Great new review of 50 Great Myths About Atheism

From the current issues of the Journal of Contemporary Religion 2014; 29(3): 572-574.

50 Great Myths about Atheism
RUSSELL BLACKFORD & UDO SCHU¨ KLENK, 2013
Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell
274 pp., £50.00, US$84.95 (hb), £14.99, US$24.95 (pb)
ISBN 978–0–470–67404–8 (hb), ISBN 978–0–470–67405–5 (pb), ISBN 978–1–118–
60781–7 (eb)

In 50 Great Myths about Atheism, Russell Blackford, Conjoint Lecturer in the
School of Humanities and Social Science at the University of Newcastle,
Australia, and Udo Schu¨klenk, Professor of Philosophy at Queen’s University,
Canada, explore 50 ideas about atheists that they consider to be often
wrongfully upheld. The authors, who also wrote 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We
Are Atheists, tackle each ‘myth’ in succession throughout the book, giving their
reasons for considering the notion invalid or at least unfair.

The material in the present volume is presented according to themes. After
an introductory chapter, in which the authors explain the structure of the book
and define the main concepts, myths are addressed related to (in sequential
order) the meaning of atheism, the style of living of atheists, ethics and the
soul of atheists, name calling, the unpleasantness of atheists, faith and reason,
religion and science, and the future of atheisms. For all the myths, the authors
typically first introduce the source of the myth and then offer a rebuttal of the
statement. The last chapter of the book, entitled “The Rise of Modern
Atheism”, covers a coherent discussion of the history of atheism as well as
arguments against some classic theistic lines of reasoning and arguments
against the notion that religion and science are compatible.

Blackford and Schu¨ klenk have done an admirable job in refuting the claims
they deem unjustly attributed to atheism. Overall, the authors’ arguments are
convincing and well supported by citations and examples. For instance, in the
case of myth 38, “Atheists Don’t Understand the Nature of Faith”, different
definitions of faith as advanced by various religious writers are cited and
discussed, after which the authors persuasively explain how none of these
definitions precludes atheists from understanding what faith means. Inevitably,
however, with so many different sub-sections, some myths are more
compellingly refuted than others. In the myth just mentioned, the philosophical
claim is supplemented by the empirical finding that, in the United States,
atheists generally know more about religion than those who self-identify as
religious. There are more sections where rational arguments are supplemented
by empirical data, for example, myth 17, “Atheists Fear Death (More than
Others)” and myth 22, “Atheists Don’t Give to Charity”. The book is
predominantly philosophical, however, so that no empirical data are provided
for many other myths. Understandably, data are in many cases not available
and in other cases not necessary. However, certain myths suggest demographic
and/or attitudinal claims about atheists and in these cases it is arguable that
the absence of empirical data renders the refutation somewhat less conclusive.
Assertions such as “Atheists See No Good in Religion” (myth 7) and “Atheists
Want to Strip People of their Beliefs” (myth 33) are refuted by Blackford and
Schu¨ klenk; they state, for example, that “atheists are not necessarily hostile to
all religion” (28) and that “there is nothing in the mere concept of atheism that
could justify the use of force or other forms of coercion as legitimate means of
transforming religious people into fellow atheists” (110). It remains a mystery,
however, to what extent the attitudes addressed by the myths are in reality
represented in the non-religious population. Logical arguments, in that sense,
can only provide part of the answer. In fact, it is not impossible that sometimes
philosophy and empiricism could provide different answers to the same
question. A clear example is myth 5, “Atheists Hate or are Angry with God”.
The authors propose that atheists cannot be angry be with God because they do
not believe that God exists. Philosophically, of course, this argument is solid.
Psychological research has shown, however, that people who self-identify as
atheists and agnostics can and do report anger towards God at times (Exline
et al.; Exline, Yali and Lobel). Whether those who report anger towards God
may be called atheists is a separate discussion and this does, of course, not
mean that the myth itself, namely that all (or most) atheists are angry with God,
is true. However, it does at least qualify the philosophical claim that atheists
cannot be angry with God.

Not all myths discussed in 50 Great Myths about Atheism are claims of
demographics or attitudes of atheists. In fact, many statements can be and are
well refuted, with the refutation based solely on philosophical arguments, such
as myth 20, “Without God there is no Morality”. Moreover, even in the
discussions that do leave space for empirical support, many interesting and
thought-provoking arguments are brought forward by the authors that should
trigger the reader to at least (re-)consider the truthfulness of the particular
claim about atheists. As the book is broken up into small sections, it is highly
accessible and allows readers to pick and choose the items they find most
interesting.

Overall, Blackford and Schu¨klenk’s work is a valuable contribution to the
debate between believers and non-believers. One hopes that the comics of
Jesus and Mo, which are dispersed throughout the book, in order, one
assumes, to amuse most non-religious readers, will not discourage religious
readers to pick up this book and consider the well debated ‘other side’ of
some of the beliefs about atheists they may hold.

SUZANNE BRINK
University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
© 2014 Suzanne Brink
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13537903.2014.945778


REFERENCES
Blackford, Russell, and Udo Schu¨klenk, eds. 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists. Chichester,
West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.
Exline, Julie J., Crystal L. Park, Joshua M. Smyth, and Michael P. Carey. “Anger toward God:
Social-cognitive Predictors, Prevalence, and Links with Adjustment to Bereavement and
Cancer.” Journal of Social and Personality Psychology 100 (2011): 129–48.
Exline, Julie J., Ann M. Yali, and Marci Lobel. “When God Disappoints: Difficulty Forgiving God
and its Role in Negative Emotion. Journal of Health Psychology 4 (1999): 365–79.

The reasonableness of atheism

The Jamaican national broadsheet The Gleaner published during the last two weeks columns by one of its columnists, Ian Boyne, attacking atheists. You can find them here and here. Today the paper published my response to Boyne. I replicate that response below.

Over the last two weeks, Ian Boyne decided to call a spade a spade as far as us annoying atheists are concerned. They were two overly long columns, saturated with names of people he likes and scorns. Their authority typically is celebrated by means of affiliation or Oxford University generally.

Boyne even manages to ascribe competencies to Christian writers he agrees with that they demonstrably do not have. Alistair McGrath, a Christian theologian trained in history whose qualifications even include a doctorate in molecular biology, is declared without further ado a philosopher by Mr Boyne.

While he says he is braced for ad hominem attacks by 'trite atheists', it strikes me that such generalised statements about a very diverse group of people are, well, ad hominem themselves, aren't they? Reading his columns, I tried to understand what his message to the reading public is other than walking away with the bragging rights of having read more books than those 'trite atheists'.

Well, I have only one column in which to respond to Mr Boyne. I am actually a trained philosopher, in fact a professor of philosophy, and I happen to be an atheist. I can truthfully say that I've read the works of most people he mentions in his columns. Some of these authors I happen to know well personally. Alas, that has not persuaded me of the reasonableness of theism, and that, surely, is what Mr Boyne is after.

I will not spend the next few paragraphs dropping names on you, or at least there will be very few. I will focus on arguments, not prestige, affiliation and whatnot. What I will do is to address - hidden under all those names and Oxford University Press volumes - what I take to be Mr Boyne's main bones of contention with philosophical atheists.

They seem to be these: As human beings, our capacity to understand things in the world is limited by our biological limitations. There could be realities that are beyond our scientific abilities to discover.

Among others, one of Mr Boyne's favourite Christian apologists, Alvin Plantinga, has developed this kind of argument. He claims that we would have no reason to assume that our cognitive faculties are reliable if they were just the product of evolutionary processes. So, he ends up proposing a form of evolution - many of Mr Boyne's fellow Christians will shudder in disbelief - that includes an element of divine guidance, as only that would give us reason to trust our faculties. After all, God wouldn't fool around with us, or would He/She/It? Well, most philosophical atheists happen to be philosophical naturalists. Guilty as charged, Mr Boyne.

We acknowledge our scientific limitations. To us, the fact that our intellectual capacities are limited by the state of our evolution is not evidence that there is something else to be discovered that is outside our senses and that we just cannot grasp.

BOYNE DESPERATE

Incidentally, talking in this context vaguely about 'non-scientific ways of knowing', as Mr Boyne does, sounds a tad bit desperate to me. Unless he, or his fellow Christian apologists, give us a bit more meat to play with, let me just say that I do think this theological emperor is pretty naked. It appears to me that naturalistic processes provide us with the necessary reliability in selecting true beliefs about the world around us.

How can we test that claim? One way would be to point to our never-ending and ever-accelerating scientific progress. We know more about the world and the universe than we ever did. Insisting that there could be something else around us that we just cannot grasp by means of scientific inquiry is, for all practical intent and purposes, just hand-waving by the religious.

Is it possible that there is something else in the universe that we cannot grasp because of how we have evolved? Sure, it's possible. Just as it is possible that our planet rests on a metaphysical teapot that our scientific methods have so far been unable to discover and that requires Boynian 'non-scientific ways of knowing' to understand it.

What I am trying to get at is that raising this exceedingly unlikely possibility is clutching at straws. It's a desperate attempt by theists to avoid drowning in an ever-increasing sea of scientific knowledge.

So, even if Professor Schellenberg has a philosophical point, nothing follows with regard to the reasonableness of theism. Perhaps that is the reason why he is an atheist. At the end of the day, you have to assign probabilities to these sorts of theoretical possibilities. And the probabilities are vanishingly low for the God proposition.

To support his views, Mr Boyne cites an atheistic philosopher, Thomas Nagel, at great length. The thing about Nagel is that his book on the subject matter (as well as an earlier article in a leading philosophy journal) was ripped to pieces by evolutionary biologists and philosophers specialising in the study of biology. Nagel does not appear to have a sound grasp of

evolutionary theory. Hence his tacit support for 'intelligent design' is not based on a sound understanding of the scientific matters at stake.

MISPLACED EXCITEMENT

Mr Boyne also gets excited about another poster boy of current-day Christian apologetics, William Lane Craig. Boyne claims that he has seen many an atheist debate Lane Craig, but he has not seen a single one floor him. Funnily enough, I have seen many of these debates, too, and it seems to me that Lane-Craig looks bad in pretty all of them, but so it goes, I guess. You'll always give more credence to those batting on your team.

Lane Craig's claim to fame has been his attempt to recycle medieval Christian and Islamic theologians' attempts at proving the existence of God by means of a cosmological argument.

Basically what's done in this argument is to use remarkable features of our natural world, particularly its origin in the Big Bang about 14 billion years ago, and posit God as the best explanation. Of course, 'God' is really a place-holder indicating what we do not know today. If history is anything to go by, we are likely able to find out tomorrow.

However, even if we never found out, 'God' would still not constitute an explanation for things we do not understand in the world around us. And if we do find out, there would probably be some further mystery for which 'God' will be offered as an 'explanation'.

At the heart of this all, seemingly, is the need of religious believers to attain something approaching certainty about their various godly saviours. If they had simply decided to stick to believing that their God exists, everything would be hunky-dory. But no, they started fantasising about ways of 'knowing' about their invisible friend in the sky. They tried hard to develop logical proofs for the existence of their gods, and what not else. All that failed.

Even if one granted them everything they're saying about the limitations of scientific inquiry, nothing follows at all with regard to the existence of 'God'. Scientists would have no problems at all adapting their methods if they turned out to deliver new insights. Meanwhile, vague reference to 'non-scientific ways of knowing' won't do.

To give credit where credit is due, Mr Boyne seems to search seriously for answers to obvious doubts that he must have about his beliefs. Why else would he spend this much time engaging in debates with 'trite' atheists in the pages of this paper? After all, he could squander words beating up on homosexuals, as his fellow columnist Mr Espeut is wont to do.

It's a good thing that Mr Boyne, even if he cannot let go of his beliefs, is looking sincerely at the arguments. There is some empirical evidence to suggest many people might never be able to let go of their deeply held religious beliefs. It could well be biological and irreversible. No, I am not kidding here. In case you care about religiosity as a biological phenomenon, you might want to check out Andrew Newberg and Eugene D Aquili's book Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief.

Udo Schuklenk is a professor of philosophy at Queen's University in Kingston, Canada, and with Russell Blackford co-author of '50 Great Myths About Atheism'. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com. Schuklenk tweets @Schuklenk

Words from the production line

It's been a good couple of weeks, productivity wise. Our upcoming '50 Great Myths About Atheism' is with the typesetters. Russell Blackford, the book's other author, and I should be getting the proofs back by the end of the month. Excellent news. We had the pleasure of working with a copy editor who was absolutely amazing. I can't stress enough her diligence and efficiency. She certainly prevented quite a few mistakes on our part finding their way into print.

Well, the other good productivity news, after working for a few months with Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer on the line-up of the 3rd edition of our textbook 'Bioethics - An Anthology' we are pretty close to sending our proposed new line-up off to the publisher. Helga and Peter kindly invited me to join them as the third editor of what was until they asked me to join them their 'baby'. It's been fun looking for suitable content, trying to think what would, what would work better, and what would not work in the classroom.

Last but by no means least, I've managed to write the first two chapters of 'This is Bioethics', and I've started the eleventh chapter.

50 Great Myths About Atheism

Ha, and there it is, in all its glory, the cover of our upcoming 50 Great Myths About Atheism! You can't say that folks could easily overlook it in their local bookstore (where they still exist)!

The publisher is currently producing the page pdf's, so it'll be a few more months before it'll actually be out!

Korean edition of 50 Voices of Disbelief

And here it is, the cover page of the Korean edition of 50 Voices of Disbelief, it's coming in at a whopping 550 pages, no less. After the Polish edition of the volume, this is the second foreign language edition, it'll soon be followed by a Spanish translation. I am pleased to report that the Polish rights for our up-coming 50 Great Myths about Atheism (Wiley-Blackwell 2013) have been sold already. Fingers crossed there will be more international editions of that work!

2013 here we come

I'm off to a good start into 2013, at least on the work-related fronts. Russell Blackford and I submitted in the dying days of 2012 the final copy of our up-coming 50 Great Myths about Atheism to Wiley-Blackwell, our publisher. I have also been working diligently with Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer on the 3rd edition of Bioethics - An Anthology, which should also be out some time this year. It's going to be an 800+ pages doorstopper. The question is what to do with the remainder of my sabbatical, roughly another 9 months worth of no teaching and administrative responsibilities at the university. I need to get going on a book project on Global Health Ethics, but there's also a tempting new introductory bioethics textbook to produce that's heavily oriented toward the inclusion and utilisation of on-line networking tools. Difficult call, but a decision has to be made. I have also written a piece that's forthcoming during the next few days in the Journal of medical ethics. Using the debate on infanticide I show how bioethics journal editors come under ever-increasing scrutiny by political campaigners and other pressure groups to publish whatever it is that these campaigners and organizations deem 'right', and that we cease and desist from publishing content they disapprove of. These are worrying developments. Keep your eyes open for the article. I understand that it will be an Open Access document, but if it isn't, ask me for the pdf and I shall post it your way. With Ricardo Smalling I have co-authored a paper that also coming out in the next few days, this one in the Journal of Medical Humanities. We are looking there at the impact religiously motivated anti-gay sentiments have on the professional (or not so professional) conduct of some health care professionals. Not terribly original is our suggestion that tighter regulations are required to protect queer patients from such health care personnel's unprofessional conduct. But it had to be said. We are also taking head-on the silly idea that conscience based objections to homosexuality should be a valid reason to treat queer patients different to other patients. Right now I am revising the entry on 'Utilitarianism' for the 4th edition of the Encyclopedia of Bioethics. I had written pretty much what I thought ought to be said and passed it by a number of colleagues. I received plenty  of very constructive feed-back in the middle of the holiday season (who says academics are lazy!). During the rest of this week I will revise what I got, and then submit to the editors of the encyclopedia.

2013 will see in Canada a number of exciting landmark cases being decided by the Supreme Court (well, by virtue of them coming to the Supreme Court they got to be landmark cases, of course). Among them a case where the family of a patient in persistent vegetative state wants the taxpayers to fork out 2,000 C$ per day for futile medical care vs doctors who think they'd have the last word on cessation of treatment. I am not in favour of either party here, so I am curious what the Court will make of it all. Then, of course, presumably by the middle of the year, the Court should issue a finding on the constitutionality of the criminal code prohibition of any form of assisted dying in the country. I suspect that a lot will hang on whether the judges on the Court can be persuaded by one side or the other that there is or isn't a slippery slope from decriminalizing assisted dying in some form or shape to the killing of people who do not wish to see their lives terminated.  I have seen no proof for the existence of such a slippery-slope, but who knows what the judges on the Court will make of the arguments and evidence presented to it. If you were to ask me for a prediction, I would guess that the Court will find that the absolute prohibition of assisted dying in all cases simply is too broad, and that it will open the door for decriminalization in a restricted number of clearly defined cases. But then, your guess is as good as mine.

2013 promises to be an exciting year for us bioethics and health policy wonks.

Ottawa Atheist/Humanist/Secular Event

The Ottawa Centre for Inquiry is hosting Eschaton 2012: Celebrating Reason at the End of the World, a 'weekend gathering of scientists, philosophers, authors, academics, skeptics, rationalists, humanists, atheists, and freethinkers, where you can see presentations and join discussions on science, skepticism, gender issues, theocracy vs secularism, godless ethics, parenting beyond belief. Featured speakers include blogger PZ Myers, author Ophelia Benson, philosopher Chris DiCarlo, science education activist Eugenie Scott, and many others.'

Check out the full  programme here. The line-up of confirmed speakers (including yours truly) is here. I must say, I am looking forward to hopefully meeting in person Ophelia Benson, one of the contributors to our 50 Voices of Disbelief.

I am part of the panel on 'Godless Ethics and Godless Communities'. My offering on the day will be this:

Myths about Atheist Values

In our forthcoming book ’50 Great Myths About Atheism’ (Wiley-Blackwell 2013) Russell Blackford and I analyze a variety of commonplace myths about atheism. I will discuss four such myths that are relevant to the panel topic, namely: ‘Without God there is no morality’, ‘Atheists are moral relativists’, ‘Atheism robs life of meaning and purpose,’ and ‘Atheists deny the sanctity of human life.’ These myths are a good selection for the panel, because they look at the question of whether we need a higher authority to ground ethics, whether – in the absence of such an authority – we are bound to create secular societies bereft of any stable values, and whether that would lead to our lives becoming meaningless and vacuous. In light of recent Canadian debates about the pro’s and con’s of introducing abortion legislation it seems apt to ask finally whether atheists really callously deny the sanctity of human life. 

Hope to see you there!

Sabbatical Projects

I meant to write this awhile ago, but haven't had a chance to do so. These days I am pretty busy working on various book projects that involve fairly heavy writing as well as editing. I'm hoping, when my sabbatical is over in a year's time, I might have three books to show for the time spent away from university. So, here's the plan. I'm writing with Russell Blackford 50 Great Myths About Atheism. I guess it's fair to say that we are only a few weeks away from completing the manuscript. Then I'm producing with Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer the 3rd edition of the bioethics text book Bioethics: An Anthology. We hope to be done with this project by the end of this year. Last but not least, come August I will start writing in all earnest for a joint project with Christopher Lowry, a book called Global Health Ethics. All of these will be out with Wiley-Blackwell.

Well, other than these projects, I do continue editing both the journals Bioethics as well as Developing World Bioethics, with Ruth Chadwick and Debora Diniz, respectively. There's also a few other articles promised to editors of anthologies and bioethics journals that I am trying to complete. Yep, that's about it. It's gonna be a very busy time. It's interesting that fellow academics' first question, when they hear that you're going on a sabbatical, is 'where are you going?', when really they might as well ask, 'what will you be doing?'. Anyhow, I'm trying to travel as little as is feasible in order to get on with the task of completing these projects.

Critical Success for our anthology '50 Voices of Disbelief'

Here is a post copied verbatim from Russell Blackford's blog. 


The reviews quoted on the Amazon site have mounted up over time, and there are a few I didn't know about (in particular, the one in the Times Higher Education Supplement had slipped past me). We really did have some critical success with this book. So let me brag a little, just this once:

"For students in comparative religion this volume offers ample material and powerful reasons to make them subject most if not all religious claims to a highly critical appraisal, preparing for a constructive and public debate." (Acta Comparanda, 2011)

"50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists brings together many scholars and intellectuals from a variety of academic fields who explain the reasons why they do not believe in God. Russell Blackford and Udo Schüklenk's unique collection of original essays not only consists of short, digestible essays which are full of introductory presentations of both positive and negative arguments in support of atheism, but also in its candid testimonials which are more personally oriented." (Reviews in Religion, 2011)

"The international cast of contributors includes many well-known names, from a diversity of fields-notably philosophy (about a third of the writers are philosophers) science, journalism, politics and science fiction. By no means do they agree on everything, but the unifying themes of rejection of conventional religions and acceptance of secular humanism shine through brightly. A descriptive list of contributors and an excellent index complement the essays, many of which are accompanied by useful endnotes and references." (Quadrant, September 2010)

"It was mostly fascinating reading, in particular, those articles that abstained from using dull polemics and cynicism. Some of the articles-most notably from Nicholas Everitt, Thomas W. Clark, Michael Shermer, Peter Tatchell, Michael Tooley, and Udo Schüklenk-can indeed be used in undergraduate courses concerned with the existence of God in philosophy, ethics, and theology. I recommend this volume especially for all those who need to grasp a general and easy introduction into atheistic reasoning." (Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 2010)

"I recommend this volume especially for all those who need to grasp a general and easy introduction into atheistic reasoning." (Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 2010)

“The essays in this book reveal a great concern for our human plight, a concern that is the equal of religious impulses; they raise a richness of issues that are too often ignored, including the ultimate fear of the theists that perhaps in time it may well be possible to settle the question of God’s existence. The fifty voices in this book have spoken out with more than a small amount of courage. What emerges from thinking about these essays is a realization of what human reason is up against, within ourselves.” (Free Inquiry, August/September 2010)

"Good writing and clear thinking don't always go hand in hand. It's a pleasure, then, to find both in a recent book about going it alone -- no deus ex machina for us, please -- titled 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists. In one volume, edited by Russell Blackford and Udo Schuklenk, you'll find idiosyncratic essays by a range of atheists from science fiction authors and philosophers to scientists and activists." (Psychology Today, Creating in Flow Blog, May 2010)

"Many of the pieces in this book are full of superior contempt for the intellectual inadequacy of theism. Tatchell is forthright in his criticism of religion, but he never sneers. The essays in this book are all clearly argued, and will reassure the already faithful that they are neither daft nor deluded." (Church Times, April 2010)

"The contemporary relevance,and timeliness of this book is unsurpassed. It is ... an account of various well known non-believers [and] personal viewpoints, directed at a popular audience. Very approachable at all levels, containing a wide range of stories, anecdotes and personal statements about why each of the authors considers themselves to be a non believer. Overall, this book is well suited for a mainstream audience, interested in questioning the power that religion holds over our lives. It [also] has good references ... which will also serve to guide the reader if further information is wanted. Thus, I recommend this book to anyone (regardless of their views concerning religion) interested in understanding why different people hold certain views concerning religion." (Metapsychology, April 2010)

