 |
What Is Atheism?: A Short Introduction by Douglas E. Krueger
Book Summary InformationAuthor: Douglas E. Krueger Edition: Paperback Audio: English (Unknown); English (Original Language); English (Published) Published: 1998-05 ISBN: 1573922145 Number of pages: 241 Publisher: Prometheus Books
Book Reviews of What Is Atheism?: A Short IntroductionBook Review: A response to John Fuller's review below Summary: 5 Stars
As a doctoral student in philosophy who has taught the philosophy of religion at two universities, I recommend this book very highly. At the risk of bringing further attention to the comments of an ignoramus, I feel the need to rebut the incompetent review of John Fuller (which can be seen further down).
To begin with, Fuller claims that Krueger uses the Euthyphro dilemma as the "anchor" for the rest of this book. But as anyone who has studied philosophy or read the book knows, this argument is only relevant to the question of the source of morality. Therefore, it cannot be (and is not) related to any chapters in this book after chapter two. Fuller then tries to attack this supposed 'anchor' by saying that it only applies to polytheism. But this is downright false, as any competent philosopher will know and as any good introductory ethics text will explain.
After some petty comments on capitalization (the merit of which anyone reading this can judge for him/herself), Fuller continues with eleven further errors, all conveniently numbered by him:
1.Fuller claims that utilitarianism, Kantianism and virtue ethics all 'fail to describe the concepts of good and bad'. No justification is given for this extraordinary claim (it certainly flies in the face of the general consensus of philosophers), and no alternative definition of these concepts is given.
2.Fuller claims that Krueger makes a confusion between a purpuse IN life and a purpose TO life -- when Krueger's position is that the latter reduces to the former. This objection simply begs the question by assuming life must have an externally mandated purpose, which is just what Krueger is contesting in Chapter 3.
3.Fuller claims that Krueger recommends the admiration of the "racist eugenics-obsessed" Margaret Sanger. Not only is this a distortion of what Krueger says (he claims only that her tireless devotion to her work was a life of purpose), but Sanger was in fact _opposed_ to racism and racist eugenics and attacked racists. While it is true that she did advocate some by my standards unethical measures (advocated more strongly, incidentally, by Christians at the time), these were not connected with racism. Fuller has fallen for a Christian smear job here, and it is not even relevant to Krueger (who again says nothing about admiring Sanger in his very brief mention of her).
4.Fuller claims that Krueger doesn't understand claims about biblical prophecies, and that he ignores counter-evidence (none of which, conveniently, is substantiated by Fuller). The reader should read Krueger's work itself and then judge: this is an entirely unsupported allegation by Fuller.
5.Fuller chides Krueger for following the scholarly consensus that the bible is mostly composed by anonymous sources and is not inerrant. In other words, he would have Krueger reject the opinions of the most serious scholars in the field over the past century in favor of -- whom? The "acknowledged master in the field", F. F. Bruce, who is certainly not acknowledged by mainstream historians as any sort of authority at all. For a good debunking of Bruce and his tactics, see Chapter 5 of Robert Price's 'Beyond Born Again'.
6.Fuller accuses Krueger of 'trotting out all the cliched objections about biblical errancy'. True -- they are cliched at this point because they have had to be repeated over and over again to Christian apologists who can't overcome them but continue undaunted anyway. Wonderful what faith can do.
7.Fuller claims that Krueger's objections to the design argument beg the question. But he doesn't explain why, and it isn't clear he understands what 'begging the question' even means.
8.Fuller objects to Krueger's treatment of the cosmological argument because it misunderstands the implications of the divine character, but doesn't say just why. Surely, any attribute of a divine character would have to be quite remarkable if it actually could explain the origin of the universe without itself demanding an explanation by the same logic. Fuller calls Krueger's attempts to prove that an infinite regress is possible 'laughable', without seeming to notice that the whole laughable business was raised by Aquinas, to which Krueger is merely responding. At any rate, it isn't germane to the objection Krueger is making, and if Fuller had taken the time to read that section at all carefully he would have noticed that the cosmological argument is demolished anyway.
9.Fuller claims that Krueger is wrong not to mention the theodicy of Alvin Plantinga, which Fuller claims is "generally accepted by philosophers as conclusive in favor of theism". Not only does Plantinga's defense do no such thing (the standard refutation of this rather silly theodicy can be found in J. L. Mackie's classic work _The Miracle of Theism_), and not only do the great majority of philosophers consider Plantinga's defense to be bogus, but even if it were successful, it doesn't even claims to present an argument for theism, as Fuller claims. This seems to show Fuller's familiarity with the scholarship in the relevant fields.
10.Fuller, apparently finding no way to respond to the powerful argument from nonbelief, dismisses it as 'absurd', despite its logical force. Presumably this is in contrast with the claims of Christianity, which are far more absurd and have no logical force.
11.Fuller's last point also makes a serious mistake. He claims that Krueger is attacking a straw man by mis-defining faith. But contrary to what Fuller says, there _are_ many Christians who define 'believing on faith' as 'believing in the absence of strong reasons'. As for those who use 'faith' to mean 'belief with fairly strong supporting reasons but in the absence of absolute geometrical proof', the rest of the book was already devoted to their refutation.
Most telling, perhaps, is Fuller's warning that Krueger's book "should not be approached by those with inadequate knowledge". What exactly is he afraid of? I would say, by contrast, that people should read Krueger's book _and_ the opposing books. That way they will be able to compare for themselves the preposterous claims of Christianity with their simple refutations.
Summary of What Is Atheism?: A Short IntroductionWritten in the tradition of the vastly popular Prometheus title "Atheism: The Case Against God" and "The Atheist Debater's Handbook", this accessible and inviting primer of non-belief ponders eight of the most-asked questions about atheism. What is atheism? How can atheists have morals? How can atheists have purpose in their lives? Doesn't the Bible show that god exists? Do reports of miracles prove the existence of a god? Aren't there philosophical proofs demonstrating that god exists? Wouldn't a person have to know everything to say that god doesn't exist? What's wrong with believing on faith? These are the concerns that arise when believers and those who are simply curious question the purpose and meaning they suspect is lacking in the lives of non-believers. These questions also come up in philosophical and theological debates on the assumptions and merits of both belief and non-belief. Krueger contends that atheism is a powerful alternative to the religious outlook so prevalent today, yet it is also one of the most misunderstood because people harbour preconceived ideas about atheism. This concise introduction to atheism, from a scholar who has led thousands of students to the enlightenment of free-thought, has been designed with the general audience in mind.
|
 |