Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
35 of 39 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A must read book for someone interested in atheism., February 1, 2000
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.
|
|
|
20 of 22 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A response to John Fuller's review below, September 5, 2004
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.
|
|
|
30 of 35 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
EXCELLENT defense of atheism, May 18, 1999
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.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by George H. Smith
by Guy P. Harrison
