What do you think?
Rate this book
The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief
The new atheists are on the warpath. They come armed with arguments to show that belief in God is absurd and dangerous. In the name of societal progress, they promote purging the world of all religious practice. And they claim that people of faith are mentally ill. Some of the new atheists openly declare their hatred for the Judeo-Christian God.
Christian apologists have been quick to respond to the new atheists’ arguments. But there is another dimension to the issue which begs to be addressed--the root causes of atheism. Where do atheists come from? How did such folks as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens become such ardent atheists? If we are to believe them, their flight from faith resulted from a dispassionate review of the evidence. Not enough rational grounds for belief in God, they tell us. But is this the whole story?
Could it be that their opposition to religious faith has more to do with passion than reason? What if, in the end, evidence has little to do with how atheists arrive at their anti-faith? That is precisely the claim in this book. Atheism is not at all a consequence of intellectual doubts. These are mere symptoms of the root cause--moral rebellion. For the atheist, the missing ingredient is not evidence but obedience.
The psalmist declares, “The fool says in his heart there is no God” (Ps. 14:1), and in the book of Romans, Paul makes it clear that lack of evidence is not the atheist’s problem. The Making of an Atheist confirms these biblical truths and describes the moral and psychological dynamics involved in the abandonment of faith.
Christian apologists have been quick to respond to the new atheists’ arguments. But there is another dimension to the issue which begs to be addressed--the root causes of atheism. Where do atheists come from? How did such folks as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens become such ardent atheists? If we are to believe them, their flight from faith resulted from a dispassionate review of the evidence. Not enough rational grounds for belief in God, they tell us. But is this the whole story?
Could it be that their opposition to religious faith has more to do with passion than reason? What if, in the end, evidence has little to do with how atheists arrive at their anti-faith? That is precisely the claim in this book. Atheism is not at all a consequence of intellectual doubts. These are mere symptoms of the root cause--moral rebellion. For the atheist, the missing ingredient is not evidence but obedience.
The psalmist declares, “The fool says in his heart there is no God” (Ps. 14:1), and in the book of Romans, Paul makes it clear that lack of evidence is not the atheist’s problem. The Making of an Atheist confirms these biblical truths and describes the moral and psychological dynamics involved in the abandonment of faith.
144 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2010
About the author
James S. Spiegel
28 books11 followersJim earned a B.S. in Biology at Belhaven College in Jackson, Mississippi (1985). From there he turned his interests to Philosophy, earning two graduate degrees in the field, an M.A. at University of Southern Mississippi (1988) and a Ph.D. at Michigan State University (1993). After teaching for a year at Moorhead State University in Minnesota, he took a tenure-track position at Taylor University where he continues to teach a range of courses in philosophy, including ethics, history of philosophy, aesthetics, epistemology, philosophy of religion, and apologetics.
Over the years, Jim has authored numerous books and articles on issues in ethics, aesthetics, philosophy of religion, and popular culture, including the award-winning How to be Good in a World Gone Bad. In addition to teaching and writing, Jim speaks at colleges, professional conferences, and churches and is frequently interviewed for radio programs.
Jim is an active member of several professional societies, including the American Philosophical Association, the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics, the Society of Christian Philosophers, and the Evangelical Philosophical Association. He has refereed for numerous philosophical journals and served as editor of the Berkeley Briefs, the newsletter of the International Berkeley Society.
In addition to his scholarly work, Jim is a music enthusiast. He runs a recording studio out of his basement and has produced and engineered album projects for dozens of artists. He also records his own original music.
Over the years, Jim has authored numerous books and articles on issues in ethics, aesthetics, philosophy of religion, and popular culture, including the award-winning How to be Good in a World Gone Bad. In addition to teaching and writing, Jim speaks at colleges, professional conferences, and churches and is frequently interviewed for radio programs.
Jim is an active member of several professional societies, including the American Philosophical Association, the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics, the Society of Christian Philosophers, and the Evangelical Philosophical Association. He has refereed for numerous philosophical journals and served as editor of the Berkeley Briefs, the newsletter of the International Berkeley Society.
In addition to his scholarly work, Jim is a music enthusiast. He runs a recording studio out of his basement and has produced and engineered album projects for dozens of artists. He also records his own original music.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
January 9, 2018
this vile little book is the worst piece of ignorant hate speech I have read for a long long time. not even worthy of toilet paper. Basically he says atheists don't beleive in god because they are immoral. Where are the rotten eggs when you need them. Utterly revolting .
February 28, 2011
"The descent into atheism is caused by a complex of moral-psychological factors, not a perceived lack of evidence for God’s existence. The atheist willfully rejects God, though this is precipitated by immoral indulgences and typically a broken relationship with his or her father. Thus, the choice of the atheistic paradigm is motivated by non-rational factors, some of which are psychological and some of which are moral in nature.
The hardening of the atheistic mind-set occurs through cognitive malfunction due to two principal causes. First, atheists suffer from paradigm-induced blindness, as their worldview inhibits their ability to recognize the reality of God that is manifest in creation. Second, atheists suffer from damage to the sensus divinitatus, so their natural awareness of God is severely impeded. Both of these mechanisms are aspects of the noetic effects of sin [the damaging effects of sin on cognitive and thought processes].
This combination of factors amounts to a deadly cognitive cocktail when it comes to religious belief. However, thankfully, even the atheist is not beyond reach of the redemptive power of God."
(Prof James Spiegel, The Making of an Atheist, 2010, p.113-144)
http://www.faithinterface.com.au/apol...
Obviously the reasons for unbelief are complex, multifactorial and individual specific.
The reference to Freudian father-relationship psychology is as much an illustration of how Freud's father wish-fulfillment theory of religious belief can be turned back and used as a similar argument for atheism. It is hard to deny though that many prominent atheists have had absent, abusive, neglectful or ineffectual father figure modelling during their formative years of psychological development. One can see how this may rub up against traditional Christian metaphors as God as a loving Father.
