Short History of Atheism, A (I.B.Tauris Short Histories)

Return to Book Page. The last few years have seen a remarkable surge of popular interest in the topic of atheism. Books about atheism by writers like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have figured prominently in bestseller lists and have attracted widespread discussion in the media.

I. B. Tauris Short Histories: A Short History of Atheism by Gavin Hyman (2010, Paperback)

The ubiquity of public debates about atheism, especially in conscious opposition to the perceived social The last few years have seen a remarkable surge of popular interest in the topic of atheism. The ubiquity of public debates about atheism, especially in conscious opposition to the perceived social threat posed by faith and religion, has been startling. However, as Gavin Hyman points out, despite their prevalence and popularity, what often characterizes these debates is a lack of nuance and sophistication.

They can be shrill, ignorant of the historical complexity of debates about belief, and tend to lapse into caricature. What is needed is a clear and well informed presentation of how atheistic ideas originated and developed, in order to illuminate their contemporary relevance and application. That task is what the author undertakes here. Exploring the rise of atheism as an explicit philosophical position notably in the work of Denis Diderot , Hyman traces its development in the later ideas of Descartes, Locke, and Berkeley.

Drawing also on the work of contemporary scholars like Amos Funkenstein and Michael J Buckley, the author shows that, since in recent theology the concept of God which atheists negate is changing, the triumph of its advocates may not be quite as unequivocal as Hitchens and Dawkins would have us believe. Paperback , pages.

Product details

Published October 15th by I. Tauris first published January 1st To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about A Short History of Atheism , please sign up.

Be the first to ask a question about A Short History of Atheism. Lists with This Book.

• Brief Encounter!
• A Short History of Atheism!
• Покупки по категориям!
• Clearwater Oops! (Clearwater Series Book 14)?

This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Oct 06, Jonathan rated it did not like it Shelves: I picked this book up at a local library as I've been meaning to read a history of atheism for a while now. I was hoping for exactly that, a history of atheism, however after reading the introduction and flicking through the book, it looks as if a more accurate title might have been 'A Theist's Rebuttal of Atheism'. In itself this might not have been a problem, however I've found the introduction infuriating for several reasons.

Take for instance this quote from the introduction: If, as I have suggested, theism mutates into something quite new and different at the advent of modernity, then it follows that it is this conception of God that modern atheism finds to be incredible and unsustainable. In effect the author is saying that modern Western atheists have only rejected a modern Christian concept of God and therefore they are not true atheists because they haven't criticised every concept of God or gods that have been posited.

I don't see why the atheist has to consider every form of theism before he can consider himself a 'true' atheist. He simply does not believe. Hyman seems to put a lot of emphasis on the notion that to be defined as an atheist there need to be theists, and that atheists therefore appear to be in a paradoxical position of defining themselves in terms of something that they believe doesn't exist.

For example, the quote in the introduction: After all the situation is simple: In a world where the majority of people believe in X, the minority will be labelled as those that don't believe in X. Wouldn't a Christian living in a Muslim country be called an infidel, or unbeliever?

Another quote from the introduction: If so, what then becomes of the status of atheism in relation to alternative conceptions of God? That person is not an atheist as an atheist doesn't believe in any god. Because most atheists are Western they therefore attack the Western concept of Christianity, but this is mainly for convenience as the Western reader will have some knowledge and experience of that particular version of theism.

A Short History of Atheism - Gavin Hyman - Google Книги

If the Western atheist attacked pagan gods, Hindu gods or a medieval Christian concept of God then the modern Western theist may well agree with the criticism and then add that that's because their modern theistic outlook is the correct one. The Western atheist has therefore got nowhere, if he wishes to continue then he should attack the modern Western Christian version of theism. It seems that the author believes that because atheists have to spend so much time talking about religion that this somehow ties them to religion.

Unfortunately this is partially true, although most atheists do not spend much time thinking about religion at all.

Account Options

It is usually only when it is brought up by theists that it is even considered. The theist should try to imagine what it would be like living in a world where everyone, except them, believe in unicorns. People would talk about how great they are, where they saw them etc. You may ask for proof as you've never seen one but all you'll get in reply are more stories and experiences. You may even be present when they see them, even though you still cannot see them yourself.

But if you persist in not believing in them, but instead trust in your own senses and experiences then you may be ridiculed by the believers, possibly victimised. Whatever happens, you may find yourself talking about unicorns for a good portion of your life even though you do not believe in them. I've started to read the first chapter but this may be a book that I abandon.

Chapter One is an interesting, though brief summary explaining how atheism developed in the west. This is what I initially thought the whole book was going to be about. In Chapter Two Hyman explains how reasoning about God developed from Aquinas through to Descartes and Kant and then through to the modern day. Studies in epistemology ended with philosophers doubting their own existence.

He makes the distinction between Aquinas who believed that we could 'know' that God exists but we didn't know the form he took. Whereas Descartes et al. I guess that the author believes this to be the pivotal chapter in the book. He starts the chapter by asking whether the 'alien powers of secular philosophy' corrupted the 'authentic theism' and then dismisses Descartes' method because it 'was entirely immanent and God-less, and would thus ultimately lead to conclusions that were likewise immanent and God-less'.

I don't agree, but Aquinas' method just says 'we know God exists' which can only lead to the conclusion that The rest of the chapter is academic drivel which just reminds me why I stopped reading philosophy and studied physics instead. Surely, the only conclusion that you can come to after reading philosophy is that the existence of God cannot be proved by philosophical meditation. Amazon Australia Services, Inc.

Share your thoughts with other customers. Write a customer review. Most helpful customer reviews on Amazon. Hyman's history is hardly a who's who of modern atheists. Rather, it traces the route by which modern epistemological discussion produced atheism. Hyman contends that the God the atheist rejects and the theist defends is a distinctly modern concept whose identity was shaped by subjectivist Enlightenment epistemologies, both rational and empirical.

Hyman exposes two tendencies in the modern debate over God's existence. The first is the Theist's unwitting endorsement of epistemic justifications for God's existence that simultaneously present new angles for atheistic counterattack. The second is the atheist's inability to recognize the God he rejects is a modern construct, but God Himself may be immune to rejection. In short, modern theism and modern atheism exist in a symbiotic relationship and flourish on similar epistemic foundations. For anyone who has the sneaking suspicion that the medieval tradition can make a positive contribution to modern thought, Hyman's book is a must read.

This book was used in the class Evil, Suffering, and God. The development of the idea of God that philosophers have held over time is pretty good.

As a retiree in a college classromm, I am in over my head; however, I was still able to glean some interesting ideas, thanks to the professor. Gavin Hyman's work is both weighty and easy to read. It is not a polemical work, there is no atheist or Christian bashing - simply a narrative told from a slightly different but highly sophisticated perspective. His readings of Descartes and Newton in particular, were just brilliant - showing how modernity restructured the popular mindset in such a way as to turn god from the almighty omnipotent Yahweh to the fragile and mischievous tinkerbell destined to disappear the moment you stop believing in him.

It is written from a Christian perspective but issues a serious if implicit challenge to Christians was their god invented in the 17th century? Equally, it is perhaps too quickly dismissed by atheists who prefer the tried and tested cliched histories of atheism. This book adds something genuinely new to the debate and is definitely worth the read. Get to Know Us.

Amazon Web Services Goodreads Shopbop. Not Enabled Word Wise: