Scan barcode
solanpolarn's review against another edition
4.0
The more books I read from the 'A Very Short Introduction' series, the more I like this idea. Baggini's book on Atheism is no exception. It is a popularly written argument for the truth of atheism, and a very good one at that. However, in keeping with the science pay of the 'popular science' ethos, it acknowledges that the rational arguments being made for the validity of atheism and the falsity of religion are not related to what generally males people religious.
juliaors's review against another edition
3.0
rip jesus you would have loved Atheism: A Very Short Introduction
despair0769's review against another edition
4.0
This book serves the purpose it sets out to achieve, which is to provide a very brief overview of atheism. The book manages to explain a lot in a short amount of time, and I think the topics it covers are essential to anyone wanting to understand atheism, including an explanation of what atheism is and how to establish a case for it. Two important chapters also set out to explain how the atheist can approach both ethics and the meaning of life--two things that atheists are commonly accused of not being able to possess. I believe that the book's weakest point, however, is the discussion on politics towards the end, since it felt a little too rushed and unnecessary for the scope of the book. Additionally, since the book is so brief, I believe that many may come away unsatisfied with either the arguments for atheism or the arguments in response to defenses of theism itself, since the book does not present anything new and does not have space to cover more serious argument for or against theism. Overall, however, this book is a good choice for anyone absolutely new to atheism or the philosophy of religion and can provide a good starting point to learn more.
britt_ne_y's review against another edition
5.0
I had to read this for my religion class and the whole reason I took it was because I’m not familiar with religion, therefore I didn’t really understand or have a stance on it. I wanted to expand my knowledge and many adapt a way or thinking. Throughout the semester we’ve addressed Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism,Taoism, Confucianism, and finally Atheism. This book is fair to all those other religions and makes a strong argument for atheism but also agnostic, which is where I think I’m at right now. I think regardless of your beliefs it’s important to question and expand your thinking, give this a read.
techwoo's review against another edition
3.0
Very balanced and well argued short introduction. I liked it.
rcardwell1988's review against another edition
4.0
Going into this book, I honestly wasn't expecting anything that I haven't seen before in other books on atheism. But I was pleasantly surprised to find a more philosophical approach that focused less on presenting all the logic and evidence in support of atheism, and more on portraying atheism as a viable worldview compatible with morality and personal fulfillment. While it wasn't quite a "can't-put-it-down" page-turner, I definitely encountered some new and thought-provoking ideas.
nhayner's review against another edition
3.0
While I agreed with what Baggini was saying, the tone of this was overwhelmingly condescending, which is why most atheists gets a bad rap
from_the_saturn's review against another edition
4.0
อ่านได้เรื่อย ๆ และเข้าใจง่ายกว่าที่คิดไว้เยอะ (แม้จะมีปนปรัชญาให้ขบคิดหน่อย ๆ) เชื่อว่าหลายคนปัจจุบันก็ค่อนข้างมีจุดยืนไปทางอเทวนิยมอยู่แล้ว การจำกัดความว่า 'Atheist' เชื่ออะไรแบบไหนบ้างและมีคติการดำเนินชีวิตยังไงนี่คงอธิบายยาก แต่แบ็กกินีกล่าวถึงเรื่องนี้แบบกว้าง ๆ และไม่ได้โจมตีกลุ่มคนที่เป็นเทวนิยมเลย แนะนำค่ะ เปิดมุมมองเรามาก อ่านจบแล้วเหมือนมีประกาย ปิ๊ง ขึ้นมาบนหัวเลย
kosr's review against another edition
4.0
***** Worth a look for the Inquisitive *****
I appreciated Bagginis moderate stance in writing this short introduction. He even dedicates a subsection of the book to 'Militant Atheism', which he personally takes distrust to.
The reason I appreciate this particular aspect of Atheism: A Very Short Introduction, is mainly because the stance seems to be headed by some pretty dogmatic individuals as of late. Christopher Hitchens death has done nothing to slow his popularity with the online community (just check the plethora of YouTube videos dedicated to the man and how many views they receive) spreading his particular brand of Atheism, and Dawkins / Harris have a particularly strong base to this day. As such, my idea of the 'New Atheist' movement has been shaky to say the least.
Despite not naming names like I just did, Baggini critiques this militancy regardless. Opting out of the 'religious believers are brain damaged' argument, he takes his role seriously in introducing individuals to the idea of Atheism and the arguments it presents. He delves a little into the history of atheism, but mainly chooses to stick to speaking on arguments that have been put forth for the belief in a godless universe. As such this 100 or so page introduction manages to be quite an informative read.
