Customer Reviews

Arguing for Atheism: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

With the great knowledge about the philosophy of religion that the author has, he shows how to dissect generally accepted theistic doctrines and ways of thinking that will eventually lead to theism. This Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Leeds approaches all the common and basic theistic premises in a very reasonable way, thereby not immediately taking the stand of the atheist, but leaving theistic questions multi-answerable at first. Yet, after having viewed theistic premises with the eye of the honest philosopher, the only solution for such philosophical problems will turn out to be a non-theistic one. With some humour here and there, and with fair and honest arguments for atheism the book will refute theism in a way that treats theistic conceptions in a respectful way, even though theism eventually will seem to be non-true. Robin Le Poidevin will demonstrate a logical succession of strategies that will hollow out theism step by step. Every chapter is to be considered an outstanding, analytic step towards total disproval of theism. After having dissected and consequently refuted theism in all its forms 'the fair philosopher' offers the possibly disillusioned ex-theist a way to regain the feelings and emotions that came about when practicing religion. 'Religion without God' therefore, will be the last chapter, where Le Poidevin stresses the fact that God is a fiction, but one can also project one's religious needs onto other things. This last chapter will not appeal to the person who has been an atheist all of his life, but I find it important to mention this last chapter because it stresses Le Poidevin's integrous fashion of refuting atheism; fair, down-to-earth and without a biased attitude towards theism whilst refuting this particular perception of existence totally. When one reads the book one might be distracted by the elaborate methods of viewing a premise and later on refuting it. The examples and verbal illustrations might seem redundant, but every chapter has a summary in which this chapter's contence will be repeated more in a straight forward way. I read this book quite often; step by step. It is outstanding, very nice to read, and I consider it the best atheistic book that I have yet purchased, which was more than one year ago.

This is an introduction to philosophy of religion written by an atheist. Le Poidevin manages to discuss a number of technical metaphysical issues in a highly readable way, which is exactly what we would hope to find in a college textbook such as this. My only criticism of Arguing for Atheism concerns what Le Poidevin did not address. His book contains nothing on miracles or religious experience, nor any reference to any of the new arguments for atheism, including Michael Martin's atheistic teleological argument or Quentin Smith's atheistic cosmological argument (even though the book comes with an endorsement by Smith). Indeed, Le Poidevin seems unaware of some very influential atheist philosophers, like Michael Martin and Antony Flew. Still, Arguing for Atheism is an outstanding atheist introduction to philosophy of religion that is well worth purchasing. -- Jeffery Jay Lowder

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.

*Arguing for Atheism* is a strange book. The title suggests that the book is an attempt to argue for the truth of atheism. Its subtitle, *An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion* suggests that it is meant to introduce the reader to issues in the philosophy of religion. To the book's credit, it attempts to do both, but as a result, it does neither adequately.

First for the title. This book is not *really* an argument for atheism. Atheism is the denial of God's existence. Le Poidevin does not really do this. In part 3 of the book, he defends an instrumentalist view of religion. This is fine and dandy, but given his view that religion is analogous to involving oneself in a work of fiction, Le Poidevin should not be an atheist. If his instrumentalism about religion is correct, then "God does not exist" is no more a candidate for literal truth or falsity than "God exists". (In his defense, Le Poidevin is not the first to make this error. Antony Flew has claimed both that God-talk is meaningless and that God does not exist.) Le Poidevin is really arguing for a God-less religion akin to Don Cupitt, whose work he discusses. If Le Poidevin is an atheist, he is an atheist in the biblical sense of one who denies God in his heart.

As for his arguments for "atheism", I find that most of them move way too quickly. He spends much of the chapter on evil discussing why the theist must adopt libertarian free will; very little time is actually spent on using evil as an argument for atheism. His discussion of how evolution explains apparent design is only one paragraph long, and no mention is made of the importance of "mis-design". Focusing here will actually allow him to argue *for* atheism rather than *against* theism. In fact, his arguments *for* atheism (as the title suggests) are primarily rejections of theistic arguments. His only real sustained attempt to argue for atheism is perhaps the rather befuddling chapter "Does the Universe Have a Purpose?" where he never does come to a clear conclusion.

I called *Arguing for Atheism* a "book of paradoxes" for several reasons: it never does argue *for* atheism, and it doesn't really argue for *atheism*. But perhaps the biggest paradox is the way in which it simultaneously moves rapidly over a great deal of territory and follows this up with interesting and insightful metaphysical analysis. His discussions of chance (and why we can't assign probabilities to such things as the fundamental constants being what they are) and different theories of time (in his discussion of the rationality of fearing death) show the intellectual sophistication that Le Poidevin needs to make the arguments he does successful, but in a way that decreases the book's suitability as an introduction. (He often seems to assume enough familiarity with basic issues in metaphysics that he can move rather quickly through difficult theories and concepts--I'm not sure the glossary is enough to make up for this.)In general, Le Poidevin both moves too quickly at timesfor his book to be a sustained defense of atheism, and too deeply at times for it to serve as an introduction.

Le Poidevin does, however, raise serious issues and presents interseting and often insightful criticisms of arguments for theism; and these stand as the redeeming features of this book. (And sometimes a book is better measured by the questions it raises than by the answers it gives.) He gives us a fair deal of meat on which to chew; I think, however, that it would have been a better book had he himself chewed a bit longer. I suspect that a future book where he dealt with these issues in more depth would be excellent.

The arguments are accessible to the non-philosopher, all terminology is carefully explained when introduced. this book is rewarding for the intellectual exercise provided by the rigorous logic and for the insights that deep analysis of personally significant beliefs can reveal. You do not have to be an atheist to enjoy this concise and fair set of arguments in defense of atheism and of embracing religion as useful fiction. Mr. Poidevin claims that belief that determinism is irreconciliable with human freedom is 'in tension with the theistic belief that we can only do certain things through God's help'. However, I think the theist can rightly claim that there is no tension because agents whose actions are *sometimes* uncaused and sometimes caused can still be considered free agents.

Robin Le Poidevin's book is a great introduction to some of the central problems of Philosophy of Religion. He concentrates on theism, the view that there is a benevolent creator of the World. His approach is fresh and original. Unlike other books he considers non-cognitive approaches to theism. As an added bonus, he includes an interesting chapter on death and time. While introductory, the book contains information that will interest more advanced students. This book should be a book of choice for courses on the Philosophy of Religion and for anyone interested in pursuing the question of God's existence in a thinking way.

Arguing for Atheism is a useful introduction not only to philosophy of religion, but to metaphysics as well. Each chapter serves the dual purpose of analyzing a specific argument, while at the same time introducing a metaphysical concept. Readers may pick up the book in order to strengthen their arguments against the cosmological argument, the argument from necessity, and the argument from design, and come away with a surprising understanding of broader philosophical issues like causation, necessity and contingency, and probability.

The chapter on moral realism served as a weaker point in the book, with conclusions which many atheists will likely object to. A few chapters also seem to take Le Poidevin's novel approach and apply it in a contrived manner. Chapter 8 and 9 introduce "fictional objects" and "ontology" and seem to serve the sole purpose of forcing in metaphysical ideas that the author is interested in, while contributing little to a more robust understanding of philosophy of religion as a whole.

Given the brief, less than exhaustive treatment of each subject, Arguing for Atheism may not be as useful as a handbook of arguments against theism, but it does succeed in providing philosophical context that will deepen the understanding of the issues at hand.

This is an introduction to philosophy of religion written by an atheist. Le Poidevin manages to discuss a number of technical metaphysical issues in a highly readable way, which is exactly what we would hope to find in a college textbook such as this. My only criticism of Arguing for Atheism concerns what Le Poidevin did not address. His book contains nothing on miracles or religious experience, nor any reference to any of the new arguments for atheism, including Michael Martin's atheistic teleological argument or Quentin Smith's atheistic cosmological argument (even though the book comes with an endorsement by Smith). Indeed, Le Poidevin seems unaware of some very influential atheist philosophers, like Michael Martin and Antony Flew. Still, Arguing for Atheism is an outstanding atheist introduction to philosophy of religion that is well worth purchasing. -- Jeffery Jay Lowder

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.

Robin Le Poidevin has written one of the best books defending atheism. He fairly and accurately considers his opponent's arguments, yet he still goes through meticulously and points out the flaws in each one.

The book is divided into three parts. Part one should be the most interesting to the atheist. Poidevin discusses theistic explanations, like the cosmological and teleological arguments, and finds them to be wanting. His discussion is fair and balanced, and he takes interesting approaches to dealing with them (for example, his discussion of modal realism in regards to the ontological argument).

In part two Poidevin attempts to make arguments *for* atheism, instead of simply refuting theistic claims. This section may appeal less to the atheist and theist than to someone who is still "unsure." I found his treatment of the problem of evil (AE) to be interesting, yet he claims that it is "the most powerful argument for atheism," which is a bit of an overstatement. At best, AE offers support to an atheist, but it is not the knock-down argument Poidevin makes it out to be. His other argument "for" atheism is really just pointing out the problems with theistic ethics. He states the Euthyphro dilemma, then discusses the ethics in much greater depth. I won't go into it here, but although his discussion was interesting, I am not sure it is really an argument "for" atheism.

Part three will probably not interest the atheist all, but the theist may find it more interesting than parts 1 or 2. As an atheist, I found all 3 parts to be interesting, and part 3 especially so for its treatment of difficult issues. Part three asks if religion may have pragmatic value (the answer is yes), and if so, can that be salvaged by the atheist (Poidevin's answer again is yes). Part three also deals with the issues of death and whether we can have meaningful discourse about God at all. All in all, I found part 3 the most interesting because it deals with issues that most theists find more important than the newest statement of the teleological argument: Should the atheist fear death? How can the atheist salvage the comfort of religion from the fact that god is a fiction? etc. These issues often don't appeal to the person who already is an atheist, but Poidevin's treatment of them shows his breadth of understanding about issues that the atheist faces.

One final note: This book is not extremely difficult, but I do not agree with another reviewer here that said it is accessible to the non-philosopher. If you've never read any philosophy before, you will probably find this at least minimally difficult. Poidevin defines terms beforehand, and he restates things often enough to keep most people from getting lost, but the preface of the book states that it is written for a "second or third year undergraduate philosophy of religion or metaphysics course." Some background in philosophy will make this book more enjoyable and you'll get more out of it.

All in all, this is so far the best book arguing for atheism that I have ever read. It deals with issues that are important to both atheists and theists, and Poidevin treats his opponents with fairness. This text is simply a must have for anyone interested in the philosophy of religion.