A Welcome Advance--And Another Possibility

books:

	• Atheism Advanced: Further Thoughts of a Freethinker David Eller American Atheist Press, 2008 - 490 pages average customer review:based on 12 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

A Welcome Advance--And Another Possibility

I concur with the eight favorable reviews given thus far. Interestingly, the two negative reviews did not disagree with Dr Eller's arguments, but only with the style. I like both the pungent style of Dawkins or Hitchens, as well as the more academic style of Dennett or Eller. Both approaches are needed.

However, I wonder about the rhetorical effect of saying something like, "I don't know what you mean [in talking about God], and you don't either." The second part of this is true, but I think I know what God-talkers "want" to mean (though they fail), and I think there are several meaningful notions of "God" that are simply different from traditional theological "meanings." Saying "I don't know what you mean" might suggest (especially to theists and maybe to neutrals) some sort of ignorance. Inadvisable?

Rather than abstaining from God-talk, it might be productive to
engage in it, perhaps in such forms as "no genuine God would ever approve of religious fictions." Although I know of no evidence for a "genuine God," it is possible to conceive of such a being without violating the criteria of internal consistency or contradicting observable reality.

I will try both approaches and see which seems to be more effective. Kudos to Dr Eller on this incipient (I hope) classic. I plan to order "Natural Atheism" as well.

for more information click here

He's right!

One of the most erudite and balanced treatises I have ver read on religion, its origins and lack of validity.

for more information click here

Sure to be a Classic!

Eller's book "Atheism Advanced" should be in every atheist library. I thought I had read up on most every issue concerning the philosophy of religion before reading his book, but I was wrong, dead wrong. His passionate analysis is significant and thought provoking in every single chapter I've read so far (thru chapter six). I think Eller should be the new spokesman for atheism and invited to speak at every atheist conference. I think Christians need to deal with the power of his arguments.

In my book I argue against a specific religious viewpoint likened to a small limb growing out of the very large tree of religion. I'm not arguing against animism, animatism, nor ancestor worship, ethical non-theism (like Buddhism) nor the many polytheistic gods and goddesses, nor do I argue against other monotheisms like the several branches of Judaism or Islam, nor do I argue against whatever original Christianities believed, nor liberalism, nor deism. No. I'm arguing against a small sect in time, evangelical Christianity. And among evangelicals themselves there is no consensus about true Christianity, relegating certain other branches as "cults." Christianity is best understood as a "local Christianity," one situated in a particular time and place held by particular localized people. What a particular Christian believes is a hybrid coming from schism after schism and the conclusions of hindsight through the process of syncretism. Eller effectively argues that Christians believe in a local Christianity or no Christianity at all.

While I argue specifically about the dominant American fundamentalist or evangelical view in my book, Dr. Eller argues against religion itself. Along the way Eller advances (or promotes) our understanding of just what atheism is. [Hint, atheism is not just a view that stands in contrast with the dominant religious view of any particular society. Atheism in Hindu countries would be a-Hinduist, while atheism in Christian countries would be considered a-Christian. But this cannot be what atheism is about!] We atheists have allowed the dominant religious view of our societies to set the definition for what atheism is, and even the language we use to debate the issues, Eller argues. Why is it that most debates in western cultures are debates on such topics as "Christianity vs. Atheism"? Eller wants us to think in larger terms than that. From reading what Eller says the real debate should be set in terms of "Christianity vs. Itself," since there are so many branches of it, or "Christianity vs. All Other Religions," since that's the proper way to think about religion (can you imagine a Christian wanting to debate that topic with an atheist??). Eller writes: "Nothing is more destructive to religion than other religions; it is like meeting one's own anti-matter twin." (p. 233).

Eller also argues that there is no specific "Science vs. Religion" problem either, since some religions do not believe in any personal god, and because religious believers are not against most scientific disciplines. Believers are only opposed to those scientific disciplines that come into direct conflict with their own specific religious claims. Some religions don't even have a creation theory! Surely religious believers are not opposed to quantum theory or gravitational theory or meteorology or botany of gemology (the study of gems), for starters. They are only opposed to specific claims within physics and biology when science crosses over into the arbitrary and sacred/profane boundary of specific religious claims. Religious believers are not opposed to science as a whole, just some aspects of it! So the debate is not about science vs. religion but rather against specific local religions vs specific scientific claims.

There is much more to his book. Every person interested in these issues (both believer and non-believer) should get and read and discuss it. I consider his book essential for understanding these issues. Eller writes well, is passionate, intelligent, and offers very powerful arguments against religion as a whole. In the process he more than adequately advances atheism. This book is destined to be a classic work.

for more information click here

reviews: page 1, 2, 3

Atheism Advanced answers many questions, including: Why must Atheists stop 'speaking Christian?' -- not only to prevent religionists from setting the terms of debate but also to prevent them from determining the very thoughts we think? Are there any religions without gods? How are gods created, and are they being manufactured today? Why is science necessarily atheistic? Why must Atheists advance from being simply 'without gods' to being 'Discredists,' thinkers who reject belief-based reasoning altogether? Includes an anthropology of comparative religion.

hot