Customer Reviews

The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason

5 star:		(24)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

I consider this book by Victor Stenger to be the best book that summarizes and expands on the arguments of the New Atheists (NA's) between the years 2004-2009. There is no other book like it. Any serious attempt by future writers to summarize the movement and/or criticize it must deal with this one written by one of the NA's themselves.

If someone had been hiding in a cave during these years and knew nothing about the NA's this would be the only book needed to understand it. The NA's mainly critique religion from a scientific perspective since they think science has a great deal to say about it. And they don't give religion much respect since: "Faith is always foolish and leads to many of the evils of society" (p, 15). The NA's thinking is best depicted by Stenger's often repeated phrase, that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence when the evidence should be there and is not" (p. 58).

According to Stenger the NA's "preach a more militant, in-your-face kind of atheism that has not been seen before, except with the abrasive and unpopular Madalyn Murray O'Hair" (p. 25). Summing up the books written by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, his own book, and Christopher Hitchens he concludes: "The atheist argues that empirical science and reason are the most reliable tools we have to determine truths about the world. The reason we trust reason and science, and have no trust whatsoever in religious arguments, is that science and reason work in understanding the world and making it a better place for humanity while religious argument leads universally to dismal failure and untold suffering" (p. 41).

In my opinion this book is even better that his previous one, "God: The Failed Hypothesis." Of course, he is never better than when discussing science in chapters 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9. When it comes to the design argument for God's existence Stenger writes: "Any Christian, Jew, or Muslim who accepts evolution, as do most scientists of these faiths, must be confronted with the fact that, according to the conventional interpretation, the human species is an accident" (p. 99).

In this book the author answers such questions as: Can science study the supernatural?; Is science based on faith?; Can we trust our minds?; Do science and religion conflict?; Can science disprove God's existence?; Is any God consistent with science?; and, Do we need religion for morality? He also deals with questions like where the laws of the universe came from, the nature of the mind, and whether there is a soul. He even provides the reader with a scenario for the origin of the universe.

Stenger takes a good hard look at the so-called atheist atrocities and the Christian atrocities too. For Christians who argue that suffering can be redemptive he writes: "What was the redemptive value of the Crusades or the Black Plague or the Holocaust? What is the redemptive value of one child dying of leukemia or millions of children starving to death? The redemptive value would have to be enormous to justify the huge amount of suffering involved in those events" (p. 141).

Stenger seems to be aware of all of the important recent books coming from both atheists and Christians during this time period and he responds to all of the major criticisms of the NA's. There are at least a couple of notable exceptions, though. He didn't know about my book published in 2008. [*sigh*] But he's told me it will be mentioned in a reprint and in a second edition when that happens. [*Hurrah*] And he didn't mention David Eller's two books, "Natural Atheism" (2004) and "Atheism Advanced" (2007).

This book is a great summary of the debate during these years and it further expands and argues on behalf of atheism. Highly recommended. If you're interested in the New Atheist movement then this is essential reading.

------------

I'm the author of "Why I Became an Atheist," and the edited book, "The Christian Delusion."

Stenger successfully provides a rational response to the irrational critiques of the so-called "new atheists," highlighting the more prominent of these atheists (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Chris Hitchens, and himself) and their positions then reviewing some of the more prominent critics ranging from Alister and Janna Collicut McGrath to Leon Wieseltier, writer for The New Republic and The New York Times.

Stenger's counter-criticisms include pointing out that the critics of new atheists aren't actually addressing the points and assertions of atheists but, rather, obfuscating the issues at hand and misrepresenting them in order to reshape the atheist arguments into those which are more manageable and easier to discount or disregard.

But Stenger's book is much more than a counter-critique. Prior to reading it, I was a bit put off by the "new atheist" term and still have my reservations about the moniker. But I now see the New Atheist movement as precisely that: a movement of consciousness-raising; a social mechanism that is truly needed in the face of modern neo-conservative and "theo-conservative" efforts which are anti-science and anti-intellectual in the United States. The New Atheist movement is an enlightenment for the modern age which brings into question the validity and legitimacy of the positions of the religious right and those that would impose their religious views on a secular society.

