What do you think?
Rate this book
The Case Against Atheism
Today's atheists should welcome this book with open arms. After all, if they insist on criticizing religious beliefs they should have no qualms with examining their own. Readers will soon discover it’s amazing what logic and reason can do when you apply them to atheism. Rather than being grounded in sound reasoning, atheism is awash in wishful thinking with no scientific evidence to support it. Many young atheists of today would be shocked to learn the disbelief they’ve invested so much energy into is nothing more than another faith. The Case Against Atheism reveals the side of atheism many atheists are reluctant to explore let alone acknowledge. The arguments are precisely what atheist author’s wish their converts would ignore. First, today’s atheism is proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be a faith. The limits of science, skepticism, arguments, and evidence are laid bare. The values of atheism are questioned and evidence for the afterlife is provided. Moreover, the true cost of losing ones religious faith is explored along with the ultimate hopelessness of atheism that leads many to become ex-atheists. The Case Against Atheism provides a direct challenge to those who subscribe to the faith and the best rationale for never adopting the faith to begin with. Those who are seekers or believe in God will be grateful they aren’t atheists and have strong arguments to fend them off in debate. Ultimately, atheism takes away much more than it gives back in return.
- GenresReligion
136 pages, Paperback
First published April 19, 2013
1 person is currently reading
15 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 - 8 of 8 reviews
August 11, 2014
Dobbin’s book repackages and regurgitates many of the old theistic and spiritualistic tropes that turned most atheists against religion in the first place. In fact, any non-fair-weather atheist who reads Dobbins' book is going to find himself or herself on common ground, reading for the umpteenth time the same tired old fallacies he or she has encountered dozens if not hundreds of times before in Church, family gatherings, and Internet message boards.
To be fair, on many pages Dobbins acknowledges that atheism is not an unreasonable conclusion. However, one gets the feeling that he is saying this only to dangle a carrot or extend an olive branch so the reader will be placated long enough to continue reading with an open mind – a characteristic which most theists seem to think atheists as a group lack.
Mechanically speaking, Dobbin’s book could be improved with a good edit. There are numerous typos and awkward phrasings as well as repetitive ideas and failings of parallelism which an extra set of eyes or two should have been able to catch. But the real failings in the book are in the arguments themselves. Dobbins targets a specific brand of militant anti-theism and strong atheism which really is a minority in the community. For this reason, most atheists reading the book will be insulted by a primary supposition that underlies the first three-quarters of the treatise; that atheism is the belief that there is no God. Yes, atheism can be the belief that God is non-existent, but for most atheists throughout modern history (at least since the time just prior to the American Civil War) atheism is not defined by what atheists do believe about God, but rather what we don’t believe.
Even if one accepts the premise that atheism is the belief that gods cannot exist, additionally even if one accepts Dobbins’ later assertion that the existence of something which could be called a soul exists and it has been proved, this is not sufficient to support the claim that atheism is a failed philosophy. Since atheism is the lack of a positive belief in deities, one would have to prove the existence of deities in order to claim that atheism fails. Dobbins never even attempts to do so.
It’s that final assertion, incidentally, that is the biggest failure in Dobbins’ attempt to demonstrate the failure in disbelief. After making such weak arguments for belief as noting that people who believe are sometimes altruistic or that atheism doesn’t speak to purpose (newsflash, it isn’t supposed to,) Dobbins presents an argument that the reality of the afterlife has been scientifically proven. Notwithstanding the fact that if such a discovery had been documented in a scientifically valid manner, it would have been front-page news and the focus of every 24 hour news channel for months (especially FoxNews,) Dobbins does take some time spelling out the circumstances behind his assertion.
It turns out that Dobbins is basing his claim on a study conducted at the University of Virginia School of Medicine by a Dr. Ian Stevenson which was published in The Journal of Scientific Exploration. The study is based on claims made by children that they were somebody else in a previous lifetime. The good doctor claims to have done case studies on several of these children and followed through on claims they made about past-lives which bore fruit.
