Product Description

Atheism is often considered to be a negative, dark, and pessimistic belief which is characterized by a rejection of values and purpose and a fierce opposition to religion. Atheism: A Very Short Introduction sets out to dispel the myths that surround atheism and show how a life without religious belief can be positive, meaningful, and moral. It also confronts the failure of officially atheist states in the Twentieth Century. The book presents an intellectual case for atheism that rests as much upon positive arguments for its truth as on negative arguments against religion.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #76935 in Books
• Published on: 2003-06-26
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 136 pages

Synopsis
Atheism is often considered to be a negative, dark, and pessimistic belief which is characterized by a rejection of values and purpose and a fierce opposition to religion. "Atheism: A Very Short Introduction" sets out to dispel the myths that surround atheism, and shows how a life without religious belief can be positive, meaningful, and moral. It also confronts the failure of officially atheist states in the twentieth century. The book presents an intellectual case for atheism that rests as much upon positive arguments for its truth as on negative arguments against religion.

About the Author
Julian Baggini is editor and co-founder of The Philosophers' Magazine. He is the author of several books on philosophy including Making Sense: Philosophy Behind the Headlines and New British Philosophy: The Interviews (with Jeremy Stangroom). He has also written for newspapers, magazines and academic journals.

Customer Reviews

Atheism - The Only Proposition Supported By The Evidence


If you've ever wondered what an atheist really thinks then this book is a pretty accurate account. If you are an atheist then this book summarises the main philosophical and evidential stances that makes atheism such a strong position.

The book shows how tough it is to deny the evidence for the universe lacking a 'father figure' like any of the gods proposed by various religions throughout the ages. An atheist is simply someone who has looked at the evidence, perused the holy books and found the claims to be severley wanting. Atheism is a view that is well supported by the evidence and is a claim that there are no supernatural forces at work in the universe. Many of the usual arguments for God's existence simply violate the rules of rationality that we all adopt in other areas of our life. Atheism is simply applying those same standards of evidence to the proposition of the existence of Gods. For instance, the absence of evidence isn't absence of evidence argument is often wheeled out as some form of proof of God's existence. However, this same stance could be applied to the Loch Ness monster - a beast that has been thoroughly searched for yet no reliable or credible evidence has been found. The absence of evidence for such an entity following a thorough search can be seen as clear evidence of absence.

Baggini also clears up the agnostic-atheism debate quite nicely by saying that we can never reliably know anything with 100% certainty (except for maybe 1+1=2). since we cannot know 100% doesn't necessarily mean the evidence leaves a 50/50 probability of a proposition or its opposite being true. This is something we apply in real life... I don't know if there is or isn't a china teapot orbiting the Earth, but is it really wise to be agnostic about such a proposition. We don't believe in anything in life (rationally) without evidence for it. The is no evidence for God and hence no reason to believe. In fact the evidence is strongly in favour of naturalistic forces and therefore the proposition of Atheism.

The book discusses nicely how morality is separate from God and that both theists and non-theists are still responsible for their moral choices.

What of the meaning of life? Do we need God to find meaning in life? The notion that we survive our death, while flying in the face of the evidence that consciousness dies with the brain, rather detracts from the meaning of life. When one faces life face on as the only life they will get then meaning takes on a new dimension.

Theists can deny the profound arguments based in this book but they must do so in opposition to the evidence. Atheists do not have the luxury as their beliefs by definition are constrained to natural evidence... as the natural world is all we can actually know anything about.

The most uncritical, biased, flawed book of reasoning I have ever read!
I was for once going to read an atheistic book in the hopes that it would be unbiased and actually give reasons for its own worldview instead of merely pointing out the faults with others. This book was a major disappointment! Let me show you why.

To begin with, Baggini starts by saying that atheism is the negation of theism. So far so good, I thought. Then all of a sudden in the next paragraph he says that we can not learn anything from knowing this. What a load of rubbish! If not for the word atheism there wouldn't be any atheism. The earliest known civilizations have all been religious, and so it is perfectly logical to believe that atheism is parasitic on religion. The very word tells us that, and since we don't have evidence for people believing in strict Naturalism before Theism or Polytheism we have every reasonable ground to say this and be consistent. If Baggini simply doesn't want to admit this it is his problem and not ours as readers. What he does is substitute historical fact for personal satisfaction, and only amateurs do that.

This is not worst of all. Sadly Baggini doesn't believe in the premise of his own book. He says that atheism is not parasitic on religion, but this whole book proves otherwise! Baggini never gives his view first before criticizing the religious view. Instead Baggini chooses to show the flaws of religion (a perfect way to brainwash uncritical young readers) before he gives his views on morals. I can understand why he does this, because as far as religion goes the evidence supports it way more than atheism. One will find the reasoning (if it can even be called that) that atheism doesn't really "have to" show why we should accept morals permeating the book. Instead we are supposed to believe it is a given without reasonable grounds. That is not an intellectually satisfying worldview first of all and therefore not better off than Theism. He also uses Kant as an argument for atheism, of course never mentioning that Kant did believe in God (though he was a deist) and realized that without a God his reason was ultimately untrustworthy.

Second of all (and this deserves more attention than it will probably ever get) is that he seriously and atrociously misquotes Jesus, saying that Bush followed the principle of Jesus and that he therefore must have been inspired by Jesus. This is absolute horse-manure! To top it off, he even says that the two are equally justified in their claims! What reasonable person would ever say such a thing! I quote: "It is simply not true that a person who is not for Bush or Jesus must be against them."
Baggini, if you do not know enough history to know that Jesus and Bush are near paradoxical opposites then please don't let the uninformed readers suffer for it!

Last and most horribly of all:
On pg. 82 Baggini does not answer the critique on atheism as a means of nazism, but instead (as I have already pointed out) bashes on religion, specifically Catholicism, pointing to the fascist Franco in the Civil War as a scapegoat. Then he says: "This was not atheist fascism but an expressly Catholic one." He also points to Mussolini and others to make his point, clearly judging Catholicism on what it has done in the past, and not on what the central figure of its doctrine (Jesus) has done. He moves on to Soviet Communism, trying to show that even though it was inspired by Karl Marx, Karl Marx should not be blamed. Then he says (pg. 86):
"Christian critics who also think that the Soviet Union provides some kind of refutation of atheism would, by their own logic, have to accept that atrocities such as the crusades or inquisitions refute Christianity."
Hmmm... Wasn't he trying to refute Christianity on the basis of what the Catholic church has done (page 82) and NOT on what Jesus had done? Why should he have the right to judge Christianity based on what the church has done when christians don't have the right to judge atheism based on what atheist regimes have done? That is nothing but plain favoritism!
Besides, he was trying to show that Nazis were very affiliated with the church, which is just not historically true, and no one in their right mind would say that Christianity (regardless of any Churches actions) had any major part to do with the war. Besides, Hitler wasn't a Christian so why should I look at what his regime did if Baggini's principle still stands? Jesus never proclaimed war, but peace, and its time people realize that instead of going to the faulty predecessors to see what Christianity is "really about". If all the first atheists were peaceful and loving (which Marx clearly wasn't) and their descendants war-mongerers, then that is equally true in the case of Christianity if not more true, and that's a fact.

It's quite pitiful really that this is the best Oxford could offer.

"Why I Am Not a Christian..."
... and neither a follower of whatsoever other faiths else.

This book is about a strange thing, a non-belief that has got its own name. We do not have words for people who do not believe in unicorns, or not in astrology, but people who do not believe in gods are called atheists. Only the disbelief in gods seems important that westerners coined a special term for it.

Though persecution of nonbelievers has gone out of fashion in most parts of the civilized world, prejudices about atheism and atheists are still abundant - even among the more liberal believers.

Philosopher Julian Baggini explains in plain and clear terms what atheism is, and what it is not, how individual atheists' positions differ, and which reasons atheists give for their nonbeliefs. He discusses why atheism isn't a faith in itself (though a few atheists are strong believers in something else), if being religious is necessary for moral behaviour, and other basic concepts and misconceptions.

Baggini does not try to convert anyone, but presents a very balanced perspective on atheism. Religions are mainly discussed as sets of beliefs, not as social or psychological phenomena. Understanding why people believe would probably shed some crucial light on why others don't.

To be fair, the question why people believe is an open and delicate one, and it is clearly one beyond the book's scope and intentions. Those interested in such questions, believers and non-believers alike, should probably consult P. Boyer's "Religion Explained" or D. C. Dennett's "Breaking the Spell". - The same is true for those who'd like a more thorough and rigid discussion of the philosophical arguments; B. Russell's writings might provide accessible starting points, as do many of the books from Baggini's "further reading" list.

I would recommend Baggini's well-written book to anyone who wants to get a general picture of atheism, or to any atheist who liked to explain or even justify his "unfaith" to others. Those looking for a critique of religion(s), or an explanation why people believe in them, or sociological facts on atheists and theists, should look someplace else.

This very short introduction does exactly what one could expect - nothing more, but also nothing less, and in a very readable and clear way.