Customer Reviews

The 'New' Atheism: 10 Arguments That Don't Hold Water

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

 

 

Michael Poole advertises in the beginning that this book is aimed at those who don't have a lot of time to read but need to be briefed on the New Atheism (Dawkins, Hitchens, and Dennet). He delivers in 96 pages total (that includes end notes and an index). He covers 10 arguments that the new atheists make which he doesn't believe hold water. He gives quotes for the authors (mostly Dawkins with a larger smattering of Hitchens and less of Dennet). Then, he begins his brief analysis. Mostly, he shows that the Arguments are by and large Assertions which the guys in question don't support with evidence. In several cases, he finds them dabbling in the very practice that they are criticizing the Christians for. He points out logical fallacies, such as the excluded middle and dismantles Dawkins' infinite regress and arguments against the anthropic principle. If you want a brief book that is an excellent primer on argumentation and critique of logical arguments, this book is for you. I highly recommend it.

One thing you need to keep in mind is the author is a theistic evolutionist (God used evolution to create) and so he is very critical of most forms of Biblical Creationism (especially young-earth) and many of the arguments of the Intelligent Design movement.

At less than 100 pages, this is a quick and easy read. I know that was the desired result, but I found it to be too quick and easy. There is no doubt that he makes some good points, but I didn't feel that he developed them well or thorough enough. On some, he barely scratched the surface. I would have liked the book to be almost twice the size it is. Also, a few of the "10 arguments" were very similar and could have been put together in the same chapter; this would have given the opportunity to add some of the other arguments used today and still keep the catchy title.

That said, there is plenty I agree with in this book. As he stated toward the end: "So, apart from being more vociferous, what's new about the 'New Atheism'? This question, posed at the outset, is itself also the answer, albeit in a different tone of voice:'What's new?'"

Michael Poole succeeds in only 89 pages to summarize the counterarguments against new atheism. He has an ability to say his opinions clearly and shortly. I liked especially the chapter 6, where he shows that we do not have to choose between creation and evolution. These are two different levels of explanations. He also shows that all world-views are based on faith. There is no such world-views which are based only on science. Recommended for those who want to crasp the basic questions without long philosophical discussions.

A very brief introduction into the key areas in the debate between the New Atheists and the Christian defenders, written by Michael Poole.

Those who are interested in dipping their feet into the debate and spending an hour or two reading instead of more time on more lengthy works will find this is a good place to start.

Poole importantly pays attention to some of the philosophical underpinnings of the scientific issues.

Sometimes I felt Poole was too understated in his conclusions, and I also felt at times he could've more clearly pinpointed the problems with the New Atheists.

3.5 stars.

I wasn't sure about this book when I first saw it promoted on several Christian websites. I was skeptical that a book of this size could put forth much of an argument. I was half right. Michael Poole has written a response that is very concise and well-written. The book's arguments were very clear and easy to understand in nearly all cases. The only problem was I was not persuaded by them in the least, though I was pleased that a Christian has finally properly interpreted Richard Dawkins' views on children and religion and doesn't argue that he wants to keep parents from teaching their kids religion. Poole writes, "It is reasonable not to stick the labels of the parent's faith on to children who are too young to have made individual commitments." Now, if only more Christians can be as reasonable as Mr. Poole on this issue. Unlike most other Christians Mr. Poole has not resorted to misrepresenting the New Atheists' arguments, with the exception of two instances. One is the first argument in the book where he claims the New Atheists argue that "Religion is evil because many bad deeds have been done by religious people." I would disagree with this statement. The New Atheists do not view the bad deeds done by religious people as the reason religion is bad, it is the beliefs themselves that cause many people to do bad things, hence the many examples they give in support of their argument. Other than those two cases - pretty minor ones at that - he presents the New Atheists' arguments fairly, a new accomplishment for any work looking to refute the New Atheists that I've read. My hat goes off to Mr. Poole. I may not agree with his arguments but I respect anyone who accurately presents the arguments of the opposition since it seems so rare in apologetics literature.

With that being said, there were factual errors with every single one of the ten counter-arguments he put forward. One large example was his reliance on the bible as one of his forms of evidence for the religious beliefs of believers. As history and archeology have shown, the bible has been proven to be a mostly unreliable guide, and its testimony about the events that allegedly transpired are shaky, if not downright unbelievable, in many cases.

Other than the arguments I have one final complaint about the book. I felt the author should have cited his sources. Many of his arguments and claims are stated without any supporting documentation or source, and many times his arguments are a little too concise. So much so that he fails to explain and expand on a particular claim. I know this book was meant to be a brief response to the New Atheists, thus the very curt responses, but he could have documented his sources much more often when he chose not to go into much detail, if any, for a particular claim.