"By turns witty, serious, engaging and information, it is always human and deeply honest, and immensely rewarding to read." (Times Higher Education Supplement, December 2009)

"Carefully considered statements … .Contributions range from rigorous philosophical arguments to highly personal, even whimsical, accounts of how each of these notable thinkers have come to reject religion in their lives. Likely to have broad appeal." (Australian Atheist, November 2009)

"I am strongly recommending it as a present for anyone who has an interest in atheism/theism from either side of the debate. It's just a great read, from great authors." (Stephen Law Blogspot, October 2009)

"It’s a very good book, and I recommend it for all of us godless ones — or those who are considering abjuring the divine. It’s far more than just a collection of stories about 'How I came to give up God.' Many of the writers describe the philosophical and empirical considerations that led them to atheism. Indeed, the book can be considered a kind of philosophical handbook for atheists." (Why Evolution is True Blog, October 2009)

"Wow! A book about atheism and it’s not written by Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett or Harris! So this book is welcome partly because it helps break that knee-jerk reaction. But it’s also welcome because many of its contributors advance interesting ideas. There’s plenty to choose from. And one advantage of a collection like this is that you can dip into it wherever you want. There is something for everyone. And there is the opportunity to discover new ideas." (Open Parachute, October 2009)

"For many who have spent some time involved in any form of engagement in these matters, the names should appear familiar: from the great AC Grayling to the revolutionary Maryam Namazie. Finally, in one book we can hear their stories – if not about themselves, then about the aspects of religion or lack thereof they find most important. If all these contributors were speakers at a convention, it would be sold out many times over." (Butterflies and Wheels, October 2009)

"In their excellent collection of essays exploring and defending the philosophical stance of atheism, Russell Blackford and Udo Schüklenk had an inclusive vision. Contributors to the book range from those with science-fiction backgrounds to modern-day philosophy." (Kirkus Reviews, October 2009)

"In more than 50 brief statements organized by Blackford and philosopher Schüklenk ... contributors share views—their routes toward nonbelief and their feelings about the place of religion in the world ... including James (the Amazing) Randi, a well-known magician and debunker of spurious psychic phenomena. Considering the popularity of Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion, Christopher Hitchens's God Is Not Great, and Sam Harris's The End of Faith, [these] memoirs and observations will be of interest to disbelievers." (Library Journal, October 2009)

Follow-up to 50 Voices of Disbelief in the Making

Russell Blackford and I published in late 2009 the anthology '50 Voices of Disbelief - Why We are Atheists'. The book has been pretty successful by academic standards. A Polish translation is forthcoming in a few weeks time. The publisher of the book is Wiley-Blackwell, one of the largest academic publishing houses in North America. Wiley-Blackwell is producing a series of popular volumes looking at for instance debunking myths about popular psychology. Russell and I have been asked to produce a volume looking at investigating 50 popular myths about atheism for this series. This certainly is an exciting project, both because of the popular reach of these volumes, but also because both of us thoroughly enjoyed putting together '50 Voices of Disbelief' at the time. Of course, the challenge this time is somewhat different in that we are not tasked with finding and herding together a diverse group of more than 50 contributors, instead this time around we will be writing the book ourselves.

Here then an appeal to anyone who has come across what they believe are particularly powerful myths about atheism that people fall for, do drop us a line so that we can consider including them in our line-up.

Some speech deserves to be marginalised

says my good buddy Russell Blackford on his blog. Check it out.

Wow, you can buy digital content from our book and individual chapters

That is interesting... I discovered by chance today that Wiley-Blackwell is selling individual chapters from our book 50 Voices of Disbelief - Why We Are Atheists online. So, if you want any given chapter as a file... feel free :-). I wonder whether this is the future of book publishing? indistinguishable from a journal compilation.

Stand up, stand up, against Jesus

Civility has its uses, but we should not be afraid of satire and mockery as weapons against religious power

• Russell Blackford and Udo Schuklenk
• guardian.co.uk, Friday 6 November 2009 10.30 GMT

The question: Is there an atheist schism?

Religious teachings promise us much — eternal life, spiritual salvation, moral direction, and a deeper understanding of reality. It all sounds good, but these teachings are also onerous in their demands. If they can't deliver on what they promise, it would be well to clear that up. Put bluntly, are the teachings of any religion actually true or not? Do they have any rational support? It's hard to see what questions could be more important. Surely the claims of religion — of all religions — merit scrutiny from every angle, whether historical, philosophical, scientific, or any other.

Contrary to many expectations in the 1970s, or even the 1990s, religion has not faded away, even in the Western democracies, and we still see intense activism from religious lobbies. Even now, one religion or another opposes abortion rights, most contraceptive technologies, and therapeutic cloning research. Various churches and sects condemn many harmless, pleasurable sexual activities that adults can reasonably enjoy. As a result, these are frowned upon, if not prohibited outright, in many parts of the world, indeed people lose their lives because of them. Most religious organisations reject dying patients' requests to end their lives as they see fit. Even in relatively secular countries, such as the UK, Canada, and Australia, governments pander blatantly to Christian moral concerns as the protection of religiously motivated refusals to provide medical professional services demonstrates.

In a different world, the merits, or otherwise, of religious teachings might be discussed more dispassionately. In that world, some of us who criticise religion itself might be content to argue that the church (and the mosque, and all the other religious architecture that sprouts across the landscape) should be kept separate from the state. Unfortunately, however, we don't live in that world.

When religion claims authority in the political sphere, it is unsurprising — and totally justifiable — that atheists and skeptics question the source of this authority. If religious organisations or their leaders claim to speak on behalf of a god, it is fair to ask whether the god concerned really makes the claims that are communicated on its behalf. Does this god even exist? Where is the evidence? And even if this being does exist, why, exactly, should its wishes be translated into law?

In many situations, it is better to be civil, as Paul Kurtz has pointed out, but satire and mockery have traditionally had a legitimate place whenever absurd ideas are joined to power and privilege. Enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire often used mockery to show the absurdity of ideological stances — including religious ones — that were considered sacrosanct. Mockery is one way of saying that a view does not deserve to be taken seriously. Religious views are fair game if one can also show, on a more serious level, why the view in question does indeed not deserve serious respect.

Perhaps some rationalist or humanist organisations, such as Kurtz's venerable Center for Inquiry, do have good reason to maintain a scholarly and dignified brand image. But there is also room for the younger, brasher atheists whom Kurtz inaccurately brands as "fundamentalists", and, in any event, there is a world of difference between appropriate civility and keeping quiet.
In the US, unfortunately, some atheists appear to have concluded that even civil and thoughtful criticism of supposedly "moderate" religion (i.e., almost anything that does not dispute evolutionary theory) should be discouraged.

These "accommodationist" atheists tend to be focused on science advocacy, particularly the teaching of evolution in public schools. In seeking public support for their positions, they think it prudent to take the various American demographics as they are. Since they want to sell evolutionary science to very large numbers of pious Americans, the last thing they want is to see it linked with atheism.

Once you think in that way, from a kind of marketing perspective, it can take over your approach to what you think you ought to say. Sincerity goes out the window, and everything must be "framed" to please the audience. We doubt that this strategy can work.

Religion cannot be eradicated — that is not a realistic goal — but the many problems with religious dogma can and should be highlighted. As atheists, we should state clearly that no religion has any rational warrant, and that many churches and sects promote cruelty, ignorance, and civil rights abuses.

There are harmful consequences to real people in the real world if the views of churches and sects are enshrined in law or given undue social deference - the acceptance even in liberal secular societies of conscientious objection as a legitimate reason for health care professionals and even civil servants to refuse to provide professional services to certain citizens is a case in point. For these reasons it is important that we should speak out and publicly contest the special authority that is accorded, all too often, to pontiffs, imams, priests, and presbyters. Religious leaders are not our moral leaders, much as they clamour to be, and however much the politicians flatter them. These spiritual emperors have no clothes, and we shouldn't flinch from saying so.

Tauriq Moosa interviews Russell Blackford and Udo Schuklenk

Interview With Russell Blackford and Udo Schüklenk


By Tauriq Moosa

With atheist best-sellers flying off the book-shelves, people are now finding their beliefs questioned, probed and examined. Lumping all arguments together, many dismiss the new wave of intellectual concern as a crass form of schoolyard bullying, calling all those critical of religion “new atheists”. But what is forgotten in these discussions is the human side, the reasons for not believing and what that means in our lives. Many know the arguments against belief but now the point has come to ask another question: why does that matter? In an effort to do just that, two philosophers, Russell Blackford from Australia and German-born Udo Schüklenk have co-edited a book which seeks to solve recent problems for the modern non-believer. 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We are Atheists, was published recently by Wiley-Blackwell.

For many who have spent some time involved in any form of engagement in these matters, the names should appear familiar: from the great AC Grayling to the revolutionary Maryam Namazie. Finally, in one book we can hear their stories – if not about themselves, then about the aspects of religion or lack thereof they find most important. If all these contributors were speakers at a convention, it would be sold out many times over. Udo and Russell kindly agreed to delve further into the background of the book.

Someone with no knowledge on this subject might ask why is a project like 50 Voices of Disbelief is so important in today's climate? And what does this project do that other "atheist" books don't?

Udo: As we say in our Introduction, it's important because there are numerous attempts made the world all over the stifle atheists' and humanists' freedom of speech, in our case the right to criticise religion. Even the UN and its misnamed human rights council is in on it. So yes, it is more important than ever before to let voices of reason and rationality be heard. There cannot be special rules for religious organisations that exempt them from critical inquiry and scrutiny.

Our anthology is unique because it gives a voice to a very wide range of contributors, including philosophers, writers, journalists, even a magician! They all responded to our call to explain in their own words why they do not believe in the God the monotheistic religions have been peddling to us for centuries. The book is eminently readable and fun, to my mind, because it includes so many personal accounts of well-known writers on why they are atheists.

You have a range of spectacular contributors, ranging from AC Grayling to Maryam Namazie. But I imagine there were many more to choose from. How did you decide on the contributors and why?

Udo: We chose them based on professional standing, expertise and capacity to say something original and readable.

All three of us study philosophy academically and a common question is asked about philosophy's purpose in the modern world. How big a part did philosophy play in your views and in the creation of this project?

Udo: Of course, I am very strongly influenced by the values of enlightenment philosophy. Works by Holbach, Descartes, Voltaire, Kant and others had a huge impact on how I formed my views of the world. Their work and that of others like them, undertaken under much more difficult circumstances, motivates me to keep the light of reason alight.

Russell: My own reasons for disbelief are philosophical, and I realized over 30 years ago that the Christian view of the world, which concerned me most among the world's religions, just doesn't add up. Take the problem of evil, for example. Many people claim to have solved it, or that someone else has solved it, or in any event that it has been solved or is solvable. But the supposed solutions are highly implausible, often even absurd or irrelevant, and anyone who thinks the problem has been solved doesn't really understand it (or doesn't take it seriously).

Again, the doctrine of sacrificial atonement makes no moral or other sense, and we have no rational grounds to accept claims about the empty tomb and the resurrection of the apocalyptic Jewish prophet known to us as Jesus of Nazareth. However, my motivation to speak up, and express my disbelief publicly, after keeping my peace somewhat for quite a long time now, is not just philosophical; it is more political. Various religious groups, often deeply reactionary in one way or another, have been consolidating their social and political influence in Western societies, even though the percentage of believers has declined. In developing countries, Christianity and Islam are rapidly winning adherents - and the varieties of Christianity and Islam we are talking about are in no sense liberal or even moderate. All in all, "God is back", and I think that we've reached a point in human history when silence is not an option for people of reason.

What books do you recommend to those who have not really considered these questions before? Aside from obvious choices like Dawkins and Hitchens, are there any other talented writers that people should be aware of?

Russell: There are many writers beyond the so-called Four Horsemen (Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, and Sam Harris), so much so that any list will be extremely incomplete. The state of the art in academic philosophy by atheists continues to advance. A generation ago, the writer to watch out for was John Mackie, whose work is still very worth reading. But now the leading books are probably those of Michael Martin and Graham Oppy. Also watch out for the work of Michael Tooley, Nicholas Everitt, J.L. Schellenberg, among many others.

For a slightly more popular level of work that challenges Christian apologetics, try Dan Barker or John W. Loftus. I recently read Barker's Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists, and I totally recommend it. Ayaan Hirsi Ali's personal story in Infidel is compelling, and there are now many feminist writers tackling the way religions treat women - Ophelia Benson, Maryam Namazie, and Christine Overall come to mind.

On the origins of the Christian texts, see Bart Ehrman. For wide-ranging discussion of Islam, see Ibn Warraq. Then, not always focused on religion, there is the whole body of work by Michael Shermer. Victor J. Stenger and Taner Edis are among those who tackled the issues from a perspective very much grounded in current science. I also recommend Richard Carrier's Sense and Goodness without God: A Defence of Philosophical Naturalism.

Really, though, there is such a rich body of work now available, and I am failing to mention many superb contributors to the debate. If you're not looking for something highly academic, perhaps start with the book by Barker that I mentioned. If you want the full academic approach, try Mackie's The Miracle of Theism and then perhaps tackle Oppy's Arguing About Gods. Or start with 50 Voices of Disbelief and sample the ideas of many contemporary writers and activists.

Udo: If you don't mind, may I take this question as asking what works have most influenced me in this context? Truth be told, it's not so much recent literature, even though there is some excellent work out there. I have been greatly influenced and impressed by works such as Jean (Abbe) Meslier, Testament de J. Meslier (Mémoire contre la religion), d'Holbach's Christianisme dévoilé, as well as his Le Système de la nature, Voltaire's Candide of course, Russell's Why I am not a Christian as well as the German author Karl-Heinz Deschner's works. Not surprisingly most, if not all of these works were critical of Christianity as the hegemonic ideology in Europe. I am glad today we find more works addressing the ideology of Islam, such as for instance Warraq's analyses or Ali's Infidel.

Speaking of Ali and Benson, why do you think there are so few women engaged in the great god debates? Do you think this is a problem?

Russell: First, it's a problem in many ways. Partly because the situation will tend to replicate itself over time. That's unfortunate, because women have much to gain by freeing themselves from religion, and also because the broad rationalist movement needs the involvement of people with widely varied experiences of the world, not just wide variations in male experiences of it. Even with little or no overt discrimination against them in some enlightened places, women still face more subtle kinds of discrimination, and even if that is overcome, they need to see other women as role models and potential colleagues. Women will be more attracted to write books, produce movies, generally become active in defending atheist and rationalist positions, when they see other women doing so. All that acknowledged, we should not forget the enormous contributions that some women are, indeed, making right now - Margaret Downey, comes to mind, as does Maryam Namazie for her ongoing opposition to political Islam and the Islamic Republic of Iran, Sumitra Padmanabhan in the humanist movement in India, and many many others.

Udo: I think this is much to do with the fact that the traditional domain of secular analysis and thinking was philosophy and that discipline has historically been male dominated. This is changing and so we see increasingly women's involvements with these sorts of questions - think of Overall's works, Purdy's, as well as downright - and very much needed - activism such as Downey's, Namazie's and others. I have no doubt many of the early feminists would have been secular in outlook, but their focus - understandably so - wasn't to do with the God delusion but women's reproductive rights and such issues that were closer to home.

What are the implications for religious pandering occurring in the upper echelons of the UN and other bodies? And what would you say to those who think it is intellectual imperialism to criticise people's religions?

Russell: The implications won't be as straightforward as the creation of a binding UN convention in some horribly onerous form, or the enactment of massive restrictions on freedom of speech in, say, the US. Nonetheless, the more resolutions we see from UN bodies, such as the Human Rights Council, the more the high moral ground is given to theocrats and dictators, and the more the morale and effectiveness of local opponents of free speech in Western countries are strengthened. In the West, there are plenty of opponents of free speech, especially speech that criticises religion. Those opponents exist on both the Right and Left of politics - the Right because of its religiosity, the Left because of its sensitivity to traditional cultures. As for the second question, I am very suspicious of this whole idea of intellectual imperialism. Intellectual ideas, both good and bad, belong the whole world and all its people - otherwise we wouldn't have now have worldwide use of algebra and the zero sign. This talk of intellectual imperialism often seems like an excuse for theocrats and dictators to deny rights and liberties to their local populations.

Udo: Well, this coming from the German-born Pope during a recent visit to Africa where he propagated his ideology to the African peoples is a tad bit rich! Anyhow, I am not a friend of the currently existing UN, its corruption and its many utterly useless agencies, so I don't care too much about the shenanigans in this organisation that reminds me so very strongly of Andersen's naked emperor. Stopping my exasperated UN-related hand-waving now, there's a serious issue, however: these attempts at shielding religious beliefs (as opposed to any other beliefs) from sharp criticism and - yes - ridicule sets a dangerous precedent for free speech and, indeed free inquiry. That's why we got to oppose it. We should all deliberately and routinely be subversive on blogs, in letters to newspapers, in articles, on Facebook and other networking sites and so on and so forth, by way of overstepping the boundaries set by the UN Human Rights Council on this issue. The more people there are who undertake such actions the less likely it is that these rules will actually become societally acceptable norms of behaviour.

Talking about free-speech, do you think outright mockery is a necessary step in the ongoing debate? Or should we, as Paul Kurtz has suggested, defend those who mock but not criticise in such crass ways ourselves (by "ourselves", he was referring to his organisation the Centre for Inquiry, which publishes numerous magazines that your contributors have written for. James Randi, for example, has a column in one)?

Udo: A necessary step to achieve what end? It's difficult answering this question without knowing what the ends are that such means are supposed to realise. Mockery has traditionally had a legitimate place in political debates and arguments. Enlightenment philosophers have often used mockery to show how absurd an ideological (frequently religious) stance was that was considered sacrosanct during their times. Mockery is one way of saying 'this view does not deserve to be taken seriously', and that is fair game to my mind, if one is also able to show on a more serious level, why the view in question does indeed not deserve to be taken seriously.

Russell: I think it's reasonable for a corporation, or some other kind of collective, to establish a brand image that appeals to a certain membership or potential membership. E.g., it might want to welcome a broad range of people, some of whom would be offended by certain tactics. In that sense, Paul Kurtz may have a legitimate point about what the CFI should be doing. The CFI needs to sort that out, and I'm not sure in this particular instance, but people who take Kurtz's view of its approach are certainly entitled to argue for it.

Does that mean that atheists, in general, should never engage in "crass" tactics? Not at all. My own view is that it is, indeed, crass to mock religious believers just for the sake of it - or simply to offend them. But there is certainly a place for satire, comedy, even outright mockery. When we are confronted with absurd ideas and practices, it can sometimes be futile, and seem rather ponderous and silly, to try to demonstrate exactly why they are absurd. It might be possible in principle, but not concise or rhetorically persuasive. Sometimes you just do have to cut through and expose the absurdity for what it is, by making humorous comparisons, calling names (as when I call the Catholic Church "the Cult of Misery"), or engaging in whatever forms of ridicule and disrespect are needed to get the point across. When absurd dogma is combined with abuses of human rights, threats to liberties, dangers to human life or flourishing, I think the gloves should come off. In those cases, ridicule can be our best weapon against religious bullying or outright theocratic oppression.

Perhaps, Udo, “the necessary step” should be “a necessary step” - one of many, in ascension toward contentment with uncertainty. This is to realise that nothing we say is beyond failure and in the sense you describe, nothing is therefore beyond mockery. Are you saying that mockery, though delivered in a humorous way, is serious in scope?

Udo: Yes, mockery can well be a more 'deadly' argumentative tool than the best logical argument.

Do you think that there can be such a thing as a militant atheist, a dogmatic scientist or are they merely terms of dismissal? It seems that some people do completely revoke religion and replace it with something else. I am inherently cautious of standing behind labels but do you think it is necessary to call oneself an atheist, a humanist and so on? As AC Grayling has pointed out, humanism isn't even a philosophy, it is a mode of thought (similar to what Michael Shermer says about science).

Udo: There 'can' be militant atheists as well as dogmatic scientists. There could be atheists that bully and threaten, atheists that discriminate pro-actively against those who disagree with their views, and so on and so forth, i.e.: there could be atheists that on their atheistic crusade (sic!) take no prisoners, much like adherents of militant Islam take no prisoners. However, I was careful to say that there 'could be'... I have yet to meet an atheist that behaves like that. So, while it is theoretically possible, I have yet to encounter a militant atheist. The same applies to the question of the dogmatic scientist.

Russell: I'm not as worried as some people by the term "militant atheist". Militancy is sometimes just the opposite of passivity or gentility; it doesn't necessarily connote violence or bullying. I attempt to be civil in debate and to be kind to people even when I'm being tough on issues, but sometimes a certain degree of forthrightness or aggression is needed. Atheists are entitled to be militant in that sense. Of course, we are usually about the last people to resort to violence.

I don't doubt that some atheists and scientists can be stubborn or opinionated, like anyone else, but the one expression that I despise is "fundamentalist atheist". A fundamentalist atheist would have to be someone who adheres to the literal words of something like a holy book, even in the face of evidence. Okay, there may be some atheists like that somewhere in the world (perhaps some doctrinaire Marxists for example), but they are rare. They are very atypical of what we see in the current wave of explicit atheism, represented by people like Dawkins and Dennett, and our contributors. Generally, people become atheists because of the lack of evidence for particular religious beliefs, or because of positive evidence against certain beliefs. It is not because they have been socialised, or otherwise convinced, to put their blind faith in Das Kapital, or On the Origin of Species, or Why I Am Not A Christian, or The God Delusion. That's not how it works.

As for accepting or adopting labels, I'm ambivalent. I do identify as an atheist, if asked ... and sometimes even if not asked. But I completely understand why some people prefer to call themselves humanists, skeptics, or agnostics, or something fancier (philosophical naturalists, perhaps ... I like that one myself).

All of these terms can have varied meanings in different times or places, or for different people, so no one should be pressured to label herself in a particular way.

Also, in many circumstances, we may not need to identify as atheists (or whatever) at all. E.g., I think that atheists have good reasons to be active in the defence of freedom of speech. However, our arguments, once we become active on that issue, are much the same as anyone else's. In defending freedom of speech, we should concentrate on the arguments, not on the fact that we might have a particular motivation for getting involved. The same applies to other issues that we might wish to take up, whether or not our views about religion give us some of our motivation.

Why are you philosophers as opposed to, for example, scientists, physicians or presidents?

Udo: I have become a philosopher mostly because I am interested in investigating normative issues in our daily lives. Other professionals focus on other kinds of questions.

