What do you think?
Rate this book
Reasonable Atheism: A Moral Case For Respectful Disbelief
A recent poll from the University of Minnesota finds that atheists are America's least trusted social group. Perhaps compounding this negative impression is the attack-dog persona taken on in the past decade by the "New Atheists." Not only have they been quite public about their disbelief, but they've also stridently lambasted religious belief generally in a number of bestselling books. Disturbed by this negative public perception and the deterioration in the tone of open debate, the authors of this eminently reasonable work attempt to introduce a note of civility and rational clarity. To both religious believers and fellow atheists they counsel a measured approach that combines serious intellectual engagement with respect for the reasonableness of the other side's position. The heart of the book is the authors' moral case for atheism. Atheism, they contend, manifests a decidedly moral concern for others and their wellbeing. The authors further argue that atheism is driven by the kinds of moral considerations that should be familiar to all religious believers. Atheists are motivated by a moral concern for others, a desire to alleviate suffering and combat evil, and an appreciation for the value of life, freedom, and responsibility. In the end, the authors make not only a compelling case for atheism but also for the value and necessity of mutual respect in a democratic society composed of diverse citizens.
219 pages, Paperback
First published April 26, 2011
1 person is currently reading
89 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
May 24, 2011
Clears up false beliefs about atheists. Atheist are more moral than theists.
March 7, 2020
As an atheist who is always on the look-out for good reads, this is a good read. Excellent for people who want to honesty understand about atheism and what we truly stand for.
December 29, 2015
Aikin and Talisse are dismayed by the divisive tone they find among prominent atheists and theists nowadays, as represented by authors who align themselves, respectively, with the “New Atheists” (e.g., Richard Dawkins) and conservative Christian authors (e.g., Dinesh D’Souza).1 Their twofold aim in this book, “written primarily for religious believers,” is to convince theists that “atheism is a morally and intellectually responsible position” and “propose a way in which fruitful debate can commence” (9-10). My impression is that the authors succeed in their first aim, yet fall short in the second.
The authors diagnose two main reasons for the dearth of dialogue between theists and atheists. For one, both camps fail to see any reason for dialogue: since such dialogue is bound to produce few converts, but much frustration, why bother? Far better to take our cue from the familiar bit of etiquette the authors dub Mom’s Maxim: “It is impolite to discuss matters of religion or politics in mixed company” (15).
Too many atheists and theists also seem to share a common prejudice: the “other side” is incapable of reasoning in good faith about religion. New Atheists seem convinced that religious believers are incapable of reasoning, period—that belief in God is actually an “addiction” held by “credulous idiots” (71). Headline-grabbing theists, on the other hand, openly charge that atheism isn’t grounded on neutral reasons, but selfish motives: “the atheist,” declares one religious conservative, ultimately “seeks to get rid of moral judgment by getting rid of the judge,” so as to “liberate us for the pleasures of sin and depravity” (Quoted at 97). In short, too many theists and atheists subscribe to what the authors dub the No Reasonable Opposition strategy: that “all opposition to your view is woefully uninformed, ignorant, or irrational” (28).
The authors thus aim to show that atheism has enough of a reasonable case to be worthy of rational engagement by theists. Aikin and Talisse commence with a foundational argument"
The rest of this review was originally published in "Teaching Philosophy" (September 2013): pp. 291-293. A pdf copy of it can be found here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/212590443/T...
The authors diagnose two main reasons for the dearth of dialogue between theists and atheists. For one, both camps fail to see any reason for dialogue: since such dialogue is bound to produce few converts, but much frustration, why bother? Far better to take our cue from the familiar bit of etiquette the authors dub Mom’s Maxim: “It is impolite to discuss matters of religion or politics in mixed company” (15).
Too many atheists and theists also seem to share a common prejudice: the “other side” is incapable of reasoning in good faith about religion. New Atheists seem convinced that religious believers are incapable of reasoning, period—that belief in God is actually an “addiction” held by “credulous idiots” (71). Headline-grabbing theists, on the other hand, openly charge that atheism isn’t grounded on neutral reasons, but selfish motives: “the atheist,” declares one religious conservative, ultimately “seeks to get rid of moral judgment by getting rid of the judge,” so as to “liberate us for the pleasures of sin and depravity” (Quoted at 97). In short, too many theists and atheists subscribe to what the authors dub the No Reasonable Opposition strategy: that “all opposition to your view is woefully uninformed, ignorant, or irrational” (28).