Atheist readers will gain insights into the thoughts of their peers; the agnostic and the moderate/liberal religious adherents will potentially have the opportunity to understand why the new atheists are so concerned; and the fundamentalist/conservative adherent will have an opportunity to reflect on their arguments and perhaps formulate better ones.

DR Vic Stenger, adjunct professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado and emeritus professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii , has given us the best yet of that collection of books under the genre of New Atheism. DR Stenger rejects the often asserted pronouncement that Science can say nothing about the assertions of religion. In this book the claims of religion are analyzed using the best Science available The Reader is also provided a look at the effects of belief using several case studies. While DR Stenger scrupulously avoids generalizing these case studies to all believers, it is clear from his examples the danger that irrational and delusional thinking posses in society. It is especially dangerous and destructive when this irrational and delusional thinking forms the bases for domestic and foreign policy in Nation States. DR Stenger also takes on intelligent design as well as the idea of mind body dualism. In addition, the various religious views on suffering are used to contrast religious and secular based morality. This is a well written and totally fascinating book.

Review of The New Atheism by Victor Stenger

In what may be his best book to date, Victor Stenger (Professor Emeritus of Physics) provides a much needed summary, elaboration, and defense of the main theses of the so-called "New Atheists" (NAs), known for their widely-publicized, unrelenting, and passionate critiques of theism and religion in general. Among these NAs, Stenger includes authors of recent bestsellers in the United States: Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and himself. Not only does the book provide an excellent review of NA arguments, but it skillfully rebuts many of the primary objections voiced by critics of the NAs, coming from both theistic and atheistic camps. While Stenger is hardly a "new" atheist, having written numerous books and articles over the past decade that deal critically with religious and paranormal claims from a scientific perspective, his recent bestseller, God: The Failed Hypothesis (GTFH), meshes harmoniously with the perspectives of the other NAs.

Two primary issues run through the books and articles of the NAs: (1) Whether or not God and other supernatural entities exist, and (2) Whether or not belief in such entities, and the religious doctrines that accompany them, are ultimately harmful or beneficial to individuals and to society at large. It is worth noting that these are independent questions, as belief in a falsehood might still turn out to be beneficial (e.g., the placebo effect). Both of these issues are covered well within the approximately 250 pages of Stenger's book, but would require larger tomes to be fully fleshed out. According to Stenger, NAs advance the following general arguments in relation to these two issues. First, religion should not be entitled to a level of respect or to a special immunity from criticism beyond that granted to other areas of human experience and discourse, such as politics and economics. Second, contrary to the views of some philosophers and scientists, religions do indeed make substantive claims about the nature of reality (e.g., concerning the existence of supernatural entities such as gods and the truth of religious doctrines); these claims, NAs argue, are in principle amenable to scientific inquiry and evaluation. Third, by continuing to preserve and promote the framework of religion and its attendant superstitious and irrational ideas, religious moderates, while themselves relatively innocuous in their liberal and non-literal interpretations of scripture, are inadvertently aiding and abetting practitioners of more harmful fundamentalist forms of religion. Indeed, in adhering more faithfully to the basic tenets of their religion, Fundamentalists at least display the virtue of being less hypocritical than their moderate counterparts. Fourth, morality is a natural biological and cultural phenomenon that does not come from religion. Indeed, many religious precepts, such as those supporting slavery and the subjugation of women, would be considered highly immoral from a modern perspective. Fifth, religion and irrational thinking in general have caused considerably more harm than good in the world throughout history and continue to jeopardize the future survival and flourishing of humanity.

In his earlier book, GTFH, Stenger defended the view, shared by other NAs, that the existence of God is a legitimate hypothesis that is amenable to scientific evaluation. Specifically, the characteristics of the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam imply certain observations that can be empirically confirmed or disconfirmed, similarly to the predictions of any other scientific hypothesis. After a thorough examination of the evidence, Stenger concludes, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam does not exist. In the present book, Stenger recapitulates and elaborates on some of the arguments presented in GTFH and further disputes the maxim "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" often made in the context of arguments concerning the existence of God. On the contrary, absence of evidence, where it is expected to be observed, does indeed constitute evidence of absence. While this observation is not new, and can be found in the earlier works of "Old Atheists" such as philosophers Keith Parsons and Julian Baggini, Stenger is unique in his systematic application of this principle to the question of God's existence. While the presently available evidence would seem to count against theism, Stenger reminds us that scientists are not (or should not be) closed-minded or dogmatic. He writes, "[i]f and when anyone finds evidence for the existence of God, gods, or the supernatural that stands up under the same stringent tests that are applied in science to any claimed new phenomenon, with no plausible natural explanation, then honest atheists will have to become at least tentative believers." (p. 15).

