Atheism Explained: From Folly to Philosophy

by David Ramsay Steele

Atheism Explained explores the claims made both for and against the existence of God. On the pro that the wonders of the world can only be explained by an intelligent creator; that the universe had to start somewhere; telepathy, out-of-body experiences, and other paranormal phenomena demonstrate the existence of a spirit world; and that those who experience God directly provide evidence as real as any physical finding. After disputing these arguments through calm, careful criticism, author David Ramsay Steele presents the reasons why God cannot monstrous, appalling evils; the impossibility of omniscience; and the senseless concept that God is a thinking mind without a brain. He also explores controversial topics such as Intelligent Design, the power of prayer, religion without God, and whether a belief in God makes people happier and healthier. Steele’s rational, easy-to-understand prose helps readers form their own conclusions about this eternally thorny topic.

Genres: Religion, Philosophy, Atheism, Nonfiction, Science

224 pages, Paperback

First published January 15, 2007

Reviews

[Paul Bryant · Rating 4 out of 5]

After reading this pleasantly-proportioned lighthearted fast hotrod ride through every conceivable atheist argument, I have a confession to make. If you were to chuck out the God of Classical Theism (which is the one you know and love, yeah, Him), and instead give me a non-omniscient, non-eternal, non-omnipotent one, I just might be interested. That one might make a little bit of sense. This more realistic God would also not be Good. A non-good God gets rid of the Problem of Evil, so you can see becomes immediately more believable than the current model.

Our jolly author says rather boldly and with a difficult to detect level of seriousness:

It is imaginable that future findings of physics might cause us to entertain the hypothesis that a powerful intelligent being, or association of beings, set the dial for our universe.

STOP THAT EARTHQUAKE NOW

Well, of course, the problem of evil is thoroughly discussed here, and it’s an old favourite of mine, often on the turntable, almost as often as "Paint It Black". Let’s spin it one more time.

I’m not sure this aspect of the argument about the problem of evil has been sufficiently aired so I’ll mention it here. We have two types of evil, that created by humans and what’s called Natural Evil, earthquakes, hurricanes and so on. The first type is explained by Free Will – God had to allow humans the ability to choose evil, indeed, this is the whole point of creation, to find out if us guys will choose evil or not. Natural evil is harder to explain for believers. They have to come up with reasons why God couldn’t have put us on a planet with stable tectonic plates, for instance. Now DRS says this – having given us a planet where earthquakes happen frequently, God could, if he desired, still stop all earthquakes by miraculous intervention. Humans wouldn’t notice anything. He could have stopped every earthquake from the beginning of history, so we never knew they could happen. God would be intervening in human history all the time, but of course this is what he did anyway, throughout the Bible, eventually sending us his only begotten Son, which is an intervention for sure. So it’s kind of hard to understand why God doesn’t stop earthquakes, at the very least.
You might think a) he doesn't care or b) he isn't there.

THE FRIGHTFUL LAMPREY AND THE HUMBLE POTTO

I was thinking in a lazy way that there was no intrinsic contradiction between belief in God and Darwinian evolution but DRS put me right. There was a Catholic theologian who was grateful for evolution because it got God off the hook – no once could accuse him of deliberately creating the bug that caused the Black Death or malaria and so on. Instead having created the universe with certain physical laws, he allowed evolution to take its course. Let the chips fall where they may. Not my problem, guvnor. But of course he would have been aware of all the suffering involved in this clumsy and wasteful evolution process. Anyway, what would be the point of all this? In order to finally arrive at the magnificence that is humanity? Why not cut out the middle dinosaur and create a fully functioning Planet Earth with everybody already here if that’s the point of all of this. Why waste all that space? (Well I guess there’s no real space wasted since there’s limitless space available since God created it all. He could create way bigger universes that the present one if he wanted. Probably already has. He gets all this stuff for free, you know.)

An omnipotent God would not and could not have means to ends: he could directly attain any desired ends.

Oh also

If God is omnipotent and omniscient then everything that happens is something God does

The Creationists have the problem of explaining why God having created all the individual species like the wombat, the spiny echidna, the golden tamarin, the potto, the lamprey, the hammerhead shark, the huntsman spider and the Portuguese Man o’ War then went on to create all the bacteria and viruses that make us go blind and suffer horribly and die.



ER... WHAT WAS THAT AGAIN?

Sometimes DRS cruelly exposes my lack of rigorous thinking, or to put it another way I can’t tell if he’s talking nonsense or being too clever for me. In discussing the old chestnut “why is there something rather than nothing?” – I bet you asked your partner that very question only yesterday – he says

If it’s a requirement of “true nothing” that it lacks any properties and any laws, then true nothing must lack any law prohibiting the appearance of something. The assertion that, given true nothing, a universe could not pop into existence is therefore self-contradictory.




THERE ARE NO KANGAROOS IN AUSTRALIA

He throws out some sentences that made me want to say STOP – write several paragraphs on this! – but then he flies off into another blizzard of theological speculation. For instance

You can never choose your beliefs, though you can choose to pretend that your beliefs are other than they really are

Well, this is a great question – CAN you choose your beliefs? I kind of think that most people who define themselves as believers never go into the detail of the thing, never bother their heads about theodicy or free will or creeds or predestination or eschatology or even the thought that maybe they’re in the wrong religion, they just admit all of that is above their paygrade and say to themselves they believe what they’re supposed to believe, whatever that is, and hope nobody questions them too closely. So I guess the great majority of religious belief is : I think this must be true because all these other people say it is, and some of them are quite clever. They can’t all be wrong. Can they?

A little thought experiment DRS suggests is this : try to believe there are no kangaroos in Australia. There – you can’t even believe it for a second. Because you know it isn’t true.

There are so many arguments and points of philosophy and science here your head will be spinning. Mr Steele cannot be criticised for pulling punches (on page 154 he takes on Islam). I would complain about the dad-type jokes about dinosaurs and some smirkiness here and there but heck, he does such a lot of heavy lifting here I think I can safely say that this solid and gratifyingly not too difficult book is recommended for everybody.

RELIGIOUS PLAYLIST

Bird in God’s Garden : Richard Thompson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLJpj...

Black Diamond Express To Hell : Reverend A W Nix

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW2RB...

Are you Washed in the Blood? : Stoneman Family

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QB2T...

Idumea : The Young Tradition

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCBxH...

Higher Ground : Iris Dement (actually Iris's mother)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M30U...

The Soul of a Man : Blind Willie Johnson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MdI2...

Then we'll Need that True Religion : Edward W Clayborn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKrlI...

God Song : Bad Religion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHDQK...

God's Song : Randy Newman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0Tvf...

God is Alive, Magic is Afoot : Buffy Sainte-Marie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-Gon...

God : Prince

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8HUO...

Dear God : XTC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p554R...

God : Tori Amos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN3rz...

[Sean Stalley · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a fantastic book that really fleshes out the arguments made from classical theology and atheist rebuttals. A couple years ago I said that The God Delusion was a book that presented solid arguments and provided strong, objective rhetoric for atheism. I've since changed my views, seeing that particular book as rash and too sure of its philosophical (lol) attempts. This book is different in providing reasoned, balanced arguments.

If you're an atheist, this book will give you a good perception of the reality of addressing theological arguments (and whether or not to do that). It's challenged some of my ideas concerning religion and definitely has given me different outlooks on common arguments. If you're a theist, give this book some of your time, especially if you're a believer in classical conceptions of God (which are demonstrably incompatible with each other). This will hopefully give you a good look at the other side of the spectrum, while not being treated as if you have a mental deficiency the entire time (looking at you Dawkins).

[Broodingferret · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was very thorough and well-written. Steele manages to cover most (if not all) of the conceivable arguments for and against the existence of the God of classical theism (the all-knowing, all-powerful Abrahamic God), and he does it without resorting to the viciousness and name-calling that's so typical of Dawkins and Hitchens. My only problem with this book is that it is supposed to be written in a way that lay people would find accessible, yet Steele writes pretty much like every other philosopher that I've read, which is to say dense and difficult to follow if one is not used to philosopher-speak. Otherwise, this book is a well-argued, highly intelligent, and very respectful treatment on atheism and I highly recommend it to anyone with an interest in the subject.

[Jc · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book is oddly named as it is part of the “Explained” series, but it is an okay introductory book to the philosophical arguments for and against theism. Of course, as usual for a book with "atheism" in the title, the emphasis is on the non-existence of an Abrahamic god, but the author does not limit the discussion to that genre of religious thought. Considering the material, this is a relatively lively read. The author refrains from getting too technical, either using mostly terms that a college educated reader should be familiar with, or defining his terms for the reader. The author does slip up with some of his arguments, however – sliding from laying out the various arguments to just stating his opinions. And, at times, he just seems to be out on a limb hanging outside of his own knowledge range (e.g, his discussions of evolutionary theory; or of the possible genetic nature of belief). For someone well read in philosophy, the material might be a little too introductory, and for someone trained in the biological sciences there are bits that would be mainly frustrating, but the work is not intended for the professional. I think 3 out of 5 stars fits fine – it is not the best intro to atheism, but it covers most of the arguments quite well. For a much better introduction to the philosophical arguments between atheism and theism, try instead David Eller's "Natural Atheism."

[Dave Stone · Rating 2 out of 5]

DNF Starts out good, quickly becomes a rhetorical quagmire
David Ramsay Steele starts this book by saying that it's not important to disprove the existence of god. That it's an obsession for the young and wiser heads have better things to do.
So I was thinking that I was in for something new by a more enlightened thinker. Ha!
This guy quickly devolved into Vizzini from the The Princess Bride. (Any God who is outside of time & space is not infinite and therefore not omnipresent, so I can clearly not choose the God in front of me.) oy vey! He goes on an on disproving the existence of god with these bullshit logic traps about if you asked God if he can only tell the truth while this other god can only tell lies,... yadda yadda.
Don't do the audio book wile driving, it's like getting hit with a tranquilizer dart that saps your will to stay awake or care.
After that that intro that says he's grown up and out of it, there he is two chapters later trying to fight the Christians one last time. And with such bullshit 'Profs' like God can't think of a number higher than infinity. That's all you got? You wrote a book for this?

I don't think I came across a single new thought of piece on information before I quit at 35%. I would like to have read the book the intro promised.

[Genie]

Meh. There was a reason i got a degree in engineering instead of philosophy. A little too academic for my taste.

[Book Shark · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this book even though I disagreed with a couple of the author's points. A thorough review is forthcoming.

[Spellbind Consensus]

*Atheism Explained: From Folly to Philosophy* is a clear, accessible exploration of atheism—its intellectual foundations, historical development, and philosophical implications. Written with the intention of demystifying and rationally examining nonbelief, the book presents atheism not as a rebellious stance or a rejection of morality, but as a reasoned worldview grounded in critical thinking, scientific understanding, and philosophical inquiry.

The author begins by acknowledging that atheism is often misunderstood or misrepresented. Rather than positioning it as simply the denial of God, the book frames atheism as the conclusion that the concept of a deity is unnecessary, implausible, or unsupported by evidence. The author walks readers through the evolution of human belief in gods, tracing religious thought from ancient mythologies to modern monotheism, and questioning why such beliefs persist despite growing scientific and rational knowledge.

A significant portion of the book is devoted to analyzing arguments for the existence of God—such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological arguments. Each is presented fairly, followed by detailed critiques from an atheist perspective. The author explains how these arguments fail to provide conclusive or coherent evidence for the existence of a deity, emphasizing logical inconsistencies, lack of empirical support, or reliance on assumptions.

Equally, the book engages with common criticisms of atheism. It addresses questions such as: Can there be morality without God? Does atheism lead to nihilism? How do atheists find meaning in life? The author counters these concerns with philosophical and psychological perspectives, arguing that ethical systems, purpose, and personal fulfillment do not require a belief in the supernatural. Instead, they can be rooted in empathy, social contract, reason, and a commitment to human flourishing.

A recurring theme is the value of skepticism and inquiry. The author encourages readers to question inherited beliefs and to examine religious claims with the same scrutiny applied to other areas of knowledge. Atheism is presented not as dogma, but as an invitation to intellectual freedom and responsibility.

The tone of the book is measured and respectful, aiming not to ridicule believers but to encourage open-minded dialogue. It acknowledges the emotional and cultural roles that religion often plays in people’s lives, while making a case for why one can live morally, meaningfully, and compassionately without subscribing to religious doctrines.

By the end, *Atheism Explained* offers both an introduction to atheism and a thoughtful defense of it. It does not seek to convert but to clarify, providing readers with a deeper understanding of what it means to live without belief in God and why many find that stance philosophically and ethically coherent. The book serves as a resource for both nonbelievers and curious theists interested in exploring one of the most enduring and debated worldviews in human history.

[Jeff · Rating 3 out of 5]

I believe Holly kindly gave me this book as a gift and i finally read it. I didn't love Dr Steele's approach. It just wasn't what i was looking for.

The following quote — completely unrelated to whether god/gods exist — is my favorite because it makes me wonder "How can a society can break this cycle?"

It has been observed that sometimes – particularly in times of economic depression – people ... act more concerned about their dress.... [If they] feel that their prospects for advancement are influenced by appearance, and if they judge the penalties of being "over-dressed" as less serious than the penalties for being "under-dressed", then they will tend to "dress up". Thus they become part of the perceived reference of other people who are thereby impelled to dress more formally, and in this way the interaction of everybody's observations and actions acts as feedback, to push everyone toward more dressiness.

A similar interpersonal process occurs in groups committed to a belief system. Once it's accepted that a particular point of doctrine is important, and that defectiveness on that point is serious, individuals have an incentive to err on the side of greater emphasis, rather than less, on that point of doctrine. Once they do this, ... the perceived consensus on this point of doctrine is at a higher or "more extreme" level: to be regarded as doctrinally sound, a person has to escalate their commitment to that point of doctrine, and it is safest to escalate a bit further, to outdo anyone who might become personally critical. Because of this bidding war for orthodox accreditation, the whole group moves toward ever increasing emphasis on that point of doctrine.

Such points of doctrine may include the estimable qualities of the leader. At first the adherents of the belief system may feel that the leader has valuable insights they can learn from. Gradually they are made to feel uncomfortable if they assert any shortcomings whatsoever in the leader. As this process unfolds, the community of believers moves toward the position that the leader is the most exalted of beings. Thus we move by stages from the view that Mao is, under the circumstances, the best man for the job of party chairman, to the position that Mao is the greatest all-round genius in human history and that pondering brief quotations from his writings can enable you to play better table tennis.
[pp 275-276]

[Abdul Alhazred · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good, thorough and systematic walk through the inconsistencies, contradictions and nonsense of theistic belief. It's not a technical philosophical book, so the arguments are all very approachable to a non-specialist, but it's also not shallow enough to waste your time, and deals directly with a number of the star arguments of theistic proponents (like the popular Kalam argument).
There's a couple of sections in the beginning that deal with creationism that you can skip if you have heard it all before, or just don't want to engage with the most primitive of theistic arguments. I appreciated that it builds up toward more theologically mature arguments over time so you get a complete view of the debates at each stage.

As the author's introduction makes clear there's a notable focus here - the abrahamitic religions, as they represent virtually all of the theistic space in religion, and there's a very large opening for religious belief and claims that are not covered by this book nor the strict definition of atheist (which has nothing to do with religion at large). It also has little to say about deistic conceptions of a creator, simply because it's so vague and untestable a position there's next to no claims made by that camp to challenge.
If you take a general skeptical stance against all religious claims and all supernatural claims, this book covers only some of them as they pertain to theistic claims (life after death for example).

[Nente · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very dispassionate and committed to reasoning through the many arguments and their variations. Sometimes this makes for a repetitive reading, but I understand the need to be thorough. No heavyweight philosophical terms are employed, even though the bibliography runs to a dozen pages.

Of course the tongue was occasionally if briefly located in cheek; I would only mention that he actually got the publishers to put in a note on the copyrights page, saying "this book is inerrant and contains only statements of fact"!

The concluding point Steele makes is that there's no need for militant atheism. He says that, as a teen, he thought it important to convince people and persuade them out of their religious beliefs. But now he no longer considers it worth the fight: there are so many more interesting questions and tougher problems. Perhaps that helped achieve the disengaged, calm tone of the book.

[TheShrike · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this many years ago but it still remains - to me - the best book I have ever read explaining the reasons for Atheism and the devastating take-downs of "proofs for God".

He had several philosophical arguments which really solidified for me the impossibility of a God (at least one as depicted in the major religions).

What also stood out is his direction away from some of the new atheists who claim religion is responsible for so much death and destruction. He says you can't use that as an arguments since other non-religious ideologies (Pol Pot, Communism, etc...) have also been responsible for death and destruction. Of course, ideologies like that are in essence a type of religion so I think blaming religion/ideology is still correct.

Highly recommended for anyone who wants a deep dive into the Atheistic Philosophy and Arguments.

[Tyler · Rating 3 out of 5]

A little too heavy on philosophical-language and a little too light on historical explanation compared to the history offered as evidence. However, it feels very thorough in terms of the volume of possible explanations for theism that it provides counterpoints to, and seems to address these explanations in good faith.

[An · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very thorough introductory text that I would recommend to anyone looking for a clear yet substantial overview. It provides more depth than other popular atheistic philosophy books.

[AH · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is one of the best introductions to atheism . the book pushes people of what I call "pop atheism" which is the kind of the false norm in peoples conception of atheism whether believers or non-believers. for example Steele deals with such misconceptions as "you can't prove a negative" or the old and outdated Positivist view. Steele is also patient when it comes to arguments for and against the existence of god and is only focused on the point of the book, as a result he doesn't care what this belief implies and he also has no claim to intellectual or moral superiority.

I like the setup of the book in that Steele first sets up the stage and gives a brief look into the argument and it's only after this, that he begins to make his case. Overall I think this book is not only for those believers who are curious but also for atheists who have some of these "pop atheism" with themselves. I deducted a star simply because I think the book could've included more with such as cases based on archeology or building a case on Divine Hiddenness.

However Steel is careful and so he points out what is wrong with the arguments without glossing over hard points of logic. for example:

with the design argument:
"This claim rests upon the assumptions that if there were no God, we should except there to be no regularities in the universe..."

Straw man arguments against the idea of an uncaused universe:
like Craig's objection that no tiger can spontaneously appear from nothing, "Of course not!" writes Steele"my informed judgment tells me that anything like a raging tiger has to be product of millions of years of evolution on the surface of a planet. ..."

[Mark Gowan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really liked this book. Steele is straight forward, no-nonsense, sometimes witty, but very seldom emotional about his argument against the probability, the possibility, the logical validity of the argument for theistic belief. He mentions this in his forward in fact. Steele's book reads comfortably without much philosophical complexity, but at the same time it is thorough. It brings up reasons why not to believe that any God, godlets, angels etc.. exist, but mostly it points out the irrational, the extremely improbable implications of believing in such things.
This book is an easy read and an excellent introduction to anyone who has ever wondered why atheists make the claims that they do. Unlike Sam Harris, R. Dawkins and C. Hitchen, Steele makes his arguments without the emotional fervor. Rather than "Atheism Explained", another title would have applied: "Theism Explained: from Imagination to Unimaginable"
Theism, in all its flavors, does not make sense and Steele points this out. His argument encompasses not only Christianity but all religion although many of his examples make use of Christianity (and its sister religions Judaism and Islam). Good read! At times his british-like humor shines through but his well-thought out arguments are consistent and to the point.

[Harriet Huestis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Terrible title and cover art disguises excellent book. Rather than explaining atheism this book takes apart religious appologetics' arguments. I learned some new ideas in a field that is getting quite repetitive

[Martin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall I thought this was a very good book for someone exploring Atheism...

[Alar]

if you think your an atheist then read this...

[Tampines House]

B20905380E

[Onyango Makagutu]

A very interesting read

[Caleb Smothers · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting. It presented arguments for and against traditional religion. Nice to get viewpoints from both sides.

[Mitch · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book, while intelligent and coherent, suffers from being too thorough. For me, it seems to ramble on incessantly about philosophical unnecessary minutiae.

[Marnie · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am not an Atheist but I love to read about alternative views. Good book, easy to read, clear.

[Abdullah Sameer · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best books on the topic of atheism that I have ever read.

[Alan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Emotionally balanced well defined arguments for atheism. and against theism