The authors thus aim to show that atheism has enough of a reasonable case to be worthy of rational engagement by theists. Aikin and Talisse commence with a foundational argument"
The rest of this review was originally published in "Teaching Philosophy" (September 2013): pp. 291-293. A pdf copy of it can be found here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/212590443/T...
March 6, 2012
Let me preface this with some lyrics from Lisa Hannigan.
This book voices a choir of clear argumentative tones for the pleasurable ear of the layperson. There is less here for the experienced atheist than there is for the beginner theist, but enough for any person who likes some challenge with their comfort.
Despite the noteworthy intention to appeal to the everyday theist, Aikin and Talisse have put together a volume that runs the gamut on readability. Many of their arguments are simple and for the beginner, sitting somewhere near the start of the unfolding dialogue in academia; however, others are clearly best read and understood by those with background knowledge gained from prior study of each subject. Here they favour the beginning of thought strings, and hinting at future areas for development, over deep and constructive argument. There is always a danger in this sort of lesson that the reader will take their immediate learning as final, but the authors are very careful with tone and to preface their claims with thorough acknowledgment of the deeper study necessary to aptly grapple with the material. If one goes into this read with an open mind, then one should exit it in the same state.
The book's goal is commendable; the authors wish to demonstrate that atheists are moral people. This is not a fresh or even difficult endeavour, but their path is an unusual choice among the common ones, and that makes the trek richer in scenery than is usual for a basic walking journey. For these writers, the argument from evil is a moral argument directed back at theism; its popularity says something deeper about the argumentative virtues of those atheists who would deploy it.
I'm listening to Lisa Hannigan as I write this, so I'll give her the final word.
What’ll I do without you around:
When my words won't pun, my pennies won’t pound
(oh and my frisbee flies to the ground)?
What’ll I do without you?
This book voices a choir of clear argumentative tones for the pleasurable ear of the layperson. There is less here for the experienced atheist than there is for the beginner theist, but enough for any person who likes some challenge with their comfort.
Despite the noteworthy intention to appeal to the everyday theist, Aikin and Talisse have put together a volume that runs the gamut on readability. Many of their arguments are simple and for the beginner, sitting somewhere near the start of the unfolding dialogue in academia; however, others are clearly best read and understood by those with background knowledge gained from prior study of each subject. Here they favour the beginning of thought strings, and hinting at future areas for development, over deep and constructive argument. There is always a danger in this sort of lesson that the reader will take their immediate learning as final, but the authors are very careful with tone and to preface their claims with thorough acknowledgment of the deeper study necessary to aptly grapple with the material. If one goes into this read with an open mind, then one should exit it in the same state.
The book's goal is commendable; the authors wish to demonstrate that atheists are moral people. This is not a fresh or even difficult endeavour, but their path is an unusual choice among the common ones, and that makes the trek richer in scenery than is usual for a basic walking journey. For these writers, the argument from evil is a moral argument directed back at theism; its popularity says something deeper about the argumentative virtues of those atheists who would deploy it.
I'm listening to Lisa Hannigan as I write this, so I'll give her the final word.
What’ll I do when you’ve gone away,
And my ball won't pin, my records won’t play,
And all of my hours limp into days?
What’ll I do without you?
June 24, 2011
I don't know why, but I find books on atheism to be incredibly dull and extremely tedious to read. This book was no exception, despite the fact that the authors presented a truly excellent and original concept- this notion that atheists are not sinful hedonists and that, perhaps, atheists and theists can get along. Sure, I definitely agree with them, but that doesn't mean that I enjoyed reading this book. I think they presented the best argument for the so-called "new atheism" yet, but it could have been a lot more entertaining to read. Do take the time to discover this on your own and formulate your opinions, though.
June 21, 2016
Although I am not this book's intended audience (I am an unbeliever who accepts the premise that such people are capable of moral action), I have to say I found it quite interesting. Aikin and Talisse make a very good summary of the moral viewpoints adopted by unbelievers while at the same time gently forcing believers to reconcile some of their dogmas and ideologies with moral and ethical philosophy. Odd that they are at their worst when discussing fellow non-believers Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris and that chapter could easily have been left out. Anyway, if you're not convinced that unbelievers think and act morally this is an excellent precis for further investigation.
July 18, 2011
Thought-provoking discussion of morality, evil, atheism and religion.
August 31, 2011
a great read for all believers. This book simply states that athiest are not immoral pigs like the majority of extream christian faith based believers think.
January 15, 2016
Some decent points about Atheism. Trying to keep it reasonable.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews