What do you think?
Rate this book
God's Gravediggers: Why no Deity Exists
Few can offer a more experienced view on religion than Raymond Bradley. Having been raised as a 'winner of souls for Christ' in the 1940s, he spent the next 40 years as an atheist professor of philosophy and an outspoken critic/debater of religion.
Revered for his work in logic and his meticulous approach to debate, God's Gravediggers is Bradley's coup de grâce to religion. A career's worth of work on a subject that could hardly be more important. Approaching the moral, logical and scientific arguments—using rich analogies, rational arguments and examples that non-academics would understand—he explores not only whether God exists, but also what damage the concept of God does. A timely book in an age of religious fundamentalism, hatred and conflict.
"Bradley does not gloss over difficult points of logic and reasoning. A pleasure to read." —Professor Graham Oppy, Chair of Council of the Australasian Association of Philosophy.
"Bradley's forte is logic and he brings that to bear throughout the work. It is well-written and thoroughly absorbing. I have nothing but praise for his project." —Theodore Drange, Professor Emeritus, West Virginia University.
"From a young person's rejection of Christianity, to a mature philosopher's cogent critique of all religions. This compelling defense of atheism is a brilliant read." —Professor Robert Nola, University of Auckland.
Revered for his work in logic and his meticulous approach to debate, God's Gravediggers is Bradley's coup de grâce to religion. A career's worth of work on a subject that could hardly be more important. Approaching the moral, logical and scientific arguments—using rich analogies, rational arguments and examples that non-academics would understand—he explores not only whether God exists, but also what damage the concept of God does. A timely book in an age of religious fundamentalism, hatred and conflict.
"Bradley does not gloss over difficult points of logic and reasoning. A pleasure to read." —Professor Graham Oppy, Chair of Council of the Australasian Association of Philosophy.
"Bradley's forte is logic and he brings that to bear throughout the work. It is well-written and thoroughly absorbing. I have nothing but praise for his project." —Theodore Drange, Professor Emeritus, West Virginia University.
"From a young person's rejection of Christianity, to a mature philosopher's cogent critique of all religions. This compelling defense of atheism is a brilliant read." —Professor Robert Nola, University of Auckland.
374 pages, Kindle Edition
Published February 12, 2016
80 people are currently reading
95 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 - 4 of 4 reviews
November 3, 2023
The one sentence summary for this book would be this: Another decent account of a person’s journey to atheism while documenting generally sound logic and evidence that the non-religious path seems most reasonable to them. Or something like that. I enjoyed the book, and Dr. Bradley gives numerous excellent mini lessons on logic throughout the book and then applies that in the examination of many theistic claims. It’s an overall solid book that would be an ideal read for anyone questioning faith and religion, or sitting on the fence about the doctrines they’ve been taught.
One—and really the only—significant issue that I had with the book was Bradley’s chapter on morality. He begins by addressing absolute morality in order to set up his “moral argument for atheism,” which is itself somewhat nonsensical as a starting point in my opinion, at least as expressed. A better argument position would have been an argument for an objective basis for secular morality, which sounds similar but is different in approach and structure of argument. He nonetheless goes on to define absolute morality as “a set of moral truths that would remain true no matter what any individual or social group thought or desired.” (p. 177) Already, there are two problems here. One, he is linking absolute morality to the very existence of individuals/social groups, meaning it is not absolute, but contingent upon the existence of individuals, whereas if it is truly absolute, it is true regardless of whether any individuals exist or not. That is the essence of absolutism—it is not contingent upon another thing. This is tied to the second problem—it seems he has somewhat conflated absolute morality with objective morality. This becomes more evident as he moves forward and begins defending objective morality.
As Bradley gets more into the meat of his argument, he lays out what he believes to be 5 “paradigms of absolute, objective, moral truths” (p. 179) listed as P1-P5. We’ll dissect one as an example; P1 states that, “It is morally wrong to deliberately and mercilessly slaughter men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing.” (p. 179) The problems with this assertion should be immediately apparent. It’s almost certain that most of us agree that this is a great moral standard. But why? Bradley neglects this and it’s a fatal mistake in his argument, as the ‘why’ is the key to the basis of the argument. Here are some of the glaring problems. For one, terms such as mercilessly, innocent, and serious wrongdoing, are all subjective. He hasn’t defined any of those terms, and thus, leaves them open to any number of interpreted definitions. By whose standard of mercy? By whose standard of innocence? By whose standard of “serious wrongdoing?” Bradley does not clarify. Secondly—and more pertinent to the why condition—he never gives any reason as to why his “paradigms of absolute, objective, moral truths” should be accepted as such. A theist can simply say, “Because god tells us to or not to.” It doesn’t matter what God does, or what moral indictment one may make against him—that’s irrelevant. If God says not to do it now, then he is the moral basis for accepting P1 whether he himself is bound by P1 or not. Bradley simply says that since God violated P1 in the past, then he can’t be the basis for P1, much in the way my children think that if I drank from the milk jug, then somehow the rule that they aren’t to do so, is baseless—but it’s not. And yet, Bradley’s basis for P1 is nothing more than an arbitrary and fallacious appeal to the majority because—as of right now—most people would abhor the deliberate slaughter of men, women, and children. But it may not have always been like that, nor is it guaranteed to remain so in the future—it isn’t objective, but entirely contingent upon the majority approval, which can be variable. In not providing any basis for his “paradigms of absolute, objective, moral truths”—other than a fallacious “they just are”—he has left them completely non-absolute and not objective, but rather the product of the whims of his own moral compass and that of the current majority of people at any given time. And this is the same flaw in every one of his arguments, P1 through P5. He has merely removed God as the moral basis, and arbitrarily replaced his own reasoning—or what the majority of people might agree on at any given time—as the basis for the P1-P5 arguments he concocted. This is simply a bad argument, which is unusual for Bradley. Ironically, he even later writes, “At best, they would merely state prima facie moral prohibitions,” (p. 198) which perfectly describes each and every one of his P1-P5 arguments. Each one merely states prima facie moral prohibitions (such as the moral opposition to slaughter in P1 above) with an either arbitrary basis, undefined basis, or a basis rooted in either Bradley’s own moral compass, or that of the majority of people at any arbitrary time.
What I believe Bradley should have argued for first, is a well defined meaning for morality, and then addressed absolute, objective, and subjective morality as needed. He would have been far clearer in first accepting something along the lines of morality being defined as, ‘that which is conducive to the well being of a sentient and thinking being.’ And rather than wade into the murky waters of objective verses subjective morality, he should have more narrowly addressed objective moral truths that form the basis for morality. Then, the term innocent could be defined as something like, not having violated any other person’s well being. In this way, his P1 argument could have been substantiated from a secular moral basis by establishing that A) morality is that which is conducive to the well being of a sentient and thinking being, B) People are sentient and thinking beings, C) Slaughtering people directly and negatively impacts their well being, D) Thus, slaughtering innocent people is not moral. All of this is established without appeal to deity, revelation, arbitrary whims, or fallacious appeals—purely secular reasoning. We have A, an objective moral truth; B, an absolute truth; C, an objective moral truth; and D) a resulting objective morality from secular (non-theistic) principles. Had Bradley approached his arguments in this manner, they would have been solid and not full of holes and arbitrary determinations, leaving them ripe for apologists to dissect and dismiss.
The book however, returns to more solid logic and arguments as Bradley takes on the popular Free Will Defense propounded by Alvin Platinga and William Lane Craig. He pulls apart their argument and makes a decent case against it, working point by point. After handling that issue, Bradley moves on to tackle several of the philosophical theist arguments of the likes of Paul Tillich, Don Cupitt, and John Shelby Spong among others, all of whom seem to thrive on borrowing new age sounding, woo-woo language to use verbosity to try and sell their brand of theism. As with Platinga and Craig, Prof. Bradley pulls apart the arguments and works to dissect the claims, putting together a pretty decent rebuttal.
All in all, this is a pretty good book with generally strong foundations in logic, barring the one issue that I touched on earlier. I would certainly recommend it to anyone questioning religion/faith, sitting on the fence, or even those aspiring apologists who would like to see how their arguments are rebutted here in preparation for buttressing them moving forward.
One—and really the only—significant issue that I had with the book was Bradley’s chapter on morality. He begins by addressing absolute morality in order to set up his “moral argument for atheism,” which is itself somewhat nonsensical as a starting point in my opinion, at least as expressed. A better argument position would have been an argument for an objective basis for secular morality, which sounds similar but is different in approach and structure of argument. He nonetheless goes on to define absolute morality as “a set of moral truths that would remain true no matter what any individual or social group thought or desired.” (p. 177) Already, there are two problems here. One, he is linking absolute morality to the very existence of individuals/social groups, meaning it is not absolute, but contingent upon the existence of individuals, whereas if it is truly absolute, it is true regardless of whether any individuals exist or not. That is the essence of absolutism—it is not contingent upon another thing. This is tied to the second problem—it seems he has somewhat conflated absolute morality with objective morality. This becomes more evident as he moves forward and begins defending objective morality.
As Bradley gets more into the meat of his argument, he lays out what he believes to be 5 “paradigms of absolute, objective, moral truths” (p. 179) listed as P1-P5. We’ll dissect one as an example; P1 states that, “It is morally wrong to deliberately and mercilessly slaughter men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing.” (p. 179) The problems with this assertion should be immediately apparent. It’s almost certain that most of us agree that this is a great moral standard. But why? Bradley neglects this and it’s a fatal mistake in his argument, as the ‘why’ is the key to the basis of the argument. Here are some of the glaring problems. For one, terms such as mercilessly, innocent, and serious wrongdoing, are all subjective. He hasn’t defined any of those terms, and thus, leaves them open to any number of interpreted definitions. By whose standard of mercy? By whose standard of innocence? By whose standard of “serious wrongdoing?” Bradley does not clarify. Secondly—and more pertinent to the why condition—he never gives any reason as to why his “paradigms of absolute, objective, moral truths” should be accepted as such. A theist can simply say, “Because god tells us to or not to.” It doesn’t matter what God does, or what moral indictment one may make against him—that’s irrelevant. If God says not to do it now, then he is the moral basis for accepting P1 whether he himself is bound by P1 or not. Bradley simply says that since God violated P1 in the past, then he can’t be the basis for P1, much in the way my children think that if I drank from the milk jug, then somehow the rule that they aren’t to do so, is baseless—but it’s not. And yet, Bradley’s basis for P1 is nothing more than an arbitrary and fallacious appeal to the majority because—as of right now—most people would abhor the deliberate slaughter of men, women, and children. But it may not have always been like that, nor is it guaranteed to remain so in the future—it isn’t objective, but entirely contingent upon the majority approval, which can be variable. In not providing any basis for his “paradigms of absolute, objective, moral truths”—other than a fallacious “they just are”—he has left them completely non-absolute and not objective, but rather the product of the whims of his own moral compass and that of the current majority of people at any given time. And this is the same flaw in every one of his arguments, P1 through P5. He has merely removed God as the moral basis, and arbitrarily replaced his own reasoning—or what the majority of people might agree on at any given time—as the basis for the P1-P5 arguments he concocted. This is simply a bad argument, which is unusual for Bradley. Ironically, he even later writes, “At best, they would merely state prima facie moral prohibitions,” (p. 198) which perfectly describes each and every one of his P1-P5 arguments. Each one merely states prima facie moral prohibitions (such as the moral opposition to slaughter in P1 above) with an either arbitrary basis, undefined basis, or a basis rooted in either Bradley’s own moral compass, or that of the majority of people at any arbitrary time.
What I believe Bradley should have argued for first, is a well defined meaning for morality, and then addressed absolute, objective, and subjective morality as needed. He would have been far clearer in first accepting something along the lines of morality being defined as, ‘that which is conducive to the well being of a sentient and thinking being.’ And rather than wade into the murky waters of objective verses subjective morality, he should have more narrowly addressed objective moral truths that form the basis for morality. Then, the term innocent could be defined as something like, not having violated any other person’s well being. In this way, his P1 argument could have been substantiated from a secular moral basis by establishing that A) morality is that which is conducive to the well being of a sentient and thinking being, B) People are sentient and thinking beings, C) Slaughtering people directly and negatively impacts their well being, D) Thus, slaughtering innocent people is not moral. All of this is established without appeal to deity, revelation, arbitrary whims, or fallacious appeals—purely secular reasoning. We have A, an objective moral truth; B, an absolute truth; C, an objective moral truth; and D) a resulting objective morality from secular (non-theistic) principles. Had Bradley approached his arguments in this manner, they would have been solid and not full of holes and arbitrary determinations, leaving them ripe for apologists to dissect and dismiss.
The book however, returns to more solid logic and arguments as Bradley takes on the popular Free Will Defense propounded by Alvin Platinga and William Lane Craig. He pulls apart their argument and makes a decent case against it, working point by point. After handling that issue, Bradley moves on to tackle several of the philosophical theist arguments of the likes of Paul Tillich, Don Cupitt, and John Shelby Spong among others, all of whom seem to thrive on borrowing new age sounding, woo-woo language to use verbosity to try and sell their brand of theism. As with Platinga and Craig, Prof. Bradley pulls apart the arguments and works to dissect the claims, putting together a pretty decent rebuttal.
All in all, this is a pretty good book with generally strong foundations in logic, barring the one issue that I touched on earlier. I would certainly recommend it to anyone questioning religion/faith, sitting on the fence, or even those aspiring apologists who would like to see how their arguments are rebutted here in preparation for buttressing them moving forward.
June 24, 2016
God’s Gravediggers: Why no Deity Exists by Raymond Bradley
“God’s Gravediggers" is a solid book that makes good use of philosophy and logic to reject claims for the existence of gods. Professor of philosophy for over 40 years and outspoken critic of religion, Raymond Bradley provides a comprehensive yet accessible book for the masses on why religious claims fail. This persuasive 449-page includes the following eight chapters: 1. From Fundamentalist to Freethinker, 2. The Logical Rivalry of the Gods, 3. Why God Deserves to Die, 4. Trying to Resuscitate the God Concept, 5. The Moral Argument for Atheism, The Logic of Hell and Damnation, 7. The Impossibility of an Afterlife, and 8. Gobbledygook Gods.
Positives:
1. A professionally written book.
2. A great topic; why no deity exists. “This book presents a sustained argument for its conclusion: that belief in God--any god--deserves to die.”
3. For those interested in a more philosophical approach on the question of gods at an accessible level, this book is for you.
4. Professor Bradley has great command of the topic. I also appreciate that he goes after the best defenders of the faith instead of lazily going after the most obvious and weak arguments.
5. Provides his personal deconversion story. So how he did he manage to break free from the grips of indoctrination? Find out.
6. Logical arguments that lead to persuasive conclusions. “But faith, I came to think, is nothing more than firm or confident belief. And religious faith is usually intransigent belief: closed-minded belief, resolutely impervious to evidence of any kind. That sort of faith compromises intellectual and moral integrity. I wanted nothing to do with it.”
7. Provocative questions. “Why couldn't God have made the "true" doctrine so indisputably clear at the outset that none of the heresies that tore the Church apart for several centuries could have arisen?”
8. Defines important terms. “Being a freethinker does not mean being free from the constraints of rationality, of logic and well-attested evidence. But it does mean that one is free to examine, to subject to critical scrutiny, and even to reject, any doctrine and any belief no matter how wide-held or orthodox. No dogma is sacrosanct.”
9. Makes references to the best philosophers and thinkers of history. “Hume got it right again when he observed, ‘A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.’”
10. Debunks the notion that no negatives can be proved. “Or consider the more humdrum negative, “There’s no butter in the fridge." This negative can be proved empirically by removing the fridge contents and looking carefully.”
11. Does a good job of questioning the Bible’s veracity. “Some archaeologists, like Israel Finkelstein, have even suggested that the Bible stories, purporting to be historical records of the founding of the kingdom of Israel, are nothing more than later Israelite propaganda.”
12. So is the biblical god moral? Provides many examples of moral shortcomings.
13. Goes through the most popular philosophical arguments in defense of theism. “There is no contradiction involved in supposing that the universe might always have existed; and no contradiction in supposing the opposite.”
14. Debunks William Lane Craig’s favorite toy, the Kalam Argument. “What statistical evidence could he produce in support of the hypothesis that when a universe comes into being its cause is always, usually, or sometimes, the creative act of a god?” Bonus, “And wouldn't the existence of any such being itself call for explanation in terms of what caused it to exist?”
15. Provocative arguments, including, “I argue that if there are absolute, non-relative, moral truths, then the biblical god does not exist.” Bonus, “The requirement of objectivity is a strict one. It entails that objective moral principles should be exceptionless: that they should hold for all persons, places, and times.”
16. “God’s” violations of “objective” moral principles. “After commanding soldiers to slaughter all the Midianite men, women, and young boys without mercy, God permitted the soldiers to use the 32,000 surviving virgins for themselves. (Num. 31:17-18).”
17. Persuasively lays out the logical quandary of hell and damnation. The problem of evil. “He can prevent human-caused evils from occurring by striking would-be evil-doers dead or ensuring that there's always a slip between evil intent and evil execution. Hence the question: Why doesn't he?” Bonus, “According to one purported authority, there are over 162 references to Hell in the New Testament and over 70 of these are attributed to Jesus.”
18. An entire chapter dedicated to the impossibility of an afterlife. “The science of physics, in short, leaves no room for non-physical entities to bring about changes in the physical universe. This is sometimes referred to as the Causal Closure of the physical world.”
19. Goes after liberal theologians who play Humpty Dumpty with words. “By reification I mean the fallacy of treating all nouns, even abstract nouns, as names of things.” Bonus, “To all those who want to retell the theistic stories about God and Jesus in the language of the new liberal theology, I offer a simple piece of advice. Don't.”
20. Provides links to notes.
Negatives:
1. Verbose. There are times Professor Bradley uses more words than needed. In short, this book is about a hundred pages longer than it needed to be and thus requires more of your time.
2. At times a bit difficult to follow. Overall, Professor Bradley succeeds in making the subject matter accessible but the layperson will still struggle at times following some of the philosophical arguments presented. Some of it has to do with the insistence of returning to an argument by its number thus forcing the reader to strenuously recall it in order to understand the philosophical premise.
3. A more conclusive, straight-to the-point approach would be better suited for the general audience.
4. Doesn’t include a section on the damages of religion.
5. I would have quoted neurosurgeons on the fallacy of the soul.
6. No formal bibliography.
In summary, this is a solid well thought-out rebuttal of theist claims via the use of philosophy, logic and morality. Professor Bradley provides some unique perspectives and his conclusions are very persuasive. My biggest complaint with this book is the writing style; I would have preferred a more succinct and compelling approach particularly for the layperson audience that this book was targeted for. Overall, a fine contribution to my library, I recommend it.
Further suggestions: “God: The Failed Hypothesis” by Victor Stenger, “How to Defend the Christian Faith” and “The Christian Delusion” by John Loftus, “Fighting God” by David Silverman, “A Manual for Creating Atheists” by Peter Boghosian, “God Is Not Great” by Christopher Hitchens, “The Not-So-Intelligent Designer” by Abby Hafer, “The God Virus” by Darrel Ray, “Moral Combat” by Sikivu Hutchinson, “Infidel” by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, “The Believing Brain” by Michael Shermer, “Faith vs. Fact” and “Why Evolution Is True” by Jerry A. Coyne, “Atheism for Dummies” by Dale McGowan, “Nonbeliever Nation” by David Niose, “Good Without God” by Greg Epstein, “Freethinkers” by Susan Jacoby, “Nailed” by David Fitzgerald, “Think” by Guy P. Harrison, and “Why I am Not a Christian” by Richard Carrier.
“God’s Gravediggers" is a solid book that makes good use of philosophy and logic to reject claims for the existence of gods. Professor of philosophy for over 40 years and outspoken critic of religion, Raymond Bradley provides a comprehensive yet accessible book for the masses on why religious claims fail. This persuasive 449-page includes the following eight chapters: 1. From Fundamentalist to Freethinker, 2. The Logical Rivalry of the Gods, 3. Why God Deserves to Die, 4. Trying to Resuscitate the God Concept, 5. The Moral Argument for Atheism, The Logic of Hell and Damnation, 7. The Impossibility of an Afterlife, and 8. Gobbledygook Gods.
Positives:
1. A professionally written book.
2. A great topic; why no deity exists. “This book presents a sustained argument for its conclusion: that belief in God--any god--deserves to die.”
3. For those interested in a more philosophical approach on the question of gods at an accessible level, this book is for you.
4. Professor Bradley has great command of the topic. I also appreciate that he goes after the best defenders of the faith instead of lazily going after the most obvious and weak arguments.
5. Provides his personal deconversion story. So how he did he manage to break free from the grips of indoctrination? Find out.
6. Logical arguments that lead to persuasive conclusions. “But faith, I came to think, is nothing more than firm or confident belief. And religious faith is usually intransigent belief: closed-minded belief, resolutely impervious to evidence of any kind. That sort of faith compromises intellectual and moral integrity. I wanted nothing to do with it.”
7. Provocative questions. “Why couldn't God have made the "true" doctrine so indisputably clear at the outset that none of the heresies that tore the Church apart for several centuries could have arisen?”
8. Defines important terms. “Being a freethinker does not mean being free from the constraints of rationality, of logic and well-attested evidence. But it does mean that one is free to examine, to subject to critical scrutiny, and even to reject, any doctrine and any belief no matter how wide-held or orthodox. No dogma is sacrosanct.”
9. Makes references to the best philosophers and thinkers of history. “Hume got it right again when he observed, ‘A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.’”
10. Debunks the notion that no negatives can be proved. “Or consider the more humdrum negative, “There’s no butter in the fridge." This negative can be proved empirically by removing the fridge contents and looking carefully.”
11. Does a good job of questioning the Bible’s veracity. “Some archaeologists, like Israel Finkelstein, have even suggested that the Bible stories, purporting to be historical records of the founding of the kingdom of Israel, are nothing more than later Israelite propaganda.”
12. So is the biblical god moral? Provides many examples of moral shortcomings.
13. Goes through the most popular philosophical arguments in defense of theism. “There is no contradiction involved in supposing that the universe might always have existed; and no contradiction in supposing the opposite.”
14. Debunks William Lane Craig’s favorite toy, the Kalam Argument. “What statistical evidence could he produce in support of the hypothesis that when a universe comes into being its cause is always, usually, or sometimes, the creative act of a god?” Bonus, “And wouldn't the existence of any such being itself call for explanation in terms of what caused it to exist?”
15. Provocative arguments, including, “I argue that if there are absolute, non-relative, moral truths, then the biblical god does not exist.” Bonus, “The requirement of objectivity is a strict one. It entails that objective moral principles should be exceptionless: that they should hold for all persons, places, and times.”
16. “God’s” violations of “objective” moral principles. “After commanding soldiers to slaughter all the Midianite men, women, and young boys without mercy, God permitted the soldiers to use the 32,000 surviving virgins for themselves. (Num. 31:17-18).”
17. Persuasively lays out the logical quandary of hell and damnation. The problem of evil. “He can prevent human-caused evils from occurring by striking would-be evil-doers dead or ensuring that there's always a slip between evil intent and evil execution. Hence the question: Why doesn't he?” Bonus, “According to one purported authority, there are over 162 references to Hell in the New Testament and over 70 of these are attributed to Jesus.”
18. An entire chapter dedicated to the impossibility of an afterlife. “The science of physics, in short, leaves no room for non-physical entities to bring about changes in the physical universe. This is sometimes referred to as the Causal Closure of the physical world.”
19. Goes after liberal theologians who play Humpty Dumpty with words. “By reification I mean the fallacy of treating all nouns, even abstract nouns, as names of things.” Bonus, “To all those who want to retell the theistic stories about God and Jesus in the language of the new liberal theology, I offer a simple piece of advice. Don't.”
20. Provides links to notes.
Negatives:
1. Verbose. There are times Professor Bradley uses more words than needed. In short, this book is about a hundred pages longer than it needed to be and thus requires more of your time.
2. At times a bit difficult to follow. Overall, Professor Bradley succeeds in making the subject matter accessible but the layperson will still struggle at times following some of the philosophical arguments presented. Some of it has to do with the insistence of returning to an argument by its number thus forcing the reader to strenuously recall it in order to understand the philosophical premise.
3. A more conclusive, straight-to the-point approach would be better suited for the general audience.
4. Doesn’t include a section on the damages of religion.
5. I would have quoted neurosurgeons on the fallacy of the soul.
6. No formal bibliography.
In summary, this is a solid well thought-out rebuttal of theist claims via the use of philosophy, logic and morality. Professor Bradley provides some unique perspectives and his conclusions are very persuasive. My biggest complaint with this book is the writing style; I would have preferred a more succinct and compelling approach particularly for the layperson audience that this book was targeted for. Overall, a fine contribution to my library, I recommend it.
Further suggestions: “God: The Failed Hypothesis” by Victor Stenger, “How to Defend the Christian Faith” and “The Christian Delusion” by John Loftus, “Fighting God” by David Silverman, “A Manual for Creating Atheists” by Peter Boghosian, “God Is Not Great” by Christopher Hitchens, “The Not-So-Intelligent Designer” by Abby Hafer, “The God Virus” by Darrel Ray, “Moral Combat” by Sikivu Hutchinson, “Infidel” by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, “The Believing Brain” by Michael Shermer, “Faith vs. Fact” and “Why Evolution Is True” by Jerry A. Coyne, “Atheism for Dummies” by Dale McGowan, “Nonbeliever Nation” by David Niose, “Good Without God” by Greg Epstein, “Freethinkers” by Susan Jacoby, “Nailed” by David Fitzgerald, “Think” by Guy P. Harrison, and “Why I am Not a Christian” by Richard Carrier.
September 17, 2016
Deep dives into philosohy.
It was slow going, couldn't read too much in one sitting. It was a well written work, but slowed at times and sometimes found it a Lille boring.
Lots of philosophy so topics became enmeshed in some deep esoteric point.
It was slow going, couldn't read too much in one sitting. It was a well written work, but slowed at times and sometimes found it a Lille boring.
Lots of philosophy so topics became enmeshed in some deep esoteric point.
Want to read
September 11, 2016big book
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews