| Title | : | Atheism: A Very Short Introduction |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 0192804243 |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9780192804242 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Paperback |
| Number of Pages | : | 119 |
| Publication | : | First published January 1, 2003 |
Atheism: A Very Short Introduction Reviews
-
Atheism: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions #99), Julian Baggini
Atheism is often considered to be a negative, dark, and pessimistic belief which is characterised by a rejection of values and purpose and a fierce opposition to religion.
Atheism: A Very Short Introduction sets out to dispel the myths that surround atheism and show how a life without religious belief can be positive, meaningful, and moral.
It also confronts the failure of officially atheist states in the Twentieth Century.
The book presents an intellectual case for atheism that rests as much upon positive arguments for its truth as on negative arguments against religion.
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: ماه دسامبر سال 2005میلادی
عنوان: آتئیسم (خدا ناباوری)؛ نویسنده: جولیان باگینی؛ 2003، در 119ص؛ موضوع نوشتارهای نویسندگان بریتانیا - سده 21م
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 22/04/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی -
They do say that there are no atheists in foxholes, but foxes don’t go to confession either. So how do we know? If foxes DID go to confession, however...wavy lines on the screen - dissolve to :
THE FOX SKETCH
Mr Fox : Father, forgive me, I have sinned.
Priest: What did you do, son?
Mr Fox : Do you have to ask? Another six chickens this week. And, I had lustful thoughts. I looked at internet fox porn. You know I have an iPad, and that stuff is only three clicks away.
Priest: (Adopting an Irish accent, although he’s from Brixton, which any map will tell you is in London) And did you steal those chickens from the farmers?
Mr Fox : I did, father.
Priest: Now brother fox, is that not why the good God put Sainsburys and Asda and Tesco right here on this earth? It’s twenty Hail Maries for you.
Mr Fox : Fox ache, father.
Priest: And that’ll be enough of your bad language too. You know that chickens have souls as well as foxes. God loves the chickens.
Mr Fox : I bet he loves them better sauteed in butter and garnished with parsley.
Priest: That may be so, my theology doesn’t stretch that far.
Mr Fox : I’ll see you in the pub later then.
Priest: About nine.
Mr Fox : Twenty Hail Maries?
Priest: On your way
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BRITAIN AND AMERICA
In 1999 when I joined my former company I met this guy, I’ll call him Fraser because that was his name. The company at that time had about 100 employees. During one conversation he told me he was a committed Christian, and then, in a conspiratorial manner, he asked quietly, “How many other Christians do you think there are working here?” I had no idea. Fraser said “I think there’s six” and he counted them off, including a woman who was a Jehovah’s Witness. I thought this was a remarkable sociological observation – if you turned the clock back say 40 years the question would be the other way round – “How many people here aren’t Christians? I think six”. I get the idea (and I stand to be corrected) that in America it’s still that way, that if you meet the average American you assume they’re a Christian. And definitely, absolutely, don’t assume they’re an atheist!
THE OLD GOOD ATHEIST, BAD ATHEIST ROUTINE
In many ways this book is trying to de-fang atheism. You have your bad atheists Hitchens and Dawkins and they’re like
Don’t call me Scarface – my name is Dawkins. D A W K I N S. Say my name. Say it.
But Julian Baggini is the good atheist and he’s going to pour you tea and plump up the cushions and he’s already baked a quiche. So JB will explain that just because you’re an atheist it doesn’t mean you have no morals (er, do people think that?), it doesn’t mean you deny the existence of anything non-physical, like love (ah, so atheists can be in love, that’s nice), that it’s not parasitic on religion (huh? read that back), that it’s not itself a faith (that old chestnut), that just because you can’t be 100% sure there isn’t a God does not therefore mean you should call yourself an agnostic, and that it’s plain foolishness to say “I neither believe nor disbelieve that the Pope is a robot” (p86).
