The biggest debate of today's philosophical minds, the existence or lack thereof a supreme being. "Atheism Explained: From Folly to Philosophy" takes an examination of the debate and seeks to fully understand what rages on between secular atheists and devout Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other religious types around the world. Criticizing with scholarly knowledge and tact, he offers his own opinion on the matter and addresses the many arguments on both sides. "Atheism Explained" is solid reading for anyone who enjoys debating philosophy and religion.

After reviewing Victor Stenger's "God: The Failed Hypothesis" some time ago, and finding it to be but a good effort at best, I still kept my ears open for another book that supposedly laid out the case for atheism more solidly than the rhetoric of Richard Dawkins. I noticed over time that this book, Atheism Explained by David Ramsay Steele, got perhaps the most accolades by atheists who likewise thought Dawkins was too light on actual argument and preferred something a little more. So I gave this book a read.

Like Stenger's book before I, as a Christian theist who is also an evolutionist, found that the initial portion of the book, which seeks to rebut creationism, to be something of a moot point when it comes to settling the question of whether atheism or theism is actually true. Despite, though, my agreement with Steele insofar as evolution is true, he still suffers from a chink or two in the armor here. For instance, he argues at one point that even granting Old Earth Creationism (OEC), day-age view that Noah's Flood still must have been universal in scope and is a liability that the day-age view must suffer from. Of course this is not true at all, and far be it from me to defend creationism, but as most OECs will acknowledge the Hebrew word for land, `eretz, when elsewhere spoken of in a seemingly universal sense, just as in the flood account, still is clearly meant to imply a local meaning (cf. Gen. 13:9; 41:57; Ex. 34:10). So contra Steele, the charge of inaccuracy and subsequent disproof of the infallibility of the Holy Bible - an actually unbiblical `tenet of Christianity' that I do not adhere to anyway -- is not demonstrated here.

Past this portion of the book Steele takes aim at the fine-tuning (of the universe) argument. It's an interesting read, but unconvincing. He notes that not all constants are necessarily independent of each other, which is undoubtedly true but ultimately irrelevant. He also tosses around statements like, "we don't really know how improbable our universe is", which is just special pleading that anyone arguing anything could employ. I've heard young-earth creationists make the exact same point with the implication, of course, that someday, someway, somehow the future will unload a sudden proof of their claims. Of course this is theoretically possible, but is not how argumentation works.

In a portion of the book dealing with the cosmological arguments, Steele charges the theist of appealing to the principle of sufficient reason (PSR), which is held to be rather controversial by many philosophers. But, in fact, (1) there are nuanced variants of the PSR that less controversial and enjoy greater reception, and (2) furthermore it could be that the theist is making an argument to the best explanation in which case the PSR is not really the basis for her claim at all, thus rendering Steele's PSR-based criticism all but irrelevant. Steele makes another rather egregious error here. He follows Hume into the trap of asserting that all necessary truths are analytic, which is to say that to deny them is self-contradictory (i.e. to make an A and ~A assertion). And since the denial of God does not meet this standard, God cannot be a necessary being. But many philosophers have since come to the conclusion that necessary truths can also be synthetic (i.e. their denial is not asserting A and ~A), such as Goldbach's Conjecture. Indeed one has to wonder if Steele is even being consistent himself here, for is one not affirming a necessary truth in advocating the proposition "all necessary truths are analytic"? Well it seems one must be if the conclusion that it's always self-contradictory to deny a necessary truth must follow. But yet is it not as epistemically feasible to deny this proposition as one might deny God's existence? It certainly seems so.

In other places Steele fails to do justice to the matter of mystical religious experience by misconstruing it as an argument from one person's subjective experience as a reason for another person, who lacks such experience, to believe. Actually, from what I've seen, what most intellectual theists actually argue from religious experience is two-fold, and does not include Steele's formulation: (1) to argue that the individual who has them has them is well within his epistemic rights to affirm what is being experience as real (a la William Lane Craig), while (2) others appeal to it in order to increase the prior probability of the theistic hypothesis (a la C. Stephen Layman). Steele simply barks up the wrong tree, and we are left wondering what the relevance of his remarks is to the real arguments.

Finally, though more could certainly be said (I will not here touch on the arguments surrounding the existence evil that Steele cites), it would probably be fitting to end this review on a note about Steele's accusations against the Holy Bible. Depressingly, the usual argument-from-silence canards are here: Luke's census, Herod's execution of the innocents. Explicitly providing the actual answers to these matters would take too much additional space, but one can find the answers to these problems if he or she will consult my past review of Stenger's book. Oddly, he also complains about the time difference between the composition of the New Testament (NT) and the events they supposedly record. Excuse me...? The NT writings are very well indeed within the accepted range of reliability if one compares the time of their compositions and what they purport to describe with extra-biblical historical texts that are at least accepted as generally reliable. Seutonius and Plutarch anyone? Also, the authors of the New Testament are contemporaries of Christ, thus invalidating Steele's comparison between the historicity of Socrates and Jesus. It is interesting moreover, that Steele apparently fails to realize the fact that even if (for the sake of argument) the ancient sources were not contemporaries this is hardly a reason for pressing panic buttons. Indeed much of what we know about several historical personages and events that are accept as generally reliable often come from non-contemporary sources. For instance, James Hannam of the website Bede's Library has described how the accepted existence of Hannibal and the events surrounding him rests on none of the pseudo-criteria for historicity asserted (without citing any eminent classical historian for support, I might add) by Steele. Furthermore, as James Patrick Holding has pointed out, the historical figures Gamaliel, Honi the Circle Drawer, Hillel, Shammai, and Confucius, and what we know of them comes not from the caliber of sources Steele demands. So until we see Steele, along with ancient historians, deny the existence, or at least the facts, regarding these figures we're hardly at the mercy of his arguments here. Beyond this, Steele deals with evidence surrounding the resurrection of Christ with but a few paragraphs. Much less does he deal with the scholarship and arguments provided by the likes of N.T. Wright, or Habermas and Licona.

All in all, then, the result is an ultimately unfulfilling read. I can understand why some prefer this book to others, as it at least offers argumentation that one is capable of analyzing. And for that, Steele gets an A for effort. Nevertheless, I must say that I still don't see after reading this book that atheism seems all that probable or convincing, or to put in terms I prefer -- the argument with the best explanation.

After reviewing Victor Stenger's "God: The Failed Hypothesis" some time ago, and finding it to be but a good effort at best, I still kept my ears open for another book that supposedly laid out the case for atheism more solidly than the rhetoric of Richard Dawkins. I noticed over time that this book, Atheism Explained by David Ramsay Steele, got perhaps the most accolades by atheists who likewise thought Dawkins was too light on actual argument and preferred something a little more. So I gave this book a read.

Like Stenger's book before I, as a Christian theist who is also an evolutionist, found that the initial portion of the book, which seeks to rebut creationism, to be something of moot point when it comes to settling the question of whether atheism or theism is actually true. Despite, though, my agreement with Steele insofar as evolution is true, he still suffers from a few chink or two in the armor here. For instance, he argues at one point that even granting Old Earth Creationism (OEC), day-age view that Noah's Flood still must have been universal in scope and is a liability that the day-age view must suffer from. Of course this is not true at all, and far be it from me to defend creationism, but as most OECs will acknowledge the Hebrew word for land, `eretz, when elsewhere spoken of in a seemingly universal sense, just as in the flood account, still is clearly meant to imply a local meaning (cf. Gen. 13:9; 41:57; Ex. 34:10). So contra Steele, the charge of inaccuracy and subsequent disproof of the infallibility of the Holy Bible - an actually unbiblical `tenet of Christianity' that I do not adhere to anyway -- is not demonstrated here.

Past this portion of the book Steele takes aim at the fine-tuning (of the universe) argument. It's an interesting read, but unconvincing. He notes that not all constants are necessarily independent of each other, which is undoubtedly true but ultimately irrelevant. He also tosses around statements like, "we don't really know how improbable our universe is", which is just special pleading that anyone arguing anything could employ. I've heard young-earth creationists make the exact same point with the implication, of course, that someday, someway, somehow the future will unload a sudden proof of their claims. Of course this is theoretically possible, but is not how argumentation works.

In a portion of the book dealing with the cosmological arguments, Steele charges the theist of appealing to the principle of sufficient reason (PSR), which is held to be rather controversial by many philosophers. But, in fact, (1) there are nuanced variants of the PSR that less controversial and enjoy greater reception, and (2) furthermore it could be that the theist is making an argument to the best explanation in which case the PSR is not really the basis for her claim at all, thus rendering Steele's PSR-based criticism all but irrelevant. Steele makes another rather egregious error here. He follows Hume into the trap of asserting that all necessary truths are analytic, which is to say that to deny them is self-contradictory (i.e. to make an A and ~A assertion). And since the denial of God does not meet this standard, God cannot be a necessary being. But many philosophers have since come to the conclusion that necessary truths can also be synthetic (i.e. their denial is not asserting A and ~A), such as Goldbach's Conjecture. Indeed one has to wonder if Steele is even being consistent himself here, for is one not affirming a necessary truth in advocating the proposition "all necessary truths are analytic"? Well it seems one must be if the conclusion that it's always self-contradictory to deny a necessary truth must follow. But yet is it not as epistemically feasible to deny this proposition as one might deny God's existence? It certainly seems so.

In other places Steele fails to do justice to the matter of mystical religious experience by misconstruing it as an argument from one person's subjective experience as a reason for another person, who lacks such experience, to believe. Actually, from what I've seen, what most intellectual theists actually argue from religious experience is two-fold, and does not include Steele's formulation: (1) to argue that the individual who has them has them is well within his epistemic rights to affirm what is being experience as real (a la William Lane Craig), while (2) others appeal to it in order to increase the prior probability of the theistic hypothesis (a la C. Stephen Layman). Steele simply barks up the wrong tree, and we are left wondering what the relevance of his remarks is to the real arguments.

Finally, though more could certainly be said (I will not here touch on the arguments surrounding the existence evil that Steele cites), it would probably be fitting to end this review on a note about Steele's accusations against the Holy Bible. Depressingly, the usual argument-from-silence canards are here: Luke's census, Herod's execution of the innocents. Explicitly providing the actual answers to these matters would take too much additional space, but one can find the answers to these problems if he or she will consult my past review of Stenger's book. Oddly, he also complains about the time difference between the composition of the New Testament (NT) and the events they supposedly record. Excuse me...? The NT writings are very well indeed within the accepted range of reliability if one compares the time of their compositions and what they purport to describe with extra-biblical historical texts that are at least accepted as generally reliable. Seutonius and Plutarch anyone? Also, the authors of the New Testament are contemporaries of Christ, thus invalidating Steele's comparison between the historicity of Socrates and Jesus. It is interesting moreover, that Steele apparently fails to realize the fact that even if (for the sake of argument) the ancient sources were not contemporaries this is hardly a reason for pressing panic buttons. Indeed much of what we know about several historical personages and events that are accept as generally reliable often come from non-contemporary sources. For instance, James Hannam of the website Bede's Library has described how the accepted existence of Hannibal and the events surrounding him rests on none of the pseudo-criteria for historicity asserted (without citing any eminent classical historian for support, I might add) by Steele. Furthermore, as James Patrick Holding has pointed out, the historical figures Gamaliel, Honi the Circle Drawer, Hillel, Shammai, and Confucius, and what we know of them comes not from the caliber of sources Steele demands. So until we see Steele, along with ancient historians, deny the existence and facts regarding these figures we're hardly at the mercy of his arguments here. Beyond this, Steele deals with evidence surrounding the resurrection of Christ with but a few paragraphs. Much less does he deal with the scholarship and arguments provided by the likes of N.T. Wright, or Habermas and Licona.

All in all, then, the result is an ultimately unfulfilling read. I can understand why some prefer this book to others, as it at least offers argumentation that one is capable of analyzing. And for that, Steele gets an A for effort. Nevertheless, I must say that I still don't see after reading this book that atheism seems all that probable or convincing, or to put in terms I prefer -- the argument with the best explanation.

This beautifully written book is a comprehensive and entertaining explanation of, and reply to, the claims for God's existence. The author starts by describing a variety of worldwide and historic religions -- polytheistic, monotheistic, and atheistic(!) -- and then is careful to define the book's target as the traditional Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. His arguments are the most complete and clear I have ever read. But more enlightening for me was his description of the staggering assumptions a believer must make in order to justify and maintain his/her religious faith. The writing is also entertaining -- I found myself smiling at nearly every page. I recommend this book to atheists as a thorough reference to some very clear and complete arguments, and I can also recommend this book to Judeo-Christian believers as a substantial challenge to the basis of their faith.

I am a faithful Catholic so obviously a theist, but I must say- What a wonderful change of pace from the irrationality of Dawkins, hitchens, and Harris. This book goes through ACTUAL arguments for atheism. While I don't think the arguments work, at least they are based on logic and rationality, as opposed to emotionally charged rhetoric. I just finished Lofton's book, and this is way better. This book really is on ATHEISM, not just evangelicalism.

The author goes through the typical arguments for God, and tries to show where they are wrong. He does a good job with the cosmological argument and the argument from design, but he gives the worst criticisms of the ontological argument I've ever heard. Strange. Also, I admire the fact that he went after the so-called argument based on the fine-tuning of the universe, becuase that can't really be answered. He was only able to give a lot of speculation that even if true, would only make massively small improbabilities slightly more probable. He also doesn't do the job to dismiss the resurrection of Jesus. There are volumes upon volumes of scholarly work on it, and he just pretty much blew it all off.

I do appreciate the fact that he tried to answer the top apologetical theists today like Craig, Swinburne, and Plantinga. All in all, this book is very good, but unfortunately, will probably be lumped in with Dawkins and hitchens and the "new atheism" because people will think this is just another new atheism book. Too bad.

I've read dozens of books on atheism and atheistic philosophies (Nietzsche, Russell, Existentialism, etc.) and have enthusiastically absorbed the recent polemics by Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris. The book of Atheist Quotes is also good fun reading but none of these books really present a solid critical and logical argument against the theists who are bent on ridiculing you or your beliefs and thoughts of non-belief. And non-belief is the key term here. Atheists should not claim that there is no God. We only claim that we don't believe in this God claimed by the theists. The burden of proof is on those who insist that God exists, not on those who just aren't convinced.

Compared to the recent best sellers like 'The God Delusion' by Dawkins and 'god is not Great' by Hitchens, 'Atheism Explained' takes a more tactful and thoughtful approach to the never-ending theism vs. atheism argument. Steele is at times quite sympathetic towards the beliefs of the theists. He is a kinder and gentler atheist who understands why people are prone to believe in a deity who listens to their prayers and promises them eternal life. But that's as far as Steele goes. When the time comes to argue the points, Steele coolly but methodically and somewhat mercilessly tears down the theistic arguments and beliefs.

There's a lot of mathematical logic at work here in the arguments provided by Steele. Still, it's not cold logic that only logicians and mathematicians can understand. It's common sense logic that most lay persons can understand and deduce from. These are arguments you can use over and over again and know that they'll work. These aren't opinions or leaps of faith (or non-faith) that theists can shoot down with mere contempt. Either the theists argue with you in a logical manner or they don't. If they do decide to argue with you in a logically-oriented debate or argument (which is a big if and not something most theists and believers want to engage in anyway), they will not be able to argue against the various points that are so eloquently and masterfully brought up by Steele.

