Customer Reviews

Atheism: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions)

5 star:		(23)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

I had not heard of _Atheism: A Very Short Introduction_ prior to receiving it as a gift from a friend. As I read the book, however, I quickly realized that Julian Baggini had written a masterful introduction to atheism, one that is sure to become a classic for years to come. Here is the table of contents:

Preface
List of Illustrations
1. What Is Atheism?
2. The Case for Atheism
3. Atheist Ethics
4. Meaning and Purpose
5. Atheism in History
6. Against Religion?
7. Conclusion

References and further reading
Index

In chapter 1, Baggini explains his primary purpose in _Atheism_ is to "provide a positive case for atheism," which he defines as "the belief that there is no God or gods" (p. 3). As Baggini correctly explains, atheism is not materialism, and Baggini makes it clear that he rejects materialism. Instead, most atheism is rooted in "the broader claims of naturalism" (p. 7). Since naturalism *entails* atheism, any evidence for naturalism is automatically evidence for naturalism. (The converse is not necessarily true, however.) In Baggini's words, "atheism is essentially a form of naturalism and so its main evidential base is the evidence for naturalism" (p. 16). Why is this significant? Because the evidential case for naturalism is much broader than the evidential case for atheism. Thus, Baggini's case for atheism has a far greater explanatory scope than the cases found in recent defenses of atheism by such scholars as Martin, Rowe, Le Poidevin, Smith, and Mackie, who do not defend atheism by appealing to the case for naturalism.

In chapter 2, Baggini sets forth his case for atheism. It includes (i) the absence of evidence of the supernatural; (ii) the physical dependence of the mind upon the brain; (iii) the simplicity of naturalism compared to supernatural alternatives, including theism; (iv) religious diversity; and (v) the problem of evil. Baggini concludes that atheism is the best explanation for these facts.

In chapter 3, Baggini discusses the relationship between atheism and ethics. His refutation of the idea that moral laws require a moral lawgiver is excellent. As he puts it, morality "is the basis upon which just laws are enacted and enforced; it is not constituted by the laws themselves" (p. 38). Thus, if we think of God as a moral lawgiver, God's laws will be moral only if "they conform to moral principles which are independent of God" (p. 38). Baggini also argues that an atheist ethics can combine features of Aristotelian, Kantian, and Utilitarian ethics.

In chapter 4, he explains a related issue, the relationship between atheism, meaning, and purpose. He refutes the idea that God is a necessary or sufficient condition for a meaningful life. As Baggini points out, just because a creator gives a purpose to its creature hardly makes the purpose significant *for the creature* (p. 59). Ultimately, life's ultimate purpose must be something which is intrinsically valuable. That something, he argues, is life itself. Moreover, immortality isn't required for a meaningful life, either. On the contrary, the inevitability of death is "what makes life so valuable in the first place" (p. 71).

In chapter 5, Baggini discusses atheism in history. Specifically, he discusses the emergence of atheism in Western civilization, as well as the claim that atheism was responsible for 20th century totalitarian atrocities. On the latter, he discusses the relationship between, atheism, Nazi Germany, and Soviet communism. Regarding Nazi Germany, Baggini correctly mentions Nazi Germany was not an atheist state. Moreover, "Nazi doctrines themselves were also at odds with the kind of rational naturalism of traditional atheism" (p. 84). As for Soviet communism, Baggini points out that the history of the Soviet Union was not somehow the consequence of atheist beliefs; what happened in Russia was partially the result of *militant* atheism. Atheism as such does not entail militant atheism, and Baggini argues against militant atheism throughout his book.

In chapter 6, Baggini addresses the claim that atheism is against religion. Atheism as such is only opposed to the truth of religion; it does not entail hostility towards religious believers. Baggini then briefly considers some arguments for God's existence, including the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments. Finally, he criticizes militant atheism.

In chapter 7, Baggini acknowledges some of the omissions of his book. He also talks about humanism as a type of positive atheism.

