Atheism: The Basics: The Basics

I thoroughly enjoyed the book, and place great stock in all the analyses of Oppy. The part that I found refreshing was the healthy criticism against atheism, and establishing fuller arguments.

William Lane Craig -- arguably the most influential (and certainly the most famous) contemporary philosophical apologist for Christian theism -- was recently asked who he considers to be the most formidable living philosophical proponent of atheism and critique of theism. He did not hesitate: Graham Oppy. And with good reason. Over the past decades, Oppy has written extensively on the philosophy of religions from an atheistic point of view; he's widely regarded as the world's leading expert (and critic of) the famous family of theistic arguments known as the "ontological argument"; and, more generally, he's authored highly respected books and articles analyzing other prominent theistic arguments and defending naturalism.All of this is to say that, if anyone is qualified to explain the "basics" of atheism, it is Oppy. On this task, Oppy largely delivers with this volume. Oppy begins the book -- like any good analytic philosopher -- by defining terms. An "atheist," by his account, is someone who lacks belief in or affirmatively does not believe in a god or "gods." To Oppy, everyone else falls into one of three camps: agnosticism, theism, and "innocents" (people who have not considered the question, such as infants). Oppy recognizes that many "classical" theists (although he doesn't use that term) would not agree that their belief in God is comparable to, say, the belief in gods of ancient Greek mythology. But he dismisses this distinction. While I think Oppy is mistaken here, the mistake does not afflict much of the book, which is after all devoted to explaining atheism, not explicating theism.Oppy's explication of atheism in some respects follows from his (bare) definition. Atheism is nothing more -- and nothing less -- than lack of belief (or disbelief) in any gods. Hence, Oppy will not concede that atheism implies much, if anything, else about a person's worldview. Yes, most atheists today may be materialist or physicalist, but atheisms doesn't imply either view. Most atheist are non-religious, but Oppy argues (at points at least) that some religions could be fairly characterized as atheistic insofar as they do not entail a belief in gods. Similarly, while most atheists are politically liberal, there are atheists conservatives as well.This is an entirely reasonable approach. But one might still quibble with it. While it may be true that atheism is compatible with virtually any broadly metaphysical or ethical perspective (other than belief in gods), aren't some "big picture" metaphysical positions more or less consistent with atheism? For example, there have been both atheistic materialists and theistic materialists (see Hobbes). But isn't materialism a more natural "fit" with atheism? By the same token, is there a tension in the views of atheists who reject "naturalism" -- such as Thomas Nagel?More broadly, to read Oppy, one might think there are not existential implications to the debate over belief in the existence of God (or "gods"). Oppy alludes to the (common) suggestion that people may be inclined to theism due to fear of death, but that can't be the whole story. A belief in the afterlife played little role in early Judaism -- the fount of Western monotheism -- and there is no logical reason that an non-theist cannot belief in an afterlife. Yet, many people -- atheist and theist -- view the existence of God to be a matter of supreme importance to their lives. In modern philosophy, this is a question of the axiological consequences of theism; Oppy has contributed that debate in other (much more expensive) volumes; it would have been interesting for him to share his views on that debate in this volume, but perhaps that would stray beyond the "basics."This also likely explains the absence of much in the way of an account of the historical development of atheism, particularly the Western variety. Oppy acknowledges that there are arguments for and against theism but (consistent with the position he's taken in other works), does not view those arguments as decisive for either position. If that is so, one might be more curious as to whether one can explain the historical trends in atheistic belief - and in particular, the dramatic growth of atheism in the West since the mid-20th century. But Oppy does not engage in the literature on this point.Rather, Oppy's only real foray into history is a chapter offering short biographies of several atheists from different historical periods (ancient through modern) and regions of the world (China, Europe, Africa). There isn't much in the way of a common theme among these biographies and perhaps that is the point. Oppy wants to illustrate the diversity of atheism -- and, more broadly, the difficulty if not impossibility of making generalizations about all atheists.This dovetails with another major theme Oppy's book, which is to address and dispel common stereotypes of atheists, such as that atheists are immoral, nihilistic, selfish, irrational, etc. As Oppy points out, these stereotypes have a long history; indeed, "atheist" has been used as a term of derision (at least in the West) against religious non-conformists since ancient times. He also points out that (perhaps surprisingly) even some modern day atheists harbor (likely unconsciously) prejudices against atheists. Drawing on social science literature, Oppy shows that the most pernicious stereotypes are unfounded. Here, Oppy's discussion is admirably lucid and even-handed; while rejecting hostile myths about atheism, he (largely) resists the temptation to endorse stereotypes of religious believers as stupid, credulous, ignorant, etc., as one finds in the screeds of the so-called "new" atheists (who are not, as Oppy points out, offering anything new).Interestingly, the biggest weakness in the book is Oppy's (abbreviated) discussion of the philosophical case for or against atheism. Here, Oppy takes a (seemingly) modest position: neither atheism nor theism is incoherent or logically inconsistent. Nor (contra logical positivism) is theism meaningless. Hence, the only way to compare atheism and theism is to assess their competing theoretical virtues as big picture accounts of reality. According to Oppy, the main theoretical virtues are (a) minimizing theoretical commitments relative to (b) explanatory breadth. Oppy then claims that atheism is to be preferred because it has fewer theoretical commitments than theism but "there is nowhere that best theistic big pictures provide better explanations than best atheistic big pictures." Whether or not you agree with Oppy's assessment of the relatively explanatory power of atheism and theism, there is clearly something misguided with his account of how one assesses the theoretical virtue of a "big picture." As Oppy defines theism (god is an additional "being" among other beings), any theistic worldview by definition will have more theoretical commitments than atheism. Thus, Oppy's standard for assessing big pictures is biased toward atheism from the start. It amounts to saying: In assessing whether atheism or theism provides a better big picture of reality, we will assign positive weight to the worldview that is atheistic. If that isn't the implication of Oppy's approach, then I don't see how Oppy's standard amounts to anything more than assessing which big picture better explains the data. And, on that question, thoughtful, reflective, sufficiently intelligent, sufficiently well-informed people do not and almost certainly will never agree.But this is a quibble. Overall, this is an excellent exposition of the basics of atheism that I would highly recommend to anyone interested in the subject as well as an introduction to an important contemporary thinker.

This review is not about the subject or content of the book, but about the condition of the book. It's dirty and appears to have bite or claw marks on the edge of the book.I don't mind used books, I just shouldn't have to pay full price.