Customer Reviews

What Is Atheism?: A Short Introduction

5 star:		(17)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Mr. Krueger gives a powerful, easy to understand look into the arguments for atheism in this book. Yet, one of the reviewers here still blathered about the "atheistic world view." Obviously, that person did not read the book, and therefore his (her?) review is invalid. Krueger states that the only thing that atheists are guarenteed to have in commom in the abscence of a belief in a god. There is no world view attached to non-belief in unicorns, nor is there one attached to non-belief in any supreme being. It is unfortunate that someone who supposedly read this book would write a review displaying nothing but abysmal ignorance about it. What is typical of most reviews in this subject is that they merely reflect people's religious views, or lack of them. Mine is no exception. It is unfair for someone to state that they are not biased, we all are. But I was not an atheist before I read this book, I was merely curious. I was an atheist afterward, but I did not stop there. I continued to read about deism, pantheism, and every other form of -ism under the sun. Unlike the feeble-minded "reader from New Jersey", I was not afraid of what I would learn in reading new books and new material; much of which asserted the existence of a god. I urge people not to be afraid of learning new things; it is the only way to come to rational conclusions about the world around you. I would tell the atheist to read Richard Swineburne's "The Existence of God." For the theist, I recommend this book. It is easy to understand, to the point, and a great introduction to atheism.

As a doctoral student in philosophy who has taught the philosophy of religion at two universities, I recommend this book very highly. At the risk of bringing further attention to the comments of an ignoramus, I feel the need to rebut the incompetent review of John Fuller (which can be seen further down).

To begin with, Fuller claims that Krueger uses the Euthyphro dilemma as the "anchor" for the rest of this book. But as anyone who has studied philosophy or read the book knows, this argument is only relevant to the question of the source of morality. Therefore, it cannot be (and is not) related to any chapters in this book after chapter two. Fuller then tries to attack this supposed 'anchor' by saying that it only applies to polytheism. But this is downright false, as any competent philosopher will know and as any good introductory ethics text will explain.

After some petty comments on capitalization (the merit of which anyone reading this can judge for him/herself), Fuller continues with eleven further errors, all conveniently numbered by him:

1.Fuller claims that utilitarianism, Kantianism and virtue ethics all 'fail to describe the concepts of good and bad'. No justification is given for this extraordinary claim (it certainly flies in the face of the general consensus of philosophers), and no alternative definition of these concepts is given.
2.Fuller claims that Krueger makes a confusion between a purpuse IN life and a purpose TO life -- when Krueger's position is that the latter reduces to the former. This objection simply begs the question by assuming life must have an externally mandated purpose, which is just what Krueger is contesting in Chapter 3.
3.Fuller claims that Krueger recommends the admiration of the "racist eugenics-obsessed" Margaret Sanger. Not only is this a distortion of what Krueger says (he claims only that her tireless devotion to her work was a life of purpose), but Sanger was in fact _opposed_ to racism and racist eugenics and attacked racists. While it is true that she did advocate some by my standards unethical measures (advocated more strongly, incidentally, by Christians at the time), these were not connected with racism. Fuller has fallen for a Christian smear job here, and it is not even relevant to Krueger (who again says nothing about admiring Sanger in his very brief mention of her).
4.Fuller claims that Krueger doesn't understand claims about biblical prophecies, and that he ignores counter-evidence (none of which, conveniently, is substantiated by Fuller). The reader should read Krueger's work itself and then judge: this is an entirely unsupported allegation by Fuller.
5.Fuller chides Krueger for following the scholarly consensus that the bible is mostly composed by anonymous sources and is not inerrant. In other words, he would have Krueger reject the opinions of the most serious scholars in the field over the past century in favor of -- whom? The "acknowledged master in the field", F. F. Bruce, who is certainly not acknowledged by mainstream historians as any sort of authority at all. For a good debunking of Bruce and his tactics, see Chapter 5 of Robert Price's 'Beyond Born Again'.
6.Fuller accuses Krueger of 'trotting out all the cliched objections about biblical errancy'. True -- they are cliched at this point because they have had to be repeated over and over again to Christian apologists who can't overcome them but continue undaunted anyway. Wonderful what faith can do.
7.Fuller claims that Krueger's objections to the design argument beg the question. But he doesn't explain why, and it isn't clear he understands what 'begging the question' even means.
8.Fuller objects to Krueger's treatment of the cosmological argument because it misunderstands the implications of the divine character, but doesn't say just why. Surely, any attribute of a divine character would have to be quite remarkable if it actually could explain the origin of the universe without itself demanding an explanation by the same logic. Fuller calls Krueger's attempts to prove that an infinite regress is possible 'laughable', without seeming to notice that the whole laughable business was raised by Aquinas, to which Krueger is merely responding. At any rate, it isn't germane to the objection Krueger is making, and if Fuller had taken the time to read that section at all carefully he would have noticed that the cosmological argument is demolished anyway.
9.Fuller claims that Krueger is wrong not to mention the theodicy of Alvin Plantinga, which Fuller claims is "generally accepted by philosophers as conclusive in favor of theism". Not only does Plantinga's defense do no such thing (the standard refutation of this rather silly theodicy can be found in J. L. Mackie's classic work _The Miracle of Theism_), and not only do the great majority of philosophers consider Plantinga's defense to be bogus, but even if it were successful, it doesn't even claims to present an argument for theism, as Fuller claims. This seems to show Fuller's familiarity with the scholarship in the relevant fields.
10.Fuller, apparently finding no way to respond to the powerful argument from nonbelief, dismisses it as 'absurd', despite its logical force. Presumably this is in contrast with the claims of Christianity, which are far more absurd and have no logical force.
11.Fuller's last point also makes a serious mistake. He claims that Krueger is attacking a straw man by mis-defining faith. But contrary to what Fuller says, there _are_ many Christians who define 'believing on faith' as 'believing in the absence of strong reasons'. As for those who use 'faith' to mean 'belief with fairly strong supporting reasons but in the absence of absolute geometrical proof', the rest of the book was already devoted to their refutation.

Most telling, perhaps, is Fuller's warning that Krueger's book "should not be approached by those with inadequate knowledge". What exactly is he afraid of? I would say, by contrast, that people should read Krueger's book _and_ the opposing books. That way they will be able to compare for themselves the preposterous claims of Christianity with their simple refutations.

Douglas Krueger's book "What is Atheism" is the best book I've ever read on the subject. As a recently "converted" atheist. Krueger's book gave me the fundamental views of atheist thought and answered alternative questions I had such as "Can atheist have morals" and "Can atheists have purpose to their lives" This is a thought provoking book which shows that atheism is not only a powerful alternative to theism, but that atheism is the only way to go. After reading this, I can't imagine how anyone in good rational judgement believes in god or religion. This book is a MUST READ for anyone who is interested in the subject. I personally challenge ANY THEIST to read this book and HONESTLY either 1.Not have SEVERE DOUBTS about their absurd religious beliefs. Or 2. Not become an atheist. If anyone reads this and would like to respond INTELLIGENTLY to my challenge, I can be reached at rogehater99@yahoo.com. This book is a devastating attack on god and religion and is proof that not only "God is Dead" but religion is dead also. Thank you Mr. Krueger, your book changed my life.

"WHAT IS ATHEISM?" is a succinct and lucid explanation of the ideas that the vast majority of atheists will affirm (in my estimation). I sincerely wish that every religionist would read this book, if only to dispel the rampant misconceptions about atheism. Atheism does not substitute one dogma for another, nor rob one of one's dignity, nor promote immorality, etc. The typical atheist simply rejects the positive claims of the theist on the grounds that the reasoning is faulty, and that no religion, past or present, has distinguished itself as being more trustworthy or better supported by evidence or logic than any other. All alike traffic in subterfuge, willful ignorance, and wishful thinking. Krueger not only explains why the arguments for god's existence are ineffective, but advocates the stronger view that there are positive reasons for rejecting such a concept. Krueger points out blatant absurdities such as using the Bible in support of its own claims (as Christians invariably seem to do), and summarizes the classic arguments for atheism, such as the problem of evil and the existence of non-believers. Krueger also discusses the usual theistic rebuttals to these arguments and explains why they do not work.

One of the contributions of this book that appears to be unique (at least I have not seen similar discussions elsewhere), is the section on prophecy. Krueger begins by listing five very reasonable criteria for a compelling prophecy; criteria that I doubt anyone would dispute. Briefly, these criteria are that a prophecy must be clear (so that one knows when it has come to pass), unusual (so as to be clearly distinguished from common occurrences), written prior to the event (else it can be a fake), difficult to guess in advance (else it implies nothing supernatural), and difficult to stage (so that followers cannot force the prophecy to come true). This is a simple exercise, albeit one that I never see undertaken by believers. What Krueger then shows, of course, is that none of the Biblical prophecies unambiguously meets all these criteria. In fact, most fail outright.

If there is an analogous book that argues for theism, I would be quite eager to read it. As yet I have not found any work of apologetics that is so consistently to-the-point and logically sound as Krueger's book is. (Of course, there are hundreds of books that offer up the standard theistic arguments, such as intelligent design and the cosmological argument, without the slightest acknowledgement of the many severe logical flaws in these arguments that have been pointed out since at least the time of Hume.)

The book is not without its flaws, however. The chapter on the incoherence of the concept of god detracts from the otherwise rational and measured attacks on theism. Attempts to reach profound metaphysical conclusions by dissecting our use of words such as "omnipotent" and "omniscient" are dubious. A believer can simply assert that the mystery of god defies adequate description through our use of words, which are only finite and limited approximations of reality. I think it is unfortunate that Krueger indulges this line of reasoning as it seems to follow the same impulse as theists who simply "define" their respective gods into existence. I remain unconvinced by all such arguments, from theists and atheists alike. However, these arguments are not essential to Kruger's thesis and can be ignored without appreciably weakening the cumulative case for atheism.

Overall, this is a concise and well-presented case for atheism. If you are a theist who wishes to understand why anyone could possibly NOT believe in god, then I can think of no better place to start than with this book. I believe that Krueger has done an excellent job of exposing the myriad misconceptions that theists hold concerning atheists and atheism, showing why the standard theistic arguments are nonsensical, and showing that the Judeo-Christian god is so hopelessly confused that his nonexistence is a virtual certainty. Thus, I believe that Krueger has actually defended the more typical atheistic position, that there is no reason to believe theistic claims, rather than the stronger view that there are no gods. I say this because Krueger has not really shown that beliefs such as Deism are in themselves inconsistent; while there appears to be no valid argument in support of the god of deism, it is simply not open to the same criticisms as the personal triune god of Christianity, and therefore cannot be "disproved" as easily. But, again, this does not appreciably detract from Kruger's main thesis; that belief in god(s) is unfounded.

Of all the books supporting atheism that I have read so far, this one is probably the best. It is succinct, to the point, clear, persuasive, and avoids philosophical jargon almost entirely. The logic presented is simple and therefore rock-solid. Perfect for the beginner, an excellent refresher for the more advanced. This book presents the atheist's arguments more persuasively, and is accessible to more people, than many supposedly "more scholarly" books. I'd love to see another book by the same author, written in the same style, covering some of the arguments not covered in this book.

This book is a well-written, thorough and concise primer on atheism. It presents numerous arguments that have been made over the years that attempt to logically prove the existence of god, then immediately provides arguments that demonstrate the flaws of logic in those proofs. The book is written in a succinct, clear, unemotive style without excessive flourish that would detract from the logic of its arguments. Anyone interested in examining the basics of this topic unemotionally and on the basis of logic alone should consider this book. One of the best books of its kind.

This is the best of the introductions to thinking about whether God exists or not. The various proofs and disproofs are laid out simply and dealt with thoroughly and fairly. The book is well ordered to promote actually thinking about the issues. I suppose everyone will come to this book with a pre-conceived theist or atheist agenda, but this book will give you a simple set of tools for analyzing these important issues. Reading this book hasn't changed my opinion, but I know that Krueger has allowed me to think about the issues much more clearly. A great primer on atheistic thought!

A simply wonderful book, Douglas E. Krueger maintains an excellant mix of wit, facts, and thought all throughout. I especially loved the second chapters which confronts the question, "How can atheists have morals?" by deconstructing the bible's own inferior morality structure. An excellant buy, if your curious or you think your "faith" is really something.

Mr. Krueger does an wonderful job in presenting the basic arguments for atheism in a clear and concise manner. This book will make an excellent addition to any Atheist's library and a lovely gift for your theist friends who have absolutely no idea just what it means to be an atheist. Prometheus Books have once again provided a much needed addition to the freethought community. Buy this book.

Dutifully displays, in a comprehensive manner, the true definition of atheism, as well as its morality and the logistics behind its belief system. I have nothing bad to say about it.