What do you think?
Rate this book
Atheism is Not a Religion
What if religion is only a social construct? In Atheism is Not a Religion, Eduard Honey examines religion's influence and the flaws of religious belief.
98 pages, Kindle Edition
Published September 27, 2023
6 people are currently reading
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
February 9, 2024
‘Atheism… (is) about not accepting anything… unless there’s evidence to support it.’ (3%)
Unfortunately that view of atheism fails the test of rational coherence. It is impossible to believe only claims that have evidence for them. Take the very idea of evidence. What possible evidence could prove that evidence is genuinely evidential? Perhaps we’re all dreaming reality and what we think is evidence isn’t really evidence at all...? Or perhaps the simplest possible model of reality is that there is a single mind (you, me… or God) which is dreaming everything else…?
There is no way of proving or disproving claims like that, because they relate to such fundamental concepts, that the operation of evidence and rationality presupposes our foundational views of reality, and operate within their framework. Rationality cannot be (rationally) turned back upon itself to evaluate its own rationality, without committing a logical fallacy of begging the question. So, logically, there must be beliefs which people accept without evidence. One of the interesting philosophical questions is what those beliefs are, and which ones can and should be accepted without evidence.
Lets consider another couple of similar claims to reinforce the point. Take the idea that the world was invented 5 minutes ago with all evidence and memories in place. Or take the claim that no other human is genuinely a human being with a conscious experience like oneself. Those kinds of claims cannot be proved or disproved. Yet we assume an answer to them, in the way that we live our lives and accept responsibilities incurred over time.
So it is just wrong to say that atheism only believes claims for which there is evidence.
The book is also wrong in how it characterizes religion. It says that there must be a God or gods (5%) and that supernatural reality is the 2nd of the 6 criteria for a religion (8%). Unfortunately, that rules out versions of deity-less Buddhism from counting as a religion.
The books account of how Christians approach the Problem of Evil is also wrong. It claims that they appeal to Original Sin (14%). Yes, the theological problem of evil may appeal to theological factors like that, but Natural Theology deliberately excludes such factors. When Christians reflect on the Philosophical problem of Evil, Original Sin is typically irrelevant to the argument.
And so on and so forth, throughout the book. Issues are repeatedly raised which are arguably mis-represented or presented in the format of strawman fallacies.
This is a book which will appeal to atheists wanting to reconfirm what they already believe, but it is not a book which will be helpful to readers who are genuinely interested in thinking seriously about the similarities and differences between religion and atheism.
(These comments are based on the Kindle Edition, accessed in Feb 2024).
Unfortunately that view of atheism fails the test of rational coherence. It is impossible to believe only claims that have evidence for them. Take the very idea of evidence. What possible evidence could prove that evidence is genuinely evidential? Perhaps we’re all dreaming reality and what we think is evidence isn’t really evidence at all...? Or perhaps the simplest possible model of reality is that there is a single mind (you, me… or God) which is dreaming everything else…?
There is no way of proving or disproving claims like that, because they relate to such fundamental concepts, that the operation of evidence and rationality presupposes our foundational views of reality, and operate within their framework. Rationality cannot be (rationally) turned back upon itself to evaluate its own rationality, without committing a logical fallacy of begging the question. So, logically, there must be beliefs which people accept without evidence. One of the interesting philosophical questions is what those beliefs are, and which ones can and should be accepted without evidence.
Lets consider another couple of similar claims to reinforce the point. Take the idea that the world was invented 5 minutes ago with all evidence and memories in place. Or take the claim that no other human is genuinely a human being with a conscious experience like oneself. Those kinds of claims cannot be proved or disproved. Yet we assume an answer to them, in the way that we live our lives and accept responsibilities incurred over time.
So it is just wrong to say that atheism only believes claims for which there is evidence.
The book is also wrong in how it characterizes religion. It says that there must be a God or gods (5%) and that supernatural reality is the 2nd of the 6 criteria for a religion (8%). Unfortunately, that rules out versions of deity-less Buddhism from counting as a religion.
The books account of how Christians approach the Problem of Evil is also wrong. It claims that they appeal to Original Sin (14%). Yes, the theological problem of evil may appeal to theological factors like that, but Natural Theology deliberately excludes such factors. When Christians reflect on the Philosophical problem of Evil, Original Sin is typically irrelevant to the argument.
And so on and so forth, throughout the book. Issues are repeatedly raised which are arguably mis-represented or presented in the format of strawman fallacies.
This is a book which will appeal to atheists wanting to reconfirm what they already believe, but it is not a book which will be helpful to readers who are genuinely interested in thinking seriously about the similarities and differences between religion and atheism.
(These comments are based on the Kindle Edition, accessed in Feb 2024).
Displaying 1 of 1 review