Atheism

  (out of 5 stars)

David Mills offers a fairly straight-forward atheistic argument against religiousity, pseudoscience, and judgmental moralism. A decent collection of atheist arguments, Atheist Universe presents a largely vanilla narrative to all but the most novice readers.

Mills presents his arguments in a bit of an odd fashion, jumping from subject to subject with little bridgework. While his arguments are sound, the writing is not terribly engaging or interesting. To anyone not experienced in reading the common atheist arguments, Universe may offer a nice introduction to many of the common thoughts. However, to anyone who has read most any popular work on the subject, there is little new here. Again, a decent introduction and survey of modern atheist arguments, but don't expect anything groundbreaking. Three and one-half stars.

  (out of 5 stars)

Many critics of Victor Stenger's writing have accused him of taking one basic set of arguments and writing a dozen different books using them. While there is undoubtedly some overlap between his books (and some with more commonalities than with others), I can understand where this critique comes from. I felt that way, somewhat, after reading Quantum Gods after having read God: The Failed Hypothesis. This book, just released this month, falls somewhere in between those two in my view. Not as good as Failed Hypothesis, not as mediocre as Quantum Gods.

Stenger kicks off this book with a look a the current state of New Atheism, and specifically, he discusses the recent success of new atheist books by Harris, Dawkins and others. He reviews a few points, counterpoints, and rebuttals to some of these arguments, leaving this first section as a nice overview of the state of popular bibliographic atheist/theist discourse.

The middle parts of the book are more a scattershot look at some of the key arguments made by New Atheists, with chapters on evolution, suffering, and evil. Many of these arguments have been made countless times elsewhere, and while I've personally read better treatments, Stenger brings a reasonable summation of his views and those of others, such as Bart Ehrman.

The rest of the book falls off track for me. Stenger launches into a large section which loses the narrative of the earlier chapters. While I love science and religion being brought together, Stenger seems to drift off to one of his lectures and forgets to keep the reader engaged.

From there, the shift into a study of Eastern philosophy (as suggested in Sam Harris's book The End of Faith) drags the book into territory best left out. Stenger examines various philosophical ideas and ideals and finds that many of the non-dogmatic, less-theologically based philosophies, such as Buddhism, can offer a great deal of 'spiritual guidance' without the dangerous burdens of dogmatic religion.

As in Harris's book, I feel this mushy, metaphysical subject matter is best left out. Stenger should have returned to a more in depth look at the current dialogue between atheists and theists. This for me is an excellent area of study which as been largely underrepresented. Stenger does leave a 'what is to come' chapter for last, but by that time, he's lost the plot.

Stenger is always an engaging writer, although his direction can sometimes leave the reader feeling a bit confused. What starts off as a strong look at niche of current public discourse devolves into a rehashed science-religion argument which then re-devolves into a feel-good look at Eastern philosophy. To repeat, for me, it was better than the plodding Quantum Gods but not as focused and successful as Failed Hypothesis. Three and one-half stars.

  (out of 5 stars)

Having read Harris' more substantial work The End of Faith (and given it 4/5 stars despite having some signficant disagreements with some of his points), I finally picked up the much shorter (96 pages) Letter for a quick read. It reads mostly like a condensed, directed version of Faith and offers very little new material for the reader, Christian or atheist.

There really isn't much to discuss about the book. It is a one-sided conversation Harris is having with the anonymous Christian reader (though it is doubtful many actual Christians will read the book). Harris uses many of the same arguments he puts forward in Faith to support his thesis that religion is dangerous and that Christians in the US are no more correct or moral, and make no more positive contributions than any other group of people.

I've read other reviews which trash this book as 'preaching to the choir'. I do agree that, despite the fact that this letter is to a 'Christian', this is largely intended for atheistic audiences. However, 'preaching to the choir' is not really a legitimate knock on this or any work. Until the mid-2000s, most US atheists had no popular voices for their point of view. What Harris (and other vocal atheists) have done is provide a provacative (and antagonist) voice for those of us who have had almost no one speaking on our behalf. While I agree that Harris is confrontational, I argue that that is his point. Atheists have long needed a few loud-mouthed antagonizers to bring our issues into popular discussion, and we certainly could not have done so if Harris et. al. were polite reconcilators.

Overall, this book is just a condensed version of Faith and will largely serve as a booster for atheists who need to find arguments which speak to their own positions. Three and one-half stars.

  (out of 5 stars)

Phil Zuckerman explores an oft-ignored segment of the world: non-religious societies. In this sociological exploration of individual perceptions, belief, and contentment, Zuckerman conducted hundreds of interviews with people in Denmark and Sweden, two of the least religious nations on earth, seeking to discover if these heathen places really do fall into chaos, immorality, hopelessness, and violence as is often claimed by religious fanatics.

What Zuckerman discovers is just the opposite of what Christian leaders often proclaim. Not only is violence markedly lower in these places, but the atheistic leanings of the majority of the inhabitants leaves a largely content, hopeful, and moral population, one in which religion plays a largely ceremonial, cultural role.

Several of the chapters are large excerpts from the author's interviews, detailing specific people Zuckerman feels are particularly representative of the sorts of reactions and opinions he recorded in his months researching this project.

Zuckerman uses this book to directly counter arguments made about the need for Christian society in order to have morality and hope and all sorts of other feel-good descriptors. Fear of death and meaning of life get a whole chapter as the author shows that the people he talked with were greatly indifferent to the topics which cause great anxiety in the US (and other highly-religious states). Zuckerman even encounters a significant number of respondents who had clearly never really thought about religion (and had to pause to consider whether they even believed in God!).

Zuckerman is clearly to point out in several spots that this book does not serve as an actual set of data which can be used to generalize across all of Denmark, Sweden, or any other largely-secular society. His methods and sampling have serious problems, and he is upfront about applying his data to any other group.

However, it is clear from this book that secular society is not the chaotic, violent, hopeless and helpless state that is so often described by fanatical Christians who seek to Christianize all society. Religion plays no big role in the people Zuckerman interviews, and yet their lives are clearly no less meaningful and reasonable than anyone in the US (and in many instances, appear to be happier and more meaningful). This short book is a quick read, and a strong argument for more scientific studies of secular societies and the claims of cultural degeneration made in modern religious socieities. Four stars.