MIRACLE OF THEISM P: Arguments For and Against the Existence of God

by J.L. Mackie

Shipped from UK, please allow 10 to 21 business days for arrival. The miracle of arguments for and against the existence of God. 268 p. ; 23 cm.. . Includes bibliographical references and index.. .

Genres: Philosophy, Religion, Atheism, Nonfiction, Theology, Christianity, Spirituality

278 pages, Paperback

First published January 13, 1983

About the author

John Leslie Mackie was an Australian philosopher, originally from Sydney. He is perhaps best known for his views on meta-ethics, especially his defence of moral skepticism. However, he has also made significant contributions to philosophy of religion, metaphysics, and philosophy of language.

Reviews

[Daniel · Rating 3 out of 5]

As a Christian, I have been tired of the neo-Athiest movement and its caustic rhetoric. Mackie is definitely not in the class of Dawkins, Krauss, Hitchens, or Dennett. After reading Mackie, I suspect he would distance himself from such characters. I could be wrong about this, but based on his writing he seems to at least have respect for his theistic academicians.

It should be noted that this book is first and foremost an academic treatment of atheism and theism. Atheists and theists who are used to the popular, neo-Atheistic writings of Dawkins and his ilk will find this book challenging. In order to really appreciate Mackie's thought, as well as his mistakes, one must have extensive knowledge of the history of theology and philosophy (with some chapters being exempt from this observation i.e., the Problem of Evil, Chapter 9), especially knowledge of modern and medieval eras. In terms of contemporary theists, Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga are given special attention throughout this work, especially Swinburne. If you are not up to date on their writings, again you will feel as though there are holes in your understanding and find it difficult to grasp the significance of Mackie's objections to theism.

Regarding the actual content of the book, I found Mackie's aggressive approach combined with an admirable respect to be a refreshing mixture in an atheist writer. He admits that atheism has challenges in the areas of consciousness and that there are ways to evade his famous problem of evil arguments, should one modify his definitions of evil. Today's atheists are as dogmatic as many of their theistic opponents and this is frustrating for those searching for a constructive dialog on the issues. As a theist, I particularly enjoyed his treatment of William James and Blaise Pascal. In an era of fideism it was great to see myself aligned with a respectable thinker's responses to Pascal's wager and pragmatism. Although, I do wish Mackie would have more explicitly discussed James' pragmatism and its influence or lack there of on his views of religious experience.

Compliments aside, I did find that Mackie doesn't appear to offer any positive arguments for atheism. He offers polemics, but these are not the same as demonstrations of naturalism philosophically. He definitely, in my humble opinion and I don't mean that sarcastically, fulfills the stereotype that atheism could not exist without theism. Meaning, that he doesn't seem to have any chapter that argues for naturalism as such. All of his arguments for atheism are completely dependent on arguments for theism. Second, while he does bring good arguments against James on religious experience, it is hard to see how his views on morality do not fall prey to the same arguments. Since Mackie believes in an evolutionary view of morality, and admits that this leads to relativism (chapter 14), it is hard to see how one will not just adopt a morality based solely on the pragmatic or damaging 'moral experiences.' In addition, one of the major objections to atheism is its lack of objectivity in morality and thus the toss of up for atheists to be nihilist or moralists. I don't think that Mackie avoids this, but he could if he adopted an Aristotelian view, or even as he described it, a Kantian view of morality. But, to his credit, Mackie does provide a sound rejection of communism and Marxist political theories as being too oppressive and overly optimistic. And admits that although he does not like the closed minded Catholics, they have done more to stand against oppressive regimes and communist governments than atheists have.

In summary, I wish that the popular atheists of today would recognize what it means to be respectable, courteous, and possess academic integrity rather than resorting to rhetoric and ad hominem arguments (insulting ones character to discredit their position). I think that this was an excellent book to read and helpful if you are looking for atheists who have truly thought through atheism and theism and reasoned to atheism. But given that his seems to end on a self-defeating conclusion(i.e. relativism), that he assumes naturalism as a viable philosophy without proposing arguments for it, that his position seems to ultimately reduces to nihilism, and finally that he concludes that atheism is merely more probably than theism, seems to be a bit of a leap of faith, especially for those who will believe atheism based on authority and not on demonstration.

[Aid · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was short but dense and thorough, I had to read it slowly. Mackie goes into great depth critiquing the arguments for theism, which I appreciated, and he clearly knows the subject very well. I found his treatment of miracles and the problem of evil to be particularly convincing, but his critiques of the cosmological and ontological arguments were poor.

The main weakness of the book was the inordinate amount of time Mackie spent critiquing arguments which, in my opinion, seem silly and which I found to be unconvincing before he even began pointing out their flaws. I've never even seen a theist use Descartes or Berkely's arguments, so I don't know why they needed two whole chapters, especially considering the fact that the book itself is only 300 pages long. This is even more frustrating because Mackie refuses even to address Aquinas' argument from motion or his De Ente argument, which he dismisses as "too dependant upon antiquated physical theories to be of much interest," seriously?

My views didn't change much reading this book, but it did help convince me that various arguments which I hadn't looked into, but considered very weak, are in fact as bad as I'd thought. I found his criticisms of the contingency argument to be entirely unconvincing, the only troubling part of the book was his argument against the rationality of accepting miracle testimony, which was great. I'll have to read more on that.

I'd recommend this book to both theists, and atheists, who are looking for a more serious critique of natural theology than that given by the new atheists.

[Icanclick · Rating 5 out of 5]

John Mackie is one of the few atheologians whose work is both widely distributed and exceptionally fair, well-written and engaging. This book is an interesting read for those dedicated to theology, and is the paradigm of literature which theists ought to read in order to better rebut the arguments of their atheist pals.

[Valdemar Pettersson · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was a quite good book about the philosophy of religion. I have quite a lot of disagreements with some of the ideas which J. L. Mackie puts forth, but a lot of the arguments are really good. Would recommend to both Theists and Atheists.

[Mark Gowan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mr Mackie does an above average job of introducing arguments for the existence of god. The title of the book is a bit misleading: The miracle of theism is not what Mackie is espousing here. His book is in the same genre as Smith's Atheism: A Case Against God, but goes into a bit more detail, philosophically speaking.
This is a nice middle-ground between George Smith and Michael Martin, more on Smith's side of things in terms of ease of reading. Mackie is thorough, but not so thorough as to make reading his book a job in philosophical thinking.
I think that Mackie's purpose here is to present well-worn religious arguments and present the reasons that they do not work, which he does nicely. Also, a nice aspect of this book is that it is not limited to metaphyscial arguments, but includes moral and even epistemological arguments. If the reader has some familiarity with modern philosophy it would be helpful but is not necessary. This is a good introduction to both atheism and secular humanistic thought. Mackie is one of the authors that most likely had a hand in the recent surge of "atheist" books. Written in the 80's, the book still holds its own.
Check it out.

[Karthik Warrier · Rating 4 out of 5]

The page count on this book is very deceptive. It is a much longer book than it appears to be, because unlike many more popular books, this book does not waste too many words in explaining each point. This forces the reader to stop many a times and ponder over what exactly the author is trying to convey from the lines. So definitely not casual reading.

Regarding the content, owing to my preexisting interest in the topic, most of it was familiar to me, albeit from far less academic sources. The arguments for theism were presented with considerable amount of "steel-manning" and that was refreshing compared to my previous sources. The rebuttals on the other hand are what I have intuitively figured out, though again presented with far more academic rigour.

On the whole, recommended read for anyone who has always wondered what is wrong with the other side, to believe what they do or not believe at all. You might come away thinking, maybe nothing.

[Anmol · Rating 4 out of 5]

A quite dense and rigorously argued overview of all the historical and contemporary defences for the existence of the Christian God. The earlier chapters have little value other than providing an introduction to the traditional arguments for God's existence: the argument from design, as well as the cosmological and ontological arguments. Mackie does little here, except for repeating Hume and Kant's fatal takedowns of all such arguments.

Things get much more interesting in the later chapters when Mackie has to deal with the new arguments for God's existence, beginning with Kant's moral argument rooted in practical reason, but also Kierkegaard and others who accept the irrationality of faith, and indeed emphasise this very irrationality as a precondition to faith.

In any case, it is important to recognise this, as Mackie himself does, that just because these arguments are not rationally tenable doesn't necessarily mean that you are not free to believe in them - although he admits that he is an atheist, and does not believe that the 'balance of probabilities' of all these arguments could still preserve God, it's obvious that other, equally rigorous philosophers, continue to disagree with him. For myself, I wonder how Mackie would reply to nontheistic religions like some schools of Hinduism, alongside Buddhism and Jainism. Maybe there is something beautiful in the agnosticism of Buddhism, and what that means for humanity, which we lose out in our reluctance to let theism go.

[Nick Geiser · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very good book--also a very funny one! Some of it is dated, but it addresses clearly and thoroughly the major intellectual arguments for the existence of God as well as arguments from religious experience, the problem of evil, genealogical debunking arguments against religion, and arguments for religion without belief. One interesting point Mackie makes clear is how central the ontological argument-- the idea that God is being who must exist and whose existence is self-explanatory--is to the cosmological and design arguments. If the ontological argument doesn't work (and Mackie shows conclusively that it does not) then the cosmological and design arguments also fail.

[Onyango Makagutu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dense read but quite thorough.
Recommended reading

[Dane · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mackie wrote this in the 80s, and was responding primarily to Richard Swinburne's various arguments for theism. Nonetheless, I can't think of a better starting point for those interested in the philosophy of religion from a nontheistic view. Mackie shines in some areas (ontological arguments and the problem of evil), and falters in others (the argument from consciousness in particular). I was initially skeptical of Mackie's ability to persuasively respond to the moral arguments, given that he famously criticized moral realism. However, he himself notes how important it is to adequately respond to those who fear that atheism will lead to a lapse in moral behavior, and accordingly his treatment of the relation between religion and morality is top-tier.
Even more surprising was the way that Mackie was able to anticipate contemporary fine-tuning arguments. He gestures in the way of objections to such arguments rather than treating them at the length they deserve, but I can't really fault him for that. Moreover, Mackie is an excellent writer and doesn't share the fetish for logical formulation that his successors do. He really loves Hume, but gives the likes of Descartes, Berkely, and Aquinas a fair shake as well. I think he spends a little too much time on Kung, but his final discussion of atheism and morality is well worth making your way through the book.

[Corey Miller · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mackie is my favorite atheologian. Unlike Dawkins, or Hitchens, or Harris, there is a definite sense in which Mackie tried to contribute to the field of the Philosophy of Religion based entirely on the merit of his arguments alone. Often, Mackie will take an argument from a theologian, and try to build up the argument, in order to better break it down. He hardly seems satisfied with leaning on rhetoric to help propel his critique of theistic arguments. A great read for individuals interested in discovering where the Philosophy of Religion was in the 80s.

[Ginger Griffin · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is probably the best book I've read on the topic. It's a bit dense and academic, but not hard to understand if you've taken, say, Philosophy 101.

[Kuni Nishimura · Rating 4 out of 5]

Writing: 4/5
Argumentation: 5/5
Content: 4/5
Overall: 4.3/5
----------------------------------------------------------
PROS: I find Mackie's argumentation to be refreshingly reasonable, fair, and just, all attributes I find inspiring as he argues in such a rational way which I aspire to emulate. He is quick to criticize atheistic arguments and point out flaws while reasonably giving merit to theistic arguments where it is due. For example, his rejection of Marxism as an argument in isolation while at the same time acknowledging its rational contribution to the totality of counterarguments was elegantly expounded and equitable.

I most enjoyed chapters 1 & 7-12. For reference:
(1) Miracles and Testimony;
(7) The Argument from Consciousness;
(8) Arguments for Design;
(9) The Problem of Evil;
(10) Religious Experience and Natural Histories of Religion;
(11) Belief without Reason;
(12) Religion without Belief?

I found myself highlighting nearly every sentence in those chapters, although that's probably more due to those topics being interesting for me. I was glad that the Problem of Evil was given the most content and attention since that was the argument I was most inquisitive about, and Mackey certainly delivered with a cogent and comprehensive analysis.
----------------------------------------------------------
CONS: I'm still very new to reading philosophy of religion, so this was a bit more of a difficult read than anticipated, as it reads like similar philosophy books with esoteric and sometimes incomprehensible language (a limitation I concede is my own). Thus, this is not a book I would recommend for someone newly interested in pursuing a rational investigation of religion, although if one has experience reading philosophical works, then they should have no problem. As much hate as the new contemporary atheistic works receive by the philosophical community (i.e., Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, etc), I am still quicker to recommend their works than a book such as this one simply due to those works at least being more accessible to the layperson and not as rife with cryptic philosophical prose.

Chapters 2-6, & 13 were a chore to get through; for reference:
(2)Descartes and the Idea of God;
(3) Ontological Arguments;
(4) Berkeley's God and Immaterial Realism;
(5) Cosmological Arguments;
(6) Moral Arguments for the Existence of God;
(13) Replacements for God;

Chapter 13 was particularly underwhelming, especially following what I thought was a succession of shrewdly entertaining chapters. I can't say I got much out of chapter 13 unfortunately. It was also probably a bit too arcane for me, seeing as how most of it went over my head, like the other chapters I mentioned. Other than that, the writing was a little dry as one might expect of a book like this. I probably would have given the content a 5/5 stars if it excluded these chapters, but that's not necessarily a criticism of the book so much as it is an acknowledgment of my own limitations in being able to appreciate the aforementioned chapters as someone more scholarly than myself would.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Overall, while I rated Dawkins's The God Delusion with a higher rating, I easily commend Mackey's The Miracle of Theism for being the far superior work in the objective, scholarly sense. In this case, my rating is a reflection of personal influence as opposed to an unbiased account, so take it with a grain of salt.