I BELIEVE THAT I WOULD MAKE A VERY BAD PHILOSOPHER (OUT OF COOKING INGREDIENTS, USING PASTA FOR HIS HAT)
Evidence is a maze, a winding labyrinth at the centre of which is a minefield. Consider – what is faith? Is it acceptance as true of something you have not yourself experienced? JB says : “it is not faith that tells me it is not a good idea to jump out of the windows of tall buildings”. I know what he means, we all know that this action would result in a considerable loss of dignity, but it’s hard to be scrupulous. I have never seen anyone jump to their death. I’ve read about such events, they’ve been in movies and tv shows I’ve seen, and everyone agrees the jumpers tend to die. But that all might be lies, just like the stuff about the moon landings in 1969. So I’m in the position of taking other people’s word for the inadvisability of high-level defenestration. is this a faith position? If so, 95% of everything we believe is faith. I haven’t been to the Amazon but all the maps tell me it’s there. I receive books and stuff from the Amazon, but I don’t think it’s the actual river sending me this stuff, I think it’s some people who live on the banks. But like I say, I’ve never been there.
STILL MY LUST IS UNSLAKED
What we have is a careful fairly interesting fairly irritating canter at 23 miles an hour through a number of philosophical issues surrounding atheism. E.g. what is evidence, can morality exist without some kind of God concept, etc. What we don’t have is a dis-assembling and a criticism of the conventional notions of God. But maybe that’s asking a little too much from a short introduction. Anyway, JB has briskly dealt with my mealymouthed agnostic self-identification. He looks me in the eye and he says you’re quacking, you’re waddling, you lay eggs, you’re a duck. It’s okay to be a duck. Quack quack. -
![Terence M - [back to abnormal :]](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/users/1652839090i/6658001._UX200_CR0,0,200,200_.jpg)
Comment: 20/07/2022
I read this as a paperback sometime prior to joining Goodreads in 2011, probably about 2003-05.
At the time I was "out" as an atheist, but still reading lots of books about atheism and religion. These days, as an agnostic atheist, I pay little or no attention to atheism per se, but I still read lots about religion.
I am more interested in why Christians need faith (ie, belief without evidence), to believe in their God and their religion, in spite of so much scientific evidence that contradicts their beliefs. -
พระเจ้ามีจริงมั้ยครับ
คำตอบของคำถามนี้ คนที่เชื่อว่ามี คุณก็จะถูกจัดอยู่ในผู้นับถือศาสนา เเต่ถ้าไม่ใช่ คุณก็จะถูกจัดอยู่ในชาวอเทวนิยม ตามนิยามที่เเบคกินีพูดถึงไว้
ถึงเเม้หนังสือจะชื่อว่าอเทวนิยม เเต่ผมว่าผู้ที่นับถือศาสนา (ที่มีความคิดความเชื่อถึงการมีอยู่ของพระเจ้า) เนื้อหาของหนังสือเล่มนี้จะทำให้ได้ลองกลับมาทบทวนรากฐานความเชื่อบางประการเกี่ยวกับพระเจ้า ส่วนใครที่นิยามตนเองว่าเป็นอเทวนิยม หนังสือเล่มนี้จะเป็นเหมือนคู่มือในการถกเถียงสำหรับชาวอเทวนิยมว่า ความคิดความเชื่อนี้มีเหตุมีผลอย่างไรเเละข้อสนับสนุนของมันที่เอาไว้ใช้ในการถกเถียงกับผู้ที่นับถือศาสนาเเละพระผู้เป็นเจ้า
เนื้อหาในภาพรวมอ่านไม่ยากมากนักครับ เเม้มันจะนับว่าเป็นหนังสือที่เป็นการถกเถียงเชิงปรัชญา เเต่ก็ไม่ได้ลงลึกมาก เเตะนู่นเเตะนี่พอให้เห็นภาพเเบะเพื่อสนับสนุนข้อถกเถียงมากกว่าการวิเคราะห์เเตกย่อยเนื้อหาเชิงปรัชญา
ในส่วนเนื้อหา ผมชอบเนื้อหาในช่วงกลางเล่มมาก ที่เล่าถึงว่าการที่ไม่เชื่อในพระเจ้า จะทำให้เราเป็นคนไร้ศีลธรรม หรือเป็นผู้ที่ไร้จุดหมายในชีวิตหรือไม่ ซึ่งเหตุผลที่เเบคกินีอธิบายในเล่มผมค่อนข้างเห็นด้วยครับ ดูมีน้ำหนักเเละไม่ใช่การต่อว่าศาสนาหรือยกตนข่มใครใดๆเลย
สิ่งที่เสียดายนิดๆคือ เเบคกินี เล่าถึงอเทวนิยมในฐานจากเรื่องการเชื่อในพระเจ้าหรือไม่ มากกว่าการเชื่อในศาสนาหรือไม่ ทำให้หากเรานับถือศาสนาที่ไม่ได้มีฐานในเรื่องการเชื่อในพระเจ้า เนื้อหาในเล่มนี้ก็ดูจะไม่ได้ทำงานอย่างเต็มที่เท่าไหร่ จนกลายเป็นว่าเเม้เราไม่ได้เชื่อในพระเจ้าเเต่เราก็ไม่ใช่ชาวอเทวนิยมเหมือนกัน เเต่เป็นกลุ่มที่สามที่ไม่ได้ถูกพูดถึงในเล่มนี้เลย หรือถ้าพูดง่ายๆหน่อยก็คือ ถ้านับถือพุทธ ผมว่าเล่มนี้จะไม่ได้ทำงานกับความคิดมากเท่ากับคนที่นับถือคริสต์หรืออิสลามที่ดูจะเป็นการถกเถียงอย่างตรงจุดเเละถึงเเก่นมากกว่า -
น่าจะเป็น VSI ที่อ่านง่ายอันดับต้นๆ แล้ว แบกกินีอธิบายคำถามต่างๆ เกี่ยวกับอเทวนิยม��ด้ดีมาก โดยเฉพาะเรื่องที่ว่าถ้าเราไม่นับถือศาสนา เราจะเป็นคนดีหรือรู้ได้ยังไงว่าอะไรดีหรือไม่ดี อยากให้ประเด็นพวกนี้เป็นที���พูดถึงในสังคมไทยมากขึ้น อยากให้เราถกเถียงเรื่องนี้ด้วยเหตุผลและปัญญาได้สักวันนึง
-
***** Worth a look for the Inquisitive *****
I appreciated Bagginis moderate stance in writing this short introduction. He even dedicates a subsection of the book to 'Militant Atheism', which he personally takes distrust to.
The reason I appreciate this particular aspect of Atheism: A Very Short Introduction, is mainly because the stance seems to be headed by some pretty dogmatic individuals as of late. Christopher Hitchens death has done nothing to slow his popularity with the online community (just check the plethora of YouTube videos dedicated to the man and how many views they receive) spreading his particular brand of Atheism, and Dawkins / Harris have a particularly strong base to this day. As such, my idea of the 'New Atheist' movement has been shaky to say the least.
Despite not naming names like I just did, Baggini critiques this militancy regardless. Opting out of the 'religious believers are brain damaged' argument, he takes his role seriously in introducing individuals to the idea of Atheism and the arguments it presents. He delves a little into the history of atheism, but mainly chooses to stick to speaking on arguments that have been put forth for the belief in a godless universe. As such this 100 or so page introduction manages to be quite an informative read.
My only criticsm as someone who generally identifies as Agnostic is Bagginis dismissal of the stance. He puts forward an argument that follows:
"We tend to think that the mere introduction of grounds for doubt is enough to warrant the suspension of our beliefs. If you cant be sure, don't have an opinion. But this maxim cannot be followed. We cannot be sure of anything, save perhaps for the fact of our own existence. So if we are not justified in believing anything we are not sure of, we would have to suspend belief about everything."
I found this statement hilarious when reading it. For me, I simply choose to suspend my belief in perhaps one of the biggest questions the human species has put forward. "Does God exist?"
That's it.