This all sounds too good to be true, and would indeed be the final nail in the coffin of at least one aspect of atheism. The problem is it’s all much more dubious than Dobbins would have you believe. Turns out Dr. Stevenson actually founded the Society of Scientific Exploration which later published his work. That hardly qualifies as peer review. Moreover, the general consensus in the scientific community is that the Journal itself is nothing more than a clearing house for unsupportable woo.
Dobbins concludes by asking the atheist to consider if he or she is really happier than most theists and whether there is any virtue in trying to take away the faith than helps many persons get through their daily lives. Of course, one’s belief is not something one chooses, so even if it were true that faithful people are happier it is insulting to suggest that a desire to be happy can or should influence one’s core beliefs. Additionally, the search for truth doesn’t and shouldn't stop when it becomes inconvenient.
As apologetics go, Dobbins’ book is not the worst thing out there. He at least attempts to treat most atheists respectfully, and he avoids overt proselytizing and pro-monotheistic bias. However, as far as crafting a solid argument to support the book’s main premise, it just isn’t that successful.
To be fair, on many pages Dobbins acknowledges that atheism is not an unreasonable conclusion. However, one gets the feeling that he is saying this only to dangle a carrot or extend an olive branch so the reader will be placated long enough to continue reading with an open mind – a characteristic which most theists seem to think atheists as a group lack.
Mechanically speaking, Dobbin’s book could be improved with a good edit. There are numerous typos and awkward phrasings as well as repetitive ideas and failings of parallelism which an extra set of eyes or two should have been able to catch. But the real failings in the book are in the arguments themselves. Dobbins targets a specific brand of militant anti-theism and strong atheism which really is a minority in the community. For this reason, most atheists reading the book will be insulted by a primary supposition that underlies the first three-quarters of the treatise; that atheism is the belief that there is no God. Yes, atheism can be the belief that God is non-existent, but for most atheists throughout modern history (at least since the time just prior to the American Civil War) atheism is not defined by what atheists do believe about God, but rather what we don’t believe.
Even if one accepts the premise that atheism is the belief that gods cannot exist, additionally even if one accepts Dobbins’ later assertion that the existence of something which could be called a soul exists and it has been proved, this is not sufficient to support the claim that atheism is a failed philosophy. Since atheism is the lack of a positive belief in deities, one would have to prove the existence of deities in order to claim that atheism fails. Dobbins never even attempts to do so.
It’s that final assertion, incidentally, that is the biggest failure in Dobbins’ attempt to demonstrate the failure in disbelief. After making such weak arguments for belief as noting that people who believe are sometimes altruistic or that atheism doesn’t speak to purpose (newsflash, it isn’t supposed to,) Dobbins presents an argument that the reality of the afterlife has been scientifically proven. Notwithstanding the fact that if such a discovery had been documented in a scientifically valid manner, it would have been front-page news and the focus of every 24 hour news channel for months (especially FoxNews,) Dobbins does take some time spelling out the circumstances behind his assertion.
It turns out that Dobbins is basing his claim on a study conducted at the University of Virginia School of Medicine by a Dr. Ian Stevenson which was published in The Journal of Scientific Exploration. The study is based on claims made by children that they were somebody else in a previous lifetime. The good doctor claims to have done case studies on several of these children and followed through on claims they made about past-lives which bore fruit.
This all sounds too good to be true, and would indeed be the final nail in the coffin of at least one aspect of atheism. The problem is it’s all much more dubious than Dobbins would have you believe. Turns out Dr. Stevenson actually founded the Society of Scientific Exploration which later published his work. That hardly qualifies as peer review. Moreover, the general consensus in the scientific community is that the Journal itself is nothing more than a clearing house for unsupportable woo.
Dobbins concludes by asking the atheist to consider if he or she is really happier than most theists and whether there is any virtue in trying to take away the faith than helps many persons get through their daily lives. Of course, one’s belief is not something one chooses, so even if it were true that faithful people are happier it is insulting to suggest that a desire to be happy can or should influence one’s core beliefs. Additionally, the search for truth doesn’t and shouldn't stop when it becomes inconvenient.
As apologetics go, Dobbins’ book is not the worst thing out there. He at least attempts to treat most atheists respectfully, and he avoids overt proselytizing and pro-monotheistic bias. However, as far as crafting a solid argument to support the book’s main premise, it just isn’t that successful.
February 13, 2014
Occasional good points , mostly straw man attacks against " hard atheism". The afterlife chapter especially weak. The quality of thinking is from the shallow end of the apologetics pool. If you want practice arguing with low hanging fruit , then go for it. Mostly the book is high pitched whining that atheists call theists stupid. The " respect all beliefs" idea should be obvious as nonsense to even beginners in critical thinking.
August 17, 2014
As other reviews mentioned, Dobbins needed a good editor and the wording was a bit awkward and unpolished. But since I am dyslexic and couldn't do much better myself, I wasn't going to discount the book because of it, instead I concerned myself with the ideas of the book, which sometimes were rather thought-provoking. It was interesting seeing a spiritually inclined agnostics perspective. The book largely was the result of Dobbins interaction with atheist online, and yes, it doesn't surprise me that Dobbins after experiencing so much adolescent, illogical, silly and immature atheist rants and ravings online that he was moved to write a book in response.
Dobbins begins with the observation of the highly emotional nature and lack of reasoned discourse within the new atheistic fundamentalism. Even Sam Harris experienced some atheist’s backlash, Harris wrote "And there is something cult-like about the culture of atheism. In fact, much of the criticism I have received of my speech is so utterly lacking in content that I can only interpret it as a product of offended atheist piety." Dobbins commented on this “Harris isn’t the only one feeling like atheists criticism’s are ‘cult-like’, ‘utterly lacking in content’ and are a larger expression of ‘atheist piety.’ Harris’s quote goes a long way in describing how many in the religious community feel about atheists as well.”
Some of the main content of the book counters the common claim that atheism is not a belief, but merely a lack of belief. I myself have been willing to grant that the word “atheist” itself could simply mean lack of a belief in God. But I consider it absolutely delusional that some atheist claim that they have no beliefs at all, when in reality we all vary little, atheist just have a different set of presuppositions which are sacrosanct. Everyone is a skeptic, it's just a matter of which direction they are inclined to be cynical, everyone is credulous and have a will to believe, but once again, what side of the isle one is inclined towards will determine in what ways. Christians are quick to believe God spoke the universe into being and raised Jesus from the dead, atheist are quick to believe that there are millions of universes popping in and out of existence and that lifeless matter accidentally formed into complex replicating creatures which eventually evolved consciousness, conscience and reason. Both sides of the isle see the other side as ridiculous and based on faith.
Considering the big questions like origins, life, consciousness, truth, beauty, goodness, evil, meaning and purpose, to reject the theistic explanation to these things, means almost by default one is forced to believe that science has or will eventually discover naturalistic explanations to all of these things, or that they simply are illusory or don't matter. Many atheist don't understand that the main meaning of faith is trust, it's the idea that one has a good reason to place ones trust in an idea or a person. For examples, we can't prove a friend will be loyal to us, but we may have good reasons to trust him or her, so we place faith in a friend. Likewise, atheist seeing how much science has explained, place their faith in science to do what it has yet accomplished, for them it is Neo-Darwinism-Of-The-Gaps. It's evidence based faith. We Christians on the other-hand feel we have good reasons and enough evidence to place our trust in God.
It would seem however, that to Dobbins, neither the atheist nor the theist really have what he would consider evidence. Dobbins wrote “A negative belief is still a belief, and a belief not supported by evidence to create knowledge is a belief based on faith. If the atheist simply had an absence of belief in it wouldn’t be a belief. Absence of belief is no belief. Absence is something that isn’t there. The reality is, most atheists go beyond absence of belief to disbelieving in God or positively believing there isn’t a God. Once they’ve crossed this line, their belief becomes a faith.” And this faith in Dobbins eyes seems to be more of a blind faith, it's only after they believe something unprovable, that they then can use reason to justify their beliefs. But since it starts with an assumption that is based on blind faith, the reason that justifies the faith-position they now hold doesn't constitute as evidence for it. As he wrote “Reason is not evidence and atheists do not own it.” Theist of course use reason to fortify their own truth claims, and atheist refuse to consider theistic reasoning as evidence, even if it's logically sound.
Dobbins included the findings of some of Sam Harris research which show that religious statements and lack of faith in the same religious statements derive from the same part of the brain. Sam Harris wanted to show there was a faith part of the brain and a skeptical part, but his research didn't support this. It was in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex that deals with “Emotion, self-representation, and cognitive conflict” that lit up when either positive and negative religious beliefs where reflected upon, while recalling more ordinary facts, a different part of the brain being activated. So in Dobbins estimation of this research was that the “Disbeliefs atheists have do not come from the part of the brain based on knowledge. I think this is checkmate that atheism is a faith-based belief.”
I liked Dobbins reaction to the New Atheist comparing belief in God to that of Santa Clause or Fairies. He wrote “The next argument atheists make is ‘you can’t prove a negative’, hoping you’ll forget that they just tried to prove a negative by saying absence of evidence was proof. They have the chutzpah to compare God to the belief in Santa Clause, fairies, and leprechauns, all of which the atheist claims cannot be proven to not exist. Let’s take Santa Claus as our example for atheists who claim you cannot prove negatives. According to them, one cannot prove Santa Claus doesn’t exist so there is no burden on them to prove God does not exist. Until there is evidence Santa Clause doesn't exist, or God doesn’t exist, we cannot have a valid disbelief. The fact that someone may say it is valid, of course does not make it so. What we require is compelling evidence that Santa Clause does not exist. So, lets consult the experts. Hundreds of scientists and explorers have journeyed to the North Pole and not one has reported seeing evidence for Santa, Mrs. Clause, the Elves, or a toy factory. On the contrary, they report nothing is there but snow and ice. Satellites in outer space have found no structures where there should be structures, no signs of life where there should be signs of life. Scholars and historians provide us with historical evidence that the Santa we teach children in the U.S. is mythical. We also have the first hand observations in houses across the nation that Santa Clause has never gone down a chimney or given a single child a present. Where there should be evidence for Santa, there is not. Thus, we have compelling evidence to support our belief that Santa Clause does not exist, making our belief valid. As with all soft science, it is not ultimate proof”
Concerning the last part of book where the author gives his case for reincarnation, I think he is employing an evidence based faith, just like atheist and Christians employ in other areas. I myself being inclined towards a Christian world-view am automatically skeptical of what he shared. The examples and the scientific studies done, which he thinks is evidence for reincarnation looks strong on the face of it, but I feel I would have to look into the sources. No matter how strong the case seems, I am sure there is another point of view that can make sense and explain the data and anecdotal evidence. I remember listening to an audiobook by another author who presented the case that struck me surprisingly strong for reincarnation, very similar to what Dobbins summarizes, but at the end of the chapter, he also shared the critics counter-argument which also seemed pretty strong. I am humble enough to acknowledge that based upon the evidence that Dobbins holds, he is justified in his belief, it's not groundless. Some reason reincarnation was a live option for him, while for me it's not much of a live option. It's mysterious all the reasons why we are emotional open to some things and completely closed off to other ideas. I almost think the unconscious largely determines just how skeptical or even cynical we are to some propositions, and why we are incredibly credulous and quick to accept other propositions. Us humans, we are an interesting lot
Dobbins begins with the observation of the highly emotional nature and lack of reasoned discourse within the new atheistic fundamentalism. Even Sam Harris experienced some atheist’s backlash, Harris wrote "And there is something cult-like about the culture of atheism. In fact, much of the criticism I have received of my speech is so utterly lacking in content that I can only interpret it as a product of offended atheist piety." Dobbins commented on this “Harris isn’t the only one feeling like atheists criticism’s are ‘cult-like’, ‘utterly lacking in content’ and are a larger expression of ‘atheist piety.’ Harris’s quote goes a long way in describing how many in the religious community feel about atheists as well.”
Some of the main content of the book counters the common claim that atheism is not a belief, but merely a lack of belief. I myself have been willing to grant that the word “atheist” itself could simply mean lack of a belief in God. But I consider it absolutely delusional that some atheist claim that they have no beliefs at all, when in reality we all vary little, atheist just have a different set of presuppositions which are sacrosanct. Everyone is a skeptic, it's just a matter of which direction they are inclined to be cynical, everyone is credulous and have a will to believe, but once again, what side of the isle one is inclined towards will determine in what ways. Christians are quick to believe God spoke the universe into being and raised Jesus from the dead, atheist are quick to believe that there are millions of universes popping in and out of existence and that lifeless matter accidentally formed into complex replicating creatures which eventually evolved consciousness, conscience and reason. Both sides of the isle see the other side as ridiculous and based on faith.
Considering the big questions like origins, life, consciousness, truth, beauty, goodness, evil, meaning and purpose, to reject the theistic explanation to these things, means almost by default one is forced to believe that science has or will eventually discover naturalistic explanations to all of these things, or that they simply are illusory or don't matter. Many atheist don't understand that the main meaning of faith is trust, it's the idea that one has a good reason to place ones trust in an idea or a person. For examples, we can't prove a friend will be loyal to us, but we may have good reasons to trust him or her, so we place faith in a friend. Likewise, atheist seeing how much science has explained, place their faith in science to do what it has yet accomplished, for them it is Neo-Darwinism-Of-The-Gaps. It's evidence based faith. We Christians on the other-hand feel we have good reasons and enough evidence to place our trust in God.
It would seem however, that to Dobbins, neither the atheist nor the theist really have what he would consider evidence. Dobbins wrote “A negative belief is still a belief, and a belief not supported by evidence to create knowledge is a belief based on faith. If the atheist simply had an absence of belief in it wouldn’t be a belief. Absence of belief is no belief. Absence is something that isn’t there. The reality is, most atheists go beyond absence of belief to disbelieving in God or positively believing there isn’t a God. Once they’ve crossed this line, their belief becomes a faith.” And this faith in Dobbins eyes seems to be more of a blind faith, it's only after they believe something unprovable, that they then can use reason to justify their beliefs. But since it starts with an assumption that is based on blind faith, the reason that justifies the faith-position they now hold doesn't constitute as evidence for it. As he wrote “Reason is not evidence and atheists do not own it.” Theist of course use reason to fortify their own truth claims, and atheist refuse to consider theistic reasoning as evidence, even if it's logically sound.
Dobbins included the findings of some of Sam Harris research which show that religious statements and lack of faith in the same religious statements derive from the same part of the brain. Sam Harris wanted to show there was a faith part of the brain and a skeptical part, but his research didn't support this. It was in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex that deals with “Emotion, self-representation, and cognitive conflict” that lit up when either positive and negative religious beliefs where reflected upon, while recalling more ordinary facts, a different part of the brain being activated. So in Dobbins estimation of this research was that the “Disbeliefs atheists have do not come from the part of the brain based on knowledge. I think this is checkmate that atheism is a faith-based belief.”
I liked Dobbins reaction to the New Atheist comparing belief in God to that of Santa Clause or Fairies. He wrote “The next argument atheists make is ‘you can’t prove a negative’, hoping you’ll forget that they just tried to prove a negative by saying absence of evidence was proof. They have the chutzpah to compare God to the belief in Santa Clause, fairies, and leprechauns, all of which the atheist claims cannot be proven to not exist. Let’s take Santa Claus as our example for atheists who claim you cannot prove negatives. According to them, one cannot prove Santa Claus doesn’t exist so there is no burden on them to prove God does not exist. Until there is evidence Santa Clause doesn't exist, or God doesn’t exist, we cannot have a valid disbelief. The fact that someone may say it is valid, of course does not make it so. What we require is compelling evidence that Santa Clause does not exist. So, lets consult the experts. Hundreds of scientists and explorers have journeyed to the North Pole and not one has reported seeing evidence for Santa, Mrs. Clause, the Elves, or a toy factory. On the contrary, they report nothing is there but snow and ice. Satellites in outer space have found no structures where there should be structures, no signs of life where there should be signs of life. Scholars and historians provide us with historical evidence that the Santa we teach children in the U.S. is mythical. We also have the first hand observations in houses across the nation that Santa Clause has never gone down a chimney or given a single child a present. Where there should be evidence for Santa, there is not. Thus, we have compelling evidence to support our belief that Santa Clause does not exist, making our belief valid. As with all soft science, it is not ultimate proof”
Concerning the last part of book where the author gives his case for reincarnation, I think he is employing an evidence based faith, just like atheist and Christians employ in other areas. I myself being inclined towards a Christian world-view am automatically skeptical of what he shared. The examples and the scientific studies done, which he thinks is evidence for reincarnation looks strong on the face of it, but I feel I would have to look into the sources. No matter how strong the case seems, I am sure there is another point of view that can make sense and explain the data and anecdotal evidence. I remember listening to an audiobook by another author who presented the case that struck me surprisingly strong for reincarnation, very similar to what Dobbins summarizes, but at the end of the chapter, he also shared the critics counter-argument which also seemed pretty strong. I am humble enough to acknowledge that based upon the evidence that Dobbins holds, he is justified in his belief, it's not groundless. Some reason reincarnation was a live option for him, while for me it's not much of a live option. It's mysterious all the reasons why we are emotional open to some things and completely closed off to other ideas. I almost think the unconscious largely determines just how skeptical or even cynical we are to some propositions, and why we are incredibly credulous and quick to accept other propositions. Us humans, we are an interesting lot
October 15, 2014
Might be good?? Needs editing
I skipped through large chunks of this book because I couldn't handle the terrible sentence structure. I don't write as carefully when I am in front of a screen either , but my goodness if you plan to write professionally make sure your work is polished.
The lack of editing and improper use of pronouns made the book nearly impossible to read. The author has engaging book material that fell flat. I hope he takes this material back to the drawing board and tries again.
I skipped through large chunks of this book because I couldn't handle the terrible sentence structure. I don't write as carefully when I am in front of a screen either , but my goodness if you plan to write professionally make sure your work is polished.
The lack of editing and improper use of pronouns made the book nearly impossible to read. The author has engaging book material that fell flat. I hope he takes this material back to the drawing board and tries again.
July 9, 2014
A book against atheism written by an agnostic. Yup, that's this book! I was intrigued and this book was a solid look at some of the problems with the militant new atheists. While there are some weak arguments many are spot on! Skip chapter six it is poorly done and is really just an argument for reincarnation. Which is lame and in my opinion the weakest chapter. But worth the read, both for atheists and theists!
August 29, 2014
Mostly fail. Not a complete waste of time, in fact it might be worth reading for those newly come to the realization that evidence for the supernatural is remarkably lacking. For those who left religion and deities behind ages ago, the arguments here are nothing new and a little worn out. The evidence for an afterlife falls woefully short. I'd categorize Mr. Dobbins as one of the nicer critics of atheism but still missing the mark.
August 7, 2014
A few excellent points hidden inside quite a lot of whining. It had potential and promise to begin with but it soon turned extremely one sided and closed minded and I lost interest. I learned a few things though, and a lot of things stuck with me for some reason, hence the 3 stars.
February 1, 2015
....for insight into the new atheism from the prospective of a modern agnostic. Valuable apologetic material is provided, useful even to deists who dare look into the subject.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews