|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Frequently Bought Together
Product Details
|
Product Description
Books in Canada
At least four authors of little faith think so. I’m not sure it adds up to a trend, but a quartet of relatively recent forays into territory where angels fear to tread is worth perusing. Here’s the reading list: Julian Baggini, Atheism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford, 2003); Sam Harris, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (Norton, 2004); Daniel Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (Penguin, 2006); and Lewis Wolpert, Six Impossible Things: The Evolutionary Origins of Belief (Faber, 2006).
I think the tipping point came for me a couple of months ago when I was innocently watching the evening news. After the requisite items about the possibility of civil war in Iraq between Sunni and Shia Muslims, and a report on how a hundred or so Christians and Muslims slaughtered each other in Nigeria in the wake of the controversy over anti-Mohammed Danish cartoons, the broadcast closed with one of those “strange news” bits.
It was about a fundamentalist preacher in the States who was leading his flock to protests at the funerals of American servicemen killed in Iraq. Aside from the really bad taste of assailing innocent parents, kin and friends in their moment of grief, this Christian sect, through scrupulous study of scripture, had discovered that God was blowing up American soldiers with Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) not because of the US’s dubious war in Iraq, but because-get this-God was punishing America for “harbouring” homosexuals! To make matters more zany, a motorcycle-mounted outfit calling itself the Patriot Guard, but who rather resemble the Hell’s Angels, were now roaring up to the ceremonies to protect the funeral-goers from the religious loonies by forming a flag-waving line between the grievers and the aggrieved.
That may have been the tipping point, but there were lots of markers along the way. I thought of all those wide-receiving football players I’d seen in post-game TV interviews giving “all glory to Jesus Christ” instead of answering a simple question about catching footballs in the end zone. How come there aren’t any talking heads on the tube who, when asked about a new transportation scheme or a reform of the health care system, announce, ‘Well, since I don’t believe that God exists, I guess we’ll have to figure this out for ourselves’?
Then I brooded over Dan Brown’s DaVinci Code selling like hotcakes, 50 million hotcakes, all drenched in a fantastic and syrupy account of Jesus’ allegedly carnal relations with Mary Magdalene. And now, to make matters worse, it’s reincarnated as a blockbuster movie. I even noted a review of a book making the case for moderate Islam against the extremist Islamists. Instead of being cheered by this bit of moderate sanity, I found myself thinking that while I’m glad there are moderate Muslims, moderate Christians, and moderate everything else, it would probably be more useful for everybody to read and hear that all this belief in God-moderate, extreme and just plain barmy-is irrational, without evidence, unjustified, deluded, and extremely unlikely to be true.
That’s when I reached for Julian Baggini’s little primer on atheism, while keeping other sensible tomes by Harris, Dennett, and Wolpert close at hand. Baggini, a British philosopher and editor of The Philosophers’ Magazine, puts considerable emphasis, as do his non-believing colleagues, on the notion of evidence, either physical or conceptual. As developmental biologist Wolpert puts it, “I know of no good evidence for the existence of God.”
The fact is, Baggini notes, not only is there simply no solid evidence for a God or anything else supernatural, there’s also quite a bit of negative evidence suggesting the absence or non-existence of God. On the positive side of Baggini’s case for atheism, there’s overwhelming evidence for the existence of the natural world and the mortality of human beings, and no evidence for anything else. The upshot may be a “tragic sense of life,” as Unamuno called it, but that may be better than piety in the sky. I’d recommend Baggini as the place to start because he’s level-headed, writes clearly, and tries to be helpful.
Sam Harris’s The End of Faith is more of “a sustained nuclear assault” on organised religion, as one reviewer put it. Harris is good as hammering away at the mind-boggling absurdity of religious beliefs, from Catholic doctrines about the transubstantiation of Jesus’ flesh and blood into wafers and Burgundy, to the zanier fantasies of fringe groups who think we’ve sprung from alien ancestors. Harris is cranky about Islam, but he’s driven by the sense that the prospect of “dirty” bombs in the hands of devout maniacs means there has never been a more important time for a campaign on behalf of aggressive atheism.
Perhaps because of Daniel Dennett’s prominence (he’s also the author of Consciousness Explained and Darwin’s Dangerous Idea), his entry into the theism debate has occasioned controversy, but his basic argument in Breaking the Spell that God is a phenomenon that deserves a cool eye, then “horseman, pass by” (as Yeats famously said), is not only sensible, but overdue. Given a faith-based president in the White House and rocket-fuelled mullahs hither and yon, it’s unlikely that reading a few books in favour of suspending belief will avert the coming clash of superstitions, but every bit of sanity counts these days. Trust me, Armageddon is a very bad idea.
Stan Persky (Books in Canada)
Review
When I was a child I attended a Roman Catholic primary school. Read the first page
Concordance
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Index
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
Customer Reviews
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most helpful customer reviews
5 of 5 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
Clear, Concise, Entirely Accessable,
By
This review is from: Atheism: A Very Short Introduction (Paperback)
I am an atheist, and even *I* learned a thing or two from this brief but rich tome. Baggini lays out a basic justification for an atheist worldview [which he equates fairly with naturalism] that goes beyond attacking theism and into positive justification for atheism as the better worldview. His style is direct, his tone affable, and in the end he comes up with a readable introduction than atheists and theists can both understand and appreciate. If, in the future, someone asks me to recommend a book on atheism, I will be directing them to Baggini first.
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
A wonderful introduction to naturalistic atheism,
By
This review is from: Atheism: A Very Short Introduction (Paperback)
I had not heard of _Atheism: A Very Short Introduction_ prior to receiving it as a gift from a friend. As I read the book, however, I quickly realized that Julian Baggini had written a masterful introduction to atheism, one that is sure to become a classic for years to come. Here is the table of contents:Preface References and further reading In chapter 1, Baggini explains his primary purpose in _Atheism_ is to "provide a positive case for atheism," which he defines as "the belief that there is no God or gods" (p. 3). As Baggini correctly explains, atheism is not materialism, and Baggini makes it clear that he rejects materialism. Instead, most atheism is rooted in "the broader claims of naturalism" (p. 7). Since naturalism *entails* atheism, any evidence for naturalism is automatically evidence for naturalism. (The converse is not necessarily true, however.) In Baggini's words, "atheism is essentially a form of naturalism and so its main evidential base is the evidence for naturalism" (p. 16). Why is this significant? Because the evidential case for naturalism is much broader than the evidential case for atheism. Thus, Baggini's case for atheism has a far greater explanatory scope than the cases found in recent defenses of atheism by such scholars as Martin, Rowe, Le Poidevin, Smith, and Mackie, who do not defend atheism by appealing to the case for naturalism. In chapter 2, Baggini sets forth his case for atheism. It includes (i) the absence of evidence of the supernatural; (ii) the physical dependence of the mind upon the brain; (iii) the simplicity of naturalism compared to supernatural alternatives, including theism; (iv) religious diversity; and (v) the problem of evil. Baggini concludes that atheism is the best explanation for these facts. In chapter 3, Baggini discusses the relationship between atheism and ethics. His refutation of the idea that moral laws require a moral lawgiver is excellent. As he puts it, morality "is the basis upon which just laws are enacted and enforced; it is not constituted by the laws themselves" (p. 38). Thus, if we think of God as a moral lawgiver, God's laws will be moral only if "they conform to moral principles which are independent of God" (p. 38). Baggini also argues that an atheist ethics can combine features of Aristotelian, Kantian, and Utilitarian ethics. In chapter 4, he explains a related issue, the relationship between atheism, meaning, and purpose. He refutes the idea that God is a necessary or sufficient condition for a meaningful life. As Baggini points out, just because a creator gives a purpose to its creature hardly makes the purpose significant *for the creature* (p. 59). Ultimately, life's ultimate purpose must be something which is intrinsically valuable. That something, he argues, is life itself. Moreover, immortality isn't required for a meaningful life, either. On the contrary, the inevitability of death is "what makes life so valuable in the first place" (p. 71). In chapter 5, Baggini discusses atheism in history. Specifically, he discusses the emergence of atheism in Western civilization, as well as the claim that atheism was responsible for 20th century totalitarian atrocities. On the latter, he discusses the relationship between, atheism, Nazi Germany, and Soviet communism. Regarding Nazi Germany, Baggini correctly mentions Nazi Germany was not an atheist state. Moreover, "Nazi doctrines themselves were also at odds with the kind of rational naturalism of traditional atheism" (p. 84). As for Soviet communism, Baggini points out that the history of the Soviet Union was not somehow the consequence of atheist beliefs; what happened in Russia was partially the result of *militant* atheism. Atheism as such does not entail militant atheism, and Baggini argues against militant atheism throughout his book. In chapter 6, Baggini addresses the claim that atheism is against religion. Atheism as such is only opposed to the truth of religion; it does not entail hostility towards religious believers. Baggini then briefly considers some arguments for God's existence, including the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments. Finally, he criticizes militant atheism. In chapter 7, Baggini acknowledges some of the omissions of his book. He also talks about humanism as a type of positive atheism. Perhaps the main fault that I find with Baggini's discussion of the case for naturalism, as well as his rebuttal to the case against it, lies in its incompleteness. Given Baggini's emphasis on atheism as a form of naturalism, it is surprising he did not also include evolution or the biological role of pain and pleasure. Moreover, his failure to mention divine hiddenness as evidence for atheism is odd. On the theistic side, I was struck by how Baggini neglected the so-called 'fine-tuning' argument and instead discussed merely the watchmaker argument, which even most theists reject. The other important fault which I find with Baggini's book are his references to the idea of 'atheist ethics' or 'atheist morality,' as if there were clearly one atheistic approach to ethics. Since the only ethical implication of atheism is the falsity of the divine command theory, it seems to me this is a non sequitur. Baggini's discussion of an Aristotelian-Kantian-Utilitarian hybrid approach is fine as far as it goes, but he says nothing about the obvious objection that atheists have no basis for selecting that ethical theory over any other secular ethical theory. Despite these two faults, I think that this book does an excellent job in introducing atheism. In particular, I am especially pleased with its emphasis on the case for naturalism. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in atheism.
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
best short introduction to atheism I've read,
By
This review is from: Atheism: A Very Short Introduction (Paperback)
This is the single-best short introduction to atheism I've ever read. Not only does it put together a very nice defense of positive atheism, it refutes most of the major misconceptions about atheism and lays the groundwork for atheist morality and meaning of life. Extremely highly recommended.
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
Want to see more reviews on this item?
|
Most recent customer reviews |
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
Look for similar items by subject
Feedback
|
