Atheism: A Philosophical Justification

Rating:
Summary: Most comprehensive defense of atheism yet written.
Review: ATHEISM: A PHILOSOPHICAL JUSTIFICATION is the most comprehensive defense of atheism yet written, covering in substantial detail many variations of the most influential arguments for and against the existence of god developed up to the early 1990s.

The book has only two notable defects. The first is that, simply by virtue of having been published in 1992, the book fails to address important recent developments in the field, such as the argument from nonbelief, which only came into prominence with Schellenberg's 1993 DIVINE HIDDENNESS AND HUMAN REASON and Drange's 1998 NONBELIEF AND EVIL. A second edition of Martin's book would thus be very useful, but in the meantime one should be sure to read Drange alongside.

The second defect is that the book gives too short shrift to moral arguments for the existence of god. Fortunately, Martin has just written an entire new book (ATHEISM, MORALITY, AND MEANING) to fill in that gap.

ATHEISM: A PHILOSOPHICAL JUSTIFICATION can be very technical at times, so readers who lack a strong background in philosophy and logic would probably be better off starting with a more intermediate treatment like Robin LePoidevin's ARGUING FOR ATHEISM (or a basic treatment like Douglas E. Krueger's WHAT IS ATHEISM?), but anyone who is serious about philosophy of religion must commit to eventually working his or her way through Martin's book.

Rating:
Summary: Good work
Review: Excellent book but too much words. Nevertheless, with little time and slow reading Martins book is the best i've read so far.

Rating:
Summary: Tipping the scale
Review: Firstly, this review is only for the open minded.
Secondly, it is representative of what has been called the author's "apparent lack of confidence" in his work and not the work itself.

I'm not familiar with all of Mr. Martin's works outside of what I've found in infidels.org, But I'll give three stars for effort. =) I came to discover this book through a response Dr. Greg Bahnsen has put together (and available to download in mp3 format through Covenant Media Foundation's web site): Twelve 90-minute lectures on the philosophical merits and weaknesses of this book along with another of Dr. Martin's works, "The Case Against Christianity". Whether or not his observations are accurate, I prefer to allow my atheist friends to decide for themselves.

However, it is noteworthy that after this recording, these two scholars were scheduled to debate the truth of Christian theism at Rhodes College in Memphis, TN. Yet two weeks before the scheduled debate, citing his opposition to having the it recorded for public distribution, Dr. Martin abruptly withdrew and cancelled. Nevertheless, Dr. Bahnsen traveled to Memphis anyway and presented a lecture on atheism, "exposing the weakness of Dr. Martin's published attack on Christian theism."

I recommend the studious researcher read this book and listen to Dr. Bahnsen's response to gain a balanced picture of the matter in question.

Rating:
Summary: For serious readers only
Review: If your an atheist this book is for you and if you have second thoughts about god this will get you over the hump. Although the math part was unnessary every thing else defends and demolishes theism and makes religion look like the dogma it is.

