Customer Reviews (8)

The Precuror of God's Delusions by Atheists Today.
God is not a delusion, but he can and should be a personal God. Today, you find churches set up in storefronts or out in the country in hovels by untrained "preachers" instead of the denominations of days gone by. There were the Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Church of God, Church of Christ, etc. Now, it is non-denominational, which means "anything goes." Thus, this scientist has decided that the world would be better off without religious intervention. The churches do help their members in crisis, but otherwise they are in the business of money.

With the advent of telelevangists, we saw their public downfalls usually because of sex, though others were making a killing by using the money for personal luxuries. When Jeff went to Chicago to attend the U of C, he encountered his first atheist. Coming from a small Tennessee town, growing up Methodist, it was a bad discovery to find that his Physics and Astronomy professors did not believe in God. Everyone knows that the University of Chicago is a radical school. The Big Bang theory was that we were put here randomly and there are other aliens out there somewhere more intelligent than we. No intervention, no creation by God, no Jesus, (apparently he was a false prophet); my long-ago favorite prophet, Jeremiah (the prophet of doom) would have fit in as their advisor as he saw only the bad happening in his surroundings and was not inspired by the premonitions of Isiah and the Old Testament leaders who prophysized the coming of the Son of God. Atheists believe in the devil, so the rest of us can find comfort in God in his many varieties. The Catholics believe in communicating by calling on the Virgin Mary. I'm not an atheist, but no virgin could have a child, even a miracle child. Old women can, but not young virgins, so I believe that the Catholics have false beliefs for some reason all their own.

John Wesley taught us that Protestants of all persuasions can find life easier and we can get along with our neighbors if we have some kind of faith in a higher being. E. T. where are you?

In Pittsburg, PA, there is a large statue of Mary (mother of Jesus) looking down as she hold the babe. I saw a similar statue at a Methodist church in Nashville of Christ; when you kneel and look up (as I did) you look right into his eyes. It was eerie and moving all at the same time. At Sewanee, we had Church Women United sessions with the marvelous peacocks honking at you, but no Jesus statue in existence. That is near Bell Buckle where the original Webb School is located.

Atheists are not simply deluded, but are instruments of the devil.Today I see those young men and women all dressed in black with tatoos and black eye makeup, which are the modern version of cult members who have run amok.They could lose control at any moment, as it is clear that they are on drugs and the bad influence of something or someone not of this earth.They are definitely a danger to today's society.

Lucid, thoughtful, sometimes way off.
Most anthologies of essays are like a loose pile of sand, but thematically, I thought this one hung together fairly well. The style varied from popular to almost bibliographical.

The Ayn Rand essays were informative, though I thought Smith bent over backwards a bit too far to shield Rand herself from the charge of fanaticism.(As is so often done with Marx.) The essays I liked the best were "My Path to Atheism," "Atheism and the Virtue of Reasonableness," (good advice for theists as well), and "Frantz Fanon and John Locke at Stanford," which I read as a stirring defense of free thought against the PC mind control so prevalent in our academic establishments.If everyone (including Smith himself)would follow his rules for debate in that second essay, we might be in for a lot of good, healthy debate!

As a Christian, I was perturbed, but not surprised (having seen it so often), to find someone as apparently well-informed as Smith badly misunderstand what orthodox Christians mean by faith.He repeated the old canard that "Faith conflicts with reason," and a great deal of his discussion was saddled with this profound and oft-repudiated error.Faith, he argued,
"cannot give you knowledge."It is "intellectually
dishonest, and should be rejected by every person of integrity."He backed up his mangled argument with the writings of some obscure theologian.But when understood as orthodox Christians understand it (as I argue in my book Jesus and the Religions of Man), it is truer to say that nothing besides faith can give knowledge."Never, never doubt the efficacy of your mind," Smith advised.Yes, and that is (in the Christian sense) an act of faith.Beyond a reasonable and tested faith in reason, memory, the fives senses, and other people, faith in God is the highest form not of blind faith (an un-Christian concept), but of the clear-headed act of reason by which rational beings perceive what is real in their environment.If you think faith is a wild and uneccessary leap in the dark, you misunderstand the Christian religion, and the nature of knowledge in general.

Suffering from this misunderstanding, Smith blames Augustine for the Dark Ages; which I think is radically unfair.(Especially considering that Augustine, one of the greatest thinkers in world history, died in a city under siege of the invaders who really did usher in the Dark Ages.)

Smith also tries halfheartedly to argue that Jesus fit the "profile" of an abusive cult leader.This is nonsense.In fact, compare the more detailed list of traits common to cult leaders compiled by such skeptical psychologists as Marcia Fabin and Anthony Storr with the Gospels, and it appears that Jesus was at the opposite end of the spectrum from that sort of person.I have been studying world religion, gurus, Messiahs, and "Living Buddhas" for many years, and I have not found any who resembled Jesus.

Despite these criticisms, I enjoyed this book and found a lot of value in it.Smith is extremely well-read, and writes with a style that is usually clear andreasonable.I look forward to reading his general defense of atheism.

Interesting collection of essays
Heresy, Smith defines in his preface, is the rejection of the orthodox, and heresies are considered a threat to the established social order once the dogma of the institution (be it religious or otherwise) has become aligned with the power of the state or political force. The state, holding the reins of power, uses force, instead of persuasion, to enforce the orthodoxy.The Founding Fathers, most practicing Deists, itself a form of heretical thought, understood this and insisted on the separation of church and state, thus preventing the establishment of an official religion, preventing, they hoped, official heresies as well.Orthodoxy itself is not dangerous, only its alliance with political power.The central theme of Smith's book is the "crucial difference between the voluntary orthodoxy of organizations and the politicized orthodoxy of governments. "A free society, complete with orthodoxies and prejudices, is the best of all worlds for the heretic.Liberty permits the heretic to pit his beliefs against those of the orthodox majority."The paradox for the heretic is whether if and when his view becomes the dominant - to politicize the new orthodoxy or to permit liberty, which enabled the heretic to conquer ideologically, to possibly undermine the new orthodoxy?

Smith is unapologetically atheist; belief in God for Smith is simply unreasonable and irrational. Asked to prove the nonexistence of God, Smith's answer is simply that one cannot prove a negative and that the person who asserts the existence of something bears the burden of proof. He asserts that to believe in faith or to rely on faith is to "defy and abandon the judgment of one's mind. Faith conflicts with reason.It cannot give you knowledge; it can only delude you into believing that you know more than you really do.Faith is intellectually dishonest, and it should be rejected by every person of integrity.

The book is a loosely connected series of essays that discuss a variety of Christian and social heresies. He begins with his own philosophic journey to atheism.He is certainly a libertarian, and the essays on public education and the War on Drugs reflect that philosophy. But the reason I began this book was to discover his writing about Ayn Rand. He devotes two substantial chapters to her and the Objectivist philosophy.