"The 'New' Atheism: 10 Arguments That Don't Hold Water?" is a quick and easy read but still fails to deliver the strong responses these books always claim to deliver.

Poole has made a career out of milking Christians out of their hard earned money with such nonsense as this. He takes advantage of the current Christian mindset by telling them exactly what they so desperately want to hear -- that the mountains of evidence that demonstrate that Christianity is just another failed mythology, of course, just can't be true. Why not? Because Christians say so, and they say it louder, and with more venom, than nonbelievers. All solid, verifiable evidence is, with a single slight of tongue, simply just cast aside because it doesn't suit what Christians already believe, and "know", by faith, to be "true". This book is a perfect example of that type of narrow, inbred thinking and intellectual dishonesty. This book defies and urinates on logic, reason and critical thinking, and is a grave insult to honest and intelligent argument everywhere in every corner. It's been said many times, but it needs to be said again -- you can have your own "truth', but you can't have your own facts.

The author ends the book wittily with: "If God has the same status as tooth fairies and Father Christmas, as Dawkins appears to think, is it necessary to spend so much money trying to persuade people that God doesn't exist?", in a good suggestion that the existence of God is a much more profound concern than playful imaginary characters.

He also makes the worthwhile point that acceptance of evolution does not imply the absence of a Creator, as the "New Atheists" seem to think. But his arguments leave much to be desired. A major issue is that he does not offer a sensible argument for the existence of the Creator or God, aside from a Christian apologetic, which many, especially non-Christians, find unsuitable.

Let us, however, examine his logic. He defends the possibility of God alongside evolution by adducing several times (e.g. p.29) the "fallacy" of "the excluded middle". This is not a fallacy, but a logical law, "either A or not-A". He may have had in mind the fallacy of "undistributed middle", which amounts to "(some A is B) does not imply (all A is B)". Presently one could say, "(Some cause of evolution is natural selection) does not imply (All the cause of evolution is natural selection)", meaning that God could be behind the whole thing.

But I see Dr. Poole faulty also in his holding "the views of mainstream cosmology and biology" (p.10). In favor of natural selection, he says (p.54) it shows "a much simpler explanation of the mechanisms of adaptation (arguably employed by God) than treating each living thing as being separately equipped". Simpler? Darwinism requires for adaptation innumerable, admittedly counterintuitive, random mutations, and then the "blind" forces of nature allowing organisms with favorable mutations to survive and letting others perish. How much simpler is the "intuitive" idea that organisms all adapt to the environment by purpose?

He summons to his aid Darwin, quoting (pp.73-4) him approving a letter received: "it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws". Just where does "self-development" occur by Darwin? On the contrary. As noted, by him all adaptation occurs as a result of external forces. If instead "the action of His laws" "created...original forms" that adapt into "other and needful forms" internally, no "fresh act of creation" is needed.

Dr. Poole then erroneously quotes Mark's Gospel as if supporting Darwinism: "A man scatters seed on the ground... the seed sprouts and grows... All by itself...the soil produces corn - first the stalk, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear". This is not the action of unguided, purposeless, natural forces. It is exactly guided, purposeful, action Darwinian evolution denies.

In fine I turn to Dr. Poole's treatment of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement (pp.75-6). He erroneously again describes it as about "irreducible complexity", that "some living things are so irreducibly complex that a single missing part would stop the organism [sic] functioning". But this is merely one argument among others by ID that organisms are intelligently designed. His treatment of that argument warrants some attention though. He disparages its "biology, logic and theology", saying: "Dawkins gives a brilliant account of the evolutionary development of the eye, at least forty times, independently", and: "ID supporters overlook how intermediate organisms in the evolutionary process may fulfil different functions from later ones".

The critics overlook that the different functions cannot occur in different organisms. The changes must occur in the same linage, because the theory requires tiny incremental changes, each useful, in the same organism for the accidental adaptation to work, and it is of course ridiculous that all the little changes should miraculously change the functions of the whole, for instance that the eye without a needed component performed another function and so on backward. Hence the argument is entirely valid.

That organisms do not adapt accidentally through small incremental changes is in fact demonstrated by an obvious phenomenon totally overlooked in the disputes. Our bodies adapt to circumstances in a goal-directed way utilizing all their resources simultaneously. For example, to an injury the body responds with all available means to effect healing. This means more significantly that organisms are not solely governed by undirected natural forces, as evolution presumes, but are subject to directed forces, or design, distinguishing life.