How to Be an (A)theist: Why Many Skeptics Aren't Skeptical Enough

by Mitch Stokes, J.P. Moreland (Foreword)

Atheists talk a lot about the importance of skepticism. But the truth is, they're not nearly skeptical enough.

While they champion the importance of a critical stance toward religion, they often fail to take that same stance toward their own beliefs. This double standard results in grandiose claims about the certainty of unbelief. However, their confidence in the rational strength of their own position is logically inconsistent at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. Turning atheists' skepticism around on their own naturalist worldview, philosopher Mitch Stokes critically examines two things that such skeptics hold dear—science and morality—revealing deep inconsistencies among atheists' most cherished beliefs, inconsistencies that threaten to undo atheism itself.

Genres: Philosophy, Christian, Science, Religion, Christianity, Theology, Nonfiction

256 pages, Paperback

First published February 29, 2016

About the author

Dr. Stokes received a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Florida in 1992 and an M.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Central Florida in 1994. While serving as an advanced and senior engineer in Florida in the 1990s, Dr. Stokes took theological courses at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando. He went on to complete an M.A. in Religion (Philosophy of Religion) at Yale University under Dr. Nick Wolterstorff in 2001 and an M.A. in Philosophy at University of Notre Dame in 2003. He completed his doctoral studies in Philosophy at Notre Dame under Dr.Alvin Plantinga and Dr. Peter van Inwagen in 2005, prior to joining the New Saint Andrews faculty.

Reviews

[Sarah Chappell · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am so glad this book has been written. It clearly defines the atheist argument and what must follow from the belief in naturalism.
I also appreciated how accessible it was for people who are not entirely well versed in philosophy to understand and the witty writing that made me burst into laughter at times. If anyone had a mild interest in religion and philosophy, you should read this book!
It took me a while to finish, as each chapter had many challenging ideas, however the process has been well worth the wait!

[Ryan Hawkins · Rating 4 out of 5]

It’s hard not to give a book like this 5 stars because of how informative it was. I love apologetics and am decently well learned in that area. But when it comes to the history of science, scientific theories, and topics such as the differences between Hume and Newton and Einstein, I know very little. So, this book was very instructive in this area, and he did a great job showing why naturalist science-only people should be more skeptical than they are, and why they cannot say science disproves God.

In brief, he shows that science most certainly does not show that God doesn’t exist. This is Parts 1 and 2. Then in Part 3, he discusses the topic of morality—taking up specifically Sam Harris’ argument for morality from natural causes—and he shows well that naturalism must necessarily lead to morality based on preference (or saying it another way: nihilism). I thought this was wise for him to put this last in the book. For he uses it to show that if we’re staunch naturalists, and yet we are revulsed by the idea that in any sort of society that rape could be considered right or okay, then we might want to reassess our naturalist presupposition (see last paragraph on pg. 229). This is great.

So why only 4 stars? Because I thought he was a tad long winded at times, a little confusing, and that it could’ve been condensed. In condensing it, yes, he would’ve let some of the information go, but I think it would’ve been more compelling and easy to follow. I can just imagine so many atheists or agnostics being told by friends to read it, and unfortunately never finishing it because it’s so long. Half the length with the same major arguments would’ve been fantastic.

In fact, that’s what I’d recommend the author (if there’s any shot he’d read this): Take the same info—about Hume, scientific skepticism, morality, nihilism—and make a book that has smaller pages and shorter. I think something like that could be a huge resource to the church. This is a resource for the small percentage of people who have naturalistic leanings *and* are willing to read a longer book on the subject. A shorter book would reach the many would have naturalistic leanings yet don’t study their presupposition much.

Finally, he should’ve incorporated C.S. Lewis in his discussions on morality! I had just read *Abolition of Man* and Lewis makes some of the same arguments Stokes made in this book, but I think Lewis did it in his winsome and even clearer way (the same goes for Lewis’ morality argument in *Mere Christianity*). So, I don’t say it because quoting Lewis is always good, but because it would’ve strengthened his argument with clarity—especially since Lewis himself was once an atheist!

But overall, definitely a great book. Glad it was written. I’ll keep it as a reference for atheistic arguments and discussions. I recommend it to anyone, especially those who are drawn to believing that naturalism could be true. But I do hope a shorter version will be written.

[Rick Sam · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mitch's goal in this book is to show Atheists, sceptics are not consistent or skeptical enough, I think he has given a good base for it.

Personally, I think Atheists are good people, some are really loving but I am not interested in that, but more on the system of beliefs when challenged.
If you are an Atheist, be a consistent one, and you'll find areas in this book, where Mitch says, it can't stand firmly. Lastly, Mitch ends with, Be it, what's the point?

He covers a wide array of subjects on Scientific methods. Most of the topics are familiar to whoever is into Christian Philosophy. I learnt more on, differences on history of science from Aristotle and Newton. This really piques my interest more on him, I will read him seriously.

He clearly explains the differences in science like instrumentalism, empiricism and how it is an underlying epistemology. I would recommend all scientists to learn more history and philosophy, I think sometimes our pride in knowledge, methods of science leads us to make grand claims like
God is dead, we don't need God, God is merely a hypothesis.

Mitch shows how we are not even close in understanding a lot of things about reality, we are not skeptical enough in science.

Overall, It's a great introduction book to those who are into Atheism, Christianity, Philosophy.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Stokes argues in this book, not "how to be an atheist" but how to be a consistent atheist. He argues that atheists don't follow their presuppositions to their logical conclusions--namely, they are not skeptical enough about the ability of science to answer the questions they ask of it. Not only that, but atheists are too credulous about the ability of a naturalistic worldview to explain morality and meaning.

Scientists, and especially atheists, like to position themselves as skeptical about truth claims, yet they too often, uncritically adopt theories and hypotheses, without seeing the hypocrisy in doing so. Science makes far too grand of claims, and is unable to bear the weight of them.

Additionally, attempts to explain how we can make distinctions between good and evil that do not presuppose a theistic worldview, are not nearly as strong as atheists like to think.

Stokes' argument boils down to plea for atheists to be more skeptical concerning their presuppositions, and understand that the claims they are making are not scientific, but philosophical, and not very good at that.

[Rafan Ahmed · Rating 4 out of 5]

লেখক ফিলসফিতে ডক্টরেট করা, লেখার ধাচে কেতাবি স্বাদ আছে, তবে সহজবোধ্য। মোট অধ্যায় ১৯টি। লেখক দেখিয়েছেন সংশয়ীরা যদি তাদের সংশয়ের ব্যাপারে একপেশে না হয় তাহলে আরো বেশকিছু বিষয় নিয়ে তাদের সংশয়ে থাকার কথা। জগতের অস্তিত্ব, বৈজ্ঞানিক ইনফারেন্সের এপিস্টেমিক ভ্যালু, মোরালিটির অন্টোলজিক্যাল অবস্থান ইত্যাদি। কিন্তু এগুলো নিয়ে তাদের কোনো মাথাব্যাথাই দেখা যায় না। সুবিধাবাদ জিন্দাবাদ টাইপের সংশয়ী তারা। আমার ব্যক্তিগত জীবনের অভিজ্ঞতাতেও তাই মনে হয়েছে। সংশয়ী খেতাবধারীরা মূলত সুবিধাবাদী।

এগুলো যদিও আমার জন্য নতুন কিছু না। আমার ২য় বইতে এইসব ইস্যুতে সহজ আলোচনা আছে। যাই হোক, মোটের উপর ভালো বই।

[Espen Hetland · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mitch Stokes, den kristne filosofiprofessoren, utfordrer ateisten (samt teisten) til å være konsekvente i sine livssyn. Skal du være ateist, får du være en ordentlig en.

Boken er delt opp i tre deler:
1. Sense and reason - I hvilken grad kan vi stole på vår egen rasjonalitet?
2. Science - Har virkelig naturvitenskapen motbevist Gud?
3. Morality - «If God is dead, is everything permissible?

[Micah Kramer · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was impressed. It took no prisoners. It was well stated. I honestly can't think of anything I didn't like or would have done differently. Hence the five stars. I think this serves as a great read for anyone and should serve to cause the reader to take better stock of their own rhetorical stances, and hopefully bolster their own arguments regardless where their argument lies.

[Christopher · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'll merely loudly say "Amen!" to John Frame's review: "This book deals with some highly technical matters in a learned way, but with wit and clarity. I profited from it very much."

Bonus points for being written in a way which would make me comfortable handing it to a friend who is actually an atheist. I think it would provoke a good conversation rather than just be inflammatory.

[Sean Higgins · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book requires thinking work, but is unrelenting to the point and interspersed with Calvin and Hobbes cartoons. I enjoyed thinking about brains in vats and how philosophy is inescapable to science, and more science-people should acknowledge it.

[Rick Davis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well-written and witty.

[Sam · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book dismantles the notion that atheism can, by itself, constitute a coherent worldview. A perfect book for a Christian to remove the potential stumbling block of secular arguments.

[Nathan Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’d give this ten stars if I could.

[E · Rating 4 out of 5]

The title of this book is not very helpful, but the subtitle does a good job of getting at the book's theme. The text is more or less divided into half. The first half addresses cosmology and other aspects of physics, questioning whether advances in these fields have truly precluded theism, as many claim. We should be skeptical that advances have indeed "accomplished" such a thing. There is just far too much that we do not know (hence the need for more skepticism); heck, at this point quantum theory and relativity are irreconcilable, and most physicists have accepted that relativity is merely a model for looking at the world, and not actually how things truly "are." (This is an interesting discussion in its own right, but there probably wasn't room to go into too much detail here.)

The second half deals with moral values. Can we make them if we are naturalists? Can we avoid nihilism? Stokes argues convincingly that atheists cannot. They try to avoid this because it's, well, depressing, but some of the more honest ones will admit it. Stokes goes into much more detail about how we determine what is "right" or "good," but this is the payoff.

Stokes is a serious scholar. Rarely do you see physics and philosophy intersect as well as he manages to do so here. This is not a lightweight book, but I would recommend it to all who seek to engage the world on these topics.

[Brad · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well thought through and accessible

This is a well thought out and readable explanation of differing views of what science is, how theories function, and the limitations of what it can and cannot prove. Science is a gift and has made our lives better in many ways but it cannot and should not be seen as the only source of knowledge and wisdom for our lives. We need not denigrate science in order to keep its limitations well in sight. Like any tool it can and has been misused by those who use it for their on selfish purposes, by those who do not understand it, and by those who fear it. Christians should avoid all of those pitfalls and his book can help frame your thinking about science to use it as the amazing tool it is while keeping other tools such as philosophy, theology, history, and wisdom in good use as well.

[Lukas Mason · Rating 4 out of 5]

Manual on Christian intellectual skepticism. Apologetically sound, but clunky at times. Bonus points for cleverly-selected excerpts from Calvin & Hobbes.

[Bob O'Bannon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Stokes’ main objective is to show that atheists, who often pride themselves in their skepticism, are actually not skeptical enough. They are skeptical of religious claims, of course, but they are rarely skeptical of scientific claims, even though there is good reason to do so, which is what Stokes aims to show.

For instance, Stokes asks if primates should be good at science. In other words, if, according to evolution, we have evolved solely for the task of survival, then why would our minds come up with elaborate theories like that of evolution? Falling off a log is a very natural thing to do, but developing theoretical accounts of the world is unnatural, and not what one would expect from a world in which random natural selection were the truth. (p.50-51). If we are really taking skepticism seriously, shouldn’t we be skeptical in this way?

In the first half of the book, Stokes discusses the nature of science and its various limitations. He is not a science denier by any means, but argues that it is not as objective as some would claim. On p.102, he lists several scientific theories that were considered “beyond question during the height of their popularity,” but have now been proven to be false. “It seems that we should at least be wary about how much stock we put in current theories, given the frequency with which theories are overturned.” (p.104).

Stokes occasionally gets deep in the weeds with scientific detail, which I personally found hard to follow sometimes, and that’s why I found the second part of the book much more compelling, where he argues that “common sense morality is completely undone” if atheism is true. (p.151).

More specifically, he argues that if naturalism is true, then there is no morality; and, if there is such a thing as morality, then naturalism is false and theism is true. (p.158). Stokes notes that contemporary atheists don’t like the nihilistic implications of their worldview, so they seek to justify morality even while denying the existence of God. They will say that our moral judgments are merely the result of biological processes which are changing over time in the interest of human progress. But, if we are to be good skeptics, shouldn’t we ask some questions about this idea? For instance, as our moral beliefs evolve, why should we think they are getting closer to some moral ideal? By what outside standard do we measure that progress? “We can certainly say that we like our current set of ethical standards better than our previous ones, but can we say that they’re objectively better?” (p.177)

Stokes also makes the case that morality presupposes personal value, or what some person has decided is objectively good. Value is dependent on a “valuer,” and since the cosmos is impersonal and therefore unable to value anything, there can be no moral values in an impersonal universe (p.202f). As Nietzsche said, “nature is always value-less.” (p.227). Law makes no sense without a lawgiver. Morality implies moral obligation, and one can have such obligation only to a person or persons (p.205).

At the very least, atheists should be skeptical about criticisms regarding the alleged evils of organized religion. They can appeal to certain subjective preferences that they share with other atheists, but they can’t talk about something to which everyone everywhere is morally bound. “He might as well argue that his preference for chocolate over vanilla provides reasons for us to change our own preferences.” (p.234).

In the Christian worldview, the “cosmos is profoundly personal” (p.241), a place where the supreme lawgiver is God himself, and where moral goodness flows from what He values. Without him, we are left in a universe where there is “no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” (p.236).

[A.J. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Truly a 5-star book. I recommend for all serious readers interested in apologetics.

The main point of this book is that atheists are selectively skeptical when it comes to arguing against theism but not when it comes to their own beliefs. Mitch Stokes lays down his foundation and then goes into the two big topics--science and morality.

Regarding science, he makes it clear that the whole argument for science proving or even claiming there is no God is irrational at best since the science used by atheists is an evolution of cascading theories that rely on each other to remain relevant. Ironically, the two theories that physics champions are at odds with each other, and the new string theory and M-theory try to unify them. This is what atheists rely on. Their skepticism is inconsistent.

For morality he argues naturalism implies nihilism and that atheists can't pick and choose one or the other although very few are able to stomach nihilism. They are inconsistent. Stokes explains how all values require a valuer and that moral laws are person-dependent. He cautions theists against using the Christian view as a basis for making sense of objective moral and natural laws because it gives the impression that there is such a thing as person-independent and God-independent sense of "objective", which implies an impersonal view of the universe. That's what keeps atheism going.

[Leandro Couto · Rating 5 out of 5]

I chuckled at this book's title and just had to read it. Stokes's two pronged attack on atheistic selective skepticism works in two fronts: Science and morality, each one roughly half the book (after a shorter intro part).

Part I (Science) fascinated me with the insights into quantum mechanics and relativity, all corroborated by quotes from experts in the field. Truly a case of the more you know, the more you realize all that you don't know. Stokes does a good job in slowly peeling away veil of popular but wrong oversimplifications. Part II (Morality) was more familiar ground to me, and I think he does a good job dispelling notions of objective moral values from Science, and also showing the very poor job some atheists do of arguing for moral obligations within atheism. but he has a really unexpected take in his crucial reply to Euthyphro's dilemma, in which he admits moral values are relative even in theism, but they are person-dependent, not human-dependent (because God is a person). I'm not sure I agree, but it was an interesting read.

Sometimes Stokes does dive deeply into definitions and philosophical minutiae, but I can appreciate the purpose of it all as argumentative rigor, and no word or point feels wasted. His writing style is also very readable and with the right amount of sarcastic acidity (as hinted by the title). Great stuff.

[Tim · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this look into applying epistemology directly to the question of God's existence. It just happened to coincide with other book on epistemology that I just finished, so there was a little overlap. I thought he did a tremendous job discussing Hume and the various philosophers that have been tried to make sense of things...but like the author concludes...all value is essentially subjective, requiring a 'valuer.' Without a value-giver, we are left with a lot of 'is' observations about the world, but zero 'oughts.' I thought that unpacking this is/ought distinction was the best part of the book. Nature may exist a certain way, and we may observe it in certain ways, but that in no way implies how we should therefore live. I felt (like another reviewer said) that he was less compelling than Lewis was in some similar apologetic arguments. Overall, would definitely recommend as an apologetic book as well as helping make sense of the philosophies our culture is awash in.

[Brandon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Surprisingly detailed. I was a little concerned at the beginning that it would be a little too silly and superficial.

In fact, he goes into tremendous detail examining atheistic views of science as able to produce truth. In this section he gives detailed interaction with philosophy of science and even how science can't actually produce truth, but more like the best accounting of data so far.

In his discussion of morality, he does a tremendous job of exploring atheistic arguments for morality and demonstrating that they just don't work.

Would recommend.

[Steve Herreid · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book had so much promise, but in the end it was only OK.

The author addresses two hot button issues in Christian apologetics (science and morality). He strikes me as a sophisticated philosopher (good), and he tries to simplify his arguments so that any layperson can understand them (good). However, I found him to have a quirky writing style which detracted from the force of his arguments (although I agreed with them).

[Gabriel · Rating 3 out of 5]

While highly informative and puts forward many strong points, I found it hard to retain Stokes’ arguments in my mind, and many a times I forgot what his argument was. That said I probably would enjoy this book more if I had read more about the philosophy and morality as well as what modern day atheists have written. I suppose this book is not for those relatively new to apologetics and Christian/moral philosophy, like me.

[Latasha · Rating 1 out of 5]

This dude loves Hume and bases his entire argument for skepticism off of that “philosophy.” Not only was it boring but the irony of saying “Humes’s philosophy is the only scientific ‘process’ that holds any water” is obviously lost on this guy. I almost threw this book in frustration because of that.

Some of the points were valid, including “If we are at a point in scientific theory based on proving past scientific theory incorrect, what makes us think that process is over?” (Paraphrasing) The book probably wouldn’t have sucked if I could get past the initial and obvious Hume fangirling.

[Andreas F · Rating 5 out of 5]

Esse é um livro que te dá muito material para que penses e repenses não somente tuas crenças, mas também a importância da união entre ciência e religião e o porquê essa união só tem a nos enriquecer. Calcado em várias fontes e muito bem escrito. Recomendo para aqueles que estão em dúvida quanto a fé, ou para quem quer conhecer mais sobre um ponto de vista teísta da vida.

[Sean McGowan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic book. I highly recommend this book for someone who interacts with the “new atheists” or someone who is struggling in their faith. This book does require some working knowledge of science and philosophy, but Stokes is a great writer and not only breaks concepts down but also reiterates and summarizes his points quite often for the reader to keep up.

[Ben · Rating 3 out of 5]

If You Are Athiest, Read This!

This was a very niche book.

I did not enjoy it as much, as I am already a Christian. So I found it fairly dry.

Still a great book for atheists to read though!

Would recommend this if you are a non-believer.

3.0/5

[Brittany Mays · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent book. I frequently read higher level nonfiction, however this one was a tough read. There was some vocabulary I was not familiar with that I began very acquainted with by the end of the book.

[Peter Kiss · Rating 5 out of 5]

Stokes is a great writer and I ended up being his other book because of this one. Easy to read, goes deep enough for the scholar and shallow enough for the layman, so its a perfect balance of both worlds.

[Jesus Salgado · Rating 4 out of 5]

The coherence of a worldview is essential without it, a functional system is absent. The author adeptly illustrates this reality in the book. Foundations hold significance as they inevitably contribute to either purposeful or purposeless outcomes.

[Carleton Raisbeck · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent book. Objectively.