Product Description
Interdisciplinary in its approach, "Godless Communists" opens a new avenue of inquiry into the religious culture of modern-day Russia and offers a fresh interpretation of early Soviet efforts to create an atheistic society. Basing his work on extensive archival research, Husband shows that religion was not merely an expression of gullibility and ignorance but a firmly entrenched system for ordering family and community relationships. The Bolsheviks' efforts to abolish the church failed because they underestimated how tightly religious beliefs were woven into the fabric of the Russians' daily lives. "Godless Communists" makes clear how developments between 1917 and 1932 shaped the attitudes toward religion and atheism that endure in Russia today. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Religious Emancipation, Soviet Style!
William B. Husband's "Godless Communists": Atheism and Society in Soviet Russia, 1917-1932 is a study of the recently formed communist government and its attempts to obliterate religious practices within its borders.It is also an analysis of how everyday Russians responded to their government's attempted demolition of their religious life and culture.In his introduction, Husband argues (p. xii) that atheism was absolutely vital for the new communist state.While understanding the importance of atheism within communism, Husband later points out, in his introduction, that, "Deeply embedded in Russian culture, Orthodoxy shaped rituals of hospitality and celebrations, rites of passage, the ordering of daily and seasonal routines, and household organization" (p. xiii).Clearly then, atheism was a key part of Communist ideology.

Covering the period from the November revolution through 1932, Husband's text illustrates the shifting and challenging relationship between church and state. In chapter one, "Belief and Nonbelief in Prerevolutionary Russia," he describes pre-revolution Russian religious life and asserts that customs, rituals and rites were more important than Orthodox doctrine in defining Russian culture. Next, in "Revolutions and Antireligious Policy" Husband describes the prevailing conditions in post-revolution Russia regarding the states attempts to end the influence of the church.Here he shows that Communist doctrine did not overnight change Russia's interconnectedness with the Orthodox faith. Rather, it revealed how individuals responded differently to repressive regimes. While there were extremes of both ultra-religious and ultra-anti-religious, the real participants were everyday citizens and local officials.

Husband then takes chapter four, "Materialism and the Secularization of Society" and chapter five, "Soviet Family Values" to describe how everyday citizen responded to the state and how that state attempted to shape post-revolutionary culture and society. In chapter four, Husband illustrates the state's attempts to change religious holidays into secular holidays.Just as the Roman Catholic Empire had difficultly weeding out pagan practices during the early middle ages, Soviets had similar difficultly turning the religious rites and rituals into secular ones.The state's successfulness at secularization often varied from region to region. The degree of the state's limited success was well described in Husband's analysis regarding "quasi-religious" rituals, such as funerals.Husband illustrates that even Lenin's funeral had some religious overtones, "His body was not cremated in the revolutionary faction but embalmed, displayed for forty days...and ultimately housed in a mausoleum" (p. 96).When the most anti-religious leader had religious overtones represented in his funeral, obviously religion was not promptly removed from Russian society.

Chapter five approaches the family and the individual.Here Husband concludes the individual, "not only synthesized competing interpretations of belief in the supernatural, but what is more important, they blended traditional with revolutionary values" (p.128-129).This "blending" was the major way individuals' accommodated their faith with the ideology imposed on them by the state.

Nowhere else is this central point of accommodation more demonstrated than in chapter six, which serves as his conclusion.In chapter five, "Resistance, Circumvention, Accommodation," he summaries the central issues, in a topical and chronological order, surrounding "repression and resistance," "resistance and retribution," "revolutionary legality and circumvention" and "accommodation and indifference" from the post-revolution period all the way through 1932 regarding Russian religious practices and their interactions with the state.

Regarding his sources, Husband uses a full allotment of primary and secondary sources.Primary sources include: police records, newspapers (Bezbozhnik, Antireligioznik), and contemporary letters, publications and books.Many of his sources came from several state (former USSR) archives, largely citing the State Museum of History of Religion in St. Petersburg and in chapter one, he relies heavily on secondary sources (journals/scholarly/publications/books) relating to Russian social and cultural history during the period.Additionally, he includes a useful epilogue, glossary, selected bibliography and index.

Regarding objectivity, Husband approaches his topic with an open mind.He offers contrary evidence to his thesis when he included evidence showing the level of resistance by some participants, but later proves that accommodation was the stronger form of action among individuals and soviet society during this period.While objective in his arguments, he was selective in his work.Religions and ethnics groups historically had been a very significant part of Russian history.While not the dominant religion, Judaism, Islam, Non-Orthodox Christianity and other faiths were noticeably diverse in the cultural makeup of its society.Yet, they go largely unrecorded in "Godless Communists."While Husband did illuminate on some of the splinter movements within the Russian Orthodox Church, his study, more or less, is solely about Russian Orthodoxy.This makes his title very misleading.If someone is interested in learning about the government treatment towards Jews or Muslims, during the early period of communism, they will be misguided by his title.

Despite its misleading title, William B. Husband's "Godless Communists": Atheism and Society in Soviet Russia, 1917-1932 offers a deeper understanding of how everyday Russians responded to their states desires to diminish the role of religion within their larger society and more specifically, their individual lives.As Husband successfully argues, average individual stakeholders and not the militant "Godless" or "Godly" ultimately determined the policies and realities of religious practices within Soviet Russia.While a work of history, "Godless Communist" should also be considered as a work of sociology, especially considering the importance Husband places on the individual regarding his or her decision to reject, accommodate or accept indoctrinations of cultural values and beliefs.

William Husband's writing style can be best described as plainly academic and historical.Yet, he is able to offer a sociological flair in his writing.This is especially true with his description of processes an individual undertook in choosing to accommodate his or her faith.Or in how an individual became indifferent towards it and the potential economic and social ramifications in his or her decision. Additionally, his writing style is also very egalitarian in the sense that he is writing history, comparatively, from the "bottom up" of the societal scale, instead of retelling the religious conflicts between the party elites who opposed all forms of religiosity in a Soviet state, such as the League of the Militant Godless or the activist clergy of the Orthodox Church defending their faith. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

IF THERE'S A GOD, WHY ARE THERE ATHEISTS? by R.C. Sproul
If There's a God, Why Are there Atheists? is theologian R.C. Sproul's revised version of his book The Psychology of Atheism. In it, Sproul explores the psychological motives for atheism, and deals with the arguments of Freud, Marx, Feuerbach and Nietzsche.

This book is divided into two sections. In the first, "The Battlefield: Belief and Unbelief", Sproul introduces the debate over theism, the tension of disagreement, and the psychology of theism. Sproul is thoroughly fair and balanced here; one could hardly tell that he is a Christian. He discusses the arguments of Freud, Marx, Feuerbach and Nietzsche, and makes this interesting point: these men never argued against the existence of God. Rather, they presumed that God does not exist and built their arguments against religion on that assumption.

In part two, "The Psychology of Unbelief", Sproul discusses the Judeo-Christian God. Such an omnipotent and holy God, he argues, is not one we would seek out to gratify our psychological needs. Sproul also delves into religion as man's flight from God rather than his quest for God, and how because of original sin, people are naturally God's enemies.

If There's a God, Why Are there Atheists? is a rather short book (150 pages) and is a quick, mostly engaging read. Only in a few places does it drag. In it, Sproul makes some insightful, thought-provoking points. Recommended to believers interested in the subject or dealing with doubt, and to open-minded unbelievers.

RECOMMENDED

impressive
This is not one of RC's more popular titles, but I found it to be great! Its an eye opening look at the psychology of athiesm. ... Read more

Product Description
Calmly engaging the philosophical arguments posed by best-selling authors Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins, and to a lesser extent, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, Gregory Ganssle's A Reasonable God is a nuanced, charitable, and philosophically well-informed defense of the existence of God. Eschewing the rhetoric and provocative purposes of the New Atheists, Ganssle instead lucidly and objectively analyzes each argument on its own philosophical merits, to see how persuasive they prove to be. Surveying topics including the relationship between faith and reason, moral arguments for the existence of God, the Darwinian theories of the origin of religion, he pays particular attention to, and ultimately rejects, what he determines is the strongest logical argument against the existence of god posed by the new atheists, put forth by Dawkins: that our universe resembles more of what an atheistic universe would be like than it does with what a theistic universe would be like. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

Clear, Accessible, and Fair Critique of the New Face of Atheism
Greg Ganssle, a philosopher affiliated with Yale University and the Rivendell Institute, has produced a careful, accessible, and fair critique of the arguments offered by the "new atheists": Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens. One virtue of the book is that it seeks "...to take a cooler, more reflective approach in engaging the nature of the case they offer for the truth of atheism (p. 177)." Ganssle successfully accomplishes this task. My favorite portion of the book is the final three chapters, which cover Darwinian stories of religion, three arguments for atheism offered by the new atheists which pretty clearly fail, and one which is, according to Ganssle, the strongest argument on offer from this group of authors.

Ganssle reconstructs this strongest argument, from Dawkins, in the following way:

(1) A theistic universe would be different than an atheistic universe.
(2) Our universe fits better with an atheistic universe than with a theistic universe.
(3) Therefore, our universe is more likely to be an atheistic universe than it is to be a theistic universe.

(1) seems to be on solid ground, and Dawkins argues that the long and slow development of complex biological life supports (2). Ganssle agrees, which means that this particular feature of our world fits better within an atheistic universe than a theistic one. However, he then argues that there are 4 other major elements of our universe that undermine (2) and fit better within a theistic universe:
i. The universe is ordered and susceptible to rational investigation.
ii. The existence of conscious beings with intentional mental states.
iii. The existence of beings with significant, libertarian, free agency.
iv. The existence of objective moral obligations.

He points out that there are numerous philosophers who would reject the very existence of one or more of these elements, and others that seek to give purely naturalistic accounts of them. But if these elements exist, they fit better within a theistic universe even if naturalistic accounts can be given. To see why this is the case, read this book. It is worth the time, even for someone familiar with many of these arguments.

A Refreshingly Respectful Critique of the New Atheists Case Against God
In "A Reasonable God" Ganssle addresses many of the arguments put forth by today's so-called "New Atheists" -- particularly Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens -- from a philosopher's perspective.His goal is modest: he is not making a comprehensive case *for* the existence of God.Rather, he is offering a critique of the claims made by the New Atheists for the non-existence of God. In so doing, his tone is refreshingly respectful as he treats these authors and theirarguments fairly and honestly.

After carefully laying out his critique, Ganssle concludes that the case against God as presented by the New Atheists is not strong enough to worry one who already believes in God, nor ought it be persuasive enough to convince one who is first considering belief in God. The modest goal of showing that belief in God is reasonable has been met.

an excellent book
readers of all backgrounds will learn much from this engaging and accessible volume -- an excellent book! ... Read more

Product Description
Although most historians have sought the roots of atheism in the history of "free thought," Alan Charles Kors contends that attacks on the existence of God were generated above all by the vitality and controversies of orthodox theistic culture itself. In this first volume of a planned two-volume inquiry into the sources and nature of atheism, he shows that orthodox teachers and apologists in seventeenth-century France were obliged by the logic of their philosophical and pedagogical systems to create many models of speculative atheism for heuristic purposes. Unusual in its broad sampling of the religious literature of the early-modern learned world, this book reveals that the "great fratricide" among bitterly competing schools of Aristotelian, Cartesian, and Malebranchist Christian thought encouraged theologians to refute each other's proofs of God and to depict the ideas of their theological opponents as atheistic. Such "fratricide" was not new in the history of Christendom, but Kors demonstrates that its influence was dramatically amplified by the expanding literacy of the seventeenth century. Capturing the attention of the reading public, theological debate provided intellectual grounds for the disbelief of the first generation of atheistic thinkers. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

magisterial and indispensable
It is a great shame that this indispensable study is not readily available in our libraries; there are not many copies of it to be found on the second-hand market and prices are prohibitive. A recent personal communication from the author brought some excellent news: a second AND a third volume are forthcoming! ... Read more

Customer Reviews (41)

Heavy
Started reading this. Got about 1/2 through after about 2 months checked out at the library. Hard book. I know it's quality. I just can't get myself to finish it. I'll come back to it soon. I really appreciate Dr. Zacharias' approach to this issue. One thing that is helpful, after listening to a lot of his podcasts and reading a few of his other books, you start to seem common themes and stories repeated in the different media forms. Hearing things over and over certainly does help to make the point more clear and helps me remember the facts and arguments more.

Excellent Work!
Ravi Zacharias is more than qualified to discuss this subject and he does so in a clear, scholarly manner that dismantles piece-by-piece an extremely faulty, and dangerous, worldview like atheism.I highly recommend this book, and any other by Zacharias.He's a great apologetic defender of the Christian faith.

There are many great statements in this book, so read it with a highlighter.One that comes to mind is: "Knowledge and education in the hands of one who claims no higher accountability or authority than his own individuality is power in the hands of a fool."Well said and true!

The one-star ratings (and rantings) by some here demonstrate just how close Zacharias has gotten to the heart of the foolish worldview of atheism.Atheism is truly a "Shattered Visage."

Buy the book and read it for yourself.

Important Material
This book first went to print in 1990. I have the updated version from 2004 retitled, The Real Face of Atheism. To sit down with a book from Ravi Zacharias is one of my quiet pleasures in life.

In this book, one of my favorite's, he brilliantly dissects the central issue of our time what do we do with God. The God of the Bible. The first couple of chapters is a recent history of the rise of atheism. The influence from Freud, Nietzsche, Darwin, Galileo,[although the man was a strong theist, his discoveries rocked the church, temporarily] on the events of the 20th century, and the repercussions since then.

Ravi can draw the dots and connect them like he has an anointing from God to do that. He has a passion for this subject that I hope gets out to a broader audience. They say in science that it's just a hypothesise unless you can predict the results to a certain degree in repeated experiments. Ravi sounds a warning to us if we continue in the current direction. So, if we don't hear, it's only because we want our cake and to eat it too.

I was in grade one in 1963 and the tranquil peace that filled the assembly every morning as the school recited the Lords prayer together, now seems like that calm before the storm. Life for a kid was a breeze compared to now, broken homes were rare. Then latter in that decade the sexual revolution hit and the social problems it produced have been like watching a train derailment in slow motion.

This book puts a spotlight on some of our assumptions. For example why have we broken free of what was once a pain avoiding moral leash, the 6th commandment, "Thou shall not commit adultery." Sceptics will immediately put up their guard and argue trivial truisms of evolution but what Ravi is stressing is "lets be reasonable." God calls people to reason. Statistics bear this out. Most of the men in prison come from a one parent home or a home where the couple co-habits. Marriage has taken a beating in the last 30 years. God is not saying those children aren't loved by Him, He's telling us, if we selfishly ignore Him we will suffer and just look around. The distinction in society is as stark to me as is the distinction of my changed life. God can not be mocked a man reaps what he sows. We are free to choose our master, but we are not free to manipulate the consequences of our choices.

I love men like Ravi who take a courageous stand. I've heard him on Cd's debate thinkers in the most hostile anti-Christian environments in the world. Muslim countries and western universities. Not only does he shine and hold his own, he arrests our attention and causes us to reconsider some of our cherished beliefs. He wins over hearts and minds because he has allowed himself to be a conduit of Jesus. I have most of his books. They are an immense help to me. Read one and you too may, "get hooked."

An Excellent Work Dealing with Atheism
Reading some of the other reviews before reading this book, I wasn't sure what to expect.Having now read the book, I can see that most of the negative reviews were nonsense.There is no "vitriol" against atheists.Anyone who refers to this work as a "diatribe" probably does not know the definition of that word.Instead, Zacharias engages in a very gentlemanly deconstruction of the logical bases for atheism, one which is tinged more with the spirit of the Harvard debating society than it is the spirit of Vox Day.Neither is Nietzsche the only atheist with whom Zacharias deals.Indeed, the reviewers who said that probably never got past the first chapter (which is where the author deals with Nietzsche and the effect which his philosophies had on the 20th century).If you actually read the entire work all the way through, it seems that the author refers to and cites Bertrand Russell more than he does Nietzsche.

This work is a class act.It is geared towards the lay intellectual - someone well-read and intelligent enough to grasp and understand important philosophical concepts, but yet who hasn't had the "formal" training of acquiring a degree in philosophy from a major university.Ravi Zacharias has a way of forcing atheistic arguments to be seen to their logical conclusions without coming off as using cheap rhetorical tricks to force a reductio ad absurdam.Chapters 2-5, in which he addresses each logical conclusion of atheistic speculation concerning (respectively) origins, morality, the purpose of life, and hope or hopelessness in the face of death, are masterfully done, and I especially enjoyed them.The whole work, however, is well worth the money.

Eloquent defence of the faith
In the introduction, the author suggests that some readers might prefer to first read the two appendices at the end. The first: The Finger Of Truth And The Fist Of Reality shows how philosophical ideas infiltrate popular culture to enter our lives. The second: The Establishment Of A Worldview, provides the conceptual foundation upon which the framework of truth will stand. They explain the process that the author used to examine various concepts in order to arrive at his conclusions.

Part One deals with mankind as the measure of all things. In the chapter Morticians Of the Absolute, the author shows how determinism, Freud's views on religion and Darwinian theory have placed theism under severe pressure. The assault of atheism has become manifest in the political arena with totalitarian movements like communism and fascism. The author considers Nietzsche with his profound hatred of religion as the bridge between the 19th and 20th centuries, since he exerted a strong influence on, amongst others, Freud, Yeats, Jung and George Bernard Shaw . A passage from The Madman is quoted here. There are prescient quotes by GK Chesterton and Malcolm Muggeridge, to the effect that they foresaw that atheism would lead to violence and hedonism.

The second chapter looks at the doctrine of atheism - the belief that there is no God, which is an affirmation of God's non-existence. The author refers to various thinkers like Mary Hesse, Jurgen Habermas, Stephen Jay Gould, John Polkinghorne and Sir Fred Hoyle and considers the 2nd law of thermodynamics by asking the question of how biological systems manage to swim against the entropic stream. It makes absolute sense that scientists ought to maintain a judicious agnosticism about the obvious limitations of human understanding.

In chapter three: Virtue In Distress, the matters of purpose and morality are discussed. Zacharias demonstrates that the idea of being good has in popular culture been replaced by the idea of feeling good, in a twisting vortex of relativising. The traditional underpinnings of society have been ridiculed, which explains some of the present moral confusion. Very importantly, the author shows how secular philosophy cannot logically answer the question of how to determine right from wrong. Without God there is no starting point for ethical theorists. He provides interesting quotes from Alasdair MacIntyre (After Virtue) and Paul Johnson (Intellectuals). In their own lives, many intellectuals separated their mental skills from their moral practices, for example Sartre, Hemingway and Bertrand Russell. Nietzsche's influence on Hitler is discussed and the author concludes that morality as goodness cannot be justified with atheistic presuppositions. In other words, atheism's morality is unlivable.

The chapter: Sisyphus On A Roll deals with the issue of meaning and the problems of pleasure and pain. Here the author quotes from the lament of Voltaire, Solomon's Ecclesiastes and from Blaise Pascal, to show that without God there is no meaning. Only God can fill the emptiness within. The next chapter deals with death and quotes extensively from the book of Job. No hope exists in the naturalist universe. The shattered visage of atheism offers only the stare of death and a barren desert of despair. On the other hand, the book of Job offers hope in the response of God after all the questions, discussions and lamentations.

Part Two is about God, the treasure of life's pursuits. Zacharias acknowledges that the Christian faith has suffered severely at the hands of both its defenders and detractors. He shows how its detractors have assaulted it and how many of its adherents have cheapened it or made it incomprehensible. The narrative then discusses the journey of CS Lewis from atheism to Christianity. The author shows how the love of God stimulates a desire for studying the creation and concludes that Christ adds balance and detail to truth. Chapter seven: With Larger Eyes Than Ours, takes up the argument from design and demonstrates how the shackle of determinism is broken. Love precedes biological life and there is a moral nature to the universe. Chesterton, Lewis and Dennis Prager are some of the many authors quoted where it is explained how God puts things in perspective. The value of the individual and the meaning of relationships are also discussed here.

Every chapter of the main text concludes with questions for study and discussion. The book concludes with copious notes arranged by chapter. The Real Face Of Atheism is rather more difficult and intellectual than the two other books of his that I have read: Light In The Shadow Of Jihad and Deliver Us From Evil. But it is still accessible because of the author's engaging writing style and the way that he integrates the thoughts and observations of so many other authors into the text. ... Read more

Product Description
As the influence of religion increasingly insinuates itself into society, aided by media messages touting the personal and social advantages of Christian-defined moral virtues, the need to express well-developed criticism of religious propaganda and to support clearly-stated secular ideals assumes a new urgency. Freethinkers, atheists, agnostics, sceptics, and rationalists will rejoice to discover that Dr. Gordon Stein has returned to the rich history of free-thought to compile an impressive collection of powerful and thought-provoking atheist and rationalist literature.A superb complement to his first book, "An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism", "A Second Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism" features twenty essays and twenty-nine samples of atheist and rationalist verse by such masters as G.J. Holyoake, Robert Browning, John Keats, Annie Besant, Rudyard Kipling, Thomas Hardy, and Charles Bradlaugh, to name but a few. Many of the essays and poems in this exceptional anthology have been out of print or nearly impossible to procure for over 100 years. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Nice to have some freethought history
Prometheus' second anthology is not, I would say, as good as the first one, but it is still a nice read.Most of the selections are at least a half-century old, and most are much older. The biblical criticism of Bradlaugh and Wheless shows its age, and many of the other essays have beenoutdone by contemporary works. But the best feature of the anthology isthat it shows the past of freethought and atheism.There were courageousmen and women years ago, when prejudice and bigotry were even more intenseagainst heresy, who were unafraid to speak out for the truth.I enjoyreading these works and getting a feel for the passion and intensity ofthose brave individuals.Freethinkers would also do well to familiarizethemselves with our past.It lends encouragement.Our generation is notthe first to question religious authority, and we will not be the last. The poetry selections are interesting, too, for those with a taste for it. Read and take heart. ... Read more

Product Description
The last few years have seen a great assault upon faith in the publishing world, with an influx of books denouncing religious belief. While attacks on faith are not new, what is notable about these books—several of which have hit the bestseller charts—is their contention that belief in God is not only deluded, but dangerous to society.
In The Delusion of Disbelief, former Time senior correspondent and bestselling author David Aikman offers an articulate, reasoned response to four writers at the forefront of today's anti-faith movement: Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens.
Aikman shines a light on the arguments of these "evangelists of atheism," skillfully exposing their errors and inconsistencies. He explains what appears to motivate atheists and their followers; encourages Christians to look closely at what they believe; arms readers with powerful arguments in response to critics of faith; and exposes the social problems that atheism has caused throughout the world.
Aikman also takes on one of the most controversial questions of our time: Can American liberties survive in the absence of widespread belief in God on the part of the nation's people? The answer to that question, says Aikman, is critically important to your future.The Delusion of Disbelief is a thoughtful, intelligent resource for anyone concerned about the increasingly strident and aggressive new attacks on religious belief. It is the book that every person of faith should read—and give away. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (33)

New Atheism: Rotten Roots & Poisonous Fruits
Shaped by both the incisive analysis of a veteran journalist and the informed perspective of a trained historian, David Aikman's The Delusion of Disbelief is timely critique of the so-called New Atheism movement.With sophistication and precision, Dr. Aikman unearths the rotten roots and exposes the poisonous fruits of an old heresy.A chronicle of the personal and political destruction produced by `God-is-dead' thinking The Delusion of Disbelief is a much needed resource for all involved in Christian education and ministry.

A Real Review
I am admittedly not religious. I've read some of the books Aikman discusses and decided to read this to see what a religious argument had to say.

Because this book is an argument against atheism, this book has two main tasks it needs to accomplish:

1.) Show that belief in God is true, or at least likely
2.) Show that belief in God is less harmful to society than disbelief

The second task it accomplishes with some success. The first Aikman completely ignores, and unfortunately, this is arguably the more important task. As Dawkins is fond of saying, "Even if certain beliefs can be comforting, it doesn't make them true." Hence the most glaring problem with the book is its complete failure to even ATTEMPT to address one of the main atheist contentions.

As for the second task, Aikman gives readers a mix of legitimate and invalid criticism. Among its more legitimate arguments are examples of crimes actually committed IN THE NAME OF atheism and providing a clearer view of the religious beliefs of certain historical figures, such as Albert Einstein. Among the more invalid arguments are claims that disbelief in God somehow leads to a morality system acceptable of any kind of behavior, however cruel and barbaric.

As for overall writing style and quality, Dawkins is clearly a superior writer (though Aikman might beat out Hitchens in God is Not Great). While Aikman does provide some good factual information, he generally fails to unify all his facts into an effective framework. One often loses the purpose behind certain factual examples.

Overall, Aikman presents a few interesting ideas that are on the side of religion. Some of what he presents, however, is either questionable, oversimplified, or even just plain wrong. And the most egregious arguments against religion Aikman never even mentions.

A Must Read to Support The Belief in Jesus in a World Gone Mad
With intellectual prowess, acerbic wit and deep faith, David Aikman duels and wins the argument against atheism. In brilliant opposition to those who attack Christians as intolerant of opposing views, Aikman patiently and elegantly exposed each atheistic false assumption. (His specific targets are the writings and thoughts of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens.)

Aikman quotes Albert Einstein wisely, since many feel that the mathematics genius would have had opinions on other subjects that would be trustworthy. although
Einstein eschewed all trappings of religion, he said, "I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene." Einstein was also emphatic about asserting the existence of Jesus. "(Do I believe in Jesus?) Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

Powerful in his warning to 21st century liberals who tolerate atheism in the spirit of "it's all good", Aikman declares, "Atheism, when adopted wholesale by any government or society, has very profound and - as was evident in the twentieth century - disturbing consequences for political liberty. Every single one of the Founding Fathers understood this..." (page 136)

The Delusion of Disbeliefis civil, intellectually profound, occasionally humorous, stunning in it's logic, patient, a "must read" for anyone needing backup for their scholarship, history and logic of why Jesus lived, was the Son of God, was crucified and resurrected for the benefit of all.

A Must Read to Oppose Atheism
With intellectual prowess, acerbic wit and deep faith, David Aikman duels and wins the argument against atheism. In brilliant opposition to those who attack Christians as intolerant of opposing views, Aikman patiently and elegantly exposed each atheistic false assumption. (His specific targets are the writings and thoughts of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens.)

Aikman quotes Albert Einstein wisely, since many feel that the mathematics genius would have had opinions on other subjects that would be trustworthy. although
Einstein eschewed all trappings of religion, he said, "I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene." Einstein was also emphatic about asserting the existence of Jesus. "(Do I believe in Jesus?) Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

Powerful in his warning to 21st century liberals who tolerate atheism in the spirit of "it's all good", Aikman declares, "Atheism, when adopted wholesale by any government or society, has very profound and - as was evident in the twentieth century - disturbing consequences for political liberty. Every single one of the Founding Fathers understood this..." (page 136)

The Delusion of Disbeliefis civil, intellectually profound, occasionally humorous, stunning in it's logic, patient, a "must read" for anyone needing backup for their scholarship, history and logic of why Jesus lived, was the Son of God, was crucified and resurrected for the benefit of all.

Overall Great
I was very satisfied with the condition of the book. A little slower than expected delivery but otherwise grateful for the good service! ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

An excellent history ofthe development of modern atheism.
In this (regretably out of print) 1200 page volume, Fr. Fabro extensively details the key ideas and the interaction of major/minor figures who directly contributed to the development of modern atheism. He lays blamefor the "Death of God" largely at the he feet of Renaissance andEnlightenment theologians who themselves "ungod-ed God" as heclaims, in their attempts to modernize their systematic theologies,beginning with Descarte.

By reducing (or subordinating)the concept ofGod to flawed methodologies, renaissance theologians fell victim to thelater critique and influence of countless rationalists, empiricists, anddissident social philosophers, who created the foundationsof atheisticthought (with all of it's "-isms") as a reaction against theologyfor various reasons.

According to Fabro, the atheistic movementswhich have helped shape modern history and thought: e.g. naturalism,communism, humanism, etc, share common and unresolvable philosophicproblems which derive directly from the "Death of God".Epistemology and linguistics eventually lose their meaning, when we eitherover-analyze, or negatively-react to the concept of God. In effect, wequickly loose sight of the essential mystery and faith which has alwaysdefined man's quest for answers to ultimate questions.

As a Catholicpriest, Fr. Fabro seems to fall victim to some of the thesis of his book,insisting that the Catholic Church speaks with all authority in suchmatters. Protestants, Humanists, and of course atheists would stronglydisagree. Nevertheless, Fabro convincingly argues that the "Death ofGod" created a greater trauma for the cohearance of modern philosophy,than specifically for Christian theology. In Fabro's view Christiantheologians may have indeed promoted reductionist ideas about God, butmodern atheism and postmodern philosophy was essentially a reaction toreductionist theology, and itself reductionary; clearly fraught withessential contradictions.

In light of Nietzsche's declaration:"Faith has became no longer worthy of faith," both atheists andmany theologians today seem to have lost an essential part of themselves.We, subsequent faithless, postmodern generations, have yet to fully recoverno matter what we may actually call ourselves. What direction such arecovery might take toward belief, and what specifically to believe, istruely a practical matter of faith for all parties concerned.I wouldhighly recommend this book to any graduate student of philosophy and/ortheology.--R. C. Stephens ... Read more

Product Description
Frank Schaeffer has a problem with Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, and the rest of the New Atheists - the self-anointed ''Brights.'' He also has a problem with the Rick Warrens and Tim LaHayes of the world. The problem is that he doesn't see much of a difference between the two camps. As Schaeffer puts it, they ''often share the same fallacy: truth claims that reek of false certainties. I believe that there is an alternative that actually matches the way life is lived rather than how we usually talk about belief.'' Sparing no one and nothing, including himself and his fiery evangelical past, and invoking subtleties too easily ignored by the pontificators, Schaeffer adds much-needed nuance to the conversation. ''My writing has smoked out so many individuals who seem to be thinking about the same questions. I hope that this book will provide a meeting place for us, the scattered refugees of what I'll call The Church of Hopeful Uncertainty.'' ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

Balancing Dawkins
I am a seeker and this book was recommended to me by another seeker when I mentioned that I had just read Dawkins "The God Delusion."I appreciate this more centered viewpoint. Schaeffer was much more gentle with the subject and I enjoyed his personal family stories.

Disappointing
I heard the author on NPR and I was struck by our similarities in our religious vision.At the time he seemed like a really rational man that had a good middle ground approach to religion.I bought the kindle edition of the book.I was very disappointed to find that most of the book was just a diatribe about different celebrities and authors.Instead of trying to understand their points of view and finding common ground, he rips them up basically and almost ridicules them.

Patience with God
I just finished reading Frank Schaeffer's book titled"Patience with God."It is excellent. It is somewhat autobiographical and is a heart-felt testimony about Frank Schaeffer's journey from once being an arrogant fundamentalist evangelical to where Mr. Schaeffer is now theologically-- a man of faith who embraces the sacred as well doubt and paradox. Mr. Schaeffer takes no prisoners. He is equally merciless on the so-called "New Atheists" and the Christian fundamentalists. But Mr. Schaeffer does not stop there. He offers a real, sensible way of looking at faith issues in the post-modern world in which we live. I do not agree with everything that Mr. Schaeffer says-- if I did, I get the sense that he would not be pleased as one of his pet peeves seems to be people who do not have the fortitude to make up their own minds and decide for themselves. But I have to say that I do agree with the manner in which Mr. Schaeffer approaches complex issues of faith-- he leaves room for mystery. For him, that mystery, (which is most evidenced by the love that he feels for his granddaughter, his wife and all of his family) surpasses all human understanding is not merely a series of chemical reactions as many atheists would describe it.I highly recommend this book to anybody who has become disenchanted with the church and organized religion. There is an alternative. Frank Schaeffer certainly did not discover that alternative, but he did articulate it in a unique and refreshing way. ... Read more

Product Description
In this book two philosophers, each committed to unambiguous versions of belief and disbelief, debate the central issues of atheism and theism.

• Considers one of the oldest and most widely disputed philosophical questions: is there a God?
  
• Presents the atheism/theism issue in the form of philosophical debate between two highly regarded scholars, widely praised for the clarity and verve of their work.
  
• This second edition contains new essays by each philosopher, responding to criticisms and building on their previous work.

Customer Reviews (6)

A good introduction to the issues
This is a good introduction to many of the main arguments concerning theism and atheism. Smart and Haldane manage to cover most of the main issues while at the same time making original contributions to the debate. The book is especially helpful for giving clear account of the issues surrounding the "fine-tuning" argument due e.g., to Richard Swinburne.

As they mention in the Introduction, neither Smart nor Haldane is a specialist precisely in philosophy of religion--both are well known especially for contributions to philosophy of mind--and this affects the book's overall approach. Smart begins with a defense of physicalism (the view that only objects whose existence is required by physical theory exist), arguing that this position should be accepted on the methodological ground that it is most compatible with the results of modern science. Smart also responds to various theistic arguments and defends a version of the "problem of evil" objection to theism. Haldane follows this with a series of arguments against materialist reductionism, taking the failure of reductionism to entail some kind of design and so theism. Haldane also defends versions of the cosmological ("firt cause") argument and attempts a solution to the problem of evil. Smart then briefly responds to Haldane and Haldane to Smart. For Smart, atheism is part of a general commitment to physicalism, whereas Haldane seems no less interested in defending a general antireductionism (e.g., with respect to intentionality) than in defending theism specifically.

The book covers a great deal of ground and offers much food for thought. The downside to this is discussions of particular issues are sometimes sketchier than one would like. Perhaps it would have been more effective to focus the book more tightly on the aspect of the debate that raises issues of reductionism vs. antireductionism. I also wish the book had been organized so as encourage a more extended response from Smart to Haldane's antireductionist arguments. Smart's methodological principles may well establish a presumption against theism, but surely this presumption is defeasible, and Haldane's contribution is effect an attempt to defeat precisely this presumption.

Most intelligent debate on existence of god so far
This is the way atheism vs. theism debates should always be. First, Smart and Haldane are very respectful of one another, as well they should be. Second, they are not afraid to delve deep into the true complexities of philosophy of religion, and are both equal to the task. This debate is very unlike typical debates, in which scholarship is subordinated to rhetoric, and readers are likely to come away having learned something about how truly difficult philosophy of religion is.

An Interesting Read, but Misses the Needs of Most Audinces
I have some reservations about giving this title only three stars, for I greatly enjoyed reading it, but the work has some significant shortcomings.Parts of the essays are highly technical, which suggests a target audience of professional philosophers.Nonetheless, recent scholarship is often covered either inadquately or not at all.An example is Smart's treatment of the argument from religious expreience.While Smart is discerning and even witty, he shows no awareness of the positions of thinkers such as William Alston and Alvin Plantinga who have pursued the discussion on a much deeper level and who (some might even say) have made treatments such as Smart's irrelevant.Other parts of the book are marred by similar omissions.

For a person with some experience reading contrmporary analytic philosophy, I would recommend the title.Just don't think you're getting anything even close to an overview of what cutting edge thinkers have to say about the atheism/theism debate.That being said, it is well written, interesting, and thought inspiring.

Greg Klebanoff

Debating at its best.
Thorough and respectable debate. In-depth with little rhetoric

Smart has a highly refined philosophy of atheism
The present book by Smart and Haldane, appearedthe same year as Robin Le Poidevin's _Arguing forAtheism_ and testifies to a renewed interest inatheism in philosophical circles. The present bookalso testifies to interest in theism inphilosophical circles. But theism has generallybeen given pride of place in books on thephilosophy of religion, whereas atheism ordinarilyhas not been given the same attention in suchbooks. Still, atheism as well as theism are partsof the philosophy of religion. And books on thephilosophy of religion that do not pay muchattention to atheism are eo ipso inadequate.

Now Smart and Haldane's book is not intended to bean introduction to the philosophy of religion. Thebook is rather a new installment in a seriesentitled "Great Debates in Philosophy" and whichearlier has been devoted to topics like personalidentity, consciousness and causality, agency andnecessity, critical theory, and moral relativi! smand moral objectivity. The series is edited byErnest Sosa who seems to have managed to establisha good series. In any case, the present book ishighly interesting particularly in the partswritten by professor Smart.

Smart (b. 1920) has for many years been aprofessor of philosophy in Adelaide and inCanberra, but is now retired. In 1963 he publishedthe book _Philosophy and Scientific Realism_.(London & NY). This book made a deep impression onme, and I can say that Smart converted me tomaterialism. I had been an atheist before I readSmart's book, but having read the book I alsobecame a materialist.

In the book from 1963 Smart mentioned that he hadturned away from a roughly neo-Wittgensteinianconception of philosophy towards a moremetaphysical one, with a much more intimaterelation to the sciences. Philosophy should notonly unravel conceptual muddles but should alsoformulate a world view. And this world view, asSmart saw it, had!to be a kind of materialism, orrather physicalism.

U! sing ideas taken from the prominent Americanphilosopher Quine, Smart argues that mathematicsis a part of physical theory as a whole. Thismeans that we must regard mathematical objects asphysical, even though they are not material. Thus,for Smart physicalism is more basic thanmaterialism. Hence, he in his last book prefers todescribe himself as a physicalist rather than as amaterialist, except in the context of thephilosophy of mind where he holds that thedistinction is not important (p. 10).

Smart mentions in the book under review that heonce was a theist, and he would still like to be atheist if he had been able to reconcile theismwith his philosophical and scientific views. So hewould not be too sorry if his opponent, professorHaldane, would win the argument. From the presentbook it is clear that Haldane has not been able toconvince Smart, but the same is the case the otherway around: Smart has not been able to convinceHaldane who re! mains a theist and even a RomanCatholic. Haldane probably sticks to RomanCatholicism because of old habits and forsentimental reasons. Philosophically RomanCatholicism is not stronger than Lutheranism orIslam. John L. Mackie and Michael Martin havesmashed theism in books which appeared in 1982 and1990 respectively, but Haldane does not go intotheir arguments. Nor does Smart, unfortunately,discuss Mackie's and Martin's arguments in anydetail. Both are mentioned in the bibliography,but they do not get much attention apart fromthat. This is unfortunate, because Mackie's andMartin's books illustrate different ways in whichone may approach or advocate atheism. Of othercontemporary philosophers and atheists, AntonyFlew is mentioned a few times in the text and inthe bibliography, but Kai Nielsen has only made itto the bibliography. Well-known atheists likeFeuerbach, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Freud etc. are noteven mentioned in the book. Smart's past!as atheist still hangs on.

Smart is a distinguished ! and profound contemporaryphilosopher who has published a number ofimportant books. One of these is a book on ethicaltheory, written together with anotherdistinguished philosopher, Bernard Williams:_Utilitarianism_, for and against (Cambridge Univ.Press, UK, 1973). I must confess that I, before Isaw the book which is reviewed here, never hadheard about professor Haldane. Richard Swinburneand Alvin Plantiga have published moresophisticated defences of theism than Haldane, butboth have also been sharply criticized by John L.Mackie, Michael Martin, and others. I may bebiased as I am an atheist and a materialist. But Ithink that Smart is much more profound thanHaldane. Smart has a highly refined philosophy ofatheism, metaphysics, and ethics. From contactswith "atheists in the street", particularly asthey can be found in contemporary freethoughtcircles, I suspect that Smart's philosophy is tooprofound and too difficult for most of th! em. Quitea pity!

... Read more

Product Description
Contemporary science presents us with the remarkable theory that the universe began to exist about fifteen billion years ago with a cataclysmic explosion called "the Big Bang." The question of whether Big Bang cosmology supports theism or atheism has long been a matter of discussion among the general public and in popular science books, but has received scant attention from philosophers. This book sets out to fill this gap by means of a sustained debate between two philosophers, William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith, who defend opposing positions. Craig argues that the Big Bang that began the universe was created by God, while Smith argues that the Big Bang has no cause. Alternating chapters by the two philosophers criticize and attempt to refute preceding arguments. Their arguments are based on Einstein's theory of relativity and include a discussion of the new quantum cosmology recently developed by Stephen Hawking and popularized in A Brief History of Time. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (9)

Even Match
We can deny god, but we can't prove it. You can say god exists but you can't proove it.
So, nothing new under the sun with this book. Two sowrd players fighting without striking each other.
Craig opens the book exposing the centuries old St Thomas Aquine syllogism
"If the universe has a cause, then god is the cause" Poor St Thomas!
He never explains why the universe doesn't have other causes.
This book is something new and is the more relevant philosophy book to this days, says the Amazon.com review.
So, let's us see what Quentin Smith has to say...
First reply is that infinity exists. I'm glad! Try to share this infinity.
Here I must say that the debaters are more worried about the defense from attacks. Lateral side attacks, not the essence of the main thing.
Smith says nothing, just says that his argumets on the previous part of the chapter went to jeopardy because he forgot something!
Finaly, a few chapters following, Quentin Smith puts on the table his (new?) argument: "the begining of the universe ( the big bang ) is uncaused.
Well my mother whom I've been trying to convert to atheism says she won't take this hard pill.
The beggining of the universe and the beggining of life are yet unknow.
No god of the gaps.
And it doesn't need tha philosofers and theologists to find that out.
By tha way Quentin Smith said in a public debate with craig that a point without dimensions doesn exist. In this book he argues tha is a mathematical reality.......

Kites
I read the reviews before ordering the book. But I didn't read that this is the most important event in later philosofical literature (Amazon review).
So I decided to give five stars in the hope they publish my review
I read every book's single page in three days. It is a real page turner.
And after came the headache. But it's over.
What happens when science reaches its limits? Science of cosmology reached its limits in which concerns the origin of the universe. For good or for the moment. "We can't find what caused the big bang explosion since the explosion destroyied prooves" quoting freely some poor science soul.
And then appear the philosofers and retired phisycs building models and killing each other about these models. Well you can drink a botlle of whiskey but never drink a model of one.
Cosmological models are abract structures of relationships between inexistent objects. Frames and wind. Kites.
Do you know what I mean? When Craig says that a point with no dimensions containing all the matter in the universe with infinite density is somewhat abstract, Smith answers "do you deny that it existed?"
And if you after reading the book, visit Craig's personal page in the net, you rub your eyes looking at the books about Jesus and the Trinity.
They postulate their arguments and list immediatly the possible counter arguments and answer them. So fantastic.
A theater of shadows.
Craig says in the first essay (I'm not quoting) that the cause of the universe is god but, he straightens immediatly, a god who only sets the big bang in motion, but doesn't hang around the universe to keep his laws.
A few essays later if you have good memory, you notice that Craig moved from that deist standing to the one that god participates constantly in creation, the traditional theistic standing-a theist standing.
I have to be fair. At least Quentin Smith doesn't do that.
Trying to remember what I read, I think that Quentin Smith is the winner. Let Craig sell his Jesus books.
I recommend this book to everyone interested in the subject, it helps with your mental agility.

A Great In-Depth Treatment
In this advanced work, Christian philosopher William Lane Craig debates atheistic philosopher Quentin Smith in a series of technical essays. The book is separated into three main sections.

In the first section, Craig and Smith debate the possible existence of the actual infinite in the real world. Craig contends that the infinite is applicable only, if at all, in the realm of the mathematical. While admitting the applicability of Cantor's set theory, he tries to show that an actual infinite instantiated in the real world would lead to contradictions. He also argues that it is impossible to create an infinite by successive addition. He therefore concludes that the universe had a beginning. Smith counters Craig by attempting to resolve the supposed paradoxes, and establishing the reasonability of an actual infinite.

In this section Craig also attempts to argue from the beginning of the universe to the necessity of a personal cause. Smith contends that, although the universe did begin to exist in the Big Bang, it is impossible to prove that it requires a cause and is therefore reasonable to assume that the universe began to exist without a cause.

In the second section, Smith attempts to construct an atheistic cosmological argument. He claims that the Big Bang singularity will emit all configurations with equal probability, and, therefore cannot be guaranteed to result in a life-permitting universe. He concludes that the unpredictability of the first states of the universe is incompatible with divine creation, since God would want to ensure a life-permitting universe. Craig addresses this by denying the actual existence of the singularity and by countering that God's interaction in the world to ensure a life-permitting universe is compatible with His attributes.

In the final section, Craig critiques Hartle-Hawking Cosmology, which purportedly eliminates the need for a Creator. Craig shows that this cosmology only averts the need for a Creator by utilizing metaphysically absurd concepts such as "imaginary time." Smith agrees that the cosmology needs some changes in order to remain coherent, and in the final essay he attempts to improve the metaphysics of the cosmology in order to construct a plausible alternative to Divine Causation.

This book, while extremely informative and interesting, was also very technical. Thus, it is recommended only for those who have a great interest in the topics discussed and who are looking for an advanced treatment of the issues.

Can Something Come from Nothing? Scholars Debate Scientific and Philosophical Questions about the Origin of the Universe
Contemporary science presents us with the remarkable theory that the universe began billions of years ago with a cataclysmic explosion, the `Big Bang'But was this explosion created by God? The question of whether Big Bang cosmology supports theism or atheism has long been a matter of discussion among the general public and in popular science books, but has received scant attention from philosophers. This book sets out to fill this gap by means of a sustained debate between two philosophers.

William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith take turns defend opposing positions in alternating chapters. In Part I, Craig argues that the past necessarily is finite and that God created the universe, and Smith presents his criticisms of these arguments.Part II consists of Smith's arguments that Big Bang cosmology is inconsistent with theism and that the Big Bang has no cause, with Craig's criticisms of Smith's argument. Part III presents both philosophers' interpretations of Stephen Hawking's new quantum cosmology and its bearing upon theism.

Excellent Discussion
Recent developments in the field of cosmology have caused it to become increasingly topical in the theism - atheism debate.Theoretical and empirical work during the last century has shattered the common modern belief that the universe was temporally infinite.Indeed, these developments have made a compelling argument for the universe having an actual being.Obviously, if one accepts the finitude of the past this view has profound philosophical and theological implications.Why is there a universe?Is God the only viable hypothesis? In Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology, philosophers Quentin Smith and William Craig discuss these and other fascinating questions.

The book has three parts.It is laid out in a debate style format wherein one author puts forth their case that is subsequently followed by a series of rebuttals and responses.In Part 1 Craig makes the theistic case.In Part 2 Smith makes the atheist case.In Part 3 the authors discuss some of the cosmological musings made by Stephen Hawking in his popular works such as A Brief History of Time.

The first two parts of the book provide a comprehensive analysis of the implications of modern cosmology.Though well done, this discussion may be best suited for readers who possess some familiarity with modern physics and philosophical thought.An abbreviated and simplified overview of this topic can be found on Craig's website as part of a public debate between himself and Smith.For readers who have been exposed to Hawking's philosophical musings Part 3 should also be enjoyable.Smith in particular is helpful in reformulating and correcting some of Hawking's often muddled thoughts in this area.

Although some of the argumentation can seem rather esoteric the book is worthwhile for anyone seeking a better understanding of modern cosmology ... Read more

Product Description
This is an OCR edition without illustrations or index. It may have numerous typos or missing text. However, purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original rare book from GeneralBooksClub.com. You can also preview excerpts from the book there. Purchasers are also entitled to a free trial membership in the General Books Club where they can select from more than a million books without charge. Volume: 1; Original Published by: R. Priestly in 1820 in 542 pages; Subjects: Atheism; Lord's Supper; Lord's supper; Philosophy / Ethics & Moral Philosophy; Philosophy / History & Surveys / Modern; Philosophy / Religious; Religion / Atheism; Religion / Philosophy; Religion / Christian Rituals & Practice / Sacraments; Religion / Christian Theology / Ethics; ... Read more

Product Description
This contribution traces the development of atheism in Britain. The author ranges over three centuries of thought, providing biographies of philosophers and politicians who believed in atheism and describing the general shift from atheism to religious belief. ... Read more

Product Description