Perhaps the main fault that I find with Baggini's discussion of the case for naturalism, as well as his rebuttal to the case against it, lies in its incompleteness. Given Baggini's emphasis on atheism as a form of naturalism, it is surprising he did not also include evolution or the biological role of pain and pleasure. Moreover, his failure to mention divine hiddenness as evidence for atheism is odd. On the theistic side, I was struck by how Baggini neglected the so-called 'fine-tuning' argument and instead discussed merely the watchmaker argument, which even most theists reject.

The other important fault which I find with Baggini's book are his references to the idea of 'atheist ethics' or 'atheist morality,' as if there were clearly one atheistic approach to ethics. Since the only ethical implication of atheism is the falsity of the divine command theory, it seems to me this is a non sequitur. Baggini's discussion of an Aristotelian-Kantian-Utilitarian hybrid approach is fine as far as it goes, but he says nothing about the obvious objection that atheists have no basis for selecting that ethical theory over any other secular ethical theory.

Despite these two faults, I think that this book does an excellent job in introducing atheism. In particular, I am especially pleased with its emphasis on the case for naturalism. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in atheism.

This is the best short introduction to the subject of atheism I have ever read, and I've read quite a few. Baggini has an amazing talent for reducing complex ideas to their essentials, and he does so without oversimplifying. Whereas many people who call themselves atheists merely say that there is no evidence FOR the existence of God, Baggini shows that there is clear evidence AGAINST the existence of God, while at the same time pointing out that such positive atheism need not be dogmatic.

I was especially pleased with the chapter on ethics. I was fully expecting to see something with which I would be in disagreement, but much to my surprise Baggini defends atheist ethics without resorting to any dubious assumptions regarding the nature of morality.

Another very positive aspect of the book is that it has such a pleasant, uncritical tone. This (plus the price) makes it an excellent book for atheists to give as gifts to believers. Much of the negativity regarding atheism would be dispelled if this book were widely read.

This is definitely a jewel of a little book. Clear rational thinking and to the point. It presents the arguments for the non-existence of a supernatural being in simple language. It shows why there is abundant evidence that everything exists within the natural world and why the arguments for a supernatural domain are utterly flawed.

As for the one negative review below, just take it at face value. It's most likely writen by Rev. Cheung himself. I took his advice and checked out some of his books. Well, his total lack of rational thinking is frightening. His writing clearly show how possessed by the supernatural one can become, basically losing all sense of reality. His book ( and all his writings) is based on the assumption that the Bible is the infallible word of God. Why? Just because he says so! He writes page after page based on this alone, and thus every argument he makes is utterly flawed. He claims that -- "the power of the dogmatically argument is such that it conclusively establishes the entire Christian faith as true, and simultaneously serves as a conclusive refutation to all non-Christian ideas and worldviews, whether known or unknown" -- He uses this type argument to prove such points as -- "since evolution contradicts Scripture, then evolution is automatically false" -- ! Need I go on . I have never had such a good laugh reading fundamentalist "philosophy". Reading his books leads one to clearly understand why supernaturalistic systems of belief can not be taken seriously as a world view or philosophy for society today. As their foundation, Cheung and others like him, have rejected reason and find no problem with rejecting 2000 years of accumulated scientific knowledge. The philosophy that Cheung propounds is one that would promote the idea that we are simply passing through this sin stained world on our way to God's kingdom. This is the same philosophy responsible for the 9/11 terrorism.

I have to admit it: I am a fan of these little books. It's my dirty little secret. These short introductions provide one with a pocketsize, portable introduction to a wide variety of topics. With a light tone and a surface skim of the issues, these little guides provide one with the general overview one might expect in a small survey course. Naturally, there are downsides. Are these guides comprehensive? Heavens no! Do they take time to dig deeply into the issues? Not generally. But are they a good resource to use if you want to get your feet wet before you dive in? Yes. When used properly, these little guidebooks can allow what might start out as a casual curiosity to develop into a more in-depth research project. In fact, all of these introductions provide references and suggestions for further reading.

Julian Baggini's _A Very Short Introduction to Atheism_ is told from the viewpoint of one who attended Roman Catholic primary schooling and went on to become an atheist. He spends the first couple of chapters matching up atheism with naturalism and realism, while sketching out some basic positive arguments for atheism. Baggini also deals with the lack of evidence for theism and claims that the motivations and methods of science are clearly in favor of non-belief in the supernatural (a general claim that the atheist generally holds). Chapter three responds to various theistic challenges that morality and ethics rely upon religion and a belief in the supernatural. Chapter four handles one other common objection to atheism: that it leads to a life devoid of meaning and purpose. The last couple of chapters deal with the history of atheism and the various schools of thought concerning the militancy of atheism.

Baggini's _Introduction_ is short...very short. But hey, that's what the title says. In order to keep the page limit down and to keep the reader entertained, Baggini has drastically oversimplified many of the arguments in this book. Many of his statements hinge upon implicit premises that are unstated and quite interesting in their own right. My only complaint is that there was not enough room to rehearse these implicit premises. I would recommend reading this book if you have a casual interest in atheism, want to learn more, or are a believer yourself and you want to understand an opposing viewpoint better. There are more developed, more comprehensive, and better introductions to atheism out there, but clocking in at 111 pages, you can't beat this read.

While there are various arguments against theism, the author sticks to a basic one: there is nothing properly describable as evidence proving the existance of a god or gods, and based on the arguments given by honest and reasonable proponents of theism, there never can be. The rest, as they say, is commentary.

The book is a good basic introduction to the topic for readers who have outgrown their old faith, realize that they cannot go back (except at the cost of heaving their rationality and common sense overboard), and want a deeper philosophical grounding for their views. I would especially recommend it to younger readers (around high-school age, say) whose childhood religious instruction was either mostly pro forma (like many of us) or who had no religious training at all. (Lucky them! The residue of childhood socialization is a frequent sticking point for people who sense that their faith is no longer believable, but who balk at admitting as much to themselves.) As for most of the rest--young and old alike--I certainly do not recommend they upset themselves by reading anything they are not yet ready for.

Needless to say, such a small book can hardly be said to be an exhaustive treatment. (What book could?) The reading list at the back has some good books for those who wish to go further. (I would have included Mencken's "Treatise on the Gods" for fun, but that's just me.)

The author deserves praise for swatting down (among other things) a favorite smear employed against atheists, agnostics, and even anyone entertaining doubts, no matter how blameless their lives. This is the oft repeated cant that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were both atheist states. In the first instance, this is wrong, and in the second, Professor Baggini makes that point that militant atheism can certainly have deadly consequences. So can militant Christianity and militant Islam, just to start. In fact, with the collapse of Soviet Communism, fanatical religion has now resumed it's customary place as the chief threat to human life and liberty.

To conclude, it is curious that (up to now at least) the reviews on this page that praise this book have been--like the book itself--reasonable and temperate, even if one disagrees with them. On the other hand, the ones that criticize do not merely say the author is mistaken; they indulge in the sort of hysterical rhetoric one would usualy find under a revival tent. They are also strewn with basic spelling errors, whether made in rage or ignorance I do not know. (Dyslexia, perhaps?) A suggestion for future hostile reviewers: Use a word processing program with spell check; than copy and paste to the web page.

ATHEISM.
A Very Short Introduction.

J. Baggini.

This is the second book of the Very Short Introduction series that I have read, and like the earlier one, Coles' COSMOLOGY, it too is a gem. So clear and concise, cutting through all the obfuscating jargon that so often befuddles and bewilders the anxious reader. But you immediately sense that you can trust Baggini to take you on his tour, because you already know from the beginning where he stands, and where he proposes to lead you. His arguments may not be incontrovertible, but they are difficult to refute. His honest and sincere approach is evident from the beginning, and he adds many light touches from personal experience, all the while keeping a steady eye on the central theme of justifying atheism by adhering to precepts of naturalism and rationalism.

Baggini leads the reader by the hand across a minefield of technical terms that might frighten off laymen. He leads you with confidence around such terms as abduction and induction, and eliminative materialism and naturalism, dogmatism and agnosticism, strong evidence and weak evidence, so that you can actually understand him with relative ease; and perhaps more importantly, you can actually agree with him. Interestingly he invokes abduction, the principle of the best explanation that fits the available facts. Is the best also the simplest?

He explains what atheism is and what atheism isn't. Even palindromic utterances such as `absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' are carefully and simply explained. The author also swiftly debunks all the so-called arguments proving the existence of God, calling the cosmological `awful', the teleological `terrible', and the ontological `at least philosophically interesting'. And everywhere Baggini displays consistency by referring to evidence, experience and experiment to buttress his justification for atheism. He never takes metaphysical flight, always being grounded in reality. This methodical approach, always illuminating, with lucid writing, marked by restraint and integrity at every turn, to a thorny and difficult subject, is worth any thinking person's time.

The author finds enough room in this slim tome to include a much-needed appraisal of the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, with respect to the role of atheism. Again he tackles a tricky issue in a forthright, comprehensible and convincing manner, exposing pitfalls in the reasoning of those people trying to blame atheism for all the evil actions of these regimes that achieved eternal infamy.

My personal favorite is the passage that I would consider constitutes the climax of the book: the value placed on the principal achievement of atheism in the modern world, namely secular humanism. It is only a question of time, as higher education spreads through an ever-increasing percentage of society, and belief in superstitions and the supernatural inevitably decline, that we shall attain the ultimate goal of a truly open-minded, progressive, tolerant and freethinking society, based on the rational principles of secular humanism.

Recommended reading of this caliber deserves five stars: one for thorough treatment, lucid writing, common-sense approach, easy-to-follow presentation and minimum use of technical terms; two for steady focus on rational, logical, naturalistic and secular objectives; three for explicitly stating that alternative approaches available in the argument were omitted for reasons of space and policy; four for including a suggested reading list, with brief notes, and a useful index; and five for rendering a controversial subject into an informative and interesting reading exercise.

Can so small a book be so big a landmark? Here it is!

031126.

I am an atheist, and even *I* learned a thing or two from this brief but rich tome. Baggini lays out a basic justification for an atheist worldview [which he equates fairly with naturalism] that goes beyond attacking theism and into positive justification for atheism as the better worldview. His style is direct, his tone affable, and in the end he comes up with a readable introduction than atheists and theists can both understand and appreciate.

If, in the future, someone asks me to recommend a book on atheism, I will be directing them to Baggini first.

The average person will not find a more useful introduction to atheism than Baggini's little book. Baggini spends most of his time skillfully addressing the foremost misconceptions believers tend to have about atheism: that it is incompatible with morality, that it strips life of meaning, that it is responsible for most of the bloodshed of the twentieth century. He spends rather less time developing intellectual arguments for atheism or countering intellectual arguments for theism, but does enough to give the reader a good feeling for the way reasonable atheists think. In my opinion, the only real flaw the book has is that its bibliography is terrible, leaving out most of the best and most influential treatments of atheism written in the last quarter century.

Two themes run through this book - the positive case for atheism, and the inadequacy of logical arguments against it. The author is generally respectful of beliefs, though he points out the difficulties to others of when people act from religious fundamentalism or dogmatic atheism.

Baggini is a philosopher with a surprisingly light touch - the chapter on Atheist Ethics, for instance, moves seamlessly from the opening paragraph - "Dostoevsky's Ivan Karamazov may have said 'Without God anything is permitted', but I bet he never tried parking in central London on a Saturday afternoon" - to a highly persuasive deployment of Plato's Euthypro.

I had thought I had a fairly well thought-out case for my non-dogmatic atheism, but this little book (just over 100 pages) has added light and confidence to my relationship with the universe.

Of the several books and other materials that I have read on this subject there are points expressed well and in a different way, but then there are many things that are the opposite, not at all well expressed. There are places that seem to have not been edited. There are sentences that just do not make sense. He speaks at times like his words are for a generally well educated audience and uses excellent terms to communicate. Then he changes radically and uses terms that are more arcane, more for the philosophers and the highly erudite that are steeped in their use. He wanders back and forth with this kind of writing. He seems to not believe that one can be an agnostic, but then makes an intellectual stew that sounds like maybe he does believe there can be such a thing as agnosticism, but does not want to call it that. It winds up muddled. He is sincere in his purpose, of that I feel sure, but he does not achieve it.