Book Review: The Making of an Atheist by James Spiegel
April 12, 2010 Posted by Roger Overton
| The general assumption in our society is that atheists are those who have rational reasons for disbelief in God. Dr. James Spiegel challenges this assumption in his latest book, The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief. As the title suggests, Spiegel attempts to show that the foundations of atheistic belief are comprised of immorality rather than rational arguments. |
In the introduction, Spiegel explains that the purpose of The Making of an Atheist is to present a Christian account of atheism. Based on biblical doctrine, philosophy, and atheist’ own admissions, he proposes that “Atheism is the suppression of truth by wickedness, the cognitive consequence of immorality. In short, it is sin that is the mother of unbelief.” (18)
In the first chapter, Spiegel debunks the most common arguments offered by atheists, consolidating them to the problem of evil and the notion that naturalistic science can account for all of reality. The chapter ends with some insights from atheists that theists would do well to heed, showing that atheists do have something to offers theists.
The biblical explanation of atheism is explored in the second chapter. “We may summarize the biblical diagnosis of atheism as follows. The atheist’s problem is rebellion against the plain truth of God, as clearly revealed in nature. This rebellion is prompted by immorality, which diminishes understanding, and a genuine ignorance results. This is not a loss of intelligence so much as a selective intellectual obtuseness or imperviousness to truths related to God, ethics, and human nature. But the root of this obtuseness is moral in nature. It follows from the biblical diagnosis that the atheists’ arguments are an intellectual ruse masking their rebellion.” (56)
Chapter three considers the psychological context for atheism, focusing on the lack of good fathers in the childhoods of the most well-known atheists. The fourth chapter addresses the “obstinacy of atheism,” explaining how the atheistic worldview is a method for self-deception. The fifth and final chapter contrasts the difficulties of living in an atheistic worldview with the benefits of living in a theistic worldview.
This brief 130 page book is the fruit of years of academic and personal experiences. James Spiegel is very careful with how he frames his premise and arguments, yet his case cuts to the very heart of atheistic belief. Given that the book is primarily addressed to Christians and most readers will be those concerned with evangelism and apologetics, I would have liked Spiegel to offer some guidance on how this explanation of atheism affects evangelism. That said, the biblical diagnosis Spiegel offers is well-grounded and attested common experience.
The Making of an Atheist offers an important account of atheistic belief that ought to be considered by any Christian who wishes to engage in evangelism. James Spiegel successfully shows that the heart of atheism is immorality, masked by rationalizations.
Readers should check out www.themakingofanatheist.com for more information and a discussion questions for the book.
Related posts:
- Book Review: The Love of Wisdom by Steven Cowan and James Spiegel
- Book Review: The Benefits of Providence by James Spiegel
- ETS 2008 – James Spiegel “Free Will and Soul Making”
- Book Review: Why Good Arguments Often Fail by James Sire
- Interview with James Spiegel
- ETS 2006- James Spiegel: The Epistemic Ramifications of Behavior
Posted in Book Reviews, Roger's Posts
content rss
April 13th, 2010 at 12:07 am
Yes, I suppose it IS easier to simply dismiss somebody’s entire system of arguments as simply Bad so you don’t have to actually think about them. If only we could see that nature clearly debunks all we’ve learned about nature and reveals the ultimate intuitive truth of a 6000 year old world populated by a single boat and governed by a giant invisible collection of personified logical fallacies. If only we had a glimpse of true morality to convert us to theism and give us the moral fortitude to engage in such moral practices as child rape, wife-stoning, and suicide bombings that our lamentable wickedness and genuine ignorance tragically deny us.
You guys are jackasses.
April 13th, 2010 at 6:43 am
Benjamin,
You said, “Yes, I suppose it IS easier to simply dismiss somebody’s entire system of arguments as simply Bad so you don’t have to actually think about them.” If you actually read the book, you’ll see that nothing like that is going on here. As I note in the review, Spiegel examines the arguments put forward by atheism and finds them woefully inadequate. Ultimately there’s no good reason to believe in atheism; the cause for atheism lies elsewhere.
April 13th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Roger,
Your review does not state how the arguments put forth by atheists are inadequate. Please enlighten us.
April 14th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
americanatheist,
The book only deals very briefly with atheists’ arguments; less than 10 pages. As I noted, Spiegel sees the primary arguments as the problem of evil and the notion that science can account for all of reality.
In regard to the problem of evil, the response is rather simple. “Even if successful, it only undermines certain beliefs about the nature of God… At most, evil should prompt us to reconsider what kind of God exists, not whether God exists. To give up belief in a world creator because of the existence of evil is a blatant non sequitur.” (p26-27)
Spiegel responds to the second argument in a few ways:
1) Naturalism cannot account for the existence of the cosmos or values of any kind.
2) Naturalism’s methodology, positivism, is self-refuting. “The notion that all beliefs must be scientifically verifiable is, well, not scientifically verifiable.” (p29)
3) Naturalism cannot confirm or dispute the vast majority of non-scientific beliefs that are commonly held- such as differences between good and evil and the meaning of life.
I don’t expect Spiegel’s brief responses to atheist arguments will satisfy anyone who is already an ardent atheist, but it’s important to keep in mind that that’s not the purpose of the book. As Spiegel states in his introduction, his purpose is to provide a Christian account of atheism. And since it is Christian in nature, it is primarily based on biblical doctrine. I understand his assessment of atheist arguments as being a point of support of his biblical diagnosis.
April 16th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
If your summary is accurate, than Spiegel simply does what many people who prefer unexamined answers to intelligent questions do and relies on his own complete and utter ignorance of what science even IS to discount it. If methodological naturalism could account for the existence of everything, it would not be methodological naturalism. Science is, and always has been, a process by which one asks questions and then works, perpetually, to find answers. It’s not a body of knowledge, and it’s nothing close to a belief or a notion. Christians telling Atheists that Naturalism is invalid because it doesn’t account for the existence of the cosmos or values is akin to an Atheist telling a Christian that God can’t exist because sometimes he gets stomach aches. It’s not an argument, it’s just a proud demonstration that the person offering it as such has no idea what in hell he’s even trying to refute.
Besides, whether or not something can account for the existence of something else is no measure of value; Paul Bunyan’s axe can account for the existence of the grand canyon. This does not invalidate the theory of erosion.
If his purpose is to provide a Christian perspective of a non-Christian belief system to Christian readers of his Christian book, maybe he should stick to what works: preaching to the choir about how everything unlike them is inherently evil or the fault of evil in some way or another, and not wasting time demonstrating his own ignorance by clumsily attacking people he doesn’t understand with irrelevant arguments he fails to comprehend.
And, meanwhile, you might want to hold off on making unsupported judgments on strangers’ immorality or about what does or does not “cut to the very heart of atheistic belief” until you have at least a vague sense of what you’re even talking about.
Or not. ‘Syour blog, I guess.
April 25th, 2010 at 10:42 pm
“If methodological naturalism could account for the existence of everything, it would not be methodological naturalism.”
Naturalism attempts to account for all of reality by strictly natural means. By definition, it rules out the existence of anything supernatural. That is a belief and a claim to knowledge. The case that has been made is that such naturalism can’t account for all of reality and is self-refuting. Spiegel cites a few atheists who clearly advocate this belief, and I’m not sure there’s an atheist around who doesn’t believe this. If an atheist were to allow for any sort of supernatural entities, the allowance would likely bring into question their atheism.
Speigel very accurately and fairly portrays the typical arguments put forward by leading atheists today. The burden is on you, if you want to claim he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, to show exactly where he has misrepresented a particular atheist or what is common to atheism these days. Otherwise, you’re guilty of your own accusations.
April 27th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
Considering that the supernatural is, also by definition, “Of or relating to existence outside the natural world,” … well, yeah. Saying that a method by which to approach the natural world doesn’t account for things that don’t exist in the natural world is quite accurate. It does nothing to invalidate said method, nor does it make any sort of a case for said things that don’t exist in the natural world existing, but it’s a true statement. Similarly, “cats are cats” is a true statement. Admitting this does not grant that cats are self-refuting, though, and pointing out that naturalism doesn’t bother with the likely nonexistant does not mean that naturalism is self-refuting, either.
I feel at this point I can simply copy and paste my last comment, since you haven’t actually poked any holes in it, but you’ve already had a chance to read it, I assume.
However, if you’re changing your review to “Spiegel makes certain cases, and the burden is on you to read his book if you’d like to see what they are and whether they’re any good” then it’s fair and accurate. However, scrolling up, it appears to be the same review that I read two weeks ago, sprinkled with your own assertions, which you’re apparently unable to back up, as to the validity and value of his arguments and the nature of other peoples’ beliefs.
My claim is that these evidently unsupportable assertions of yours appear to be you badmouthing people and concepts you don’t understand, and that EITHER he doesn’t know what he’s talking about or that your summary of his points is misleading. I freely admit that it could be the latter rather than the former.
In any event, being closed-minded, over-generalizing large groups, and corroborating everything written by someone on your “side” without understanding how or why are probably bad habits to get into for a philosopher.
May 1st, 2010 at 11:51 am
Benjamin,
I didn’t reply to most of your comments because I don’t believe they are relevant to either the thesis and arguments of Spiegel’s book or my statements of agreement here (eg- no one argued against science). It seems that on both sides we don’t believe we’re understanding each other here. Given that the source of this discussion is Spiegel’s material, I really don’t see how we can go forward without the book. Otherwise, it seems likely you’ll continue to build straw men against it.