Customer Reviews

Atheism: A Reader

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is a marvelous and eclectic assortment of essays by freethinkers throughout the ages, including Thomas Paine, David Hume, Bertrand Russell, Charles Darwin, Gore Vidal, Carl Sagan, and Robert Ingersoll. Each essay is beautifully crafted by writers who knew the fine art of constructing a powerful and persuasive essay; each is riveting in its insight or its candor. While a few of the essays are no longer politically correct (e.g. with references to "lesser minds"), the core theses remain vibrant and still ring true.

While religionists will scarcely find an uplifting sentence in this collection, there is still much to recommend this book to such an audience. First, it dispels many of the common myths about atheists: that they lack morals, that they reject god for selfish reasons, that they are ignorant of theism, that there is no meaning in their lives, that they cling to their own religious dogmas, etc. Second, it provides an interesting glimpse into the religious views of a wide assortment of freethinkers, which will challenge your core beliefs, such as "life after death" and "absolute morality".

As an atheist, I found this book an absolute joy to read. Compared to the contorted logic that religionists often indulge to lend an air of respectability to their dogmas, these essays are positively bursting with the wit and acumen that only seem to spring from unfettered minds. Each essay does its part to clear away the cobwebs of mysticism. I will close with two of my favorite quotes from the book. I chose these quotes not only for their insightfulness, but equally for their mastery of language. This will give you a taste of what awaits you in this book.

page 49: Leslie Stephen, commenting on religionists: "They feel rather than know. The awe with which they regard the universe, the tender glow of reverence and love with which the bare sight of nature affects them, is to them the ultimate guarantee of their beliefs. Happy those who feel such emotions! Only, when they try to extract definite statements of fact from these impalpable sentiments, they should beware how far such statements are apt to come into terrible collision with reality."

page 140: David Hume, commenting on the tendency with which religionists embellish dogmas: "Every virtue, every excellence, must be ascribed to the divinity, and no exaggeration will be deemed sufficient to reach those perfections, with which he is endowed. Whatever strains of panegyric can be invented, are immediately embraced, without consulting any arguments of phenomena: It is esteemed a sufficient confirmation of them, that they give us more magnificent ideas of the divine objects of our worship and adoration."

If you're an atheist, this book is a wonderful resource, full of good friends. The selection seems strong and many selections are 10 pages long or less, so you can get acquainted with many atheists. Most wrote during the last 3 centuries.

Discussion with a theist about God seems a waste of time, so I am sympathetic to Joshi's introduction. Theists indeed do seem "incapable of comprehending the issues at stake", as Joshi maintains. I attended a meeting of a local atheist group recently. The meeting was open to all, so there were fruitless debates with a die-hard fundamentalist. A so-called "atheist" viewed everyone's position as relative and wanted to encourage further theist-atheist meetings. But in this book an atheist can feel at home with just atheists. And if you're not atheist, but open to understanding atheist views, Josh's collection is a great way to start, with outstanding atheist writers like Emma Goldman, Bertrand Russell, Friedrich Nietzsche, Walter Kaufmann, H.P. Lovecraft, and Gore Vidal.

Avoid this book if you are a theist and wish to remain so. The thinkers in here are among the human race's best and might possibly reach even you.

This would make a good collection to any atheist's library, with a broad range of powerful statements to choose from on even the rainiest day.

I enjoyed much about this reader. The selections appear to be chosen as much for their literary qualities as for their defense of atheism, making for very pleasurable reading. Additionally, Joshi introduced me to a few historical atheists I had not heard of before, as well as a few figures I had heard of, but had not known were atheists. So I do feel enriched for having read it. However, three aspects of the reader bothered me. First, Joshi's introduction is too militant, and will unjustly ward off even reasonable religious folks, who would otherwise profit from the selections that follow. Second, the literary emphasis notwithstanding, a "reader" on atheism really should include selections from modern atheistic philosophers of religion, such as J. L. Mackie and Michael Martin. Finally, though I do not myself believe in an afterlife, the question of immortality is perfectly separable from the question of whether or not there is a god, and so it bothered me that Joshi included in his reader on "atheism" a section against immortality. But with these qualifications, my impression of the reader was, overall, a very favorable one, and I believe this book should be on the list of every person who wants to learn more about atheism.

Any book bearing the name of S T Joshi is worth looking into, and happily there seem to be more of them every day. This one is a collection of miscellaneous writings by authors from Lucretius to Gore Vidal, from T H Huxley to Emma Goldman, and including along the way such luminaries as Bertrand Russell, H P Lovecraft, George Eliot, Charles Darwin and Clarence Darrow. All of the pieces are arguments against religious belief, whether from the point of view of logic (as in the delightful extract from Lovecraft's correspondence, or Anatole France's careful refutation of miracles), or morals (Eliot's attack on mean-spirited fundamentalism, Nietzsche's magnificent rant against the lily-livered hypocrisy that passes for goodness among Christians), or just plain disgust (as in Gore Vidal's coolly disdainful dissection of the way in which the original Enlightenment ideals of the USA were betrayed when "In God We Trust" sneaked onto the money). (Not that we in Britain do much better - we still have an established State church; many of us baptise our children before they are old enough to walk, let alone think or speak; and on our coins we have "Queen by the grace of God" - though at least we have it in Latin, so that nobody understands it). There are rousing and tightly argued condemnations of just about every Christian virtue - faith, meekness, ignorance, priest-worship, misogyny and so forth. The book also has a very fine introduction by S T Joshi, commending it to the open-minded and consigning the rest to their quagmire. He may well be unduly optimistic in his assertion that, for the intellectual world at least, "there is no going back to irrational piety"; but books like this one should certainly help.

This book is not going to be the end all and be all of arguments on the Atheism/Theism debate, but it does give a breif overview of readings which deal with the subject. There are essays from a whole slew of great minds in here such as Bertrand Russel, Friederich Nietzche, Spinoza, Darwin, Huxley, Hume, and John Stuart Mill but it must be remembered that these are "sound bites." If you want the real arguments, it's probably best to look elsewhere.

The one notable, and maybe I should say dissapointing aspect of this book, is the introduction which reeks of elitism and intolerance. I can understand that Joshi (the editor) is an atheist and feels pretty strongly about it. Instead of offering an essay filled with reason (which he praises), he immediately goes on the offensive and insults the mass of humanity as "unable to conduct a course of logical reasoning on [religious faith](or any other matter)...(pg.10)" Sorry, S.T., but there have been many people in the history of humanity who were Theists and were capable of logical reasoning (take obvious examples like Descartes, Newton, Liebniz, Occam, Keppler, and even Darwin who started off as a Catholic - obviously their religious faith faith did not hinder their ability to conduct a course of logical reasoning. Insisting otherwise makes it very easy for others to dismiss the person as full of hot air.

The intro just gets more militant from there and I have to admit that I was a little offended by the *closemindedness* of the editor (and I accept that the atheist/agnostic/deist views are more logical than typical Christian/Muslim apologetics). As a fellow freethinker I don't believe it's a good tactic to simply insult those who disagree with you on the matter of whether God exists or not(the matter still draws good arguments from both sides. Serious scholars argue both sides, so it's hardly an issue where a "volume like this should not be necessary" (as the editor so boldly asserts in the first sentence). People should question *all* sides and Joshi's refusal to even accept possible reasons for Theism is the same type of emotional closemindedness he accuses Theists of having on the issue. So why should I bother to take his accusations of hypocrisy by religionists seriously when he engages in it himself?

It's a pity because most of the thinkers he's selected for this work are far from the dogmatic fundamentalist that the editor shows that he is. In the end, the essays are solid but short. There's a lot here to think about. The editor, however, could have dedicated the 15 pages for his introduction to another selection based on reason instead of preaching a sermon which could make an evangelical preacher blush.

Turn on tv, flick a dial, or pick up a newspaper, and chances are a pitchman for religion will soon pop up. After all, nothing sells like eternal bliss and the right hand of God. Not even Wal Mart's Blue Light Special nor the latest installment of Harry Potter can compete with the likes of hellfire and eternity. But many of these folks are no longer content with money-grubbing and tax-exemptions, now they want Congress and the First Amendment. Atheists especially need to be intellectually armed to confront this latest menace from the legions of revived medievalism.

As an intellectual source, the book is not particularly effective. There's very little theology, with only a cursory section on God proofs, while the articles themselves are too brief to provide much sustained reasoning. Nonetheless, the collection does succeed as a sampler of unbelief over the centuries, with the inclusion of both well-known names (Nietzsche, Paine, Sagan), plus some not so well-known (Lovecraft, Lecky). Critics could certainly second guess the quality of some excerpts, (On the key issue of evangelism, we get a long flowery essay from George Eliot that may be of historical and literary merit, but contains little of analytic value). The collection's main asset, in my view, lies in reacquainting a new generation with such classic debunkers of popular religion as Bradlaugh, Darrow, and above all, Robert Ingersoll. Call them propagandists, if you will, but few did more to expose the hypocracies and absurdities of the revival tent, and at a time when bible-belters had a strangle hold on law and popular culture. These titans managed to translate the esoterica of abstract reasoning into the effects on everyday life that ordinary people could understand and think about. Many of the improved artistic and intellectual freedoms of today are owed in part to the fearlessness of such largely forgotten names.

All in all, those readers looking for a cross-section of unbelief over the centuries, should find Joshi's collection works nicely; however, those looking for depth on one or more issues surrounding religious belief should follow up on the samplings.

Great compilation of short essays from all the great minds in atheism and agnosticism including: Robert Ingersoll, Bertrand Russell, John Stuart Mill, David Hume, Friedrich Nietzsche, H.L. Mencken, Thomas Paine, Walter Kaufman, Benedict Spinoza, Gore Vidal, and many more.

If you're not very familiar with freethought/atheism/agnosticism, this book is the perfect place to begin your study and expand your mind.

If you're looking for an anthology of popular and semi-scholarly works on atheism written over the last few hundred years, then this may be worth your money. On the other hand, if you're looking for the best-argued case for atheism available, then spend your money elsewhere (e.g., Michael Martin's, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, is much more thorough and rigorous). Although at some point I may use this as a supplemental text for a philosophy class on theism and atheism to give my students a taste of the history of atheism (while using selections from, say, Leibniz, Aquinas, and Anselm for the theistic side), I currently only use these essays as examples of either poor logic (e.g. Paine) or of arguments for atheism that have already been refuted. In short, this work is of historical value but it will not offer much to those who've kept up with analytic philosophy of religion in the past 30 or so years.

I greatly enjoyed the essays in this book, especially the ones by Emma Goldman, Carl Sagan, and Charles Darwin. Goldman is one of my favorite writers and her excerpt on Atheism is the best, in my opinion. Most are very good, and the essays by themself are 5 stars. However, like the other reviewers, I did not particularly like the intoruction, as it was poorly written and did made him seem ignorant as hell. Anyway, the essays are quite good, and you should look into the authors and read their whole work. While there are better books on Atheism out there, any Atheist, Agnostic, or especially any person of faith who wants to actually examine their faith, should read these essays (or better said the complete works of the writers).

There is good news and bad news about this book. The good news is that the editor, S.T. Joshi, provides excerpts from a wide variety of authors, many of them great philosophers, on a broad range of topics relating to criticism of theistic belief. I hope the readers of this volume will be inspired to read the original source materials from which the excerpts were taken, as well as the other side of the debate from theistic sources.

The bad news is Joshi's introduction. This has to be the most unsophisticated, inaccurate and bombastic attack on religious belief I have ever read. It was very painful to read, in fact, and an embarassment to those who value an honest and sophisticated critique of theistic ideas. I won't give too many examples of the distortions and bombast contained in the essay; a few should suffice.

For all his rejection of religion, Joshi sees the world in Manichaean terms: 97% of Americans are illogical, emotionally-driven, fearful souls who embrace some sort of theistic belief. The other 3% are the elect: intelligent, honest, good people who don't believe in God. The "non-elect" can never be persuaded to give up their foolish God-beliefs. They are motivated by a Lucretian fear of nature and fear of death, and nourish a secret, cowardly desire to "live in their current bodies indefinitely." Never mind any notion of transcendence or of seeking the Good, a basic source of the religious impulse since Augustine; religion is obviously motivated solely by the baser instincts of the human condition.

The simplistic nature of Joshi's belief system is nowhere better illustrated than in his equation of moral behavior with what is "socially approved." I wonder what he would make of Santayana's view of the human drive for transcendence or of Charles Taylor's insight that all human ethics is driven by a conception of the Good, even where it masquerades as value-free naturalism. The sad thing is, this sort of bombast was written by someone who should have known better: I mean, his excerpts include Walter Kaufmann, for pete's sake.