Most Helpful Customer Reviews
118 of 154 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Atheism as a Cultural/Sociolological Effect, August 14, 2004
Allister McGrath's The Twilight of Atheism is a thought provoking book no matter what your background. This book is no polemic against atheism. McGrath only mentions arguments for and against God on a few occasions, and then only to set them in their historical context and show the rise and decline of atheist philosophy. And to be clear, by atheism McGrath means what many call "hard atheism." The deliberate, supposedly informed, affirmative belief that there is no God.
One of the strengths of the book is that McGrath does not hesitate to examine atheism as a cultural/philosophical development just as any other. That is, he examines the cultural factors influencing its development and growth. Though some atheists naively believe that atheism is simply a matter of applying logic and reason to see the obvious, this is an inadequate basis for explaining its origins and development as a philosophical movement. This does not deny the possible truth of atheism any more than examining the cultural and historical factors that facilitated the rise of Christianity necessarily negates the truth of Christianity. According to McGrath, one catalyst for atheist thought was the ongoing revolutionary attitudes across the board towards authority, including royal and ecclesiastical. Christianity was seen as part of an oppressive establishment and atheism was a "liberating" intellectual force. Religion, especially Christianity, was seen by many as an oppressive force and atheism was the vehicle of its destruction.
McGrath's overview of this period, and his closer examination of such atheists as Freud and Marx, is very helpful and makes the above points well. He builds on these points to show that by the middle of the 20th century, atheism seemed on the verge of philosophical dominance in two forms. Externally, by the vehicle of communism atheism had spread over almost a third of the world, apparently vanquishing religion in the previously Christian areas of Russia and Eastern Europe. Internally, atheistic philosophy seemed on the verge of similar successes in the West. Symbolized by Time Magazine's famous cover page asking, "Is God Dead?" The answer seemed to be yes, or almost nearly so.
But just when atheism seemed on the verge of victory, it collapsed. Communism failed and was widely discredited by a recognition that it was an oppressive, not liberating force. Though atheism had been brutally imposed on the people of Russia and Eastern Europe, it faded fast once the state vehicle of oppression was lifted. Atheist numbers have dropped dramatically throughout former communist nations, and Christian numbers have surged.
In the West, atheism stumbled as well. Christianity adapted, and largely through Pentacostalism/Charismaticism, revised itself into a potent and popular new movement. In the third world nations of Latin America, Africa, and Asia, this movement supplanted Marxism in offering hope to the poor and oppressed. Even in Western Europe, atheism lost its potency and transformed into a more neutral nonreligious attitude.
What happened?
First, as a reaction to the establishment, atheism was destined to lose potency once Christianity was no longer part of the establishment. There is much to commend this argument. This explains why atheism was never as popular in the United States--where religion was a matter of personal preference rather than state sanction. If there was no oppressor, there is no need for a liberator.
Second, "hard" atheism has no more to commend it intellectually than theism. According to McGrath, neither side can claim compelling evidential or philosophical argument for its position. And because there seems to be something in humankind -- put their by God or by social factors -- that seeks a connection with spirituality or the divine, atheism loses what is intellectually a draw. This point is no doubt controversial, for both sides. I do not necessarily agree with it, but do recognize that because of predispositions and biases on both sides, the force of the argument for or against either position has not gained the upperhand. With that being the case, religion does seem to fulfill a need in most people that atheism simply cannot.
Third, Christianity adapted--especially Protestantism. As more of an intellectual movement than a mystical one, McGrath believes that Protestantism was especially vulnerable to atheism's arguments. With the rise of spiritualism in the Protestant sects (through the Pentacostal and Charismatic movements), Protestantism adapted to the situation and made itself more attractive. Again, there is much to commend this argument and I see it as an offshoot as the first one. Christianity modified itself to be seen as liberator once again by the poor and oppressed--often offering a material and spiritual liberation for those who embrace it.
There seems to be some misunderstanding about what McGraw is claiming. He does not claim that atheism is doomed to elimination. There will be plenty of atheists. Nor does he say that Christianity has won. He frankly admits that the decline in Christianity in Western Europe appears to be long lived, though it has not given way to atheism, but to agnosticism and complacency. What has not happened, but what seemed likely, is the victory of atheism as a philosophical force in Western Culture (and in communist nations.).
On a whole, The Twilight of Atheism is a thought provoking read. More so than I expected. There is much food for thought here for all sides to the debate. As a plus, McGrath writes in an understandable and unpolemical manner, making this book very readable (though not particularly exciting).
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
80 of 111 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Comprehensive, July 16, 2004
Alister McGrath is a moderately conservative Evangelical theologian who was born in Northern Ireland. After a period of atheism, he became a Christian and is now one of the most prolific theologians in the world. In this book, he traces the rise of atheism from the time of the French revolution to its gradual decline in recent years. Prof. McGrath is a good storyteller. Along with a discussion the seminal thinkers of atheism such as Nietzsche, Freud, Marx and Feuerbach, we get a political, historical and social overview of the entire movement. For example, Prof. McGrath discusses recent political issues such as the turbulence of the 60s and Madeline Murray O'Hair's crusade for atheism. While this book is no substitute for more detailed studies on atheism, it provides a historical and political background that other studies generally don't. Prof. McGrath is, as I said, an incredibly prolific author. He has probably written, edited, or revised over 15 books since 2000. Because of this, it would appear that a few too many errors and editing problems creep into his books. For example, Robert Ingersoll is described as the "great atheist" when he was the "great agnostic." The former Episcopal bishop of Newark is not James Spong, but rather John Spong. The same quote from Augustine appears twice within a few pages, etc. In spite of these defects, THE TWILIGHT OF ATHEISM is an enjoyable work.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
69 of 96 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
The Twilight of Antitheism, October 23, 2004
By the time I finished Alister McGrath's "The Twilight of Atheism", I had identified several major problems with it. These often flow into one another, but can be summed up in three major points; in no particular order:
(1) This book is apologetics ("the branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines"). Far from being a fair study of the history of atheism in relation to the religions of the world over time, its written by a 'former atheist' with a (primarily western and Protestant) Christian audience in mind. There is a disturbing tendency by the author to allow his apologetics to color his interpretation of historical events to the point of revisionism.
(2) It uses an improper definition of "atheism." This is perhaps the most surprising. The standard dictionary definition will be along the lines of "a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." McGrath denies this and seems to think it means something like 'the active rejection of, or rebellion against God and religion'. But this is more properly 'ANTI-theism'. Consider in this light his pronouncement that "Atheism is ultimately a worldview of fear [...] largely derivative, mirroring the failings of the churches and specific ways of conceiving the Christian faith." (P. 274) When you realize that atheism and antitheism are not the same thing, it knocks a lot of the wind out of the main premise (that atheism is in its twilight). Antitheism perhaps, but not necessarily atheism. He also curiously refers to atheism as a religion quite a few times. The famous rejoinder to this, of course, is that 'atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color'.
(3) Its main premise (that atheism is in decline) relies almost entirely on the axiom that Postmodernism is correct and Modernism is false. I left this one for last because it needs the most explanation. As per McGrath's use of the terms, I will summarize them as follows:
Modernism is a school of thought that had its origins in the Enlightenment. It holds that the truth about the universe can be discovered and known with certainty. At its most extreme, it sees the world in stark terms of black and white, right and wrong, strong and weak, good and evil. Postmodernism is a school of thought that developed in reaction to the excesses of Modernism. It holds that there are many truths about the world around us and that it is impossible to distinguish between them with any certainty; at its most extreme, not only is everything seen in shades of grey, but all the shades are the same color. It is thus a far more tolerant way of dealing with cultural differences (including religion).
While treating other cultures with respect and promoting diversity is a noble idea, the problems start when you try to apply postmodernism to logic. Using postmodernist philosophy, the author thus feels he can happily dispense with rationalism, which he asserts has "quietly died out in most places" anyway (P. 271). This leads to perhaps the most absurd statement in the whole book (P. 92) which reads: "the simple fact is that both atheism and Christian belief were found to lie beyond the available evidence. The burden of proof is equally distributed between the two." But if there is no evidence to believe in a God, why should we? As McGrath believes: "A cold and dry rational account of nature might well satisfy the human reason, but it left the imaginative and emotional faculties untouched." (P. 115) Thus emotional reasons, to the exclusion of reason, are to McGrath indeed valid for religious belief. Consider his repeated praise for Pentecostalism, which relies on "charismatic gifts", such as "speaking in tongues [...] prophesying, [faith] healings, and exorcisms." (P. 194)
Finally, probably the least important criticism, but one that made me want to put the book down well before I finished it: its too long. McGrath really doesn't have to spend so many pages trying to refute 19th century poets, among other things. I'd say that he could easily have made his point in less than half the pages.
(Please note: I orginally submitted a more detailed (and thus much longer) review that wasn't accepted, probably because it was too long; if you are interested you can read it here: http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.atheism/msg/106370963dacef92 )
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
![[Start the discussion]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/discussion_boards/start-new-discussion-sec._V192250339_.gif){kind=small}
