I know it's not customary but since these are two very short books on largely the same subject, I take the liberty of reviewing them together. Written by two nonbelievers, it's striking how differently they perceive matters. It starts off with definitions. In `Atheism, A Short Introduction', Julian Baggini says it's easy to define what `atheism' means: it's the belief that there is no God. Here he straight away stirs up a hornet's nest. As some reviewers have pointed out, there is a difference between `not to believe' and `to believe that not'. By defining it as a belief, he gives credence to the often-heard remark that atheism is a religion too. Many atheists stress that the actual meaning of the word is `absence of belief in God'. This is called `negative atheism' in contrast to `positive' atheism. When Baggini talks of positive atheism, he rather means that it's something generally worthwhile. I'm sure Baggini is aware of this but I think the distinction is crucial, even in an introduction.
In `Against all Gods', A.C. Grayling suggests that nonbelievers shouldn't call themselves atheists at all, since the term invites debate on the turf of the believers. He prefers the term `naturalists'. As opposed to `super-naturalists'. Smart move, I suppose. But I know quite a few atheists who are rather proud to come out and call themselves so.
Neither Grayling nor Baggini, by the way, mentions the (not so) clever invention of the term `Brights' (Dennet et al.). Whatever happened to THEM? I mean, I'm sure they exist and hold meetings and so on but it doesn't seem to have been such a succesful `meme' after all.

Where Baggini talks about militant and fundamentalist atheism, Grayling convinces us there cannot be such a thing. Would a non-fundamentalist atheist `be someone who believed only somewhat that there are no supernatural entities in the universe...'? Since atheists don't adhere to fixed and eternal Truths, they are at all times prepared to revise their views in the light of new evidence. The only thing `fundamental' about them is that they are `fundamentally sensible'.
Grayling also argues that religion, despite its apparent upsurge, is in fact on the decline. Here he is in accordance with Richard Dawkins. In the last essay he presents an alternative: humanism. But Baggini wants to avoid this nowadays so controversial term (se for example John Gray). To him it's too ambiguous and confusing. Some humanists are anthropocentric; others are Christians. Let's call ourselves positive atheists. But then there is the confusion between being positive and to positively deny the existence of God.
But let's not be too harsh. If you want to dig deeper you can always consult The Cambridge Companion to Atheism or The (New) Encyclopedia of Unbelief. As a little book (only 64 pages) to carry with you, as I did to the dentist, Against all Gods is both thought-provoking and fun to read. I'm sure it's at least on par with the magazine that made Tommy Cooper (RIP) exclaim: Terrible with the Titanic!
I give three stars to Baggini because I think his introduction is OK and four to Grayling because he's the better writer.

Julian Baggini's Very Short Introduction to Atheism was published just before the current "New Atheism" movement launched by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens took off. The New Atheism has made a name for itself for two reasons: first, because its objections to theism are based primarily on an appeal to science (or what critics would call "scientism"); second, because of its polemical, frequently shrill, style. There's little appeal to philosophy (Harris is the partial exception to this), and none at all to theology (outside of simplistic fundamentalist faux-theology) made by the New Atheists.

Baggini doesn't display any more familiarity with theology than his New Atheist successors,* but he does know his philosophy, and his defense of atheism is tightly argued, soundly reasoned, and compellingly presented. He's more concerned with making a positive case for atheism than in trashing theism, and to that end he tries to show that atheism is ultimately grounded in a naturalism that values rational assessment of evidence and best explanations (abduction). Science may be one model, but it isn't the only model--thus Baggini avoids the scientistic criticism leveled against the New Atheists. Baggini also devotes a good deal of space to arguing that ethics is entirely possible without belief in God--he defends a deliberately flexible model that takes the best of virtue ethics, Kantian universalism, and utilitarian consequentialism--and that life can be purposeful even in a universe devoid of God or life after death.

Baggini's little book is really a prime model of what defences of atheism ought to be. He refuses to indulge in ad hominems or polemics, and his argumentation has the tight and refreshing compactness of the best of the philosophical analytic tradition. But Baggini is also obviously influenced by the existential tradition, and appeals to it especially in his discussions of godless ethics and godless purposefulness.

Highly recommended.
______
* To his credit, though, he doesn't pretend, as do the New Atheists, that fundamentalist rantings are identical to theology. Thus he avoids the strawmanning that they frequently fall into.

Good introduction, most of the point can be found on the web but it's good to see them all together in a little book.

Ultimately, Baggini seems more interested in defending atheists as people than in explaining why they don't believe. Baggini defends atheism against charges that it is immoral, amoral and meaningless. But he doesn't really get into arguments for atheism, other than a few comments about reason vs. superstition. For example, I would have liked to see a bit more on "god of the gaps" and the slow, steady debunking of most of the "truths" of the Bible.

I like this book. Baggini discusses exactly those points where my own thinking always got stuck. His distinction between strong evidence and weak evidence helps a lot. I appreciated his view that even though absolute certainty is impossible, one can still choose not to believe something based on what one sees as strong evidence.

After reading the many other reviews and comments on them on this book and others, I would like to add something. I think the way it works is that we find reasons to support our world view, when most of the processing behind that choice has already taken place. Behind the choice is a big chunk of emotional reasoning that is independent of rational argument. Choosing a world view may be comparable to the way other complex and emotional decisions are made, such as the decision to marry someone. We can think long and hard about the facts, but in the end we may realize our decision was made at an early stage (like "love at first sight"). Once decided, it does not even feel like it was a decision. It just is. People can be remarkably stubborn in sticking to it in the face of rational counter-argument, or even injustice and physical abuse.

Christians think the bible is the word of God. Atheists think the bible is not the word of any god. Having already chosen a world view within which to interpret evidence, both think they are being perfectly reasonable, but still they do not agree. First one has to agree on what are acceptable ways to find truth, but in most discussions, that is skipped. Moreover, I think that even if one does try it, in many cases one does not find an agreement. All I am saying is that that can be a reason for some of us NOT to go in discussion. Rational argument goes a long way, and it's fun to think and read about, but there is part of what goes into the decision that makes no sense to argue about.

I like this book. Baggini discusses exactly those points where my own thinking always got stuck. His distinction between strong evidence and weak evidence helps a lot. I appreciated his view that even though absolute certainty is impossible, one can still choose not to believe something based on what one sees as strong evidence.

After reading the many other reviews and comments on them on this book and others, I would like to add something. I think the way it works is that we find reasons to support our world view, when most of the processing behind that choice has already taken place. Behind the choice is a big chunk of emotional reasoning. Emotions are always there, yet hard to put in words, and sometimes they seem almost independent of rational argument. Choosing a world view may be comparable to the way other complex and emotional decisions are made, such as the decision to marry someone. We can think long and hard about the facts, but in the end we may realize our decision was made at an early stage (like "love at first sight"). Once decided, it does not even feel like it was a decision. It just is. People can be remarkably stubborn in sticking to it in the face of rational counter-argument, or even injustice and physical abuse.

Christians think the bible is the word of God. Atheists think the bible is not the word of any god. Both of them think they're being perfectly reasonable, because a big part of processing behind their choice of world view has already taken place, independent of rational argument. All I am saying is that that can be a reason for some of us NOT to go in discussion about it. Rational argument goes a long way, and it's fun to think and read about, but part of what goes into the decision makes no sense to argue about.

Julian Baggini received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Oxford University, and he approaches the topic of atheism as a philosopher. I found it to be a wonderful breath of fresh air! I am familiar with the scientific evidence that favors atheism, and I recommend "The God Delusion", "How We Believe", and "God: The Failed Hypothesis" to those with or without a background in physics, chemistry, and biology. Baggini's superb addition to OUP's Very Short Introduction series is thoughtful, well organized, and shows that philosophy can be a useful tool in examining such an important subject.

My experience with a philosophical approach to atheism has been poor--I just cannot like George Hill's "Atheism: The Case Against God". I know that offends some; but the book is poorly organized, boring, and often uses obfuscatory sentence structure and language (see my amazon.com review if you really care why I disliked the book).

Mr. Baggini's purpose, as stated in the preface, is "to produce a book which atheists will be able to give to their friends by way of explanation for their beliefs, after having used it themselves to help organize their thoughts." In this, it is near perfect. The explanations are careful, polite, and devoid of pejoratives that would offend someone who is not an atheist but is that rare gem--one who truly wants to understand what happened to their friend or family member when she/he rejected religion.

Three things I especially liked about this book. 1) It abolishes, with surgical precision, the notion that without God and religion there would be no moral center for humankind. 2) It does not fall into the trap that exists for all philosophers--getting too excited in the "Arguments for God's Existence" section and blathering about metaphysics and epistemology. Thankfully, a variant of "epistemology" only shows up once! And 3) It addresses very carefully and honestly the charge often laid at our door--that we atheists are espousing the thought system that led to totalitarian mass murder, like Franco's Spain, Nazi Italy and Germany, and Stalinist communism.

The book's one weakness, I admit somewhat grudgingly, is perhaps a strength. It holds back on the knockout punch--that religion is ridiculous and deserves scorn. When discussing the cosmological argument, for example, Baginni writes that "as long as the believer does not mistake the argument as evidence for God's existence, they can maintain the arguments as a demonstration of the rational possibility of their belief in God" (p. 95). Further, Baginni mentions that "the arguments all do point towards the falsity of religion" and "I do stamp my foot and curse [believers'] stupidity from time to time..." (p. 104). However, by not delivering the checkmate to believers, he permits that rare individual to finish the book without being angry or offended with him. Also, there is much to be said for being polite, presenting the evidence, and then letting the reader follow the logic to its inevitable conclusion.

This is a very valuable addition to a growing library of freethinking literature, and I applaud Mr. Baggini for an excellent introduction to atheism.

Julian Baggini received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Oxford University, and he approaches the topic of atheism as a philosopher. I found it to be a wonderful breath of fresh air! I am familiar with the scientific evidence that favors atheism, and I recommend "The God Delusion", "How We Believe", and "God: The Failed Hypothesis" to those with or without a background in physics, chemistry, and biology. Baggini's superb addition to OUP's Very Short Introduction series is thoughtful, well organized, and shows that philosophy can be a useful tool in examining such an important subject.





My experience with a philosophical approach to atheism has been poor--I just cannot like George Hill's "Atheism: The Case Against God". I know that offends some; but the book is poorly organized, boring, and often uses obfuscatory sentence structure and language (see my amazon.com review if you really care why I disliked the book).





Mr. Baggini's purpose, as stated in the preface, is "to produce a book which atheists will be able to give to their friends by way of explanation for their beliefs, after having used it themselves to help organize their thoughts." In this, it is near perfect. The explanations are careful, polite, and devoid of pejoratives that would offend someone who is not an atheist but is that rare gem--one who truly wants to understand what happened to their friend or family member when she/he rejected religion.





Three things I especially liked about this book. 1) It abolishes, with surgical precision, the notion that without God and religion there would be no moral center for humankind. 2) It does not fall into the trap that exists for all philosophers--getting too excited in the "Arguments for God's Existence" section and blathering about metaphysics and epistemology. Thankfully, a variant of "epistemology" only shows up once! And 3) It addresses very carefully and honestly the charge often laid at our door--that we atheists are espousing the thought system that led to totalitarian mass murder, like Franco's Spain, Nazi Italy and Germany, and Stalinist communism.





The book's one weakness, I admit somewhat grudgingly, is perhaps a strength. It holds back on the knockout punch--that religion is ridiculous and deserves scorn. When discussing the cosmological argument, for example, Baginni writes that "as long as the believer does not mistake the argument as evidence for God's existence, they can maintain the arguments as a demonstration of the rational possibility of their belief in God" (p. 95). Further, Baginni mentions that "the arguments all do point towards the falsity of religion" and "I do stamp my foot and curse [believers'] stupidity from time to time..." (p. 104). However, by not delivering the knockout blow to believers, he permits that rare individual to finish the book without being angry or offended with him. Also, there is much to be said for being polite, presenting the evidence, and then letting the reader follow the logic to its inevitable conclusion.





This is a very valuable addition to a growing library of freethinking literature, and I applaud Mr. Baggini for an excellent introduction to atheism.

Julian Baggini received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Oxford University, and he approaches the topic of atheism as a philosopher. I found it to be a wonderful breath of fresh air! I am familiar with the scientific evidence that favors atheism, and I recommend "The God Delusion", "How We Believe", and "God: The Failed Hypothesis" to those with or without a background in physics, chemistry, and biology. Baggini's superb addition to OUP's Very Short Introduction series is thoughtful, well organized, and shows that philosophy can be a useful tool in examining such an important subject.



My experience with a philosophical approach to atheism has been poor--I just cannot like George Hill's "Atheism: The Case Against God". I know that offends some; but the book is poorly organized, boring, and often uses obfuscatory sentence structure and language (see my amazon.com review if you really care why I disliked the book).



Mr. Baggini's purpose, as stated in the preface, is "to produce a book which atheists will be able to give to their friends by way of explanation for their beliefs, after having used it themselves to help organize their thoughts." In this, it is near perfect. The explanations are careful, polite, and devoid of pejoratives that would offend someone who is not an atheist but is that rare gem--one who truly wants to understand what happened to their friend or family member when she/he rejected religion.



Three things I especially liked about this book. 1) It abolishes, with surgical precision, the notion that without God and religion there would be no moral center for humankind. 2) It does not fall into the trap that exists for all philosophers--getting too excited in the "Arguments for God's Existence" section and blathering about metaphysics and epistemology. Thankfully, a variant of "epistemology" only shows up once! And 3) It addresses very carefully and honestly the charge often laid at our door--that we atheists are espousing the thought system that led to totalitarian mass murder, like Franco's Spain, Nazi Italy and Germany, and Stalinist communism.



The book's one weakness, I admit somewhat grudgingly, is perhaps a strength. It holds back on the knockout punch--that religion is ridiculous and deserves scorn. When discussing the cosmological argument, for example, Baginni writes that "as long as the believer does not mistake the argument as evidence for God's existence, they can maintain the arguments as a demonstration of the rational possibility of their belief in God" (p. 95). Further, Baginni mentions that "the arguments all do point towards the falsity of religion" and "I do stamp my foot and curse [believers'] stupidity from time to time..." (p. 104). However, by not delivering the knockout blow to believers, he permits that rare individual to finish the book without being angry or offended with him. Also, there is much to be said for being polite, presenting the evidence, and then letting the reader follow the logic to its inevitable conclusion.



This is a very valuable addition to a growing library of freethinking literature, and I applaud Mr. Baggini for an excellent introduction to atheism.

I was assigned this as part of an atheism class I took. Baggini has managed to introduce Atheism in a very succinct and quite readable book. It's a good start for anyone wanting to get more exposure to the topic of Atheism, but who might to hesitant about picking up an anthology-type book on the subject.

It's small, cheap, and well worth the buy. (Suffice to say, this was a book that I did not sell back to the campus bookstore at the end of the semester.)

I finished Atheism: A Very Short Introduction by Julian Baggini. For the most part, it reassured my beliefs and choices as well as answered some of the questions I was seeking. Largely, does atheism only exist as a critique against other religions (which it seems to be in many discussions) and atheism as a belief system itself. It lightly delved into quite a few philosophical arguments for atheism and responses to arguments against atheism.

Of course, Baggini did dwell on the relationship of atheism and religion and did spend some time refuting religious beliefs and reasons to believe in religion in the sense that there are practical and factual reasons. That is, Baggini doesn't so much as negate religion as much as realistic belief in it and the requirement of blind faith to accept it.

I think what I enjoyed most is Baggini's look that atheism is neither a positive nor a negative outlook on life. Rather, it's a realistic and naturalistic approach to life and that atheists can define and find their own good and bad. Too often atheism is confused with nihilism. Additionally, the book helped me to distinguish the lines between atheism and existentialism more so than I previously had.

Interestingly enough, the book included a quote from my favorite - Terry Pratchett, "I think I'm probably an atheist, but rather angry at god for not existing." When I shared this with Andrew he didn't get it at first but everyone reaches their beliefs differently and Pratchett succinctly describes my somewhat rocky journey in wanting to believe in something only to realize that what I wanted wasn't some supernatural entity. I've also slowly been becoming more and more aware of the Christian privilege around me.

When I noticed that Richard Dawkins plugged this book in "The God Delusion," I thought it would be worthwhile to look into. However, I walked away from this book without having gained very much worthwhile information. To be fair, I already know a fair amount about the topic, so I shouldn't have expected to learn a great deal by reading a general introduction (which is very short). However, at times I found myself thinking that I could write better arguments than Baggini, who apparently has not looked into the issues in enough depth to be competent enough to make a valid case.

Let me begin here by pointing out where Baggini did good and then work into some of the weak parts of the book. First of all, the book begins by showing the connectedness of atheism to naturalism--that is, the view that only the natural world exists. "Supernatural realms" are dismissed as nonsense by naturalists because of the lack of evidence (and, besides, that, it's not entirely clear what the evidence would look like for something supernatural). Baggini pushes this type of argument, making a positive case for atheism by making a positive case for naturalism. With this book I would have liked a more comprehensive analysis of naturalism in order to have a more airtight case for atheism, but overall Baggini chose a good approach to argue for atheism. This was one of the good things about the book, because in this section he points out some epistemological tips for readers to know how to make a good philosophical argument for anything.

This was followed by two chapters about atheist morality and meaning and purpose in an atheist worldview. I don't have anything to say about that section of the book, except to maybe wonder out loud whether Baggini has read enough about these two issues to make a good case. I think they were helpful in places, but they could probably be written much better than they were.

Finally, the ultimate downfall of this book was its short treatment of arguments for theism. It should be no surprise that a book arguing for the validity of atheism absolutely necessitates a summary of the arguments for theism as well as counter-arguments. In a short introduction such as this, it would be wise to not get into too many of the various arguments, but instead it is important to summarize the arguments and to show where the fallacies lie. Baggini attempted to do this for the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and the ontological argument, not giving enough space or dedication to any one of them.

Overall, the book is probably worthwhile for somebody who has not read any books about atheism yet and who is interested in looking into it, but for anybody who is already "introduced" to the topic, it would not be wise to purchase this book (because very little information will be new to you).

This is the best introduction to Atheism out. It is calm yet forceful and reasoned. Makes a much more convincing (and philosophical) case for atheism than Harris or Dawkins.

I have never written an Amazon review before but I have to add my vote for this as simply the most brilliant book on atheism every penned. This book should be put in the side table of every hotel room in America alongside the Gideon Bible. For a beginning thinker, this book is clear, well-organized, and addresses all the major concepts one would need to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. With humility and deep insight, Baggini does it all. After defining the much misunderstood term, he presents a clear rational naturalistic case for atheism, addresses concerns about morality and meaning (both of which the average person assumes atheists lack), and deals with the thorny issues of confrontation with religion and religious belief with sensitivity. There is simply no better book on atheism -- and all in a mere 111 pages!

Julian Baggini's Atheism: a Very Short Introduction fulfills its promise very nicely. It is an introduction to atheism, very short at only 116 pages. It is not comprehensive and does not try to be. It does not try to be An Encyclopedia of Atheism and it is not one. Like most of the other Oxford Very Short Introductions it is thought-provoking and provides a starting place to examine a subject.

Baggini introduces different topics in the general subject of atheism and metaphysics and presents enough of the necessary arguments to provide the reader with a place to begin to think about the subject. He cannot satisfy people who are interested in a single area, nor present extended arguments in any particular area of thought. While it is clear when he is presenting an argument that he favors, he typically gives a couple of sentences that someone who opposes his views might present and then responds to them. Unlike some more confrontational and adversarial treatments of atheism, Baggini is mostly very balanced and he sometimes strikes a conciliatory tone particularly arguing against militant anti-religious feelings, and further argues against militant atheism. He argues this to avoid the problem of atheism becoming another form of dogmatism or fundamentalism, which he views as a greater threat than religion.

Although many books about atheism start with proofs of God's existence and then demonstrates their falsity, Baggini saves discussion of proofs and disproofs of God's existence to a very late chapter, and he treats with them only briefly. He points out that while these disproofs are not completely irrelevant they nevertheless miss the point, as believers don't believe in God based on whether the existence of God can be proven, and atheists are unlikely to be swayed from their position by the arguments that deists usually use anyway. The evidence for atheism begins with the atmosphere of rationalism that developed during the great Enlightenment which then led to naturalism, and the blooming of science which took off during the late 18th and the 19th centuries. The development of naturalism naturally turned its practitioners away from deism and toward atheism. Baggini pictures atheism as the proper response to humans being part of the natural world, and our universe being part of the natural world as well. The "explanatory gaps" that are such a big part of creation science and intelligent design have been closing over time as science and naturalism accumulate more and more information about our natural world and as they slowly close those gaps. He writes only little about the different worldviews of science and religion, but recommends reading authors like Richard Dawkins who cover this area more comprehensively.

Baggini covers the difficulties of presenting ethics and how one might live a moral life without a religious underpinning, and he talks about meaning and purpose in life without God as well. After giving a brief history of atheism, he covers why atheism is not responsible for the behavior of the Nazis in Germany or the Communists in the Soviet Union.

I thought Baggini very nicely avoided the problem of shrillness that is often a part of this kind of discussion, and he presents his ideas in a reasonable and calm manner. The book assumes that one is a rationalist, and that the reader will use evidence and logic in order to determine which of competing ideas one is going to accept; he points out that atheism does not depend on faith in any significant way. After reading this book I have looked into a couple of his other books: The Philosopher's Toolkit and the Pig That Wants to Be Eaten. Both are in a similar style, are interesting and a reasonable, and worth the time as well. I'm also looking forward to his What's It All About?: Philosophy and the Meaning of Life, due to be delivered soon.