Stenger's comparatively calm and respectful tone contrasts with the more aggressive and sometimes condescending posture of several of the other NAs. Indeed, Stenger's less confrontational approach may be more successful in winning converts to a naturalistic worldview than one which immediately alienates the reader by provoking a defensive reaction as soon as the book is opened. One also cannot fail to be impressed by Stenger's economy of words and succinct arguments, features apparent also in his earlier works.

While Stenger presents "New Atheism" as a novel movement in the cultural landscape of the United States, the differences between the "New Atheists" and the "Very Old Atheists" (and agnostics), such as Diderot, Hume, d'Holbach, Shelley, Ingersoll, and Russell are rather modest. Some of these latter authors are well known for their merciless and vociferous criticisms of religion. For instance, d'Holbach's 18th century works, Good Sense and System of Nature, are widely considered masterpieces of anti-religious philosophical literature, written from an unabashed atheistic perspective. Perhaps, as Stenger notes, what primarily distinguishes the NAs from the Old Atheists is the boost atheism has received from an advanced scientific understanding of the world (quantum physics, relativity, cosmology, and evolution being the most relevant areas), and from the public's interest in and receptivity to critiques of religion in light of the September 11th attacks (which, Stenger argues, were motivated directly by Islamic ideology). Thus, the NA movement is perhaps more a reflection of the public's interest in `anti-religion' than of the content of the NA books per se, which can be found also in the works of Julian Baggini, Richard Carrier, Joseph Daleiden, Theodore Drange, David Eller, Nicholas Everitt, AC Grayling, Michael Martin, and Keith Parsons (just to name a few), whose books were available several years before the bestsellers of the NAs were released. Nonetheless, Stenger's book ranks among the finest of contemporary critiques of religion and defenses of a naturalistic worldview.

Several particularly strong points in Stenger's book deserve special mention. Stenger swiftly neutralizes the claim, often made by critics of the NAs, that 20th century secular regimes, such as those of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, had committed more atrocities against humanity than in all of the religious wars throughout history combined. Stenger notes that none of these regimes killed in the name of atheism per se, but rather in the name of dogmatic political ideologies that demanded an unwavering quasi-religious adherence. Moreover, these leaders collaborated with religious institutions when advantageous, and persecuted and killed indiscriminately, both the religious and non-religious, whenever they perceived a challenge to their authority. Stenger argues that Hitler was not an atheist and that Nazi ideology vis-à-vis Jews was rooted in the soil of Christian anti-Semitism. Finally, Stenger observes that it is not the number of victims that is relevant (as this depends in part on the technologies of war available), but rather the number of perpetrators of the atrocities; there have been many more religious perpetrators of violence than atheistic ones throughout history.

Stenger is especially effective in dealing with issues related to his primary areas of expertise: physics and cosmology. He challenges the claim, made by some theists and critics of the NAs in arguing for divine creation, that the universe had a beginning in a singularity. Stenger remarks that there is no solid scientific basis for this notion, one which even Stephen Hawking, to which the idea is frequently attributed, has explicitly repudiated. On the contrary, Stenger maintains that the universe probably had no beginning. Stenger's critique of the popular theistic argument to design from the apparent fine-tuning of the constants of physics is unparalleled in the atheistic literature, which is not surprising given that he has dealt with this issue extensively over the past decade in his books and articles.