I agree with Spiegel in his thesis that many, perhaps most, avowed atheists are non-believers for reasons more likely to be psychological, existential and moral, rather than due to rational reasoning and lack of evidence. I assert that most atheists prefer the existential and moral autonomy of atheism and use rational arguments to sure up and give a respectible intellectual veneer to their atheistic presuppositions.
As always, it is dangerous to generalise. However Spiegel's thesis holds true for a significant proportion of public atheists.
The hardening of the atheistic mind-set occurs through cognitive malfunction due to two principal causes. First, atheists suffer from paradigm-induced blindness, as their worldview inhibits their ability to recognize the reality of God that is manifest in creation. Second, atheists suffer from damage to the sensus divinitatus, so their natural awareness of God is severely impeded. Both of these mechanisms are aspects of the noetic effects of sin [the damaging effects of sin on cognitive and thought processes].
This combination of factors amounts to a deadly cognitive cocktail when it comes to religious belief. However, thankfully, even the atheist is not beyond reach of the redemptive power of God."
(Prof James Spiegel, The Making of an Atheist, 2010, p.113-144)
http://www.faithinterface.com.au/apol...
Obviously the reasons for unbelief are complex, multifactorial and individual specific.
The reference to Freudian father-relationship psychology is as much an illustration of how Freud's father wish-fulfillment theory of religious belief can be turned back and used as a similar argument for atheism. It is hard to deny though that many prominent atheists have had absent, abusive, neglectful or ineffectual father figure modelling during their formative years of psychological development. One can see how this may rub up against traditional Christian metaphors as God as a loving Father.
I agree with Spiegel in his thesis that many, perhaps most, avowed atheists are non-believers for reasons more likely to be psychological, existential and moral, rather than due to rational reasoning and lack of evidence. I assert that most atheists prefer the existential and moral autonomy of atheism and use rational arguments to sure up and give a respectible intellectual veneer to their atheistic presuppositions.
As always, it is dangerous to generalise. However Spiegel's thesis holds true for a significant proportion of public atheists.
July 5, 2013
I was expecting to read much of the same apologetic arguments on the 'intellectual level', but Spiegel has thrown a curve ball with this book, and it was great.
His premise, which is aimed at a Christian readership (especially the last chapter) is based upon studying atheism from a biblical perspective. Just as atheists frequently interpret religion from a naturalistic viewpoint, on the flipside, theists can study atheism in light of the Bible. So, with that in mind, atheists may scoff at the idea and simply not bother reading it, but that would be detrimental to their own understanding of theistic counter-arguments, and, ironically, prove the main point of his book.
Put very bluntly, Spiegel argues that atheists say they don't believe in a god because of a lack of evidence, whereas this is more than likely a 'smokescreen' to cover the real reasons: non-rational factors play a role in them wilfully rejecting God, which in turn hardens their minds, which open them up to atheism, which in turn opens them up to greater immorality, which in turn hardens their minds further....and into a spiral.
It's short, written in a way that's accessible to all (even when he's summing up Alvin Plantinga's arguments) and adds a very refreshing angle to the debate. I read it in a day.
If you read this alongside Peter S William's 'A Sceptic's Guide to Atheism: God is Not Dead' and David Bentley Hart's 'Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies' you'll have covered a wide spectrum of arguments, all dealing with the issue from different perspectives.
His premise, which is aimed at a Christian readership (especially the last chapter) is based upon studying atheism from a biblical perspective. Just as atheists frequently interpret religion from a naturalistic viewpoint, on the flipside, theists can study atheism in light of the Bible. So, with that in mind, atheists may scoff at the idea and simply not bother reading it, but that would be detrimental to their own understanding of theistic counter-arguments, and, ironically, prove the main point of his book.
Put very bluntly, Spiegel argues that atheists say they don't believe in a god because of a lack of evidence, whereas this is more than likely a 'smokescreen' to cover the real reasons: non-rational factors play a role in them wilfully rejecting God, which in turn hardens their minds, which open them up to atheism, which in turn opens them up to greater immorality, which in turn hardens their minds further....and into a spiral.
It's short, written in a way that's accessible to all (even when he's summing up Alvin Plantinga's arguments) and adds a very refreshing angle to the debate. I read it in a day.
If you read this alongside Peter S William's 'A Sceptic's Guide to Atheism: God is Not Dead' and David Bentley Hart's 'Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies' you'll have covered a wide spectrum of arguments, all dealing with the issue from different perspectives.
October 19, 2021
About halfway through the book, Spiegel finally stopped rambling about his apologetic arguments and got to his (equally ridiculous) point: that atheism is the result of trauma and a desire to be sexually immoral, and atheism feeds into an even greater desire for immorality, and so on the cycle goes. The apologetics lead to this idea because, in the author’s eyes, the arguments for theism were so fool-proof that someone’s unbelief could not possibly be because of reason or an objective search for empirical evidence. To him, it’s obvious: I mean, have you seen the sky?
Read more: https://sheseeksnonfiction.blog/2018/...
Read more: https://sheseeksnonfiction.blog/2018/...
April 23, 2019
Livro extraordinário! Spiegel argumenta, de modo bastante convincente, que não questões intelectuais que levam uma pessoa ao ateísmo. São questões morais e psicológicas.
Futuro lançamento da Cultura Cristã.
Futuro lançamento da Cultura Cristã.
June 12, 2018
Understand the Atheist
Discussion of the irrational nature of atheistic belief is warranted and is covered in many other books. This book continues the theme that R.C. Sproul and Paul Vitz wrote about: the psychology of atheism. Other books that are similar include those by Ravi Zacharias. It boils down to atheism is a choice of the will made because of a prior commitment to a lifestyle or against a theistic worldview. Very readable. Hardest chapter for me was the easiest to read because it challenged my walk towards the atheist and the atheistic behavior in myself (sin). "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt would support the contentions made in this book from an evolutionary (ironic, no?) perspective.Highly recommended.
Discussion of the irrational nature of atheistic belief is warranted and is covered in many other books. This book continues the theme that R.C. Sproul and Paul Vitz wrote about: the psychology of atheism. Other books that are similar include those by Ravi Zacharias. It boils down to atheism is a choice of the will made because of a prior commitment to a lifestyle or against a theistic worldview. Very readable. Hardest chapter for me was the easiest to read because it challenged my walk towards the atheist and the atheistic behavior in myself (sin). "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt would support the contentions made in this book from an evolutionary (ironic, no?) perspective.Highly recommended.
June 23, 2018
Thought provoking
This book offered a whole new perspective on atheism. It helped me understand Bible verses that seemed more cyclical than made sense. How? By explaining that disobedience to God actually makes you less prone to believe in God. Now, it seems I just gave away the book, but really, you should read it so you can see for yourself how it makes sense philosophically, logically and morally.
This book offered a whole new perspective on atheism. It helped me understand Bible verses that seemed more cyclical than made sense. How? By explaining that disobedience to God actually makes you less prone to believe in God. Now, it seems I just gave away the book, but really, you should read it so you can see for yourself how it makes sense philosophically, logically and morally.
December 31, 2022
I appreciated the basic premises of this book, and thought the author made some thought-provoking statements. He also had done some interesting and insightful research.
However, there were a number of things that I took issue with.
1. He talks about dogma and divisiveness within Christianity, about "relatively peripheral doctrinal matters, such as... the nature of hell, the question as to exactly who is saved..." and others. I do not consider some of these "relatively peripheral doctrinal matters." Some are extremely important.
2. He used the movie, "The Sixth Sense," as an analogy for "spiritual awakening." I have a huge objection to this. Although I haven't seen this movie myself, but based on his comments, as well as other descriptions/reviews of it, the basic thrust of the movie is about communicating with dead people, which is clearly forbidden by God in Scripture. Why would we take a movie that Christians shouldn't even be watching, and compare it with Christian conversion??!! "These things ought not so to be." Later in the book, the author says, regarding Christians, that "our reading and entertainment habits affect the way we think about the world, so we must be critically aware of these aspects of our lives." He would do well to heed that advice himself.
3. He speaks positively regarding C.S. Lewis and his theology. (That's another whole issue for me, but I have serious doubts about C.S. Lewis.)
4. He is clearly Calvinistic, and quotes John Calvin, including his theory of "sensus divinitatis" with virtually no scripture to back it up. I would like to see this author using more scripture to support his statements, rather than other authors and movies.
5. In the footnotes, he states that he at one point in his life affirmed macroevolution, but eventually moved to the creationist side for a number of reasons. But, "Today, a part of me would still like to be a full-fledged macroevolutionist - and it is freeing to know that, as a theist, this option remains open to me - but I just don't see it in the data." Why would he still like to be one? And if one truly believes the Bible was written literally, than there is no option for macroevolution. God created the world in six literal 24-hour days.
As much as I appreciated some of this book, I really can't recommend it.
However, there were a number of things that I took issue with.
1. He talks about dogma and divisiveness within Christianity, about "relatively peripheral doctrinal matters, such as... the nature of hell, the question as to exactly who is saved..." and others. I do not consider some of these "relatively peripheral doctrinal matters." Some are extremely important.
2. He used the movie, "The Sixth Sense," as an analogy for "spiritual awakening." I have a huge objection to this. Although I haven't seen this movie myself, but based on his comments, as well as other descriptions/reviews of it, the basic thrust of the movie is about communicating with dead people, which is clearly forbidden by God in Scripture. Why would we take a movie that Christians shouldn't even be watching, and compare it with Christian conversion??!! "These things ought not so to be." Later in the book, the author says, regarding Christians, that "our reading and entertainment habits affect the way we think about the world, so we must be critically aware of these aspects of our lives." He would do well to heed that advice himself.
3. He speaks positively regarding C.S. Lewis and his theology. (That's another whole issue for me, but I have serious doubts about C.S. Lewis.)
4. He is clearly Calvinistic, and quotes John Calvin, including his theory of "sensus divinitatis" with virtually no scripture to back it up. I would like to see this author using more scripture to support his statements, rather than other authors and movies.
5. In the footnotes, he states that he at one point in his life affirmed macroevolution, but eventually moved to the creationist side for a number of reasons. But, "Today, a part of me would still like to be a full-fledged macroevolutionist - and it is freeing to know that, as a theist, this option remains open to me - but I just don't see it in the data." Why would he still like to be one? And if one truly believes the Bible was written literally, than there is no option for macroevolution. God created the world in six literal 24-hour days.
As much as I appreciated some of this book, I really can't recommend it.
April 17, 2019
This is a surprising apologetic treatment of a very widespread topic--unbelief. I'm thankful to have read it because it is not only enriching, but fair to opposing viewpoints. It is a book that I would be willing to give to a non-believing friend to begin dialogue.
Many of the concerns reach toward a biblical response, but that does not mean that the author does not address many social, psychological, and other anthropological critiques of theism. However, one place where the author could go further is in discussion of how all atheism requires the sensus divinitatis. He described this term well, but Spiegel goes only so far as to say that it invalidates the non-belief (or, better, belief) of the atheist. Van Til and other apologists would go as far as to say that atheism requires the sensus divinitatis in order to exist at all. To balance this critique, the very section includes the topic of self-deception, so I think the point can be inferred, though the link is weak.
Many of the concerns reach toward a biblical response, but that does not mean that the author does not address many social, psychological, and other anthropological critiques of theism. However, one place where the author could go further is in discussion of how all atheism requires the sensus divinitatis. He described this term well, but Spiegel goes only so far as to say that it invalidates the non-belief (or, better, belief) of the atheist. Van Til and other apologists would go as far as to say that atheism requires the sensus divinitatis in order to exist at all. To balance this critique, the very section includes the topic of self-deception, so I think the point can be inferred, though the link is weak.
September 22, 2021
A Different Take on Atheism
This is a great book that unpacks a lot of valuable information in a small space. This may not necessarily be a book to give to an atheist. But this is a book for theists who feel called to see atheists come to faith. Spiegel convincingly shows theists that people aren’t atheists for intellectual reasons. Instead, they are atheists for personal and moral reasons. Christians who share Jesus with atheists should understand that rational argument is not the only, or even primary, way to win atheists to Jesus. This is a book I will return to. It was very helpful.
This is a great book that unpacks a lot of valuable information in a small space. This may not necessarily be a book to give to an atheist. But this is a book for theists who feel called to see atheists come to faith. Spiegel convincingly shows theists that people aren’t atheists for intellectual reasons. Instead, they are atheists for personal and moral reasons. Christians who share Jesus with atheists should understand that rational argument is not the only, or even primary, way to win atheists to Jesus. This is a book I will return to. It was very helpful.
December 27, 2017
The thesis was provocative--that intellectual reasons are often not the cause of unbelief, but rather immorality (or moral-psychological factors) leads a person to form rationale for unbelief in God. Spiegel supports his thesis well with social, philosophical and biblical data. I hadn't realized how much Scripture ties unbelief to immorality until this book uncovered what was in plain sight all along. Spiegel does a nice job of addressing an academic subject in a thoughtful, concise, easily readable manner.
July 27, 2013
James Spiegel's The Making of an Atheist is a curious book in that seeks to articulate a Christian view of atheism, that is, an explanation of atheism according to Christian theology. While plenty of Christian thinkers have offered up assessments of atheism so as to defend the rationality of Christian belief, not many spell out a cogent theology of atheism in systematic terms. The burden of any theology of atheism will be to explain why, assuming their is overwhelming evidence for God's existence, there is obstinate disbelief in God. Basing his case on Romans 1:18-24, Ephesians 4:17-19, and Psalm 14:1, Speigel argues that atheism is not the result of a lack of evidence for God, but a lack of obedience to God. Along the way, he argues that the atheist has no evidence for the nonexistence of God from the argument from evil, and that disbelief in God is caused by emotional problems with a cosmic authority figure, which stem from an absent or abusive father and the desire for sexual liberation. In short, atheists are atheists because they are bad people. While they may be very smart, it is their defective will, not their rationality, that leads them to their self-deceived conclusions.
I came to this book with some interest, because I am convinced that our attitudes towards obeying God (if he exists) deeply influence whether or not we do in fact believe in God. I've explored some of these things in my review of Paul Moser's work, namely how a cosmic authority problem functions as a non-rational factor in religious belief formation. That authority problem is best articulated by Thomas Nagel (who Spiegel also quotes):
"I am talking about something much deeper—namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that."
It seems safe to assume that there is a kind of "cognitive rebellion" or at least an intellectual vice, which refuses to entertain any search for God's existence or an honest evaluation for theistic evidences, that must be overcome before there can be any genuine belief in God. This is because God is identical with the greatest possible being who is utterly worthy of worship. Belief in God entails a duty to worship and obey God, and that is something we may not want to deal with if we are honest with ourselves.
I was expecting Spiegel's book to explore this fascinating tension between the authority of God and the autonomy of human beings in greater detail, but I was disappointed. To be sure, some of that was there and this is the better part of the book. But most of its pages are dedicated to a heavy-handed psychological analysis of adherence to Kuhnian "paradigms" buttressed by clumsy apologetic arguments . Here is one example:
"The objection from evil does pack some punch, and it is a genuine problem for theists. But it could never count as grounds for atheism. Even if successful, it only undermines certain beliefs about the nature of God. It does not—nor could any argument—disprove the existence of a world creator and designer.
"At most, evil should prompt us to reconsider what kind of God exists, not whether God exists."
Suppose he is right about this and the problem of evil provides evidence not for the non-existence of a creator-God, but only a not-so-good God. Would such a God be worthy of worship? Of course not, and it would be perfectly within our rights (or perhaps our duty?) to rebel against such a God. Anyone who fails to be good is not worthy of worship, and if the argument from evil provides evidence for the badness of God, then Spiegel shouldn't be so hard on atheists for failing to obey God.
Another odd feature is that the Spiegel often vacillates between giving a Christian account of atheism and defending the obviousness of theism. But these projects are quite different as he presupposes the truth of Scripture for one and appeals to natural theology for the other. Conspicuously absent from the "clear" and "obvious" evidence for God's existence is any appeal to evidence for Christ's resurrection, which would make his account all more distinctively Christian. The fact that Spiegel doesn't include this shows that the paradigm of "theism" is quite different from the paradigm of "Christianity." It would then seem that the "immorality leads to unbelief" thesis would be true in Jewish and Islamic thought as well. Perhaps this is enough to satisfy Spiegel, but if he was trying to give a Christian account of atheism, there is nothing distinctively Christian about it.
I've been looking for a helpful introduction to non-rational factors like the cosmic authority problem and the will to believe so as to recommend it to lay people who might interested, because Moser's work can be a bit daunting for the uninitiated (as I was told by my poor father). Sadly, Spiegel's work is not it.
I came to this book with some interest, because I am convinced that our attitudes towards obeying God (if he exists) deeply influence whether or not we do in fact believe in God. I've explored some of these things in my review of Paul Moser's work, namely how a cosmic authority problem functions as a non-rational factor in religious belief formation. That authority problem is best articulated by Thomas Nagel (who Spiegel also quotes):
"I am talking about something much deeper—namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that."
It seems safe to assume that there is a kind of "cognitive rebellion" or at least an intellectual vice, which refuses to entertain any search for God's existence or an honest evaluation for theistic evidences, that must be overcome before there can be any genuine belief in God. This is because God is identical with the greatest possible being who is utterly worthy of worship. Belief in God entails a duty to worship and obey God, and that is something we may not want to deal with if we are honest with ourselves.
I was expecting Spiegel's book to explore this fascinating tension between the authority of God and the autonomy of human beings in greater detail, but I was disappointed. To be sure, some of that was there and this is the better part of the book. But most of its pages are dedicated to a heavy-handed psychological analysis of adherence to Kuhnian "paradigms" buttressed by clumsy apologetic arguments . Here is one example:
"The objection from evil does pack some punch, and it is a genuine problem for theists. But it could never count as grounds for atheism. Even if successful, it only undermines certain beliefs about the nature of God. It does not—nor could any argument—disprove the existence of a world creator and designer.
"At most, evil should prompt us to reconsider what kind of God exists, not whether God exists."
Suppose he is right about this and the problem of evil provides evidence not for the non-existence of a creator-God, but only a not-so-good God. Would such a God be worthy of worship? Of course not, and it would be perfectly within our rights (or perhaps our duty?) to rebel against such a God. Anyone who fails to be good is not worthy of worship, and if the argument from evil provides evidence for the badness of God, then Spiegel shouldn't be so hard on atheists for failing to obey God.
Another odd feature is that the Spiegel often vacillates between giving a Christian account of atheism and defending the obviousness of theism. But these projects are quite different as he presupposes the truth of Scripture for one and appeals to natural theology for the other. Conspicuously absent from the "clear" and "obvious" evidence for God's existence is any appeal to evidence for Christ's resurrection, which would make his account all more distinctively Christian. The fact that Spiegel doesn't include this shows that the paradigm of "theism" is quite different from the paradigm of "Christianity." It would then seem that the "immorality leads to unbelief" thesis would be true in Jewish and Islamic thought as well. Perhaps this is enough to satisfy Spiegel, but if he was trying to give a Christian account of atheism, there is nothing distinctively Christian about it.
I've been looking for a helpful introduction to non-rational factors like the cosmic authority problem and the will to believe so as to recommend it to lay people who might interested, because Moser's work can be a bit daunting for the uninitiated (as I was told by my poor father). Sadly, Spiegel's work is not it.
March 19, 2025
a knock out
Knock-em-down drag-em-out arguments for the falsity of atheism from philosophy, science, and biography plus a few for the benefits of Christianity.
Knock-em-down drag-em-out arguments for the falsity of atheism from philosophy, science, and biography plus a few for the benefits of Christianity.
October 8, 2025
An intersection of philosophy, science, and theology that was a little over my head . . .
July 2, 2014
“The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief” by James Spiegel is a great little book (it can be read easily in a day). Many issues in Christian apologetics are presented here briefly, which helps those informed to review and the rest to get a good introduction. The book’s greatest strength is its central point, that atheism is not a worldview uniquely brought about by reason (as if reason were somehow above everything else, immaculate). There are many non-rational factors that can lead a person to a state of unbelief. Christians will do well to take Spiegel’s points into consideration in apologetic encounters with unbelievers.
In the book, Spiegel defines “atheism” generally as unbelief about the existence of God so as to include agnostics or any other non-theist.
In the first chapter two arguments widely used by atheists are discussed: the problem of evil and the success of science. Both of these end up being unsuccessful in proving the non-existence of God. Another issue discussed is how atheism should lead us into despair (it’s just weird to consider the world a wonderful place in the absence of meaning, purpose, and value). Finally, Spiegel points out where atheists are correct, pointing out mistakes believers have made (hypocrisy, “God of the gaps” thinking, divisiveness, and the refusal to admit a level of mystery), and motivates Christians to not repeat these.
Chapter two discusses the conversion of Antony Flew to theism (or something more like deism), one of the top atheist philosophers of the past century. His three reasons for leaving atheism are discussed:
1) The fact that nature obeys physical laws.
2) The beginning of the universe.
3) The fine-tuning of the universe.
One other argument against atheism is discussed; this one focuses on atheism as a self-defeating worldview (i.e., it is internally incoherent): Alvin Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism.
The author also discusses some key biblical passages that describe unbelief as the product of willful rebellion against God (e.g., Romans 1:24,28-29; John 3:19-21; Ephesians 4:17-19).
The third chapter moves on to discuss other influencing factors in someone becoming an atheist. Based on a study by Paul C. Vitz, Spiegel argues how not having a father figure can result in unbelief (he lists several well-known atheists whose fathers died or were abusive/weak: David Hume, Bertrand Russell, Madalyn Murray O’Hair, Sigmund Freud, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Voltaire). A second factor is a life given to depravity. In this section Spiegel looks at the work of Paul Johnson’s “Intellectuals” and E. Michael Jones’ “Degenerate Moderns”. Several intellectual “heroes” who lived questionable moral lives are mentioned: Karl Marx, Ernest Hemingway, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Jean-Paul Sartre. This second point, along with the biblical testimony, and some concepts from William James, is taken as evidence for the view that how we live influences how we think.
The fourth chapter draws from Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” (Michael Polanyi is also mentioned). Atheists, having adopted a paradigm of reality that excludes God, literally become blinded to His fingerprints in creation. Everyone, however, possesses a sense of the divine. Here Spiegel uses Calvin’s concept of the sensus divinitatis and Plantinga’s elaboration of it. Atheism, in the end, results in willful self-deception, in rebellion against the God who is there.
The final chapter explores the benefits of theism. A life dedicated to virtue, that nurtures devotion to God, will help us stay focused and cognitively alert to His reality. God offers redemption to all through His son Jesus Christ, drawing us in many ways by His grace. We, however, can, by our own rebellion, set ourselves on the road to unbelief.
In the book, Spiegel defines “atheism” generally as unbelief about the existence of God so as to include agnostics or any other non-theist.
In the first chapter two arguments widely used by atheists are discussed: the problem of evil and the success of science. Both of these end up being unsuccessful in proving the non-existence of God. Another issue discussed is how atheism should lead us into despair (it’s just weird to consider the world a wonderful place in the absence of meaning, purpose, and value). Finally, Spiegel points out where atheists are correct, pointing out mistakes believers have made (hypocrisy, “God of the gaps” thinking, divisiveness, and the refusal to admit a level of mystery), and motivates Christians to not repeat these.
Chapter two discusses the conversion of Antony Flew to theism (or something more like deism), one of the top atheist philosophers of the past century. His three reasons for leaving atheism are discussed:
1) The fact that nature obeys physical laws.
2) The beginning of the universe.
3) The fine-tuning of the universe.
One other argument against atheism is discussed; this one focuses on atheism as a self-defeating worldview (i.e., it is internally incoherent): Alvin Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism.
The author also discusses some key biblical passages that describe unbelief as the product of willful rebellion against God (e.g., Romans 1:24,28-29; John 3:19-21; Ephesians 4:17-19).
The third chapter moves on to discuss other influencing factors in someone becoming an atheist. Based on a study by Paul C. Vitz, Spiegel argues how not having a father figure can result in unbelief (he lists several well-known atheists whose fathers died or were abusive/weak: David Hume, Bertrand Russell, Madalyn Murray O’Hair, Sigmund Freud, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Voltaire). A second factor is a life given to depravity. In this section Spiegel looks at the work of Paul Johnson’s “Intellectuals” and E. Michael Jones’ “Degenerate Moderns”. Several intellectual “heroes” who lived questionable moral lives are mentioned: Karl Marx, Ernest Hemingway, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Jean-Paul Sartre. This second point, along with the biblical testimony, and some concepts from William James, is taken as evidence for the view that how we live influences how we think.
The fourth chapter draws from Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” (Michael Polanyi is also mentioned). Atheists, having adopted a paradigm of reality that excludes God, literally become blinded to His fingerprints in creation. Everyone, however, possesses a sense of the divine. Here Spiegel uses Calvin’s concept of the sensus divinitatis and Plantinga’s elaboration of it. Atheism, in the end, results in willful self-deception, in rebellion against the God who is there.
The final chapter explores the benefits of theism. A life dedicated to virtue, that nurtures devotion to God, will help us stay focused and cognitively alert to His reality. God offers redemption to all through His son Jesus Christ, drawing us in many ways by His grace. We, however, can, by our own rebellion, set ourselves on the road to unbelief.
December 5, 2020
The basic argument of this book that immorality breeds atheism is so blatantly false without digging too deeply. The argument is founded that great atheist philosophers – such as Bertrand Russell – were serial adulterers and were using atheism as a way of escaping the need for obedience to the morality of the norm. Fair enough point that adultery is not a moral standard, but neither is the paedophilia of the Catholic clergy that this book fails to address. What is more, Russell and the like were open about their promiscuity whereas the Catholic Church sought to cover up the abuse of children; two sins for the price of one.
Another problem with the arguments of this book is the assertion that atheists are so set in their ways that the assumption that they are correct and science explains all aspects of the universe is hiding the self-evident truth of God's existence in the natural world. Turn that argument around and it reads that theists are so set in their ways that the assumption of the self-evident truth of God's existence in the natural world is hiding that science explains all aspects of the universe. Neither of these arguments actually proves the existence or the non-existence of God in their own right; but both are philosophically correct although both are also intellectually disingenuous.
A second criticism of the atheist’s logic is that their arguments are self defeating. Again, the same criticism could be directed at the religious argument that the Bible says God exist and that it is the word of God; therefore God exists. Circular arguments are only true if the initial assumption is true; if it is false then it too is self defeating. Without evidence there is no requirement to trust any theory more than a guess.
This book did nothing to sway my own atheism; in fact it made me more willing to accept Richard Dawkins choice of title for his book ""The God Delusion"" and Sigmund Freud’s assertion that belief is a form of mental illness. If I could summarise this in one short sentence it would be to paraphrase Marx - not Karl, but Groucho – "Once I’d put it down I couldn’t pick it up again!"
Another problem with the arguments of this book is the assertion that atheists are so set in their ways that the assumption that they are correct and science explains all aspects of the universe is hiding the self-evident truth of God's existence in the natural world. Turn that argument around and it reads that theists are so set in their ways that the assumption of the self-evident truth of God's existence in the natural world is hiding that science explains all aspects of the universe. Neither of these arguments actually proves the existence or the non-existence of God in their own right; but both are philosophically correct although both are also intellectually disingenuous.
A second criticism of the atheist’s logic is that their arguments are self defeating. Again, the same criticism could be directed at the religious argument that the Bible says God exist and that it is the word of God; therefore God exists. Circular arguments are only true if the initial assumption is true; if it is false then it too is self defeating. Without evidence there is no requirement to trust any theory more than a guess.
This book did nothing to sway my own atheism; in fact it made me more willing to accept Richard Dawkins choice of title for his book ""The God Delusion"" and Sigmund Freud’s assertion that belief is a form of mental illness. If I could summarise this in one short sentence it would be to paraphrase Marx - not Karl, but Groucho – "Once I’d put it down I couldn’t pick it up again!"
March 19, 2010
The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief by James S. Spiegel is a very thought provoking book. Its primary audience is Evangelical Christians. Its primary goal is to help Christians understand one possible way a person becomes an atheist.
This book will make you think. The starting point of this book is the first chapter of Romans particularly Romans 1:18 and Romans 1:20. Professor Spiegel (Taylor University) then looks at the arguments of the atheist (he lumps Atheists, Agnostics, and anyone who does not believe in God under the umbrella of Atheism – for simplicity sake.) He points out their arguments, errors, and insights.
Then in the next couple of chapters he tackles the irrationality, the causes of, and the obstinacy of atheism. He looks at the worldview that the believer and atheist hold and how that affects their beliefs and shades their outlook on life. He also looks at how people choose to accept biblical morals or reject them and then create a way to validate that choice.
One of the more interesting sources he quotes is psychologist Paul C. Vitz who did research into the family life of well known Christians and Atheists and found out that a significant percentage of Atheists grew up without a father figure in their lives.
He also looks at the historical record of some of the great names in modern science who have lead to the change in the culture we see and how their desires, viewpoints, and goals caused them to choose the morals they had and at times helped them guide the way their research was done and the results they published.
In the end Mr. Spiegel affirms Theism and calls out to Christians to lovingly reach out to their Atheistic friends and have meaningful conversations with them and to live a life that shines the light of Christ in the darkness.
Is this book perfect? No but this book is well worth the read and thought needed to wrestle with the ideas he brings forth. I would recommend this book to everyone.
This book will make you think. The starting point of this book is the first chapter of Romans particularly Romans 1:18 and Romans 1:20. Professor Spiegel (Taylor University) then looks at the arguments of the atheist (he lumps Atheists, Agnostics, and anyone who does not believe in God under the umbrella of Atheism – for simplicity sake.) He points out their arguments, errors, and insights.
Then in the next couple of chapters he tackles the irrationality, the causes of, and the obstinacy of atheism. He looks at the worldview that the believer and atheist hold and how that affects their beliefs and shades their outlook on life. He also looks at how people choose to accept biblical morals or reject them and then create a way to validate that choice.
One of the more interesting sources he quotes is psychologist Paul C. Vitz who did research into the family life of well known Christians and Atheists and found out that a significant percentage of Atheists grew up without a father figure in their lives.
He also looks at the historical record of some of the great names in modern science who have lead to the change in the culture we see and how their desires, viewpoints, and goals caused them to choose the morals they had and at times helped them guide the way their research was done and the results they published.
In the end Mr. Spiegel affirms Theism and calls out to Christians to lovingly reach out to their Atheistic friends and have meaningful conversations with them and to live a life that shines the light of Christ in the darkness.
Is this book perfect? No but this book is well worth the read and thought needed to wrestle with the ideas he brings forth. I would recommend this book to everyone.
Read
July 23, 2016The Evolution of Morality -
In this book The Making of an Atheist, author James S. Spiegel looks at how morality or the lack thereof plays an important role in the rejection of God. Can immorality lead to unbelief? Surprisingly, as Mr. Spiegel documents, many well-known atheists are not reticent in acknowledging the volitional aspect of their atheistic beliefs.
But what about those of faith? To my mind that is the bigger question here. Does a lifestyle which rejects the basic tenants of Biblical morality lead to a rejection of God by those of a Biblical world view? Does moral compromise through generations insidiously erode the foundations of faith? After reading The Making of an Atheist, I believe you’ll find the answer to that question is an unfortunate yes.
I think the history of higher education in this country is a good example of Mr. Spiegel’s premise. Who doesn’t know that Harvard, Yale and many of the most prestigious institutions of learning in the US were started by those of a Biblical world view to promote not just higher education but a Biblical moral standard? And today? Those very same institutions are bastions of secular humanism which is the very antithesis of their founder’s intentions.
Morality by its very nature is a God attribute. Without God mankind’s competing self-interests are ultimately destructive. Without God each of us becomes merely the next meal in an endless evolutionary food chain. Is that really how we want to see the beauty and mystery of the world around us?
In this book The Making of an Atheist, author James S. Spiegel looks at how morality or the lack thereof plays an important role in the rejection of God. Can immorality lead to unbelief? Surprisingly, as Mr. Spiegel documents, many well-known atheists are not reticent in acknowledging the volitional aspect of their atheistic beliefs.
But what about those of faith? To my mind that is the bigger question here. Does a lifestyle which rejects the basic tenants of Biblical morality lead to a rejection of God by those of a Biblical world view? Does moral compromise through generations insidiously erode the foundations of faith? After reading The Making of an Atheist, I believe you’ll find the answer to that question is an unfortunate yes.
I think the history of higher education in this country is a good example of Mr. Spiegel’s premise. Who doesn’t know that Harvard, Yale and many of the most prestigious institutions of learning in the US were started by those of a Biblical world view to promote not just higher education but a Biblical moral standard? And today? Those very same institutions are bastions of secular humanism which is the very antithesis of their founder’s intentions.
Morality by its very nature is a God attribute. Without God mankind’s competing self-interests are ultimately destructive. Without God each of us becomes merely the next meal in an endless evolutionary food chain. Is that really how we want to see the beauty and mystery of the world around us?
December 10, 2013
The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief (2010) is an interesting apologetic text by philosopher James Spiegel. Typically, apologetics books deal with arguments themselves whereas Spiegel's book examines atheism from the perspective of morality. Working from biblical evidence such as Romans 1, he contends that the reason individuals reject God is because of their immorality, which causes them to reject the clear evidence for God.
He begins by referencing the atheists themselves, such as Thomas Nagel who has said that he doesn't want God to exist. They are willing to accept wild theories rather than accepting the evidence for God. For example, both Francis Crick and and Richard Dawkins are open to the notion of directed panspermia, which is that life appeared because aliens planted it here.
He also argued that certain factors, specifically fatherlessness and immorality, predispose people to reject God. I suspect that these factors led to significant resistance to Spiegel's hypotheses, though probably for emotional, rather than logical reasons.
At the end of the book, he concludes with a short chapter on The Blessings of Theism. A common ploy from many of the new atheists is to talk about how theism is bad for society. Reality proves otherwise.
If you have an interest in why people think the way they do, this may be a good read for.
He begins by referencing the atheists themselves, such as Thomas Nagel who has said that he doesn't want God to exist. They are willing to accept wild theories rather than accepting the evidence for God. For example, both Francis Crick and and Richard Dawkins are open to the notion of directed panspermia, which is that life appeared because aliens planted it here.