My only criticsm as someone who generally identifies as Agnostic is Bagginis dismissal of the stance. He puts forward an argument that follows:
"We tend to think that the mere introduction of grounds for doubt is enough to warrant the suspension of our beliefs. If you cant be sure, don't have an opinion. But this maxim cannot be followed. We cannot be sure of anything, save perhaps for the fact of our own existence. So if we are not justified in believing anything we are not sure of, we would have to suspend belief about everything."
I found this statement hilarious when reading it. For me, I simply choose to suspend my belief in perhaps one of the biggest questions the human species has put forward. "Does God exist?"
That's it.
In my opinion it is entirely possible to isolate your agnosticism to just this topic. The proof? The fact that here I am, a fully functioning Agnostic conducting myself as any other person would. My ability to still carry myself independently on a daily basis is proof against this claim. If I had to suspend belief about everything because of my suspension of belief regarding God, then I would be a blithering idiot wandering my room unable to make the most simple decisions, or bring myself to conclusions regarding my most basic beliefs.
I acknowledge that All I Know Is That I Know Nothing. I find the modest approach the most sensible in most cases (including this topic). However, that doesn't make me indecisive on everything. It simply guides me and acts as a placeholder when making a firm decision on big questions seems a little premature.
Baggini mentions that the existence of Atheists out in the world that have lead fulfilling lives is a good example of there being no need for God to make all "this" worth living for. I would argue that leading a fulfilling life with a suspension of belief is perhaps greater proof that we need not make bold claims toward such gargantuan topics. We can still lead lives that are equally fulfilling without needing to (emphasise on the word "need") plant a flag firmly in either camp.
Having said this, I am young and still very much behind in my understanding of this subject. So I look forward to continuing my journey in understanding this topic, seeing as with each book I read on the subject, more questions are raised in my head upon completion, than before I started said text. . .
. . .typical.
I appreciated Bagginis moderate stance in writing this short introduction. He even dedicates a subsection of the book to 'Militant Atheism', which he personally takes distrust to.
The reason I appreciate this particular aspect of Atheism: A Very Short Introduction, is mainly because the stance seems to be headed by some pretty dogmatic individuals as of late. Christopher Hitchens death has done nothing to slow his popularity with the online community (just check the plethora of YouTube videos dedicated to the man and how many views they receive) spreading his particular brand of Atheism, and Dawkins / Harris have a particularly strong base to this day. As such, my idea of the 'New Atheist' movement has been shaky to say the least.
Despite not naming names like I just did, Baggini critiques this militancy regardless. Opting out of the 'religious believers are brain damaged' argument, he takes his role seriously in introducing individuals to the idea of Atheism and the arguments it presents. He delves a little into the history of atheism, but mainly chooses to stick to speaking on arguments that have been put forth for the belief in a godless universe. As such this 100 or so page introduction manages to be quite an informative read.
My only criticsm as someone who generally identifies as Agnostic is Bagginis dismissal of the stance. He puts forward an argument that follows:
"We tend to think that the mere introduction of grounds for doubt is enough to warrant the suspension of our beliefs. If you cant be sure, don't have an opinion. But this maxim cannot be followed. We cannot be sure of anything, save perhaps for the fact of our own existence. So if we are not justified in believing anything we are not sure of, we would have to suspend belief about everything."
I found this statement hilarious when reading it. For me, I simply choose to suspend my belief in perhaps one of the biggest questions the human species has put forward. "Does God exist?"
That's it.
In my opinion it is entirely possible to isolate your agnosticism to just this topic. The proof? The fact that here I am, a fully functioning Agnostic conducting myself as any other person would. My ability to still carry myself independently on a daily basis is proof against this claim. If I had to suspend belief about everything because of my suspension of belief regarding God, then I would be a blithering idiot wandering my room unable to make the most simple decisions, or bring myself to conclusions regarding my most basic beliefs.
I acknowledge that All I Know Is That I Know Nothing. I find the modest approach the most sensible in most cases (including this topic). However, that doesn't make me indecisive on everything. It simply guides me and acts as a placeholder when making a firm decision on big questions seems a little premature.
Baggini mentions that the existence of Atheists out in the world that have lead fulfilling lives is a good example of there being no need for God to make all "this" worth living for. I would argue that leading a fulfilling life with a suspension of belief is perhaps greater proof that we need not make bold claims toward such gargantuan topics. We can still lead lives that are equally fulfilling without needing to (emphasise on the word "need") plant a flag firmly in either camp.
Having said this, I am young and still very much behind in my understanding of this subject. So I look forward to continuing my journey in understanding this topic, seeing as with each book I read on the subject, more questions are raised in my head upon completion, than before I started said text. . .
. . .typical.