Rating: 
Summary: Thou shalt think for thyself
Review: Any book bearing the name of S T Joshi is worth looking into, and happily there seem to be more of them every day. This one is a collection of miscellaneous writings by authors from Lucretius to Gore Vidal, from T H Huxley to Emma Goldman, and including along the way such luminaries as Bertrand Russell, H P Lovecraft, George Eliot, Charles Darwin and Clarence Darrow. All of the pieces are arguments against religious belief, whether from the point of view of logic (as in the delightful extract from Lovecraft's correspondence, or Anatole France's careful refutation of miracles), or morals (Eliot's attack on mean-spirited fundamentalism, Nietzsche's magnificent rant against the lily-livered hypocrisy that passes for goodness among Christians), or just plain disgust (as in Gore Vidal's coolly disdainful dissection of the way in which the original Enlightenment ideals of the USA were betrayed when "In God We Trust" sneaked onto the money). (Not that we in Britain do much better - we still have an established State church; many of us baptise our children before they are old enough to walk, let alone think or speak; and on our coins we have "Queen by the grace of God" - though at least we have it in Latin, so that nobody understands it). There are rousing and tightly argued condemnations of just about every Christian virtue - faith, meekness, ignorance, priest-worship, misogyny and so forth. The book also has a very fine introduction by S T Joshi, commending it to the open-minded and consigning the rest to their quagmire. He may well be unduly optimistic in his assertion that, for the intellectual world at least, "there is no going back to irrational piety"; but books like this one should certainly help.
Rating:
Summary: Very Comprehensive
Review: Great compilation of short essays from all the great minds in atheism and agnosticism including: Robert Ingersoll, Bertrand Russell, John Stuart Mill, David Hume, Friedrich Nietzsche, H.L. Mencken, Thomas Paine, Walter Kaufman, Benedict Spinoza, Gore Vidal, and many more. If you're not very familiar with freethought/atheism/agnosticism, this book is the perfect place to begin your study and expand your mind.
Rating:
Summary: Good collection of literary atheism
Review: I enjoyed much about this reader. The selections appear to be chosen as much for their literary qualities as for their defense of atheism, making for very pleasurable reading. Additionally, Joshi introduced me to a few historical atheists I had not heard of before, as well as a few figures I had heard of, but had not known were atheists. So I do feel enriched for having read it. However, three aspects of the reader bothered me. First, Joshi's introduction is too militant, and will unjustly ward off even reasonable religious folks, who would otherwise profit from the selections that follow. Second, the literary emphasis notwithstanding, a "reader" on atheism really should include selections from modern atheistic philosophers of religion, such as J. L. Mackie and Michael Martin. Finally, though I do not myself believe in an afterlife, the question of immortality is perfectly separable from the question of whether or not there is a god, and so it bothered me that Joshi included in his reader on "atheism" a section against immortality. But with these qualifications, my impression of the reader was, overall, a very favorable one, and I believe this book should be on the list of every person who wants to learn more about atheism.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent excerpts and Essays
Review: I greatly enjoyed the essays in this book, especially the ones by Emma Goldman, Carl Sagan, and Charles Darwin. Goldman is one of my favorite writers and her excerpt on Atheism is the best, in my opinion. Most are very good, and the essays by themself are 5 stars. However, like the other reviewers, I did not particularly like the intoruction, as it was poorly written and did made him seem ignorant as hell. Anyway, the essays are quite good, and you should look into the authors and read their whole work. While there are better books on Atheism out there, any Atheist, Agnostic, or especially any person of faith who wants to actually examine their faith, should read these essays (or better said the complete works of the writers).
Rating: 
Summary: Fair book, Bad Introduction
Review: I know S. T. Joshi as a scholar of the "Weird Tale". Being an enthusiast of that neglected genre, I'll take a look at almost anything written about it. That's why I picked up Joshi's "Atheism: a Reader" at the bookstore. When I saw that I was already familiar with many of the selections, I turned to the introduction to learn Joshi's views. From Joshi's take on Dunsany, Lovecraft, et al., I wasn't surprised to learn that Joshi was an atheist. For example, as near as I can tell, Joshi views Dunsany as remarkable largely because he takes "Time and the Gods" to be an assault on theism. Ditto for Lovecraft's Mythos. Now I couldn't disagree more with Joshi's evaluation of Lovecraft and Dunsany as important thinkers. They are outstanding writers of fiction -- bold, imaginative and original. In the case of Dunsany, we agree that he is a master of English prose. However, neither are great thinkers and I don't think they thought of themselves as such. Their fiction speaks for itself. There's no need to recast them as sages. On the other hand, Joshi does a valuable service to readers by his advocacy of the "Weird Tale". I have learned about many excellent writers from reading Joshi's books. (Though I for one think that academic respectability is the worse thing that could happen to the "Weird Tale". Its outlaw appeal would disappear and generations of young, independent minded, readers would be lost.) That's why Joshi's introduction to this book disappointed me. Joshi is capable of balanced discussion, but you wouldn't know it from this. I recommend el spinozista's review, located on this page, for a summary of its defects. El spinozista and I are in complete agreement. The only thing I'd like to add is my recollection of what Robertson Davies once wrote in an essay about Edmund Wilson, a noted infidel. Davies said of Wilson's atheism that while there much that was shallow and immature in religious belief, the same can be said of unbelief.