Rating:
Summary: Don't Agree; but Clear, Detailed and Comprehensive
Review: Martin's book, "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification", is divided into two main parts. In the first part on "negative atheism", Martin attempts to show that there is no good argument for the existence of God, and that therefore there is no reason to believe in the existence of God. In the second part on "positive atheism", Martin defends arguments against the existence of God, concluding that we have reason to believe that God does not exist. Martin also includes an interesting appendix in which he defines atheism, and contrasts it with some other "isms", such as agnosticism, communism and humanism, with which it is sometimes and in some ways confused.
Martin is rather radical. He tries to show that almost every premise of every argument for the existence of God is somehow mistaken, and that almost every atheistic argument is successful. He even tries to revive (following Nielsen) the claims of the logical positivists that religious language is meaningless (Alston's responds to Martin here in Copan and Moser's "The Rationality of Theism", which also has a nice response by Stephen Davies to Martin's critique of the ontological argument. Unfortunately, Martin buries a reference to Rowe's response to Plantinga's ontological argument in a footnote; but I think that Rowe's response is better than Martin's).
With respect to the evidential arguments for the existence of God, I doubt that he has provided an adequate response to the modern cosmological argument(s) of Craig, and I think that his response to Swinburne's cosmological and teleological arguments is inadequate (for example, he fails to consider the relevance of background knowledge in his examples against the relevance of simplicity to prior probability and that simpler explanations are generally preferred to disjunctions of more complex explanations). The latest edition (2004) of Swinburne's book, "The Existence of God", offers a substantially rewritten and strengthened case for the existence of God, and similar objections to those raised by Martin are dealt with. I think that Martin's response to Swinburne's argument from consciousness is very, very poor; anybody who's read Swinburne's argument in the original should be able to respond here.
While Martin is generally very comprehensive, he has barely anything to say about the latest scientific evidence of the apparent fine-tuning of the universe for life. (The literature devoted to this is vast, but I have Manson's "God and Design", which I think is a nice collection of articles on this and related topics.) The argument from fine-tuning has become very important; but Martin's response is glib (three paragraphs at most) and, in light of the developments of the argument, inadequate. Martin should have devoted more attention to apparent cosmological fine-tuning; but this is perhaps the only major gap in his book. On the other hand, Martin's chapters on beneficial arguments and faith and foundationalism are, in my opinion, much better (but I am not very familiar with Plantinga's work here).
In part two of the book, Martin argues for the incoherence of theism, offers atheistic teleological arguments, and attacks free-will and soul-making theodicies, among others. With respect to the problem of evil and Swinburne's theodicy, Martin seems not to have considered Swinburne's claim that a person cannot choose what sort of world he prefers unless he already has knowledge and freedom, and that this person cannot initially have this knowledge and freedom if the person's knowledge and freedom are, as his theodicy describes, dependent on other people. I also doubt that his defence of Rowe against Wykstra-style arguments is successful (Swinburne's response to these sort of arguments seems more promising).
I've joined other reviewers in offering an opinion about the (in)correctness of Martin's arguments, but this may not be the place to go on and on about the worth of each and every one: in summary, I don't think that Martin achieves his philosophical justification. I think that Swinburne's cosmological argument, teleological arguments and his argument from consciousness escape unscathed. "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification" is, in my opinion, an uneven book; some sections are good, some sections are not. Nevertheless, Martin's book, along with Mackie's "The Miracle of Theism", is one of the most sophisticated defences of atheism available. Martin is clear and comprehensive, and, as often as not, original and insightful. Those who are serious about philosophy of religion probably shouldn't ignore Martin's book; but if you are new to the topic, I think it's probably best to start off with a well-balanced guide and anthology, and if you're really keen on Martin (and have atheistic leanings), I'd advise you tone it down by reading it along with a very careful reading of the latest work of the philosophers Martin attacks. But I'm not prepared to give a book with which I disagree -especially on this subject- too many stars. I suspect that Martin wouldn't be impressed by this attitude; but I've gotta be prudent given the beliefs I've developed (and which Martin hasn't changed)!

Rating:
Summary: Good book for all intellectual atheist!
Review: Michael Martin does a good job defending atheism by first demonstrating that negative atheism (lack of belief in God) is philosophically justified and then by demonstrating that positive atheism (disbelief in God) is justified.

Though this book was written at a highly intellectual level, it did seem to contain a number of logical problems. For example, Martin thinks he can show that morals can have meaning without God simply by showing that it might be possible to construct an ethic system that doesn't demand "belief" in God. But this is clearly inadequate. What needs to be demonstrated is that God's existence is not required for real moral norms to exist. If I am an accident of nature, why "ought" I behave one way over another? If there is a standard of right and wrong (even if it be relative to each person) where did it come from? This question, Martin doesn't attempt to answer.

I could give other examples, but I don't want to detract from the high quality of most of his philosophical evaluations, which define his book. For example, he seemed to do an excellent job stating opposing arguments (i.e. no straw men).

As a result of Martin's skill at philosophical analysis, this book might be a haven for atheists. However, Norman Geisler's, Christian Apologetics, develops a revised cosmological argument that is untouched by Martin's criticism of the cosmological argument and its various forms. Thus, atheists should be careful to not let his book keep them from continued investigation. In fact, the book actually gave me more confidence in the theistic worldview as being philosophically plausible (if not necessary) than I was before I read the book. However, the book skillfully contains a depth of reasoning to support atheism that theists and atheists can benefit from.

Rating:
Summary: Hard Read
Review: Michael Martin goes out of his way to disprove and refute the criticisms of atheism but one thing he hasn't done and cannot do is disprove or refute the archaeological and historical evidences proving most of the Holy Bible and the Tanach.

Rating:
Summary: Encyclopedia of Atheism: Short on Substance
Review: Michael Martin's book has many strengths, most of them lying in his comprehensive approach to the discussion of atheism. Martin covers just about every angle in the current debate about the existence of God, listing and rehearsing what he takes to be the most damaging, at least potentially, to the atheist's position. Naturally, the fact that book is a bit dated keeps it off the cutting edge, but the general form of these arguments has not changed-providing the beginner with a sense of the landscape. In the first part of the book, Martin covers the topic of negative atheism, striking down all of the arguments for God's existence with a sweep of his pen. In the second part, Martin defends positive atheism and provides various arguments for believing that God does not exist.

The problem with his "justification," as many readers have alluded to, is that Martin's arguments often fail to be compelling and rarely achieve the goals that he desires of them. One gets the impression while reading his book that the author himself became tired with the scope of his project and descended into quick refusals of positions without carefully examining the positions of his opponents. The principle of charity is, in some places, completely absent from this text, leading the uninformed reader to believe that the only intellectuals defending theism are half-wits who have no idea what they are talking about. After seeking out many of the arguments that Martin attacks, one finds that he has often misrepresented their views and fails to meet them at full-strength, choosing instead to argue against straw-men.

I keep this book on the shelf as a reference guide, because it provides a rough-and-ready resource to glance through whenever you need to quickly catch up on an argument. But I think most readers would be better off with a balanced anthology, or at least a mixture of both sides' responses to each other.


Rating:
Summary: VERY comprehensive but dated introduction to atheism
Review: This book is a HUGE overview of the different types of atheism. Overall, I think Martin's book is an excellent introduction to atheism. I particularly enjoyed his refutation of various theistic answers to the argument from evil. Unfortunately, I cannot report that I enthusiastically endorse every feature of this book. Here's why:

First, Martin creates unnecessary problems for himself by trying to argue BOTH that theism is meaningless AND that if theism were meaningful, it is false. I am very familiar with Martin's Internet essay, "Positive Atheism and the Meaninglessness of Theism," where he explains that his defense of both negative and positive atheism is a "fall-back" position. However, Martin's defense of the claim, "theism is factually meaningfulness," is unconvincing. (Even most nontheists believe that theism is meaningful!) Moreover, Martin's "fall-back" strategy is a poor one. By writing such a huge discussion of arguments for and against the existence of God, it sure *appears* that Martin can think of ways in which the existence of God might be confirmed or disconfirmed. In other words, despite the fact that Martin was using a "fall-back" strategy, by the very nature of the issue Martin's fall-back strategy undermines his claim that theism is factually meaningfulness.

Second, given that his book was first published 10 years ago, it is now starting to become dated. Martin's book lacks a discussion of several new evidential arguments for atheism developed and defended since 1991. John Schellenberg has defended the highly influential atheological argument from divine hiddenness. (Indeed, this argument is so powerful that even Christian philosophers are taking it seriously: witness the forthcoming publication of Howard-Snyder's and Moser's anthology on divine hiddenness.) Martin's book is missing other important evidential atheological arguments as well, including Michael Tooley's argument from physical minds, Paul Draper's argument about combining evolution with the problem of evil, Draper's argument from the biological role of pain and pleasure, and religious confusion. Likewise, on the theistic side, Martin's book says nothing about recent sophisticated defenses of so-called 'intelligent design' theory.

Third, I doubt that Martin's critique of moral arguments for theism will satisfy anyone except atheist philosophers, given the brevity of the discussion. If morality can be objective without God, Martin needs to say more about the matter than he does. And moral objectivists will not be impressed by Martin's 4-sentence (hypothetical?) dismissal of moral objectivism (which, I suppose, is another one of Martin's "fall-back" strategies.)

