Product Description

In a series of bold, unsparing polemics, A C Grayling exposes the dangerous unreason he sees at the heart of religious faith and highlights the urgent need we have to reject it in all its forms, without compromise. In its place he argues for a set of values based on reason, reflection, and sympathy, taking his cue from the great ethical tradition of Western philosophy.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #8092004 in Books
• Published on: 2009-06-01
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 116 pages

Customer Reviews

Grayling vs Baggini
I know it's not customary but since these are two very short books on 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 brings a hornet's nest about his ears. As some reviewers of his book 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.
Grayling thinks 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'.

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. In this 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 (see 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.

God loses
This short volume is a powerful antidote to religious propaganda. All who would like a better world should read.