N. Anderberg 2008-08-07

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:

I know it's not customary but since these are two very short books on largely the same subject, I take the liberty of reviewing them together. Written by two nonbelievers, it's striking how differently they perceive matters. It starts off with definitions. In `Atheism, A Short Introduction', Julian Baggini says it's easy to define what `atheism' means: it's the belief that there is no God. Here he straight away stirs up a hornet's nest. As some reviewers have pointed out, there is a difference between `not to believe' and `to believe that not'. By defining it as a belief, he gives credence to the often-heard remark that atheism is a religion too. Many atheists stress that the actual meaning of the word is `absence of belief in God'. This is called `negative atheism' in contrast to `positive' atheism. When Baggini talks of positive atheism, he rather means that it's something generally worthwhile. I'm sure Baggini is aware of this but I think the distinction is crucial, even in an introduction.
In `Against all Gods', A.C. Grayling suggests that nonbelievers shouldn't call themselves atheists at all, since the term invites debate on the turf of the believers. He prefers the term `naturalists'. As opposed to `super-naturalists'. Smart move, I suppose. But I know quite a few atheists who are rather proud to come out and call themselves so.
Neither Grayling nor Baggini, by the way, mentions the (not so) clever invention of the term `Brights' (Dennet et al.). Whatever happened to THEM? I mean, I'm sure they exist and hold meetings and so on but it doesn't seem to have been such a succesful `meme' after all.

Where Baggini talks about militant and fundamentalist atheism, Grayling convinces us there cannot be such a thing. Would a non-fundamentalist atheist `be someone who believed only somewhat that there are no supernatural entities in the universe...'? Since atheists don't adhere to fixed and eternal Truths, they are at all times prepared to revise their views in the light of new evidence. The only thing `fundamental' about them is that they are `fundamentally sensible'.
Grayling also argues that religion, despite its apparent upsurge, is in fact on the decline. Here he is in accordance with Richard Dawkins. In the last essay he presents an alternative: humanism. But Baggini wants to avoid this nowadays so controversial term (se for example John Gray). To him it's too ambiguous and confusing. Some humanists are anthropocentric; others are Christians. Let's call ourselves positive atheists. But then there is the confusion between being positive and to positively deny the existence of God.
But let's not be too harsh. If you want to dig deeper you can always consult The Cambridge Companion to Atheism or The (New) Encyclopedia of Unbelief. As a little book (only 64 pages) to carry with you, as I did to the dentist, Against all Gods is both thought-provoking and fun to read. I'm sure it's at least on par with the magazine that made Tommy Cooper (RIP) exclaim: Terrible with the Titanic!
I give three stars to Baggini because I think his introduction is OK and four to Grayling because he's the better writer.

Kerry Walters 2008-05-11

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:

Julian Baggini's Very Short Introduction to Atheism was published just before the current "New Atheism" movement launched by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens took off. The New Atheism has made a name for itself for two reasons: first, because its objections to theism are based primarily on an appeal to science (or what critics would call "scientism"); second, because of its polemical, frequently shrill, style. There's little appeal to philosophy (Harris is the partial exception to this), and none at all to theology (outside of simplistic fundamentalist faux-theology) made by the New Atheists.

Baggini doesn't display any more familiarity with theology than his New Atheist successors,* but he does know his philosophy, and his defense of atheism is tightly argued, soundly reasoned, and compellingly presented. He's more concerned with making a positive case for atheism than in trashing theism, and to that end he tries to show that atheism is ultimately grounded in a naturalism that values rational assessment of evidence and best explanations (abduction). Science may be one model, but it isn't the only model--thus Baggini avoids the scientistic criticism leveled against the New Atheists. Baggini also devotes a good deal of space to arguing that ethics is entirely possible without belief in God--he defends a deliberately flexible model that takes the best of virtue ethics, Kantian universalism, and utilitarian consequentialism--and that life can be purposeful even in a universe devoid of God or life after death.

Baggini's little book is really a prime model of what defences of atheism ought to be. He refuses to indulge in ad hominems or polemics, and his argumentation has the tight and refreshing compactness of the best of the philosophical analytic tradition. But Baggini is also obviously influenced by the existential tradition, and appeals to it especially in his discussions of godless ethics and godless purposefulness.

Highly recommended.
______
* To his credit, though, he doesn't pretend, as do the New Atheists, that fundamentalist rantings are identical to theology. Thus he avoids the strawmanning that they frequently fall into.

Hugo 2008-04-02

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:

Good introduction, most of the point can be found on the web but it's good to see them all together in a little book.

Mitch Baywatch 2008-03-18

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

Ultimately, Baggini seems more interested in defending atheists as people than in explaining why they don't believe. Baggini defends atheism against charges that it is immoral, amoral and meaningless. But he doesn't really get into arguments for atheism, other than a few comments about reason vs. superstition. For example, I would have liked to see a bit more on "god of the gaps" and the slow, steady debunking of most of the "truths" of the Bible.

pristine 2008-03-11

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:

I like this book. Baggini discusses exactly those points where my own thinking always got stuck. His distinction between strong evidence and weak evidence helps a lot. I appreciated his view that even though absolute certainty is impossible, one can still choose not to believe something based on what one sees as strong evidence.

After reading the many other reviews and comments on them on this book and others, I would like to add something. I think the way it works is that we find reasons to support our world view, when most of the processing behind that choice has already taken place. Behind the choice is a big chunk of emotional reasoning that is independent of rational argument. Choosing a world view may be comparable to the way other complex and emotional decisions are made, such as the decision to marry someone. We can think long and hard about the facts, but in the end we may realize our decision was made at an early stage (like "love at first sight"). Once decided, it does not even feel like it was a decision. It just is. People can be remarkably stubborn in sticking to it in the face of rational counter-argument, or even injustice and physical abuse.

Christians think the bible is the word of God. Atheists think the bible is not the word of any god. Having already chosen a world view within which to interpret evidence, both think they are being perfectly reasonable, but still they do not agree. First one has to agree on what are acceptable ways to find truth, but in most discussions, that is skipped. Moreover, I think that even if one does try it, in many cases one does not find an agreement. All I am saying is that that can be a reason for some of us NOT to go in discussion. Rational argument goes a long way, and it's fun to think and read about, but there is part of what goes into the decision that makes no sense to argue about.