Atheism: A Philosophical Justification

by Michael Martin

Provides logical reasons for being an atheist. Carefully examining the debate in Anglo-American analytic philosophy regarding God's existence, this book presents a comprehensive critique of the arguments for the existence of God and a defense of arguments against the existence of God, showing in detail their relevance to atheism.

Genres: Philosophy, Atheism, Religion, Theology, Nonfiction

541 pages, Paperback

First published June 1, 1990

Reviews

[Luis Espinoza · Rating 4 out of 5]

First of all, this book presents an impressive amount of arguments for and against the existence of God (and other aspects of it). Sometimes the analytic notations might seem confusing (I read a discouraged reviewer complaining that it was filled with math equations, although “logical notations” would be a more appropriate term), but they don´t really fill the book and sometimes are good to illustrate the core idea of an argument.

The book is separated in two sections that practically divide the book in half. The first part regarding “Negative atheism” is by far the best and deserves five stars. The sections are well structured; the author presents the opponent´s argument in a decent way and then continues with the refutation conceding most of the premises of the argument (Ej. The argument fails at step 1, but let´s consider that it doesn´t, now let´s see how it fails at step 2). He shows arguments from very different natures (which kind of say something about the consistency of theistic argumentation), whether it’s the cosmological arguments or existential arguments. Something that I didn´t necessarily liked in this part of the book is the prominence of Swinburne´s works on each of the sections, he is too overrepresented, but mostly because the author thinks that he puts forth the most sophisticated arguments for the existence of God.

The only topics that I found incomplete were the treatment of the teleological argument by Richard Taylor (who doesn´t necessarily proposes the existence of a God or gods) and, to my surprise, Thomas Aquinas, although I think the lack of clarity in his argumentation has to do with the author´s choice to separates and treat the Cosmological and Teleological arguments individually (which are one and the same in Aquinas). But this, I think, had more to do because of the brief space the author could destine to each of the many arguments presented in the book.

Now we come to the second part of the book called “Positive Atheism”. I agree with the author in that once you prove negative atheism, positive atheism is not really necessary, nonetheless he goes on to make the case for this perspective. My general appreciation of this section is bad. The two most important topics are the inconsistencies of the concept of God and the problem of evil. He spent around a hundred pages with no order in his argumentation. Yes, the sections have topics, but the quality of his arguments declines considerably compared to the previous section. Many times, after some esthetical and rhetorically pleasant ad absurdums, he just says “since we proved negative atheism, it doesn’t matter” (no, he´s not as cynical as I make him sound, but that´s the idea). It eventually gets interesting (or at least readable without being annoying), but the quality of the arguments stays bad.

Another problem in this section is that the author focuses his refutations on theistic philosophers mostly from an analytical brand of though, and I found myself completely estranged as to how these arguments were representative of religious though in general. The author states that since these are the most sophisticated responses of certain historical arguments, refuting them was enough to take the whole system down; however, it would have been helpful if he had said who these historical philosophers/theologians were, since many of the arguments sounded rather esoteric to what I´ve read in other books. It also treats the issue of original sin in three paragraphs and quotes a rather bland and childish analysis of John Hicks as support, but if theistic/Christian though is core to the book, I would have expected a more serious analysis of the subject. Also, I´m not aware of Plantinga´s use of the concept of Satan to support matters regarding evil, but either his analysis is too specific and the author grossly extrapolates the consequences, or the author makes a straw man to rant against his undefined (but inferable) use of the term “Satan” and what that means in Christian theology(ies). The second section is worth two stars for me.

Last but not least, his conclusion focuses on what might happen if atheism were adopted and, to be honest, it was pure science fiction (it sounds like a section of Huxley´s “Brave New World”). I was expecting something more meaningful or at least a good summary of the whole book and the overall project, but that´s not what I got. There´s also a small Appendix with useful differentiations regarding terminology (such as the difference between atheism and: rationalism, naturalism, positivism, humanism, communism, etc.). At the end I got mix feelings about this book, especially because of the second section, but overall is a book worth reading.

[Simone · Rating 1 out of 5]

I was not yet defining myself as an atheist when I bought this book, but I was definitely leaning towards it, and I thought this might help set me straight on where I stood. I read the introduction in the bookstore which won me over, and so I forked out a precious $25 for it.

But as I proceeded onto chapter one, I was greeted with a bunch of algebra equations as a method of explaining something. It was equation after equation which just stumped me, given my low aptitude for maths. I could go no further. I tried to read the book again a couple of years later but was still stuck. Perhaps if I could skip past that section, I could get something out of it, but I'm really against reading a book like that. Until I can manage that, I'll have to give this book 1 star.

I eventually found my footing as an atheist with the aid of another book: The Bible. :P

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

AN EXCELLENT (RELATIVELY) RECENT PHILOSOPHICAL DEFENSE OF ATHEISM

Michael L. Martin (born 1932) is professor emeritus at Boston University, and sits on the editorial board of the philosophy journal, Philo. He has written other books such as 'The Case Against Christianity,' 'The Impossibility of God,' etc.

He wrote in the Introduction to this 1990 book, "The aim of this book is not to make atheism a popular belief or even to overcome its invisibility. My object is not utopian. It is merely to provide good reasons for being an atheist. Atheism is defended and justified. I present a comprehensive critique of the arguments for the existence of God and a defense of arguments against the existence of God." (Pg. 24)

He states early in the book, "I have remained neutral on the question of whether there is a presumption in favor of negative atheism. Since theists have given reasons for their belief, negative atheists must refute these to be secure in their position... I have argued that there is a presumption that belief in God should be based on epistemic reasons and a presumption that beneficial reasons for believing in God should have only a supplementary role." (Pg. 38)

He later summarizes, "I must conclude that a common traditional concept of God is incoherent and thus that God in the sense of a morally perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, and completely free being cannot exist. I have not shown, of course, that God in other senses is incoherent." (Pg. 302) He adds, "Therefore, positive atheism in the sense of disbelief in a being who is omniscient, omnipotent, morally perfect, and completely free is indeed justified." (Pg. 315)

He argues, "Even if there is some unknown reason why God did not create natural laws that afforded His creatures more protection than they have now from the possible abuses of free will, this would not explain why God does not come to the aid of His creatures who are in danger or are injured because of the misuse of free will." (Pg. 389) In a discussion of Satan, he makes the interesting statement, "our experience is that consciousness is causally dependent on physical organisms. This does not show that consciousness could not be independent of bodily processes, but it does render such an idea unlikely." (Pg. 394)

He clarifies, "positive atheism is positive only in the sense that it refers to a positive belief---the belief that there is no god or gods. It is positive in contrast to negative atheism, which has no such positive belief. Of course... what I have called positive atheism is more negative than what I have called negative atheism Positive atheism denies that one or more gods exist; negative atheism does not." (Pg. 464)

The book probably devotes too much space to "methodological" matters than to actual ARGUMENTS for some readers. While it's not likely to convert many believers to atheism, Martin's book will be much appreciated by philosophically-minded atheists, skeptics, and freethinkers of all types.

[William Schram · Rating 5 out of 5]

I haven't believed in god or gods since I was twelve. I browsed my local bookstore and discovered this volume. Michael Martin wrote it, and I don't know who that is. Perhaps he is famous in atheist circles. The publication date for the book is 1990, but I can't imagine any new things happening to religion besides the pope changing. Yes, I was Roman Catholic.

The first question comes from the title: why does atheism require justification? All you have to do is lack belief in any gods. Then I figured it out. Some theists feel that without god standing at your side, people lack a moral compass, and they do terrible things. Another strange notion is that life on Earth has no meaning without an afterlife. Can you imagine that? You live your life looking ahead and never at what you're doing. Everything you do is for some intangible reward, like eternal life.

The author examines "proofs" of god's existence and scrutinizes each with a fine-toothed comb. He covers five variations of the Ontological Argument alone. Furthermore, Martin discusses Pascal's Wager, miracles, Lourdes, and many other ideas used to prove god. The proofs leave Martin dissatisfied.

I enjoyed the book. Thanks for reading my review, and see you next time.

[Marchenoir]

Plutôt pas mal, mais clairement inférieur à "The miracle of theism" de J.L Mackie.

Le chapitre sur l'argument cosmologique par la contingence de Reichenbach est pas super (pas nul non plus).
Il aurait pu faire appel au sophisme de composition d'une manière bien plus efficace.

[David Diaz · Rating 3 out of 5]

An excellent treatment of atheistic arguments. However, it is difficult reading for a lay audience.

[Mark Gowan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dr. Martin, Professor of Philsophy at Boston University, offers the reader a very thorough and grounded analytical argument for atheism. One of the best parts of this book is that he divides it into two parts: Negative and Positive Atheism. Atheism is often faulted, mostly by Christian apologists, arguing against (hence the negative aspect) Christianity. While this is true, it is only half the story.
With supreme clarity, a broad overview of arguments, and the use of logic that only a philosopher such as Martin is capable of, he decimates Christian arguments without relying dubious reasoning while at the same time offering them in a fair and charitable light. The two sections are intertwined rather than being separate, and rely upon each other logically.
Not only does Martin study typical arguments for the existence of God (such as the cosmological, teleological, ontological and even James-like "religious experience") but also presents less well known arguments that he calls "minor evidential arguments". the basis of most of the arguments fall under three main rubrics: evil, freewill and evidence.
I would not recommend this book to the casual reader of philosophy. It is a difficult read and takes both work and patience to plow through (otherwise I could have given it 5 stars). Also, it is not a one-time read.
Many Christian philosophers, such as A. Plantinga make very good arguments, rebutting Martin and Martin offers his own rebuttals both in this book and in later essays (many found online).
Again, this is a difficult book, but well worth the effort, as strenous as it may be.