Stenger also provides an insightful analysis of recent sociological studies that demonstrate a negative correlation between markers of societal health and religiosity. Indeed, some of the happiest and healthiest nations in the world are also the least religious, thus undermining the claim that religion is necessary for societal health. He further notes that there is nothing inherently dismal about an atheistic worldview, and that a life free from the fetters of religion can be lived with happiness and fulfillment. While atheism cannot compete with the self-centered allure of eternal life promised by many religions, knowing that life is transient and that this is the only one we will ever have makes it all the more precious. As Stenger comments, "...new atheists are not trying to take away the comfort of faith. We are trying to show that life is much more comfortable without it." (p. 17). While the appeal of a godless worldview might be questioned by someone living in abject conditions without basic necessities, and without the security and benefits of a modern society offering social services such as healthcare, Stenger makes a good case for the virtues of a naturalistic worldview.

In the interest of offering a "fair and balanced" review, I am obligated to note also where I feel the book is deficient. First, the NA contention that religious moderates are inadvertent accomplices in the crimes committed by religious fundamentalists is not entirely persuasive, given that many religious moderates are explicit in their rejection of literal interpretations of scripture and are vocal opponents of fundamentalist views. This is not to say that the NAs are necessarily wrong on this point, but I feel this argument needed further elaboration. Second, in his book, The God Delusion, Dawkins' characterization of early religious indoctrination as `child abuse' raises some important and difficult questions that deserved greater consideration. Indeed, if Dawkins is right, should religious indoctrination at home be banned by law? Needless to say, this issue has profound implications for religious liberty. Finally, I found Stenger's defense of Richard Dawkins' main argument against the existence of God, as presented in his book, The God Delusion, to be a bit too quick and his dismissal of the objections to it premature. In particular, Stenger's rebuttal to Thomas Crean's critique of The God Delusion appears to overlook a key component of Dawkins' main argument. Dawkins goes beyond simply arguing that God is complex and therefore also requires a designer, ad infinitum. Indeed, if this were the case, then Dawkins' argument would amount to little more than a restatement of David Hume's argument from his Dialogues, which simply shows the failure of the traditional argument for design. Dawkins goes further and claims that not only is God complex, but he is improbable. As Dawkins writes, "However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable (p.114)... any God capable of designing a universe, carefully and foresightfully tuned to lead to our evolution, must be a supremely complex and improbable entity who needs an even bigger explanation than the one he is supposed to provide (p. 147)...a God capable of designing a universe, or anything else, would have to be complex and statistically improbable." (p. 153). Along with Dennett, Dawkins considers his "Argument from Improbability", the lynchpin of The God Delusion, to be "unrebuttable". However, as Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga remarks in his review of Dawkins' book (The Dawkins Confusion), Dawkins does not provide a rigorous definition of "complexity", nor does he demonstrate a necessary connection between complexity and improbability. Furthermore, the assessment of statistical improbability is only meaningful relative to a background context or set of underlying laws, which are absent in the case of God, since he is supposed to be an ultimate explanation. Plantinga's criticisms of Dawkins' argument have been echoed by other theists and by some atheists as well (e.g., see blogs of Bradley Monton and Alejandro Satz). To my knowledge, neither Dawkins nor any of the other NAs have yet provided convincing replies to these critiques (this is not to say, however, that these criticisms are unanswerable, or that Plantinga's review does not suffer from flaws of its own). Nevertheless, it is important to note that the failure of Dawkins' argument would in no way undermine the case for atheism, as supported by other arguments such as the argument from evil and gratuitous suffering, in addition to those presented in Stenger's book, which stand on their own merit. Notwithstanding these minor shortcomings, The New Atheism represents one of the most lucid and persuasive defenses of a naturalistic worldview to date and a powerful endorsement of science and reason as the only reliable means we have for understanding the universe and our place within it.

Yonatan Fishman

Many critics of Victor Stenger's writing have accused him of taking one basic set of arguments and writing a dozen different books using them. While there is undoubtedly some overlap between his books (and some with more commonalities than others), I can understand where this critique comes from. I felt that way, somewhat, after reading Quantum Gods after having read God: The Failed Hypothesis. This book, just released this month, falls somewhere in between those two in my view. Not as good as Failed Hypothesis, not as mediocre as Quantum Gods.