Overall, I think Michael Martin's _Atheism_ can be a useful addition to a person's library, so long as he or she is aware of its limitations. I hope that Martin revises his book so that these limitations are removed.

Rating:
Summary: Thoughtful and comprehensive
Review: This is a thoughtful study of arguments for and against the existence of a monotheist deity. Of course, the title does bother me slightly, given that I regard Christianity, Judaism, and Islam as forms of atheism (I'm a polytheist and I see belief in one god as not really any different from belief in no god at all).

The first question the author addresses is whom the burden of proof is on. He's all in favor of discussing his views, so he does not press that argument. But I think the burden of proof begins with those who claim that a monotheist deity exists, at least until they define it. After that, the burden of proof may switch. For us polytheists, I think there are definitions of the Goddesses and Gods as perfections of attributes, but I think the burden of proof is on us to supply those definitions before we ask others to argue that they aren't cognitive or real.

Then we get into the question of meaningfulness of religious statements. This is the falsifiabilty argument that has been advanced by Kai Nielsen and positivists of all sorts. I think it is a strong argument. My counterargument for polytheism is that if you show that an attribute really isn't coherent, then I'll admit that its Goddess or God does not exist. Otherwise, I expect you to admit that its God or Goddess does exist.

The issue of falsifiability is simple. It's probably okay if others don't know what you believe. But if what you believe isn't falsifiable, that means that you don't what you believe. And that's more serious.

Next is the ontological argument. Martin spends only 17 pages on it, and he implies that it is 17 pages too many and that the whole argument is a joke. Well, all I can say is that it is my favorite of the anti-atheistic arguments. If you have read my previous paragraphs, you can see why. I feel that a coherent attribute can in theory be perfect. A well-defined being can be itself exactly, so it can in theory exhibit an attribute to perfection. And I agree that non-existence would be an imperfection, so I like the ontological argument.

After that, we get to the cosmological argument, namely that the monotheist god is The First Cause. Martin shows that this argument has some flaws. I think it has an extra one. Namely, suppose we said that the whole universe rested on the back of a huge turtle. We'd ask what that turtle stood on. A much bigger turtle? No good. That would imply a chain of turtles that kept getting bigger. What we need is a chain that gets smaller and smaller and finally vanishes. And that means to me that if God is really the First Cause, She is infinitely weak and powerless. No way would I worship something as unworthy as that!

Martin is at his best when he discusses the teleological argument. That's the argument that a complicated universe needs a designer, just as a watch needs a watchmaker. But the author points out that this argument has some problems. Better yet, given the complexity of the Universe, Martin says it makes far more sense to conclude that the Universe needed a bunch of designers, and that is more consistent with polytheism.

The author does spend some time on arguments from religious experience, miracles, and various other evidence. But I am not too interested in these. I consider them equivalent to claiming that one's listeners believe in them. If anyone disagrees with such a claim, they are right by definition. And Martin also discusses "Pascal's wager," in which it seems like belief in God is a good bet if one gets rewarded for it. But this makes no sense unless there is a reason to believe that such belief is well-defined and that a positive reward is actually likely. Otherwise, I think it is like asking someone how big a lie one must tell them before they will believe it. If they won't accept a hopelessly counterfeit hundred dollar bill, why should they accept a hopelessly counterfeit billion dollar bill?

I think the most devastating part of the book comes near the end, where the monotheist god is shown to be incoherently defined. That is, it is inconsistent to say that this god is omnescient, omnipotent, and moral. Matter of fact, I think it is inconsistent to say that God is perfect, given that something which is perfect at one thing is necessarily imperfect at its opposite. And that gets us into the argument from the existence of evil. The existence of evil appears to cast doubt on the existence of an all-powerful and good God. This is discussed at length, along with the question of free will. In any case, I think that Martin successfully argues for the non-existence of the monotheist god. Well, monotheists, my Goddesses and Gods are doing just fine. Sorry to hear about yours.