Rand evokes fierce passions, both pro and con."Accounts of Objectivism written by Rand's admirers are frequently eulogistic and uncritical, whereas accounts written by her antagonists are often hostile and what is worse, embarrassingly inaccurate." The situation has been made worse by her appointed heir to the throne, Leonard Peikoff, who has declared Objectivism to be a "closed" philosophy, i.e., no critical analysis will be tolerated;one must accept it as he says it is and that's that. Whether Objectivism will survive such narrow-mindedness remains to be seen.It's a classic case of the true believer "unwilling to criticize the deity.Thinking for oneself is hard work so true believers recite catechisms and denounce heretics instead."Typically, this was contrary to Rand's philosophy of individualism and critical, rational thinking where "truth or falsehood must be one's sole concern and the sole criterion ofjudgment -- not anyone's approval or disapproval."

A dissenter's mind
This loosely connected series of essays expands his earlier work,extending beyond Atheismto embrace various Christian and social'heresies'.Beginning with his personal Path toAtheism, he provides theskeptic with methods of argument and several readings.He givesaccountsof those Christian philosophers who wrote against atheists and heretics. Heretics, ofcourse, have been subjected to the severest punishments inthe Christian churches, for a soullost is more serious than anunconverted heathen.

Smith's discussion of Deism is the highlight of thisbook.As a philosophy accepting a godwithout a structured religiousorganization, Deism was a major theme among critics ofChristianity. Abolishment of church hierarchies, with their inevitable moral and monetary corruption, led many thinkers to leave Christianity in favour of apersonal relationship with adeity.Many of the Founding Fathers of theUnited States adhered to this view, a product ofthe EuropeanEnlightenment of the 18th Century.Arising coincidentally with many philosophies of personal freedom, it was almost inevitable that a nationexperimenting withdemocratic ideals would espouse it.Smith's essay onthe writings of Deists is enlightening.

Smith's discussion of Ayn Rand'sideas came as a bit of a shock.It's difficult to find anyone,apart froma few feminists, in this era who knows who she was.Smith's account of herlifeincludes a smattering of choice quotations, but the brevity of theentries demonstrates thepaucity of adherents.There is an Ayn RandInstitute site on the 'Net, but seems hardly worththe bother.

The twoessays on public education and the War on Drugs are heartfelt expressionsof a truelibertarian.Neither will add to Smith's popularity in a nationwhere 'Christian virtues' reignwith such strength, but they're requiredreading for anyone who wishes to understand viewsother than the accepted'norm'.Smith appears to forget that public education in the United States, even given its Puritan foundation, was furthered by a desire tofree education from thethrall of an Established Church.The strugglingeconomy of a growing nation would have ledmore children into hazardousand fatiguing work situations from which they would neverrecovered. Extending the years of compulsory education freed many children and openedjobopportunities.The result put more women into the work force,ultimately leading toimproving their role in society.

Smith confesseshis lack of a formal education, but he's certainly managed a wealth of research to produce this book.Not a deep study of the challenges toestablished thinking, thisbook is a valid starting point for thoseseeking further knowledge of libertarian thinking.

Worthy follow-up to "Atheism: The Case Against God"
This is a loose collection of essays by Smith. They cover a variety of topics, like Smith's personal atheism, heresies over the years, and Objectivism. His critiques of Objectivism are well-written and, IMHO,spot-on.

I wish I could give the book five stars, but there doesn't seemto be much of an underlying theme, as the title suggests. I would've likedto have seen something where the chapters lead to an inevitable conclusion,as in A:TCAG. ... Read more

Book Description
Geroge H. Smith, author of the influential contemporary classic ATHEISM: THE CASE AGAINST GOD, continues his defense of reason, freethought, and personal liberty by answering the age-old question: why atheism?Why would anyone question the existence of a supernatural diety?Smith reviews the historical roots of unbelief dating back to the ancient Greeks, argues that philosophy can serve as an important alternative to religion, and defends reason as the most reliable method we humans have for establishing truth and conducting our lives.

WHY ATHEISM? tackles a wide range of subjects, some of which have never been thoroughly analyzed from an atheistic point of view. Beginning with the problem of atheism's credibility, Smith points out the various ways in which religious opponents have sought to exclude atheism from serious consideration.He also analyzes a number of classical philosophical issues, such as the nature of knowledge and belief, concluding that modern atheism is largely an unintended consequence of the religious diversity brought about by the Protestant Reformation.

Two chapters are devoted to ethics, one focusing on the ethics of belief with particular attention given to the views of Thomas Aquinas and John Locke.Other chapters discuss the persecution of religious dissenters as well as the nature and content of an ethical system devoid of belief in God.Smith's characteristic lucidity, analytical rigor, and piercing wit make WHY ATHEISM? an accessible and enjoyable guide to living a positive life without belief in a supreme being. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (15)

Not for the layperson of Philosophy
I'm somewhat biased, if I hadn't read "Atheism: The Case Against God," I doubt I'd have ever finished this book. The writting in the book is good, I suppose, but it was beyond my grasp.The book for the most part deals heavily with philosophy, and the understanding of most of the philosophy is beyond the reach of Joe Average.

Most of his 'arguments' in the book seem to be an analysis of 17th and 18th philosophers, and applying their arguments towards his ideas about Atheisms contemporary relevance.This is by no means bad, but for people lacking background the reading is incredibly dense, and somewhat uninteresting.

Where he succeeds the most is near the end of the book in a short chapter where he adresses 'silly' issues.He talks about 'silly issues' like whether God himself is an Atheist (he is!) and whether Satan is actually a Christian.His wit in this very short chapter was great, and I wished he'd written more on the topic of strange concepts like that.

Overall, this isn't a bad book, but unlike "Atheism: The Case Against God" This book is much harder to grasp for people not grounded in philosophy, and is more an analysis of philosophers then a refutation of Christianity.

Not bad, but not his best work
I raved on and on about Smith's earlier book "Atheism: The Case Against God", so I thought I could not go wrong with reading another from him...

Sadly, I was mistaken.While this book does have its moments (such as the excellent critique of Ayn Rand and the hilarity of the second-to-last chapter), I must say that overall I was disappointed in this book with respect to his original work.I can't quite place my finger on what I didn't like, but at times the book felt repetitious and mundane.

I highly recommend Smith's earlier work, but only mildly recommend this.It will fill out some gaps of knowledge, but only at the expense of a fairly unexciting read.

Study of the Place of Atheism in the History of Philosophy
For readers seeking an introduction to the basic ideas of atheism this book is probably not what you are looking for. Instead it is more a history of philosophy and the beliefs of the most important philosophers such as Bacon, Descartes, Kant, Spinoza, Locke and Schopenhauer. George Smith attempts to make the case for atheism by challenging those he disagrees with, such as the theist Descartes who attempted to "prove" the existence of God through his theory of knowledge. Others, like the atheist Schopehauer, he obviously agrees with. All of this is interesting enough, especially for the serious student of philosophy.

But I was hoping to find a more accessible book with more widespread appeal. For me, the case for atheism is simply a matter of common sense. There is no logical reason to believe in the existence of an external, creative diety. Of course, theists always fall back on the concept of faith. But faith in God is a weak argument when a person has no factual support to bolster his claim. For example, I can have faith that the moon is made of green cheese. But just because I believe it doesn't make ittrue or mean that this belief is something other people should take seriously. Darwin's theory of evolution, on the other hand, uses the scientific method, including a large, verifiable fossil record, to prove its case. To say that a person's unsubstantiated belief in God is equal to Darwin's much more verifiable theory of evolution is simply irrational thinking.


Prior to science, people made up mythological stories to explain how the world was created and why we are here. Fortunately, science is now able to explain much of how the natural world functions, how humans and other life forms evolved and even how the universe itself came into being. Of course, this only explains the "how" of existence and not the "why". But, to me, the doctrines of religion are a childish cop out. Instead the truth is that it is ultimately up to each individual to find meaning, purpose and happiness in life. We are now living in the "brave, new world" of secularism. It is our challenge to leave behind the dogmas of religion to create a world of freedom, ethics and community based on reason rather than superstition.

Not nearly as brilliant as The Case Against God!
As good a writer as Smith is, this book was not half what his "The Case Against God" was. It does not offer the same deep insight as I would have expected. It is funny at times and still slightly imformative, but only by a small margin does it justify the time and effort it takes to read it. Sadly, I have to say, it barely makes the cut of getting a recommendation by me at all!

(JH)
www.ministerturnsatheist.org

Dry as dry can be
I don't recall reading a book as dry as this one. This seems a bookan extreme pedant might value. Athough an atheist and not adverse to philosophy, I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone wondering "why atheism". Its so dry that I found it difficult to maintain concentration. Not that the author's position or points aren't good: it seems he has put a good deal of effort into this book but the presentation seems horrific. It seems highly unlike any theist would remain reading this book long enough to be convinced that atheism is credible. It also seems unlikely that many atheists would remain reading this book long enough to learn from it. The capacity for boredom isn't infinite in most of us.

With considerable patience, you may learn something from this book. I'd suggest reading a few pages at a time so that you can appreciate the author's teaching without tedium overwhelming you. Because the underlying material presented has substance, a rewriting by a good writer might salvage this book.

Douglas Krueger's "What is Atheism? A Short Introduction" doesn'tcover the same ground or go to the same depth but it covers the issues well and I found it vastly more readable. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (4)

Atheism as old as religion
This book is easy to read even for them who - like me - have English as second language. The book starts already before Socrates with a very good overview of the objections to religion in general and gods in particular. Thrower follows the chronological order over antiquity, Rome, medieval time and up to our own time. The book never looses the perspective of the first ideas against religion and it show clearly how counter-arguments refines when theology get more advanced.

It gives numerous references and is obvious very interesting for both believers and non-believers who want to structure the ideas of atheism and put the different ideas in a proper time perspective.

Anyone who lives with the conception that atheism is a new invention should read the book. All the important objections are there from the start.

AtheistWorld.Com Book Review
Comfort can be taken in the acknowledgement that many "theologians and religious philosophers now openly state, that religion is a 'blik', a perspective, an attitude, a way of looking at the world, rather than a descriptive account of how reality actually is." Thrower also clarified for me the thought that I have always had that "atheism" is not a satisfactory description of my own philosophy of life. "For if the assertion that there is a god is nonsensical, then the atheist's assertion that there is no god is equally nonsensical, since it is only a significant proposition that can be significantly contradicted." Which implies that agnosticism is also ruled out. Instinctively, I have referred to myself as a non-theist rather than atheist. After reading Thrower, I am even more comfortable referring to myself as an unbeliever or Humanist without any further qualifications.

I highly recommend this book for those who are either theist or humanist in their belief because it gives a wonderful overview of the history of these two different views of our human awareness. For the theist, it provides a fresh look at the "old arguments" against religion and will help to sharpen or deepen your faith (since I doubt those of true faith will be persuaded against their faith by a review of atheism's history). For the humanist, it will provide roots for your own life philosophy. An excellent addition to both libraries!

Proud roots for the humanists . . .
Another book recommended by my good friend and mentor, Dr. Gus Rath, and another winner. This small volume gives a wonderfully concise synopsis of the history of Western Atheism. It gives some hope to those who want to understand that they are not alone in their humanist or agnostic view of the world. They in fact are part of a long history and associated with some of the most powerful "thinkers" of our species.

Comfort can be taken in the acknowledgement that many "theologians and religious philosophers now openly state, that religion is a 'blik', a perspective, an attitude, a way of looking at the world, rather than a descriptive account of how reality actually is." Thrower also clarified for me the thought that I have always had that "atheism" is not a satisfactory description of my own philosophy of life. "For if the assertion that there is a god is nonsensical, then the atheist's assertion that there is no god is equally nonsensical, since it is only a significant proposition that can be significantly contradicted." Which implies that agnosticism is also ruled out. Instinctively, I have referred to myself as a non-theist rather than atheist. After reading Thrower, I am even more comfortable referring to myself as an unbeliever or Humanist without any further qualifications.

I highly recommend this book for those who are either theist or humanist in their belief because it gives a wonderful overview of the history of these two different views of our human awareness. For the theist, it provides a fresh look at the "old arguments" against religion and will help to sharpen or deepen your faith (since I doubt those of true faith will be persuaded against their faith by a review of atheism's history). For the humanist, it will provide roots for your own life philosophy. An excellent addition to both libraries!

Carneades and More
"There is...a way of looking at and interpreting events in the world, whose origins...can be seen as early as the beginnings of speculative thought itself, and which I shall call naturalistic...in the sense that it is incompatible with any and every form of supernaturalism." --James Thrower, Introduction to Western Atheism

James Thrower, currently Professor of the History of Religions at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, originally published his book with Pemberton Books in 1971. To its republication, he has added a Preface, Afterward, and updated Bibliography. The main text and indexes, however, are unchanged from the original. The book's focus is broad, not only discussing individuals who were outright atheists, but also thinkers and schools whose thoughts have contributed to the naturalistic outlook. But while the book is conceptually broad, it is geographically narrow, that is, borrowing a term from non-European academia, almost entirely "Eurocentric." One of the thinkers covered in Thrower's book who astonished me was the Greek Skeptic, Carneades of Cyrene (214-129 BC).

Carneades anticipated by more than two thousand years much of the subsequent thinking in the debate between theism and atheism. He criticized in numerous ways Stoic theology's support of theism. He asked why theists find it necessary to support theism with logical arguments if it is really universally believed. Even if theism was universally believed, Carneades pointed out that popularity of a belief does not prove the belief to be true. He accused the Stoics of the hypocrisy of considering most of humanity to be fools while at the same time utilizing these fool's beliefs as evidence for theism. He dismissed reports of divine visitations as being old wive's tales. He criticized divination, saying that it was arbitrary, inexact, and does not rest on rational principles. He suggested that the origin of theistic belief was from the human propensity to deify awesome acts of nature, but also pointed out that knowing a belief's origin does not, in and of itself, either prove or disprove a belief. He also criticized the Stoic's conception of god as being incoherent and meaningless.

Carneades saw that personal attributes necessarily limit god's nature. For example, if god is omnipotent, he cannot also possess courage because, being omnipotent, he cannot be endangered, etc. Carneades also punched holes in the design argument for theism, pointing out that the evidence of design in the world is inconclusive, because evils like poisonous snakes, natural disasters, and disease are evidence against design.

Thrower's book is divided into three parts:"ATHEISM IN CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY," "WESTERN ATHEISM TO THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY," and "MODERN ATHEISM." Thrower starts with the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers and ends with the British philosopher Sir A. J. Ayer. Excluding his page-long "Note on Atheism and Agnosticism within Jewish Thought in the period before the Fall of Jersusalem in AD 71" and his half-page mention in his Afterward of "radical Americal theologins" who have "sought to develope a Christian atheism," there is virtually nothing in Thrower's history of Western atheism that comes from outside of Europe. He is aware that this is a limitation, for in his Afterward, he highlights the global scope of atheism and then concludes that a "comparative history of atheism remains to be written." However, even a book intended to discuss only Western atheism should cover more than just Europe, because Western thought encompasses the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc. Even in a short history, I would like to know what if anything relevant to atheism has been happening in Western culture outside of Europe. Surely, in his section on "MODERN ATHEISM," Thrower might have found something of note outside of Europe to include in his book. Nevertheless, although I find his short history too short -- the entire book including the index is a mere 157 pages -- Thrower's book is necessarily of value to the general reader, because what it does cover is well written and informative, and because there is little else as a general introduction the the history of atheism to take its place. ... Read more

Book Description
Discover magazine recently called Richard Dawkins "Darwin's Rottweiler" for his fierce and effective defense of evolution. Prospect magazine voted him among the top three public intellectuals in the world (along with Umberto Eco and Noam Chomsky). Now Dawkins turns his considerable intellect on religion, denouncing its faulty logic and the suffering it causes.He critiques God in all his forms, from the sex-obsessed tyrant of the Old Testament to the more benign (but still illogical) Celestial Watchmaker favored by some Enlightenment thinkers. He eviscerates the major arguments for religion and demonstrates the supreme improbability of a supreme being. He shows how religion fuels war, foments bigotry, and abuses children, buttressing his points with historical and contemporary evidence. In so doing, he makes a compelling case that belief in God is not just irrational, but potentially deadly.Dawkins has fashioned an impassioned, rigorous rebuttal to religion, to be embraced by anyone who sputters at the inconsistencies and cruelties that riddle the Bible, bristles at the inanity of "intelligent design," or agonizes over fundamentalism in the Middle Eastor Middle America. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1100)

A thorough analysis of religion today
The argument is that the negatives of religion outweigh the positives.

Dawkins makes an effective case for why religion may someday no longer be.

Some of his chapters are quite speculative, but speculation is always to be expected from any scientist or progressive research persons, especially from as highly esteemed a scientist as Richard Dawkins is.

A great read previously to this book would be Dawkin's Selfish Gene.

overall 4/5...
i'm sure this book will offend many ignorant and close minded american christians and thus may hurt Dawkins hopeful future more than make it so

Either way Dawkins shows his command over the english language and his complete understanding of biological evolution and religions obvious place as an evolutionary benefit

What about Tony Blair

While I believe that this book is excellent, it doesn't extend as far as I would like to the behavior of some current religious people.
I preferred [ASIN:0446579807 God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything]]which extends Dawkins theories and even enables one to predict that Tony Blair would become a Catholic.
Atheists have to accept responsibility for their own actions.
Religious people can either blame God or seek forgiveness from God,which from a former Christian perspective is strange, as Christ exhorts a taxgatherer to returnto those he has wronged, four times the amount wrongly taken. He does not suggest confession or a donation to the Church.
By becoming a Catholic Tony Blair, in his own mind, has been able to gain
absolution for the undoubted large amount of evil he has done.
It is only in the insane world of religion that he can find any escape from the realities of his past behavior.
Needless to say those who should read this book won't anyhow.

The Probability that Life on Earth Evolved by Random Chance is Zero
If it's 99% certain that an organism will survive after each single mutation, then the probability that it would survive just the first one thousand mutations is (0.99)^1000 = 0.000043 or about one in twenty-five thousand and the probability that it would survive the first 10,000 mutations would be(0.99)^10,000 = 2.24 x (10)^ - 44. Scientists like Dawkins know that the odds of a complex molecule like RNA (the crux molecule of primitive life) just spontaneously coming into existence is astronomically low so they try to get around the improbability of this by saying that there are countless billions of planets in the universe and earth just happens to be one where pure random chance created our complex ecosystem. Other scientists say that in order for random chance to have created the right combination of physical laws that exist here on earth for sustaining life there would need to be an infinite number of universes to produce one planet with just the right combination of laws.


---

"There's a reason some theorists want other universes to exist: They believe it's the only way to explain why our own universe, whose physical laws are just right to allow life, happens to exist. According to the so-called anthropic principle, there are perhaps an infinite number of universes, each with its own set of physical laws. And one of them happens to be ours. That's much easier to believe, say the anthropic advocates, than a single universe `fine-tuned' for our existence."


"'It's not a testable idea,' says Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University. Because the different universes would not be detectable by one another, he says, 'You can't really prove it exists or doesn't exist.' When you talk about multiple universes, Steinhardt says, you're not talking about science anymore. 'In my view, you're into metaphysics.'"



http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/dest_pb_test.html

Not all fellow-atheists are as clueless, it seems ...
Atheist Michael Ruse says it best in his review (well, as best as he can allow, for an atheist). While acknowledging that Dawkins is a "brilliant science writer", he goes on to lament:

"It is not that the atheists are having a field day because of the brilliance and novelty of their thinking. Frankly - and I speak here as a nonbeliever myself, pretty atheistic about Christianity and skeptical about all theological claims - the material being churned out is second rate. And that is a euphemism for "downright awful." [. . .] It is simply that it (and the other works, some of which I have gone after elsewhere) is not very good. For a start, Dawkins is brazen in his ignorance of philosophy and theology (not to mention the history of science). [. . .] Dawkins misunderstands the place of the proofs, but this is nothing to his treatment of the proofs themselves. This is a man truly out of his depth."

From the other reviews here, I gather that Dawkins is not the only one out of his depth.

The God Delusion
This book is a must read for both religious and non-religious people. If you are a theist, you would probably end up as a rational thinker after reading this book; if you are an atheist, you would know more and more reasons to not believe in God and follow a Religion.

Dr. Dawkins seeks to explain the various dangers of practicing a religion. If you don't have an open mind, this book is not for you. Brainwashed faith-heads won't have the courage to read this book.

Theists who believe in a personal God, who have no clue as to how large the universe is, will have a hard time reading this book. If you were brought up by fanatics brainwashing you that you are going to hell if you don't believe in a character from an ancient story book, then you are the target audience of this book.

If you think you have the ability to think yourself out of the constraints put on you by religious people--read Dawkins' book; he has given many addresses of Organizations which can help you.



... Read more

Book Description
In this book two philosophers, each committed to unambiguous versions of belief and disbelief, debate the central issues of atheism and theism.

• Considers one of the oldest and most widely disputed philosophical questions: is there a God?
  
• Presents the atheism/theism issue in the form of philosophical debate between two highly regarded scholars, widely praised for the clarity and verve of their work.
  
• This second edition contains new essays by each philosopher, responding to criticisms and building on their previous work.

Customer Reviews (6)

A good introduction to the issues
This is a good introduction to many of the main arguments concerning theism and atheism. Smart and Haldane manage to cover most of the main issues while at the same time making original contributions to the debate. The book is especially helpful for giving clear account of the issues surrounding the "fine-tuning" argument due e.g., to Richard Swinburne.

As they mention in the Introduction, neither Smart nor Haldane is a specialist precisely in philosophy of religion--both are well known especially for contributions to philosophy of mind--and this affects the book's overall approach. Smart begins with a defense of physicalism (the view that only objects whose existence is required by physical theory exist), arguing that this position should be accepted on the methodological ground that it is most compatible with the results of modern science. Smart also responds to various theistic arguments and defends a version of the "problem of evil" objection to theism. Haldane follows this with a series of arguments against materialist reductionism, taking the failure of reductionism to entail some kind of design and so theism. Haldane also defends versions of the cosmological ("firt cause") argument and attempts a solution to the problem of evil. Smart then briefly responds to Haldane and Haldane to Smart. For Smart, atheism is part of a general commitment to physicalism, whereas Haldane seems no less interested in defending a general antireductionism (e.g., with respect to intentionality) than in defending theism specifically.

The book covers a great deal of ground and offers much food for thought. The downside to this is discussions of particular issues are sometimes sketchier than one would like. Perhaps it would have been more effective to focus the book more tightly on the aspect of the debate that raises issues of reductionism vs. antireductionism. I also wish the book had been organized so as encourage a more extended response from Smart to Haldane's antireductionist arguments. Smart's methodological principles may well establish a presumption against theism, but surely this presumption is defeasible, and Haldane's contribution is effect an attempt to defeat precisely this presumption.

Most intelligent debate on existence of god so far
This is the way atheism vs. theism debates should always be. First, Smart and Haldane are very respectful of one another, as well they should be. Second, they are not afraid to delve deep into the true complexities of philosophy of religion, and are both equal to the task. This debate is very unlike typical debates, in which scholarship is subordinated to rhetoric, and readers are likely to come away having learned something about how truly difficult philosophy of religion is.

An Interesting Read, but Misses the Needs of Most Audinces
I have some reservations about giving this title only three stars, for I greatly enjoyed reading it, but the work has some significant shortcomings.Parts of the essays are highly technical, which suggests a target audience of professional philosophers.Nonetheless, recent scholarship is often covered either inadquately or not at all.An example is Smart's treatment of the argument from religious expreience.While Smart is discerning and even witty, he shows no awareness of the positions of thinkers such as William Alston and Alvin Plantinga who have pursued the discussion on a much deeper level and who (some might even say) have made treatments such as Smart's irrelevant.Other parts of the book are marred by similar omissions.

For a person with some experience reading contrmporary analytic philosophy, I would recommend the title.Just don't think you're getting anything even close to an overview of what cutting edge thinkers have to say about the atheism/theism debate.That being said, it is well written, interesting, and thought inspiring.

Greg Klebanoff

Debating at its best.
Thorough and respectable debate. In-depth with little rhetoric

Smart has a highly refined philosophy of atheism
The present book by Smart and Haldane, appearedthe same year as Robin Le Poidevin's _Arguing forAtheism_ and testifies to a renewed interest inatheism in philosophical circles. The present bookalso testifies to interest in theism inphilosophical circles. But theism has generallybeen given pride of place in books on thephilosophy of religion, whereas atheism ordinarilyhas not been given the same attention in suchbooks. Still, atheism as well as theism are partsof the philosophy of religion. And books on thephilosophy of religion that do not pay muchattention to atheism are eo ipso inadequate.

Now Smart and Haldane's book is not intended to bean introduction to the philosophy of religion. Thebook is rather a new installment in a seriesentitled "Great Debates in Philosophy" and whichearlier has been devoted to topics like personalidentity, consciousness and causality, agency andnecessity, critical theory, and moral relativi! smand moral objectivity. The series is edited byErnest Sosa who seems to have managed to establisha good series. In any case, the present book ishighly interesting particularly in the partswritten by professor Smart.

Smart (b. 1920) has for many years been aprofessor of philosophy in Adelaide and inCanberra, but is now retired. In 1963 he publishedthe book _Philosophy and Scientific Realism_.(London & NY). This book made a deep impression onme, and I can say that Smart converted me tomaterialism. I had been an atheist before I readSmart's book, but having read the book I alsobecame a materialist.

In the book from 1963 Smart mentioned that he hadturned away from a roughly neo-Wittgensteinianconception of philosophy towards a moremetaphysical one, with a much more intimaterelation to the sciences. Philosophy should notonly unravel conceptual muddles but should alsoformulate a world view. And this world view, asSmart saw it, had!to be a kind of materialism, orrather physicalism.

U! sing ideas taken from the prominent Americanphilosopher Quine, Smart argues that mathematicsis a part of physical theory as a whole. Thismeans that we must regard mathematical objects asphysical, even though they are not material. Thus,for Smart physicalism is more basic thanmaterialism. Hence, he in his last book prefers todescribe himself as a physicalist rather than as amaterialist, except in the context of thephilosophy of mind where he holds that thedistinction is not important (p. 10).

Smart mentions in the book under review that heonce was a theist, and he would still like to be atheist if he had been able to reconcile theismwith his philosophical and scientific views. So hewould not be too sorry if his opponent, professorHaldane, would win the argument. From the presentbook it is clear that Haldane has not been able toconvince Smart, but the same is the case the otherway around: Smart has not been able to convinceHaldane who re! mains a theist and even a RomanCatholic. Haldane probably sticks to RomanCatholicism because of old habits and forsentimental reasons. Philosophically RomanCatholicism is not stronger than Lutheranism orIslam. John L. Mackie and Michael Martin havesmashed theism in books which appeared in 1982 and1990 respectively, but Haldane does not go intotheir arguments. Nor does Smart, unfortunately,discuss Mackie's and Martin's arguments in anydetail. Both are mentioned in the bibliography,but they do not get much attention apart fromthat. This is unfortunate, because Mackie's andMartin's books illustrate different ways in whichone may approach or advocate atheism. Of othercontemporary philosophers and atheists, AntonyFlew is mentioned a few times in the text and inthe bibliography, but Kai Nielsen has only made itto the bibliography. Well-known atheists likeFeuerbach, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Freud etc. are noteven mentioned in the book. Smart's past!as atheist still hangs on.

Smart is a distinguished ! and profound contemporaryphilosopher who has published a number ofimportant books. One of these is a book on ethicaltheory, written together with anotherdistinguished philosopher, Bernard Williams:_Utilitarianism_, for and against (Cambridge Univ.Press, UK, 1973). I must confess that I, before Isaw the book which is reviewed here, never hadheard about professor Haldane. Richard Swinburneand Alvin Plantiga have published moresophisticated defences of theism than Haldane, butboth have also been sharply criticized by John L.Mackie, Michael Martin, and others. I may bebiased as I am an atheist and a materialist. But Ithink that Smart is much more profound thanHaldane. Smart has a highly refined philosophy ofatheism, metaphysics, and ethics. From contactswith "atheists in the street", particularly asthey can be found in contemporary freethoughtcircles, I suspect that Smart's philosophy is tooprofound and too difficult for most of th! em. Quitea pity!

... Read more

Book Description
Contemporary science presents us with the remarkable theory that the universe began to exist about fifteen billion years ago with a cataclysmic explosion called `the Big Bang'. The question of whether Big Bang cosmology supports theism or atheism has long been a matter of discussion among the general public and in popular science books, but has received scant attention from philosophers.This book sets out to fill this gap by means of a sustained debate between two philosophers, William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith, who defend opposing positions.Craig argues that the Big Bang that began the universe was created by God, while Smith argues that the Big Bang has no cause.The book consists ofalternating chapters by Craig and Smith, with each chapter being either a criticism of a preceding chapter or being criticized by a subsequent chapter.Part One consists of Craig's arguments that the past is necessarily finite and that God created the Big Bang, and Smith's criticisms of these arguments.Part Two presents Smith's arguments that Big Bang cosmology is inconsistent with theism and Craig's criticisms of Smith's argument.The authors' arguments are based on Einstein's theory of relativity, and there is also a discussion of Stephen Hawking's new quantum cosmology. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (7)

A Great In-Depth Treatment
In this advanced work, Christian philosopher William Lane Craig debates atheistic philosopher Quentin Smith in a series of technical essays. The book is separated into three main sections.

In the first section, Craig and Smith debate the possible existence of the actual infinite in the real world. Craig contends that the infinite is applicable only, if at all, in the realm of the mathematical. While admitting the applicability of Cantor's set theory, he tries to show that an actual infinite instantiated in the real world would lead to contradictions. He also argues that it is impossible to create an infinite by successive addition. He therefore concludes that the universe had a beginning. Smith counters Craig by attempting to resolve the supposed paradoxes, and establishing the reasonability of an actual infinite.

In this section Craig also attempts to argue from the beginning of the universe to the necessity of a personal cause. Smith contends that, although the universe did begin to exist in the Big Bang, it is impossible to prove that it requires a cause and is therefore reasonable to assume that the universe began to exist without a cause.

In the second section, Smith attempts to construct an atheistic cosmological argument. He claims that the Big Bang singularity will emit all configurations with equal probability, and, therefore cannot be guaranteed to result in a life-permitting universe. He concludes that the unpredictability of the first states of the universe is incompatible with divine creation, since God would want to ensure a life-permitting universe. Craig addresses this by denying the actual existence of the singularity and by countering that God's interaction in the world to ensure a life-permitting universe is compatible with His attributes.

In the final section, Craig critiques Hartle-Hawking Cosmology, which purportedly eliminates the need for a Creator. Craig shows that this cosmology only averts the need for a Creator by utilizing metaphysically absurd concepts such as "imaginary time." Smith agrees that the cosmology needs some changes in order to remain coherent, and in the final essay he attempts to improve the metaphysics of the cosmology in order to construct a plausible alternative to Divine Causation.

This book, while extremely informative and interesting, was also very technical. Thus, it is recommended only for those who have a great interest in the topics discussed and who are looking for an advanced treatment of the issues.

Can Something Come from Nothing? Scholars Debate Scientific and Philosophical Questions about the Origin of the Universe
Contemporary science presents us with the remarkable theory that the universe began billions of years ago with a cataclysmic explosion, the `Big Bang'But was this explosion created by God? The question of whether Big Bang cosmology supports theism or atheism has long been a matter of discussion among the general public and in popular science books, but has received scant attention from philosophers. This book sets out to fill this gap by means of a sustained debate between two philosophers.

William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith take turns defend opposing positions in alternating chapters. In Part I, Craig argues that the past necessarily is finite and that God created the universe, and Smith presents his criticisms of these arguments.Part II consists of Smith's arguments that Big Bang cosmology is inconsistent with theism and that the Big Bang has no cause, with Craig's criticisms of Smith's argument. Part III presents both philosophers' interpretations of Stephen Hawking's new quantum cosmology and its bearing upon theism.

Excellent Discussion
Recent developments in the field of cosmology have caused it to become increasingly topical in the theism - atheism debate.Theoretical and empirical work during the last century has shattered the common modern belief that the universe was temporally infinite.Indeed, these developments have made a compelling argument for the universe having an actual being.Obviously, if one accepts the finitude of the past this view has profound philosophical and theological implications.Why is there a universe?Is God the only viable hypothesis? In Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology, philosophers Quentin Smith and William Craig discuss these and other fascinating questions.

The book has three parts.It is laid out in a debate style format wherein one author puts forth their case that is subsequently followed by a series of rebuttals and responses.In Part 1 Craig makes the theistic case.In Part 2 Smith makes the atheist case.In Part 3 the authors discuss some of the cosmological musings made by Stephen Hawking in his popular works such as A Brief History of Time.

The first two parts of the book provide a comprehensive analysis of the implications of modern cosmology.Though well done, this discussion may be best suited for readers who possess some familiarity with modern physics and philosophical thought.An abbreviated and simplified overview of this topic can be found on Craig's website as part of a public debate between himself and Smith.For readers who have been exposed to Hawking's philosophical musings Part 3 should also be enjoyable.Smith in particular is helpful in reformulating and correcting some of Hawking's often muddled thoughts in this area.

Although some of the argumentation can seem rather esoteric the book is worthwhile for anyone seeking a better understanding of modern cosmology

Great resource on (a)theological implications of cosmology!
According to Big Bang cosmology, the universe began to exist about fifteen billion years ago with an explosion called `the Big Bang'.But was this explosion created by God, or did it occur without cause? In Part I, Christian philosopher William Lane Craig defends the theistic interpretation of Big Bang cosmology.In Part II, atheist philosopher Quentin Smith defends the atheistic interpretation.Part III contains Craig's and Smith's interpretations of Stephen Hawking's cosmology, and its implications for the existence of God.

An excellent scholarly resource for anyone interested in the debate over Big Bang cosmology.Readers unfamiliar with Big Bang Theory may wish to consult other works before reading this one.

Difficult, but a great debate on "the" cosmological question
This is not the easiest book in the world to read.Then again, its subject matter is recondite enough to warrant its difficult essays.It is recommended that anyone who wishes to take on this monster first beacquainted with philosophy as well as contemporary 20th century cosmology. Stephen Weinberg's "The First Three Minutes" and Timothy Ferris'"The Whole Shebang" would be good places to start beforeattempting to read this book.It would also be helpful for one to haveread at least one book on quantum mechanics ("Taking The QuantumLeap" by Fred Alan Wolf would be a wise choice) as a pre-requisite. Even having read these books beforehand, this is STILL not an easy book.

What this book deals with is the First Cause argument which St.Thomas Aquanis borrowed from Aristotle & then modified forChristianity.The question it confronts is "Why is there somethingrather than nothing?"The Creationist's answer is that the answerlies with God, the cause of all things.The atheists counter that thisdoes nothing but push the question back, as then one must ask "wheredid God come from?" (if, indeed, the universe "came" fromanywhere at all).If one cannot answer this, then why not just skip a stepand say that nobody knows where the universe came from? (as opposed oftaking the seemingly superfluous step of inferring a God or gods).WilliamCraig Lane defends the theistic side of the argument while Quentin Smithtakes the helm for the atheists.Both are quite erudite & it makes fora very good match.

In the 20th century, scientists used to adore the"steady state" theory, which was invented by Sir Fred Hoyle, thefamous Cambridge astronomer.Why?you ask.Well, in the 1920s EdwinHubble confirmed what Einstein's theory of Relativity had alreadypredicted:the universe was either expanding or contracting (expanding, asit turns out).Due to the redshift, if one were to "run the filmbackwards" the universe must have been at a single point sometime inthe remote past.However, if this were true, it would suggest that theuniverse had a beginning.However, if this were true, one could say thatthat was the moment of "creation" that Aristotle & St. ThomasAquanis were talking about.This became known as the Big Bang theory.

Enter Hoyle.Hoyle speculated that there must constantly be matter"created" (for lack of a better term?) that "fills in thegaps" between galaxies as they rushed away from each other.Thisbecame known as the "steady state theory."The theory was veryad-hoc, but it did preserve an infintely old universe and was adopted byover 90% of the scientists on the planet.

The story took a decided turnin the mid 1960s when Arno Penzias & Ralph Wilson discovered the cosmicmicrowave background (CMB), which was radiation left over from the firstinstants of the incredibly hot Big Bang.Almost overnight, Big Bang passedthe steady state theory in the HOV lane.Today, steady state is a deadtheory.

To many scientists' horror, they once again had tograpple with the First Cause argument as applied to a finite universe.SirArthur Eddington once said "I find the idea of a beginnig to theuniverse repugnant.I should like to find a genuine loophole."Oscillating universe theory became the favorite "loophole" ofatheists.However, it suffers from significant faults (as William CraigLane describes in this book).

This is a wonderful book as thepolemics of the First Cause argument are presented on the battlefield ofcosmology rather than straight-philosophy these days.That is as it shouldbe.The book is filled with paradoxes of infinity as well as thepossiblity of the entire universe being a quantum fluctuation (virtualparticle) gone awry.Although the book dabbles with the AnthropicPrinciple a wee bit, it is primarily focused on the question of causation. Did God create the universe?Or is it, as they say, turtles all the waydown? Or did the universe LITERALLY appear out of nowhere (andnothingness)?Read this book & you will be much more informed todecide for yourself. ... Read more

Book Description
Introduction by Carl Olson

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

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

Book Description
Despite the pluralism of contemporary American culture, the Judaeo-Christian legacy still has a great deal of influence on the popular imagination. Thus it is not surprising that in this context atheism has a slightly scandalous ring, and unbelief is often associated with the lack of morality and a meaningless existence. Distinguished philosopher and committed atheist Michael Martin sets out to refute such notions in this thorough defense of atheism as both a moral and a meaningful philosophy of life. Martin shows not only that objective morality and a purposeful life are possible without belief in God but also that the predominantly Christian worldview of American society is seriously flawed as the basis of morality and meaning.

Divided into four parts, this cogent and tightly argued treatise begins with a refutation of well-known criticisms of nonreligious ethics and then develops an atheistic metaethics. In part 2, Martin criticizes the Christian foundation of ethics, specifically the Divine Command Theory and the idea of imitating the life of Jesus as the basis of Christian morality. Part 3 demonstrates that life can be meaningful in the absence of religious belief. Part 4 evaluates the theistic point of view in general terms as well as the specific Christian doctrines of Atonement, Salvation, and the Resurrection.

This highly informed and sophisticated defense of atheism is a stimulating challenge to religious believers and a serious contribution to ethical theory. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (4)

The standard--and a little tired--tradition
Professor emeritus of philosophy at Boston University, Michael Martin is something of a guru among those who see him as a champion of atheism.Among his best-known titles are ATHEISM: A PHILOSOPHICAL JUSTIFICATION and THE CASE AGAINST CHRISTIANITY.In the present volume, he sets out to defend atheism against the claim that it cannot provide a basis for morality or purposeful existence.He also aims to show that attempts to provide such a basis by means of a Christian worldview are seriously flawed.However, several impediments prevent this from being either a very inviting or successful book.First, while the formal analytical style of argument aims at logical rigor, it will seem labored, dry, and distracting to many readers.Second, despite the fact that Martin references a new generation of disputants, few of the arguments are new or philosophically interesting, but tired variations on time-worn, threadbare cavils from generations ago.Third, the entire tenor of discussion betrays an uncritical acceptance of a logical empiricist frame of reference, in which what counts as "evidence" or "refutation" seems to have little to do with the subtleties of interpretation, meaning, or history. Without accounting for these matters, Martin's arguments are difficult to take quite seriously.

Too Dense, Too Defensive
I had high hopes that Michael Martin's book would offer clear and concise description of a non-religious basis for morality, but what I found instead was a densely written, barely readable, defensive-almost-to-the-point-of-paranoia philisophical apology. Hello! Michael! Human morality predates Abraham, not to mention Jesus. Why write as if Christians invented it? If Christians want to claim that any non-God-based moral code is tantamount to relativism by reducing all arguments to the point of absurdity, let them. It's their intellectual cul de sac, and they appear to enjoy living there.

I found the Ideal Observer Theory completely unpersuasive. What is the difference between acting morally because the Ideal Observer would disapprove versus acting morally because God would disapprove? It's a distinction without a difference. Why look for morality in abstract concepts when it is so clearly visible in reality and human history? Thou shalt not murder? Duh! Humanity wouldn't exist if we hadn't figured that one out long ago.

Welcome addition to literature on religion & morality
Most of the recent literature on the relationship between religion and morality is written by theists. It is rare to find anything in print by an atheist on *contemporary* moral arguments for God's existence. It is even less common to find an atheist who discusses such arguments without denying moral realism or moral objectivism. Michael Martin's book is a welcome exception to this trend. Martin responds to moral arguments for God's existence *as a moral realist and as a moral objectivist*.

Martin does not just defend atheism against moral apologetics; he goes on the offensive, presenting an affirmative case for an atheistic moral realism. He also makes many interesting points about the idea that Christianity (and not just God in general) is the foundation of ethics, and offers a detailed discussion of the implications of Christianity and naturalism for the meaning of life.

The breadth of the territory covered by Martin is impressive; I know of no other book on the market that covers such a variety of metaethical issues from an atheistic perspective. Anyone interested in the relationship between naturalism, theism, and morality will find Martin's book useful. Moreover, unlike many books on metaethics, Martin's book is not highly technical, which helps to make it accessible to the lay reader.

However, the book does have its limitations. Many nonphilosophers will find Martin's presentation and defense of Ideal Observer Theory counterintuitive and unconvincing. Martin says nothing about the atheistic justification for adopting the moral point of view. And Martin says little or nothing about some of the influential moral arguments advanced by theists. For example, he says nothing about Robert Adams's work on the social nature of obligation and very little about George Mavrodes's argument about the "queerness of morality." In this sense, Martin's discussion is incomplete.

Nevertheless, despite these shortcomings, this book would make a useful addition to the library of anyone interested in the relationship between atheism and morality.

A sustained case well argued
Martin undermines the Christian case for morality and meaning in life, and he also shows how an atheistic view can support an ethical theory and a meaningful life.Martin's sustained case for showing how life can have meaning without god, and how objective morality is possible without god, is must reading for both atheists and believers--especially the believers, since they often suffer from the mistaken stereotype that belief in god is a necessary condition for both ethics and meaning in life.

One may, perhaps, fault Martin for not devoting much space to alternative atheistic ethical theories other than the one he develops in the book, but details on those theories are readily available elsewhere, and Martin's book suffers from few other shortcomings. (Although, unfortunately, he does devote some space to refuting the absurd presuppositionalist claims of Bahnsen, a view that is not taken seriously in contemporary ethical theory anyway.But I guess someone has to refute it.)

This book should be on the shelf of anyone interested in the relationship between theism, morality, and meaning in life.

Readable, informative, accurate, and powerful.Buy it. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

Shelly prose
I didn't realize such modern ideas existed in the days of the great ones.

bertrand russell is more accessable...
Frankly, I'm more impressed with Bertrand Russell's _Why I am not a Christian_ than with this book...Shelley's writing is couched in such period rhetoric (early 19th century / late 18th century style) as to be rather clumsy and turgid for the modern reader, and the assumtions and argumentation rely on premises that are often faulty or no longer seem valid in the contemporary world.

All that having been said, the short essay "On Life" was most impressive indeed and in many ways seems a foreshadowing of Postmodernism.Very startling to see that Urquelle in a text like this.

This book looks great on a bookshelf, but is a little dissapointing in the actual reading of it, save for "On Life". The title essay is especially disappointing. Oh well...

Shelley's thoughts on Life and God
This book is an excellent introduction to Shelley's existencial thought, containing some impressing essays such as "The necessity of atheism" and "On Life". It also helps the reader tounderstand the marvellous personal "animus" that hiddened beneathShelley's great poems. ... Read more

Book Description
The debate about atheism has, without doubt, stalled since the time of Bertrand Russell. In this incisive book, Daniel Harbour returns to its core issues - the existence of God, the values of faith, the role of religion in society - and casts them in an entirely new light. The real question, he argues, is how we should consider our urge to understand the world. Only then can we ask ourselves whether atheism or theism forms part of a coherent worldview. This new debate between atheism and theism forces us into an investigation of philosophy, science, history, ethics, and aesthetics, and a desire for intellectual integrity and commitment to truth. It is very far removed from the usual listing of the errors of theism. Nor can atheism be equated with denialism. It holds real and practical implications for the place of religion and the obligations of atheists in our society. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (12)

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

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

A new approach
This is an excellent book. Mr Harbour avoids the traditional -and very tired- arguments for and against the existence of God and instead discusses two distinct worldviews that we can adopt as we attempt to explain things. He shows that one is better suited to finding true answers, and atheism follows from that worldview. In this sense atheism is 'superior' to theism. The approach is new, original and extremely convincing.

I didn't really like Mr Harbours writing style, so in the end I wasn't able to 'read it in an afternoon by the pool'. Mr Harbour is a scientist and not a novelist though, and this doesn't stop me from giving it 5 stars, it is an excellent book.

Atheism for the efficiency-minded
Harbour articulates what I have long felt: That revealed religions are cluttered with arbitrary and useless beliefs and information that people could just as easily live without. (For example, why should anyone rational care about the genealogies in the Bible full of unpronounceable names, like the conflicting ones given for Jesus in the gospels of Matthew and Luke?) His distinction between "Spartan meritocratic" and "Baroque monarchic" wordviews states exactly what is wrong with the whole premise behind a "revealed" religion, since it is undeniable that one's chances of hearing about it are a function of history and geography. Children learn about Jesus (or Krishna or Muhammad, for that matter) in the same way they learn about Harry Potter, which demonstrates that there is nothing in the natural world which implies the truth of these made-up stories.

The Spartan meritocratic worldview, by contrast, leads to discoveries that in principle anyone could make just from following his own inquiries into reality. Harbour points out that a mathematician in Japan came very close to discovering a key insight of the calculus at about the same time that Newton and Liebniz were working on it in Western Europe, even though the two societies might as well have existed on different planets in the late 17th Century. So it's not surprising that people in many different parts of the world have developed philosophical outlooks that sound somewhat like modern Secular Humanism, ranging from Confucianism in ancient China and certain philosophical schools in India all the way to Hellenistic Stoic and Epicurean philosophy. Secular Humanism, unlike revealed religion, has a better claim to the title "perennial wisdom" because it is implicit in a rational study of the world.

I was especially struck by Harbour's argument that theists' best shot at deriving a god from a parsimonious and plausible set of assumptions came and went with Descartes' philosophical program in the 17th Century. Descartes' argument for a god also implied a theory of physics that just happened to be falsified by Newton's spectacularly successful alternative model. Descartes' candidate for god therefore fell by the wayside along with his physics. If theists haven't been able to come up anything better in the last 350 years or so, maybe they should take the hint and give up on the god business.

thoughtful, enjoyable, but sidesteps the issue
Daniel Harbour doesn't actually discuss whether God exists or not. The crux of his argument is that religious beliefs are a manifestation of one's larger world view, of which he describes two models: the "Spartan Meritocracy" where things are only accepted as truth after being conclusively proven, and the "Baroque Monarchy" which assumes that received wisdom is true even in the face of contrary evidence. His discussion of these worldviews and their effects on society is very interesting.

My frustration with the book is summed up in the first paragraph:
"I shall not try to prove atheism true nor theism false. Rather, I want to show that atheism is 'superior' to theism." In the realm of science and empirical testing, a premise that can be demonstrably proven is more valuable than one that is purely theoretical. And in Harbour's view, all theories of God remain in the realm of the unproven -- "it is a fact about God that he [sic] has never proved Himself a viable cog, nut, or bolt in any theory of how the world is." This one sentence dismissal of the whole question of God's existence is the cornerstone of Harbour's entire argument -- because God's existence has not been "proven", belief in Him is merely speculative and therefore "inferior" to atheism.

I often feel that Christians make good arguments for why their beliefs are comforting, but not necessarily why they're true. In the same way, I feel that Harbour has convincingly demonstrated the "superiority" of a skeptical worldview. But this does not make it true. ... Read more

Book Description
If God does not exist, then what does? Is there good and evil, and should we care? How do we know what's true anyway? And can we make any sense of this universe, or our own lives? Sense and Goodness answers all these questions in lavish detail, without complex jargon. A complete worldview is presented and defended, covering every subject from knowledge to art, from metaphysics to morality, from theology to politics. Topics include free will, the nature of the universe, the meaning of life, and much more, arguing from scientific evidence that there is only a physical, natural world without gods or spirits, but that we can still live a life of love, meaning, and joy. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (25)

Very good
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.

Metaphysical Naturalism
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, thenyou 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.