Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(16)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(11)

 

 

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.

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".

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.

I am admittedly not religious. I've read some of the books Aikman discusses and decided to read this to see what a religious argument had to say.

Because this book is an argument against atheism, this book has two main tasks it needs to accomplish:

1.) Show that belief in God is true, or at least likely
2.) Show that belief in God is less harmful to society than disbelief

The second task it accomplishes with some success. The first Aikman completely ignores, and unfortunately, this is arguably the more important task. As Dawkins is fond of saying, "Even if certain beliefs can be comforting, it doesn't make them true." Hence the most glaring problem with the book is its complete failure to even ATTEMPT to address one of the main atheist contentions.

As for the second task, Aikman gives readers a mix of legitimate and invalid criticism. Among its more legitimate arguments are examples of crimes actually committed IN THE NAME OF atheism and providing a clearer view of the religious beliefs of certain historical figures, such as Albert Einstein. Among the more invalid arguments are claims that disbelief in God somehow leads to a morality system acceptable of any kind of behavior, however cruel and barbaric.

As for overall writing style and quality, Dawkins is clearly a superior writer (though Aikman might beat out Hitchens in God is Not Great). While Aikman does provide some good factual information, he generally fails to unify all his facts into an effective framework. One often loses the purpose behind certain factual examples.

Overall, Aikman presents a few interesting ideas that are on the side of religion. Some of what he presents, however, is either questionable, oversimplified, or even just plain wrong. And the most egregious arguments against religion Aikman never even mentions.

Aikman fails to deliver a substantial argument to combat his "Four Horseman". He spends most of the first three chapter trying to make Harris look bad for taking ecstasy when he was young. He struggles to work that trivia into his arguments as often as possible. He also works diligently to liken all four men in with the most insidious of the four: Hitchens. He falsely credits monotheism with the success of democracy and never mentions the Enlightenment or Greek thought in his explanation. He's clearly uniformed. His "pamphlet" (the book is quite small) shows its true colors in chapter six entitled: "The Christian worldview is the foundation of liberty", a laughable title. Aikmen rehashes many of the old arguments against Atheism with no new views or insights. He tries to paint Hilter as an Atheist against Hitler's own published manifesto, a useless endevor and likewise attempts to make Einstein a Christian.

Early in the book he shows his lack of knowledge concerning Darwanism, a common malady amoung the faithful, when he comments on Dawkin's nickname, "Darwin's Rottweiler", he fails to make the connection to Huxley and his title of "Darwin's Bulldog". He even suggests other nicknames for Dawkins. This book is a rapid response, an attempt to salvage some ground for the few people that think science should stay in its corner and let Religion continue to be abused by politicians, governments, and sex-starved clergy.

**Many of Aikman's arguments have since been addressed (and destroyed) in Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape.

What this book does:
- Provides information about the new Atheist movement, its main figures, writings, and the overwhelming acceptance that they have had worldwide and in the USA.

What this book does NOT:
- Disprove the claims made by Dennet, Dawkins, Harris or Hitchens.
- Prove why New Atheism is a threat to "Your Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness".

This book was better than I expected. I'm a nonbeliever and expected to hate it, but it has its moments. Aikman makes some good jabs at the "Four Horsemen", a.k.a. the New Atheists (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins,Dan Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens). Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens do make a lot of dubious historical claims in their best-selling books. Also, Aikman is right that Sam Harris' hair-splitting definition of religion and rationality (he argues secular dictatorships are not really secular because they're irrational)is a weak argument. (I haven't read Dennett).

Now on to the negative part of the review: Aikman attacks a straw man for much of the book. He talks about secular leaders like Pol Pot and Lenin and uses guilt-by-association to attack The Four Horsemen's arguments--i.e. Lenin was hostile to religion and so is Christopher Hitchens. But he misses a key point here--none of the New Atheists are calling for a government prohibition on religion like those tyrants did. In fact, Sam Harris has explicitly said, several times, that he is against any laws prohibiting religion. What Harris, Dawkins, et al... are calling for is for people to voluntarily jettison their religious convictions and embrace secular humanism. While I wonder if this is feasible, it is a far cry from jailing and killing priest like Hitler and Stalin did. Phil Zuckerman makes the point in his excellent book Society Without God: socities that have voluntarily given up worship of God, e.g. Denmark, are very free and prosperous. These societies have are nothing like the Soviet Union, where religion was stamped out by government fiat. Aikman doesn't or won't see the difference. This dooms the book to mediocrity.