He also argued that certain factors, specifically fatherlessness and immorality, predispose people to reject God. I suspect that these factors led to significant resistance to Spiegel's hypotheses, though probably for emotional, rather than logical reasons.
At the end of the book, he concludes with a short chapter on The Blessings of Theism. A common ploy from many of the new atheists is to talk about how theism is bad for society. Reality proves otherwise.
If you have an interest in why people think the way they do, this may be a good read for.
October 25, 2013
Good book. Made a lot of good points. Learned a lot about the most outspoken atheists.
Summary - The descent into atheism is caused by a complex of moral-psychological factors, not a perceived lack of evidence for God's existence. The atheist willfully rejects God, though this is precipitated by immoral indulgences and typically a broken relationship with his/her father. Thus, the choice of the atheistic paradigm is motivated by non-rational factors, some of which are psychological and some of which are moral in nature.
The hardening of the atheistic mind-set occurs through cognitive malfunctions due to two-principal causes. First, atheists suffer from paradigm induced blindness, as their worldview inhibits their ability to recognize the reality of God that is manifest in creation. Second, atheists suffer from damage to the sensus divinitatis, so their natural awareness of God is severely impeded.
Summary - The descent into atheism is caused by a complex of moral-psychological factors, not a perceived lack of evidence for God's existence. The atheist willfully rejects God, though this is precipitated by immoral indulgences and typically a broken relationship with his/her father. Thus, the choice of the atheistic paradigm is motivated by non-rational factors, some of which are psychological and some of which are moral in nature.
The hardening of the atheistic mind-set occurs through cognitive malfunctions due to two-principal causes. First, atheists suffer from paradigm induced blindness, as their worldview inhibits their ability to recognize the reality of God that is manifest in creation. Second, atheists suffer from damage to the sensus divinitatis, so their natural awareness of God is severely impeded.
October 16, 2014
Enjoyed this book, really opened my eyes about why people dis-believe when there is so much evidence for God.
Here is a good little summary of what Spiegel lists as the cause of atheism from his book pages 113-114: "The descent into atheism is caused by a complex of moral-psychological factors, not a perceived lack of evidence for God's existence. The atheist willfully rejects God, though this is precipitated by immoral indulgences and typically a broken relationship with his or her father. Thus, the choice of a the atheistic paradigm is motivated by non-rational factors, some of which are psychological and some of which are moral in nature."
Overall an interesting book that made me think.
Recommended
Here is a good little summary of what Spiegel lists as the cause of atheism from his book pages 113-114: "The descent into atheism is caused by a complex of moral-psychological factors, not a perceived lack of evidence for God's existence. The atheist willfully rejects God, though this is precipitated by immoral indulgences and typically a broken relationship with his or her father. Thus, the choice of a the atheistic paradigm is motivated by non-rational factors, some of which are psychological and some of which are moral in nature."
Overall an interesting book that made me think.
Recommended
December 26, 2015
If the author was Muslim he would be arrested as a radical/dangerous terrorist. But being christian, he has the same imaginary friend as about 75% of his countrymen, so won't be. However labeling Atheists as evil and dangerous, is hateful and judgmental, as a Christian, he should not judge his fellow man, but it seems the commandments only apply to friends and family.
This is probably the most stupid, infantile toilet paper ever published. Moronic is too mild a word. Religion is simply childish fear of the dark carried into adulthood bu willful ignorance. As an atheist I think the author is an oxygen thief, depriving someone somewhere of breath.
The author should, at best remove himself from the gene pool, humanity would be better off without his DNA in future generations.
This is probably the most stupid, infantile toilet paper ever published. Moronic is too mild a word. Religion is simply childish fear of the dark carried into adulthood bu willful ignorance. As an atheist I think the author is an oxygen thief, depriving someone somewhere of breath.
The author should, at best remove himself from the gene pool, humanity would be better off without his DNA in future generations.
June 29, 2015
Jim Spiegel has written a book that won't get any purchase in the philosophical world, but it is profoundly true. Why are people atheists? Is it because they are unconvinced by the arguments? Or is it because they're sinners. Spiegel points to the second reason. It is, in fact, the reason for the first. People don't want to believe in existence of God because they prefer their sinful lifestyles. They prefer their stubbornness. They prefer their selfishness.
Spiegel, of course, is not arguing that we shouldn't have rational and articulate proofs for the existence of God--we ought. But they will not convince someone deadened to sin. In fact, Scripture argues, they cannot.
Spiegel, of course, is not arguing that we shouldn't have rational and articulate proofs for the existence of God--we ought. But they will not convince someone deadened to sin. In fact, Scripture argues, they cannot.
January 6, 2013
If you've ever wondered why atheists are not open to things like reason and evidence, then this book offers a remarkably simple explanation. Speaking as a non-Christian, I think he has hit the nail on the head. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place. Well worth reading.
January 10, 2013
This is a very interesting, short book on atheism. The author says that immorality leads to atheism (which is biblical: Romans 1:18ff). He offers up some examples of famous atheists and their immorality. I wish the book were longer and had more examples. That was my only complaint.
November 26, 2015
While not agreeing with all of Spiegel's points, he makes a great case for the immorality of atheism. I think he could've done better by enlisting some of the presuppositional arguments a little more. But overall, this was a great popular apologetics book.
January 12, 2011
Great little book on the presuppositions behind atheism. Though Spiegel overplays some of the causes of the religion, he does well to point out that atheism does not occur in a vacuum.
Read
July 30, 2011The first couple of chapters weren't that interesting as they were fairly obvious but then it got really good. Had him for a couple of classes that I enjoyed.
August 5, 2014
Short and wonderful book. Describes atheists more than how they are made though.
May 2, 2012
A totally different way for Christians to look at Atheism. So needed.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews