Product Description
Are there legitimate uses for atheists' critiques of religion? Westphal says yes, if we take a closer look not at the atheists' arguments against the existence of God, but at their observations about the sometimes disreputable functions of religious practice and belief, as demonstrated in the "atheism of suspicion", put forth by Freud, Marx, and Nietzsche. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

Excellent Book on Atheism's use of Religion
Merold Westphal is an excellent philosopher, and this book shows that.He does a terrific job to show that Singmund Freud's, Karl Marx's and Friedrich Nietzsche's critique of religion are all a very biblical critique.

Westphal rightly notes the failures of any forms of Positivism to critique religion, and although Freud was a thorough-going positivist, his critique or religion did not rest on those assumptions.His critique of religion was that it was a wish-fulfillment.And in many ways, we Christians do make God into what we "wish" for Him to be.He had the most chapters on Freud, because his thinking is very complex and he had to go over all the facets of his thought.

The section on Karl Marx was very good, too.Marx (and Nietzsche for that matter) rested their critique of religion on ideologies.Marx relied heavily on Feuerbach's critique of religion for his crituqe, although he said Feuerbach didn't go far enough.Marx critisized religion because of the so-called German state being "Christian".The state was being oppresive.What Christians need to realize is that the Gospel does have political consequences and that God does care for the poor, and Marx definitely shows this.He compared Marx to the prophet Amos.

The section on Nietzsche is very good, also.Nietzsche was a terrific Philosopher, even though I definitely do not agree with him on everything.He has many good things to say.He bascially said that we use religion to get revenge on others.That is often the case, too.He said that we used religion to use our own "will to power".He compared Nietzsche's critique to Jesus' critique of the pharisees.

This was a terrific book on describing how these men's critique of religion is much like the biblical critique of religion, and is a very powerful look at human nature.

A good prophetic witness via good old fashioned philosophy
Back in 1992 I attended a lecture entitled "Nietzsche as Christian Philosopher." I was curious, and so went and heard a brilliant talk about the deep understanding Nietzsche had of theChristianity of his day, and why he found it necessary to reject it. The lecturer did not try to make Nietzsche into a Christian, of course, for Nietzsche was not one.Still, he pointed out that Nietzsche's critique grew out of his view, in part, of Christianity as a religion with a "slave mentality," one utterly lacking in a will-to-power. Apparently, Nietzsche had been reading Paul.

Westphal has also been reading Paul, and Augustine, and Luther, and Kierkegaard, in addition to the three founders of the "school of suspicion" as Ricoeur calls them: Frued, Marx, and Nietzsche.Westphal has brought back from his travels with these men a powerful and critical message for the church today; and when criticized, the church should pay close attention to the criticism.All three of these philosophers raise valid and very important concerns about not only the praxis of Christianity, but Christianity qua Christianity, as belief system and structure.

Nietzsche is indeed a Christian philosopher insofar as he shows us the will-to-power implicit in belief.He is correct thatthe Christ-idea of Christianity is antithetical to a will-to-power or a triumphalistic worldview, and that it would never and could never produce der Übermensch (that, in part, is why he hated it so). When Christianity weds itself to power, any power at all, it needs to read Nietzsche.It also needs to read Freud, badly, if it hopes to confront its wish-fulfillments in this-worldly "Kingdom of God"-speech, and its death-wishes in indulging apocalyptic orgies (note to Tim LaHaye: read more Freud). Christianity should also read Freud if it wants to really get an insight into Paul's "what I want to do, I do not, and what I do not want to do, I do," as well as a lot of Luther. Finally, a good re-reading of Marx (Marx has never really been given a good try, not since Lenin got him first and ruined him) might just show us why, after all, we not only cannot simply render unto Caesar, but why we constantly confuse Caesar and God. Great book by an important thinker.

Valid critiques of Christianity from atheism's pillars
This book is unique in that it is written by a Christian who uses the arguments of Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx to critique some of the shortcomings Christianity has shown over the last 2000 years.Its important to know that the author (Westphal) is strongly committed to the truthfulness of Christianity, but he wants other believers to know that we can learn something by listening to the words of these men.While many may ignore such advice when considering the source, I believe Westphal makes a lot of valid points in this book.He likens the critiques of Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx to those of the Old Testament prophets and Jesus.However, Westphal is careful not to blindly accept every criticism which comes from these men.He listens to what they have to say and then acknowledges when they're on the mark.Christians today could learn much by doing likewise. ... Read more

Product Description
In this wide-ranging collection of articles, essays, and speeches, George H Smith analyses atheism and its relevance to society today. The featured essay in this volume provides a full analysis of Ayn Rand's unique contribution to atheism, explaining how her objectivist metaphysics and laissez-faire economic principles rested on a purely godless worldview. Several chapters address the evolution of atheism; arguments in favour of religious toleration; the efforts of early Church fathers to discredit Roman polytheism and how these arguments can be used with equal force against later Christian descriptions of God; and, a survey of the contributions to free-thought made by the deists of the 18th and 19th centuries. With incisive logic and considerable wit, Smith ties atheism to reason and argues that reason itself can be a moral virtue. In one penetrating chapter, Smith salutes three Christian theorists who he believes embody the spirit of reason: Thomas Aquinas, Desiderius Erasmus, and John Locke. This is followed by a philosophical drubbing of his 'least favourite Christians' - St Paul, St Augustine, and John Calvin.In subsequent chapters, Smith examines religion and education; addresses the 20th century fundamentalist revival; offers suggestions on how to debate atheism with religious believers; critiques 'new religions', including pop therapy, EST, and transactional analysis; and, provides a comprehensive bibliographic essay on the literature of free-thought. ... Read more

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

Product Description
Atheists are frequently demonized as arrogant intellectuals, antagonistic to religion, devoid of moral sentiments, advocates of an "anything goes" lifestyle. Now, in this revealing volume, nineteen leading philosophers open a window on the inner life of atheism, shattering these common stereotypes as they reveal how they came to turn away from religious belief.
These highly engaging personal essays capture the marvelous diversity to be found among atheists, providing a portrait that will surprise most readers. Many of the authors, for example, express great affection for particular religious traditions, even as they explain why they cannot, in good conscience, embrace them. None of the contributors dismiss religious belief as stupid or primitive, and several even express regret that they cannot, or can no longer, believe. Perhaps more important, in these reflective pieces, they offer fresh insight into some of the oldest and most difficult problems facing the human mind and spirit. For instance, if God is dead, is everything permitted? Philosophers without Gods demonstrates convincingly, with arguments that date back to Plato, that morality is independent of the existence of God. Indeed, every writer in this volume adamantly affirms the objectivity of right and wrong. Moreover, they contend that secular life can provide rewards as great and as rich as religious life. A naturalistic understanding of the human condition presents a set of challenges--to pursue our goals without illusions, to act morally without hope of reward--challenges that can impart a lasting value to finite and fragile human lives.

'This Atheists R Us compilation differs markedly in tone from Hitchens and Dawkins. Excellent fare for Christian small groups whose members are genuinely interested in the arguments raised by atheists.'--Christianity Today

'Rather than the foolishness of Dawkins or Hitchens, these [essays] are compelling and sophisticated arguments that religious people ought to confront....'-- Tikkun

'Taken as a group, these readable, personal, and provocative essays make it clear that there are many kinds of non-believers, and even many different elements that make up a single skeptical outlook.Contrary to the popular image, atheism isn't all rebellious trumpets and defiant drums.That part of the orchestra is essential, but here we have all the varieties of unreligious experience, a full symphony of unbelief.' -- Free Inquiry

'This collection strikes me as an excellent example of how comprehensible philosophical writing can be at its best. By and large, the essays are written in a clear and direct style, free of philosophical jargon. Many who read it will find themselves also engaged at a level that is not merely academic.'--George I. Mavrodes, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews ... Read more

Customer Reviews (11)

Original
The first half of the volume consists of mostly personal stories by atheist philosophers, starting with stories of 'coming out' and gradual de-conversion, then expanding into other tales of life as an atheist. All were decently written (Daniel Dennet's brush with death was the most perfunctory, but I assume the editors got what they could from a big name). Most were reasonably enjoyable, and brought forth empathy from me, though none stand out in the mind now. I imagine these would be consoling for a new or isolated atheist who wonders if others are like him (though with the internet, are any such people left?). They might be useful for theists trying to understand unbelievers.

The second half is more philosophical per se. While there was one clumsy piece of academese, most were lively, and several were deeply provoking; especially those on religious disagreements and the unethics of belief.

None of the items here could be described as standard atheist writings. I have been reading about atheism for many years, and found new ideas. There are no dry, tired lists of arguments against god from overly literal-minded bores. Rather, it is intellectual in bent, not combative. This is refreshing to me, but should also recommend it to any theists who, even if curious, are turned off by the "New Atheists" (and I say that despite liking most of them). These are indeed "meditations," various and not forming any great whole, but worthwhile individually.

Dull, Boring
I found this book to be dull and boring.To be fair, I only got through half of it. But I just couldn't go any further.
It's the rambled musings of professors of philosophy. I hope their classroom lectures are more interesting than these essays.
Not recommended.
.

The World Could And Maybe Would be a Nicer Place Without a God
Essays, written by Atheist-Philosophers, which convinced me that human beings can be Spiritual without a God.
The essays are written with great respect for the beliefs of religious people who are inclined, mostly, to be good and kind people. But since individual religions conflict in some respects it would be better to use the human being and the latent good in him/heras the common denominator. No God can fix the dysfunctional (man-made) aspects in the world - only we as humans can.

Good reading, but not for me.
Interesting in a general sort of way, but culturally, does not fit my background and lifestyle.

Red meat for the thinking mind
This anthology contains rich, red meat for the inquiring mind, provender for a feast of thinking. Not all of the twenty essays in it are equally good, but all are written in accessible language; all deal with significant issues; and many of them are full of illuminating, surprising ideas and approaches.

Editor Antony asked nineteen other professors of philosophy to write on some aspect of "Atheism and the Secular Life." Some of the responses were biographical, recounting the passage from childhood devotions to adult atheism. Some delve into the old arguments for and against belief, but always with original slants. A few (and the most interesting) describe a constructive philosophical basis for "the secular life." The following are cursory descriptions of some of these essays.

Stewart Shapiro opens with what could be a downer, "Faith and Reason, the Perpetual War." He examines three possible relations between religion and reason. The first is that they are necessarily and perpetually at war; the second that they are incommensurable (Gould's non-overlapping magisteria); the third a rationalist tradition that they can somehow be interpreted as pulling in the same direction. Shapiro finds good reasons to reject the latter two, so only the stance of perpetual war is left, and Shapiro leaves us no more than a hope for "grudging, mutual respect."

Following this dour start, several writers sketch their passages from different kinds of belief to different kinds of atheism. Joseph Levine describes with feeling and sympathy the satisfactions of being a devout rabbinical student and the comforts of living in a strict orthodox community, and the slow process of divorcing from these. He makes the key observation that, as he now sees it, belief in God is morally wrong because it "expresses a rejection, or denial... of one's humanity [and] ... makes servility to authority the ultimate aim of human life."

Louise Antony describes her childhood struggles with the illogic of Catholic doctrine with a bright humor that reminded me of Julia Sweeney. She found her true calling in her first college philosophy class: "Imagine my delight, then, when I discovered that philosophy was all about arguing! ... I could scarcely believe that I could earn credits just for doing what (to me) came naturally."

Edwin Curly was raised Episcopalian and, at age 16, turned to the back of his prayer book and for the first time gave the Articles of Religion a critical reading. Here he details the many problems he found, arguing that the the doctrines of Original Sin, Predestination, Salvation by Faith, Hell, and Exclusivism (that all but believers go to Hell) -- all of which are well-supported in scripture and are official parts of the creed for at least Catholics and Episcopalians -- are offensive to reason and justice and morally repugnant. He says well-intentioned Christians who downplay or discount these doctrines can only do so by drastically reinterpreting their own scriptures.

Marvin Belzer argues, not against belief in God, but against trust in dogma. He describes how a comforting childhood faith lead him, gradually and by natural stages, to shed all the trappings of Christian practice and dogma as superfluous. He gives clear arguments why no specific creed can ever be what God wants people to focus their lives on.

Where the first half opened with Shapiro's grim analysis, the second opens with two upbeat and constructive essays based in Aristotle. Anthony Simon Laden in "Transcendence without God" interprets Aristotle's Ethics to mean that the virtuous person is so because he pays excellent attention to those things that repay excellent attention. Transcendent experience can arise from expanding and developing our capacity for attention to include the full humanity of others.

Marcia Homiak makes it more explicit: "Aristotle's key idea is that the best life for a human being (the most human of human lives) consists in the full realization of [our] distinctive human powers." She draws out the need for community, for ethical virtue, and for continual effort to improve, all trending toward a life of "Aristotelian flourishing." The benefits of this life are comparable to the similar benefits claimed for the religious life.

Kenneth A. Taylor tackles the concept of Divine Providence, the source of so much of a believer's emotional comforts. The notion that there is a God who loves humanity and guarantees eventual triumph of good over evil turns out to be philosophically empty when combined with the idea of radical free will (required by many Christian philosophers to explain why evil exists). But if there is no Godly guarantee of a future perfection, and if our lives lack the significance they would gain from contributing to that end, what's left to give meaning? In a crucial passage that I find deeply meaningful Taylor writes:

"Suppose we grant that we live in a finite, merely material universe, containing at its core nothing of intrinsic or objective value, governed by no purpose and no universal or absolute moral law. Still, whatever else the universe does or does not contain, we exist in it and through it. And we are creatures who value things. We do not find or discover value in the universe, as if values were antecedently present inpendently of anything that we do or are. ... We create values ... simply by engaging in the merely human and entirely natural activity of taking things to matter to us. ... We may cry out with longing and despair to the cold uncaring universe to embrace our value, to vindicate our right to value what we value. But we will hear only silence in return.... So be it. We do not matter to the universe. Still, we matter to ourselves and sometimes to others who sometimes matter to us in return. And that is all the mattering that it is worth our while to concern ourselves about."

Still, absent a divine lawgiver, how do we avoid a chaotic moral relativism? Taylor details a philosophical basis for the formation of "moral communities." He shows how each person has the ability to choose to bind herself to a given norm; and how that act also grants to others the right to hold one to the self-chosen norm. A web of such reciprocal grants of moral holding and binding creates a stable moral order "entirely of our own constituting.... The work of building from the bottom up an all-encompassing moral order is heroic work, invigorating work, work that calls upon the best of ourselves."

The same moral ground is plowed in a different direction by Elizabeth Anderson, who tackles the issue of how, without God to sanction moral rules, moral rules can be anything but personal opinion (as W. L. Craig holds they would be). Her first approach is to advance a "moralistic argument," namely that if any line of evidence leads to something morally repugnant, that entire line of evidence should be rejected as untrustworthy. Then, taking the Bible with "fundamentalist sincerity," she lists in detail and at length the heinous, unjust, barbarous acts and practices described both in the Old and New Testaments. (Many of these citations will be familiar to the non-believer, but one was new to me: In 2nd Thess. 2:11-12, it is said that God deludes some so they cannot believe. So God deliberately overrides the free will of some, in order to send them to Hell -- which rather weakens the ideas of both free will and divine justice.)

Anderson examines the different strategies believers adopt to explain or justify these "hard sayings," but concludes that there is always a residue that will lead to a moral offense, and so nothing in the Christian line of evidence is trustworthy. And the evidence advanced by every creed since Thor, Baal and Zeus has been of the same kind and is no more reliable.

That still leaves the problem of what can ever make a difference between good and evil and so counter Craig's argument? Anderson, like Taylor in the previous essay, argues that the key is reciprocity. Although none of us have the authority to compel obedience on another, all of us have the authority to make moral claims on others, calling them to account for their acts; but in doing so, we automatically open a reciprocal right for others to call us to account in turn. It is the reciprocity that creates morals. If there is a person who asserts that "all things are permitted," as Craig claims they should do, that person, in denying others the ability to call him to account, also resigns any ability to judge others. We deal with such people with physical deterrence -- and they cannot complain when we do, because they have opted out of all moral claims!

Anderson concludes that "morality, understood as a system of reciprocal claim making ... does not need its authority underwritten by some higher, external authority.... Far from bolstering the authority of morality, appeals to divine authority can undermine it."

To end an over-long review I want to give a (surely inadequate) summary of the late David Lewis' "Divine Evil," in which he advanced what was to me a novel twist on the well-known Argument from Evil: that we should at least be skeptical of the existence of a benevolent God in the light of the suffering that billions of sentient beings have endured for millions of years and continue to endure. Add up all of that suffering that God has permitted to happen, Lewis says, and it is yet trivial beside another kind of suffering: a type which God not only permits but positively decrees. There is in all varieties of (Bible-based) theisms some concept of damnation, a punishment for those who are in some fashion insubordinate to the divine. This punishment is promised to consist of eternal suffering. There is ample biblical support for this idea; Lewis cites several passages (Matt. 13:49-50, Matt. 25:41ff, etc. etc.).

Damnation is the promised lot of a considerable fraction of humanity, but even if it were only for a single soul, it is eternal; ergo the sum of it will, in the infinity of time, add up to more than all the suffering of mortal lives since time began. Thus the evil of damnation is immeasurably greater than the evil of ordinarysuffering -- and it is not merely permitted, but positively decreed by God. Lewis writes of God that "He places people in a situation in they must make a judgment that binds them for eternity, and he knows that some will be so inadequately informed that they will opt for an eternity of torment... It is hard to distinguish between God and the parent who equips the nursery with sharp objects galore and plenty of matches, fuses, and dynamite."

Lewis examines the arguments of "incompatibilist" free will (that God must let people choose to damn themselves) and finds injustice remains; and the arguments that, despite the explicit texts, damnation is not a barbeque but a state of being isolated from God, saying if it is a state of suffering in any sense, it is still infinite in sum, and an unjustly permanent punishment for transient error. If the biblical texts are granted any credibility at all, it has to be that God intends to deliberately create more suffering in the future than has ever occurred in the past. Well, so what? So this, Lewis says: would you have respect for a person who professes to admire the careers of Hitler or Stalin? No? Then consider: Christians profess to admire God, who (they have to admit) intends to hurt far more people, infinitely longer than Hitler or Stalin could have dreamed of doing. Should you then respect Christians?

Unlike books by the celebrated "New Atheists" this book does not contain colorful, slashing language and easy pejoratives against religion. Instead, it contains powerful ideas, many of them positive, all carefully worked out with measured langauge. It is a demonstration of the value of philosophy and the use of philosophers: to really think things through in an original way, and show us how to do the same. ... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (35)

An interesting step in the right direction
The main point of this book is that both fundamental Christianity and the "New Atheism" are too extreme in their rigidity.Schaeffer spends more time trying to tear down atheism than on his rejection of the fundamentalism in which he was raised.Perhaps he feels more threatened by atheism than he would like to admit.
There is a fundamental problem that is much wider than this book, and it also infects the books of the atheists.The root of atheism is "no god", as is well known.But this assumes that there is a definite concept of "god".I often ask atheists, "Which god do you not believe in?"There is obviously no way that god can be defined.This namelessness is beyond any human description.While people certainly have experiences and glimpses of something well beyond themselves, it is rather arrogant and egotistical to claim that you have the correct and full knowledge of "god".There are many different thoughts about this unnamable something (it is way too restrictive to use the word "entity").I think that in a way everyone is an atheist in the sense that he/she does not believe in a concept of god that someone else may have.While I was reading the last half of Schaeffer's book, it occurred to me that he was rejecting the "bearded father in the sky" image, and thus an atheist himself for that god.I certainly reject this form of theism.So do many others, such as Bishop John Shelby Spong.
That said, the "New Atheists" go too far by rejecting all religion just because they don't like the "bearded father in the sky".I was once there. My training was as a physicist.It took me quite a while to realize that there are other paths to understanding than only science.
So on the whole, I found this book an interesting examination of where religion might be going.I recommend it for those with an open mind.I would have liked it if Schaeffer had been a little more definite about what the faith promised in the subtitle (Faith for People Who Don't Like Religion {or Atheism}) was.I came away with the idea that we should have faith in love.Nothing wrong with that.But is it enough?I feel that there is something more.
I think that he spends too much time in the last half of the book on details of his childhood and his love for his granddaughter.While there were lessons that he learned, these lessons could have been presented much more briefly.Several times I wondered where his ramblings were going.

Predictable
Patience with God is tough.

Patience with lifetime blowhard Schaeffer is closer to impossible. How many books will he write trading on the sincere labors of his parents (I count five in his post-L'Abri incarnation)? How many times will he insist anyone who does not share his unbelief must be a sham? This time he wants us all to love and believe in mystery, and to wave good bye to Christianity as a belief system. And buy all his books, one imagines. And vote for Obama. He'd make aperfect Harvard chaplain if he could learnto get along with people.

Sinners at the hands of an angry Schaeffer
This book seems to have two different personalities. The first part is a rant against atheism, and evangelical right. It lumps both of these groups together under the umbrella of "Fundamentalists." With great skill and sharpness, the author dismantles the various ideologies and theologies for holding on to bigotted views which ultimately fails. The second part is part memoir, part reconciliatory especially when the author approaches life from an 'apophatic theology' perspective, which is the Greek Orthodox tradition.

This book has strong arguments against the flaws of groups exhibiting fundamentalist behavior. However, it is marred by an overly critical and angry mood. So much as that the subtitle could be: "Whatever Man Proposes, Schaeffer disposes." Driven to its logical conclusion, Schaeffer eventually becomes a victim of his own accusations. Probably the title ought to be "Patience with Man."

For a more detailed review, check out "is.gd/bU9Nj"

conrade

And Then the Bubble Popped
I, like Frank, grew up in an evangelical minister's family. I, like Frank, saw and heard things done in the name of God that seemed not only unethical but immoral and evil. I, like Frank, spend some of my early years in Europe and developed a love of intellectual pursuits that allowed room for both faith and reason. I . . . Well, I like Frank.

Sadly, many readers (particularly those who know his parents' books and teachings) will look for reasons to discount the ideas in "Patience With God." This is not a book to be held up like a battle herald for believers or atheists. It's an attempt--and a very good one--to bridge the gap between spirit and mind, between theology and science, between purpose and progression. Yes, Frank is candid about his parents' shortcomings, both domestically and spiritually, but he is equally candid about his own. He pulls no punches. He points fingers at those on both sides of the fence, but in particular those who claim to know it all--whether they be right-wing fundamentalists or the atheistic, self-proclaimed "Brights." Over the years, I've found myself struggling to reconcile the mostly good-intentioned but poor behavior of both sides. I appreciated some of Pat Robertson's early ideas, for example, but cringed when he put himself in the place of God and declared God's purposes in natural tragedy. I also appreciated Bill Maher's early years of candor and humor, but find it increasingly mean-spirited and--ironically enough--narrowminded in its accessment of religion.

Do I agree with all that Frank says here? No. And he and I are fine with that. We could sit and discuss these ideas logically, even passionately, but never lose sight of our love for God, life, and each other. That's the beauty of embracing the paradoxes of which he writes. We don't all have to subscribe to one narrow brand of faith, cutting others off or discounting everything they say because of nitpicky differences over End Times theology or evolutionary theory--or whatever the argument du jour may be. Personally, I love God and believe in the Jesus of the Bible. I hate the directions American Christianity has taken, turning the "milk of the Word" into smorgasbord affairs that masquerade as nutritous spiritual meals. It seems that, in many venues, Christians choose to hunker under the "safe" and "protected" bubble of their own beliefs, rather than relating to those around them with the love that Christ personified, living "dangerous" and "prepared" lives in the trenches of the real world.

"Patience With God" will challenge Christians, Muslims, and New Atheists. It will cause thinking readers to reevaluate and reconsider. It is sane and logical, while never dismissing the possibilities of faith and feelings. It accepts the concepts of a loving and gracious Jesus, while never confining Him to a particular evangelical bent. Some will find that threatening. Some will prefer to remain "safe" in their bubbles of religious or scientific thinking. Others, hopefully many, will admit the paradoxes on both sides.

For those who are tired of hateful atheism or exhausted by self-righteous religion, "Patience With God" offers a meeting place in between, a place where discussion can be honest, intelligent, and kind. The two extremes--thank God!--are not the only options. I always knew that. It's just nice to know that I'm not alone.

Patience with Frank
It did not occur to me until I began writing this review that my life has been impacted by the Schaeffer family probably more than almost any other.

When I was in college in the early 70s it was the writings of Frank's father, Francis, which helped me navigate my undergraduate studies from a Christian perspective.

In 1975, I attended the L'Abri Conference in Calgary, Alberta, where I sat under and got to know Francis, Edith, Hans Rookmaaker, and other L'Abri Associates. It was at this conference that they announced Franky's first film series. And the journey to this conference introduced me to several dear lifelong friends.

In 1997, I had been wondering what happened to Frank, because he had disappeared from the Evangelical scene. An item appeared in the local religion section that said Frank was going to speak at a school not far from where I lived. I attended, and heard him speak about his conversion to the Orthodox Christian Church. I bought an autographed copy of "Dancing Alone," which I devoured in days, and two and a half years later I was received into the Orthodox Church, as well.

I read several of Frank's subsequent books, but I became weary of the angry tone in them, so I hadn't read much by him in at least five years. "Patience with God" was favorably reviewed in The Word Magazine (the official magazine of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese), so I thought I'd give it a shot.

After reading a few chapters, I told some friends at church about it, and they asked me if Frank was still "an angry young man." I said, yes, he appears to be.

I almost put the book down, but I was patient with Frank, and I was rewarded. Yes, there is still a bit of an edge in the early part of the book, and he still has a beef with his Evangelical/Fundamentalist background, but many of his observations are well founded and worthy of consideration.

I had a hard time relating to Frank's comments about the militant atheists (even though I have a few in my family), but he is most refreshing when he takes on an autobiographical, almost nostalgic, tone later in the book. If you've read any of the early works by Francis or Edith, here you'll see another side of the story of those early days at L'Abri in Switzerland, one by the boy who grew up in their midst.

There are many quotable gems in this book. Unfortunately, my copy was from the library and I was not able to highlight any of them. I'll close with his second to the last paragraph:

"Some days I know that life has no ultimate meaning. Other days I know that every breath I take has eternal meaning. I also know that I'm crazy to believe these two opposites simultaneously. I'd feel even crazier denying them. I believe that both statements are true. . . . I am in two places at once."

I recommend this to people who are asking questions about the Evangelical/Fundamentalist movement in North America, to Christians of all persuasions, but especially Orthodox Christians, and former Evangelicals, like me. I'm not sure atheists would get much out of his comments here. Have patience with Frank, to the very end. You'll be glad you did. ... Read more

Product Description

The central contention of the "New Atheism" of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens is that there has for several centuries been a war between science and religion, that religion has been steadily losing that war, and that at this point in human history a completely secular scientific account of the world has been worked out in such thorough and convincing detail that there is no longer any reason why a rational and educated person should find the claims of any religion the least bit worthy of attention.

But as Edward Feser argues in The Last Superstition, in fact there is not, and never has been, any war between science and religion at all. There has instead been a conflict between two entirely philosophical conceptions of the natural order: on the one hand, the classical "teleological" vision of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas, on which purpose or goal-directedness is as inherent a feature of the physical world as mass or electric charge; and the modern "mechanical" vision of Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, and Hume, according to which the physical world is comprised of nothing more than purposeless, meaningless particles in motion.The modern "mechanical" picture has never been established by science, and cannot be, for it is not a scientific theory in the first place but merely a philosophical interpretation of science.

Not only is this modern philosophical picture rationally unfounded, it is demonstrably false. For the "mechanical" conception of the natural world, when worked out consistently, absurdly entails that rationality, and indeed the human mind itself, are illusory. The so-called "scientific worldview" championed by the New Atheists thus inevitably undermines its own rational foundations; and into the bargain it undermines the foundations of any possible morality as well. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (23)

Best Lay Introduction to Traditional Philosophical Theism
As everybody knows, there is now a cottage industry in little books arguing for or against theism. Most of these books are terrible. Dawkins book "The God Delusion" sounds impressive to a person with a shallow philosophical foundation, but is embarrassingly bad to serious physicalist thinkers like Thomas Nagel and Quentin Smith. Daniel Dennet IS a professional philosopher of some repute, and one might think he would therefore attempt a serious philosophical trouncing of classical cosmological arguments, but he barely mentions these and what's worse, straw man's the arguments he does mention. His book is mostly devoted to giving a certain impression of theism, not refuting it.

On the other hand, most popularly written theist argument books are themselves fairly shallow. Where the atheists pile up examples of bad things theists have done (as if this were and argument against the theism per se), these theists try the opposite tactic, piling example of all the naughty s**t that atheists have done in the 20th century. Stalemate, at best. To make matters worse, the arguments presented in these books are mostly defensive (trying to show that atheists haven't proved God doesn't exist) or attempt to be "scientific" and thus are usually God-of-the-gaps arguments ("natural processes could NEVER have produced X!")

These new theists are either too incompetent and philosophically unsophisticated to understand the classical deductive proofs for God's existence, or too chicken-hearted to defend them (because of the false impression that they've been refuted). For example, the argument from contingency (properly explained) is an extremely powerful argument for the existence of an immaterial, ontologically necessary being. It is a deductive proof, not an inductive "hypothesis" or an "inference to the best explanation". Disputing its premises means holding positions that seem to undermine reason in general.

Feser doesn't use that particular argument, but he defends several of Aquinas' proofs (making sure to distinguish the actual argument from atheist caricatures). He also demonstrates the sense of traditional Aristotelian metaphysics, formal and final causality, etc. Again, distinguishing b/n their actual content and physicalist mis-characterizations ("Ha, ha! Stupid Aristotle thought fire wanted to go up".)

Feser argues that junking of Aristotelean/Scholasticism and specifically formal and final causes, has created or exaggerated a host of problems in ethics, epistemology, metaphysics and philosophy of the mind. He also shows how feeble are the arguments for atheism/physicalism in general and that of Dawkins' and Dennet's arguments in particular.

I highly recommend this book for lay people who want to have a better grasp on these issues.

I didn't want to hate this book so much
I'll start with the one small point Feser may be right about.I tend to think myself that various "moderate" metaphysical views like non-Humean accounts of causation are more closely linked to extreme metaphysical views like Feser's God than most moderate metaphysicians are willing to admit.But "more closely linked" is not the same as "mutually entailing," and Feser's actual arguments don't even manage to do much to establish the closer link; as best I can extract it from the incredibly thick polemic in which it is buried, he argues that without final causation, there's no non-Humean causation, and all final causation must terminate in God.But neither of these steps could be convincing without considerably further explanation and support than he offers.

That is probably what I found most disappointing about the book.I expected him to misunderstand and misrepresent the naturalist position, but I hoped that he would at least present some fairly clear and detailed account of what his alternative was.Sadly, his presentation of his Thomistic view was far too sketchy to give one the slightest inkling of how he might respond to countless obvious (and frequently raised) difficulties.

Further, of course, he did misunderstand and misrepresent the naturalist position very badly.I was particularly unimpressed by his discussion of Dennett; Dennett may be prone to some rhetorical excesses of his own, but he does actually present real arguments.Feser does not even begin to show that the functional minds and evolutionary purposes of Dennett (and Millikan and others) are inadequate; he simply dismisses them and insists that it is somehow obvious that minds and purposes have to be something else, and even slyly implies that Dennett and Millikan really mean something else by purposes, when it is quite obvious that they do not.He equally distorts Hume in the course of dismissing him, and if he can't be accused of distorting Kant very much, it is only because he considers it appropriate to dismiss Kant after a discussion far too short to contain any great number of distortions.

Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that all this mass of stilted rhetoric and terrible argument is advanced in the cause of bigotry; the first paragraph of his preface establishes the importance he attaches to his anti-gay agenda.

An Outstanding and Entertaining Primer
I've read this book twice now. I am an Engineer and most of the material was new to me.The second time I read it I wrote down the "four causes" on a card and used that as a bookmark. They are referred to throughout the book once introduced.

The book is a great introduction to classical and scholastic philosophy and then as to where the 'moderns' went wrong.It is quite concise and short for all that he covers and in some depth, in my opinion.I found the style very entertaining although most atheists will not (see one star reviews).He well supports his conclusions and those who say he doesn't either didn't read the book or understand his explanations (see one star reviews). The author also gives a very good explanation of the 'first mover' and explains that it applies continuously to the universe, not just is some distant past.

The book really helped me understand a world view that I never even knew was there and really demolishes the `religion or science' myth.As an interesting aside, he mentions several times that the Intelligent Design movement really gives too much away before it even starts and is arguing from a severely weakened position of its own choosing.

I now understand why every philosophy student I meet can't answer any of my questions and why every atheist I meet begins to sound like he made up his mind before he looked at any evidence (see one star reviews).

I highly recommend this book.

Bad Science vs. Bad Theology
The Good:
Feser knows Aristotle and Aquinas very well, and does a great job of summarizing their arguments. He takes Dawkins to task for misrepresenting Aquinas. And, I agree: Aquinas deserves a more thoughtful rebuke than that given in The God Delusion. If you're interested in an introduction to Aquinas, Feser is hard to beat.

Some people may be put off by Feser's rhetoric (lots of personal digs and whatnot). Personally, I found this amusing, and it livened up what could easily have been a dry read.

