What Is Atheism?: A Short Introduction

Rating:
Summary: A Good Introduction
Review: "What is Atheism", though limited in scope, is perhaps the best "primer" for the atheistic position that I have read. Krueger deals with all of the most important issues related to atheism, and provides a useful list of resources for the individual interested in further reading.

That said, I feel that Krueger missed the mark quite badly in a few places. For instance, Krueger's entire chapter on faith is based on the idea that faith is nothing more than belief in lack of or in spite of evidence. Yet, this is not a proper definition of faith (despite the fact that many Christians may employ it). In actuality, faith is based on rational and competent beliefs. The entire chapter on faith, therefore, seems to involve Krueger knocking down one huge strawman.

On certain issues, Krueger has a tendency to make bold assertions without backing up his claims. For example, he claims that almost all of the New Testament books are KNOWN to be forgeries (even though he doesn't even cite a consensus on this supposed "fact"- we are just supposed to take his word for it!) And Krueger apparently doesn't wish to take the time to consider apologetic responses to supposed contradictions in the Bible.

However, Krueger's discussion of the Cosmological and Design Arguments, as well as the Arguments from Evil and Nonbelief, is quite good. I feel that they deal with the issues well considered the limited scope of this work.

All in all, this book is a great introductory work for atheism. It's use beyond that is rather minimal.

Rating:
Summary: A great gift for inquisitive believers
Review: "WHAT IS ATHEISM?" is a succinct and lucid explanation of the ideas that the vast majority of atheists will affirm (in my estimation). I sincerely wish that every religionist would read this book, if only to dispel the rampant misconceptions about atheism. Atheism does not substitute one dogma for another, nor rob one of one's dignity, nor promote immorality, etc. The typical atheist simply rejects the positive claims of the theist on the grounds that the reasoning is faulty, and that no religion, past or present, has distinguished itself as being more trustworthy or better supported by evidence or logic than any other. All alike traffic in subterfuge, willful ignorance, and wishful thinking. Krueger not only explains why the arguments for god's existence are ineffective, but advocates the stronger view that there are positive reasons for rejecting such a concept. Krueger points out blatant absurdities such as using the Bible in support of its own claims (as Christians invariably seem to do), and summarizes the classic arguments for atheism, such as the problem of evil and the existence of non-believers. Krueger also discusses the usual theistic rebuttals to these arguments and explains why they do not work.

One of the contributions of this book that appears to be unique (at least I have not seen similar discussions elsewhere), is the section on prophecy. Krueger begins by listing five very reasonable criteria for a compelling prophecy; criteria that I doubt anyone would dispute. Briefly, these criteria are that a prophecy must be clear (so that one knows when it has come to pass), unusual (so as to be clearly distinguished from common occurrences), written prior to the event (else it can be a fake), difficult to guess in advance (else it implies nothing supernatural), and difficult to stage (so that followers cannot force the prophecy to come true). This is a simple exercise, albeit one that I never see undertaken by believers. What Krueger then shows, of course, is that none of the Biblical prophecies unambiguously meets all these criteria. In fact, most fail outright.

If there is an analogous book that argues for theism, I would be quite eager to read it. As yet I have not found any work of apologetics that is so consistently to-the-point and logically sound as Krueger's book is. (Of course, there are hundreds of books that offer up the standard theistic arguments, such as intelligent design and the cosmological argument, without the slightest acknowledgement of the many severe logical flaws in these arguments that have been pointed out since at least the time of Hume.)

The book is not without its flaws, however. The chapter on the incoherence of the concept of god detracts from the otherwise rational and measured attacks on theism. Attempts to reach profound metaphysical conclusions by dissecting our use of words such as "omnipotent" and "omniscient" are dubious. A believer can simply assert that the mystery of god defies adequate description through our use of words, which are only finite and limited approximations of reality. I think it is unfortunate that Krueger indulges this line of reasoning as it seems to follow the same impulse as theists who simply "define" their respective gods into existence. I remain unconvinced by all such arguments, from theists and atheists alike. However, these arguments are not essential to Kruger's thesis and can be ignored without appreciably weakening the cumulative case for atheism.

Overall, this is a concise and well-presented case for atheism. If you are a theist who wishes to understand why anyone could possibly NOT believe in god, then I can think of no better place to start than with this book. I believe that Krueger has done an excellent job of exposing the myriad misconceptions that theists hold concerning atheists and atheism, showing why the standard theistic arguments are nonsensical, and showing that the Judeo-Christian god is so hopelessly confused that his nonexistence is a virtual certainty. Thus, I believe that Krueger has actually defended the more typical atheistic position, that there is no reason to believe theistic claims, rather than the stronger view that there are no gods. I say this because Krueger has not really shown that beliefs such as Deism are in themselves inconsistent; while there appears to be no valid argument in support of the god of deism, it is simply not open to the same criticisms as the personal triune god of Christianity, and therefore cannot be "disproved" as easily. But, again, this does not appreciably detract from Kruger's main thesis; that belief in god(s) is unfounded.

Rating:
Summary: A response to John Fuller's review below
Review: As a doctoral student in philosophy who has taught the philosophy of religion at two universities, I recommend this book very highly. At the risk of bringing further attention to the comments of an ignoramus, I feel the need to rebut the incompetent review of John Fuller (which can be seen further down).

To begin with, Fuller claims that Krueger uses the Euthyphro dilemma as the "anchor" for the rest of this book. But as anyone who has studied philosophy or read the book knows, this argument is only relevant to the question of the source of morality. Therefore, it cannot be (and is not) related to any chapters in this book after chapter two. Fuller then tries to attack this supposed 'anchor' by saying that it only applies to polytheism. But this is downright false, as any competent philosopher will know and as any good introductory ethics text will explain.

After some petty comments on capitalization (the merit of which anyone reading this can judge for him/herself), Fuller continues with eleven further errors, all conveniently numbered by him:

1.Fuller claims that utilitarianism, Kantianism and virtue ethics all 'fail to describe the concepts of good and bad'. No justification is given for this extraordinary claim (it certainly flies in the face of the general consensus of philosophers), and no alternative definition of these concepts is given.
2.Fuller claims that Krueger makes a confusion between a purpuse IN life and a purpose TO life -- when Krueger's position is that the latter reduces to the former. This objection simply begs the question by assuming life must have an externally mandated purpose, which is just what Krueger is contesting in Chapter 3.
3.Fuller claims that Krueger recommends the admiration of the "racist eugenics-obsessed" Margaret Sanger. Not only is this a distortion of what Krueger says (he claims only that her tireless devotion to her work was a life of purpose), but Sanger was in fact _opposed_ to racism and racist eugenics and attacked racists. While it is true that she did advocate some by my standards unethical measures (advocated more strongly, incidentally, by Christians at the time), these were not connected with racism. Fuller has fallen for a Christian smear job here, and it is not even relevant to Krueger (who again says nothing about admiring Sanger in his very brief mention of her).
4.Fuller claims that Krueger doesn't understand claims about biblical prophecies, and that he ignores counter-evidence (none of which, conveniently, is substantiated by Fuller). The reader should read Krueger's work itself and then judge: this is an entirely unsupported allegation by Fuller.
5.Fuller chides Krueger for following the scholarly consensus that the bible is mostly composed by anonymous sources and is not inerrant. In other words, he would have Krueger reject the opinions of the most serious scholars in the field over the past century in favor of -- whom? The "acknowledged master in the field", F. F. Bruce, who is certainly not acknowledged by mainstream historians as any sort of authority at all. For a good debunking of Bruce and his tactics, see Chapter 5 of Robert Price's 'Beyond Born Again'.
6.Fuller accuses Krueger of 'trotting out all the cliched objections about biblical errancy'. True -- they are cliched at this point because they have had to be repeated over and over again to Christian apologists who can't overcome them but continue undaunted anyway. Wonderful what faith can do.
7.Fuller claims that Krueger's objections to the design argument beg the question. But he doesn't explain why, and it isn't clear he understands what 'begging the question' even means.
8.Fuller objects to Krueger's treatment of the cosmological argument because it misunderstands the implications of the divine character, but doesn't say just why. Surely, any attribute of a divine character would have to be quite remarkable if it actually could explain the origin of the universe without itself demanding an explanation by the same logic. Fuller calls Krueger's attempts to prove that an infinite regress is possible 'laughable', without seeming to notice that the whole laughable business was raised by Aquinas, to which Krueger is merely responding. At any rate, it isn't germane to the objection Krueger is making, and if Fuller had taken the time to read that section at all carefully he would have noticed that the cosmological argument is demolished anyway.
9.Fuller claims that Krueger is wrong not to mention the theodicy of Alvin Plantinga, which Fuller claims is "generally accepted by philosophers as conclusive in favor of theism". Not only does Plantinga's defense do no such thing (the standard refutation of this rather silly theodicy can be found in J. L. Mackie's classic work _The Miracle of Theism_), and not only do the great majority of philosophers consider Plantinga's defense to be bogus, but even if it were successful, it doesn't even claims to present an argument for theism, as Fuller claims. This seems to show Fuller's familiarity with the scholarship in the relevant fields.
10.Fuller, apparently finding no way to respond to the powerful argument from nonbelief, dismisses it as 'absurd', despite its logical force. Presumably this is in contrast with the claims of Christianity, which are far more absurd and have no logical force.
11.Fuller's last point also makes a serious mistake. He claims that Krueger is attacking a straw man by mis-defining faith. But contrary to what Fuller says, there _are_ many Christians who define 'believing on faith' as 'believing in the absence of strong reasons'. As for those who use 'faith' to mean 'belief with fairly strong supporting reasons but in the absence of absolute geometrical proof', the rest of the book was already devoted to their refutation.

Most telling, perhaps, is Fuller's warning that Krueger's book "should not be approached by those with inadequate knowledge". What exactly is he afraid of? I would say, by contrast, that people should read Krueger's book _and_ the opposing books. That way they will be able to compare for themselves the preposterous claims of Christianity with their simple refutations.


Rating:
Summary: Accomplished its purpose . . . as an introduction to atheism
Review: As many of its reviews say, this book has accomplished its purpose, which is as introductory to atheism.

Theists, I think, comprise 99% of today's world's population, and challenging the view shared by so many would seem an impossible task. Majority gives some sense of comfort, but not after reading this book. The book has not turned me into an atheist, though, but it sure gave me a critical eye towards the things I learned and held dearly for a long time.

Rating:
Summary: Begs the question!
Review: For instance, he did not justify his moral views at all. All he did was assume it. Furthermore, he is quite unscholarly. In his debate with Michael Butler he only knew of the Trinity of God by hearing it in normal conversation with Christians WITHOUT reading up on it at all!

Rating:
Summary: Great Intro, needs an update.
Review: Having arrived at my conclusion that we are all atheists in denial at the age of 10, (My Calvinistic parents supported the studies that brought this about, ironically) I can say that a compact summary such as this would have been very helpful. However, since 1998, a lot of reading is done on the web, as some of the other review suggestions recommend. It would have been better, had George Harris' rebuttal to Murray Meachams' Euthypro is a false dilemma argument (which is question begging in and of itself) could have been included. Every book on atheism that hopes to be a primer should carefully avail itself of a disclaimer: Beware, Anything we say can and will be theistically obfuscated and promulgated with faith-based assurance. Keep in mind while you read also that which is an atheistic weakness in explaining arguments: Being to kind to the opposition and granting to many allowances. Krueger certainly does it here. The selfish greed for certainty that is faith does not warrant such politeness. Goats in Lambs clothing they are, from McDowell to Craig. Should Krueger do another book, perhaps more specific responses to the latest apologetic rhetoric would be in order.

Rating:
Summary: Logic or Salvation
Review: Krueger's arguments in favor of atheism over theism may play well with atheists. Theists, however, seem more likely to either deny the logic or remain certain that a convincing argument in favor or God will appear.

Desperate longings are not ended by logic.

Atheists need to address, not why God doesn't exist, but how to help theists deal with their desperate longings that do exist. We're all in this together and those longings should be understandable by all of us, even if some of us feel certain that theism doesn't answer them.

An atheist has not just mind but also heart: a heart that can suffer just as much as the heart of a theist. How we manage and why we don't escape into theism is something rich within one's atheism and common humanity that needs to be communicated to theists. Not that there is an atheist worldview to share but that each atheist has found a way to be in the world without the liabilities of theism. We can exercise our imagination in profound ways, use science wisely, live together without division, and face our mortality without forgetting what we have created and without hurting each other in the name of a fiction.

Needing to be right could be the desperate longing of atheists that takes us off course just as belief takes theists off course. Logic such as Krueger's is important but atheists need also expose their hearts.


Rating:
Summary: A must read book for someone interested in atheism.
Review: Mr. Krueger gives a powerful, easy to understand look into the arguments for atheism in this book. Yet, one of the reviewers here still blathered about the "atheistic world view." Obviously, that person did not read the book, and therefore his (her?) review is invalid. Krueger states that the only thing that atheists are guarenteed to have in commom in the abscence of a belief in a god. There is no world view attached to non-belief in unicorns, nor is there one attached to non-belief in any supreme being. It is unfortunate that someone who supposedly read this book would write a review displaying nothing but abysmal ignorance about it. What is typical of most reviews in this subject is that they merely reflect people's religious views, or lack of them. Mine is no exception. It is unfair for someone to state that they are not biased, we all are. But I was not an atheist before I read this book, I was merely curious. I was an atheist afterward, but I did not stop there. I continued to read about deism, pantheism, and every other form of -ism under the sun. Unlike the feeble-minded "reader from New Jersey", I was not afraid of what I would learn in reading new books and new material; much of which asserted the existence of a god. I urge people not to be afraid of learning new things; it is the only way to come to rational conclusions about the world around you. I would tell the atheist to read Richard Swineburne's "The Existence of God." For the theist, I recommend this book. It is easy to understand, to the point, and a great introduction to atheism.

Rating:
Summary: An Accurate Presentation of Atheist Thought (so it's short)
Review: The title of this book is partially a misnomer. Less than half the book is about atheism; the remainder is an argument against theism, or, more specifically, against Christianity, Krueger's contempt for which is evident throughout the work. However, that is not necessarily such a bad thing. What it does is to show the current thought processes of those who oppose theism. And the good news is that the thought is pretty vacuous. A quick review of the bibliography affirms this: it is littered with such luminaries of the modern atheistic subculture as Dan Barker, Tim Callahan, Randel Helms, Dennis McKinsey, Gordon Stein, Farrell Till and G.A. Wells, dim lights all. To its credit, it does also refer to a few real atheist thinkers of the past and present (the latter including Michael Martin and Kai Nielsen). The book is filled with poorly argued objections, straw man arguments and a general lack of scholarship.

Krueger's argument fails at the first hurdle. Having first defined theism (correctly) as excluding polytheism, he then attempts to attack it with the Euthyphro Dilemma, which applies only to polytheism (apart from being a false dilemma anyway). Since this appears to be the anchor of the book's argument, one can read the remainder of the book with confidence that it contains nothing of substance to discredit theism.

It does however contain some cleverly disguised vitriol against Christianity. For example, throughout the book both the Bible and God are presented without an initial capital; the rationale for the former being that Bible is only properly capitalized when used in a title (ignoring the use of capitals as honorifics). The fact that as applied to the Bible it is a title seems to have escaped him. I assume a similar argument supports god as opposed to God, although in the Christian case, the word is of course a proper name.

But going on from the Euthyphro blunder, the book presents some other poor arguments, wild claims and misstatements of fact, including but not limited to the following:

1. Various ethical systems such as utilitarianism, virtue-based systems and Kant's ethical theory are presented as viable alternatives to theistic ethics, ignoring totally the failure of all of these to define the concepts of good and bad.
2. The confusion of the ideas of a purpose TO life and a purpose IN life.
3. The staggering suggestion that Margaret Sanger (the racist eugenics-obsessed founder of Planned Parenthood) was a person to be admired.
4. Numerous misunderstandings of Bible claims, especially as they relate to prophecy (e.g., the death of Josiah, the destructions of Tyre). These also ignore contrary evidence (such as in the conquest of Ai).
5. Unsupported (and easily refuted) claims that the Bible is unreliable (including suggestions of anonymity, forgery and unknown development). As an indication of the scholarship behind this book, this particular section makes not a single reference to the acknowledged master in this field, F.F. Bruce.
6. It trots all the cliched objections about Biblical errancy and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of Christian theology.
7. The objection to the intelligent design argument essentially begs the question.
8. The objection to the cosmological argument misunderstands the implications for the divine character and presents a laughable attempt to prove the possibility of an actual infinite regress.
9. The section on the argument from evil fails to discuss the defense of Alvin Plantinga, generally accepted by philosophers as conclusive in favor of theism.
10. The use of the argument from non-belief is an obvious absurdity (Drange's idea that the existence of non-believers proves the non-existence of a god).
11. The chapter on faith, which includes also Pascal's Wager is a complete straw man, defining faith in a way which Christians do not and broadening the applicability of Pascal's Wager beyond what was originally intended.

Overall, Krueger's book should not be viewed as the result of thorough scholarship and as such should not be approached by those with inadequate knowledge of the subject or access to more thoughtful treatments of this subject (from either point of view). Moreover, it contains nothing that cannot be found from a perusal of the better-known atheist websites. For the atheist viewpoint I recommend infidels.org and for the Christian viewpoint tektonics.org.

One last note: what is really scary about this book is that the author actually teaches philosophy (at Northwest Arkansas Community College).

Rating:
Summary: The best intro to "atheism" that I've ever read
Review: This book is a plain-speaking summary, in question-and-answer format, of many common issues and ideas that are often collectively subsumed under the labels "atheism" and agnosticism. The author demonstrates that "atheism" is not the absence of anything; it's a positive world view. The book would make a great discussion-starter for skeptical young adults and also for us religion-free older folks looking for better ways to express our beliefs.