This book covers all the major reasons that the theists bring up to justify the existence of God and refutes them in a clear and logical manner over and over again. Now some arguments work better than others and I will have to say that Steele doesn't bat 1.000, but he gets it right more often than not. At times, Steele simply crushes the theistic viewpoints with clear and incisive arguments that cut to the heart of the matter. Either the theists need to be coherent or there's no point in arguing with 'em. But I suppose that is often the problem when dealing with theists. They will explain that 2+2 can indeed be 5 (or anything else than 4) and go through circular arguments to defend their incoherent conclusions.

As far as those unreasonable and incoherent types, even the arguments laid out in this book will fall on deaf ears. The sad part is that the great majority of the theists and sky god believers have already made up their minds. Why? Because they simply WANT to. Whether they've been brainwashed through many years of indoctrination or they just decided on their own to believe so they can to go to heaven or feel good inside somehow, they'll find ways to twist their words and fall back on words such as "love", "god", "infinite", etc. to justify their beliefs. There's obviously no reason to even argue with such types because it's not they won't, they simply CAN'T.

But if you do want to explore the most fundamental questions about the origin of the universe, life, death and the meaning of existence but do so in logical manner, this book goes a long way and lays out the arguments in an easy-to-understand manner. There are still many brain-twisters and mind-bogglers to contend with here, but if you're only somewhat intellectually rigorous and diligent, the concepts should filter in without too many difficulties. This is the book I recommend to atheists and skeptics who need real ammunition - i.e., logically and thoughtfully laid out arguments - when confronting a belligerent theist trying to convert you with hellfire. Good luck!

I am a newly de-converted Christian. This is my forth book I've read on Atheism, and I still found a lot in it I haven't read before. I particularly appreciated his intellectual honesty in owning up to the fact that Atheism has killed more people than either Christianity or Islam. He didn't try to baffle us with B.S. on this point as Dawkins and Harris did. He just acknowledged it and moved on. He reminded me here of what I enjoyed most about my academic experience at college.

The only point I vigorously disagreed with him on is his statement in chapter 18, Is There a Spirit World? He writes; "Today theists or generic believers in a spirit world appeal to near-death experiences as evidence, . . . We can collect anecdotes . . . This kind of thing is being done all the time, and is obviously worthless. The problem is that anecdotes get better with retelling and remembering. There is an inbuilt tendency to turn an account into a `good story', by emphasizing confirming aspects and overlooking awkward aspects."

I think he's being lazy dismissing the miraculous so quickly. Anecdotal evidence is usually about all we have to go on in NDE's and miracles. Sure there are a lot of instances that confirm his skepticism, like Betty Eddie's infamous book, "Embraced by the Light." But there's also a lot where the person is being scrupulously honest. And it's up to the investigator to use their intuition, gut feeling and common sense to sort out which is which. This task reminds me of the skills the critical Biblical scholars use to get at the truth about the Bible, which he endorses. Both are messy, but necessary tasks.

Steele does a very thorough job of laying out all the arguments for and against belief in God. In general, he presents these arguments quite fairly - sometimes even criticizing the atheist position and granting theists certain points.

The book focuses its critique on what he calls "classical theism", the belief in an all knowing, all powerful, infallible deity. Steele does a workmanlike job of dismantling this concept. While he also examines other theistic beliefs such as pantheism and deism, he offers a much less thorough critique of these alternatives.

So the reader who has abandoned the church, synagogue or mosque, yet clings to some conception of God, can find an escape hatch in Steele's argument. But, while the theistic reader may finish the book unconverted, he will definitely find a strong challenge to his faith and may need to modify his concept of God if he wishes to remain intellectually honest.

Not just a book about atheism, but an engaging primer on philosophy and how to reason on these matters.
This book is really categorically different than the typical atheist books out there that have gotten some notoriety. This is really a fun, readable, analysis of the position of theism and atheism.

A good and fair accounting of the arguments undergirding the beliefs.

I met Dr. Steele about 10 years ago and he seemed the most knowledgeable guy in a pretty smart room. He continues this impression with this book. Recommended to balance those other atheist polemics.

Discussion of atheism has been hi-jacked these days by the likes of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, all of whom have produced bestselling polemics that, while enraging opponents and tickling fans, generate much more heat than light. David Ramsey Steele's Atheism Explained is a defense of atheism that takes seriously the need for rigorous and fair-minded analysis in sorting out the conflicting claims of believers and nonbelievers. The careful reader will find some arguments less convincing than others. But none of them are ill-framed or polemical. And some of them are very good indeed.

Steele focuses most of his attention on examining the strongest arguments for God's existence. He tells us from the outset (p. xii) that he's bypassing obviously weak ones or ones that have been defended by popular apologists (it's also interesting that he barely mentions the New Atheist troika, reserving his only sustained comment on them to a couple of paragraphs [p. 259] in a chapter entitled "Bad or Feeble Arguments Against God") in favor of the strongest theistic defenses he can find. So he takes a look, for example, at contemporary anthropic revisions of the design argument (chpts 3-5), kalam revisions of the cosmological argument (chpt 6), the ontological argument (chpt 7), and the problem of evil (chpts 14-15). Steele is especially strong in his analysis of design arguments, and weakest in his treatment of the ontological argument (he ignores, for example, Hartshorne's and Plantinga's modal models). Although I think his criticisms of the kalam cosmological argument cogent, I suspect that readers new to the argument will find Steele's description of it confusing.

Steele's analysis of the problem of evil's objection to God's existence is also quite strong (possibly the book's highmark), particularly his teasing out of the different scenarios in which human free will wouldn't necessarily inhibit God from alleviating suffering in the world (pp.187-213). Steele also takes a look at arguments against God's existence based on impossibility or incoherence of qualities such as omnipotence and omniscience attributed to God (chpts 16 and 17). Curiously, however, he only mentions in passing indexical arguments. But this could be because appreciating such arguments requires a pretty good grasp of symbolic logic.

All in all, a very good book. I give it a rating of 4.5 stars.

...this book converts.

I am currently an undergraduate philosophy student that was looking for a book that truly gave solid, adequate, epistemological, metaphysical, cosmological, and psychological arguments for the case for atheism. This book was precisely that. After reading Dawkins' "The God Delusion" in its entirety and skimming through Hitchens' "Portable Atheist", I was disappointed to find that these authors are more interested in pointing out the dangers of religion than really rolling up their sleeves and making strong arguments against theism (Dawkins' attempt to point out the "fallacies" in the uncaused cause is insulting to most modern educated theologians; he gives no recognition to transcendentalist theory at all). Don't get me wrong, these are brilliant men, but David Ramsay Steele, I think, puts their efforts to shame.

I can honestly say that because of Steele, I am no longer a theist. His arguments are so exhaustive and thorough that you couldn't ask for more. He really satisfies the readers that want explanation in extensive detail while still managing not to bore them. He is quite the gifted scientist, philosopher, and persuasive writer.

So, If you're scanning through the atheist books and wondering which to read, put Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett back on the shelf for now and pick up this overlooked and underappreciated gem.

I enjoyed much of this book but it does get tedious. Many of these treatise for atheism go over the same points ad infinitum. They also introduce terms that are probably common knowledge to professional philosophers but require the average reader to keep a dictionary at hand in order to make sense of the text. Without a fairly thorough, college level knowledge of philosphy, decoding the arguments takes away from the flow and enjoyment of the reading.

Atheism Explained is an in-depth book that uses math style proofs (using language of course) to give you ammunition to counter the theists. I think most people will find it tedious to read and draw out the nuggets of truth in all the wordiness. If infallible logic and debate style verbage is your thing, go for this book. If you're looking for something more down to earth, or even something more on the psychological end of the scale....look elsewhere.
-DustDevl

I have read well over a hundred books on religious criticism; and this book is one of the very best general single volume assessments of the rational merit of Theism and Atheism. The book solely deals with the rational merit of atheism versus theism, not with the social merit or demerit of religion, which many other popular atheist books deal with. The author is skilled at making very complex issues accessible to a general audience. The book covers a surprising amount of ground and deals with a wide variety of subjects; including many issues that other books of this nature often leave out, such as ND E's and even the Koran. The author was especially strong when dealing with the Anthropic Principle and the problem of evil. The author has a way of pinpointing the central issues that underlie many of the issues involved. He is a skilled philosopher and is more adapt then many other popular authors when it comes to analyzing the rational merit of key arguments. I highly recommend this book.

Dozens of books for and against atheism are now coming out, and the quality is very mixed on both sides of the debate. Among books of a general and popular nature, Steele's book is by far the best pro-atheist statement.

He covers all the arguments, and the most committed believer would have to agree that he does so with complete fairness. His exposition is crystal clear: he makes the most complex issues easy to understand. The book is so fair-minded and such an easy read that a beginning Christian theology student could read it in a weekend, simply to get a quick outline of philosophy of religion. Steele is also quite critical of some ideas commonly held by atheists: for example he refutes the claim that belief in God leads to atrocities.

Although the author is often witty and ironic, he is sympathetic and without malice. The reader feels that if Steele could find a decent argument for the existence of God, he would gladly accept it, and he actually mentions one such argument that might be developed in the future. Meanwhile, he destroys all the standard arguments quite convincingly. The author is extremely polite, but without mercy when it comes to muddled thinking.

Here are some of the notable features of this book: the clearest discussion I have encountered of Darwinism in relation to Christianity; a fresh and entertaining treatment of the claim that morality comes from God; the author's thorough knowledge of the Bible and the Quran (he is as much at home with Aquinas as with Darwin); a devastating scrutiny of the historical reliability of the New Testament; historical evidence showing that atheism has always been prevalent; an illuminating discussion of the theory that we are born with a "God gene" that makes us thirst for a God; an original explanation of why most people today say that they believe in God; and a persuasive analysis of the Problem of Evil, bringing up many relevant points that are usually ignored.

One thing you might not get from all I have said above is that the book really says quite a lot that is controversial, even shocking. For instance, it claims that belief in God always withers on the vine when exposed to modern capitalism (and that American attitudes to religion will now speedily become more like European ones); it attacks the media theory that religion motivates suicide bombings; it debunks the popular view that "you can't prove a negative" and also the common misconception that one side or another has "the burden of proof"; and it concludes that both theism and atheism have little practical importance since they don't tell us how to live our lives.

Christians, Muslims, and Jews who read Atheism Explained will probably become atheists; atheists who read it will have some of their comfortable preconceptions unexpectedly shaken up.

Jeffrey A. Schaler
schaler@american.edu
www.schaler.net

I agree entirely with the previous reviewers that this is a very balanced, serious, and well argued book. Although one of the reviewers described this as an excellent book in defence of atheism, I would only disagree with the idea that atheism is a subject or concept that needed defending. Religion is what needs defending whereas atheism merely requires explanation and once that has been done, nothing else is required. In this sense the title of the book is an appropriate one. The author had written on a subject that some other learned minds such as Dawkins and Hitchens couldn't help denigrating to some extent, David Steele has chosen to explain with no exaggeration, pomposity, or arrogance. He tackles virtually all the difficult subjects in religion and atheism with such clarity that one can almost say that if only one book is to be recommended, this may well be the one. Books by G A Wells (The Jesus Myth)were also written in similar vein, and although they were more detailed and the subject matter more specific, Steele has managed to cover slightly more ground. His chapter on free will and god alone is worth the price of the book.The other chapters that I enjoyed were "Can God be a person?" and "Is there a spirit world?"In the former, Steele explicated the impossible notion of a god that is eternal and outside time and yet be inside time to listen to prayers and occasionaly acting on it. God and time is a subject that people rarely think about.The latter compels the reader to examine critically the notion of a "spirit", a word that flits in and out of all theological discussion as if it was something so obvious. Is it really? Whatever idea you may have as to what a spirit is, read Steele on this point.

There are two kinds of atheist books--the kind that make atheists say "Right on!" and the kind that turn believers or doubters into atheists. This book is in the latter category, and it's hard to imagine any sincere and open-minded theist who could read it and not be converted. It's easy to see why such outstanding thinkers as Victor Stenger and Susan Blackmore have given the book such fulsome praise. (And is this the first ever atheist book to have a cover blurb from a Jesuit priest?) Steele keeps his promise of dealing with every important argument for God's existence, and also presents some surprising arguments against. His discussion is amazingly clear, as well as being witty and thoroughly entertaining. I particularly enjoyed his discussion of "Why is there something instead of nothing?" and of the argument from "religious experience." Unlike some well-known atheists, he doesn't make crude mistakes about Christian theology. He concedes points to theists where he thinks they have a strong argument, and he obviously agrees with Christians on such issues as free will. It's difficult to imagine a better book on atheism than this one. And by the way, I just love the cover!

This book is a marketing nightmare. The title, the subtitle, and the cover art are all uninspired. But this is one of the best books outlining a case for atheism that I've read. It is clear, user-friendly, and logical. The logical evidence against classical theism is treated in a comprehensive presentation that does not feel labored, and manages to dodge some of the excesses of books by Dawkins and Hitchens. If I were told that a Christian friend were experiencing doubts about her faith and she was asking for recommendations for three books explaining atheism as a rational, satisfying alternative, this book might well be among the three. After years of having very few readable books on atheism, the last couple of years have witnessed an explosion of fine, readable texts. Put "Atheism Explained" on the shelf next to "Irreligion," "The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality," "Godless Philosophy," and other such books. The place for "God is Not Great" and "The God Delusion" is important, because they have opened a window. I would argue that what they have opened that window for is gentler, wiser books such as this one.

One of the best contributions the book makes is in an appendix about arguments NOT to use for atheism. Every atheist who feels compelled to convert the religious to atheism should read it. I think reducing the toxic effects of fundamentalism is a noble, necessary aim. But sinking to the tactics that fundamentalists use should play no part in our strategy to combat fanaticism. This appendix outlines "arguments" that toe that line and cautions against their use.

This book is a marketing nightmare. The title, the subtitle, and the cover art are all uninspired. But this is one of the single best books outlining a case for atheism that I've read. It is clear, user-friendly, and logical. The logical evidence against classical theism is treated in a comprehensive presentation that does not feel labored, and manages to dodge some of the excesses of books by Dawkins and Hitchens. If I were told that a Christian friend were experiencing doubts about her faith and she was asking for recommendations for three books explaining atheism as a rational, satisfying alternative, this book might well be among the three. After years of having very few readable books on atheism, the last couple of years have witnessed an explosion of fine, readable texts. Put "Atheism Explained" on the shelf next to "Irreligion," "The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality," "Godless Philosophy," and other such books. The place for "God is Not Great" and "The God Delusion" is important, because they have opened a window. I would argue that what they have opened that window for is gentler, wiser books such as this one.

This is by far the best of the recent books defending atheism. Steele has a keen philosophical intelligence and writes in a clear and forceful style. The book includes an original criticism of the ontological argument. Another highlight is the discussion of objections to the theory of evolution.

This is by far the best of the recent books defending atheism. Steele has a keen philosophical intelligence and writes in a clear and forceful style.