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
List of Illustrations
1. What Is Atheism?
2. The Case for Atheism
3. Atheist Ethics
4. Meaning and Purpose
5. Atheism in History
6. Against Religion?
7. Conclusion

References and further reading
Index

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.

This book, in its 4th edition, was one of the first textbooks on
inductive logic I read. Here is the table of contents:

1. Basics of Logic
2. Probability and Inductive Logic
3. The Traditional Problem of Induction
4. The Goodman Paradox and the New Riddle of Induction
5. Mill's Methods of Experimental Inquiry and the Nature of Causality
6. The Probability Calculus
7. Kinds of Probability
8. Probability and Scientific Inductive Logic
Answers to Selected Exercises
Index

I did not read this textbook as a textbook for a class, but instead read it independently. I also did all of the exercises in the entire book, and used the answers at the end of the book to verify my answers whenever possible. Overall, I was very pleased with the textbook. The explanations were mostly clear, and the progression of topics from the simple to complex was appropriate.

I have two minor complaints about the book. The first regards chapter 7, where Skyrms discusses, among other topics, the chance function as well as the von Neumann-Morgenstern theory of utility. I don't know if this is a statement about the textbook or the reader, but I felt the explanations of those two topics were less clear than other sections of the book. I was able to compensate for that by doing Internet searches on those two topics, however, so it wasn't a major inconvenience.

The second complaint regards the answers to exercises. As the other reviewer noted, the back of the book is incorrect when it states there are "completely worked out solutions at the back of the book for every other problem." Off the top of my head, I would say that is probably true 80-85% of the time, with most of the exceptions occurring towards the end of the book. This is unfortunate, since the most complex exercises are naturally found towards the end of the book. In particular, the exercise for section VII.6 (on chance) on p. 150 is enormously complicated, and cries out for an answer. There should have been a second exercise for that section, so that at least one exercise would have had a fully worked out solution in the back of the book.

Despite these two complaints, however, this is still an excellent book. Overall, Skyrms has provided his readers and students with a helpful introduction to inductive logic.

This book was recommended to me a few years ago by an English professor. I wish I had bought the book back then. O'Conner provides an introduction to English grammar that is not only useful, but often funny. Moreover, unlike many books on English grammar, O'Conner manages to avoid using technical jargon. I highly recommend O'Conner's book.

This is book is the best book on inductive logic I have seen. It's unfortunate, therefore, that it has gone out of print. Salmon describes the many different types of inductive arguments, including induction by enumeration, statistical syllogism, analogy, and the hypothetico-deductive method. He also provides a good introduction to inductive fallacies, including insufficient statistics, biased statistics, the fallacy of incomplete evidence, misuses of the argument from authority, and causal fallacies. If you read only one book on inductive logic, read this book!

Most of the recent literature on the relationship between religion and morality is written by theists. It is rare to find anything in print by an atheist on *contemporary* moral arguments for God's existence. It is even less common to find an atheist who discusses such arguments without denying moral realism or moral objectivism. Michael Martin's book is a welcome exception to this trend. Martin responds to moral arguments for God's existence *as a moral realist and as a moral objectivist*.

Martin does not just defend atheism against moral apologetics; he goes on the offensive, presenting an affirmative case for an atheistic moral realism. He also makes many interesting points about the idea that Christianity (and not just God in general) is the foundation of ethics, and offers a detailed discussion of the implications of Christianity and naturalism for the meaning of life.

The breadth of the territory covered by Martin is impressive; I know of no other book on the market that covers such a variety of metaethical issues from an atheistic perspective. Anyone interested in the relationship between naturalism, theism, and morality will find Martin's book useful. Moreover, unlike many books on metaethics, Martin's book is not highly technical, which helps to make it accessible to the lay reader.

However, the book does have its limitations. Many nonphilosophers will find Martin's presentation and defense of Ideal Observer Theory counterintuitive and unconvincing. Martin says nothing about the atheistic justification for adopting the moral point of view. And Martin says little or nothing about some of the influential moral arguments advanced by theists. For example, he says nothing about Robert Adams's work on the social nature of obligation and very little about George Mavrodes's argument about the "queerness of morality." In this sense, Martin's discussion is incomplete.

Nevertheless, despite these shortcomings, this book would make a useful addition to the library of anyone interested in the relationship between atheism and morality.

This book is an absolute must-read for anyone interested in moral philosophy, moral psychology, or moral *history*. Glover's ideas are so interesting--and the details he discusses are so shocking--I found this book impossible to put down.

Jonathan Glover has written a highly readable history of the twentieth century that focuses on atrocities. While Glover, a moral philosopher and Director of the Centre of Medical Law and Ethics at King's College in London, uses his philosophical expertise to provide a very philosophically-informed history, his knowledge of twentieth century history is formidable. The result is a book that, as far as I know, is absolutely unique in the literature: a history of the twentieth century from a distinctively *moral* perspective. Glover discusses the ethical ideas used to justify these atrocities, and the psychological conditions that made evil actions.

For those of us who have a background in moral philosophy, this made for some very interesting reading as he applied age-old theoretical arguments to concrete historical events and persons. To cite just one example: commenting on the kind of life Stalin lived, Glover notes a parallel with an argument made by Socrates. Glover writes, Stalin's "life gives striking support to what Socrates said about the life of an immoral person not being enviable. His bitterness, paranoia and fear make it hard to imagine anyone else wanting to be Stalin" (p. 250). This type of historico-philosophical insight can be found throughout Glover's book.

