Customer Reviews

Atheism and Theism (Great Debates in Philosophy)

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greg Klebanoff <gkleban@yahoo.com>

The present book by Smart and Haldane, appeared the same year as Robin Le Poidevin's _Arguing for Atheism_ and testifies to a renewed interest in atheism in philosophical circles. The present book also testifies to interest in theism in philosophical circles. But theism has generally been given pride of place in books on the philosophy of religion, whereas atheism ordinarily has not been given the same attention in such books. Still, atheism as well as theism are parts of the philosophy of religion. And books on the philosophy of religion that do not pay much attention to atheism are eo ipso inadequate.

Now Smart and Haldane's book is not intended to be an introduction to the philosophy of religion. The book is rather a new installment in a series entitled "Great Debates in Philosophy" and which earlier has been devoted to topics like personal identity, consciousness and causality, agency and necessity, critical theory, and moral relativi! sm and moral objectivity. The series is edited by Ernest Sosa who seems to have managed to establish a good series. In any case, the present book is highly interesting particularly in the parts written by professor Smart.

Smart (b. 1920) has for many years been a professor of philosophy in Adelaide and in Canberra, but is now retired. In 1963 he published the book _Philosophy and Scientific Realism_. (London & NY). This book made a deep impression on me, and I can say that Smart converted me to materialism. I had been an atheist before I read Smart's book, but having read the book I also became a materialist.

In the book from 1963 Smart mentioned that he had turned away from a roughly neo-Wittgensteinian conception of philosophy towards a more metaphysical one, with a much more intimate relation to the sciences. Philosophy should not only unravel conceptual muddles but should also formulate a world view. And this world view, as Smart saw it, had! to be a kind of materialism, or rather physicalism.

U! sing ideas taken from the prominent American philosopher Quine, Smart argues that mathematics is a part of physical theory as a whole. This means that we must regard mathematical objects as physical, even though they are not material. Thus, for Smart physicalism is more basic than materialism. Hence, he in his last book prefers to describe himself as a physicalist rather than as a materialist, except in the context of the philosophy of mind where he holds that the distinction is not important (p. 10).

Smart mentions in the book under review that he once was a theist, and he would still like to be a theist if he had been able to reconcile theism with his philosophical and scientific views. So he would not be too sorry if his opponent, professor Haldane, would win the argument. From the present book it is clear that Haldane has not been able to convince Smart, but the same is the case the other way around: Smart has not been able to convince Haldane who re! mains a theist and even a Roman Catholic. Haldane probably sticks to Roman Catholicism because of old habits and for sentimental reasons. Philosophically Roman Catholicism is not stronger than Lutheranism or Islam. John L. Mackie and Michael Martin have smashed theism in books which appeared in 1982 and 1990 respectively, but Haldane does not go into their arguments. Nor does Smart, unfortunately, discuss Mackie's and Martin's arguments in any detail. Both are mentioned in the bibliography, but they do not get much attention apart from that. This is unfortunate, because Mackie's and Martin's books illustrate different ways in which one may approach or advocate atheism. Of other contemporary philosophers and atheists, Antony Flew is mentioned a few times in the text and in the bibliography, but Kai Nielsen has only made it to the bibliography. Well-known atheists like Feuerbach, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Freud etc. are not even mentioned in the book. Smart's past! as a theist still hangs on.

Smart is a distinguished ! and profound contemporary philosopher who has published a number of important books. One of these is a book on ethical theory, written together with another distinguished philosopher, Bernard Williams: _Utilitarianism_, for and against (Cambridge Univ. Press, UK, 1973). I must confess that I, before I saw the book which is reviewed here, never had heard about professor Haldane. Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantiga have published more sophisticated defences of theism than Haldane, but both have also been sharply criticized by John L. Mackie, Michael Martin, and others. I may be biased as I am an atheist and a materialist. But I think that Smart is much more profound than Haldane. Smart has a highly refined philosophy of atheism, metaphysics, and ethics. From contacts with "atheists in the street", particularly as they can be found in contemporary freethought circles, I suspect that Smart's philosophy is too profound and too difficult for most of th! em. Quite a pity!

Thorough and respectable debate. In-depth with little rhetoric

Students of modern thought recognize my headline as one of this centuries philosophical imperatives: "overcoming the phallic" means transcending the logic of opposites, the logic of "Us and Them" that bears a good deal of responsibility for this century's fascist and Stalinist holocausts--as well as similar holocausts of past centuries.

This book accomplishes a transcendence of the "Us and Them" pattern by presenting philosophers who respect each other enough to resist ad hominem argumentation and avoid (for the most part) the pitfalls of discussing this emotionally-charged topic.

A final warning: both of these thinkers are "Metaphysical Realists" (they contend that common ground here makes their discussion possible and fruitful). This means they believe in, and reason from, a world existing independent of human knowledge thereof. Readers who do not accept this will gain little from their arguments.