[Pouya · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book. Here, JL Mackie did an excellent job giving a fair representation of different theistic arguments (though, at some parts, the rejection/objection part felt a bit hastened). I particularly liked his emphasis throughout the discussion that the personal/agency concept of God is a common factor usually working against its theoretical probability. Including direct quotes from the original texts of Hume, Descartes, etc. was very nicely done too. And the writing was great for a rather technical text. It did not contain much philosophical jargon, so made it quite suitable for non-philosophers like me to enjoy :)

The other part that impressed me was the disciplined criticism of the postmodern defenses of religions  (such as defending religion as a unique form of value expression or focusing on the pragmatic benefit of religion like William James).  I had never seen this level of scrutiny in presenting these sorts of objections to postmodern formats of Theism.

[Zach · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'd give TMoT a soft 5-stars. There were some places I think deserved more discussion, and others less. There were some points I didn't quite agree. I wish he would have explored the problem of divine hiddenness. It's also too advanced to recommend to just anyone curious about my views (for that I wish there was a simpler book with a similar strategy, a modern Hume's Dialogues perhaps). But Mackie's analysis was the most charitable, robust, and broad I've seen yet. To the extent possible with our current philosophical and scientific machinery, I think it "settles" the matter, in the sense that I think he shows theism as unjustified and misguided, but not inconceivable. It also has the benefit of being concise, at under 300 pages (though a dense 300 pages they are). For a subject so far removed from the context in which we can reliably reason, I struggle to endure much more.

[Marchenoir · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un classique de l'athéisme analytique, si je devais citer un livre de philosophie de la religion défendant le naturalisme, ça serait celui-ci.

Le livre a un peu vieillit sur certains aspects et ne pousse pas assez loin sur certaines objections (ce qui est normal puisque ce livre, comme celui de Craig sur l'argument cosmologique du kalam, a relancé l'intérêt dans une partie du monde académique pour la philosophie de la religion), mais reste de très bonne facture, et atomise le très mauvais livre de Dawkins.

[Georgia Kirkby · Rating 3 out of 5]

Wtf is going on

I do really like the subject matter but the way J. L. Mackie phrases some ideas just do not compute with my dummy brain. Wish I’d read this when I actually did my A-Level Philosophy course, the ideas would have made me sound so smart and my teacher could actually decode some of it for me 😭

Overall was a difficult read but still only took 6 days so I can’t give slate it that much

[Fanboy375 · Rating 3 out of 5]

It is a ok book.But this book has to be one of the most overrated philosophy of religion book out there.It makes some good objections but I considered Sobel and Oppy objections are much better.Also I considered Martin book on atheism is better than this.But it was a very fun read and is a book that good for beginners of philosophy of religion.

[Chris · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good analysis of Ontological and Cosmological rationales. Teleological is there as well, but not as well thought out

[Kevin · Rating 2 out of 5]

Very comprehensive but an easy read for all that.

[Lucas · Rating 2 out of 5]

si leo algo más de filosofía analítica moriré

[Reinhard Gobrecht · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mackie diskutiert Argumente für und gegen die Existenz Gottes.
Er beschreibt Humes Argumente gegen Wunder, Descartes Argumente und Gedanken zu einer ersten Ursache (Gott) und die Sachgehaltsbeziehung zwischen Ursache und Wirkung. Das Problem des rein denkbaren Gottes (Anselm). Das Problem der Existenz (als außergewöhnliches Prädikat)(Kant und Frege). In diesem Buch findet man ontologische, kosmologische, moralische und teleologische Argumente. Ebenso das Problem des Übels
und Pascals Wette. u.v.a.

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is definitely one of the most rigorous and critical examination of the arguments in favor for Theism from the skeptical perspective. Furthermore, Mackie was able to give the most charitable interpretation possible to any theistic arguments from Descartes to Kierkegaard. While it is open to dispute whether Mackie undermined particular arguments such as Plantinga's Freewill defense argument, this book is nonetheless valuable to anyone who desires a very robust argument.

[Error Theorist · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a fantastic introduction to the philosophy of religion. Mackie gives a fair treatment of theistic arguments and then provides some very strong objections. The one problem I had was his section on miracles in which he basically re-iterates David Hume's position.

[Majaneu.20 · Rating 4 out of 5]

Haltet euch fern von diesem Buch Leute.
Also wenn ihr keine Wissenschaftler seid, oder Opfer von Facharbeiten und das trotzdem lesen wollt, dann ruft mich an und sagt mir, wieso ihr euch so sehr selbst hasst.

[sam · Rating 2 out of 5]

A lot more boring than I had hoped. Rehashes old arguments you should have had in Phil 101. Perfect for insomnia.

[Jezier · Rating 5 out of 5]

Trudna, głęboka, satysfakcjonująca. Polecam.

[Tarek Sweedan · Rating 5 out of 5]

just as expected...another masterpiece written by Mackie...

[Charles Curtis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Best work I have ever read from an atheist. Arguments are well developed and thoughtful.