In addition to the historical and philosophical aspect of Glover's work, there is also a psychological component. Throughout the book, Glover discusses what he calls the 'moral resources' -- certain human needs and tendencies that work against selfish behavior. Glover presents convincing evidence that shows how the suppression of moral resources contributed to the tragedies of the last century. This, in turn, allows Glover to offer suggestions on how to cultivate the moral resources in everyone, so that we can try to avoid the atrocities of the last century.

One final comment: Glover's history is not comprehensive, nor was it intended to be (as he makes clear on p. 2). Glover focuses on several of the major atrocities of the twentieth century, including the Holocaust, Hiroshama, the Gulag, Cambodia, Yugoslavia, and Rwanda. While his list of subjects is far from comprehensive, Glover has identified themes in human nature and in ethics that probably apply to the events that were omitted.

Kai Nielsen is well-known for his work in the field of ethics. WHY BE MORAL? is a collection of some of Nielsen's most influential and useful essays on the basis or grounding of morality itself.

One word of caution, though: contrary to what the back cover says, this book is not written in a "nontechnical style." Nielsen uses A LOT of philosophical jargon; this book is probably inaccessible by anyone who has not completed a college-level course on ethics.

I wish Amazon.com didn't force reviewers to rate all books with 1-5 stars. Since I was forced to rate Lee Strobel's book _Case for Christ_ I gave it 3 stars, but that's not really how I feel. As an introductory apologetics book I would give it 5 stars, but as a work by a journalist I would give it 1 star. Read on to find out why.

Lee Strobel is an ex-investigative reporter for the Chicago Tribune who describes himself as a "former spiritual skeptic." Using his skills as a former legal affairs journalist, Strobel set out to "retrace and expand upon the spiritual journey ... [he] took for nearly two years." The Case for Christ is a summary of Strobel's interviews with thirteen leading Evangelical apologists, including Craig Blomberg, Bruze Metzger, Edwin Yamauchi, Ben Witherington III, and William Lane Craig.

In light of Strobel's frequent reminders that he used to be a hard-nosed, skeptical journalist, I skimmed the table of contents and index to see which critics of Christianity he interviewed. In so doing, I discovered a glaring deficiency in Strobel's journalism: Strobel did not interview any critics of Christian apologetics, even though he attacks such individuals in his book. For example, Strobel devotes an entire chapter to his interview of Greg Boyd (an outspoken faultfinder of the Jesus Seminar), yet Strobel never interviewed a single member of the Jesus Seminar itself! Likewise, he repeatedly criticizes Michael Martin, author of Case Against Christianity, but he never bothered to get Martin's responses to those attacks. This hardly constitutes balanced reporting on Strobel's part; indeed, on this basis, one is tempted to dismiss the entire book.

Nonetheless, I was compelled to review _The Case for Christ_, for two reasons. First, it comes with a number of endorsements from high-profile Evangelicals. Second, Strobel interviewed a number of high-caliber Evangelical apologists, many of whom are worthy of consideration in and of themselves. Thus _The Case for Christ_ constitutes a pseudo-anthology of Evangelical scholarship.

I have reviewed Strobel's book in detail on my website, but here I will summarize its major strengths and weaknesses. _Case for Christ_ is a creative, well-written contribution to Christian apologetics. Moreover, Strobel is to be commended for summarizing the work of so many leading apologists for Evangelical Christianity in such a compact and easy-to-read format. Yet Strobel did not interview any critics of Evangelical apologetics. He sometimes refutes at great length objections
not made by the critics (e.g., the claim that Jesus was mentally insane); more often, he doesn't address objections the critics do make (e.g., the unreliability of human memory, that non-Christian historians do not provide any independent confirmation for the deity of Jesus, etc.) Perhaps this will be a welcome feature to people who already believe Christianity but have no idea why they believe it. For those of us who are primarily interested in the truth, however, we want to hear both sides of the story.

This is an interesting book by respected philosopher Peter Byrne (editor of the prestigious academic journal, RELIGIOUS STUDIES). Byrne discusses 'the moral interpretation of religion," the view that "morality provides the anchor for belief in transcendent, sacred reality and, consequently, provides the means for interpreting belief in a religious ultimate." This book is not sympathetic to the view that morality needs a personal God as its foundation, though Byrne is equally willing to criticize secular ethics when appropriate. Byrne argues (1) that if the foundation of morality is a personal God, then the autonomy of morality is undermined. (2) When theists appeal to moral arguments for theism, they are open to the counterargument that the problem of evil is a reason for favoring atheism over theism. According to Byrne, the argument from evil is stronger evidence for atheism than the moral argument is for theism.

Of special interest to me was the book's second chapter, which focuses exclusively on an oft-neglected topic: the various moral arguments for theism. In that chapter, Byrne states a number of objections to moral arguments for God's existence. (Ironically, most of those objections have NOT appeared in atheistic literature in the philosophy of religion!) Along the way, Byrne manages to discuss the following topics:

* the Euthyphro dilemma,
* Robert Adams' modified divine command theory,
* Linda Zagzebski's claim that without God we must become moral skeptics,
* the suggestion that secular morality is deficient because it lacks a proper motivational background to pursue the moral good

In short, I would say that chapter 2 alone justifies purchasing the book. If you have an interest in moral arguments for the existence of God, then you will definitely want to add this book to your library.

_Critiques of God_ is a hard-hitting, comprehensive anthology of essays by leading atheist philosophers. My only complaint is that Prometheus Books should have updated this book to reflect recent developments in the philosophy of religion since the book's original publication in 1976 (e.g., the kalam cosmological argument, the fine-tuning argument, the evidential argument from evil, etc.).