This page contains descriptive information about books by atheists on atheism, and links to amazon.com for the purchase of those books. Although this page promotes these writings on atheism, it is not our intent to promote any specific ideas about what atheism is. The essence of atheism is the freedom to decide what one believes for oneself. Reading the ideas of others can help us develop our own, but is no substitute for independent thinking. Take everything, including the opinions of fellow atheists, with a lump of salt.
The Big Domino in the Sky and Other Atheistic Tales by Michael Martin and published by Prometheus Books
When I first heard of this book, I was very excited and rushed out to buy it. I had read many books by C.S. Lewis at a younger age and, although I enjoyed their creativity, I knew that I disagreed with their theological claims about the universe. I wished that an atheist would write some sort of response in kind, through allegorical fiction. At first glance, The Big Domino in the Sky seems to be such a piece of work: a collection of short stories about atheism.
Unfortunately, as I began reading these stories, it quickly became apparent that this book could never hold its own aginst the Chronicles of Narnia. The writing is far too blunt. The stories in The Big Domino are too transparent to hold one's interest. Michael Martin, a philosopher, seems to have taken his lecture material, watered it down, and pasted it straight into thinly established fictional environments that are not significantly different from the universities of today. The characters are all talk and no action, and what they talk about is always the same thing. These are stories about people talking about atheism. Ho hum. Mr. Martin should stick to pure philosophy, where an uninspiring style of presentation is not only tolerated, but expected.
The Atheist Debator's Handbook by B. C. Johnson troubles me. What I want to know is why any atheist needs a handbook. I have always thought that one of the basic appeals of being an atheist is that it allows one to be free of dogma. This book seems designed to help those who have faith in atheism but don't quite know why. Basically, it's an atheist catechism. Of course, the author works through the arguments very logically, but I'm not sure that that makes much of a difference. Christianity also has argued through logic at different times. The Atheist Debator's Handbook doesn't help its readers work through their own reasons for atheisn. Instead it just helps them prove that they're right and those that believe in God are wrong. If you're still unsure about your beliefs about God or are looking to read other people's rationales for atheism, then this could be a useful book for you. However, if you really want to be able to debate religious people about the existence of the supernatural, stand on your own intellectual ground. Consider the ideas of others, but don't use them as substitutes for your own.
Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects by Bertrand Russell is a classic, and rightly so. Russell pulls no punches as he reveals the lack of substance in arguments for religious faith. Here is a man who was able to step out of the assumptions of his culture and see them for what they are. Russell talked about the dangers of attempts to legislate religion. The frightening thing is that the same problems exist today. I have three pieces of advice for anyone considering this book: buy it, read it, share it!
Ethics Without God by Kai Neilsen is a very poorly thought out book. Neilsen claims to be working as a philosopher, using reason and evidence to back up his arguments, yet his arguments are both undeveloped and faulty and his evidence is sketchy at best, consisting almost exclusively of superficial descriptions of Western cultures.
Neilsen, in his desperate attempt to salvage the idea of morality, seems to willfully ignore the most significant challenges to its validity. For example, he briefly dismisses without justification the viewpoint that one cannot determine whether or not something is evil, claiming simply that it is more reasonable to believe some "elemental" things to be evil. Neilsen never even considers the possibility that the concept of evil may be a cultural artifact of religious systems that has no more independent reality than the concepts of ugliness or foolishness. He seems to assume that evil exists as an actual thing independent of human construction.
Another major blunder is Nielsen's claim that certain moral judgments are "elemental", "those considered moral convictions that we hold most firmly." He includes in this category the decisions that religious and racial intolerance are unacceptable, that people should not be treated solely as means, and that promises and the truth should be taken seriously. Who exactly does he think the "we" that holds these moral convictions is? One could fairly argue that the majority of people on the face of the Earth believe that behaviors contrary to at least one of these convictions are justifiable. How does he decide that this majority is to be excluded from the moral elite, the "we"? Who exactly shares his elemental convictions and what makes their judgments more valid than those of the rest of us?
Nielsen hammers the followers of religious traditions for not being able to justify the belief that God forms a suitable foundation for morality. He claims to have a more suitable foundation for his values, and tells us,
...no matter what their origin, if I have good grounds for believing what I do, I am ceteris paribus (all things being equal), justified in so believing.You'd think from this confident statement of the requirement of "good grounds" for moral beliefs that he'd have some himself. Guess again. Earlier on the same page, he explains that the best justification for his belief in the most "bedrock" of his values is the phrase "Well, I just do." Mr. Nielsen, it doesn't matter whether you conspicuously drop Latin phrases into your arguments. A contradiction is still a contradiction.
This book is yet another example of the pitfalls of half-hearted atheism. Neilsen has the courage to question the existence of God, but he doesn't follow through. Desperate for a sense of order, he clings to the conceptions of morality that can only be supported through some sort of faith. When his assumptions are challenged, he retreats to the mantra "I just do", afraid to examine their foundations, perhaps out of an intuition that there is nothing there.
In short, the problem with Ethics Without God is that Nielsen insists on making statements when he ought to asking questions. A better book might have been titled Ethics Without God?
�
Get your own Free Home Page