An Intelligent Person's Guide to Atheism (Intelligent Person's Guides)

Rating:
Summary: thoughtful, enjoyable, but sidesteps the issue
Review: Daniel Harbour doesn't actually discuss whether God exists or not. The crux of his argument is that religious beliefs are a manifestation of one's larger world view, of which he describes two models: the "Spartan Meritocracy" where things are only accepted as truth after being conclusively proven, and the "Baroque Monarchy" which assumes that received wisdom is true even in the face of contrary evidence. His discussion of these worldviews and their effects on society is very interesting.

My frustration with the book is summed up in the first paragraph:
"I shall not try to prove atheism true nor theism false. Rather, I want to show that atheism is 'superior' to theism." In the realm of science and empirical testing, a premise that can be demonstrably proven is more valuable than one that is purely theoretical. And in Harbour's view, all theories of God remain in the realm of the unproven -- "it is a fact about God that he [sic] has never proved Himself a viable cog, nut, or bolt in any theory of how the world is." This one sentence dismissal of the whole question of God's existence is the cornerstone of Harbour's entire argument -- because God's existence has not been "proven", belief in Him is merely speculative and therefore "inferior" to atheism.

I often feel that Christians make good arguments for why their beliefs are comforting, but not necessarily why they're true. In the same way, I feel that Harbour has convincingly demonstrated the "superiority" of a skeptical worldview. But this does not make it true.

Rating:
Summary: The Opinion of a Theist:
Review: One day while browsing in Borders, I picked up this relatively slim account on the "superiority" of atheism over theism. I am a Catholic, but I'm willing to hear people out if I see that they are not belligerent with their opinions. I can say that Mr. Harbour is obviously very intelligent and discusses the issues straightforwardly and with civility, but that the book did not sway me in my own beliefs. However, I was at least glad to see that the author does not attempt to prove atheism or theism, but rather makes his case as to why one is inherently better than the other (in his view). This is, of course, the way to go. The last thing anyone wants to do is sit down and listen to a dry and futile series of logical refutations. That being said, I'll go through some of my own reactions to the material.

In a nutshell, the idea here is that atheism is logically superior to theism because atheism begins with the least number of assumptions while theism upholds basic axioms (like the existence of God, angels, etc.) even in the face of what is interpreted (from the atheistic standpoint, mind you!) as logically damning evidence. The only problem I have here is a rather big one: theism (religion in general) is not about assumptions at all. To say that religion is about positing the existence of God and sins and heaven and all the rest is to miss the point. Sure, that's what it says when you read Aquinas or the Papal encyclicals, but such abstract philosophizing is not the stock and core of religion. In other words, we cannot confuse religion with philosophy. To put it succinctly, religion is practice; it is experiential in nature. Not concerned with ordinary belief or unbelief, religion proceeds to reveal the meaningful life by getting at something until that something is penetrated, absorbed and made known in its transcendent truth. In other words, I don't posit the existence of God and then go pray to a cross, I go pray to the cross so that God can posit himself to me! And what of all the philosophy that surrounds religion? Thomas Aquinas, after nearly finishing the Summa, said "I have now seen things that have made all I have written but a piece of straw." So that's philosophy for you: pieces of straw.

Mr. Harbour proceeds to go through various common logical arguments for the existence of God, all of which I too dismiss as trite and useless. I don't tend to pay much attention to anything that attempts to validate (or invalidate) the existence of God, but there is one interesting comment that the author makes. At one point he says that it might be possible for a new theory to arise that incorporates God as an integral part. He quickly dismisses the possibility as unlikely, but if it were to occur then God would need to be taken seriously because God would function critically in our logical view of existence. The problem here is the whole approach that I think is typical of many atheists: that God is to be treated as just another piece of the puzzle. If we don't need Him, then just discard Him. Saying that to a religious person is like saying to an atheist "well, if you don't see any point to life, just kill yourself." A religious person does not define God and then proceed to place Him in the context of existence. That would be quite absurd...He is God, after all. Rather, God is forever without definition and to try to define him would be very prideful on the part of man.

Fortunately, Mr. Harbour does manage to get away from theory and into the realm of pragmatism. Perhaps, after all, religion is simply capable of making people more happy than science. Here Harbour claims that science has done a far better job in aiding our understanding than religion has in making people happy. Much to my dismay (but perhaps not without some justification), Harbour proceeds, with history as his ally, to show that religion has been more detrimental to society than helpful. Sure, he claims, perhaps there have been a minority of good religious people, but by and large the whole thing is a sham. My objection to this is two-fold: 1) there are plenty of historians who would say just the opposite, that religion was critical in the history of society; 2) only I can be the judge of what will make me happy (ie existentialism). Even when it comes to "true Christianity," Harbour argues that the historical Jesus was no different from countless other holy men and therefore not worthy of special attention...weak!

Underlying all this is Harbour's constant attempt to pit science against religion. Science, he says, is a completely different worldview that has clearly been of more practical value. Even if science were a different worldview, I would argue that science has done nothing to make our lives more meaningful in the truest sense. Sure, we've cured diseases and made life more comfortable, but has that made our lives more meaningful? Did medieval peasants live a less meaningful life than we do today? Nope. Suffering is part of life, and science tries to stop it. That doesn't mean science is bad, it's just not ultimate in the sense that it doesn't address the heights of human existence.

To top it off, Harbour says something rather surprising. Is then life meaningless? Yes, he says. But that's not a bad thing, for even the notion of meaning is without meaning. This, I propose, is then the existential question we must all ask of ourselves and the one that no one else can answer for us: Is Harbour's an adequate approach to the problems of life? Quite frankly, I think that it is not.

Rating:
Summary: Good but read SB 1 or God by Maddox
Review: This is a very good argument, uses the authors biased approach of Spartan Meritocracy, a bit weak. The other reviewers have explained this part. This one sided approach leaves the bullet in the hands of the creationist due to many openings of being one dimensional. The creationist has an argument for every theory here. The best book that I have ever read in a very entertaining piece written for all age groups and peoples is SB 1 or God. That book uses real techniques such as the FBI's fingerprint writing style to dissasemble liars. Moses gets turned upside down and wrung out with invention. Much more from a must read. Author is Karl Mark Maddox.