Atheism [Paperback]

The selected writings themselves would warrant three stars. They are a fair selection showing a diverse perspective on issues relating to atheism aganist theism in general and Christianity in particular. No one essay is exceptional as arguments go, but there are a couple of decent ones. Anthoy Flew, a gaint in atheistic philosphy and a bona fide philospher, presents a primer essay on immortality (the best essay in this section of the book). Darrow's essay against "Lord Day" laws is also a fine essay written with precision and skill.

There are, however, many other essays that are just too small and removed from the larger body of work that the points are not really either well established are in proper context (David Hume in particular) or many are just downright atheistic propaganda (Mencken, Ingersoll, and Vidal are the obvious suspects here).

As with the arguemnts presented in the selected writings there are valid agruments in the refutation of each position from many philosphers who are theists (in particular Christians). I would recommend that anyone who reads this book read the larger works of some of these people, especially those who are most influencial in the realm of atheistic arguements such as Bertrand Russell, Anthony Flew, Friedrich Nietzsche, and John Stuart Mill. Further, one should read David Hume whom I would not classify as an atheists - most Hume scholars tend to think at best he was an agnostic and probably a deists. His writings, though not often consistent (miracle/physical world debate) are the standard for many atheistic positions.

The introduction is worth one star. It is so rought with straw men, silly attacks, and distortions that one wonders what Joshi was trying to do. He uses many of the straw men famous by many atheists that it is tiresome. Amoung many are the science (evolution and big bang) topic that he completely, and I assert intentially, misunderstands and therefore mis-represents (I say intentially because Joshi is not a dumb man and therefore I think he must choose to misunderstand). It is so overly polemic that some good points he does make like the "way of life" and "morality" assertions are easily forgotten in a mire of much rambling speech.

I would encourage all, atheists and theists alike to read better works on the subject by atheists or agnostics. Two good primers (although I disagree with them) are "The Atheist's Debater Handbook" and "the Case Against God" Primary source writings by Hume and Mill are also good places to start. Joshi's other book "God's Defenders" is much like his introduction here, mire talk with little substance.

The one notable, and maybe I should say dissapointing aspect of this book, is the introduction which reeks of elitism and intolerance. I can understand that Joshi (the editor) is an atheist and feels pretty strongly about it. Instead of offering an essay filled with reason (which he praises), he immediately goes on the offensive and insults the mass of humanity as "unable to conduct a course of logical reasoning on [religious faith](or any other matter)...(pg.10)" Sorry, S.T., but there have been many people in the history of humanity who were Theists and were capable of logical reasoning (take obvious examples like Descartes, Newton, Liebniz, Occam, Keppler, and even Darwin who started off as a Catholic - obviously their religious faith faith did not hinder their ability to conduct a course of logical reasoning. Insisting otherwise makes it very easy for others to dismiss the person as full of hot air.

The intro just gets more militant from there and I have to admit that I was a little offended by the *closemindedness* of the editor (and I accept that the atheist/agnostic/deist views are more logical than typical Christian/Muslim apologetics). As a fellow freethinker I don't believe it's a good tactic to simply insult those who disagree with you on the matter of whether God exists or not(the matter still draws good arguments from both sides. Serious scholars argue both sides, so it's hardly an issue where a "volume like this should not be necessary" (as the editor so boldly asserts in the first sentence). People should question *all* sides and Joshi's refusal to even accept possible reasons for Theism is the same type of emotional closemindedness he accuses Theists of having on the issue. So why should I bother to take his accusations of hypocrisy by religionists seriously when he engages in it himself?

It's a pity because most of the thinkers he's selected for this work are far from the dogmatic fundamentalist that the editor shows that he is. In the end, the essays are solid but short. There's a lot here to think about. The editor, however, could have dedicated the 15 pages for his introduction to another selection based on reason instead of preaching a sermon which could make an evangelical preacher blush.