In my opinion it is entirely possible to isolate your agnosticism to just this topic. The proof? The fact that here I am, a fully functioning Agnostic conducting myself as any other person would. My ability to still carry myself independently on a daily basis is proof against this claim. If I had to suspend belief about everything because of my suspension of belief regarding God, then I would be a blithering idiot wandering my room unable to make the most simple decisions, or bring myself to conclusions regarding my most basic beliefs.
I acknowledge that All I Know Is That I Know Nothing. I find the modest approach the most sensible in most cases (including this topic). However, that doesn't make me indecisive on everything. It simply guides me and acts as a placeholder when making a firm decision on big questions seems a little premature.
Baggini mentions that the existence of Atheists out in the world that have lead fulfilling lives is a good example of there being no need for God to make all "this" worth living for. I would argue that leading a fulfilling life with a suspension of belief is perhaps greater proof that we need not make bold claims toward such gargantuan topics. We can still lead lives that are equally fulfilling without needing to (emphasise on the word "need") plant a flag firmly in either camp.
Having said this, I am young and still very much behind in my understanding of this subject. So I look forward to continuing my journey in understanding this topic, seeing as with each book I read on the subject, more questions are raised in my head upon completion, than before I started said text. . .
. . .typical. -
This was really something. I can't say it was a page-turner, but it was very well researched. That's why I gave it three stars. Some of it wasn't exactly the most coherently written, but overall it was very intelligently written (often being too intelligently written and philosophy-based for me!). One thing that did bother me was the dispersion of pictures throughout the book to illustrate his ideas (for example, a picture of Albert Camus when referencing him) that ultimately just felt cluttering and distracting for me. So I just ended up ignoring them after about forty pages.
To get down to the essence of it, this book was very informative despite being so informative that it was often hard to appropriately digest everything being thrown at me. But I did take away some useful things, and one of those is that atheism is best described as being pro-naturalist, not anti-religious as it is often perceived as being. Baggini is very respectful of religion and even provides references to other religious works for those he has not convinced of the higher rationality of atheism. He also attacks dogmatism and fundamentalism in all ideological groups, including the radical atheists he refers to as "militant atheists."
So this guy Julian Baggini is very educated and respectful, and that makes this a great resource. My only advice before reading this is to read up on philosophy, especially rationalism, humanism, naturalism, etc. -
This book is EXCELLENT. I highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in atheism and the logic and rational thinking that goes with it. I only give five stars to books where every page is worth reading. This is definitely one of those books.
-
God is just one of the things that atheists don’t believe in, it just happens to be the thing that, for historical reasons, gave them their name.
Atheism: A very short introduction Julian Baggini
Julian Baggini’s short introduction to atheism is an excellent run down of the basic principles and arguments for atheism. The strongest point for this book is its emphasis on the positive aspects of atheism rather than spiralling into an anti-religious diatribe.
Atheism is not a faith position because it is belief in nothing beyond which there is evidence and argument for; religious belief is a faith position because it goes beyond what there is evidence or argument for. That is why faith requires something “special: that ordinary belief does not.
Atheism: A very short introduction Julian Baggini
This short tome covers the arguments for viewing the world through a naturalistic outlook, understanding that morality is possible without supernatural praise or punishment, and that one can still have a great deal of mystery and wonder about life and the universe without adding supernatural claims to what is already awe inspiring.
Baggini also takes an interesting stand against militant atheism. He views the closed and reactionary world of militant atheist to be just as harmful as religious fundamentalism even if he does have some sympathy for their goals. He argues that change can only come from open communication and understanding.
Religion will recede not by atheists shouting condemnation but by the quiet voice of reason slowly making itself heard.
Atheism: A very short introduction Julian Baggini -
I picked up this book at B&N and was genuinely curious and excited to read it. While the substance of the book was good - provided a discussion of background, history, atheist views and arguments re: morality, the meaning of life, among other things - I found the tone to be condescending. It felt as though I was reading a book for other atheists, that I was eavesdropping on a conversation I was not invited to. (I don't believe that was the author's intent, and I am sure there are many theist books that cause the same reaction in others.) By the end of the book I was bored and ready to move on to something else.
At the end, there is a helpful and extensive reading list with with a lot of suggestions, so I may pick up one of those. I would recommend this book to others for its intended purpose: a brief insight into Atheism. I am giving the book 4 stars for substance, readability, and resources for future research, though I personally had a 2-star reading experience. -
As a follower of Christ, I think, the book is well-written. I thoroughly enjoyed the style of writing. If you have not read about Atheism, I'd recommend this introductory. A better book on Atheism would be by J.L Mackie, "Miracle of Theism."
I grew up as an Atheist but converted as a Follower of Christ, I revisit my old beliefs. The arguments in the book are good for a short introduction, whether Theist or Atheist, should read and be informed.
Deus Vult
Gottfried -
I really enjoyed reading this short but robust exploration of what Nigel Warburton calls "the best explanation" for life, the universe and everything. Some of the points made I have reasoned my way to under my own steam, but I can't deny it took many years to really get past a long dark teatime of the soul, and feel completely comfortable in my atheist skin.
I was raised in a Christian household, but while I love many of the stories and no doubt share many of the values, the religion never took. I believe there is no God or gods. The notion of there being a god makes no sense to me on any level: intellectually, emotionally, intuitively, experientially, or physically. Any one or two of those things would have been enough for me to embrace some form of religion, but I have felt or known none of them.
That said, I do disagree with Julian Baggini in one thing, and that's the life force or energy that links for me into thoughts of souls and ghosts. Though I don't necessarily conceive of souls and ghosts in a mainstream / majority way. My thoughts may be simply an effect of my consciousness feeling that it is more than my physical body. It may be the energy of which I'm partly made. Physics tells us that no matter or energy in the universe is ever really lost, but only changes. When we die, it is clear what happens to our matter as it changes and returns to the universe - but what happens to our energy, our life force? I am not a great believer in immortal ongoing consciousness, but in some circumstances maybe our life energy doesn't change into something completely unrecognisable when we die.
{ponders...}
Anyway! I found clarity and comfort, wisdom and reinforcement in this little tome, and I am grateful for it. -
While I agreed with what Baggini was saying, the tone of this was overwhelmingly condescending, which is why most atheists gets a bad rap 😅
-
Il tema dell'ateismo mi sta molto interessando negli ultimi tempi: sono atea da quando avevo sedici anni, ma mi piaceva l'idea di mettere un po' in ordine quello in cui credo, e leggere posizioni ben argomentate e pacate senza necessariamente ricadere nell'aggressività tipica di un certo tipo di ateismo che si trova in giro - e che qui viene chiamato 'ateismo militante'. Questo è il motivo per cui ho comprato questo libro.
E cosa ci ho trovato? Uno dei filosofi contemporanei che mi stanno più interessando negli ultimi tempi, che in centocinquanta pagine neanche:
1) Condensa la differenza tra le varie forme di materialismo;
2) Argomenta perfettamente che l'ateismo non è una professione di fede;
3) Smonta la scommessa di Pascal;
4) Stende presupposti su come costruire un'etica atea;
5) Parla di quando è nato l'ateismo;
6) Spiega come fascismo e nazismo c'entrino ben poco con l'essere "senza Dio" e per quanto riguarda il comunismo, quello era l'ultimo dei suoi problemi;
7) Smonta velocemente e limpidamente gli pseudo-argomenti a favore dell'esistenza di Dio (tutti notoriamente fallaci, ma ho apprezzato in particolare la distruzione completa dell'argomento cosmologico, che mi sta particolarmente sulle balle, anche se pure quello teleologico non scherza);
8) Illustra ciò che veramente giustifica la credenza di Dio in molti credenti;
9) Cita in bibliografia tantissime opere filosofiche di varia natura;
E questo è solo ciò che ho visto riguardando velocemente gli appunti che ho preso.
Il libro sarà anche breve, ma non è sicuramente facile: è denso e ricchissimo di contenuti, ed è scorrevole solo nel senso in cui vi fate scivolare addosso quello che non volete perdere tempo a rileggere, oppure se sapete già sostanzialmente tutto quello che vi dice. A meno che non stiate riflettendo da anni e anni su temi come ateismo, filosofia morale e fisicalismo, sicuramente questo libro avrà qualcosa da dirvi, e vi susciterà riflessioni che potranno durarvi minuti e minuti, anche se siete già d'accordo con lui nelle premesse.
Insomma, bellissimo. -
You know those rides at the amusement park with the little measurements beside the gate, and the sign reading "You must be this tall to ride"?
This book (and
50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God) have become that height marker for me when it comes to discussing atheism. There is so much ill will, pretentious ignorance and straw man caricatures when religious people try to discuss atheism, that I've pretty much stopped engaging in discussions unless people can prove a minimal baseline of empathetic reasoning.
This is the punchiest comprehensive examination of the topic that I've seen, although it could have omitted some of the references to historical arguments - useful for the budding philosopher, a little distracting for the uninitiated reader.
Believers: We'd love to engage in respectful conversation, but to do so you must not be entirely ignorant of our perspective (a fault that we largely do not reflect); you must be at least this tall to ride. -
This is an excellent book on atheism and humanism, exploring atheism and related issues from the arguments for that cause to morals, and the meaning of life.
It is very well organized, with a humble tone, and without any lecturing.
A very short introduction but it thoroughly covers the subject without neither hasty description nor tedious discussion. This great book by the philosopher
Julian Baggini is divided into these chapters:
1. What is atheism?
2. The case for atheism
3. Atheist ethics
4. Meaning and purpose
5. Atheism in history
6. Against religion?
7. Conclusion
Ant it ends - as usual with this good series V.S.I. - with a selection of references for further reading.
It's a wonderful book: short, deep, logical, well reasoned, but very tolerant, humanistic and open-minded. -
รวมประเด็นสำคัญ ๆ ไว้เกี่ยวกับความเชื่ออเทวนิยมไว้ว่า จริง ๆ แล้วอเทวนิยมคืออะไร อเทวนิยมทำให้คนมีศีลธรรมได้มั้ย (มีการเชื่อมโยงไปถึงหลักปรัชญาที่น่าสนใจ)
แต่การเป็นอเทวนิยมก็ทำให้ดูเป็นคนใจแคบไปนิดหนึง เพราะเราต้องการแต่เหตุผลและหลักฐานที่สมเหตุสมผลในการจะมาถกเถียงกล่าวอ้างอะไรสักอย่าง (ก็คือยึดติดกับวิทยาศาสตร์มากกว่า) แต่หนังสือเล่มก็ดีเฟนด์ตัวเองไว้ได้ว่าทำไมถึงควรเป็นเช่นนั้น
ป.ล.มีอยู่จุดหนึงที่อ่านแล้วโคตรอิมแพคเลยคือหน้าที่มีรูปทหารในบังเกอร์ ลองอ่านแคปชั่นข้างล่างดู -
I suppose if I had gone into this with an incredibly simplistic view of atheism (which, admittedly, many people have) I might have learned some stuff.
-
หนังสือบอกเล่าเหตุผลของชาวอเทวนิยม เพื่อให้คนทั่วไปเข้าใจมากขึ้น
หนังสือเป็นการเขียนอภิปรายทั่วไปที่ใช้ภาษาง่าย ๆ แต่เข้าใจยากเพราะต้องเนื้อหาที่มีความเป็นนามธรรมสูง ไม่ใช่แค่การถกเถียงในเรื่องความเชื่อทางศาสนาหรือการมีอยู่ของพระเจ้าอย่างเดียว แต่ยังมีประเด็นให้ขบคิดเกี่ยวกับความดีงาม ศีลธรรม และปรัชญาของชีวิตด้วย
ถ้าชอบอะไรที่อ่านแล้ว 'ดูฉลาด' เล่มนี้เหมาะมาก (ปากเสียอีกละ) -
อ่านได้เรื่อย ๆ และเข้าใจง่ายกว่าที่คิดไว้เยอะ (แม้จะมีปนปรัชญาให้ขบคิดหน่อย ๆ) เชื่อว่าหลายคนปัจจุบันก็ค่อนข้างมีจุดยืนไปทางอเทวนิยมอยู่แล้ว การจำกัดความว่า 'Atheist' เชื่ออะไรแบบไหนบ้างและมีคติการดำเนินชีวิตยังไงนี่คงอธิบายยาก แต่แบ็กกินีกล่าวถึงเรื่องนี้แบบกว้าง ๆ และไม่ได้โจมตีกลุ่มคนที่เป็นเทวนิยมเลย แนะนำค่ะ เปิดมุมมองเรามาก อ่านจบแล้วเหมือนมีประกาย ปิ๊ง ขึ้นมาบนหัวเลย 💡🌟
-
It's a succinct read so far, brings new insight of atheism to me. I am quite convinced by the author that morality doesn't call for a deity existence, but oddly I find myself more favorable of agnosticism after reading this book. Will add more comments after I finish it.
-
A dry read and not the easy to share with religious family members type of book that I had originally hoped for but not bad overall.
-
It’s apparent—but only through self-admission—that Mr. Julian Baggini is an atheist. You wouldn’t necessarily reach that conclusion just by reading his excellent little book, Atheism: A Very Short Introduction. He adopts a comfortable, open style of writing, with a distinct leaning towards posing and answering common-sense questions. And while it’s clear that he does not set out to trash religion and faith, he does debunk several myths surrounding atheism.
By page 3, readers are clear on Mr. Baggini’s definition of atheism: it is the belief that there is no God or gods. He further explains that at the core of atheism is naturalism, that is, a belief that there is only the natural world and not any supernatural ones. Closely related is the notion of physicalism, which adds the further claim that “this world is essentially physical in nature." Naturalist atheists may or may not be physicalists.
After defining what atheism is, the author is equally quick to debunk the commonly-held perceptions “that atheists believe there is no God and no morality; or no God and no meaning to life; or again no God and no human kindness.” Much like other beliefs, however, atheism is compatible with, and capable of, positive views of other aspects of life.
Though these can be subtle and thorny issues to debunk, Baggini sets out to make a positive case for atheism through a combination of argument, evidence, and rhetoric, the latter being the odd one out of the three. Whereas arguments come in a variety of good and bad flavors, and evidence, too, can be good or bad, rhetoric is “simply the use of language to persuade,” and as Baggani cautions, this persuasion can be towards truth or falsehood.
This little book is a fabulous, intellectual feast for atheists, agnostics, and theists alike. Its tone is balanced, respectful, and undramatic. Mr. Baggini untangles many complex concepts with competence and credibility. Regardless of readers’ religious persuasion, Atheism: A Very Short Introduction will inform and educate in the best way.
On a general note, the “Very Short Introduction” series of books may be the best-kept literary secret by Oxford University Press. Despite my frequent descriptor of “little book,” all the ones I have read thus far have packed a deceptive wallop of erudite and cerebral heft. Subjects covered range from Anarchism to Hollywood, and Indian Philosophy to the Vikings. Physically, the books are attractive in size, cover art, and typeset and…sigh!...it appears that I have begun another collection… -
Rather than simply an introduction, this is more like a small book arguing for atheism. It's one of the better ones I've read. The author is very unusual in his approach of a) not being hostile to religious believers, b) not dwelling on medieval atrocities, and c) calling out "militant" dogmatic atheism as antithetical to the core values of atheism itself.
His explanations and arguments are clear and novel (to me) in many cases. It is dense though, and I had to reread several pages to fully understand what was being presented.
Highly recommended. -
Julian Baggini is a very nice atheist, unlike me.
Even though as a militant atheist I disagree with some of his arguments, I can still respect his line of reasoning. Though I firmly believe the religious folk do not deserve this level of kindness.
But alas I love the topic of atheism and even though there wasn't a lot of religion-bashing in this one, it still impressed me with its simple introductions to atheistic philosophy. -
i’l defo read this at some point but i actually forgot i picked it up which shows just how much attention i’m giving it rn