Stenger kicks off this book with a look a the current state of New Atheism, and specifically, he discusses the recent success of New Atheist books by Harris, Dawkins and others. He reviews a few points, counterpoints, and rebuttals to some of these arguments, leaving this first section as a nice overview of the state of popular bibliographic atheist/theist discourse.

The middle parts of the book are more a scattershot look at some of the key arguments made by New Atheists, with chapters on evolution, suffering, and evil. Many of these arguments have been made countless times elsewhere, and while I've personally read better treatments, Stenger brings a reasonable summation of his views and those of others, such as Bart Ehrman.

The rest of the book falls off track for me. Stenger launches into a large section which loses the narrative of the earlier chapters. While I love science and religion being brought together, Stenger seems to drift off to one of his lectures and forgets to keep the reader engaged.

From there, the shift into a study of Eastern philosophy (as suggested in Sam Harris's book The End of Faith) drags the book into territory best left out. Stenger examines various philosophical ideas and ideals and finds that many of the non-dogmatic, less-theologically based philosophies, such as Buddhism, can offer a great deal of 'spiritual guidance' without the dangerous burdens of dogmatic religion.

As in Harris's book, I feel this mushy, metaphysical subject matter is best left out. Stenger should have returned to a more in-depth look at the current dialogue between atheists and theists. This for me is an excellent area of study which as been largely underrepresented. Stenger does leave a 'what is to come' chapter for last, but by that time, he's lost the plot.

Stenger is always an engaging writer, although his direction can sometimes leave the reader feeling a bit confused. What starts off as a strong look at niche of current public discourse devolves into a rehashed science-religion argument which then re-devolves into a feel-good look at Eastern philosophy. To repeat, for me, it was better than the plodding Quantum Gods but not as focused and successful as Failed Hypothesis. Four stars, mostly on the strengths of Stenger's arguments.

Victor Stenger, being a physcist, has approached the physical world in an absolutely logical way. As part of that approach, he demolishes many cherished assumptions about its nature favored by those that feel the need to attribute the universe to their particular god. He leaves us with a positive view about our beautiful world without the need to invoke a supernatural being.

The New Atheism. With wit and verve the eminent physicist and atheist philosopher Victor J. Stenger lays down the oft misapplied misconceptions of New Atheism and explains why critics of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens are so far off the mark that they've missed the point of the New Atheist movement entirely. Not only this, but Stenger explains why many Christian apologists have deliberately misconstrued the nature of material atheism, has showed a string of deliberate attempts to distort the facts, all in a dishonest (at least intellectually dishonest) bald faced attempt to advance their supernatural beliefs--all the while ignoring what genuine science has to say.

There's no denying it, Stenger has some beef with those who buy into the negative stereotype of Atheism without ever really getting the nitty-gritty of what the argument really has to say. Stenger points out a level of credulity and ignorance among non scientists who try to use science to explain things in spiritual terms, shows how they distort the facts (or else ignore them entirely), and use this false representation to declare that science supports their supernatural beliefs, such as the failed theory of Intelligent Design (ID), when in actuality it does not. Stenger does an excellent job of summarizing all the real physics discoveries that squash ID into oblivion--so much so that towards the end of the book Stenger laments, "Intelligent design in cosmology deserves to die. I am tired of shooting so many arrows into it."(p.241) But Stenger isn't pulling any punches, he's standing up for his beliefs, and science and reason are in his corner.

"Theists also try to argue that science operates on faith no less than does religion by assuming science and reason apply to reality. This betrays an ignorance of science that is pervasive among theists and theologians. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. Science is belief in the presence of evidence. When the evidence disagrees with a scientific proposition, the proposition is discarded. When the evidence disagrees with a religious proposition, the evidence is discarded." (p.239)

This book is a great read, with its brisk pace and dash of humor it had me wishing it was a little bit longer. Stenger does an excellent job of summarizing the basics of New Atheism while unveiling the tricks religious charlatans love to pull on their own undiscriminating flocks. I highly recommend this book to those interested in learning about what the debate is all about, or just for learning some interesting facts about the current clash between faith and reason, and find out why New Atheism is necessary if we are going to safeguard science (and the benefits found therein) from religious bullies and at the same time continue to advance reason minus the hindrance of archaic ideologies which have been largely invalidated.

I just finished this book and I liked it very much. It was more of a page-turner than his previous book, God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. The book flowed very well and was entertaining to read, at least for an atheist. Stenger gives a good overview of what is called the "New Atheism" and he embraces the moniker, showing in this book some of the positive aspects of this social phenomenon and providing a defense of it.

The so-called "New Atheism" is new, really, only in that it is noisier than in the past and it has some high-profile, best-selling writers in its vanguard (Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins primarily.) Otherwise, it's just atheism. (There's really only one way to reject belief in gods: It's digital.) Another perhaps new feature is that people are becoming more willing to "come out" as atheists than it seems to me was the case in the past (note the many celebrities in recent years who have announced their atheism, such as Brad Pitt and Daniel Radcliffe and the recognition given by President Obama to "non-believers" in his inauguration speech.) These best-selling atheist writers have drawn a large number of rebuttal books, of which I have read several. (Dawkins has humorously referred to them as his "fleas." Search the web for "Dawkins' fleas.") Stenger makes a small attempt to answer some of the critics of the New Atheism. I think these rebuttals could have been much more extensive. I think the book would have been well-served by being divided into two: An overview of "New Atheism" and a rebuttal, of greater length and detail, of its critics.

I particularly liked his discussion of the fine-tuning argument (for the existence of a god.) The assertion that the universe/planet is fine-tuned to life (especially human life) is refuted by evolution by natural selection, which, extremely well supported by data and nowhere falsified by the data, shows how life on earth is fine-tuned to its environment, not the other way around. (With Stenger, I'd be much more impressed by the "design" assertion if we existed where conditions were adverse to our existence: Now THAT would show outside design.) Stenger goes after the "fine-tuned universe" assertion from two angles: First with a discussion of the physical constants that are purported to be "fine-tuned," showing that they aren't; and second pointing out the obvious fact that 99.99999999 ...% of the universe is uninhabitable by humans. If this universe is "designed" for humans, why are we restricted to this one dust mote in a corner of one galaxy amongst billions? Why aren't humans common? Why didn't "the designer" design us to be able to live in the conditions on Mars and Venus (or the vacuum of space)? (He's supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent.) He also discusses the fact that the Big Bang singularity shown by Hawking and Penrose in the 1970s did not include quantum mechanics and when they are included, the singularity does not result, as publicly noted by Hawking. (Creationists like to point to the now-abandoned Hawking/Penrose singularity calculation as the moment of God's special creation of the universe.)

I also particularly liked his discussion of how absence of evidence, in some cases, can be evidence of absence. (Contra the old saw: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.") When a hypothesis is expected to have certain outcomes in the real world, and it doesn't, this does count as evidence against it. This is essentially the same as performing an experiment to test the hypothesis. We look for an expected outcome, it isn't there, and the conclusion is that the data tend to refute the hypothesis: It's not a neutral result.

Many believers will assert the old saw that people will run amok if they don't believe in (that person's particular flavor of) God (that is: morality is derived from god or religion). As wrongly attributed to Dostoevsky: "If God does not exist, everything is permitted" (though this sentence does capture the thinking of Dostoevsky's character Ivan Karamazov, and some characters in the book do say "everything is permitted/lawful.") Stenger points out that the real-life data do not support this assertion. Among the countries with the highest scores for quality of life and happiness are the most atheistic ones. There is a negative correlation between quality of life measures and religiosity among nations. There are, at a minimum, 30 million American atheists now. Are they running amok? Of course not. And they are, in addition to being your neighbors, friends, and coworkers, represented in prisons and psychiatrists' offices proportionally to their fraction of the population. Atheists and religious people test out exactly the same when given moral dilemmas to solve in controlled psychological experiments. In addition, all the aspects of morality described in the Judeo-Christian Bible predate it in many (probably all) societies around the world. Religion conforms to evolved human morality, not the other way around.

Stenger's book succeeds in showing what the "New Atheism" is and outlining some of the criticism it has drawn. Where he comes up short is in his attempt to provide a positive atheist alternative to the worldview provided by religions. He introduces a Taoist-flavored naturalism as a model, which didn't make much sense to me. I've read the Tao Te Ching several times, and though decent poetry and, like most books of proverbs, filled with some good (and universal) wisdom/thoughts, I certainly don't find a world-view in it. (It is consistent with naturalism though.) When you understand "spiritual" feelings to be a product of brain activity, the need for "spirituality" goes away.

I agree with some of the other criticisms of this book, in some places. It does read rather choppy ("choppily" seems really awkward) in a few places. Some of his assertions made me raise my eyebrows, such as the assertion that Stalin reached a working accommodation with the Russian Orthodox Church. He gives a reference, which I admit I did not follow up, but it seems far-fetched based on other data. His count of the number of atheists in the world seems open to questioning by critics as well (though not his numbers for the US.) And, as other's have noted, his choice of sources for some of his discussion leaves him open to criticism (although I would not propose using religious apologists as sources either, except to examine their criticisms.)

Recommended.

In "The New Atheism" Vic Stenger looks at the arguments and counter-arguments inspired by the New Atheists, an appellation usually attached to Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Denett, and Christopher Hitchens. Stenger looks for places science can be applied or has been misapplied in these arguments. His tone is matter-of-fact with a leavening of dry humor. He's interested in what the empirical sciences can say about such questions as Intelligent Design, the efficacy of prayer, the basis of morality, and the nature of mind. Some of the arguments in his earlier books are briefly summarized here, but it is mostly new.

Intelligent Design is discussed primarily as an explanation for the particular values of physical parameters in the universe that seem to be "fine-tuned" for life. Stenger shows there are several flaws in this idea and proponents of fine-tuning have made some elementary blunders. But he allows that there may be something to explain.

He devotes a whole chapter to theist inspired atrocities: the crusades, Albengensian extermination, the Mountain Meadow massacre, the murder of Brenda Lafferty and her baby, 9/11, and others. The scope and motivation for these atrocities are contrasted to those of the nominally atheistic regimes of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.

The Old Atheists routed religion from the hard sciences. So we no longer look to revelation to determine the shape of the Earth or the size of the universe (it's 13.72 light years - four significant figures. Wow!). Stenger forsees that as the New Atheists deprive religion of its special authority in the moral realm the argument will shift to the nature of mind. He surveys the field as it has recently developed. He discusses some attempts to show the mind is unphysical and finds that so far they are an unconvincing mix of psuedoscience and speculative philosophy.

Unlike his other books on religion and the supernatural, in this book Stenger addresses the psychological function of religion and what can take its place. He closes with a couple of chapters on what Karen Armstrong calls "the axial sages" and what they have to teach us about how to live without supernatural religions. It seems to be a personal statement about how he, raised a Catholic, has come to terms with his materialist world-view.

It's a wide ranging book. Vic Stenger's personality comes through in its relentlessly logical and empirical, but even handed tone. By way of full disclosure, my name appears in the Acknowledgments section of this book, more out of courtesy than debt.

Stenger addresses every basic tenant of the New Atheism in this thorough book. It successfully encapsulates the beliefs of the movement, but more importantly, it captures the attitude and the style of argumentation that has recently characterized the New Atheist movement.
However, I only gave it a high rating because of this fact. As far as the content of the book, I have a few objections: one, as with all of the New Atheist movement, his argumentation is, well...immature. Although Stenger does display an adequate cursory knowledge of theological problems, he has no respect for the history of thought. Two, the absence of this historical perspective allows him to repeat arguments that have already been made and thoroughly examined (sometimes he comes to the wrong conclusion, sometimes to the correct), and claims them as his own insight. Three, what I believe is so unsatisfying about the New Atheism in general that is especially apparent in this book, arguments for God or for the supernatural are presented in their most basic, unrefined, and often misleading terms, often using the opinion of the religious uneducated to compare to the erudite arguments of scholastic atheists. Ah, what happened to Hume and Ayer?
Oh, well. A successful argument against the idea of God it is most certainly not. But, if you want to keep up to date with the New Atheism and its key arguments, attitudes, and issues, this is a spectacular book to turn to--I think only second to "God Is Not Great" by Hitchens.