For a book of its size, the Irrational Atheist manages to do a lot of
damage to New Atheism. Think of it as the polemic equivalent of putting
a city-killing nuclear bomb in a suitcase. If anything proves the intellectual weakness of the New Atheist movement, it's the fact that a single book which is only about 300 pages, can manage to jump from one member of the leading clique after another and deftly annihilate them in such a small amount of space.
What makes the arguments in the Irrational Atheist so strong is that there are so many citations to credible and valuable evidence that is often sorely lacking in books written against atheism. No honest person can get through the parts about atheism's influence on the 20th century, and come away with the idea that religious leaders from prior centuries are still, even at their worst, in the same league. Many people will be shocked to see other myths, such as the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition, exploded by this book. In some respects, it is a perfect reminder of why "conventional wisdom" is an oxymoron, as it shows just how much blatantly false data has been shoved down the public's throat for years.
Unlike many books of this nature, the tone is conversational, and neither academic nor pedantic. You won't be forced to read through layers of jargon and similar linguistic obfuscations in order to understand anything that is being said. The Irrational Atheist is, for that very reason, accessible to the majority. It can be appreciated by someone with barely enough education to read their Bible, and someone who has enough education to pursue an advanced degree. It will appeal to different groups in different ways, but the information is useful for everyone.
The tone will put off some Christians and academics who will be offended by the confrontational style used in many parts of the book. This book is many things, but kind to its enemies is not one of them. It does not give them room to retreat, and instead chases them across the battlefield and cuts them down as they flee with white flags in hand. It has to do this because no one else has been willing to really go far enough in confronting groups like the New Atheists.
Copies of it are available for download at Vox Popoli if you don't want to buy a copy.
What makes the arguments in the Irrational Atheist so strong is that there are so many citations to credible and valuable evidence that is often sorely lacking in books written against atheism. No honest person can get through the parts about atheism's influence on the 20th century, and come away with the idea that religious leaders from prior centuries are still, even at their worst, in the same league. Many people will be shocked to see other myths, such as the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition, exploded by this book. In some respects, it is a perfect reminder of why "conventional wisdom" is an oxymoron, as it shows just how much blatantly false data has been shoved down the public's throat for years.
Unlike many books of this nature, the tone is conversational, and neither academic nor pedantic. You won't be forced to read through layers of jargon and similar linguistic obfuscations in order to understand anything that is being said. The Irrational Atheist is, for that very reason, accessible to the majority. It can be appreciated by someone with barely enough education to read their Bible, and someone who has enough education to pursue an advanced degree. It will appeal to different groups in different ways, but the information is useful for everyone.
The tone will put off some Christians and academics who will be offended by the confrontational style used in many parts of the book. This book is many things, but kind to its enemies is not one of them. It does not give them room to retreat, and instead chases them across the battlefield and cuts them down as they flee with white flags in hand. It has to do this because no one else has been willing to really go far enough in confronting groups like the New Atheists.
Copies of it are available for download at Vox Popoli if you don't want to buy a copy.
I'm really enjoying this book myself. Good review. I'm now looking forward to the rest of it even more!
And then there is a factual review here.
http://irrationalatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=70&view=previous&sid=f459f8383cae225f5d0eefc3ce4b9adc
I stopped reading it halfway through because my wife wants to run some errands. In that half that I have read, I have picked up several bluntly non-factual assertions including the statement about a true-believer being unable to tolerate the possibility of his children being lead astray or the red-herring that Russell came up with with respect to Euthyphro.
The elephant in the room with Euthyphro is that the Greeks had no concept of a god like the one who revealed himself to the Israelites, a supreme being, utterly beyond the gods of their pantheon. Such a god is literally beyond human comprehension in his entirety, and for him, goodness can mean something quite different than a lesser being. Christianity asserts this, by saying that the good is tied to God's nature, and that there is no good beyond that. In other words, sin is anything outside of God's nature and rebellion against it or His will.
The God of Israel simply cannot be put into that argument.
Ok, so now I am reading the other half. Factual errors:
1) "Morality is innate" is not inherently true. For most people, it is natural to find it immoral to hurt others, steal their property and lie, but more complex morality, like why most people say it is immoral to have sex with a 12 year old girl is subjective, if you go by that reviewer's argument from a naturalist perspective. The common claim for this might be that she is incapable of giving informed consent, but no proof is offered as to why that is a moral issue, or that it is even one that applies in a particular situation. The rest of sexual morality would likewise rely on a biological utilitarianism that ultimately is a fancy way of getting around the "ickiness" of the act.
2) Many fundamentalists have no problems with moderates who do not violate the basic teachings of the faith with their moderation. Many non-Muslim fundamentalists in fact, have no problem living in a tolerant way with their moderate coreligionists. In America, for example, most fundamentalists do not in the least begrudge the right to be a moderate to the moderates, and in fact believe it is a basic right of every citizen, even if they're wrong.
3) There are many clear safeguards in the Bible, in both covenants, that take away the legitimacy of any violence committed in the name of the God of Israel. In fact, to do evil in the name of God is blasphemy, an offense that is theoretically punishable by execution for the believer. For example, most fundamentalists agree with this by clearly supporting the execution of other fundamentalists who murder abortionists in cold blood.
4) The problem is not fundamentalism in general, but Islamic fundamentalism. If you read through the conflicts listed in the Irrational Atheist, you will see that a significant number of them are caused by one faction, Muslims, fighting someone else.
5) Onan was killed because of disobedience to God to give his wife a child, not because he masturbated or practiced coitus interruptus. If he impregnated her, God wouldn't have cared less if he practiced coitus interruptus with her from then on out.
6) The Christian issue with Africa, sex and AIDS has to do with marriage. If the majority of Africans had followed biblical strictures on marriage and sex, AIDS would not have nearly as large of a potential infection population as it does today in Africa. The fact that people are horny by nature is beside the point. Christianity does not teach abstinence, but rather to wait until marriage to have sex. Inside of marriage, the Bible would have people having sex whenever the need arises.
7) It is not relevant whether or not a country has formally outlawed something, such as slavery, if it will not take serious steps to correct the issue. Saudi Arabia is a good example of a country where slavery, and slavery-like situations, are still alive in the mainstream among the wealthier members of society who can afford such things.
Ironically, the author of the review and I are the same age (we're both 24). I'm not ragging on him, just on you.