promises that the debaters will avoid technical jargon, the concepts under discussion will test the processor in your head. Recommended for inquiring minds.



4. In the debate over the existence of God between Craig, a Christian, and Sinnott-Armstrong, an atheist, much care is taken to separate this work from similar texts. From the outset it becomes apparent that this work is one of the most readable of its kind. That is, the respective debaters agree upon an attempt to keep the conversation grounded within the realm of understanding for the general population while refusing to shy from the arguments integral to either position. Craig and Sinnott-Armstrong, add to the credibility of the debate by delineating the being in question as one that is "all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal, effective, and personal" (essentially the traditional view of the Christian God), therefore avoiding much of the confusion associated with debates over a generic god or ultimate being. While the text was inspired by live debates held between these individuals, it is organized far better than many other texts which are little more than transcripts of live debates; yet still provides each position an opportunity to present an argument, submit a rebuttal, as well as a defense of their original arguments.
   
   One would only need to scan a few of the other works available of this type to recognize the effort dedicated to the reader in this particular work. However, this text, like many, is not free of all shortcomings. Some might have difficulty with the pairing of these two individuals for this purpose as it becomes evermore apparent as one proceeds through the text that Craig is quite accustomed to such situations while Sinnott-Armstrong simply is not. While Craig's arguments appear to be fine tuned and focused, Sinnott-Armstrong seems to be less practiced and, perhaps, familiar with the topic. Of course, as with many debates, both Craig and Sinnott-Armstrong border upon unreasonable, or even fallacious, appeals to authority, emotion, and popularity; however, it is often these tactics which make this work a compelling and, at times, humorous read. Nonetheless, when compared to its textual peers, this work is uncharacteristically entertaining and readable while still addressing the critical and popular topics surrounding this longstanding question.



5. Although this is a decent book with articulate and interesting debate, I can't fully recommend it because the entire debate is silly in the first place. No reasonable atheist actually denies the possibility of God(s?), because there is no evidence for it and it is therefore irrational. On the other hand, there is no evidence for religion, so it is irrational to consider it plausible without a shred of evidence despite its technical possibility (think of other arbitrary, implausible, yet possible things like unicorns). It is OK to admit that we have no clue if there is or isn't a god, and to stop concerning yourself with the matter until some actual evidence arises.
   
   Just because there are gaps in science does not mean God is required to fill them, because they are probably not permanent gaps (think things like stars and lightning that modern science has revealed despite centuries of mystical cop outs). And likewise, just because those gaps will probably be filled by science someday, it does not mean there is no God.
   
   If you are on the fence about religion, this book will only confuse you more, though it will get you thinking and may be enjoyable. The issue should not be to prove or disprove God (both impossible as of now), but rather to determine whether the concept of God and/or organized religion is relevant to your life in the first place. Read something like The God Delusion or Letter to a Christian Nation instead. You will find much more enlightenment there.

5 comments about Atheism: The Case Against God (Skeptic's Bookshelf).

1. I'm glad that there are many books about atheism and natural coming out, because it's a discussion that I don't think should ever end. But to me, the magnum opus of all atheism has already been written, and it's this book. Smith tackles topic after topic effectively and logically. He even discusses 'tangent' topics like Universal Skepticism that I think any philosophically-minded person should be aware of. I can't recommend this book enough--and I mean that to anyone of any belief system who is serious about intellectual honesty and philosophical curiosity.



2. The title says it all. If you only have time to read one book on atheism, this is the book to read. It covers everything in a very accessible style and only occasionally loses its patience with a very difficult topic.



3. Atheism is the rage these days, thanks largely to new media-savvy champions who've come to be known as proponents of the "New Atheism." New Atheism takes its cue (and presumably its name) from its insistence that religious claims are incompatible with evolutionary ones and hence immediately suspect, and that religious belief leads to intolerance and violence. Many commentators--sympathetic as well as critical--have pointed out there's not a whole lot of evidence that New Atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens have much familiarity with traditional philosophical and theological arguments for God. This ignorance both creates serious holes in the arguments but also sometimes leads to them re-inventing wheels and duplicating old (and discredited) arguments.
   
   That's why a reading of the New Atheists really ought to be complemented by Atheism: The Case Against God, a work written by "old atheist" George Smith. Smith clearly knows the philosophical and theological tradition, and he addresses himself to a refutation of that tradition's variety of arguments for the existence of God. He critically examines, for example, both Anselm's ontological argument, Thomas Aquinas' famous Quinquae Viae, and the ever-popular argument(s) from design. He does close linguistic analysis of words such as "God" and "Being," and concludes that they literally make no sense. He provides a historical overview of the classic debate of faith and reason, and he provides his own philosophical analysis. He insists that agnosticism is simply a variety of atheism (and also, interestingly, a variety of theism, depending upon how it's spun). And he concludes with a criticism of theism based on morality that avoids the shrillness and over-generalization too frequently indulged in by the New Atheists (especially Dawkins and Hitchens).
   
   This isn't to say that Smith provides an overwhelmingly compelling "case against God." Each reader will have to weigh his arguments and come to his or her own reasoned conclusions. But what Smith HAS done is to give us a very strong, very readable, and eminently rational argument for atheism that, unlike New Atheism proponents, takes on precisely the issues that need taking on. Highly recommended.



4. I know this won't seem like much of a compliment to him, but I am not of the opinion that Smith's arguments in Atheism: The Case Against God are bad arguments as much as they are erroneous ones. Granted he did a good job of defining Atheism and exposing many of the problems in Aquinas' arguments as well as Copleston's. It's only when he starts making arguments of his own, particularly the "metaphysical primary" nonsense, that things start going off the rails.
   
   For Smith, the universe as a whole is an irreducible primary, and as such, we cannot ask why it exists, at all, under any circumstances. If we were to ask for an explanation of the natural universe, we would in effect be asking for an explanation of that which sets the context in which explanation is possible, so the concept of explanation cannot legitimately be extended to the universe as a whole.
   
   This kind of thinking assumes that the natural universe is noting more than an explanatory power. That it has no being of its own, and exists only to provide the context in which explanation is possible. It is in fact a real existing thing, and as a real existing thing it not only requires but demands explanation.
   
   Smith's argument reeks of Ayn Rand, particularly her following quote:
   
   "Any natural phenomenon, i.e.., any event which occurs without human participation, is the metaphysically given, and could not have occurred differently or failed to occur..."
   
   As an example, she says: "a flood occurring in an uninhabited land, is the metaphysically given..."
   
   Does this mean we cannot ask why the flood occurred? Does it mean the flood, in reality, has no reason why it occurred? Or are we simply to accept as an answer to this question, "The flood occurred because it is"? Smith seems to think so, for he has given the same answer for the universe as a whole: "The universe is because it is".
   
   By the logic of this kind of thinking...we should never ask the reason for anything! Evolution? Natural selection? Don't even bother with either of them. the simple truth is, things just are as they are, it's a metaphysically given.
   
   This kind of thinking is actually closer to faith thinking than anything in the realm of science. The natural universe just is, it just exists, and who are mere mortals like you and I to question that?
   
   Another problem I have with this book is that numerous statements such as, just to give one example, "Everything exists necessarily" are asserted totally without proof. And as such, I guess we just have to take his word for it.
   
   It also implies that there is no chance or randomness in nature or in the universe which is scientifically absurd. If Smith believes that we can never ask questions regarding "metaphysical primaries", I would love to know what he thinks quantum physicists are doing with their grant money.



5. Excellent book, Very convincing, well written, quite easy to understand but some parts are a little vague... Pass it around your local church.
   
   This book mainly tries to show , mostly christian belief, that belief in a god is irrational. It does this by reducing christain belief into the theistic agnostic position.. ie I believe in a god but i have no evidence nor do i have any idea what this god is like... In a nutshell anyways..
   
   This book goes step by step on what an educated atheist might say and then what a theist might say... Although it is not in dialog form... It is just very systematic...
   
   Ive read this book twice and wish i had it here with me now so that i could read it again... Its thick and packs a punch...
   
   I would also recommend Thomas Pains, The Age of Reason ... and of course David Humes, Dialogues concerning natural religion although that book is quite technical if you are not familiar with Hume... Just read this book..

5 comments about Real Face of Atheism, The.

1. As Zacharias indicates in the preface to the book, The Real Face of Atheism touches on -- but doesn't go too deep into -- the various philosophical underpinnings for these opposing worldviews. It is a well written, easy to read and understand, informative and even enjoyable book. Zacharias does a pretty good job of highlighted the weaknesses of atheism from various angles.
   
   In spots, he seems to gloss over some of their arguments, in something of a dismissive fashion. But part of that appears to be because the book was not intended to delve deep into any one particular argument or topic. Think of The Real Face of Atheism as a primer or introductory work.
   
   If you're looking for answers to some of man's deepest questions, it's a good starting point. Zacharias cites scores of sources, so if you want further study, just look in his notes/bibliography. He makes abundantly clear those minds whose work he most admires (e.g. Muggeridge, C. S. Lewis) and those with whom he most strongly disagrees (e.g. Nietzsche, Russell.) He leaves it to the reader to make up his or her mind.



2. As an atheist interested in Christianity I came to the book with an open mind. Then I reached page 53 where Zacharias quotes Nietzsche or should I say out right misquotes him. I can now see that Mr. Zacharias will say anything, lie and distort what people say to make his case. As a result I will probable not end up finishing the rest of the book or any other book Ravi Zacharias writes. If I am going to give Christianity a chance I am not going to trust in a intellectually dishonest person such as Zacharias. On page 53 Zacharias misquotes from page 515 of the Portable Nietzsche (from Twilight of the Idols.) Here is the quote he gives.
   
   
   "When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet. This morality is by no means self-evident. Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole. It stands or falls with faith in God"
   
   
   Here is what Nietzsche really said
   
   "When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's fee. This morality is by no means self-evident: this point has to be exhibited again and again, despite the English flatheads. Christianity is a system, a whole view of things though out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one's hands. Christianity presupposes that mans does not know, cannot know, what is good for him, what evil: he believes in God, who alone knows it. Christian morality is a command; its origin is transcendent; it is beyond all criticism, all right to criticism; it has truth only if God is the truth--it stands and falls with faith in God.
   
   As you can see Zacharias has grossly distorted the truth of what Nietzsche was trying to communicate. Shame on you Mr Zacharias! I am one atheist that you have made more staunch in my atheism. If Christianity makes one more moral you have shown that to be a lie. All I ask of you is to be intellectually honest with me and you can't even do that, let alone convince me that Christianity is more then a bunch of fairy tales.



3. Ravi Zacharias misrepresents atheists to fit his own religious dogmas.
   I found the book tasteless in the extreme.



4. Just the openning line of the back cover notes, "Atheism is a world without God. Its true nature-whether disguised in Eastern mysticism or American cynicism-is despair. In this thought-provoking and insightful book, Ravi Zacharias exposes the hopelessness of atheism" tell you all you need to know. If you are religious, there is no need for this book. it will NEVER help you convert an atheist or practitioner of "Eastern Mysticism." I am an atheist, I am not in despair. To the contrary, not believing the myth of an afterlife allows me to live life in the moment and make the most of my time on Earth. For those of you who question whether I worry about what happens after death, I ask Why should I worry? I won't be around. Me being dead and me existing can not happen simultaneously.



5. The author isn't interested in examining atheism, merely attacking it. RZ misquotes more famous authors in an attempt to justify his views. He seems to be more interested in why he thinks atheists are miserable, despairing people (we're not!) than in an honest and honest exploration of why people become atheists or how we live our lives. This book is going into the trash can where it belongs.