Rating:
Summary: Fair book, Bad Introduction
Review: I know S. T. Joshi as a scholar of the "Weird Tale". Being an enthusiast of that neglected genre, I'll take a look at almost anything written about it. That's why I picked up Joshi's "Atheism: a Reader" at the bookstore. When I saw that I was already familiar with many of the selections, I turned to the introduction to learn Joshi's views. From Joshi's take on Dunsany, Lovecraft, et al., I wasn't surprised to learn that Joshi was an atheist. For example, as near as I can tell, Joshi views Dunsany as remarkable largely because he takes "Time and the Gods" to be an assault on theism. Ditto for Lovecraft's Mythos. Now I couldn't disagree more with Joshi's evaluation of Lovecraft and Dunsany as important thinkers. They are outstanding writers of fiction -- bold, imaginative and original. In the case of Dunsany, we agree that he is a master of English prose. However, neither are great thinkers and I don't think they thought of themselves as such. Their fiction speaks for itself. There's no need to recast them as sages. On the other hand, Joshi does a valuable service to readers by his advocacy of the "Weird Tale". I have learned about many excellent writers from reading Joshi's books. (Though I for one think that academic respectability is the worse thing that could happen to the "Weird Tale". Its outlaw appeal would disappear and generations of young, independent minded, readers would be lost.) That's why Joshi's introduction to this book disappointed me. Joshi is capable of balanced discussion, but you wouldn't know it from this. I recommend el spinozista's review, located on this page, for a summary of its defects. El spinozista and I are in complete agreement. The only thing I'd like to add is my recollection of what Robertson Davies once wrote in an essay about Edmund Wilson, a noted infidel. Davies said of Wilson's atheism that while there much that was shallow and immature in religious belief, the same can be said of unbelief.
Rating:
Summary: Decent Selection of Writings on Religion
Review: If you're looking for an anthology of popular and semi-scholarly works on atheism written over the last few hundred years, then this may be worth your money. On the other hand, if you're looking for the best-argued case for atheism available, then spend your money elsewhere (e.g., Michael Martin's, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, is much more thorough and rigorous). Although at some point I may use this as a supplemental text for a philosophy class on theism and atheism to give my students a taste of the history of atheism (while using selections from, say, Leibniz, Aquinas, and Anselm for the theistic side), I currently only use these essays as examples of either poor logic (e.g. Paine) or of arguments for atheism that have already been refuted. In short, this work is of historical value but it will not offer much to those who've kept up with analytic philosophy of religion in the past 30 or so years.
Rating: 
Summary: Intro =1 star, Writings=3 stars: The Intro is that Bad!
Review: S.T. Joshi's book is a text built on the selected writings of mostly famous atheists (while some writers would self identify as agnostics, as well as probably one diest and one non-church Chritsian). There are always inherent problems with selected writings in that articles or essays are most often taken away from the larger texts in which they were written - this tends to only superficially highlight certain ideas and arguements are not as solid as they could or should be. The selected writings themselves would warrant three stars. They are a fair selection showing a diverse perspective on issues relating to atheism aganist theism in general and Christianity in particular. No one essay is exceptional as arguments go, but there are a couple of decent ones. Anthoy Flew, a gaint in atheistic philosphy and a bona fide philospher, presents a primer essay on immortality (the best essay in this section of the book). Darrow's essay against "Lord Day" laws is also a fine essay written with precision and skill. There are, however, many other essays that are just too small and removed from the larger body of work that the points are not really either well established are in proper context (David Hume in particular) or many are just downright atheistic propaganda (Mencken, Ingersoll, and Vidal are the obvious suspects here). As with the arguemnts presented in the selected writings there are valid agruments in the refutation of each position from many philosphers who are theists (in particular Christians). I would recommend that anyone who reads this book read the larger works of some of these people, especially those who are most influencial in the realm of atheistic arguements such as Bertrand Russell, Anthony Flew, Friedrich Nietzsche, and John Stuart Mill. Further, one should read David Hume whom I would not classify as an atheists - most Hume scholars tend to think at best he was an agnostic and probably a deists. His writings, though not often consistent (miracle/physical world debate) are the standard for many atheistic positions. The introduction is worth one star. It is so rought with straw men, silly attacks, and distortions that one wonders what Joshi was trying to do. He uses many of the straw men famous by many atheists that it is tiresome. Amoung many are the science (evolution and big bang) topic that he completely, and I assert intentially, misunderstands and therefore mis-represents (I say intentially because Joshi is not a dumb man and therefore I think he must choose to misunderstand). It is so overly polemic that some good points he does make like the "way of life" and "morality" assertions are easily forgotten in a mire of much rambling speech. I would encourage all, atheists and theists alike to read better works on the subject by atheists or agnostics. Two good primers (although I disagree with them) are "The Atheist's Debater Handbook" and "the Case Against God" Primary source writings by Hume and Mill are also good places to start. Joshi's other book "God's Defenders" is much like his introduction here, mire talk with little substance.
Rating:
Summary: Good news and bad news...
Review: There is good news and bad news about this book. The good news is that the editor, S.T. Joshi, provides excerpts from a wide variety of authors, many of them great philosophers, on a broad range of topics relating to criticism of theistic belief. I hope the readers of this volume will be inspired to read the original source materials from which the excerpts were taken, as well as the other side of the debate from theistic sources. The bad news is Joshi's introduction. This has to be the most unsophisticated, inaccurate and bombastic attack on religious belief I have ever read. It was very painful to read, in fact, and an embarassment to those who value an honest and sophisticated critique of theistic ideas. I won't give too many examples of the distortions and bombast contained in the essay; a few should suffice. For all his rejection of religion, Joshi sees the world in Manichaean terms: 97% of Americans are illogical, emotionally-driven, fearful souls who embrace some sort of theistic belief. The other 3% are the elect: intelligent, honest, good people who don't believe in God. The "non-elect" can never be persuaded to give up their foolish God-beliefs. They are motivated by a Lucretian fear of nature and fear of death, and nourish a secret, cowardly desire to "live in their current bodies indefinitely." Never mind any notion of transcendence or of seeking the Good, a basic source of the religious impulse since Augustine; religion is obviously motivated solely by the baser instincts of the human condition. The simplistic nature of Joshi's belief system is nowhere better illustrated than in his equation of moral behavior with what is "socially approved." I wonder what he would make of Santayana's view of the human drive for transcendence or of Charles Taylor's insight that all human ethics is driven by a conception of the Good, even where it masquerades as value-free naturalism. The sad thing is, this sort of bombast was written by someone who should have known better: I mean, his excerpts include Walter Kaufmann, for pete's sake.
Rating:
Summary: Decent Selection of Writings on Religion
Review: This book is not going to be the end all and be all of arguments on the Atheism/Theism debate, but it does give a breif overview of readings which deal with the subject. There are essays from a whole slew of great minds in here such as Bertrand Russel, Friederich Nietzche, Spinoza, Darwin, Huxley, Hume, and John Stuart Mill but it must be remembered that these are "sound bites." If you want the real arguments, it's probably best to look elsewhere. The one notable, and maybe I should say dissapointing aspect of this book, is the introduction which reeks of elitism and intolerance. I can understand that Joshi (the editor) is an atheist and feels pretty strongly about it. Instead of offering an essay filled with reason (which he praises), he immediately goes on the offensive and insults the mass of humanity as "unable to conduct a course of logical reasoning on [religious faith](or any other matter)...(pg.10)" Sorry, S.T., but there have been many people in the history of humanity who were Theists and were capable of logical reasoning (take obvious examples like Descartes, Newton, Liebniz, Occam, Keppler, and even Darwin who started off as a Catholic - obviously their religious faith faith did not hinder their ability to conduct a course of logical reasoning. Insisting otherwise makes it very easy for others to dismiss the person as full of hot air. The intro just gets more militant from there and I have to admit that I was a little offended by the *closemindedness* of the editor (and I accept that the atheist/agnostic/deist views are more logical than typical Christian/Muslim apologetics). As a fellow freethinker I don't believe it's a good tactic to simply insult those who disagree with you on the matter of whether God exists or not(the matter still draws good arguments from both sides. Serious scholars argue both sides, so it's hardly an issue where a "volume like this should not be necessary" (as the editor so boldly asserts in the first sentence). People should question *all* sides and Joshi's refusal to even accept possible reasons for Theism is the same type of emotional closemindedness he accuses Theists of having on the issue. So why should I bother to take his accusations of hypocrisy by religionists seriously when he engages in it himself? It's a pity because most of the thinkers he's selected for this work are far from the dogmatic fundamentalist that the editor shows that he is. In the end, the essays are solid but short. There's a lot here to think about. The editor, however, could have dedicated the 15 pages for his introduction to another selection based on reason instead of preaching a sermon which could make an evangelical preacher blush.
|