The subtitle is wrong--the "new" atheism is in fact no threat to anyone's life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Dr. Aikman's 'The Delusion of Disbelief' is an excellent read and provides brilliant answers to the Four Horseman and their arguments.

David Aikman lives up to his journalistic backgrounds and presents the readers with a brief summation of the Four Horseman (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens), their activities, and the recent Atheist movement before plunging into the heart of the issue. This should give those who are not familiar with New Atheism and it's constituents an excellent foundation before continuing the book.

Dr. Aikman goes on to challenge many of the ideas presented in the Four Horseman's books. He tackles everything from the nature of Einstein's beliefs to Christianity as the foundation of American liberty. Perhaps the most riveting section of the Delusion of Disbelief is chapter 5 entitled 'The Problem of Wicked Atheists: Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot'. Aikman bravely assaults Dawkins' dishonest representation of the anti-theistic nature of 20th century atheist regimes. In an attempt to vindicate atheism of all the atrocities committed by communists in the 1900's, Dawkins states that Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, and Mao Zedong, were simply not motivated or even mildly affected by atheism, and therefore atheism is not responsible. Dr. Aikman destroys this idea with irrefutable evidence that these murderers certainly were motivated at least in part by their Godless ideologies. He posits that Atheists must fill a void created by the removal of religious beliefs and in doing so, create a form of humanistic State worship that is indeed just as dangerous as, if not more dangerous than, religion.

Aikman presents bold refutations of many of the common arguments that attempt propagate new and old atheism. I strongly recommend the Delusion of Disbelief both for Christians looking for a comprehensive piece of apologetic literature and atheists seeking an intellectual challenge. You will not regret purchasing the Delusion of Disbelief.

There have been a number of books written in response to what David Aikman calls the "New Atheism," for example, David Berlinski's The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, John Cornwell's Darwin's Angel: A Seraphic Response to the God Delusion, Alister and Joanna McGrath's The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine, and Eric Reitan's Is God A Delusion: A Reply to Religion's Cultured Despisers. Among this chorus of opposition to the new atheism is this fine book by Aikman. Read it, along with others, to your delight and edification!

Aikman is a 23 year veteran of Time magazine. He currently writes for Christianity Today, the Wall Street Journal, The American Spectator, and The Weekly Standard. He has written eight books, including the noteworthy Jesus in Beijing: How Christianity is Transforming China and Changing the Global Balance of Power. He also teaches history and writing at Patrick Henry College.

The book under review contains six chapters, a conclusion, and an appendix. Chapter 1 is titled The Four Horsemen. Chapter 2 is titled The Attack of the Four Horsemen. Chapter 3 is titled They Don't Like God. Chapter 4 is The Science Problem. Chapter 5 is The Problem of Wicked Atheists: Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot. Chapter 6 is The Christian Worldview Is the Foundation of Liberty. The Conclusion is titled The New Atheism Offers Nothing New. The Appendix is titled The Four Horsemen and the Bible.

In Chapter 1, Aikman identifies who he means by "The Four Horsemen." They are as follows: Sam Harris, the author of Letter to a Christian Nation (Vintage), Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, Daniel Dennett, author of Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, and Christopher Hitchens, author of God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Aikman approvingly quotes Michael Novak: "Civilization is constituted by reasoned conversation. Civilized humans converse with one another, argue with one another, offer evidence to one another. Barbarians club one another". Aikman clearly is of the opinion that there is way too much clubbing going on when it comes to belief in God, and not nearly enough reasoned conversation. With this he sets the tone for his book. He continues in Chapter 1 by questioning why there is a "new atheism" at this point in time. He speculates that it may be because of (1) the number of openly Christian political leaders serving in high office, including President Bush, and (2) the in-roads made in openly questioning the scientific validity of Darwinian evolution.

In Chapter 2, Aikman criticizes the attacks of the four horsemen. He complains about the "consistently surprising ignorance Dawkins displays toward the entire Christian experience", and that "Harris overlooks the obvious point that the very concepts of good and evil came from a religious view of life, a view, moreover, that assumes that ordinary human beings have no difficulty in recognizing evil as evil or moral good as moral good when they see it. . . . This, indeed, is one of the underlying philosophical weaknesses of the entire corpus of the Four Horsemen, and indeed of the entire New Atheism approach in general." At the end of the chapter, Aikman summarizes what he perceives to be the seven arguments that the four horsemen make. In the remainder of the book, Aikman specifically addresses those arguments. Only the first one, that concerns the existence of God, does Aikman perhaps do an inadequate job, in my opinion. The other six, religion is bad, the God of the Bible is bad, science is opposed to religion, atheism does not cause people to do bad things, America does not have Christianity as a foundation, and that civilization needs atheism, Aikman responds to point by point. It would appear to me that the authors of many of the negative reviews posted on Amazon have not read this book!

In Chapter 3, Aikman argues that the four horsemen hate God, and that is what motivates them to write the things they do. "The overwhelming impression one gets from reading Dawkins, Dennett, Harris & Hitchens is that they are asserting the nonexistence of someone they sort of know - or at least think they know about - but whom they dislike venomously". "The basic cry of the New Atheists, as of the old atheists, is that they hate God. They claim not to believe that he exists, but their animosity is so personal that it is hard to escape the conclusion that they are combating a personality who in some intuitive way they know is real."

In Chapter 4, Aikman briefly addresses the "The Science Problem." He does not provide scientific evidence for or against the existence of God. Basically what he does do is indicate that scientific knowledge does not, in fact, exclude faith, as indicated by the faith of some scientific leaders.

In Chapter 5, Aikman documents some of the atrocities of atheistic states in the twentieth century. Aikman writes "Richard Dawkins makes the very unlearned assertion on page 249 of The God Delusion that no `atheist in the world would bulldoze Mecca - or Chartres, York Minster or Notre Dame . . . A more careful student of history than Dawkins would have known, however, that an atheist did indeed do just that. That person was Joseph Stalin." "Some observers have concluded that one of the reasons for the murderous ferocity of communist regimes was the `scientism' of their rulers, the same scientism that we just encountered in the previous chapter." What Aikman means by "scientism" is the deification of science.

In Chapter 6, Aikman argues that the Christian worldview is the foundation of liberty. He does this to answer the charges made by atheists that America does not have Christianity as a foundation and that civilization needs atheism. Aikman writes that "the utter ignorance of American history displayed by Oxford professor Richard Dawkins is nothing short of astonishing. . . . he makes some observations about American history that are so ludicrous they have surely embarrassed his Oxford colleagues in the field of history." Aikman continues, "Dawkins, in insisting that the early American republic had almost no Christian component, takes no notice of any of the ample historical evidence to the contrary".

In the Conclusion, Aikman stresses that the new atheism is nothing but the old atheism and really has nothing new to offer. He adds additional comments about the lack of moral clarity on the part of atheists. For example, Aikman quotes Dawkins as saying the following in a debate in response to a question concerning good and evil: "Even the question you're asking has no meaning to me. Good and evil - I don't believe that there is hanging out there, anywhere, something called good and something called evil." In response to this comment, Aikman writes "The kindest thing that can be said about Dawkins's statement here is that it reveals an astonishing poverty of moral imagination. Even Harris and Hitchens seem to shy away from that degree of moral agnosticism." Yet, in the real world there is a crying need for moral clarity in many important areas of life, such medical ethics, human rights, just and unjust war, as well as in personal questions of morality. Aikman questions as follows: "if atheism itself can't agree on criteria for defining actions or people as good or evil, can atheists explain why there seems to be a universal human need to do so?" Is it true that atheists are as uncomprehending when it comes to morality as a deer in the headlights? "The atheists seem as tone-deaf to moral reality as deaf students on a field trip to a performance of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony."

The opening paragraph of this review mentions a number of books responding to the new atheism. This book by Aikman adds to the chorus. I suspect that those who are not open to a serious dialogue on these issues will not be convinced, no matter how well-written and reasoned the counter arguments may be. Nonetheless, the effort needs to be made, and Aikman has made his worthy contribution.

For more information, please see my web site: http://members.cox.net/ldpaarmann

Larry D. Paarmann

This book is short, efficiently written, and fascinating.
Highly recommended, especially for those who don't have the time or inclination to spend endless hours reading the current debate about atheism. Of course, 99.9% of what all contributors on both sides have to say is, logically speaking, totally irrelevant to the question of God's existence. It's more like an argument about whether God and His followers are good or evil.
Still interesting, though.