The Cambridge Companion to Atheism (Cambridge Companions to Philosophy) [Englisch] [Taschenbuch]

This is really a superb introduction to atheism. What gets my attention is that it includes a number of essays that contextualize atheism in its particular historical instances.

The first chapter, "Atheism in Antiquity," details how naturalism and similar concepts central to atheism were advocated long ago. Due to the prevailing influences of Christianity and other voices and powers in the ancient world, however, they didn't "catch on" like other metaphysical notions did.

The next chapter, "Atheism in Modern History," is a superb supplement, and is worth the price of the entire volume in my estimation. In it, Gavin Hyman argues persuasively that modern atheism is a reactionary phenomenon to a modern conception of God, which was different from more ancient conceptions. Hyman says that the advent of modernity made the rise of atheism inevitable. Modernity and atheism are inexorably entwined. What might atheism do, then, in our postmodern context?

Much later in the book, the Derridean scholar, John Caputo, shows how the matrix of postmodernity alters the strength of atheism. His conclusion: postmodernity is just as unfavorable to theism as it is to atheism, and there is the paradoxical attempt to move beyond the binary oppositions of the Western tradition (in this case, between theism and atheism) into a new and unforeseen option. It is difficult to say exactly how this tertium quid should be described. A kind of Levinasian mysticism of sorts, tempered by a learned ignorance? What we can say is that there is a reluctance to affirm naturalism or a supernaturalism too strongly. While a "weak" conception of God predominates, the language of theology remains in use.

Phil Zuckerman and Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi give sociological and psychological profiles of atheism. Zuckerman's sociological chapter is quite dry, with little more than statistics. What else should I expect, though, I suppose. Beit-Hallahmi's psychological profiling is much more interesting, and makes the case that atheists are generally male, married, well-read and committed in various ways to the academic world, less dogmatic (which seems ironic in some cases, no?), less prejudiced, more tolerant, compassionated and conscientious, but oftentimes distanced and unhappy.

Steven G. Gey's essay ("Atheism and the Freedom of Religion") gives some historical depth to exactly how atheists have been treated by recent Western governments. Despite their being "good to have as neighbors" (Beit-Hallahmi's conclusion), Gey details how the modern atheists experience with the socio-politico powers that be has not been too friendly -- from outright silencing of centuries past (or just a century ago, in most cases!) to the present socio-politico discourse that, in various ways, gives a distinct advantage to those of a religious persuasion. (No wonder atheists don't tend to be happy!) While in many ways the United States of America paved the way for religious toleration and freedom, it is shown to be presently lagging behind when compared with other nations (e.g. those of eastern Europe especially). The U.S., in many ways, is much the same as it was two centuries ago.

The Analytic tradition gets a sizeable representation here, which is what would be expected. Daniel Dennett, too, gets a chapter to argue for the Darwinian variable that supports atheistic non-belief. I wanted to be convinced of it more than I was. Other contributions include the relationship of atheism to feminism (the author argues that all consistent feminists should be atheists), religious freedom, and anthropology. William Lane Craig is allowed one chapter to give the other side a voice (theism). Some of his arguments are laughable -- literally. Others are more convincing, until one reads the subsequent rebuttals. It must be said, though, that anyone could refute such a summary as W. L. Craig's (it amounts to something like 14 pages in all). It is simply too short to argue convincingly for anything. That being said, it is only an introductory text. It's quite nice that a contrary position was included at all, actually.

While some essays are certainly better than others (an inevitability, of course), all are at least a B/B+ status, and a few are quite exceptional indeed (A/A+).

I like Richard Dawkins quite a bit, and would recommend his _God Delusion_ and Sam Harris's _The End of Faith_. However, as a balanced, scholarly work, you would be hard-pressed to find something better, I think. Moreover, this is an excellent "spring-board" source. Only the best of the best are included here, and those whom they cite are well worth taking note of.

Happy reading!

I recently read this superb introductory book to atheism.I have read more sophisticated books on this subject,but i think that this book is the most appropriate for the general reader who wanths to be introduced to what atheism represents.Its chapters are written by experts on their fields and comprise the history of atheism from antiquity to modern times,arguments for and against the existence of God,the implications of atheism for other aspects of our life as for example morality and approaches from different cognitive faculties to the subject of religion such as the relationship between atheism and the state and what anthropology says about the origin of religious beliefs.I highly recommend it to readers who want to know what atheism is all about,but i think that it will also be good for more advanced readers to have a look at this book since it covers aspects of atheism as yet not taken into account like the relationship between atheism and feminism.

This is a very thought-provoking collection of essays, edited by Michael Martin, Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Boston University. Eighteen leading scholars, mostly from the USA, discuss aspects of atheism and its implications for philosophy, religion, law, anthropology, sociology, psychology, biology and physics.

Sociologist Phil Zuckerman estimates that there are about 500-750 million atheists, agnostics and unbelievers, which is 58 times the number of Mormons, 41 times the number of Jews, 35 times the number of Sikhs, and twice the number of Buddhists. Atheists, agnostics and unbelievers are the fourth largest group, after Christians (two billion), Muslims (1.2 billion) and Hindus (900 million).

Daniel Dennett examines the relationship between atheism and evolution. He shows how matter has evolved to produce mind, rather than matter being produced by an originating mind.

Philosopher David Brink discusses the need for a secular ethics based on objective standards. He notes that in ethical subjectivism, ethics depends on the beliefs of an appraiser, but God is an appraiser too. So religion brings subjectivity into ethics. Also, if ethics depends on God's will, then it is relative to God's will, so religion brings relativism into ethics.

Again, if God commands an action because it is good, then God and his commands are unnecessary. If an action is good because God commands it, then ethics is unnecessary and obedience to God is the only virtue. So religion, which supposedly sets ethics on an objective basis, with independent values and standards, in fact reduces ethics to subjective opinions, with no independent values or standards.

Also religion compromises morality. When eternal bliss is the reward for goodness, then selfish considerations cannot but intrude, inevitably corrupting goodness. Belief in God becomes an insurance policy.

Philosopher Andrea Weisberger writes, "The existence of evil is the most fundamental threat to the traditional Western concept of an all-good, all-powerful God." If we are morally obliged to reduce evil, then God must also be obliged. If he is all-powerful, why doesn't he prevent unnecessary suffering? Those who argue that God uses evil for some greater good are saying that God immorally uses people and their suffering as means to ends.

Philosopher Patrick Grim shows that God's traditional attributes - omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection - are all intrinsically impossible, self-contradictory idealist fantasies.