Critiques of God: Making the Case Against the Belief in God

by Peter A. Angeles

Book Overview

As the only collection of essays to present, in a comprehensive way, the case against belief in God, this classic volume rejects the niew that moral values and human purpose require divine sanction.... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 1573921238
• ISBN13: 9781573921237
• Release Date: March 1997
• Publisher: Prometheus Books
• Length: 371 Pages
• Weight: 1.16 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.8" x 6.0" x 8.9"

Customer Reviews

An excellent set of essays

This book has plenty of interesting essays by some fine authors (who do not always agree). It is not totally comprehensive on the issue of arguments about the monotheist god (for example, the Kalam argument is not included). And there is virtually no discussion of the Pagan Goddesses and Gods. But I still like what the book does contain. I've always despised the monotheist god as powerless and unworthy of respect. This articles in this book make a case against it, so I like it for that reason already. My strongest complaint (but far from my only complaint) about the monotheist god is that it is supposed to be The First Cause. Well, I do not like that concept much. It is similar to saying that the world rests on the back of a large turtle. Well, what does that turtle rest on? A larger turtle! And do not worry, there are turtles all the way down, each one larger than the previous one! The analogy with a First Cause is obvious, there are causes all the way down, with god being the biggest! Infinitely big. But I think this begs the question. We are trying to explain the simple in terms of the complex, not a good idea philosophically. The only way to get any sense out of this is for the causes to be simpler as you go down. And that makes the first cause infinitely weak, small, and powerless. And not strong at all. On top of that, I think the monotheist god not only has too many inconsistent qualities, it is also a little too talented at opposite kinds of things. What does it mean to be perfectly patient and perfectly impatient at the same time? Anyway, the book starts with Kant's fine attack on the ontological argument for the existence of god, which happens to be one of the few pro-god arguments that I actually think is worth reading about. It then makes a more serious point, namely that a benevolent and omnipotent god is inconsistent with observed reality. There are, of course, discussions of the First Cause argument. And the argument from Design. There is also a discussion of the idea that when one thinks about god, one ought to avoid reason, logic, and facts! There is a great chapter about ineffability. I think this is an interesting argument, namely that belief in god is a reasonable, helpful, and self-consistent concept, but it is just hard to explain it to everyone! And that leads into arguments about religious experience. I like the section about free will and evil. The argument is often made that god has a choice between making us Good by force and allowing us the Freedom to be Bad. But that is surely a false choice. We could be more rational! Then there is a section on morality without god (a concept I think we all need to ponder on, given that the monotheist god surely does not actually exist as described by the major monotheist religions). A section on illusions of immortality. And on the "meaning" of life, of the cosmos, and of existence. Finally, there is an article about religious claims that an

Representative

On the whole, this is a good representative collection of arguments against belief in God (the Christian variety). None are cutting edge, however several can lay claim to places in the modern canon, (Baier's, Flew's, Nielsen's). The editor is an acolyte of Thomas Nagel and as such the volume presents not only the case against God, but a stout defense of scientific method as an explanation of why things are the way they are.There's nothing wrong with this, except that unwary readers should not risk confusing the two. Moreover, the collection concentrates exclusively on arguments against the truth of God's existence. Some of the more interesting recent critiques, however, examine not the truth of the God concept, but whether the concept even makes sense or not. Happily, readers do not need a graduate philosophy degree to benefit from these articles. Most are accessible to any person of thoughtful, literate background. Their refutation, however, will require more than a simple profession of faith or creedal belief, so be prepared to engage intellectually in well-reasoned arguments, and the possibility that atheists too may lead happy, fulfilled lives.

AtheistWorld.Com Book Review

Is a God concept really necessary for humans to enjoy a sense of significance and a life of value and dedication? Does human kind really live in a purposeful universe with a divine creator, upon which we can rely to reshape things to come? These questions and many others have been pondered for centuries by the great minds in their day. This noted collection of essays rejects the view that moral values and human purpose require divine sanction. Critiques Of God is the only collection of writings to present, in a comprehensive way, the case against belief in God. The arguments for God's existence, the validity of mystical experience, and the importance of the God concept for the development of morality and meaning in life are critically evaluated by sixteen well-known philosophers and psychologists. Included are works by Kurt Baier, John Dewey, Paul Edwards, Antony Flew, Sigmund Freud, Erich Fromm, Sidney Hook, Walter Kaufmann, Corliss Lamont, Wallace I. Matson, H. J. McCloskey, Ernest Nagel, Kai Nielsen, Richard Robinson, Bertrand Russell, and Michael Scriven. In no other volume are the most fundamental questions of religion explored with such force and conviction. Included are discussions of the meaning of the existence of God, the relationships between faith and mysticism, reason and science, fate, the problem of evil, ethics without God, and immortality. Peter A. Angeles is retired from the Philosophy Department at Santa Barbara City College (California). He is the author of The Problem Of God: A Short Introduction.