5 comments about Natural Atheism.

1. Natural Atheism is a brilliant book that effectively discusses everything a person needs to know about the conflict between religion and reason. A tribute to rational thinking and a handbook for those who have always been suspicious of fairy tales, superstitions, and all similar malarkey. Eller makes it clear that the burden of proof must always be borne by those making the outrageous claims, as opposed to those intelligent enough to be skeptical. A perfect book, and perhaps the final word on the issue, because once you understand that we're not obligated to prove that there's no such thing as Santa or the Easter Bunny, then there's not really a lot more that needs to be said about either, and the same principle applies to religion.



2. Absolutely wonderful book by a great author. This should be read by all who have an interest in living a meaningful life, whether one is a believer or not!



3. David Eller misses the point entirely as do most atheist, god is not the problem.
   
   Of course atheism is a reaction to theism, to the god belief, but god is no worse than Santa Claus or the Great Pumpkin, all of them are figments of human imagination. The problem is the clergy, that self-selected band of god representatives on Earth. They have taken a perfectly innocent fiction and have used it for their own vile purposes. The purposes, of course, are the accumulation of wealth and power as we can see in the Vatican and in other seats of religious power.
   
   As David Eller points out, god and religion are part of human culture. If every culture has one or more gods then there must be a good reason for it. I figure that it was some kind of survival mechanism, a way to fill a void of knowledge. Our brainpower developed faster than out initial ability to fill it with facts and instead we filled it with superstition and myth including the god myth. As we developed science and our knowledge grew, we replaced myth with facts and we continue doing so. Atheism is just one more step in this path.
   
   Natural Atheism aims to help the reader convert to atheism by first setting out a twelve step program and complementing this program with instruction about logic, reason, the burden of proof, history of religion, the founding fathers and many other topics that will help you argue with theists. But I'm not sure you want to argue with them, to what purpose? I mostly just avoid the subject. First of all, there is absolutely no need to justify ones atheist position to anyone. I'm an atheist because I decided I wanted to be one and no one on this whole Earth can deny me that. Second, most arguments about atheism center on religion. But if god does not exist, why bother arguing about god and religion? Think of it this way, the clergy is selling you a product you don't want or need. Would you get into a prolonged philosophical discussion with a salesperson in a store or would you simply say: "Thank you, I'm not interested." The clergy has no right to question you about your morality or about anything else, it's non of their business. But this is precisely the technique they use to intimidate you. Just say "No."
   
   The only real problem that remains is morality. Morality is part of culture. Morality is not restricted to religion, religion does not have an exclusive or a trademark on morality even if the clergy would like to take that position. This is why I don't have a problem with most of the ten commandments, the ones that don't include god but only your fellow man. I'm happy not to be killed and I would be happy if you didn't seduce my wife if I had one. These are the laws that we have given ourselves over the centuries and they work quite well in my opinion.
   
   If you still feel that you have to explain and defend your atheistic position to anyone you don't need to study atheism but assertiveness instead. The book that helped me a great deal in this quest was When I Say No, I Feel Guilty by Manuel J. Smith



4. This book is absolutely beautiful in its reason and argumentation. I liked the fact that arguments from Biblical authority are dismissed in just about one sentence by recognizing that they are just arguments from authority (a fallacy).
   
   My only complaint is that the book was a bit wordy at times. I think that the points could have been made with 1/2 the text. But that is a minor compliant from someone who is just a lazy reader sometimes. Overall, this book is one to keep and then buy as a gift for a freethinker friend. I doubt that a Theist friend would understand the reason and logic.
   
   By the way, my minor compliant simply reduces my rating from 6 to 5. It deserves the highest possible rating on Amazon. It's really that good. Read it!
   
   Eller: if you read this review, please create an audio book version!!



5. This is a great book but I want to focus on one thing this books does at the end that other books on atheism I have read don't seem to do. It seems some people begin reading about atheism based on some negative interaction they had with religion. Of course the author brings out the usual point/counterpoints and presents them in a smart and reasonable way. But after a reader gets past his/her outrage, and sarcasm, and finger-pointing, and mind-opening... what's next? So you don't believe in X, what DO you believe in then? David Eller takes a step towards that.
   
   Are all atheists dry, analyical, snooty, intellectuals who have no humanity or faith in anything? Or are all atheists hippie, human lovers who dance around the maypole and hug strangers on the bus? Neither. Atheists are people like you and I. And the author shows us it is okay to celebrate the great things humans do and decry the awful things humans do. And how there isn't really any need to bypass humanity and nature and attribute good OR bad things to some supernatural force or tradition. Then he wonders aloud about what atheists stand for besides just being anti-religion and pro free-thinking. And where it can all go from there. It is a fairly uplifting presentation that sneaks up on you as you complete the book. One of those "hey, that's right!" kind of moments you won't forget.

5 comments about The Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life.

1. Excellent book. Great read. Perhaps one of the all time great works of non fiction as it relates to Religion and the public conscience.



2. THE SECULAR CONSCIENCE: WHY BELIEF BELONGS IN PUBLIC LIFE comes from a philosopher who calls for a rethinking of the nature of conscience and its role in public life. Philosophers and secularism issues can be traced to Spinoza and early hallmarks of rigid thought patterns: this book creates a dialogue useful for college-level students of philosophy, ethics, spiritual studies and social issues alike.
   
   Diane C. Donovan
   California Bookwatch



3. This book has changed the way I talk to people about what was formerly lumped into "religion and politics". When we begin to talk about our individual values and how they might affect or effect the "common good", an intense conversation develops. And without the use of buzzwords, such as "god", "atheist", "democrat", "republican", we realize more clearly who we are personally and as a nation. For me, this is an important book for change at a basic level. By re-forming into today's terms, the great truths of yesteryear, Dacey has done us a real service. However, I gave it a 3 because Dacey's strangely arrogant and dismissive attitude toward those who do not accept GMO, American seed, or indeed, the premise that 'science' will feed the world, was so unlike the remainder of his book that it had to be written with an agenda in mind. The relentless push for control of the world's food supply with a monopoly on seed by Monsanto and others is well-documented so I can only conclude that Dacey is persuaded somehow (by his vegetarianism?) to be less than rigorous in his scholarship in this matter. With that caveat, I am recommending the book to everyone I know.



4. If you have a good brain, and like to use it, this book is for you. There is intellectual interest on every page. This is a work that requires, and deserves, I believe, a measured and thoughtful read. Dacey has written a challenging and rewarding book with a unique point of view. Read properly, "The Secular Conscience" should stimulate those of us interested in social justice to apply its progressive ideas in as many fruitful ways as possible.



5. Austin Dacey is an American philosopher and a representative at the United Nations of the Center for Inquiry, which promotes the secular, scientific outlook. He is also on the editorial staff of Skeptical Inquirer and Free Inquiry.
   In this brilliant and original book, Dacey advocates a public, objective and secular ethics. He argues that matters of conscience are fit subjects for public discussion guided by shared evaluative standards, evidence and experience.
   
   Conscience must be free from coercion, but not free from judgement. Conscience is protected so that we can pursue the vital questions of meaning, truth and value in public dialogue and forums.
   
   But the Roman Catholic Church has decreed, "Freedom of thought or expression ... cannot imply a right to offend the religious sentiments of believers." But this would end freedom of expression, because any criticism of religious doctrines could `offend the religious sentiments of believers'.
   
   The assertion, `I'm right, you're wrong' is not intolerant; it is the nature of thought, as is then moving forward to saying, `and these are the reasons why you should change your mind'. This is not imposing one's opinion on others: persuasion is the opposite of coercion.
   
   To defend one's point of view by saying, "I'm entitled to my opinion" is to refuse debate. The only opinions worth respect are those derived from investigation and debate.
   
   The basis of ethics is independence of mind, with which we can evaluate all ideas and ideologies in the light of reason. Dacey argues that "the secular conscience stands prior to and independent of all religions." Religion is unnecessary to ethics: if God approves an act because it is good, then God is superfluous: if an act is good because God approves it, then there is no ethics, just assertion of authority.
   
   As Dacey writes, "The real sceptics about ethics are those who think that human beings are incapable of fairness, responsibility, care, and compassion without divine enforcement." These sceptics privilege religion at the expense of ethics, faith at the expense of reason, and dogma at the expense of people.

5 comments about Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism.

1. Like many people, I grew up in a nominally religious household and never really questioned my beliefs until a few years ago. After starting a family, I made the decision to figure out once and for all what I really believed. After many hours of study and thought, I finally ran into Richard Carrier's book. It basically answered all of my nagging questions about the ultimate questions. If you're one of those people that has grown tired of enduring the cognitive dissonance required by traditional faith, I highly recommend this book. It articulates ideas that you may not have the vocabulary or background to express. It also has great references for further reading. Overall, when it comes to understanding what life is about, it has given me some much needed peace.



2. Carrier makes a comprehensive case for metaphysical naturalism by doing what few others do: state a position, explain how he himself arrived at the position, and why you should to. While there is some playful religion-bashing going on in certain chapters, he cites his sources and steers clear of the sophistry. While the book is touted as ready for mass consumption, it really is for college-educated readers who can deal with some dense ideas. He begins with a breakdown of his own mode of philosophy and methodology that may go right over the heads of those not familiar with philosophical concepts. But this is all necessary to really understand where Carrier is coming from; it is what justifies his position. You know when he's doing a good job when he makes statements that you don't necessarily agree with but, by defining his philosophy, methodology, logic, and reasoning, the case is airtight.
   
   This book is by no means perfect; Carrier is a bit self-indulgent at times. But the framework of his big arguments and refutations are flawless. When I was thinking, "But wait! What about X? How do you account for that?", out of no where, Carrier provides the answer to the begged question. He has a knack for this that adds an aura of authenticity to the work.
   
   If you are a theist who is fearful of the above, then this book is sinful and dangerous. If you are a theist who is interested in broadening your horizons and challenging predispositions, this book is a wonderful place to start.



3. I believe the basic thrust of the book is: (and I'm guessing a bit because I'm only about one third of the way through it)If it can't be proven with Mathematics (Geometry, specifically) or the Scientific Method (emphasis on Reductionism)then don't waste your time speculating, because whatever it is you are seeking to find probably doesn't exist, to include a deity as in a god or gods in any Universe including this particular (pun may have been intended) Universe. In addition, the human mind has a cerebral cortex which is unique among all other sentient life on the planet and maybe this "particular" Universe as well as others. This gives us our sense of "self" which no other species has (as far as science can tell). In turn, This give us the ability to deal with life outside the limitations of survival based instinctual instructions. We are animals wearing pants, but we can also decide on what style or color of pants to wear or not to wear them at all. Finally, the author would like humanity to be able to maximize it's critical thinking abilities and freedom of choice to discover a future where logic suppresses primitive superstition, fear and loathing. That's my impression so far.



4. Sense and Goodness Without God is an interesting read to a worldview which he describes as his own (Introduction) out of many different versions of Metaphysical Naturalism that could exist. He does a great job overall of presenting his views and reasons why he believes what he believes. He is mainly a philosopher/ historian who is very reasonable and somewhat spiritual and describes himself as a man of faith with a faith from evidence.. He clearly proclaims his passion for philosophy and his firm belief that philosophy is the key to all of human successes and problem solving techniques, which I agree with. He has a tendency of arguing quite a bit with J.P. Moreland on metaethics that does get quite annoying at times because he wastes some space on trying to hit J. P. Moreland instead of further developing his Metaphysical Naturalism defenses, especially his reasons for why we should not accept any of the theistic defenses such as free will as a coherent solution to the supposed problem of evil and the problem of good. He could have elaborated a little more on this. His Goal Theory is a basic idea that I definitely agree with and encourage but can only expect its failure since very few are committed to informing themselves of the facts and processing accordingly to make scrutinized, linear, pure, clear thinking. He also gives a quick lesson on what makes reliable and accurate history and methods for establishing the historicity of any historians from the past.
   
   Perhaps it was due to the limited space he had to write, but in terms of his defense of science and the origins of the universe by multiverse theory he does not do a good job in convincing why there would be many universes coming from black holes and why there actually would be infinite universes. We haven't even gotten images form locations not so far from Pluto let alone another galaxy. His footnotes for the multiverse are helpful though. His defense of the scientific method is the same usual stuff that is found in some theistic and some atheistic literature. The only problem I see with this defense is that on p. 214-216 he makes it seem like all scientists do experiments and research in a fixed skeptic manner where all scientists begin with skepticism when in reality it usually is with a curious and neutral manner that is neither pessimistic or optimistic though it sometimes is optimistic. Sometimes science is treated as somehow special, in that it feels like only a few can reach the status of scientist. The scientific method has its origin in the philosophical methods of reasoning. So it is philosophy that is the basis of science and also of life in general too. Carrier argues in this book about philosophy and science as separate and not about the latter arising from the former. I am actually studying to be a Chemical Engineer and for the most part science is just thinking about relationships between stuff in nature. Anyone can be a scientist. And science is pretty basic and not impossible to do. It may be at times weird, but for the most part it's doable. It really is natural to be a scientist, as if we were made for that. If you can cook anything, then you would be guilty of doing a procedure for an organic chemical reaction(s). Science is really more relaxed and not so strict since we still have a lot to learn and new methods that may be easier to work with may yet be discovered. Also usually people who aren't a part of a field of science treat science as more out there than it really needs to be treated. Luckily Carrier mentions that sciences like zoology, psychology and anything that involves intelligent creatures or is organic is not as clear cut and concrete as the inorganic fields like chemistry or physics. An example of scientific fluctuations come from medical journals that have a lot of explaining to do for unusual patients and unusual behavior.
   
   Carrier does an ok job of linking the mind or soul with the brain as inseparable, but does not mention that the mind has its control over the brain too. He argues that the mind works by chemical reactions in the brain with other stuff too. But in cases of depression, even with medication, the mind seems to override the chemical reactions and so someone can be under medication but still have a depressed mind set. I would agree that the mind and brain work together most of the time, but also the mind seems to be immune to chemical reactions in the brain. You can look at a Scientific American article on the mind-brain relationship through depression at [...]
   If what Carrier says is true, then the depression that is caused by the mind would be eliminated in nearly all cases since if you prevent some reactions from occurring in your brain, that cause a depression sensation, then you would not be depressed or have sad thoughts since those thoughts would be chemically repressed. This does not occur as much as we want. So the mind does look like it is somehow separate from the brain and yet linked as well . This also explains what Carrier agues in p. 328-329 of people in coma are dormant persons not annihilated persons. Also as of yet neuroscientists have not been able to find the part or parts of the brain that constitute our Will to do anything. I have not heard of any findings yet thus I must deny a whole mind-brain link as not true unless evidence proves otherwise. Great attempt though.
   
   Here is a simplified Breakdown of the whole book (These are not chapter titles just stuff he discusses... Well some are Chapter titles) :
   I. Introduction
   Philosophy Awareness
   His Autobiography
   
   II. How We Know
   Importance of philosophy
   Logic and Meaning
   Methods of Science, History, Reason, Experience
   
   III. What There is
   Worldview
   Outline of Metaphysical Naturalism
   Nature and Origin of Universe
   Determinism vs. Freewill (Libertarian)
   What Everything is Made of
   Mind / Brain : Origins, Evolution, Functions
   Meaning of Life
   How We Got Here
   Nature of Reason, Emotion
   
   IV. What There Isn't
   Paranormal
   7 Reasons To Be An Atheist
   
   V. Natural Morality
   Secular Humanism vs. Christian Theism
   Metaphysical Naturalistic Morality
   
   VI. Beauty
   How We Percieve Beauty in Art and Human Life
   
   VII. Natural Politics
   An Educated Man's Politics
   Richard Carrier's Politics
   Secular Humanist Heaven
   
   VIII. Conclusion
   
   Bravo for Richard Carrier. Good introduction to those who are new to atheism or are interested in seeing what other options exist or for those who wish to be informed of the diversity of human thought. I personally thought it was better than David Mill's Atheist Universe.



5. This was a relatively easy read for a philosophical paperback. Ideas were very well thought out and well presented in lay terminology. Gives a great case for any atheist, and a good thought-provoker for any deist.

5 comments about Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong.

1. In a grand way Marc Hauser represents centuries of philosophy intermingled with anecdotes from psychological, anthropological, and economic research. Unfortunately, what he doesn't do is provide a scientific grounding for understanding moral choice.
   
   To understand why people call things right and wrong you need to start with the biology of learning, expectation, and cognition. Given that we are just barely now scratching the surface of these topics Hauser's attempt was bound to fail. His own morals pervade the book and act as logical starting points for his arguments, but rarely does he act as a scientist and dismiss his own morality to seek out the real question which is, "How does the brain create a sense of right and wrong, and is there any definitive proof that there is a universal biological morality?"
   
   Neuroscience tells us that there are very few things we are hardwired to do that we cannot unlearn or adapt to deal with our environments. Hauser spectacularly fails to convince that any moral code is anything other than a learned societal norm.



2. Over the last decade the study of the human brain has moved out of the leafy halls of academia into many different fields, including ethics and the law. If socially unacceptable behavior is being driven by some wiring problem in the brain, is a person legally liable? Or is the brain just one part of the chain of causes with learning and experience playing a larger part? The lion's share of the evidence indicates that genes and the brain determine how we interact with the environment rather than determining how we behave, but there is still a great deal of research that needs to be done.
   
   This book has been getting a lot of attention and for a very good reason: not only is it a well-written account by someone who is an exceptionally clear thinker, but the implications of his book stretch far beyond simple academic discussions: they have implications not only for neuroscience, but for ethics, spirituality and the law.
   
   Marc Hauser is a biologist at Harvard and in this book he argues that the human moral sense is inbuilt and the product of evolution, much like our capacity for language. He suggests that the structure of our minds - or at least our brains - reflect our egalitarian hunter-gatherer past and reveals "left over circuitry from the cavemen."
   
   Hauser begins by contrasting three approaches to moral thinking:
   The first was espoused by the philosopher Immanuel Kant in the late eighteenth century, who proposed that we follow a categorical imperative. In Kant's view, we could and should live by the Golden Rule, treating others as we would have them treat us, and never using people merely as a means to something else.
   
   The second approach was proposed by the eighteen century Scottish philosopher David Hume, who came to the conclusion that reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions. So if we do something because we are frustrated or angry, we should be castigated and punished because we failed to express out true nature.
   
   The third approach is that of the political philosopher John Rawls. Rawls - like the Harvard linguist Noam Chomsky - proposed that there are deep similarities between language and morality. Chomsky believes that we are hardwired to understand and produce language, while Rawls believes that we all have an innate moral faculty. What that means is that we are all born with an ability to form moral judgments, and that we do not simply embrace the views of our family, tribe or church. The rub is this: because it is an innate ability bred of countless millennia of evolution, we often have no idea why we hold the views they we do.
   
   The parallels between our innate morality and language are explored in this book.
   
   When a twenty-nine year old Chomsky produced his first book in 1957 it created a firestorm of protest as well as some enthusiastic acceptance. We know that people the world over utter grammatical sentences in their own language, but it had been assumed that it began as simple mimicry: children copied the language, syntax and grammar of their parents and others. But Chomsky proposed that the ability is hardwired into the structure of the brain, and that is why we have little or no insight into how grammar works. By analogy, Hauser proposes that children and adults construct moral codes and make judgments without any insight into their reasons for doing so.
   
   Hauser is an acclaimed academic, and it is no surprise that he supports his hypothesis with an array of thought-provoking examples, some better known than others.
   
   One of the better known has been used in psychology and philosophy classes for years. It is the Trolley Problem, taken from a classic set of moral dilemmas proposed by the philosopher Phillipa Foot. The story goes like this. A bystander named Denise is a passenger on an out-of-control railway trolley, which is speeding down the track with an incapacitated driver. The vehicle is heading directly toward five people on the track ahead, bringing with it certain death. Denise can flip a switch that would turn the trolley onto a sidetrack with just one person on it. That one person will die, saving the other five. Should she flip the switch? Hauser's own intuition is that she should, and he marshals various moral arguments to support him.
   
   But now comes the second part. Consider another bystander named Frank. He is on a footbridge over the same railway trolley with the same five endangered people. On the bridge is a large man whom Frank can push off the bridge and so stop the trolley and save the five. Should he do so? Should he sacrifice one man to save five?
   
   Here Hauser's view is that he should not. But exactly why not? Is it because of Denise and Frank's intentions? Is it because Frank would be using the man as a means? In each case the result is the same, one person is killed and five are saved. This is interesting, not as an academic exercise, but because most people come up with similar responses to the dilemma.
   
   Here is another example: what if a surgeon can save the lives of five dying people by taking organs from one perfectly healthy person? Almost no one says that this action is justified, but why not? In fact when such a thing was actually done during the Holocaust, the prosecutors at Nuremberg considered it to be one of the most egregious of all the crimes committed. The utter breakdown of agreed moral norms during those dark years and continuing depravity in some parts of the world remains a challenge for philosophers and scientists to this day; including the author of this book.
   
   Hauser is evidently a good teacher, and he constructs a number of variations of these themes to show us that, with the kinds of exceptions that I just mentioned, the intuitions of very different people are usually much the same. Second. He shows how difficult it is to provide logical justifications for those intuitions. Like all good teachers he includes some personal disclosures, and tells an amusing tale about his own father, who, despite being an intelligent and well-educated physicist, became confused and frustrated when he tried to find logical justifications for his immediate responses.
   
   Hauser reviews evidence from different cultures and from his own research using an online Moral Sense Test, to show how little judgments vary between people of different backgrounds and cultures.
   
   This leads to another important similarity between language and morality. Languages are not chaotic: they follow certain constraints. All known languages follow a set of universal principles. But there are also a set of variable parameters that include the order of words, different ways of making plurals, gender attributions and all those other nuances that can frustrate anyone trying to master a foreign language. Hauser argues that it is the same with morality: there are universal principles and culture-bound parameters. He continues the parallels to point out that as with a language, once people acquire their specific moral grammar, other grammars may seem as incomprehensible as does Japanese to a native English speaker.
   
   He illustrates his thesis with valuable discussions about murder and manslaughter, the treatment of women in different cultures, attitudes to abortion, euthanasia, pedophilia and incest, together with notions of fairness and punishment.
   
   The book is illustrated by some delightful little drawings that do an excellent job of breaking up the narrative.
   
   Marc Hauser if a very good writer and the book is not a difficult read, despite weighing in at over 400 closely reasoned pages. He makes many points that need to be heard. Not only by his colleagues and by people curious to understand more about themselves and those around them, but also by politicians, lawyers and ethicists.
   
   Highly recommended.
   
   
   Richard G. Petty, MD, author of Healing, Meaning and Purpose: The Magical Power of the Emerging Laws of Life



3. This book is about a very interesting subject but it's been nothing but misery to read. I think Hauser must have actually decided that the key to writing readable, engaging non-fiction is to NEVER walk in a straight line. So we have him wandering here, and there, and everywhere. The burden is on the reader to figure out what he's really up to. What specific moral instincts is he postulating? What's the evidence that there are instincts? How is his theory about moral instincts like Haidt's or Pinker's? I've been trying to get through this for ages and I might...just...have...to...stop.



4. I thought it was telling the book had a positive review on the back by Chomsky and in the intro the author name-drops Chomsky as one of his friends. Does this mean the author is lacking morals, if so does this mean he isn't human (since all humans have an innate sense of right and wrong according to him?) To me this also says something about the great Chomsky. He also name-drops animal rights hero Singer, a text book example of the deadly dangers of self-righteousness and undue vilification of innocent people. Above all I found the book too dull and lacking in real content to read it properly,and acually threw it away in disgust(only ever done that with one other book) so this review is definately flawed, but I doubt you'll even like it if you're a fan of pedestrian cliches Singer and Chomsky.



5. Hauser ends his book "Moral Minds" as follows.
   
   "The notion of a universal moral grammar with parametric variation provides one way to think about pluralism. It requires us to understand how, in development, particular parameters are fixed by experience. It also requires us to appreciate that once fixed, we may be as perplexed by another community's moral system as we are by their language. Appreciating the fact that we share a universal moral grammar, and that at birth we could have acquired any of the world's moral systems, should provide us with a sense of comfort, a sense that perhaps we can understand each other." (p 406)
   
   I have rarely started a book with such delight only to end it with such disgust.
   
   Hauser is not only wrong but lazy when he says we may be "as perplexed by another community's moral system as we are by their language." It is *impossible* to be as perplexed by another community's morality as we are by its language. (Though female genital mutilation and honor killings horrify me, they do not perplex me: I "get it" but I also reject it.)
   
   As for acquiring "any of the world's moral systems," Hauser never identifies and distinguishes them. I would like to know if he's thinking there are six major moral systems, or fifty, or several hundred if not thousands. The only moral systems he has a serious interest in are those of Kant, Hume, and Rawls, but Hauser never makes clear in what sense those three men were speaking different moral languages. Further, he attributes the three systems to these specific individuals and not the communities wherein these men grew up and presumably had the parameters of their native moral tongues permanently fixed. (One would think that Hauser would realize that by attributing the three most important ethical theories going--in his view, anyway--to individuals rather than communities, he has undercut his assumption that we take in our morality the way we take in our native languages. No one "grows up" Kantian; one chooses it.)
   
   Hauser does speak of the ethics of hunter-gatherer communities, and of herding communities. He blames excessive violence in the American South on the region's Irish and Scotch settlers--herders--whose honor-based morality contrasts sharply with that of peaceful German and Dutch farmers who settled the North. But if a Southern (Irish) woman marries a Northern (Dutch) man, what is the moral language of their children?
   
   Hauser sees UMG explaining why people from many backgrounds give the same answer to moral dilemmas. I think this is a conceptual mistake. Granted, I'm no linguist and may misperceive the analogy, but it seems to me that Chomsky's universal grammar focuses on the *structure* of spoken languages whereas Hauser focuses on the *content* of moral judgments.
   
   Further, Hauser focuses only on moral emergencies. This would be like a linguistic theory that explained only expletives. (Grammatically, expletives are *exceptional* cases.) We have a multitude of chances to cheat on our taxes or spread rumors about colleagues but few chances to make an instantaneous life or death decision. Consider how Hauser treats a *slow* life and death decision, the Terri Schiavo case.
   
   Hauser favored the removal of feeding tubes. Further, he argues that those opposed to this were basing their judgments on religious teachings and that morality and religion should be "divorced." But he argues elsewhere that moral judgments are *immune* to religious instruction; yet if that were so, such a divorce would make absolutely no difference at all. (Most who favor the divorce of religion and morality think that religion has a negative moral impact and *that* is why they want the divorce; it makes no sense to ask for a divorce if religion is *irrelevant* to one's moral judgments.)
   
   Hauser is having it both ways: arguing that moral judgments are immune to religious instruction but then saying that the Terri Schiavo controversy arose because some people were making moral judgments based on religious instruction while other people (-in the same culture, no less) were not. Also, he clearly thinks those who wanted to remove the tubes were right and those who did not were wrong, but he provides no basis for judging the relative merits of claims made in different moral languages.
   
   
   I understand that Hauser is using language as an analogy and that no analogy is perfect, but I finished this book wondering in what ways he thought the analogy held. There are thousands of languages but apparently just a few moral systems. Some of these moral systems may be attributed to a specific individual, which no one's native language can be. If morality is like language, why aren't there as many moral systems as languages? What is the moral equivalent of being bi-lingual? One can translate Greek philosophy into Latin, or German, or English, but how can one translate "herder morality" into "farmer morality"? Or Christian morality into atheist terms? Or Rawlsian morality into Kantian terms?
   
   Hauser has gathered much fascinating research but his assessment is more than shaky.

5 comments about Science and Nonbelief.

1. Taner Edis has written a marvelously critical overview of where naturalism and supernaturalism collide. Books in this vein tend to be overly biased in favor of one side or the other, but Edis somehow maintains an edge of skepticism toward even his own viewpoints. Strength rests in this book where it points out the incomplete and weak areas of a fully naturalistic account of existence. The tactic utilized seemed to be very effective in that, generally speaking, he shows why naturalistic accounts are the best explanations, why their supernaturalistic rivals are woefully inadequate or just plain wrong, and then he points out the potential weak spots for those who hold to naturalism. I found this approach especially refreshing seeing that this method invites critical reflection on the issues at hand - something that the epistemological methodology of supernatural belief often lacks.
   
   Chapter 1: Science, Philosophy, and Religious Doubt
   
   This chapter is a very good overview for framing the thesis of the book. It contains the historical background of science, philosophy, and doubt and traces their beginnings in ancient Greece, their revitalization during the Enlightenment and how this trend is (and isn't) being carried into today. This chapter also gives a good introduction to the meta-representational differences between naturalism and supernaturalism.
   
   Chapter 2: An Accidental World
   
   Providing a primer on our current and mature physical picture of the universe, Edis explains why "commonsense" notions of believing in a Designer-god such as the "anthropic principle" are inadequate when one has a good understanding of physics. I especially enjoyed the exposition of "symmetry breaking" and how this very simple principle accounts for much of the "design" often pointed to.
   
   Chapter 3: Darwinian Creativity
   
   Makes the case for evolution and its centrality to understanding biology. Edis tackles a wide range of topics ranging from entropy to the ways in which evolution has been reconciled with religious beliefs, from pseudo-scientific Intelligent Design to the propagandist-driven American and Islamic creationism.
   
   Chapter 4: Minds without Souls
   
   Utilizing neuroscience, this chapter explains why the dualistic notion of a soul or non-material essence is superfluous to a complete understanding of the human mind.
   
   Chapter 5: The Fringes of Science
   
   Following in the grand tradition of debunking nonsense, UFO's, psychics, parapsychology, and miracles are judiciously dealt with.
   
   Chapter 6: Explaining Religion
   
   Drawing from the burgeoning and related fields of cognitive science and evolutionary psychology, Edis successfully shows why a naturalistic account of religious psychological phenomena is effective, even if incomplete. It is also correctly pointed out that a cognitive-scientific account of non-belief is needed to complement our understanding.
   
   Chapter 7: Morality and Politics
   
   Edis takes the exceptionally large issues covered in the book and expounds on their political environment and outlines some of the most common methods and tacts utilized. Covered here as well is explaining both the strengths and weaknesses of morality without a Heavenly Watcher, contrasted with the strengths and weaknesses of traditional transcendental schemes. The author concludes on a stark note, one that I won't spoil for the potential reader.
   
   These annotations on the chapters do not and cannot do the volume justice. Edis weaves the thematic content of each chapter into a very coherent whole of a very readable and intellectually rich book.



2. Of all the books I've read on this topic, this one takes the cake. Edis presents well-thought out, logical, and unbiased arguments - a combination particularly difficult to find on a subject like this. The author examines each of his topics thoroughly, and his writing demonstrates skill, fair-mindedness, and expertise that far exceeds other books I have read on science and nonbelief. This book expounds complex ideas in a digestible way that holds the reader's interest while introducing intricate concepts and ideas. Edis explicates the politics and history behind creationism, intelligent design, and Darwinism in addition to their principles, claims, and assertions. It is quite easy to take this author's writings seriously because he does not make the mistake of appearing elevated, bombastic, or egotistical; he simply offers the facts and spreads his prodigious knowledge on to the rest of us.



3. If all physicists had the grasp of philosophy, biology, human prehistory, religion and new age bunkum that this writer has the world would have been a better place. Having read Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Paul Kurtz, Sam Harris, Matt Ridley, Steven Weinberg, Jared Diamond, Peter Watson, Frederick Streng, Peter J Gould, Joseph Campbell, Ninian Smart, Michael Shermer, Stephen Hawking, Simon Blackburn, Philip Kitcher, Charles Freeman, Karen Armstrong, Hector Avalos, Robert M Price and many others, Taner Edis stands apart with this single volume that introduces the reader to just about all the important topics that these writers have explored.
   
   The book (dare I call it a landmark publication?) leads the reader effortlessly through all the important topics related to nonbelief. The style is clear and convincing, the scope expansive and the author self-assured and well informed. His insights are wider than most of his peers and his exposition of the subject convincing. Unlike Dawkins he never snaps at religion, unlike Harris he doesn't stop short at vague mysticism, and unlike anyone else I've read his understanding of the central issues seems unmatched. And he adds just that touch of sarcasm where opportune, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle's "oracular" reputation outside physical science being a juicy example. I also appreciated his unapologetic naming of the phenomenon under discussion as nonbelief rather than atheism, agnosticism or "bright-ism".
   
   And he puts his finger on the pulse when he laments science and skepticism's standing in society amid the pseudosciences, new age bunkum and other intellectual hallucinations.
   
   Perhaps in the next edition (which I look forward to) the author might choose to expand on the indoctrination of very young children and the philosophical anaemia of praying. But even with minor shortcomings (from my subjective point of view, I must add) this remains an excellent book as an introduction, reference or thoughtful gift.
   
   This book stands on my "favourites" shelf next to the Bible, Quran, Bhagavad-Gita and The Origin of Species, and henceforth Taner Edis is my author of choice. I'd have given the book ten stars if I could.



4. Scientists have raised religious questions since the discipline's earliest development. Today many scientists are also nonbelievers - but can scientific inquiry and religious belief coexist? Science and Nonbelief is an overview detailing the history and theories of this relationship, examining scientific and spiritual developments alike. Any collection strong in science, philosophy or religion will find Science and Nonbelief a satisfying blend of inquiry and analysis.



5. Truth is, I just finished the book and I'm not sure what to write. My feeling towards the book is one of ambivalence. It was a bit dry, somewhat technical at times (at least for me), and I didn't always understand what the author was trying to say. Too often I found myself rereading paragraphs trying to understand the point, not always successfully. Overall, the book needs a glossary and some spark. The best part for me was the collection of short essays at the end by other authors. Their points were clear, straightforward, and had "spark." I rate the book 3.5 stars.