The most uncritical, biased, flawed book of reasoning I have ever read! - Rated 
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..." - Rated 
... 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.
Short - and sharp - Rated 
In "Atheism: A Very Short Introduction" Julian Baggini has done his job with impressive efficiency. There is neat and clear coverage of the critical topics: morality and purpose with and without God, the nature of knowledge, and the relationship of atheism and science, amongst others. More technical philosophical concepts (defeasibility, consequentialism) aren't avoided but are brought in with a minimum of fuss and crisp explanation.
While the book is principally aiming to describe and explain some venerable arguments, Baggini also introduces his own perspective. There is a heartening emphasis throughout on the positive nature of atheism; on living a reflective life based on best evidence, rationality, and an ethics rooted in human realities. Some excellent material argues why agnosticism is unsatisfactory. This centres on the notion of abduction, or "argument to the best explanation": there are no knock-down reasons for or against belief in God; the case against is not absolute, but it is absolutely overwhelming for anyone whose standards are evidence and rational argument.
This lack of an absolute case against the existence of God leads Baggini to reject what he terms militant atheism - that is an active hostility to even moderate religion. He thinks religion is false and has the potential, at least, for harm, but takes the principled stance that in the absence of absolute evidence, an aggressive assertion of the truth of atheism is dogmatic, and contrary to the spirit of open enquiry. This is impressive, right and can make some of his text a bit timid. However, it is a well-made definition of a recognisable position, especially as it is contrasted with "fundamentalist atheism", the latter being restricted to violence against the religious. This is a useful separation given the increasingly frequent rhetorical move to call any atheism asserting its better claim to truth "fundamentalist".
Required reading for anybody considering calling themselves an Atheist. - Rated
I think one of the main problems Atheism faces is not only misunderstanding from those who are theistic, but a lack effort to understand what Atheism really is by the secular, and even some who would consider themselves to be Atheistic. I've always considered the notion of God and the following of Religion to be self evidently preposterous, but until recently I didn't have more of an explanation for my own beliefs than that negative explanation. This book gives a very readable, very practical, and yes, very short explanation of what Atheism positively involves, rather than just what it rejects.
The quote on the back of the book reads "The best short explanation of the best explanation", which is the best short review of this book.
A great small book - powerful but not militant - Rated
Let me just tell what I like especially about this concentrated presentation of arguments for atheism. Baggini always keeps a realistic sight on psychological und social facts. He starts off describing how religious education - though experienced in a moderate and relatively little indoctrinating form - nevertheless succeeded in embedding in his mind a connection of atheism and moral inferiority to stay for ever at least on a half-conscious, emotional level. An experience probably not to unusual and - apart from this - pointing to the general limits of changing convictions by rational argument. Later he demonstrates very convincingly why we shouldn't consider theism and atheism to be just intellectually equal types of faith: "The atheist believes in what she has good reason to believe in and doesn't believe in supernatural entities that there are few reasons to believe in, none of them strong. If this is a faith position then the amount of faith required is extremely small." In chapters on "Atheist ethics" and "Meaning and purpose" the author does away with the prejudice that atheism is just or predominantly negative. Very rewarding in the historical section on atheism is the discussion how far atheism might to be blamed for the crimes of totalitarian leaders and ideologies in the 20th century. Just read the book. It fits in your pocket to be taken everywhere!
|