Compliation of The Argument Against Theism

This was required reading in one of my sem classes. There was trepidation before beginning if I could find any logical loopholes in their reasoning against any belief in God.To my surprise, I found many such loopholes. There cases are certainly intelligent and persuasive, but there are surely intelligent and persuasive responses and counterarguments to theirs. The faith doesn't have to roll over and play dead in the face of such critique.Permit me to examine two of this collection: "God and Evil" by H.J. McCloskey and "Divine Omnipotence and Human Freedom" by Antony Flew.Both use traditional arguments against God. Flew uses the classic Hibbert argument that either God can do away with evil or he will not; therefore, he cannot be all-powerful or all-good because evil continues; thus, God doesn't exist.McCloskey claims there is a 'prima facie' case that evil and God are incompatible, and the theist solutions are unacceptable. However, he can be refuted at his very beginning point: i.e. that God and evil, if real, are incompatible. Historic Christianity and we Lutherans specifically, deny that God is the author of evil, from our Confessions: "The source and cause of evil is not God's foreknowledge (since God neither creates nor works evil, nor does he help it along and promote it, but rather the wicked and perverse will of the devil and of men." Secondly, McCloskey forces an "implied time limit" upon God, declaring that just because God hasn't destroyed evil "yet," He is incapable. This is an arrogant, self-assumption.Flew falsely makes a huge mistake in assuming that all Christians follow Calvin's mistake of double predestination, which we Lutherans do not. He believes this to be a vital component of a freewill defense. For those who believe God predestines those who will be saved, but those who reject God's salvation damn themselves to separation from God. Likewise with McCloskey's presumptive error, Flew limits God's timetable to one of his own choosing. Given eternity, how can ones living as we do in the 20th-21st centuries assume God "must" have to act before now? They also assume perfect worlds, which the Christian Bible refutes as not reality after the Fall into sin. Both these arguments fail to deal with the Scriptural teaching of maintaining the tension between God's soverignty and man's personal responsibility with solving this antinomy. God has overcome evil and sin on Good Friday, and will reveal this and eliminate evil once and for all on Judment Day.

A good set of essays on atheism

This book is a collection of anti-religion essays by such philosophers as Bertrand Russell, Walter Kaufmann and Wallace Matson. It is a good series of commentaries which elucidate why philosophical atheists believe as they do. (When I say philosophical atheists, I am referring to people who actually have justification for their views - there are many plenty of people on both sides of the issue who do not). The book covers a myriad of traditional "proofs" of His existence as well as the problem of evil, the possiblity of the afterlife, etc. Most of the essays are of high quality. However, Matson's critique of the argument from design is a bit out of date & the essay on the First Cause argument is bereft of discoveries in 20th century science (this is an important omission as the First Cause argument is being fought on the battlefield of cosmology these days as opposed to being confined to philosophy). For a contemporary book on the argument from design I would suggest "Universes" by the philosopher of science John Leslie. For a much better (and also balanced) book on the First Cause argument I would recommend "Atheism, Theism and Big Bang Cosmology" by William Craig Lane and Quentin Smith. It does a far superior job of engaging the topic than the essay in this book. Some of the essays also ignore trenchant counter-arguments from theists which would make their case much more difficult to defend. Also, the essay by Freud has largely been abandoned - even by atheists due to the fact that psychoanalysis is an un-falsifiable doctrine & therefore has precious little worth. As a matter of fact, since Freud wrote his comments there have been theistic psychologists who have tried to psychoanalyze atheists for NOT believing in God. Just like Freud, their interpretations of the facts are un-falsifiable as well. In the end, this turns into nothing more than a fruitless tournament of ad-homineum arguments which neither side can win (or lose). However, there are plenty of good arguments presented in this book. It is well worth the read for all people interested in the topic of religion or atheism. People on both sides of the fence will benefit by reading this book.