The Bad:
He criticizes Dawkins for misrepresenting Aquinas, and for having little knowledge of metaphysics. But, in this book, Feser misrepresents Hume, and has very little knowledge of science. His discussion on cause/effect contradicts what we know from mathematics (zorn's lemma, inverse limit spaces, properties of triangles resulting from man-made axioms, etc),or quantum mechanics (spontaneous symmetry breaking, particles shifting to low energy states, etc). His views on rationality (treating it as a discrete phenomenon) run contra to what we know from evolution or zoology. His take on `thought' is antithetical to what we've learned from neuroscience. He boldly claims that neuroscience cannot prove that thoughts are material processes in the brain, because he gives an ``obviously'' sound argument that this is not the case. I'm sorry, but Feser's/Aquinas's argument is not sound. (eg, one of his crap premises is that thoughts are the same form as that which they're grasping. Hence, if you're pondering immaterial things, your thoughts are necessarily immaterial).

If knowledge we've gained from science is at odds with Aquinas's metaphysics, I'm siding with science, and betting that Aquinas's argument has a hole. I hope Feser never requires brain surgery, since he's so convinced that the knowledge-base of a neurosurgeon is incorrect.

My Review of Edward Feser's work The Last Superstition
First, I would like to thank Dr. Feser for producing a philosophical work that effectively (for the most part) dismantles the fragile straw house of ideas that has been constructed by the so-called "new atheists" (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, etc). Feser employs wit, mental acuity and reason to refute the atheistic claims made by Dawkins and company. I have enjoyed reading this work, although like any other book, it has its strengths and weaknesses. In reviewing this publication, I will point out what I perceive to be its strong and weak points.

1. The discussion on nominalism versus realism (theory of universals) was one of this book's best features. While I do not agree with Feser's depiction of nominalism in toto, I believe that he has a knack for making philosophy relatively easy to comprehend. His illustration of realism using the example of a rubber ball was excellent. Since I teach undergraduates, I really appreciated the example and how it helps one to understand the Aristotelian or Platonic claims regarding universals. See pages 57-62 for Feser's treatment of hylomorphism along with a discussion of both moderate and extreme realism.

2. Feser also critiques the Humean "attack" on causation/causality (pages 105-110). David Hume (1711-1776) argues that he is able to conceive a thing (a bowling ball, for example) coming into existence without a cause. However, Feser addresses this "argument" by noting that Hume is conflating or confusing the verb "conceive" with the verb "imagine." But the two actions delineated by the respective verbs "conceive" and "imagine" clearly are not the same acts. As Feser aptly points out, it is possible to grasp the concept of a "chiliagon" (a thousand-sided figure) but that does not mean it is conceptually possible to form a distinct mental image of a chiliagon. Hume's argument suggests that he fails to understand this important distinction.

3. Feser exploits the notion of Aristotelian final causality throughout his book. The final cause is the telos (i.e. end, result, goal, function, purpose) of a thing or event. One might say that an oak tree is the final cause of an acorn or that the final cause of a human embryo is a full grown adult. Aristotle believed that everything in our natural world has a final cause: trees, humans, animals, and artificial objects all have a final cause. Thomas Aquinas used Aristotle's thought on causes to build a case for the existence of God by the use of unaided natural reason. See pages 114-119 of Feser's work.

4. Having mentioned some positive things about Feser's work, allow me to include some critical feedback in response to his work. Feser has a wry sense of humor: sometimes his jokes hit the mark and sometimes they do not. There are paragraphs in this book wherein the sarcasm and cockiness just drips abundantly like water. Some remarks are indeed amusing. Moreover, Dawkins and company probably deserve the sarcasm. Nevertheless, I would love to see less sarcasm, less of a smart-alecky tone and more seriousness pertaining to the task at hand.

5. Feser might also have stayed on task a little more rather than being diverted by political issues or didactic moralizing about contemporary moral topics. The arguments that he makes, for example, against abortion do not contribute directly to his general thesis, although I agree with his take on abortion. I guess he is thereby making a critique of secularism or what has putatively happened to the world since the rejection of final causality. However, I am not sure that there is a directly proportional relationship between not accepting final causality and advocating the right of women to have abortions.

6. Finally, Feser responds to the new atheists on the subject of mind. He contends that universals must exist and if they do in fact exist, then our thoughts about abstract objects like triangularity or squareness (two universals) must be immaterial. After making these observations, Feser maintains that neuroscientific findings cannot rightly be used to refute the Aristotelian-Thomist conception of universals since Aquinas is not doing science (understood in the modern sense of the word) but metaphysics when he insists that universals especially qua concepts and the mind cannot be material things. But I do not agree when Feser says that the findings of neuroscience which are largely materialistic should not count against Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysical demonstrations. Nor does it seem that one must per force construe mental concepts as immaterial, based on what neuroscience and reflections from modern philosophy of mind have yielded. Granted, the findings of neuroscience (like other forms of human knowledge) are admittedly provisional. But accounts regarding consciousness being a higher-level brain process have already been developed by some philosophers and neuroscientists. ... Read more

Product Description
Starting with Freud's "projection theory" of religion-that belief in God is merely a product of man's desire for security-Professor Vitz argues that psychoanalysis actually provides a more satisfying explanation for atheism. Disappointment in one's earthly father, whether through death, absence, or mistreatment, frequently leads to a rejection of God. A biographical survey of influential atheists of the past four centuries shows that this "defective father hypothesis" provides a consistent explanation of the "intense atheism" of these thinkers. A survey of the leading intellectual defenders of Christianity over the same period confirms the hypothesis, finding few defective fathers. Professor Vitz concludes with an intriguing comparison of male and female atheists and a consideration of other psychological factors that can contribute to atheism.

Professor Vitz does not argue that atheism is psychologically determined. Each man, whatever his experiences, ultimately chooses to accept God or reject him. Yet the cavalier attribution of religious faith to irrational, psychological needs is so prevalent that an exposition of the psychological factors predisposing one to atheism is necessary. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (35)

Faith of My Father?
Paul C. Vitz is a professor of psychology at New York University and was himself an atheist until his late 30's. The simple but compelling thesis of his new book is that the major barriers to belief in God are not rational but psychological of which the unbeliever may be unaware. Vitz reverses Sigmund Freud's "projection theory" of religion (belief in God is an illusion that derives from our childish need for security) and argues that "the atheist's disappointment in and resentment of his own earthly father unconsciously justifies his rejection of God" (p. 16).Stated in concrete social terms, Vitz's thesis is that absent or deficient fathers predispose their children to intense, if not philosophical, atheism.

A good part of the book consists of 20 biographical sketches of prominent post-Enlightenment atheists, focusing on their relationships to their fathers or father figures. This group whose fathers died when they were relatively young includes Friedrich Nietzsche, David Hume, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, and H.G. Wells.For example, Jean-Paul Sartre's father died when he was just 15 months old. Throughout much of his adult life he mentions fathers, and denigrates fatherhood. More than one biographer has noted his obsession about fathers and his atheism may well tie in to his own absent father.

Please visit my website at, Delight In Him, for more.

Makes His Case
Paul C. Vitz makes the case that Atheism is rooted in fatherlessness.Quite simply, he does a case study of famous Atheists and Theists and their relationships with their fathers.He shows that Atheism is prevalent among those who lost their father's to death or abandonment.The problem is show to be more acute if one becomes fatherless between the ages of 0-6.His study of famous Theists shows that in general they had a good relationship with their fathers.Vitz makes a good case that atheism is linked to psychological factors and not to evolved intellectual reasoning.

Interesting Premise
The premise of Paul Vitz is that Atheists have father issues that led to their not believing in God.Vitz does a case study of prominent Atheists of the so-called Enlightenment period.He shows how that these men either lost their father's through death, or abandonment (especially between the ages of 0-6), or in some circumstances the father was distant or abusive.He does a comparison study of well know theists and shows that these men had good experiences with their fathers.The argument is not air tight, but it does serve as a counter-point to the idea that Christianity and Theism is a crutch that the weak and unintelligent lean on.This work also show the importance of father's in the lives of children, especially boys.

Not What It Says It Is
I read this book in my studies of trying to determine how my growing up affected my subsequent life. I found it informative and helpful, but not for the reasons the book purports. I think their choice of title (a pun on the Christian hymn "Faith of Our Fathers") gives a false impression.

What I got out of the book is that people's relationships with their fathers profoundly affect who those people are and who they become. For some people who grow up without a father around, or have a bad father, their feelings get extrapolated toward God and that becomes the first step in their turning away from faith.

I think that is true of some people. But I also think that some people turn *toward* faith, building a surrogate Dad and naming him God. And for some people, their relationship with their father has nothing to do with their faith life.

I would rather the book have been titled something like "Father-Child Relationships: Their Effect on Religious Belief and Behavior," and that it had included all varieties of experiences, not just the atheism-bad father variety. OK, that would have been a boring title, but the book itself would have been more balanced and more interesting--and probably more helpful to different types of people.

BTW, in case you're wondering, my parents got divorced when I was 12, we had regular (and pleasant) visitations with my dad, and I ended up an Agnostic/Atheist while my brother is an Evangelical Christian. Go figure!

A short, interesting read but not something to get too excited about.
(I read this book Fall 2005 so it's been a while)

I would recommend this book.It's interesting, for the history and short biographies alone really, and somewhat provacative.It's also short so even if in the end someone was to disagree or think it was all hogwash, one wouldnt have wasted too much of their time coming to this conclusion.

One thing a few of the reviewers on here either seem to not understand or seem to forget is that this book isn't necessarily applicable to post-modern atheist's psychology--many post-modern atheists do in fact have good relationships with their fathers and are atheists for various reasons, often intellectual or emotional ones.This book simply tries to show that there is a pattern in the lives of the Great Atheistic Thinkers, the people who more or less brough atheism to the intellectual mainstream, such as Russell, Freud, Nietzche, etc who all more or less lived and became famous and respected in the 19th and early 20th century (the modern age, I guess).Also of course the author goes through the lives of some of the more well known theists (who if I remember right were mostly from the Enlightenment period).

I definitely think the author is aware of the extent that his book can show.I even think he explicitly tells the reader.More or less he, and other people too, can see something there, a pattern, but its probably safer to not read too much into it at this point.

Another reason this book is provocative and kind of interesting is that it seeks to figure out the origins of modern atheism.Tons and tons of books are written about how religion is stupid, irrational, wrong and how, why and where its based in the human context but as far as I am aware few books have been written on the subject of the origins of atheism, with the exception of books with a heavily atheistic bias defending atheism or books that simply state that atheists just don't see God's or Jesus' light.Another thing, I do feel that the author tried very much to remain as unbiased as he could and more or less succeeded.

Basically something is there but it's not fair to say just what it is thus far.

This probably didn't help. Heh. ... Read more

Product Description
The indeterminacy of the modern concept of God has made the distinction between belief and unbelief increasingly problematic. Both the complexity of the religious response and the variety of skeptical philosophies preclude simplistic definitions of what constitutes belief in God. Making the discussion even more difficult are assertions by fundamentalists who dismiss the philosophical perplexities of religious claims as unreal pseudo-problems.Atheism & Philosophy is a detailed study of these and other issues vital to our understanding of atheism, agnosticism, and religious belief.Philosopher Kai Nielsen develops a coherent and integrated approach to the discussion of what it means to be an atheist.In chapters such as "How is Atheism to be Characterized?", "Does God Exist?: Reflections on Disbelief," "Agnosticism," "Religion and Commitment," and "The Primacy of Philosophical Theology," Nielsen defends atheism in a way that answers to contemporary concerns. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

Wonderful service
The book was as good as it was described and delivered in timely manner

Boring but good
Kind of slow and not to enjoyable although there was some good quotes through out the book. I would recommend Michael Martins Atheism a philosophical justification which is much more geared toward positive modern atheism. ... Read more

Product Description
In this book, Robin Le Poidevin addresses the question of whether theism - the view that there is a personal, transcendent creator of the universe - solves the deepest mysteries of existence. Philosophical defences of theism have often been based on the idea that it explains things which atheistic approaches cannot: for example, why the universe exists, and how there can be objective moral values. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (12)

Confusions in Jason Beyer's Review
Some other reviewers have opined that Le Poidevin's discussion of the problem of evil is inadequate because the problem of evil, itself, has largely been rejected by apologists for atheism, both popular and professional philosophers. This is false. Le Poidevin's book has an up-to-date discussion of the problem of evil.


This being said, Le Poidevin's discussion of the problem of evil is sorely lacking, from a philosophical standpoint. It has much rhetorical force, and I am sure that all who read it will feel the power of the argument. But Le Poidevin leaves out discussion of the most important forms of the argument in circulation today. William Rowe and Paul Draper barely receive any column space, becuase Le Poidevin focuses his discussion on answering the deductive problem of evil, and discussions of metaphysical free will &etc. This is a great disservice, if the book is intended as an introduction to philosophy of religion.

In the end, I must concur with other reviewers in saying that Prof. Le Poidevin's work presupposes too much to be an introduction, and is too uninformative and weakly argued to be an argument for atheism.

Arguing with Oneself
The book is small (146 pages) and a very swift read. Unfortunately, being so short is nothing more than simple 30 second style sound bites into the normative atheistic look at their classical arguments. In the end the book really does not provide much argumentation instead it regurgitates talking points; you should believe this because these other atheist believe the same thing.

When I got to the skinny, but typical chapter on the problem of evil (17 pages) I was aghast the author is a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Leeds and I truly had expected his best work in the book to be in the areas of his expertise - philosophy. I could easily give him a pass when he was writing about physics, or biology, but now we are in his arena, the main course you could say. But the meat has turned suddenly rancid.

Perhaps a slight history is due the reader of this review, the problem of evil used to be the crème de la crème of the aspiring atheist. Beginning atheists feel it it the final nail to theism's coffin; their strongest and unassailable argument. The problem with the argument as they begin to acknowledge in most cases is that it is a straw man and this as and has been known and shown for centuries.

Most intellectually honest atheists know this; you will note that many modern day writers have actually dropped this form of argument from their books. I was surprised to see it still contained here and worse yet still defended.

The so called problem of evil's error is in class confusion. In other words:

What is the taste of blue?
What is the smell of light?
What is the color of pity?

Now let me explain it another way

You buy a house. You buy a wood stove and have it installed in your house that provides your heat. You tell your 8 year old child not to touch or play around the stove because it is hot and can burn them.

Sure enough several months later you hear a blood curdling scream. Your child has fallen against the wood stove, he is taken by ambulance to the hospital and he has third degree burns. The child protection service worker is called in (a atheists) and proclaims

You bought the house
You bought the stove
You warned your child, so you knew that the stove was dangerous.
You knew that you could have heated with a gas furnace which is safer.
Therefore, you CAUSED the child's injury.
You CREATED this EVIL.
You are UNJUST.

This is the same charge that atheist are bringing onto God.

Did you really cause the child's injury?

(The argument that God could intervene is of course valid, and God has intervened in history. But if he intervenes every time then we would just be a bunch of automata with no free will and real purpose which most atheists agree to.)

Did you really create evil by buying the stove?

Is the stove inherently evil?

Is fire inherently evil?

What is evil? (You would be surprised at the answers you will receive on this one)

One last question: If you were God how would you make a world with humans in it that had moral free agency and no evil? Just try to get an atheist to answer this one - it can sometimes be absolutely hilarious ;) So let's at least be fair and not complicate a strawman argument with another strawman argument to bolster that one.

Once you begin to break down the analogy you get into a deeper philosophical discussion. You will find that the real reason class confusion exists is because atheists like the author are imposing manmade epistemological rules onto an ontological being.

If they wish to truly challenge the problem of evil intellectually honestly they must do so from an ontological perspective. It only makes logical sense since they are trying to disprove an ontological being they must do so on an ontological basis. They need to define evil biblically as God has defined it.

Once that is done the intellectually honest atheist admits as many have about 90% of all their arguments are effectively destroyed.

The last 10 % of the arguments usually focus on does he have knowledge of evil in him? Did he create beings with the propensity for evil or just free will? While most of these questions are fun to debate they will honestly be answered with a I THINK or this is what I BELIEVE. These are areas that we may never know until we ask God ourselves.

By the way, I don't assume for one minute that the author doesn't know what I have written, he's too smart. What he does know is that ontologically speaking there is NO problem with evil and the atheists has lost as the author puts it "the most powerful and convincing argument for atheism." (88)

An exemplary text on atheism
In his book "Arguing for Atheism", Le Poidevin has accomplished what few authors have succeeded in; he has written a powerful but thoroughly respectful criticism of theology.This is far and away the finest book I have ever read on atheism.Le Poidevin introduces each theistic argument as fairly and thoroughly as possible, often overlooking inconsequential flaws, and even offering modified arguments that overcome such flaws.He then proceeds to examine each argument in depth, exposing both valid points and flaws.As the title of the book suggests, however, precious few theistic arguments are found to withstand scrutiny.

What sets this book apart from other books that critically examine theology is that Le Poidevin clearly has no interest in securing cheap victories over ill-conceived apologetics; rather, his aim is to examine the most cogent theistic arguments that can be constructed, even if he must lend a hand in bolstering them, which he does with humility and earnestness.

This book is a model of how apologetics and its criticism ought to be conducted.I wish more authors on both sides of the debate would follow his lead.This is the book I most wish that religionists would read and atheists would emulate, both for its penetrating criticism and for its exemplary tone.

Best philosophical introduction to atheism
Robin LePoidevin has produced the best philosophical introduction to atheism. While ARGUING FOR ATHEISM is technical compared to most other introductions to atheism, it more than repays any effort the reader puts into it, as LePoidevin very clearly shows how the problems in philosophy of religion are firmly connected to other deep and complicated philosophical problems. Were everyone to read LePoidevin's book, far more people would approach philosophy of religion with humility, and the average level of discourse on the subject would be raised substantially.

From an atheist: Blatant Subjectivism and Misrepresentation
I would not recommend this book to anyone.The author misrepresents atheism and also religion.Le Poidevin is also an outright subjectivist as is shown by entertaining the ideas of "Why something rather than nothing?" and "Possible Worlds" to name just a few.

I would recommend George Smith's "Atheism, The Case Against God" instead.Smith takes on most of the same questions, but in a much more straight forward, to the point, objective way. ... Read more

Product Description
A philosopher as well as a poet, Shelley argues that the divine attributes of God are merely projections of human powers; life everlasting cannot be empirically demonstrated, for it runs counter to all the evidence for mortality given by the natural world, which is the only world we know. During his brief life, Shelley affronted the armies of Christendom with a single-minded purpose. As Shelley observes in his dialogue "A Refutation of Deism", there can be no middle ground between accepting revealed religion and disbelieving in the existence of a deity - another way of stating the necessity of atheism. In all, these essays provide an important statement of the poet and freethinker's enlightened views on skepticism, faith, and the corruption of organized Christianity. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (4)

THE NECESSITY OF ATHEISM

What Shelley tried to establish in the essays of this volume was the logical necessity of atheism, that is, from commonly accepted premises, atheism necessarily follows.Though I found in Shelley an unexpected kindred spirit, I must admit that he does not succeed.Shelley states that "the senses are the sources of all knowledge" (p. 32), and declares, "Locke has proved that ideas result from sensation" (p.86).However, Locke's tabula rasa is a model rather than a proof, and it is not indisputable.Since irrational numbers, for instance, cannot be sensed, how can this model account for the idea of them?(Yes, I know Hume's explanation; I just do not find it convincing).In another instance he writes, "In the language of reason, the words God and the Universe are synonymous" (p. 87).Though I agree with this, Shelley's premise for this conclusion was "that which is infinite necessarily includes that which is finite."This is not true; for example, the infinite set of odd integers does not include the even integers between 2 and 20.* Though many of Shelley's arguments are based on the premise of materialism, he emphasizes that his atheism only negates a creative Deity; "The hypothesis of a pervading Spirit coeternal with the universe remains unshaken" (p. 31), which certainly contradicts the doctrine of strict materialism.Shelley does not expound upon this Spirit, though he implies that Christ spoke for this Spirit, and that Christ's authentic wisdom was distorted by hypocritical dogma."Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God," does not mean that after death those who have faith that Christ died for their sins will stand before the Creator, butthat whosoever "aspires to that which the divinity of his own nature shall consider and approve - he has already seen God" (p. 5).He declares that the doctrine of the pointlessly cruel eternal torture of Hell is necessarily at odds with Christ's exhortation to "Love your enemies, bless those that curse you." For Shelley, "God is a model through which the excellence of man is to be estimated, whilst the abstract perfection of the human character is the type of the actual perfection of the divine" (p. 14).Shelley was more like a Buddhist than an atheist.

A main point of Shelley's argument is that "Belief is not an act of volition, nor can it be regulated by the mind: it is manifestly incapable therefore of either merit or criminality" (p. 68).I became an atheist at the age of eleven, and I recall being especially impressed with the truth of the assertion that belief is not an act of free will.I had been indoctrinated into Christian mythology in conventional Sunday school classes, which means that the idea of questioning what I was taught never occurred to me, and certainly it was never suggested that I should.Yet when I first heard the arguments of an atheist, after no more than minute or so of defending my belief in God, I was shocked to realize that I no longer believed in Him.This was no free choice; I could not possibly have chosen to continue to believe.I have spent much time wondering why belief in God strikes me as ridiculous, and even repugnant, while it clearly has the opposite affect upon the majority of people.I am sure that Christians have no more control over their belief than I have over my disbelief.However, to say that belief or disbelief is incapable of merit is extreme.After all, most criminals justify themselves in their own minds.It negates any possibility of free will.It is commendable to at least try to regulate one's beliefs by weighing them against available evidence.What would be the point of Shelley's essays if this were not so?Such diverse thinkers as Richard Dawkins, Kurt Gödel, and Colin Wilson have observed that dogma acts as a mental virus.However, for the materialist, the memes constituting the virus are the mind; hence there can be no free will.Shelley's hypothesis of a "pervading Spirit coeternal with the universe" suggests that the mind transcends a mere haphazard conglomeration of memes and sensations.If consciousness exists in its own right, rather than as a mere epiphenomenon of physical processes, then free will is possible.But free will is not a gift; it can only be achieved with great effort.

The very fact that it is even possible to doubt God's existence is the best evidence that he does not.This was one of my first original thoughts as an atheist.What possible reason or justification could He have for hiding?Since God is omniscient, He had to have known that Satan would rebel, and in fact He had to have created Satan with a jealous, rebellious temperament that made Satan's fall inevitable.God created a set of rules that man was to follow, though He knew that He had created man with a temperament incapable of following those rules.So in order to avoid having to condemn all of mankind to eternal torture, a punishment we richly deserve for disobeying rules that we could not possibly obey, God sent His only begotten Son to die and go to Hell in man's place.All of mankind is condemned to die for a crime committed by our distant grandfather, and only innocent blood will redress our guilt for sins that we cannot prevent ourselves from committing no matter how hard we try.The only way we can avoid eternal torture is by having faith that Christ died for us, even though the ability to have such faith is a matter of God's grace, completely beyond our control. We learn to love God from boring sermons, from child-molesting clergymen, from a multitude of petty self-righteous sects that haughtily denounce each other as guilty of heresy, from a book that describes God commanding His minions to atrocious acts of massive slaughter and God Himself causing disasters "of Biblical proportions." The history of the powerful Christian nations has been just as rife with cruelty, rapaciousness, and genocide as it could possibly have been.This is the Christianity, visible for anyone with eyes to see, that I rejected while barely pubescent, and that Shelley rejected two hundred years ago.Yet Shelley was expelled from Oxford for atheism, and today's atheists have President Bush telling us that we have no right to be American citizens.I am way past the point of being polite.If Christians actually possessed the free will that they boast of they could not possibly believe this damned nonsense.

*My own argument:If God is "that which nothing greater can be imagined," as He is commonly defined, then a God that contains corporate reality is greater than one that does not.In HOW TO THINK ABOUT GOD, Mortimer Adler, who accepted this definition, insisted that God has necessary existence while corporate existence is merely contingent. The consequence of necessary existence is that all of God's actions are necessary, so He could have done nothing differently than He did.If this were true, then how could God's creation be any less necessary than Himself?This is not proof that the words God and the Universe are synonymous, but it does demonstrate that their existence as distinct entities involves a contradiction.

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

Product Description
LCCN: 2009936698This volume asserts that if there is no God then certain absurdities follow. For example, humans possess no unique value, there is no objective morality, the existence of humanity has no meaning. Without the transcendent,pursuits and values are delusions of the human species. The information required for the intricate complexity of the universe from the single cell to the structure of the cosmos, has no contributor in the absence of a transcendent intelligence.In the year of his death in 1955, the revered scientist Albert Einstein clarified his formerly ambiguous views: "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God" (Calaprice, ed., The Quotable Einstein, pp.195-6). ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

Three-Dimensional Responses to a One-Dimensional Challenge
When I saw the title of this book, I was already hooked-although I didn't consciously make the connection to the Lewis Grizzard book with a similar title, the joke had me hooked before I read even the subtitle.The book turned out to be even better than the title.

The form of the book grew out of a conversation the editors were having in which they agreed that one of the more offensive things about the Nü Atheism (not their spelling, of course) is that it assumes that questions about God and the gods, inquiries that have inspired centuries of poetry and philosophy and sculpture and other human endeavors, could be dispensed with in the course of a wave of the hand and a three-page syllogism.Never mind that many of the best-known books in the movement exhibit a profound philosophical illiteracy.(As Stan Hauerwas, in one of the book's interviews puts it, "...one of the problems of being a Christian today is that the secular has just become so stupid" (111).)What rubbed these editors the wrong way is the assumption that all of the depth of human experience basically counted for nothing.The flatness of the endeavor inspired these editors to put together a collection that exhibits not only a grasp of logic (though it does exhibit that) or a critical acumen (again, check there) but a richness of genre and of approach that shows not only the rigor but the beauty of what lies beyond the myopic scope of the Nü Atheism, and the book that resulted is a compilation of theological essays, conversational interviews, narratives, and poetry whose attention to the flexibility of human existence stands as a reminder of one very important thing that Dawkins and Company neglects.

Also present here is a range of responses not afraid to disagree with one another.Notably, towards the beginning of the book, Jon Stanley offers a very Brian-McLaren-flavored liberal Protestant response essay, one mostly sympathetic with Derridean atheism as a help for Christians navigating our own historical and conceptual flotsam, and directly afterwards, Ben Suriano responds directly to Stanley with a counter-essay advancing a John-Milbank-influenced critique of Derridean atheism as an extension of modernist-atheist ontologies of violence.Later on, in the collection's title essay, Peter Candler offers an array of arguments that situate the appeal of the Nü Atheism more in cultural milieu than in force of argument, and a few artifacts down the table of contents, Randal Rauser (not as a direct response to Candler) argues that the Emergents' eschewing of logical argument, while understandable as a frustration, nonetheless neglects a significant duty that Christians have to skeptics if we're to be intellectually hospitable. In this reviewer's mind, Rauser's essay on plausibility and rationality is the best straight essay in the collection.

The interviews were perhaps my favorite bits.In one especially delightful piece theologian Stanley Hauerwas interviews friend and former neighbor (and religious chameleon) Stanley Fish about the Nü Atheism, and part of that exchange is the characteristically offensive Hauerwas line that I quoted above.In addition to being two of the wittiest human beings that I'm aware of, the duo also explore the nature of theological and philosophical language, the unstated but painfully obvious philosophical assumptions of the Nü Atheists, and the contributions that John Milton and George Herbert make to the ways that English-speakers talk about God.(What's not to love?)In other interviews Charles Taylor talks about the strange tensions he's experienced in a field that asserts its preference for self-disclosure in its theorists but holds in suspicion those who would self-disclose as Christians, and John Milbank traces modern atheism back to medieval nominalism and holds forth a vision for a Christian globalism that stands in the face of atheistic Capitalist globalism.

I've never been a big fan of the personal narrative as theology, but this volume's stories about interactions with atheists and life in intentional community as a counter to practical atheism did hold my interest, and while I'm partial to Milton and Herbert over postmodern poets, the selections in this book were thought-provoking, even if they're not Milton.(But who is?) And as is often the case, it's the personal essays, the bits that didn't strike me as the most worthwhile, that keep returning to me as I think on the book.

Overall I delight in noting the success of this experimental project, and I recommend the book strongly to anyone with a philosophical bent who would like to read some intelligent, witty, and sometimes beautiful responses to what Becky Crook, in her personal essay "Mystery and Mayhem," refers to the culture of "awe-bashing" (158).

(Cross-posted from The Christian Humanist Blog)

Belief and Atheism in Logic, Love and Poetry
What if, instead of atheists and Christians trying to fire logical barrages at each others' entrenched fortresses, we began talking to each other in a different way? This delightful collection of essays from contributors to The Other Journal explores the conversation between atheism and belief through both argument and poem, essay and tribute, logic and life. The writers range from such heavyweights as Stanley Hauerwas, Stanley Fish, John Milbank, and Charles Taylor to theological carpenters and the leaders of intentional communities. Overall, the essayists recognize both the paucity of the New Atheist arguments and the all-too-idolatrous nature of 21st century American Christianity that deserves the atheists it gets, and seeks to find a new way to critique whatever idols hold us back from truly living on all sides.

Particularly recommended are Robert Inchausti's essay on Thomas Merton's apology to an unbeliever; John Stanley and Ben Suriano's conversation on atheism, Derrida, and the ontology of violence; the delightful interviews with the above-mentioned heavy-hitters; and Becky Crook's lovely reflective essay, "Mystery and Mayhem: Reading Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita while Dating an Atheist in Seattle." This book is a wonderful refreshing read for theologians, ordinary believers, ordinary nonbelievers, and any thoughtful person who wants to have a conversation instead of just continue the shouting. ... Read more

Product Description
This pertinent short history illustrates the leading issues separating the theist from the atheist and agnostic, and sheds light on world events and the inconsistencies inherent in supernaturalism and theistic theories. Thrower discusses atheism both as a reaction to belief and as a separate and consistent form of belief in a world stripped of the divine, where reason, science, and humankind's endless search for knowledge flourish. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (5)

Uneven
James Thrower has tried to write a quick overview of western atheism.It's an ambitious scheme, and he's to be congratulated for his efforts.In the first seven chapters, he moves from the classical to the hellenistic ages, showing that although naturalism, the general worldview endorsed by most atheists, has an ancient lineage, atheism proper is much less spotty.There are some exceptions--Carneades, for example--but not many.The medieval and renaissance periods are also relatively free of atheists, although the "double truth" split between faith and reason endorsed by many medieval philosophers, as well as the rise of science and the steady retreat of theological explanations of the world in the later renaissance, paved the way for the fullblown appearance of atheism in the 18th century.

Given this historical paucity of atheism up to the Enlightenment, it's rather remarkable that 80% of Thrower's book is devoted to the pre-1800s.When he finally gets to the modern era, he does a decent job of summarizing some of the highpoints of Enlightenment free-thought, but his discussions of the 19th and 20th centuries are, respectively, spotty and spottier.He interestingly concludes with the claim that linguistic analysis is the most important challenge to God belief today.Although many philosophers might take this to be an antiquated claim (believing that we're long past the days of bliks and verificationism), I think it's still relevant.Unfortunately, Thrower doesn't explore it.

What especially disturbs me is that Thrower rarely cites original sources, but instead relies heavily--almost exclusively, as a matter of fact--on secondary ones.This is strange.Why would I want to read quotations from secondary sources in a source that's already secondary--or now, I suppose, tertiary?

So we're badly in need of a good history of western atheism.Until one comes along, more specialized studies will have to do:for example, Jennifer Michael Hecht's Doubt, Susan Jacoby's Freethinkers, and Michael Buckley's At the Origins of Modern Atheism.

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

Product Description

Product Description
The development and pervasiveness of modern atheism as well as secularization poses an acute challenge to Christian theology. Theologians have either ignored this challenge or have sought to meet it in a variety of ways. Throughout his theological career, Walter Kasper (1933-) has maintained that theology has the mutual tasks of exposition of the Christian faith and of responding to contemporary challenges to this faith. In his seminal work The God of Jesus Christ (1982), he argues that the proper Christian response to modern atheism is the confession of the Trinity. In making this response, Kasper begins to chart a course for all future Christian apologetics, for all efforts to give an account of Christian hope (1 Peter 3:15). ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ... Read more

Product Description
The rise of atheism and unbelief is a key feature in the development of the modern world, yet it is a topic which has been little explored by historians. This book presents a series of studies of irreligious ideas in various parts of Europe during the two centuries following the Reformation. Atheism was illegal everywhere. The word itself first entered the vernacular languages soon after the Reformation, but it was not until the eighteenth century that the first systematic defences of unbelief began to appear in print. Its history in the intervening two centuries is significant but hitherto obscure.The leading scholars who have contributed to this volume offer a range of approaches and draw on a wide variety of sources to produce a scholarly, original, and fascinating book. Atheism from the Reformation to the Enlightenment will be essential reading for all concerned with the religious, intellectual, and social history of early modern Europe. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

indispensable
This is a most important book. Any person interested in (the history of) atheism should read it at least once. It opens a whole new world of ideas and perspectives. Yes, atheism has a history, and it goes back a long, long way! You will not find a better guide for this most important period.

The book is unfortunately very hard to find, even in specialized university libraries. And it is expensive. There are large excerpts available on Google Books, but as usual with missing pages and nothing of the second half of the book. All that is frustrating, very much so. I will probably end up buying the darned book because it is so important (and well written), but a book like this should be neither so hard to find nor so expensive. That's the world we live in, I guess. ... Read more