5 comments about The Dawkins Letters: Challenging Atheist Myths.

1. David Robertson, a Free Church of Scotland pastor who lives in Dundee, wanted there to be an intelligent Christian response to Richard Dawkins' bestselling The God Delusion. To that end he wrote an open letter to Richard Dawkins and subsequently posted it on his church's web site. The letter somehow found its way to Dawkins who posted it on his own website where it generated a response that was massive in scope and in passion. According to the back of The Dawkins Letters, "The ferocity, and shallowness of thinking, of some of the responses spurred David to write further letters, which form the basis of this book. They explain a credible basis for faith that counteracts the `atheist myths' that so much popular discussion is based upon."
   
   The Dawkins Letters, then, is a series of letters from Robertson to Dawkins--a series of ten letters that call Dawkins to account for the errors and inaccuracies within his book. It also responds to his arguments--both his novel new ones and the tired rehashed ones common to a whole generation of atheists. Generally speaking, Robertson does a superior job of doing this. He says in his Introduction that he will no doubt be criticized by some for being too harsh and by others for being too gentle; some will say that this is an in appropriate forum for attempts at humor and others will simply miss the humor altogether. But, says Robertson, "It will be helpful to remember that these are personal letters, not an academic discourse, not an exercise in English grammar." In order to make this a personal rebuttal and in order to reach a wide audience, he has decided not to make this an academic treatise, though I'm sure he would have been capable of doing so.
   
   The book does a particularly good job of point out the unending contradictions between what Dawkins wants to believe and what he must actually believe on the basis of his atheistic beliefs. After all, most atheists stop far short of following their beliefs to fair conclusions. Robertson calls them on this time and time again.
   
   I had very few notable concerns with the book. Robertson perhaps cedes a little too much to theistic evolution, intelligent design, or old earth creationism. He does not state his position on the age of the earth and the way life came about, but neither does he deny the validity of any of the possibilities. I was a little disappointed in this. But beyond that I found little that I objected to. I thought he did as good a job of anyone of interacting with atheistic arguments and of challenging atheists to understand the contradictions inherent in their worldview. Anyone who has read The God Delusion would do well to follow it with this intelligent, measured, respectful response.



2. While David Robertson does score a few hits on Dawkins by raising some valid criticisms of "The God Delusion" these are heavily out numbered by the misses.
   Roberston's arguments often do not address the point he feels he is attacking and others are just not convincing.
   When Robertson attacks Dawkins description of the Old testiment God as cruel and vicious which Dawkins bases on such things as the biblical flood etc Robertson quoates a bit of the old testement which basically says God is a realy nice chap. Since both are using the old testiment as their source the obvious conclusion is that God is a realy nice chap who destroyed all human and animal life on Earth apart from one family and their pets.
   When Robertson gets on to the subject of morality he uses the type of argument all too frequently trotted out in Christian literature, the argument from consequences. He argues that without God there can be no absolute morality and any form of relative morality will allow anyone to justify any action however bad and thus lead to the type of terrible attrocites that litter the history of the 20th centuary. Since this is unattractive consequence of relative morality there must be an absolute morality therefore God must exist. This type of argument boils down to if A is true then B will happen, I don't want B to happen so A must be false.
   Someone could argue that if they were poor they could not buy the things they want, could not go on nice holidays and could not eat at the restaurants they like, this would be unpleasent for them therefore they must be rich but I suspect their bank manager would not be impressed.



3. What a cynical attempt to cash in on the atheist movement by publishing a series of disingenuous rants that were posted on some christian bozo's web site.
   
   This guy's postings are available online for free (so no need to spend the money to buy his stupid book.).
   
   They consist of incoherent ramblings that never actually address the thesis of Richard Dawkins's book: That the idea that there is some supernatural jewish grandfather living in the sky is a load of bunk. (Actually Dawkins addresses all kinds of mythological grandfathers, not just jewish ones as in judeo-christo-islamism.



4. David Robertson is a Scottish Presbyterian who ministers in Dundee. Having read Dawkins 'God Delusion' he decided to respond with a series of letters addressing the major themes of the book. These include letters addressing: the notion that atheists are the truly enlightened, intelligent ones; the impossibility of true beauty without God; the myth of atheist tolerance and rationality; the myth of a cruel Old Testament God; the false dichotomy Dawkins creates between science and religion; the "who made God?" argument; the nonsense that all religion is inherently evil; the myth of morality within an atheistic worldview; the myth of an immoral bible, and; the charge of child abuse.
   
   Where to start? The first half of the book is definitely less persuasive than the latter. One might conjecture that Robertson's understandable irritation with Dawkins slides off into sarcasm and thus dents the force of his presentation. Seriously critiquing Dawkins view of "multiverses" could have been achieved without mockery. Even if, especially at this point, one does think that Dawkins might deserve a dose of his own medicine. Further, the brevity he must deal with each topic to fit his chosen format (short letters), inevitably leads to some shortcuts in his arguments. For example, Robertson doesn't really address some of the real moral problems from reading the Old Testament. This is an area he really should have spent considerably more time on, as it's something one hears more and more often. His letter on this, frankly, comes across as assertion rather than explanation for how Christians view this problematic material. It lacks substance and wanders off into preaching/proclamation rather than tackling the difficulties. This was the most disappointing chapter in the book.
   
   Nonetheless, things pick up considerably in the second half of the book. The tone changes, becoming less polemical, and far more compellingly argued. Indeed, the strongest letters cover the basis for morality without God and whether religion is really the source of all evil. Here Robertson takes Dawkins to task for his continual oversimplification, ad hominem polemics, failure to express what Christians actually believe rather than his straw-man caricatures, and his genuine failure to engage informed and erudite Christian tradition. To say one does not need to know about spaghetti monsters is surely effective and clever rhetoric, but is simply a strategy of evasion, an utter cop out to avoid being challenged by the best of Christian thought. The latter half of the book also pushes Dawkins to consider the outcome of his polemics and where it might lead, especially in view of the irresponsible charge of child abuse.
   
