Atheism: The Basics

The Basics

by Graham Oppy

The Basics is a concise and engaging introduction to belief in the non-existence of deities. Atheism has long fascinated people but debate around this controversial position may seem daunting. In this lively and lucid book, Graham Oppy addresses the following important

•　What does it mean to be an atheist?

•　What is the difference between atheism, agnosticism, theism and innocence?

•　How has atheism been distributed over time and place?

•　What does science tell us about atheism?

•　Are there good reasons to be an atheist?

•　Are there good reasons not to be an atheist?

•　What do we mean by ‘new atheism'?



With a glossary of key terms and suggestions for further reading throughout, the book considers key philosophical arguments around atheism, making this an ideal starting point for anyone seeking a full introduction to the arguments between those who hold atheistic beliefs and those who do not.

Genres: Philosophy, Religion, Atheism, Nonfiction

190 pages, Kindle Edition

Published October 3, 2018

About the author

Graham Robert Oppy is an Australian philosopher whose main area of research is the philosophy of religion. He currently holds the posts of Professor of Philosophy and Associate Dean of Research at Monash University and serves as CEO of the Australasian Association of Philosophy, Chief Editor of the Australasian Philosophical Review, Associate Editor of the Australasian Journal of Philosophy, and serves on the editorial boards of Philo, Philosopher's Compass, Religious Studies, and Sophia. He was elected Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities in 2009. (Source: Wikipedia)

Reviews

[Bumbles · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good overview of the subject and is very easy to read. In the argument section, I found his method of assessment very interesting which I will attempt to brief here.

Theoretical Commitment and Maximization of Explanatory Breadth - A Framework

"Given that atheistic beliefs are logically consistent, we can consider their non-trivial logical closure; and given that theistic beliefs are logically consistent, we can consider their non-trivial logical closure. (A set of sentences S is logically closed if and only if every sentence that is entailed by sentences that belong to S is itself a member of S. Said differently: a set of sentences is logically closed if and only if every logical consequence of members of S is itself a member of S. The logical closure of a set of sentences S is the set of sentences that is arrived at by adding sentences that are logical consequences of sentences already in S until there are no more sentences to be added. A set of sentences S has a non-trivial logical closure if and only if not every sentence belongs to the logical closure of S. Said differently: A set of sentences has a non-trivial logical closure if and only if S is logically consistent.) I shall call the logical closure of a set of logically consistent atheistic beliefs an atheistic big picture; and I shall call the logical closure of a set of theistic beliefs a theistic big picture. Big pictures divide into two parts: that which is common to a range of competing big pictures, which I call data, and that which is distinctive of particular big pictures, which I call worldview. So, for a given atheistic big picture and theistic big picture, what they agree on is data, and what they disagree on is, respectively, atheistic worldview and theistic worldview."(6.1)


To summarize and simplify (from what I have understood):
1. Assumption: Logical statements within Athiestic belief and Thiestic belief are logically consistent in themselves

2. The logical closure of a set of sentences is the set of all sentences that can be derived or logically inferred from the original set. Here the original set is meant to refer to the principal statements: ie. there is no god who has created the universe, or there is a god who created the universe.

3. The logical closure of a set of logically consistent atheistic beliefs is called an "atheistic big picture." Here we refer to the complete set of statements derived from the logically consistent original beliefs

4. The logical closure of a set of theistic beliefs is called a "theistic big picture." This refers to the complete set of statements that can be derived from logically consistent theistic beliefs.

5. Big pictures consist of two parts: data and worldview. Where data refers to aspects that are common between big pictures. and Worldview refers to aspects that are distinct to each big picture.
.....

"As just noted, the assessment of arguments for the superior theoretical virtue of one kind of best consistent big picture over another requires consideration of all relevant theoretical virtues. But what are relevant theoretical virtues in the assessment of best consistent atheistic, agnostic and theistic big pictures? While this is a controversial philosophical question, I think that the answer is straightforward: when we assess the comparative theoretical virtues of best consistent big pictures, we are interested in the trade-offs that they make between minimisation of theoretical commitments and maximisation of explanatory breadth and depth.....Theoretical commitments come in various different kinds: ontological, ideological, and nomological." (6.4)

Here ontological: commitment to a being or entity.
Ideological: commitments to ideas.
Nomological: commitment to principles.


Given the above: The Critique

6.8 Best theistic big pictures are logically inconsistent.
1    God exists.
2    God is omnipotent.
3    God is perfectly good.
4    There are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do.
5    A good being eliminates evil as far as it can.
6    Evil exists.

Though this is logically inconsistent, there are many theists (not Abrahamic) that do not call their god omnipotent - the whole argument collapses.


Theoretical Commitments

"In my view, the most plausible way to proceed is to argue for the following two claims: (a) best atheistic big pictures have fewer theoretical commitments than best theistic big pictures; and (b) there is no data that theistic big pictures explain better than atheistic big pictures. From these two claims, given the account of theoretical virtue in §6.4, it follows that best atheistic big pictures are superior to best theistic big pictures."

To argue that atheisic big pictures have less theoretical commitments, you must argue the following:
1. that best atheistic big pictures are less ontologically committing than best theistic big pictures;
2. that best atheistic big pictures are less ideologically committing than best theistic big pictures;
3. that best atheistic big pictures are less nomologically committing than best theistic big pictures.

Argument: "Setting gods aside, best atheistic big pictures and best theistic big pictures agree in their ontological, ideological, and nomological commitments....But best theistic big pictures—unlike best atheistic big pictures—require more: their commitment to gods". That is to say that excluding god, both the theist and athiest can agree that reality is a manifold with a distribution of fields over it. Additionally, regarding various other branches or science of philosophy, both atheistic and theistic viewpoints can agree on the objects, ideas, and principles that are important for understanding these different areas of knowledge.


Explanatory Parity

Theists claim, their worldview explains the following better:

(a) our part of natural reality is fine-tuned for our existence

Argument: Claims two things about fine-tuning:
"On the one hand, it may be that, at every prior point in causal reality, it is already fixed that—absent subsequent intervention—our universe is fine-tuned. On the other hand, it may be that there is some point in causal reality prior to which is it not fixed that—absent subsequent intervention—our universe is fine-tuned, but after which it is fixed that—absent subsequent intervention—our universe is fine-tuned."

Simply: Either the universe was always fine-tuned or it became fine-tuned. The atheist may say that in the first case, it was always fine-tuned by necessity (it could not have been any other way), and in the second, if it suddenly became fine-tuned, it is a matter of chance. The theist attributed both cases to God.

Hence: "Since all of these explanations are available in equal measure to atheists and theists, there is nothing in considerations about fine-tuning that supports best theistic big pictures over best atheistic big pictures."


(b) there are irreducibly complex biological entities
Argument: I will not go in-depth on this, because its pretty self-evident:

"we should not think that considerations about irreducible complexity give best theistic big pictures an explanatory advantage over best atheistic big pictures; rather, we should suppose that best atheistic big pictures and best theistic big pictures both accept that biological evolution by way of natural selection provides a complete account of the development of life on earth."

(c) we are capable of logical, mathematical, and statistical reasoning; we have modal knowledge; we have moral knowledge; we are moved by the dictates of conscience; we are capable of appreciating beauty; we are (sometimes) conscious; we have a capacity for humor; and we have a capacity for love.

Argument: "When we consider the full range of relevant data, it is overwhelmingly plausible that those capacities and their limitations are fully explained by billions of years of biological evolution and millions of year of cultural development. But, if that’s right, then best atheistic big pictures and best theistic big pictures tell exactly the same story about the capacities of human beings, and there is no explanatory advantage that accrues on either side as a result of consideration of this data."

(d) there are reliable reports of direct experience of the divine; there are scriptures that record important truths about the divine; there are reliable reports of divine intervention in human history.

Argument: "We have scriptures belonging to all of the religions of the earth, each of which is alleged to support exactly one of those religions. Everyone—no matter which big picture they espouse—supposes that almost all of the reports of miracles and religious experiences, and almost all of the scriptures, do not give support to the religions to which they are claimed to give support; everyone explains away almost all of the reports of miracles and religious experience and almost all of the scriptures. But, in that case, atheists are among those uniquely well-placed to give a uniform account of all reports of miracles and religious experiences and all scriptures; atheists explain them all away in exactly the manner that, for example, theists explain away everything except the data they take to support their own theistic religion.

Since atheists have a uniform account, and since it must be that there is an enormous amount of special pleading among those who do not have a uniform account, it is reasonable to accept that there is no explanatory advantage that accrues to those theists who advert to considerations about religious experience, scripture and miracles: best atheistic big pictures cannot do worse than best theistic big pictures in managing these considerations."

Summation

Given this specific limitation, "best atheistic big pictures have fewer theoretical commitments than best theistic big pictures, but there is nowhere that best theistic big pictures provide better explanations than best atheistic big pictures. So, best atheistic big pictures are more theoretically virtuous than best theistic big pictures, and so should be preferred to them."

Therefore, the atheist big picture is preferable.

[JCJBergman · Rating 5 out of 5]

My interview with Graham Oppy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJU1G...

This is perhaps the best book on atheism I've read. Graham Oppy is an incredibly sophisticated academic and representative of atheism. The book deals with definitions, studies, and popular arguments for/against atheism that are commonly posited.

[Victor Osehodion Anolu · Rating 3 out of 5]

Graham is one of the best atheist philosopher we have in recent times. This book is more like an overview-introduction to atheism where he challenges the claim of an atheist, the sociological look of an atheist and how atheism is the more better worldview. Graham writes in a scholarly style, it doesn't appear to be muck and very open minded to the objections atheism faces. Since it is more like a beginners work for atheism you won't see big philosophical arguments being discussed at length but the book provides a wide and diverse glossary to look at for later study.

A good book and has a rereading value.

[Alexander Cruz · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well, as a analytical philosophy book on atheism, can't get any borer than this. Good arguments from the methodological aspects of arguing in favour and against atheism.

One thing you can distille is Oppy's political bias (from his Australian analytical perspective) he can only think the world as the "successful western democracies".

Also, it seems interesting that every fact that links communism with atheism he uses adjectives like "atrocities", but appears to be more condescending with Nazis, giving a unnecessary rational explanations. Nothing unexpected from a white Australian analytical philosopher.

[Einzige · Rating 3 out of 5]

One of the more curious introductions to atheism you will come across and one which jumps around a fair bit. By this I mean a contains a nice discussion on the diversity of meaning of the term atheist and address a few of the basic memes, however it will then pop into a burst of comparatively more technical discussions on logic and epistemology.

A very respectful (having a remarkable lack of snark) and intellectually honest work that doesn't try to pretend the controversy can be resolved in 100 pages, and which left me interested to see his more technical works where he explores parts of this controversy more deeply.

[Laurent Dv · Rating 4 out of 5]

Une bonne introduction à l'athéisme par l'un des (ou carrément le) meilleurs philosophes athées contemporaine et encore en vie. Le livre est court, rigoureux, clair accessible et agréable à lire. Oppy est très cordial dans ses désaccords.

Dans le deuxième chapitre, Oppy définit les termes clés (athéisme, agnosticisme, théisme, matérialisme, physicalisme, naturalisme, etc.) et propose une classification rigoureuse.

Dans le troisième, il présente plusieurs athées très différents et plus ou moins connus de l'Antiquité à la période contemporaine (Holbach, Mary Evans, Jean Meslier, Emma Goldman, Margaret Kennedy, Eric Blair ou George Orwell, etc). Cependant, comme le reconnaît Oppy, étant donné qu'on manque de sources fiables quant aux prétendus athées de l'Antiquité et du Moyen-Âge, il est difficile de confirmer s'ils l'étaient vraiment.

Dans le quatrième, il démonte des caricatures des athées ("les athées sont immoraux, tristes, etc.")
Il se lance ensuite dans une analyse statistique et sociologique de l'athéisme au niveau des populations, des nombres, etc.

Dans le cinquième, il répond à des objections courantes envers l'athéisme (impossible de vivre son athéisme de manière logique, d'avoir une morale en tant qu'athée - il répond à cela avec l'éthique de la vertu d'Aristote qui peut être la même et valable pour tous, athées ou théistes peu importe si Dieu existe ou pas, etc.).

Dans le sixième chapitre, Oppy présente les différents types d'arguments possibles contre le théisme :
1. L'athéisme est la position par défaut (la charge de la preuve revient au théiste)
2. Le théisme a une vision du monde incohérente
3. Le théisme a un "big picture" incohérent
4. L'athéisme est un meilleur modèle que le théisme
5. Le théisme par sa définition même est incohérente

Un bon point est que Oppy donne des pistes concrètes des deux côtés (athéisme et théisme) pour réfuter leur position opposée, ce qui permet de faire avancer le débat de manière constructive.

Oppy critère utilise deux critères conjoints (qu'il appelle deux vertus théoriques) pour évaluer les big pictures (l'athéisme et le théisme) :
1. La minimisation des entités (ontologique), des principes (nomologique) et des idées (idéologique), la simplicité du modèle
2. La maximisation des faits expliqués

En somme, un bon modèle est économe en entités inutiles selon le rasoir d'Ockham et aura un grand pouvoir explicatif.

L'athéisme selon Oppy est un meilleur modèle que le théisme quant à ces deux critères car il a un pouvoir égal au théisme sans pourtant faire intervenir d'agent extérieur (Dieu ou des dieux) inutile en plus des réalités naturelles. Pour Oppy, la différence entre le théisme et l'athéisme (naturaliste en tout cas) n'est pas si grande que ça : c'est juste que pour les théistes, l'être nécessaire qui permet d'expliquer l'existence de l'univers est Dieu alors que pour les athées, c'est la matière, la réalité matérielle elle-même.

Dans le sixième chapitre, Oppy évalue le mouvement du Nouvel athéisme puis l'affirmation de McGrath sur le déclin de l'athéisme en Occident et celle de Craig et Moreland sur la montée en puissance du théisme dans le milieu académique de la philosophie, de la théologie et de la sociologie. Son bilan : le Nouvel athéisme n'a rien de nouveau quant au contenu de ses arguments mais sa véritable prouesse est d'avoir su les populariser à tout public (alors qu'ils étaient peu connus auparavant).

En ce qui concerne l'analyse positive des académiques chrétiens qu'il mentionne, il reste mitigé et douteux. En effet, aucune étude sociologique ne vient étayer les propos de McGrath et les faits et études réalisées infirment ceux de Craig et Moreland. Ils vont même à contre courant : il y a peu de théistes chez les philosophes académiques et de moins en moins de place accordée à la philosophie de la religion à l'université (Harvard, Princeton, Yale).

[Sebastian Quinteros · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a worthwhile read if you want a general bear bones understanding of what atheism is in relation to what theism, agnosticism, innocence, religiosity and irreligiosity are. Oppy covers commonly held misconceptions and complaints about atheism and atheists using a combination of argumentation and social scientific data. Specifically, he addresses common attributions or assumptions made about atheists; are we immoral/amoral, are we more prone to criminality, are we able to appreciate humor, art, beauty, can we lead lives of meaning? Are all atheists irreligious, do they have any spirituality, are there any beliefs that unify atheists, is there a spectrum of beliefs or do they come in absolutes with the same level of certainty?

This is not a book written in an attempt to convince believers to adopt atheism, actually one of the reasons I picked it up aside from questioning my own reasons for my agnostic-atheism was because Oppy thinks that atheism or "lacktheism" (the idea that atheism is simply a "lack of belief in god [which I was partial to]) is not a "default" position and is one which still needs defending. In fact, even though he uses logic to defend why he believes atheism, specifically an atheistic naturalism provides a simpler and more parsimonious explanation for reality (one which requires fewer unsubstantiated claims or assumptions), he still holds that theists are perfectly able to be well informed & logical and still conclude that gods exist. Oppy believes even as an atheist that there aren't any convincing arguments for either theism or atheism. In all, this is a book which addresses some very important and general concerns and complaints about atheism and atheists who they are and have been in historically. What this book is not, is one which tries to persuade theist readers to adopt atheism nor give any in-depth reasoning or arguments against theism and religiosity.

Its a good and short enough book for me to recommend it to those interested in philosophy of religion though in my opinion it does have some rather dense and inaccessible language at some points particularly where formal logic or some more advanced philosophical terminology is used. I also wanted Oppy to address truth, with all the difficulties that entails, and how that could matter in someone interested in exploring truth as a cornerstone of their worldview (because of course not everyone does) and what the implications for theism and atheism are. For me, just because a view may provide an answer to a question, existential or otherwise, doesn't necessarily meant much. I am interested in its truth value, what truth means, and how I am able to determine what is true which I felt Oppy didn't write much about in this book.

[Rick Sam · Rating 4 out of 5]

I appreciate Professor Oppy so much.

Wish, he continues writing, contributes.
Oppy explains basics of Atheism.

For me, the Chapter on Historical writers was my favorite.

Why?

Because -- The authors are not popular.

Professor Oppy defends, "Naturalism" in his work.

In his work, he says, "Naturalism" best fits, given data of the World.
His approach, is Big-theory of comparing worldviews.

Recommended to be read by everyone.

Deus Vult,
Gottfried

[John C. Duff · Rating 4 out of 5]

A light overview of what it means to be an atheist and the coherence of holding such a position.

[kdn · Rating 3 out of 5]

Chapter 5 and 6 : very interesting and well written
Other chapters : too much repetition alla long, not very interesting, too long, lack of synthesis
Oppy have made better books

[Ray · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting overview, not intended as a full-throated defense by any means, but good material to have for context no matter what your beliefs.

I especially liked the overview of social research and accessible overviews of common arguments.

Oppy has a different approach than most, focusing less on arguments (he thinks these are useful as internal critiques but worldviews can be tweaked to fit sound arguments). He focuses more on comparing overall worldviews based on minimizing theoretical commitments and maximizing explanatory depth. I think it's a useful heuristic to keep in mind.