The Delusion of Disbelief: Why the New Atheism is a Threat to Your Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness (Hardcover)

~ (Author)
Key Phrases: new atheists, four musketeers, meme theory, United States, Four Horsemen, Old Testament (more...)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Journalist and biographer Aikman offers a spiritedly unsympathetic review of the new atheism represented by Daniel Dennett (Breaking the Spell), Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), Sam Harris (Letter to a Christian Nation), and Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great). As might be expected from any one author simultaneously engaging four opponents, Aikman struggles at times amid a flurry of arguments and counterarguments. Still, many of his criticisms score on their targets. Aikman reads the new atheists in historical perspective as the heirs of Voltaire, Marx, Feuerbach and Mencken, as well as in their immediate setting of post-9/11 fears of religious extremism and discontent with the Bush administration and its perceived evangelical leanings. While not an expert on all the issues the new atheists raise—chapters on science and biblical criticism rely heavily on arguments made by other reviewers—Aikman speaks effectively to the interplay between religious belief (or disbelief) and politics, whether among the American founders or in contemporary North Korea. But after criticizing the new atheists' inflammatory rhetoric, Aikman does not always rise to a higher level himself: references to Harris's drug use and Hitchens's communist past and drinking habits become gratuitous. (Apr.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Product Description

The last few years have seen a great assault upon faith in the publishing world, with an influx of books denouncing religious belief. While attacks on faith are not new, what is notable about these books--several of which have hit the bestseller charts--is their contention that belief in God is not only deluded, but dangerous to society.
In The Delusion of Disbelief, former Time senior correspondent and bestselling author David Aikman offers an articulate, reasoned response to four writers at the forefront of today's anti-faith movement: Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens.
Aikman shines a light on the arguments of these "evangelists of atheism," skillfully exposing their errors and inconsistencies. He explains what appears to motivate atheists and their followers; encourages Christians to look closely at what they believe; arms readers with powerful arguments in response to critics of faith; and exposes the social problems that atheism has caused throughout the world.
Aikman also takes on one of the most controversial questions of our time: Can American liberties survive in the absence of widespread belief in God on the part of the nation's people? The answer to that question, says Aikman, is critically important to your future.The Delusion of Disbelief is a thoughtful, intelligent resource for anyone concerned about the increasingly strident and aggressive new attacks on religious belief. It is the book that every person of faith should read--and give away.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 256 pages
• Publisher: Tyndale House Publishers (March 5, 2008)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1414317085
• ISBN-13: 978-1414317083
• Product Dimensions: 7.6 x 5.2 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 7.2 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.1 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (29 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #145,150 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in this category: (What's this?)

  #63 in

  Books > Religion & Spirituality > Spirituality > Atheism

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

77 of 106 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Grist for The Believer, April 9, 2008

By	D. Beck "Retired" (California) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

I read "The Delusion of Disbelief" hoping to find a well reasoned refutation of the cogent arguments set forth by Richard Dawkins et al. Aikman's strongest and most persuasive argument is that historically atheism has not faired well in establishing the basis for a moral and just society. Beyond this observation he doesn't really make a very strong case for faith based systems either. What's lacking are clear definitions of the terms that he uses to make his points; terms like freedom, authority, faith, reason, and even atheism are invoked without any apparent need to define them. Take for example, his arguments for the historical accuracy of the resurrection of Christ. Aikman uses reason to make his argument, but it's by faith that most Christians accept Christ's resurrection as true. Certainly non-Christians can easily make a far more reasoned argument against such a miraculous event as this.

I almost chuckled as Aikman struggled to include Einstein, Spinoza, and Jefferson as men of faith. Certainly these men would not be convinced through his line of reasoning of the miraculous resurrection of Christ or any other religious claims of the supernatural. Yet he would like us to believe that these men have something in common with other believers. I doubt the evangelical Christians he mentions could possibly feel any deep kinship with the specifics of the non-religious views of these men. Throughout his book he's able to make such dubious connections because he assiduously avoids defining his terms. Aikman's terms, often dripping in derisive sarcasm, are designed to evoke contempt on the part of believers for those who may beg to differ. This obviously is effective grist for those who don't need any convincing in the first place.

If Aikman is a serious thinker regarding these matters, it would be interesting to see how he would approach his subject matter if he were to use neutral terms like naturalist and supernaturalist as his point of departure. The "Four Horseman" (Aikman's term for the new atheists), along with most other atheists would be classified as naturalists, but so would Einstein, Spinoza, and Jefferson. Likewise not only Christians but also astrologists would be classified as supernaturalists. By definition superstition is contrary to the naturalist's view but cannot be so easily dismissed as an adjunct of faith. When it comes to political systems, communism, as Aikman argues, is grounded in naturalism and the Taliban, I would submit, is grounded in the supernatural. I should think there should be agreement that revelation and faith are fundamental to supernaturalism whereas reason must be considered the cornerstone of the naturalists. When it comes to good and evil it is difficult to see how either camp can claim superiority. Although democracies can and often are informed by religious beliefs, it's also true that democracies, if they are to remain true democracies, must be firmly committed to the freedom of thought and the application of reason.

33 of 47 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Where's the delusion?, April 23, 2008

By	Jesse James Rose - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

As a self-proclaimed skeptic of religion, I often attempt to read different books with different views on religion. I believe it is necessary to educate yourself as much as possible with all views, not just the ones you agree with. So when I saw this book at work (I work at Borders) I decided to give it a read.

The author (David Aikman) spends the majority of this book simply providing facts on "The Four Horsemen" (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens). None of the facts of these four men are ever really refuted, and when Aikman attempts to do so, which hardly ever occurs throughout the book, he fails miserably. In contrast, this book will provide you with sufficient information on these four men, who are considered the most well-known atheists today.

If you're looking for something that will provide a rebuttal of the "new atheism", try another book. If you are however interested in educating yourself on "new atheism", give I suppose it may be worth a read. Chances are, though, if you're interested in reading this book, you've probably already read the books from "The Four Horsemen".

18 of 27 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Starts off strong and then fades, April 17, 2008

By	Crowdy (Iowa) - See all my reviews

Aikman starts the book well when attacking the "New Atheists" (NAs). The only shortcoming I noticed in his critique was that Aikman failed to engage the hard-to-answer critiques of the NAs and spent most of the first part of his book hammering away on their excesses, which the NAs give plenty. However, this concentration on the NA's overstatements and overly-broad generalizations may have been purposeful since the NAs have been rightly accused of concentrating on the easy targets of religion--the Fundamentalists--while ignoring religion's more sophisticated arguments. Turn-around is fair play. For Aikman's initial critique, I grant 4 out of 5 stars. I would have granted 5 if it weren't for an argument on pg. 61of chapter 3 that oddly asserts that the NAs, like the old, actually believe in God at some level since they critique the God believers believe in. Of course, this conclusion doesn't follow. A Christian can critique the Hindu god Kali without believing Kali actually exists in some way more than a mere character in a book and oral traditions. The entirety of chapter 3 continues in the same condescending tone.

However, starting with Chapter 4 on, the book really begins to increasingly flag into an odd tirade about how everything bad is atheistic and everything good is Christian (especially European). For example, on page 124 Aikman states, "Atheist dictators, it must be said, seem to have a paranoia about being number two on any devotee's adoration list." Aikman clearly delineates the problem--atheist dictators must abolish religion or devalue it to a nonfactor within their societies, whereas religious dictators simply merge their ideology with their religion. The conclusion should be obvious--there can only be on authority in an authoritarian scheme. However, Aikman ignores this conclusion and comes to the conclusion that it's atheism's fault and not the authoritarian scheme whether religious or atheistic. This odd pin-the-tail-on-the-atrocity continues through the entirety of chapter 5. It culminates in Aikman's stunning conclusion that, even though Hitler "never renounced his Catholicism and never declared himself to be either an atheist or an agnostic" (pg. 132-133), he was an atheist because of his horrible acts regardless of all the evidence stating that he was not. However, I will somewhat defend Aikman here; the NAs like to repeatedly chime that religion has caused more death and war than anything else. This is obviously not true. War is about power and resources. Religion or atheism may be used to whip up fervor, but neither is the cause of war and the inhumanity it entails. Aikman's assertions through this chapter can be seen as a misguided response to the NAs misguided accusations. Chapter 6 and further simply gets worse and more myopic.

The first few chapters get 4 out of 5, while the latter get 1 out of 5. I should be magnanimous and round the average up to 3 out of 5, but the second half is so bad, and Aikman never actually addresses why disbelief is delusional, I am forced to cast off the rules of mathematics and round down. 2 out of 5.