What do you think?
Rate this book
Illogical Atheism
Illogical Atheism: A Comprehensive Response to the Contemporary Freethinker from a Lapsed Agnostic
The rising trend in contemporary atheism known as the 'New Atheist Movement' has caused many to voice concerns over a a new brand of militarist secularism. Illogical Atheism comprises a comprehensive four-part analysis of the deep-seated philosophical tensions in the New Atheist agenda and serves as one of but a handful of important books seeking to alert the public consciousness toward the propagandist maneuvers of the the Freethinking community's most prominent figureheads. No stone is left unturned as Jinn takes all Four Famed Horsemen to task.
340 pages, Kindle Edition
First published May 26, 2013
35 people are currently reading
90 people want to read
About the author
Bō Jinn
11 books18 followersBō Jinn is a lawyer, minor philosopher and political commentator.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
October 5, 2014
"Illogical Atheism" is not a book of evangelism and preaching. Rather, it serves as a repudiation of Atheist movements from Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and the late Christopher Hitchens--the modern Atheist triad--back through history.
Author Bo Jinn does not attempt to convert the reader to any particular faith. Simply, he points out the flawed logic in many Atheists' claims.
The specific example I'll refer to--to cover them all would be to rewrite the entire book--is World War 2. Many Atheists criticized the Vatican for not doing more to stop the rise of fascism. Jinn points out, quite astutely, that Mussolini (an avowed Atheist) was preaching his fascist hatred only a few blocks from the Vatican gates.
Adolf Hitler used Christianity in many of his early speeches, claiming--among other things--that Jesus Christ was a warrior who hated Jews, and that's why he tore apart the temple, and drove out the awful lot of them.
Jinn's thesis is that Atheism has fought battles for years, but that they're in essence only tilting at windmills. For the author, atheism misuses Biblical references, as well as historical events, and warps theme into what they consider incontrovertible proof that Atheism is the only option for a free-thinking person.
I really liked Bo Jinn's writing. He has a certain panache, and a flair for occasional sarcasm that helps elevate the book's often serious arguments.
No matter where you fall on the issue of Atheism, "Illogical Atheism" is a worthy read, whether to convince you you're right or to give you reason to question.
Recommended.
Author Bo Jinn does not attempt to convert the reader to any particular faith. Simply, he points out the flawed logic in many Atheists' claims.
The specific example I'll refer to--to cover them all would be to rewrite the entire book--is World War 2. Many Atheists criticized the Vatican for not doing more to stop the rise of fascism. Jinn points out, quite astutely, that Mussolini (an avowed Atheist) was preaching his fascist hatred only a few blocks from the Vatican gates.
Adolf Hitler used Christianity in many of his early speeches, claiming--among other things--that Jesus Christ was a warrior who hated Jews, and that's why he tore apart the temple, and drove out the awful lot of them.
Jinn's thesis is that Atheism has fought battles for years, but that they're in essence only tilting at windmills. For the author, atheism misuses Biblical references, as well as historical events, and warps theme into what they consider incontrovertible proof that Atheism is the only option for a free-thinking person.
I really liked Bo Jinn's writing. He has a certain panache, and a flair for occasional sarcasm that helps elevate the book's often serious arguments.
No matter where you fall on the issue of Atheism, "Illogical Atheism" is a worthy read, whether to convince you you're right or to give you reason to question.
Recommended.
January 3, 2016
Yes. This is a book for you if you hate atheists with a thinly veiled fury at their insistence on evolution and rational skepticism. I read this looking for a cogent defense of a single god and found, literally, RANTS.
I direct you to The Reason for God by Tim Keller, if you are looking for a logical defense of God and particularly of Christianity.
Can't read this shit.
I direct you to The Reason for God by Tim Keller, if you are looking for a logical defense of God and particularly of Christianity.
Can't read this shit.
April 5, 2014
There are moments that he uses a bit too much "counter sarcasm" that could undermine (for some) the point that he is trying to make. Overall, it is one of the better books that I have read on the subject--very comprehensive, well thought out, and does a good job addressing many of the current issues. I would recommend this book to those who are honestly willing to rationally look at the topic. He does not solve the need for faith, or the tool of skepticism, but he does present a strong case that it isn't blind, or illogical.
July 29, 2014
Excellent and well thought out arguments for illogicality of atheism.
August 31, 2013
This book is an excellent critique of the "new atheist" movement. The author has a brilliant mind and I thoroughly enjoyed reading his logical debunking of atheism.
"It seems to me, on the basis of what has been argued in Books II and III, combined with the well-attested historiographical evidence indicated herein, that all this makes for a further compelling argument against atheism, with which we may conclude this work.
Suppose we were to assume that there exists a profound linkage between the abstract realm of human logic and the realm of the real, such that human behavior, both on the individual level and in the context of large societies, intimately reflects the rational soundness of our collective beliefs. Suppose we were to make a further assumption that false or illogical beliefs would translate into the sort of behavior in human societies which we can all agree is bad. We might say that it inhibits survival or damages the overall wellbeing of conscious life. Atheists are inclined to agree that, on a macrocosmic scale, irrationality and false beliefs should have extremely negative implications on the ability for human beings to coexist harmoniously. If we were to combine both of those premises with the wretched melody of chaos delivered into the world exclusively by the only true and dogmatically atheistic states throughout history, then we once again reach a deductive conclusion pointing us to the illogicality of atheistic belief from its social impact.
If we admit that logical absurdity in the collective consciousness of humankind is likely to convert into sociological chaos, then we are justified in deducing logical absurdity from the senselessly widespread death and destruction that has repeatedly and consistently befallen humanity, particularly over the last two and a half centuries. I believe it is safe to assume that it is by no misfortunate happenstance that every time a completely secularized and distinctly Godless state of affairs had crept into the equation of political order, we saw the same corollaries again, and again, and again, and again; and with appalling swiftness to boot. In a manner of a few years entire nations had been reduced to ruins. Contemplate on the observation that whenever we seriously maintain and consistently act upon false and logically absurd beliefs in any other aspect of our lives, it is almost always bound to lead to absolute disaster. I think it is fatuously optimistic to assume that this, the most fundamental of all possible beliefs, is the one exception to that rule.
If you have followed me to this point, it is almost certain that you are not an atheist. I do not make that declaration in virtue of the absolute and beguiling flawlessness of the arguments I have presented. As I stated early on, there is no line of logic so strong that it cannot be avoided, either by rational or irrational means, in the face of overpowering presuppositional beliefs to the contrary. However, on the off chance that I have not completely ostracized one or two enraged stragglers from the atheist camp, I should like to extend my sincerest gratitude and respect. In return I shall tender a few words of advice:
As a long-time witness to your long and noble tradition, in lecture halls and at coffee tables, I would encourage you to follow the evidence where it leads, with an open mind and an open heart. Be wary of anyone who would beguile you into believing you have an enemy, and who would thwart your aspirations to search for the real truth. Be universally skeptical, not selectively cynical. Embrace dissonance and make your hearts and minds malleable for modification, if it is really truth you pursue. And if, at the end of all that, you find yourself absolutely certain of what you think you know, then that will be a sign that you haven't done it right. Go back and try again. If there is anything I cannot stress enough, it is the supreme value of doubt and all the evils of certainty. Consider that the vilest of deeds in history were all committed with the utmost certainty. It is heroes who act despite their deepest hesitations.
It is my firm belief that when assessed honestly, bereft of the effects of polemics, emotion and barren oratories, the inquiry cannot logically lead to an atheistic conclusion. If logic is the only eternal and necessary adjudicator upon which we can rely, then it is quite significant that it has rendered our experience fundamentally incompatible with a belief in atheism."
-Bo Jinn, location 5913-5943
"It seems to me, on the basis of what has been argued in Books II and III, combined with the well-attested historiographical evidence indicated herein, that all this makes for a further compelling argument against atheism, with which we may conclude this work.
Suppose we were to assume that there exists a profound linkage between the abstract realm of human logic and the realm of the real, such that human behavior, both on the individual level and in the context of large societies, intimately reflects the rational soundness of our collective beliefs. Suppose we were to make a further assumption that false or illogical beliefs would translate into the sort of behavior in human societies which we can all agree is bad. We might say that it inhibits survival or damages the overall wellbeing of conscious life. Atheists are inclined to agree that, on a macrocosmic scale, irrationality and false beliefs should have extremely negative implications on the ability for human beings to coexist harmoniously. If we were to combine both of those premises with the wretched melody of chaos delivered into the world exclusively by the only true and dogmatically atheistic states throughout history, then we once again reach a deductive conclusion pointing us to the illogicality of atheistic belief from its social impact.
If we admit that logical absurdity in the collective consciousness of humankind is likely to convert into sociological chaos, then we are justified in deducing logical absurdity from the senselessly widespread death and destruction that has repeatedly and consistently befallen humanity, particularly over the last two and a half centuries. I believe it is safe to assume that it is by no misfortunate happenstance that every time a completely secularized and distinctly Godless state of affairs had crept into the equation of political order, we saw the same corollaries again, and again, and again, and again; and with appalling swiftness to boot. In a manner of a few years entire nations had been reduced to ruins. Contemplate on the observation that whenever we seriously maintain and consistently act upon false and logically absurd beliefs in any other aspect of our lives, it is almost always bound to lead to absolute disaster. I think it is fatuously optimistic to assume that this, the most fundamental of all possible beliefs, is the one exception to that rule.
If you have followed me to this point, it is almost certain that you are not an atheist. I do not make that declaration in virtue of the absolute and beguiling flawlessness of the arguments I have presented. As I stated early on, there is no line of logic so strong that it cannot be avoided, either by rational or irrational means, in the face of overpowering presuppositional beliefs to the contrary. However, on the off chance that I have not completely ostracized one or two enraged stragglers from the atheist camp, I should like to extend my sincerest gratitude and respect. In return I shall tender a few words of advice:
As a long-time witness to your long and noble tradition, in lecture halls and at coffee tables, I would encourage you to follow the evidence where it leads, with an open mind and an open heart. Be wary of anyone who would beguile you into believing you have an enemy, and who would thwart your aspirations to search for the real truth. Be universally skeptical, not selectively cynical. Embrace dissonance and make your hearts and minds malleable for modification, if it is really truth you pursue. And if, at the end of all that, you find yourself absolutely certain of what you think you know, then that will be a sign that you haven't done it right. Go back and try again. If there is anything I cannot stress enough, it is the supreme value of doubt and all the evils of certainty. Consider that the vilest of deeds in history were all committed with the utmost certainty. It is heroes who act despite their deepest hesitations.
It is my firm belief that when assessed honestly, bereft of the effects of polemics, emotion and barren oratories, the inquiry cannot logically lead to an atheistic conclusion. If logic is the only eternal and necessary adjudicator upon which we can rely, then it is quite significant that it has rendered our experience fundamentally incompatible with a belief in atheism."
-Bo Jinn, location 5913-5943
November 1, 2015
Bo Jinn has aimed a large missile at atheism and pulled the trigger. "Illogical Atheism" is a comprehensive and devastaing review of the faith (or lack thereof, depending on who is asked). Leading atheistic thinkers of our day present their worldview as a shining, glorious mansion built by reason and science. Jinn comes along as provides a thorough inspection of their building. Not only does he expose a leak here and a broken window there, but he shows irreparable structural and foundation problems. After his critique, the only possible ruling is that the 'mansion' should be condemned.
Jinn's arguments are not slight of hand. He does not resort to sophistry or present a caricature of atheism to make his case. Rather, he targets the heart of the philosophy and exposes its failures systematically. Jinn has a flair for writing and a command of the language that makes reading this book all the more enjoyable.
After reading this book, I wanted to learn more about Jinn, and I was surprised to learn that he is intentionally keeping a low profile (other than his published works). Given Mr. Jinn's gifts and insights, he strikes me as someone who's voice should be amplified through lectures and debates. I hope he will change his mind on that subject.
Jinn's arguments are not slight of hand. He does not resort to sophistry or present a caricature of atheism to make his case. Rather, he targets the heart of the philosophy and exposes its failures systematically. Jinn has a flair for writing and a command of the language that makes reading this book all the more enjoyable.
After reading this book, I wanted to learn more about Jinn, and I was surprised to learn that he is intentionally keeping a low profile (other than his published works). Given Mr. Jinn's gifts and insights, he strikes me as someone who's voice should be amplified through lectures and debates. I hope he will change his mind on that subject.
July 18, 2014
Well-designed though at times polemic
I very much enjoyed this book. I've read lots of other books on the topic by Catholic authors, but this was a refreshing more secular set of counter-arguments. Most of the reasoning was airtight, however, there were two instances where I thought his premises to be faulty.
I'm not letting that get in the way, however, of my recommending this book to anyone interest in answering "The Four Horsemen" in their own polemic, condescending language (not my preferred approach, but it doesn't detract from the validity of the vast majority of the author's arguments).
I very much enjoyed this book. I've read lots of other books on the topic by Catholic authors, but this was a refreshing more secular set of counter-arguments. Most of the reasoning was airtight, however, there were two instances where I thought his premises to be faulty.
I'm not letting that get in the way, however, of my recommending this book to anyone interest in answering "The Four Horsemen" in their own polemic, condescending language (not my preferred approach, but it doesn't detract from the validity of the vast majority of the author's arguments).
September 24, 2018
Do you like straw man arguments and condescending retorts from someone who is either intellectually dishonest or not as familiar with the subject at hand as they think they are? Are you a Christian who is unwilling to listen to a new side of view and wants to know how to frustrate an Atheist? Do you want something to waste your time? If you answered yes to any of these questions then this is the book for you.
I have a friendship group with multiple members who are very much practicing Christians. Theology, and my lack of faith, has naturally come up in conversation from time to time with those decisions being pretty productive. My friend who is actively involved with the Church on a community level will probably never have his faith waiver, but he’s willing to debate and I find that our conversations are very enjoyable. Hell I even attended sessions during Lent regarding the nature of Science and Religion: do they have to be mutually exclusive? I’m fascinated by opposing arguments and think it’s possible to hear out the other side without it resorting to insults.
But there is that sect of people in every faith or group that have something to say that could have probably done with a bit more thinking before being shown off to the world. The author of this book prefaces it by saying that he knows that he will not be making friends with Atheists in his writing of this material. I have to offer a slight correction. So I dedicate this review to Bo Jinn. Will he read it or respond? I doubt it. You are correct though, Atheists will not want to be your friend. It’s not because they’re Atheists, it’s because your criticisms are without basis and come off as nothing more than a whingey rant because someone pointed out your flawed logic.
Bo Jinn falls into a lot of traps regarding Atheism and is the perfect example of a frustrating person who, when faced with an argument, will attempt to change the argument. I’m genuinely not sure what Bo Jinn thinks an Atheist is. He attempts to discern Agnostics, Antitheists and the like (which is commendable) but appears to assume that all Atheists are Antitheists and acts on that accordingly. Maybe he does actually know the difference but the writing would seem to suggest that he has either misunderstood the terms, or hopes his reader-base will. If you want to beat people in an argument, you need to tackle their argument.
It would be inaccurate to say that all Atheists are nothing but respectful. There are clearly people that look down on people who are religious. Hell I’m typing this listening to someone talk about how the Bible is “a piece of fiction”. To imply that all Atheists want to see the end of religion is incorrect. I will grant that when the author tackles the Four Horseman he is legitimately arguing against Antitheists, but I’ve already commented that he doesn’t seem to know the difference. I’m a fan of the Four Horseman but haven’t yet read any of their books about Theism. I’ve listened to their debates and such, but their books sit in my backlog. Scroll down my list of books that I have read on this site by Hitchens and Dawkins and you will see it’s their respective Political and Biology contributions I’ve read so far. What I am familiar with are the usual positions and arguments they make in relation to evidence and claims. The author of this book has a clear distaste for Dawkins.
When I read that the author was going respond to the concepts of Russell’s Teapot and Dawkins’ comments regarding belief in deities such as Thor I got excited. I was happy that I was going to read, what I thought would be, a well thought out response to some of the biggest thought experiments from Agnostic Atheists. Imagine my disappointment at the authors responses. He explains that they are false analogies and demonstrates that he has missed the point of them altogether. Bo Jinn seems to think that God is immune to the same scepticism or requirement for proof that any other deity would need and refuses to honestly engage with the concepts. This is the attitude that makes it difficult to not get frustrated.
The biggest issue is the double standard. Bo Jinn offers the indication that a God is the best answer to life’s mysteries based on the observations we have at present. He comments on the apparently ludicrous notion that Atheism is the default position but again does this through sheer misrepresentation. Throughout the book the author shows his equation of a) claims this so b) must mean this but c) doesn’t mean this therefore d) I am correct. You cannot pick and choose when to use the rules of debate.
The other negative review of this book makes reference to other pieces of writing that are far better at commenting on one’s faith. I think I will definitely have to check those books out to get my fill of competent opposition.
I have a friendship group with multiple members who are very much practicing Christians. Theology, and my lack of faith, has naturally come up in conversation from time to time with those decisions being pretty productive. My friend who is actively involved with the Church on a community level will probably never have his faith waiver, but he’s willing to debate and I find that our conversations are very enjoyable. Hell I even attended sessions during Lent regarding the nature of Science and Religion: do they have to be mutually exclusive? I’m fascinated by opposing arguments and think it’s possible to hear out the other side without it resorting to insults.
But there is that sect of people in every faith or group that have something to say that could have probably done with a bit more thinking before being shown off to the world. The author of this book prefaces it by saying that he knows that he will not be making friends with Atheists in his writing of this material. I have to offer a slight correction. So I dedicate this review to Bo Jinn. Will he read it or respond? I doubt it. You are correct though, Atheists will not want to be your friend. It’s not because they’re Atheists, it’s because your criticisms are without basis and come off as nothing more than a whingey rant because someone pointed out your flawed logic.
Bo Jinn falls into a lot of traps regarding Atheism and is the perfect example of a frustrating person who, when faced with an argument, will attempt to change the argument. I’m genuinely not sure what Bo Jinn thinks an Atheist is. He attempts to discern Agnostics, Antitheists and the like (which is commendable) but appears to assume that all Atheists are Antitheists and acts on that accordingly. Maybe he does actually know the difference but the writing would seem to suggest that he has either misunderstood the terms, or hopes his reader-base will. If you want to beat people in an argument, you need to tackle their argument.
It would be inaccurate to say that all Atheists are nothing but respectful. There are clearly people that look down on people who are religious. Hell I’m typing this listening to someone talk about how the Bible is “a piece of fiction”. To imply that all Atheists want to see the end of religion is incorrect. I will grant that when the author tackles the Four Horseman he is legitimately arguing against Antitheists, but I’ve already commented that he doesn’t seem to know the difference. I’m a fan of the Four Horseman but haven’t yet read any of their books about Theism. I’ve listened to their debates and such, but their books sit in my backlog. Scroll down my list of books that I have read on this site by Hitchens and Dawkins and you will see it’s their respective Political and Biology contributions I’ve read so far. What I am familiar with are the usual positions and arguments they make in relation to evidence and claims. The author of this book has a clear distaste for Dawkins.
When I read that the author was going respond to the concepts of Russell’s Teapot and Dawkins’ comments regarding belief in deities such as Thor I got excited. I was happy that I was going to read, what I thought would be, a well thought out response to some of the biggest thought experiments from Agnostic Atheists. Imagine my disappointment at the authors responses. He explains that they are false analogies and demonstrates that he has missed the point of them altogether. Bo Jinn seems to think that God is immune to the same scepticism or requirement for proof that any other deity would need and refuses to honestly engage with the concepts. This is the attitude that makes it difficult to not get frustrated.
The biggest issue is the double standard. Bo Jinn offers the indication that a God is the best answer to life’s mysteries based on the observations we have at present. He comments on the apparently ludicrous notion that Atheism is the default position but again does this through sheer misrepresentation. Throughout the book the author shows his equation of a) claims this so b) must mean this but c) doesn’t mean this therefore d) I am correct. You cannot pick and choose when to use the rules of debate.
The other negative review of this book makes reference to other pieces of writing that are far better at commenting on one’s faith. I think I will definitely have to check those books out to get my fill of competent opposition.
September 19, 2017
Bo Jinn is a somewhat reluctant convert to Christianity and describes himself as a lapsed agnostic. His book is not so much defense of Christianity as it is a critique and at times brutal take down of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. Definitely worth getting especially as it is only 99 cents on Kindle.
September 23, 2014
I love to read both sides of an argument, but I'm still on the fence personally
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews