The Cambridge Companion to Atheism (Cambridge Companions to Philosophy)

This is a very assortment of essays by highly qualified professors of philosophy and other fields. Some of the essays are difficult to understand and need to be red twice or three times. I specially liked what Daniel Dennett (Atheism and Evolution) and Michael Martin (Atheism and Religion); two deep areas written in simple way.The book talked about the relation of feminism and atheism from the point of view of Christine Overall and showed that women should adopt the stand against religion because religion did the most damage to women. Unfortunately statistics shows that the majority of atheists are men.Benjamin Beit-Hallami in his essay Atheists' Psychological Profile proved that they are smarter, thinkers, reasonable, brights, tolerant, law abiding, morals and in short they are good to have as neighbors. I highly recommend this book and deserves top rating.

This is really a superb introduction to atheism. What gets my attention is that it includes a number of essays that contextualize atheism in its particular historical instances.The first chapter, "Atheism in Antiquity," details how naturalism and similar concepts central to atheism were advocated long ago. Due to the prevailing influences of Christianity and other voices and powers in the ancient world, however, they didn't "catch on" like other metaphysical notions did.The next chapter, "Atheism in Modern History," is a superb supplement, and is worth the price of the entire volume in my estimation. In it, Gavin Hyman argues persuasively that modern atheism is a reactionary phenomenon to a modern conception of God, which was different from more ancient conceptions. Hyman says that the advent of modernity made the rise of atheism inevitable. Modernity and atheism are inexorably entwined. What might atheism do, then, in our postmodern context?Much later in the book, the Derridean scholar, John Caputo, shows how the matrix of postmodernity alters the strength of atheism. His conclusion: postmodernity is just as unfavorable to theism as it is to atheism, and there is the paradoxical attempt to move beyond the binary oppositions of the Western tradition (in this case, between theism and atheism) into a new and unforeseen option. It is difficult to say exactly how this tertium quid should be described. A kind of Levinasian mysticism of sorts, tempered by a learned ignorance? What we can say is that there is a reluctance to affirm naturalism or a supernaturalism too strongly. While a "weak" conception of God predominates, the language of theology remains in use.Phil Zuckerman and Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi give sociological and psychological profiles of atheism. Zuckerman's sociological chapter is quite dry, with little more than statistics. What else should I expect, though, I suppose. Beit-Hallahmi's psychological profiling is much more interesting, and makes the case that atheists are generally male, married, well-read and committed in various ways to the academic world, less dogmatic (which seems ironic in some cases, no?), less prejudiced, more tolerant, compassionated and conscientious, but oftentimes distanced and unhappy.Steven G. Gey's essay ("Atheism and the Freedom of Religion") gives some historical depth to exactly how atheists have been treated by recent Western governments. Despite their being "good to have as neighbors" (Beit-Hallahmi's conclusion), Gey details how the modern atheists experience with the socio-politico powers that be has not been too friendly -- from outright silencing of centuries past (or just a century ago, in most cases!) to the present socio-politico discourse that, in various ways, gives a distinct advantage to those of a religious persuasion. (No wonder atheists don't tend to be happy!) While in many ways the United States of America paved the way for religious toleration and freedom, it is shown to be presently lagging behind when compared with other nations (e.g. those of eastern Europe especially). The U.S., in many ways, is much the same as it was two centuries ago.The Analytic tradition gets a sizeable representation here, which is what would be expected. Daniel Dennett, too, gets a chapter to argue for the Darwinian variable that supports atheistic non-belief. I wanted to be convinced of it more than I was. Other contributions include the relationship of atheism to feminism (the author argues that all consistent feminists should be atheists), religious freedom, and anthropology. William Lane Craig is allowed one chapter to give the other side a voice (theism). Some of his arguments are laughable -- literally. Others are more convincing, until one reads the subsequent rebuttals. It must be said, though, that anyone could refute such a summary as W. L. Craig's (it amounts to something like 14 pages in all). It is simply too short to argue convincingly for anything. That being said, it is only an introductory text. It's quite nice that a contrary position was included at all, actually.While some essays are certainly better than others (an inevitability, of course), all are at least a B/B+ status, and a few are quite exceptional indeed (A/A+).I like Richard Dawkins quite a bit, and would recommend his _God Delusion_ and Sam Harris's _The End of Faith_. However, as a balanced, scholarly work, you would be hard-pressed to find something better, I think. Moreover, this is an excellent "spring-board" source. Only the best of the best are included here, and those whom they cite are well worth taking note of.Happy reading!

The first two chapters, histories of atheism, are boring and not very illuminating. Chapter 5, refutations of classical theistic arguments, is as clear as mud. Chapter 6, refutations of theistic arguments of Plantinga and Swinburne, is masterfully and concisely written by Parsons. Chapter 7, on naturalism, tries to cover so many concepts so briefly that it winds up being superficial. Daniel Dennett's chapter on evolution is uncharacteristically lucid (for him). Chapter 9 is a well-written argument that religion has no good role to play in ethics. The essay on the atheist kalam cosmological argument is incomprehensible to me. Following that are several boring chapters, then chapter 16 on postmodernism, which consists of confusing verbiage.

I recently read this superb introductory book to atheism.I have read more sophisticated books on this subject,but i think that this book is the most appropriate for the general reader who wanths to be introduced to what atheism represents.Its chapters are written by experts on their fields and comprise the history of atheism from antiquity to modern times,arguments for and against the existence of God,the implications of atheism for other aspects of our life as for example morality and approaches from different cognitive faculties to the subject of religion such as the relationship between atheism and the state and what anthropology says about the origin of religious beliefs.I highly recommend it to readers who want to know what atheism is all about,but i think that it will also be good for more advanced readers to have a look at this book since it covers aspects of atheism as yet not taken into account like the relationship between atheism and feminism.

"The Cambridge Companion to Atheism" is a collection of essays from a wide-range of scholars on atheism: its history, implications, and arguments.Though Part I and III were enlightening, I found Part II to be the most interesting. Not only does it include an entry by Christian apologist William Lane Craig, but the scholars delve into many of the arguments that one hears given for the existence of God. Granted, some of the arguments analyzed are rarely used by your average theist, they are still intellectually interesting. Many topics are usually far too technical for the interested reader, but the authors made sure to cut out the technical aspects while still keeping the content.The contributions are written for college students, though any laymen can pick it up. A glossary of terms at the front of the book helps in uninitiated get a hold on philosophical jargon. There were some parts I had to re-read more than once, but for the most part, all the essays were well-written and attention holding. This doesn't mean, though, that rigor was compromised. All essays were heavily referenced.Highly recommended!