   Overall, Robertson's book is well worth reading, if only for the latter half of the book, which is passionately expressed, critically on target, and better representative of the concerns about the underlying philosophy Dawkins holds. Moral relativity and the drive of the selfish gene unchecked by the good, loving, and holy God revealed in the face of Jesus, are more likely to lead to 'might is right' and 'the ends justify the means' than 'care for the widow, the orphan, and the stranger in your midst' and 'love your neighbour'.
   
   Perhaps some day, when the heat has gone out of the current polemics, Robertson will write a much more lengthy and detailed response. If he does, I'd be glad to read it.



5. Richard Dawkins published a book entitled The God Delusion which articulated his brand of atheism. In light of the buzz surrounding the book, a pastor in Scotland wanted to equip his church to think about the book and the faith of Christianity. So he wrote an open letter to Dawkins and posted it on the church's website. Soon after this, the letter was published on Dawkins' own website, where it generated a substantial response from the congregation of atheists.
   
   There remained a tone of anger bathed in shallowness resulting in inconsistencies and unfair characterizations of Christianity. So Pastor David Robertson wrote more letters to Dawkins. These letters form the basis for The Dawkins Letters.
   
   Robertson interacts with each of the chapters in Dawkins' book. He aims to do so with clarity, kindness, and biblical fidelity. I believe he has done so.
   
   In each of the chapters Robertson inserts the word "myth" before the various chapter titles that Dawkins employed. He then sets out to refute Dawkins biblically. Robertson tries to fly under the radar, claiming that he is no scientist or scholar, just a pastor, however, at the same time he is no dummy. He interacts with Dawkins, shows inconsistencies, and most importantly, provides an answer. His tone is humble and in some cases very evangelistic. In my view Robertson did his job and as a result this little book (140 pages) will help you wade through the issues and interact biblically.

1 comments about God Does Play Dice with the Universe.

1. God Does Play Dice With the Universe is a great book for anyone interested in the quantum theory and its implications. Its only 100 pages and double spaced, so can be easily read in one or two nights. Gao covers many thought provoking topics including the "cause of motion" and discrete space and time. While I didn't always agree with his insights, they are certainly of interest to consider. David McMahon, author of "Quantum Mechanics Demystified".

5 comments about Chicken Soup for the Jewish Soul: 101 Stories to Open the Heart and Rekindle the Spirit (Chicken Soup for the Soul).

1. The Larry Trapp story is amazing, and I was deeply touched by the Billings, Montana, the "Rabbi's blessing," and the Ed Koch/Mother Teresa stories and the Anne Frank excerpt. These are stories about the power of human kindness and about the value ALL people have to God. I am not Jewish myself, but I loved this book. It shows that (in the words of Voltaire) "prejudice is the reason of fools."



2. This is a really heartwarming book. The stories here really get to you. My husband is almost done reading, it and he thinks the stories are amaizing. We recommend it to everyone.



3. "Chicken Soup for the Jewish Soul" is almost redundant; Jewish chicken soup was the original cure-all in the first place! This collection of 101 stories is divided into several thematic units that demonstrate the power and beauty of Judaism in the synagogue and in our daily lives. Sections include To Life, Being A Jew, On Love and Kindness, Our Common Humanity, Family, The Holocaust, Insights and Lessons, Eclectic Wisdom, and a glossary of Hebrew and Yiddish terms.
   
   Several well-known names are represented (Anne Frank, Kirk Douglas, Golda Meir, Mayor Ed Koch), but every story is a gem, a remembrance of a feisty bubbe, of families reunited after the war, of Nazi persecution and surviving the death camps, of Soviet repression and the dangers and joys of living in Israel. The common thread is the strength of faith and prayer in the face of adversity, and nowhere is the beauty of davening more clearly illustrated than in "My Five-Year-Old Spiritual Teacher" by Rabbi Devora Bartnoff. Her son Lior has Down's Syndrome, but lives for Shabbos and joining in prayer at the synagogue. "I am in awe of such a moment of Kedusha, of pure holiness. What Lior is experiencing at that moment is a true connection with the Divine." Rabbi Bartnoff, though weary from chemotherapy, is buoyed by Lior's absolute faith (she passed away in 1997 at the age of forty-four).
   
   Besides the handy Hebrew/Yiddish glossary, there are also several pages devoted to supporting Jewish causes (Hadassah, National Yiddish Book Center) and descriptions of the individual authors and their works. An uplifting collection of grace, mystery, and humor that captures the joy and mingled sadness of all things Jewish.



4. I read this book at a rather appropriate time, seeing as I'm writing my thesis regarding the treatment of Jews in post World War II Los Angeles this coming semester. I found the stories sweet and uplifting, or moving and intriguing. It's a quick read, and an enjoyable one. Some stories were a bit schmaltzy, a little too saccharine, but for the most part they were quite good.



5. Every culture has a version of chicken soup. So what makes "Chicken Soup" so Jewish? Matzo balls. The uniquely Jewish ingredient in Jewish Chicken Soup is the matzo balls.
   
   This book is a lot like chicken soup without the matzo balls. Is it about Jews? Yes. Does it have a Jewish soul? No. I can't point to any specific thing in the book or about the book that made me feel it wasn't Jewish. Just like when I eat my Mexican-American neighbor's chicken soup I can't point to anything that is specifically not Jewish about it, but it is not Jewish chicken soup. I mean a chicken is a chicken is a chicken, right? But it is not. Maybe it is the fried tortillas floating on top instead of the matzo balls or the presence of cilantro instead of celery, I do not know. But it definitely is not Jewish. There is something missing and that is how I felt after reading this book. There was some Jewish element missing.
   
   Of course there were all of the correct ingredients, the book has a number of stories of Holocaust survivors finding lost family members in the most unusal ways. It has a number of stories about people finding faith, the will to go on and all of the other things you find in a _Chicken Soup for the Soul_ book. But it just wasn't Jewish feeling.
   
   Instead of this book, I highly recommend reading the collections of Shlomo Carelbach stories if you are looking for something Jewish and uplifting. The book I most highly recommend is: _Reb Shlomele: The Life and World of Shlomo Carlebach_ (Hardcover) by Dr. Gabriel A. Sivan (Translator), M. Brandwein (Author). After that I recommend Holy Brother: Inspiring Stories and Enchanted Tales about Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach Yitti H Mandelbaum personally knew Reb Shlomo and her books about him are fabulous.

5 comments about Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe.

1. This is a gem of a book. Rigorous but not rigid, brief but not incomplete, well-argued but not shrill or dismissive. Rather than constructing straw men to attack, Prof. Wielenberg respectfully quotes and exposits some of the most interesting ideas of Christian apologists such as C.S. Lewis, Plantenga, and Craig, then demonstrates with clear prose, accessible formal logic, and examples from literature how those ideas are or could be mistaken. In place of the theistic view, he constructs a cogent case that a godless life can be moral and meaningful--and not in some second-class, grudging way, but in a way that could bring real joy and satisfaction. This book is not perfect, but it's probably "best in class." As useful as some of the more strictly academic books have been to me, I have long wished there was a more popular treatment of morality and meaning from an atheist perspective, and of the current crop of such books, this is the best I've encountered. It is the hallmark of a useful book that it is quoteable--which this book is. Highly recommended.



2. I was disappointed. The book title, and chapter titles, promise a very interesting subject matter, but the book delivers mostly logical syllogisms about the existence of God and morality.
   
   The book looks back in time rehashing old arguments, without managing to peer creatively into a future world without a moral code derived from a divine will.
   
   What happens to value and virtue when the gods are gone? It is an excellent question, which remains unanswered by the author, who only tangentially addresses the issue.



3. This book is a professor's expanded lecture notes for lectures that are probably both challenging and interesting (I'd enjoy auditing those courses). Previous reviews by Robin Friedman and David Sewell describe the overall form of this book well. I want to deal with one particular failing that I found critical.
   
   I read this book in the course of a project to really understand the secular basis for morality. Wielenberg seems to make a good, although overly-cautious and tentative, argument for a secular meaning of life. And he gives an effective critique of the theistic positions of God as the creator of ethics and God as the guarantor of ultimate justice. With this out of the way I turned to Chapter Four, "Ethical Character in a Godless Universe," with high anticipation.
   
   This chapter begins with a digression on how strongly heirarchical the Christian system is, with God at the top, then angels, humans, animals, obligation flowing down and obedience up. This illuminates some aspects of theistic morality but might better be part of a preceding, critical chapter, rather than this, supposedly constructive chapter.
   
   At this point Wieland introduces the idea of "naturalistic humility": that the naturalist has every bit as good a reason to be humble in the face of a risky and contingent universe, as the believer has to be before the throne of God. This section also is original, convincing, and illuminating, and I was excited to see the next heading was "From Humility to Charity."
   
   Alas, here I was disappointed. Wieland claims to bridge the gap from humility to charity: from a solid logical conclusion that we are each of us supremely lucky simply to be alive, even luckier in whatever wealth we may have, he claims to reach an equally solid conclusion that we are obligated to share that wealth with those less fortunate. But he does not! Here are the key sentences (p115):
   
   "This obligation is grounded not in any divine command but instead in the particulars of the situation. Among the more salient features of the situation is the _lack of control_ the two [a hypothetical rich man and poor man] have over their respective fates. If the winds had blown slightly differently, their situations could have been reversed. Is it not clear that it is not morally permissible to refuse entirely to offer any help to the less fortunate who find themselves in difficult circumstances through no fault of their own and who will probably suffer and even perish if we do not help them?"
   
   That's it; the entirety of the logical hookup he makes between humility and charity is in the phrase "Is it not clear that it is not morally permissible..." There is no further exposition of this absolutely crucial point; from here onward in the book he writes as if the point was proven. As near as I can tell, he is making an appeal to empathy (he does not use the word). And the claim is simply not convincing (I don't understand how his students have let him off the hook for this, either).
   
   I can fully imagine a decent naturalist who replies "It is not at all clear to me. Yes, I fully agree the position of those unfortunate people is distressing to them and to me. But I have good reasons to conserve everything I have, indeed to look for more; after all, in the face of this humbling and hostile universe, how can I be sure I won't be in dire straits myself at any minute? In any case, there are so very many of the needy, and so various their needs, how much time and effort (that my family needs to survive) am I supposed to devote to studying their needs and selecting whom I should help and by how much?"
   
   While Wieland discusses the views of virtue espoused by theists, by Aristotle, by Plato, and by Kant, he also gives only a weak and confusing (to me) exposition of how a naturalist should view virtue and why pursue it.
   
   In short, this book is a good critique of "value and virtue in a theistic universe" but only a weak and unhelpful display of the title subject.



4. The increased attention that the popular presses have given to atheist apologetics in recent years has allowed modern skeptics and non-believers to fill their shelves with entertaining, if sometimes imperious, arguments by such popular authors as Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and now even Hitchins, to name just a few. This book offers entry into an under-explored, but important, question: assuming there is no God, is there a strong basis for an ethical, purposeful, and "meaningful" life?
   
   A few other Amazon reviewers have attended to this book's arguments quite thoughtfully, so I'll restrict my comments the style and presentation. The book tries to be at once both "academic" and "popular," reading not so much like lecture notes (as one reviewer characterized it) as like a Ph.D. dissertation that the author has attempted to revise for a wider audience. (I have no idea whether this is the actual origin of the book.) It is full of reference citations and quotations not only of earlier philosophers but even of occasional examples from popular culture. Readers who have had at least an introductory course in formal logic may appreciate the disciplined style of argument, but more "general" audiences may find this to be something of an obstacle. You certainly don't need a degree in philosophy to follow this author's lines of thought, and the serious lay reader will be rewarded by the time spent with this book, but it's probably the academic reader who will find this book's style most familiar and engaging.
   
   I hope that some future authors will take up this topic and bring it to a wider audience. It addresses an important objection often raised by theists who are defending the necessity of religion in civilized society. "How can you live a good life without God?" is a question that long-time atheists may find both curious and tiresome, but it still deserves a serious answer.



5. It's telling that an academic Cambridge UP book has received seven or eight (as of early 2008) reviews; most of the time, academic books get scanty attention at best, unless a colleague (or mom!) reviews them. This is particularly true of philosophy books. Anyhow, I'm not surprised this book has an appeal. Wielenberg is a graceful and incisive writer. He seems incapable of writing turgid or indecipherable sentences. He reasons lucidly, and lucidly places his faith in reason. I would think him to be an excellent teacher, good with examples and capable of focused argumentation, but without losing sight of the big picture. His examples range from Dostoevsky to Milton, the Bible to C. S. Lewis. Of course many philosophers make an appearance too, some ancient (e.g., Aristotle) and some contemporary (e.g., Graham). And he's read neuroscientists (Damasio) too. General readers interested in big questions -- like: the naturalization of ethics, the role of faith in life, the necessity (or not as the case may be) of a higher being for the flourishing of human agents -- will find a lot to chew on. And all this in a 160 page book to boot. (NB: it is not the case that the author simply gives us some syllogisms. On the contrary, while there are some, they are embedded in as smart and clear a text as one could want.)

5 comments about The Impossibility of God.

1. why are theists so weak minded ?
   
   why do they need a higher presence to lead them through life by the nose ?
   
   why do they think that if there's, as we say, no god, then we can't have a society with order ?
   
   why can't we have a set of ethics without pinning divine punishement as it's enforcer ?
   
   true, in the atheist viepoint, you can go ahead and kill and rape all your friends and neighbors and nothing would happen...
   
   but would you ?
   are you such a primitive beast that you would actually consider such actions only because you don't believe you'll be punished ?
   
   do you need a big invisible stick over your head to make you behave ?
   
   anyone who thinks like this is little better than an animal
   
   the rule is, you can do whatever you want, true, but you'll face the consquences of your actions NOW. not in the next life not on some other plane on which you'll be punished or rewarded according to some all powerful ghost, NOW. other humans, in order to insure their safety and peace of mind will see that you are treated according to your actions
   
   is it better now ?
   no that you have a reason to bahave ?
   apparently you people aren't satisfied unless you're afraid of somethin so there
   
   "but people can't reward or punish everyone according to his\her actions"
   
   does god ?
   didn't think so
   
   god is a product of fear of death and abandonment issues and is in no way a reason for a stable society with a set of morals.
   
   you people are pathetic



2. Proving there is a god is rather like proving Mickey Mouse shot Kennedy. Getting there is bizarre and if you did, what use would it be? Like all conspiracy theories, the god theory requires so many unrelatable things to work together that it isn't good enough to be a theory.
   
   I honestly don't think there is much more than this to be said of theism. It's about as useful as astrology: at best entertaining; at worst banal. But of no use whatever.
   
   I don't think we need to prove the impossibility of god. Instead, we need to demand of the theists a workable theory of god. Nature demands simplicity and elegance and the theory of god is neither.



3. Hey Dennis and other nonsensical thinkers....
   How can you posit a god in which nothing could be said about him/her/it?
   Then the word god is still meaningless and without a definition. Since
   there is no 'knowledge' or your empty god or any other god then to use
   the word 'god' is pointless. If one cannot define a god without contradiction then there is 100% proof that there is no such thing since
   the word 'god' is the same as the word 'nothingness'.
   The authors do proof their points quite logically, and if you think you've
   figured out the answer by said that nothing is actually a 'something' then you're way out there buddy!
   It doesn't matter that you think you're sophisticated because you know about Hinduism or Buddism. All religion, as well as politics, is indoctrinated into the youth of a nation. Most Americans believe loosely
   in something called Democracy. But how many Fascists or Monarchists do you know? We are indoctrinated as to what is acceptable to believe in a culture. God is a word to bring guilt and fear to the populace, and people will do anything to eliminate such from their conciences.



4. Herbert Spenser once said that since "God" can neither be proven or disproved the only realistic position for the intelligent man is "agnosticism". The True atheist claims this position is a "cop-out". I would say that this is a book that is making the attempt not to cop out. This is not for the idle reader; this book is a sophisticated in depth study. The two men who put this book together did their homework. If this is a serious subject to you and not simply a partisan argument or a personal attempt at apologetics, this is a book for you. I imagine the audience for this book is very limited. This book is not for the weak of mind or the simplistic. You won't read this book in a week, or a month or a year. This is a continuous lifelong study. It is a text not a dialogue. It deals with specific arguments and takes one argument at a time. This could be used at a university in a course in traditional logic. I don't remember exactly but I think that I spent $30 for this book. I have no regrets about that purchase.



5. Great and concise discussions for the fact G-D does not exist. It helps solidify what I believed.

5 comments about Help! I'm a Volunteer Youth Worker.

1. Perfect book to hand out to your youth ministry volunteers, and to go over and discuss. It's a small book, with one bit advice per page. It's not long on words - this thing is not a book about youth ministry, or how to do youth ministry. It's a short, quickie book of reminders to adults of how to interact and be in relationship with young people. So don't get this if you are looking for a how-to book, but definitely get it for something to give to the team, and also for yourself to look over from time to time and be reminded of some relational things you might have forgotten about, etc.

   It's also usable in pretty much every church - whether conservative or liberal, evaneglical, charismatic, or mainline, since it isn't about teaching doctrine, but about how to be with young poeple (and not go insane, and not drive them insane).

   I am quite impressed with it, and certainly think that all youth ministers and youth ministry volunteers should have a copy. Very helpful.




2. This book is very short and to the point (can be fully read while you wait for the pizza man to get to your house.) If you have any prior ministry experience, or doing things with various organizations, you probably don't need this book... though it might be good for refreshing yourself on a couple things. In general, some practical advice.



3. Doug provides 52 great ideas for serving as a volunteer youth worker. The ideas range from the obvious to the amazingly practical (probably depending on how long you've already worked with teens!). It helps that this book can be read in one night (really!) and can be applied in small church contexts of almost any sort.

   The weakness of this book is that it doesn't have much to over beyond the ideas themselves. There are no case studies to illustrate the suggestions made, leaving the reader to figure it out on their own. In the end, Doug passes on a great starter resource worthy of reading, but should not be compared with his more recent and more helpful books.




4. HELP! I'M A VOLUNTEER YOUTH WORKER! by Doug Fields is the book that started the complete HELP! line of youth worker books put out by Youth Specialties. The book serves as a great "jumper cable" to your ministry work. Fields goes through fifty different little ways to help you in ministry to jr. high and high school students. There are a few personal stories littered throughout, helping to drive home the points. Quite a handful of graphics are included - filling up a LOT of space in this 96-page book. The graphics look incredibly cheesy, and probably should have been replaced by more text. A lot of the material here is repeated in quite a few other books on high school ministry, but this is a great resource to have on the shelf - or to take along in the car to a retreat.



5. This little book is insightful, valuable and practical. It's a quick read, and filled with useful suggestions born of Doug Fields' "in the trenches" experience. Whether you are a youth ministry veteran or newcomer, leader or volunteer, you will find something you can apply and make a difference in your group!
   Leslie, a youth leader from Alabama

5 comments about Does God Exist?: The Debate Between Theists & Atheists.

1. This book is okay, nothing to get excited about. The atheist, Kai Nielsen, maintains a narrow focus, and does only fairly well with his argument. The theist side is well represented, and I didn't feel that Mr. Nielsen adequately addressed Moreland's points. The downfall of the book is in its final chapter in which Peter Kreeft advises us all on the methods we might use to determine which side won. Basically, emotionalism and Pascal's Wager are his strongest recommendations. What feels right? And, only belief will earn you "the infinite prize of eternal life." Yep, I'm not kidding. If emotionalism is to guide us, why bother with the debate?



2. This is a debate between an atheist and a theist. This isn't the best debate in the world, but it's good for the beginner.
   
   First, Moreland used lots of arguements for God's existence. Teleological and cosmological. Others too. They were pretty standard arguements, although he did use scientific numbers and words. These numbers are misleading, but it made JP's arguements stronger than they really are.
   
   Nielsen wasn't swayed. He said that the word God is meaningless, and so anything JP said about God wouldn't get off the ground. If we don't know what 'God' stands for, how can we argue for it? Nielsen really believed in the cognative meaninglessness of theism. He put all his eggs into one basket.
   
   Moreland also made an appeal to religious experience. He said he had met an invisible person, who is God. Moreland said he also met another invisible person, Jesus.
   
   Nielsen didn't buy it. All we can say, Nielsen says, is that a certain state of affiars went on inside JP's brain. There is no necessary connection between thinking one is experiencing God and there acutally being a God. So Moreland's arguement falls apart.
   
   The contributors were helpful, sort of. Craig was the standard Craig and Williard wasn't much help. Nielsen even seemed angry at Williard. He said that Willard wasn't familiar with his writings and that if he was--if Willard had taken the slightest bit of time to read Nielsen's books--then Willard wouldn't have made so many errors in representing Nielsen's position.
   
   This book was okay. Personally, I can't believe people talk about this stuff today. We know better. Atheists are talking more sense than Moreland, but perhaps a more sophisticated theist could do a demolition job on atheism. I don't know, though. I just don't see how anybody can talk about God today, especially the way Mr. Moreland does.
   
   Don't buy this book. Check it out at the library instead.



3. This book is simply fun to read. There are arguments of all sorts about the existence of God. There are comments on the arguments from various people and comments on the comments. I certainly enjoyed it.
   
   Moreland, as the Theist, gave several arguments for the existence of a Supreme Being (although I have to admit that he didn't include my favorite of them, the ontological one). Nielsen's argument for atheism was essentially the positivistic one: that key religious claims are unfalsifiable and therefore meaningless.
   
   But there were a couple of surprises. First, Moreland made a serious effort to rebut Nielsen's arguments, saying that God is in fact detectable and that therefore key religious statements are indeed verifiable. And second, Moreland used some scientific arguments to bolster his claim! This surprised me, given that Moreland's understanding of the Science he was using appeared to be somewhat shallow. Also, scientists play for keeps. When a scientific theory gets shot down, it's generally as dead as a doornail. I was wondering if Moreland really wanted to play for such stakes.
   
   Some people were surprised that Nielsen used only one argument. I wasn't: it is a powerful argument and it is all he needed. Still, I was surprised by a couple of things from him. First, he dismissed the belief in existence of Zeus as plainly false and superstitious. I think such statements, while they may be valid, are subject to as much debate as the main topic. Second, I expected Nielsen to say that the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus was weak. He didn't do that. Instead he said that even if he were to concede that Jesus was resurrected, that would not be evidence in favor of the existence of a Supreme Being.
   
   All in all, a well-done book.



4. All of the protagonists in this book are sharp, knowledgeable (in some ways but not others), polite, and engaging. The Christians probably "won," though I am not sure whether that is because of laziness on the part of the atheists, or the inherent weakness of their position. Of the primary debaters, Moreland is more on target intellectually, though less original. All the secondary debaters made good points.
   
   The besetting weakness of this book (ironically, Nielsen and Craig agree) is that Nielsen is too contemptuous of or bored with conventional arguments for God to engage them. He thinks Hume and Kant have answered them in theory, why go to the mat on details? (Nor does he even explain why their arguments were so forceful.) Instead "God" is incoherent by definition, case closed. He then blames Morehead and Craig (in a polite way) for the poor debate: Get over this proof of God thing, already! His attitude was not much better in his debate a few years later with Craig. Perhaps rather than debating God with orthodox Christians, Nielsen should have taken part in activities he liked, whether darts or snow-boarding. Yawning in the face of your opponent is not only rude, it leaves the impression one lacks reason.
   
   Nielsen's own argument was to me sometimes interesting, but seldom persuasive. "It makes no sense to say something is indirectly observable if it is not at least in theory or in principle directly observable as well." Not only do modern theories in physics seem to contradict this dicta, in reality, we don't directly observe anything -- sensual images cascade to consciousness along a long series of photo-chemical and mechanical reactions, whose validity we cannot test directly. In that sense, I sometimes wonder if God may not be more directly "encounterable" than anything in the sensual world.
   
   Much of Nielsen's argument rests on the weight of abstract adjectives that apply more to the God of Advetic Hinduism than of orthodox Christianity. "You can't encounter a transcendent being." "An infinite individual is a contradiction in terms," because an individual must be "distinguishable from other individuals and thus finite." But the Christian God, as opposed to Brahma, is not "infinite" or purely "transcendent" in the senses that his argument require. Nielsen is likewise fond of the word "anthropomorphic," though as one respondent points out, the Christian view is theomorphism: that we are created in the image of God. Given his contempt for orthodox Christianity, it is perhaps not surprising that Nielsen admits he knows little about the gospels or cosmology. Why does he come to these things, anyway?
   
   Philosophy for Craig is a contact sport, and he vigorously sorts arguments right and left (or right and wrong), as happy to contradict Moreland as Nielsen. I am not sure he has always been so cheerful about being contradicted, but his arguments are forceful, knowledgeable, and to the point.
   
   Overall, Anthony Flew seemed pretty good, honest and "present" as the Buddhists say. But a second weakness of this book is that the skeptics argued erroneously from comparative religion, and the Christians answered them only partially. Flew accused Jesuits who identified the Chinese "Tian" with "God" of a "Jesuitical maneuver." In my opinion as a China scholar, Matteo Ricci, the primary Jesuit in question, was on the right track. Many people who have studied Chinese culture in depth have agreed, including the great Kang Xi emperor, the scholar James Legge, and others. (See my True Son of Heaven: How Jesus Fulfills the Chinese Culture.) A case can be made from anthropology that people in most cultures around the world have in fact been aware of the Supreme God as understood by Christians.
   
   Parson's argument about molecular evolution unfortunately goes unanswered; I think this is an interesting topic for debate. His argument against the resurrection seems to me like begging the question. He complains that it is "more reasonable for an atheist to believe just about any alternative scenario, no matter how improbable." Whatever happened to proportioning belief to the evidence? Parsons says, suppose Mother Theresa claimed she could fly by flapping her arms. Obviously we would not believe such a report, so why believe the resurrection? Such an example only shows he has not really come to grips with the nature of and evidence for the resurrection (see, in particular, N. T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God), or of the Gospels. I argue in my new book, Why the Jesus Seminar Can't find Jesus, and Grandma Marshall Could, that Gospel miracles are "realistic, purposeful, constructive, respectful, and pious." The picture of Mother Theresa flapping her frail arms like a pigeon qualifies in none of these regards. Parsons is going to have to read the Gospels more fairly if he wants to persuade anyone that his explanation is the true one.
   
   Flew assumes the Christian Creator "sees the production of human life as an or the main object" of creation. So why bother with all those other galaxies? But Christian intellectuals who have grown up on C. S. Lewis (most of us, maybe), have never claimed that God's only purpose in creating is human life. Who knows what else he has in mind? Flew replies in advance that the response "His ways are not our ways" is just a post hoc response. On the contrary, admitting the limits to our knowledge has been part of Christian theology from ancient times, and is in general wise epistemology. As Confucius said, "To know what you know, and know what you don't know, this is knowledge."
   
   I find the atheists represented here enjoyable to read, and highly knowledgeable in some areas. It must be tough to be a professional philosopher: aside from logic, language and epistemology, you have to know a little bit about almost everything, it seems. Here you get useful bits of knowledge and thought from most all the contributors, though.



5. I should preface this by saying that I am, in fact, a theist.
   
   That said, I thought that the *theist* position was very poorly represented. Moreland and Craig's arguments were simply bad philosophy. There was the occasional good point here and there, but on the whole, there were so many holes that even I, an amateur, could have picked them out. Fortunately, Neilsen did an excellent job of riping their arguments to shreds. I found this very intellectually interesting, as it this exchange really illustrated the common standards of a good philosophical argument.
   
   Flew and Parson's arguments were also not so great, but still better than Moreland's. Fortunately, Willard's piece (one of the theists) was simply excellent. He too pointed out the numerous issues with Moreland's argument, and even Neilsen complemented him on his argument. In fact, Neilen commented that a debate between he and Willard would have been far more fruitful, and I wholeheartedly agree. (I would likely not hesitate to give such a work a 5-star rating, assuming they found some better arguers than Moreland and Craig to round out the work.)
   
   In general, I do recommend reading this book, because it's useful to see how one should *not* argue, and what does make a good argument. (Of course, a sophisticated philosopher may find this all very tedious, in which case they should probably simply read the individual works of Neilsen and Willard.) In my opinion, the quality of Neilsen and Willard's arguments do make up for the rest of the arguments. Craig's arguments are interesting, though, in my opinion, untenable.
   
   On the whole, I'm surprised to see that other reviewers thought that the theists won--I thought the atheists won! On the theist side, there was only one philosopher worth his salt, while all the atheists were generally quite good. (Though, I should say, I was not very impressed with Flew's arguments, as presented here. I'm not familiar with his other work, which I assume is much better, given his esteemed status in the philosophical community.) I was also very intellectually disappointed in Moreland and Craig, especially because I myself am a theist. They are very clearly allowing their beliefs to cloud their arguments, and they seem blind to the many fallacies they are promulgating. In fact, they give theist philosophers a bad name. (Without Willard's piece, in fact, I would simply not have recommended this work.)
   
   So, in conclusion, I think this is a good work, but could have been much better.

5 comments about The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief.

1. Just received this book and have skimmed over a lot of the history and the biographies of the people cited in the book. It is well put to gather and well thought out, I would recommend this to all atheists, agnostics and free thinkers who would like to catch up on famous and not so famous people who had the brains to think for themselves.



2. I have some specific concerns about the article on AGNOSTICISM. There was no mentiion of the Metaphysical Society planning meeting where Huxley coined the word agnostic, the article implied that Huxley coined the term in regard to the God idea when he made no mention of this idea in connection with coining the term, Huxley's attitude toward "unknowable," was not accurately stated, (Huxley actually said, "I do not very much care to speak of anything as 'unknowable',") no mention of the AGNOSTIC ANNUAL and Huxley's relationship with it, no mention of the Society of Evangelical Agnostics, which for 12 short years starting in 1975, united well over 1000 Agnostics in a loose fellowship around Huxley's understanding of the meaning of agnosticism, which, thankfully, is quoted properly. It would have been good to cite that quotation and note that the article from which it was taken was written toward the end of Huxley's life and that between 1869, when the word was coined, and 1889, when he described his meaning for agnosticism, he seldom used either agnostic or agnosticism in his writings.



3. The encyclopedia should appeal to any reader who seeks a lucid, authoritative, and comprehensive guide to the history, past and present, of unbelief. The book constitutes a treasure trove of engaging articles on such diverse topics as atheism, agnosticism, biblical criticism, blasphemy, the historicity of Jesus, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Darwinism, intelligent design, ethics, women's suffrage,immortality, the origin of life, the origin of the universe, the demographics of unbelief, speaking in tongues, resurrection, prayer, nihilism, stoicism. Included, too, are numerous entries on notable unbelievers in a wide range of disciplines: philosophy, physics, cosmology, biology, psychology, journalism, theology, history, belles lettres. One can read about unbelief in Aristotle, Lucretius, Epicurus, Freud, Nietzsche, David Hume, Galileo, Edward Gibbon, Clarence Darrow, Shakespeare, Mark Twain, and such women freethinkers as Mary Wollstonecraft, Ernestine L. Rose, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Emma Goldman, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Anne Hutchinson, and Madalyn Murray O'Hair.
   
   Having written a few entries on literary figures for the new encyclopedia, I may be vulnerable to the charge of biased reviewing. I, of course, don't see it that way. Having read books on unbelief for a half century, I think I can separate the wheat from the chaff.
   
   



4. This book will prove highly useful to serious students and researchers as well as just those who want to learn more about the history of freethought. Omitted from the more critical reviews here on Amazon is the very important fact that each entry in this work is accompanied by an informed and very useful bibliography ie. other sources to pursue. While the one or two critics here have some useful points, no single-volume work can ever hope to be either comprehensive or exhaustive, nor does this volume claim to be.
   
   However, while intellectual honesty requires that I disclose my own contribution to this book in the form of the entry on Thomas Paine, it is equally important to add that in close to 25 years of research, public history, and writing in the field of freethought history, democratic reform, and (yes) that most glorious agitator, Tom Paine, I know of no single work on its subject that even approaches THE NEW ENCYCLOPEDIA OF UNBELIEF for usefulness and scholarly integrity.
   
   Yes, I have a copy at ready hand on the shelf and yes, I use it. And no, I did not, nor will I ever, receive so much as a penny for my contribution to it or for this review. With best wishes to you all.



5. As a contributor (article: Life, Origins of, and Unbelief) I may be biased, but I find this densely packed volume a surprisingly rich resource on topics as diverse as history, literature, science, biography, and even theology. Browsing through this volume, I have discovered among many other things an African-American literature going back to the 1770s, a witty and critical evaluation of David Hume (which I think David Hume himself would have enjoyed), a meticulously evenhanded account of ways in which believers can handle the problem of evil, a history of secular Judaism, and an analysis of the ever-popular myth of "deathbed conversion" that attaches itself to prominent unbelievers.
   
   I am in two minds about the decision not to give direct references to web sites (although some are mentioned in the text). Such references may be convenient, but the resources referred to may disappear, or, worse, deteriorate in quality, and the articles themselves are of course a rich source of search terms.
   
   At its current price, this impressively produced volume is probably beyond the reach of most readers, but would be a valuable addition to any library, and I look forward to the appearance of a paperback edition directed at the individual purchaser.

5 comments about Atheism: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions).

1. Julian Baggini received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Oxford University, and he approaches the topic of atheism as a philosopher. I found it to be a wonderful breath of fresh air! I am familiar with the scientific evidence that favors atheism, and I recommend "The God Delusion", "How We Believe", and "God: The Failed Hypothesis" to those with or without a background in physics, chemistry, and biology. Baggini's superb addition to OUP's Very Short Introduction series is thoughtful, well organized, and shows that philosophy can be a useful tool in examining such an important subject.
   
   My experience with a philosophical approach to atheism has been poor--I just cannot like George Hill's "Atheism: The Case Against God". I know that offends some; but the book is poorly organized, boring, and often uses obfuscatory sentence structure and language (see my amazon.com review if you really care why I disliked the book).
   
   Mr. Baggini's purpose, as stated in the preface, is "to produce a book which atheists will be able to give to their friends by way of explanation for their beliefs, after having used it themselves to help organize their thoughts." In this, it is near perfect. The explanations are careful, polite, and devoid of pejoratives that would offend someone who is not an atheist but is that rare gem--one who truly wants to understand what happened to their friend or family member when she/he rejected religion.
   
   Three things I especially liked about this book. 1) It abolishes, with surgical precision, the notion that without God and religion there would be no moral center for humankind. 2) It does not fall into the trap that exists for all philosophers--getting too excited in the "Arguments for God's Existence" section and blathering about metaphysics and epistemology. Thankfully, a variant of "epistemology" only shows up once! And 3) It addresses very carefully and honestly the charge often laid at our door--that we atheists are espousing the thought system that led to totalitarian mass murder, like Franco's Spain, Nazi Italy and Germany, and Stalinist communism.
   
   The book's one weakness, I admit somewhat grudgingly, is perhaps a strength. It holds back on the knockout punch--that religion is ridiculous and deserves scorn. When discussing the cosmological argument, for example, Baginni writes that "as long as the believer does not mistake the argument as evidence for God's existence, they can maintain the arguments as a demonstration of the rational possibility of their belief in God" (p. 95). Further, Baginni mentions that "the arguments all do point towards the falsity of religion" and "I do stamp my foot and curse [believers'] stupidity from time to time..." (p. 104). However, by not delivering the checkmate to believers, he permits that rare individual to finish the book without being angry or offended with him. Also, there is much to be said for being polite, presenting the evidence, and then letting the reader follow the logic to its inevitable conclusion.
   
   This is a very valuable addition to a growing library of freethinking literature, and I applaud Mr. Baggini for an excellent introduction to atheism.



2. I like this book. Baggini discusses exactly those points where my own thinking always got stuck. His distinction between strong evidence and weak evidence helps a lot. I appreciated his view that even though absolute certainty is impossible, one can still choose not to believe something based on what one sees as strong evidence.
   
   After reading the many other reviews and comments on them on this book and others, I would like to add something. I think the way it works is that we find reasons to support our world view, when most of the processing behind that choice has already taken place. Behind the choice is a big chunk of emotional reasoning that is independent of rational argument. Choosing a world view may be comparable to the way other complex and emotional decisions are made, such as the decision to marry someone. We can think long and hard about the facts, but in the end we may realize our decision was made at an early stage (like "love at first sight"). Once decided, it does not even feel like it was a decision. It just is. People can be remarkably stubborn in sticking to it in the face of rational counter-argument, or even injustice and physical abuse.
   
   Christians think the bible is the word of God. Atheists think the bible is not the word of any god. Having already chosen a world view within which to interpret evidence, both think they are being perfectly reasonable, but still they do not agree. First one has to agree on what are acceptable ways to find truth, but in most discussions, that is skipped. Moreover, I think that even if one does try it, in many cases one does not find an agreement. All I am saying is that that can be a reason for some of us NOT to go in discussion. Rational argument goes a long way, and it's fun to think and read about, but there is part of what goes into the decision that makes no sense to argue about.



3. Ultimately, Baggini seems more interested in defending atheists as people than in explaining why they don't believe. Baggini defends atheism against charges that it is immoral, amoral and meaningless. But he doesn't really get into arguments for atheism, other than a few comments about reason vs. superstition. For example, I would have liked to see a bit more on "god of the gaps" and the slow, steady debunking of most of the "truths" of the Bible.



4. Good introduction, most of the point can be found on the web but it's good to see them all together in a little book.



5. Julian Baggini's Very Short Introduction to Atheism was published just before the current "New Atheism" movement launched by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens took off. The New Atheism has made a name for itself for two reasons: first, because its objections to theism are based primarily on an appeal to science (or what critics would call "scientism"); second, because of its polemical, frequently shrill, style. There's little appeal to philosophy (Harris is the partial exception to this), and none at all to theology (outside of simplistic fundamentalist faux-theology) made by the New Atheists.
   
   Baggini doesn't display any more familiarity with theology than his New Atheist successors,* but he does know his philosophy, and his defense of atheism is tightly argued, soundly reasoned, and compellingly presented. He's more concerned with making a positive case for atheism than in trashing theism, and to that end he tries to show that atheism is ultimately grounded in a naturalism that values rational assessment of evidence and best explanations (abduction). Science may be one model, but it isn't the only model--thus Baggini avoids the scientistic criticism leveled against the New Atheists. Baggini also devotes a good deal of space to arguing that ethics is entirely possible without belief in God--he defends a deliberately flexible model that takes the best of virtue ethics, Kantian universalism, and utilitarian consequentialism--and that life can be purposeful even in a universe devoid of God or life after death.
   
   Baggini's little book is really a prime model of what defences of atheism ought to be. He refuses to indulge in ad hominems or polemics, and his argumentation has the tight and refreshing compactness of the best of the philosophical analytic tradition. But Baggini is also obviously influenced by the existential tradition, and appeals to it especially in his discussions of godless ethics and godless purposefulness.
   
   Highly recommended.
   ______
   * To his credit, though, he doesn't pretend, as do the New Atheists, that fundamentalist rantings are identical to theology. Thus he avoids the strawmanning that they frequently fall into.

2 comments about Drama of Atheist Humanism.

1. This is the book that first got me interested in religion. It is an outstanding discussion of Comte, Marx & Nietzsche. After reading this, the reader may want to read Kung's Does God Exist? and Baum's Doctors of Modernity: Darwin, Marx & Freud.



2. This book is very well written as well as very well documented. Those who read this book should be somewhat read in the works of Kierkegaard, Marx, Comte, and most importantly Nietsche and Dostoyevsky.