Russell: When I was younger I contemplated politics - but not for long! I have too many skeletons in my various cupboards to be a politician of any sort, let alone a president or a prime minister. They may not be large, very disreputable, skeletons ... but they're large enough to be a liability. And I keep doing my best to add to them - just in small ways such as making fun of the pope whenever I get a chance. My record of doing that wouldn't help me in politics.

Besides, there are few jobs in the world that enable you to say what you really think and explore the truth as you see it. Provided they can make a living, philosophers can do that. By contrast, politicians are bound by party discipline and the need to court popularity with the public. I've worked for two or three years as a lawyer, and for many years in quasi-legal work. I especially enjoyed courtroom advocacy, which I was quite good at - and I strongly considered becoming a barrister at one stage. Actually, that would have been great, but ultimately I chose to do a second doctorate (in philosophy). As a result I am much poorer than I might have been. I think it's too late for me to start at the bar now that I'm on the wrong side of fifty, so I'm unlikely to make my fortune at this late stage. Still, I have the luxury of thinking, writing, and speaking about the things that really matter to me.

Finally, who have you encountered - aside from your contributors of course- that you think will be making a difference in today's world for the better? Organisations and maybe individual people, perhaps?

Udo: I think anyone who is prepared to think about how their actions can contribute to increases in the happiness of people or others who are capable of enjoying their lives. If each of us made the life of just one other person who is worse off than we are a bit better the world would be a much better place. I suspect there are plenty of people like that.

Russell: Many people are making a positive difference. Some are our contributors, of course, but there other people who are fighting hard to protect our liberties, or to extend the basic requirements for human survival more widely. Others are creating art that lifts our spirits or provokes our thoughts. Still others are pushing back against superstition or extending human knowledge. You know, this world does not look much like one that an all-benevolent God would create. Look at all the suffering, malice, and preventable loss of life. Yet it could be a lot worse, and there are plenty of people who are working hard to make it better.

Blackford/Schuklenk interviewed about 50 Voices of Disbelief

from: examiner.com

50 Voices of Disbelief, an interview with Russell Blackford and Udo Schuklenk

by

Viktor Nagornyy

Go to Viktor's Home Page

Have you ever wondered why Michael Shermer is an atheist, or Margaret Downey, or A.C. Grayling, or James Randi, or Victor Stenger, or many other well known atheists? You will be able to find out this coming fall. The new book “50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists” by Russell Blackford and Udo Schuklenk is a collection of essays by some of the most prominent on why they are atheists. Inspirational stories and philosophical monologues will provide a doorway into the author’s life, and shed some light on their journey to the land of non-belief.

Both authors agreed to a small interview to tell readers more about their book and why they’ve decided to create it. If you’re intrigued by this book, read this interview and you will see that it is a must read for any atheist. If you’re still hiding in the “closet”, this book will inspire and give you energy to kick the door open and tell everyone that you’re an atheist. Just think about it, reading these stories is like having conversations with Austin Dacey, Peter Singer, Lori Lipman Brown, and many more. Why not immerse yourself into the lives of your favorite authors and people you admire?

Udo Schuklenk. Photo credit: Landry Karege

Whose initial idea was it to create this book and why?

Udo: I think it was my idea. I have been involved in academic publishing for some 15 years or so by now and at one point one gets a reasonable sense for what might or might not work in the market place. We have seen a series of monographs by folks like Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, all of which were wildly successful. It seems the time is ripe for a project where high-profile people from all walks of public life are given an opportunity to declare their disbelief, as well as their reasons for not buying into the fairy tale of an all-knowing, all-powerful, good God. I guess my main motive was some kind of frustration (that’s putting it mildly) about religious people’s published musings about how they "struggled to find God" only to eventually succumb to the delusions we all know too well. It seemed only fair game to me to let reality-based people explain why they did better.

Russell: Yes, it was Udo's idea. Of course, I jumped at it when he asked me to come on board. I was enthusiastic about the idea and flattered that he thought my skills would be useful.

Russell Blackford. Courtesy of Russell Blackford.

How did Russell get involved in this project?

Udo: Russell and I knew each other professionally. He and I studied and worked at one point at Monash University, both of us work within bioethics, and both of us are known atheists. I asked him how he felt about putting together an anthology of Voices of Disbelief (the title was conceived in the end by Russell), and it didn’t take much to persuade him that this was a viable project.

Russell, on your blog you mentioned that the book was originally called Voices of Disbelief. Did the publisher recommend a different title or was there something else that brought the change?

Russell: Voices of Disbelief was our working title for most of the project, but we discussed a number of possible variations even during the earliest phases, before we found a publisher. At one stage we were thinking of something like Why I Am Not A Believer: Voices of Disbelief. Throughout the process of putting the book together, we returned from time to time to the question of the final title - in discussions with each other, with editorial staff at Wiley-Blackwell, and, on a few occasions, in talking to individual contributors.

The important thing, was to have something punchy and commercially attractive, while also emphasizing the many and diverse perspectives, or "voices", included in the book. The specific reference to atheism in thre sub-title was proposed by Wiley-Blackwell staff, insofar as it signals that the book contributes to the same debate about religion as the so-called "New Atheist" books of Richard Dawkins and others whom Udo has mentioned – though there's a question about what the New Atheism really is …

Also, it became apparent towards the end of the work on the book - as we got a clearer and clearer idea of the final line-up - that the eventual number of contributors/essays would be very close to exactly fifty, a nice round number. We've actually ended up with fifty essays, fifty contributors in addition to the two editors, and fifty-two contributors in total (since each editor has written an essay, but two of the essays have two co-authors each).

Along with the folks at Wiley-Blackwell, we brainstormed several variations of these elements, as well as some possible titles that would have been quite different. The way I remember it, I made a suggestion at the end that involved using the "50" on the cover, though I didn't actually mean as part of the title. The final title was a version of my suggestion that then came back from the folks at Wiley-Blackwell. It brought together everything that we'd been talking about. We signed off on that version straight away. It felt right to both of us.

People say don't judge the book by its cover, but before we get inside the book we need to know what the cover represents. From my research I understand that there was another cover considered, a collage of images of contributors. Why a blown out candle with smoke floating off to the side?

Udo: My own preference was for a cover featuring thumbnail images of each contributor, but we faced logistical difficulties getting those organized. Also, the publishers’ marketing people were probably rightly concerned that this just wasn’t a striking enough cover design to motivate people perusing books in bookstores to pick up the volume and open it.

The flickering candle is normally understood as a symbol of believers’ connection with their imaginary God. Our intention, of course, is to sever that link and accordingly we blew the candle out on our cover. I am curious whether people who see the cover will see it that way…

Russell: There may be some confusion around arising from the fact that Roy Natian was kind enough to put together a very simple collage of some of the contributors to go on the book's Facebook group, pending the final cover being decided. But the Facebook image that Roy created was only a place marker, and we never looked at an actual cover along those lines – as Udo says, it was logistically difficult to do it properly. We actually considered a large number of images, but settled on the candle design for its power and for its classy appearance.

Actually, though, I don't "read" the symbolism in the way that Udo describes. I expect that that will be how most people see it initially, but I hope they'll then do a cognitive shift to seeing it as the candle of reason or Enlightenment, which is blown out in so many places and circumstances by religious nonsense. As we say in the book's introduction, it is very difficult to keep the candle of reason alight at a time when unreason in many forms is resurgent. But each essay is one small effort on behalf of the candle of reason, one contribution to keeping it alight. That reinterpretation is reinforced by the interior design: when you open the book, you see one lit candle for each essay, on the essay's first page!

This reminds me of Carl Sagan’s book “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark”. In this book he writes,

I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudoscience and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive. Where have we heard it before? Whenever our ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us-then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls. The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir.

I think this is the perfect example of how a blown out candle is a result of religious superstition, invading the light of reason and logic. I’m just curious, did Carl Sagan’s popular “candle in the dark” metaphor play any role in the cover?

Russell: In my case, yes, I was aware of Sagan's imagery at the time we were choosing the cover, and of the passage you've quoted, though other authors have also used this image and I don't know whether Sagan was the first. Whether or not he was, he certainly popularized it, and the passage is one that's worth remembering and returning to from time to time.

Udo, your March 17th, 2009 blog entry mentions publication date as September 10th, but Amazon lists it as October 19th. Why was the date pushed back?

Udo: Nothing sinister here, simply small delays in the production process.

Russell: We are still looking at September 10 in the UK and October 19 in the US, but we were originally hoping for something more like August. The exact date of publication of any book is always a little bit flexible – even if a manuscript is delivered on time, which ours pretty much was, there is always a great deal that happens in the production process between then and final publication.

Is this book part of the New Atheism movement? Why or why not?

Russell: Well, what's the New Atheism movement? I think the expression is often used pejoratively to attack anyone who argues against religion. The best sense that I can make of "the New Atheism" is that it is a return of normal transmission – a return of perfectly normal and proper criticism of religion in the public sphere, after this seemed to become taboo during the 1980s and 1990s. We have to thank Dawkins and others for breaking the taboo, so in that sense I suppose the book can be seen as part of the so-called New Atheism.

But note that there's no party line that our contributors had to follow. For example, some essays express strong agreement with particular views associated with Dawkins; others, however, are critical of Dawkins. The contributors were free to express their own views about religion, the various arguments for and against it, and the future role of religious organizations, without fear that we'd attempt to get them to conform. As Udo likes to say, we're not the Vatican. Hey, we don't even agree with each other about everything, not even in this interview.

Russell, your April 7th, 2009 blog entry says, “I expect to see more and more people speaking up. There are plenty who have been holding their fire until now, as Udo Schuklenk and I found when we began to put together Voices of Disbelief .” You were talking about New Atheism, religion, and bioethics in this entry. What did you mean by “holding their fire until now”? How did this book brought this up?

Russell: In that blog post, I gave, as an example, my strong sense that many people in the bioethics community were fed up with religious meddling – what I see as a religious resistance to rational bioethics. That was only one example, but it's a good one. In matters of life and death, such as choices about reproductive technologies, abortion, euthanasia, and so on, people with views grounded in religion have demanded a kind of deference to their assumed authority. Often, they have gone a long way towards wresting the discipline of bioethics from secular philosophers.

But this is just one example of the deference that religionists have claimed, with considerable success.

All too often, religion demands and receives deference in the political sphere. And yet, over recent decades it became taboo to criticize religion strongly in public. Partly, there was an assumption among those who might be expected to oppose it, such as members of the academic Left, that secularization was inevitable, that religion was receding as a social force – so it was no longer necessary to oppose it actively. There was also a feeling that criticizing religion somehow involved a taint of Western imperialism. Remember that a large part of the intellectual output of the academic Left in recent times has been devoted to attacks on the Enlightenment and modernity. Of course, most elements of the Right (not all, but certainly most) have always found wisdom in religion. One way or another, something of a social consensus formed that religion must not be criticized and must be treated as either harmless or beneficial.

Not all of us agreed with this, but speaking out was discouraged by many elements of society. Although I chafed at this situation, I held my fire – as I put it in the blog post. I kept it to mysef. I had many reasons for this, including the fact that the various jobs that I held through most of the 1980s and 1990s until 2001 involved roles where it would have been inappropriate to speak out strongly on matters of religion. For example, I was a fairly senior public servant at one stage. But as I say in my own essay in 50 Voices of Disbelief, I also tended until about the late 1990s to subscribe to the inevitable secularization theory. It's notable that even academics and professional writers, people with great freedom to speak up and be controversial, tended not to criticize religion in any way and to frown on those who did.

Things have changed. Secular bioethicists are one group who are particularly fed up. But many events have shown that religion and its political power are not going away in a hurry. This includes the rise of Islamic terrorism, the politicization of Christian fundamentalism in the US, and the many attempts to control our private decisions on matters of how we live and die. I think that more and more people who have avoided talking about religion in public are now keen to speak out and say what they really think.

I don’t know if you’ve seen a recent episode of Bill Maher’s show but in this episode he said that “Democrats are the new Republicans.” Generally speaking we would see Republicans as the Right and Democrats as the Left, of course with some exceptions. But the point I’m trying to bring is what if this shift didn’t happen in politics? What if it was a larger shift of the Left closer to the center, while the Right began to bury itself in religious fundamentalism, which is so popular in America. This is where New Atheism comes in, it is the answer to the conservative shift of the Left. Russell, you said that new atheism is “a return to normal transmission.” Isn’t this exactly what it is? People are not used to the normal - this is why they criticize New Atheism as extreme.

Russell: I haven't seen that episode – I don't see Bill Maher's show regularly, but only if there's a particular reason – but I do agree strongly with your last point. Once it becomes taboo to discuss religion in any way other than the most deferential, or to criticise it in any way other than the most detached and impersonal, usually tucked away from the public in philosophical journals or expensive academic monographs, the point is soon reached where any kind of normal criticism of religion can be depicted as extreme. It never ceases to amaze me that Dawkins is characterized as "strident" or "extreme"; sure, he can sometimes be blunt or passionate, but most of what he says and writes is in a very courteous and measured tone, carefully qualified where needed, and often enlivened by humor. Some other authors, Christopher Hitchens among them, do go closer to the sort of robust language that is used all the time in criticising political opponents. But I resent the fact that critics of religion are branded as uncivil and destructive, often even by fellow unbelievers, and even when their tone and rhetoric might be quite mild by the standards applying everywhere else in public debate about ideas – about political agendas or economic theories, for example.

Udo: I concur with your analysis of where the Republicans and Democrats are located on the political spectrum. I always tell my US friends and colleagues that the Democratic Party in the US is probably closest to the conservative wing of the Conservative Party in my native Germany, and that the Republican Party likely would be monitored by the security services as a clear a present danger to the democratic state. The mainstream political spectrum in the USA is located much further to the right than it is in Europe and Australia/New Zeland. There is a broad consensus in the US mainstream political discourse that rails against public health care, for absolute freedom of speech, and such issues that you wouldn't find supported by most Europeans, including myself. I doubt, however, that what you call the 'New Atheism' could realistically be the answer of the political Left to this US peculiarity. The reason for this is that there are plenty of very right-wing (in economic terms, in terms of social justice etc) atheists. Vice versa, there's plenty of left-wing Christians, for instance. I am probably closer to the views of many Catholics on the issue of international justice and poverty eradication than I am to the views of libertarian atheists. In short: I doubt there is a straigtforward connection between atheism and the political Left beyond the rejection of the idea of God. To my mind that is good news. I'm perfectly happy to join forces on the God issue with atheist right-wingers. When we are done with 'God' we can have a rational debate about other political issues.

Udo, what is your experience with “holding their fire until now” statement in which Russell mentioned you?

Udo: I think this probably is country-to-country and culture-to-culture dependent. In Canada where I moved only about two years ago you have a predominantly secular society. Amongst most of my colleagues in the Department of Philosophy it's taken as a given that you are an atheist or agnostic of some kind or other. People probably wouldn’t even think it’s worth speaking out about this, because it’s so self-evident to them that you cannot be reality based and believe in the God the monotheistic ideologies are marketing to us. The same is more or less true for France. In Britain on the other hand, where I also worked on and off, you have a much more militant atheist community. There is a very long tradition of speaking out. After all, Roman-Catholic Tony Blair led the country into a futile war against a predominantly Muslim country, aiding and abetting his fellow Christian crusader George W. Bush. In those sorts of countries people do speak out against the belief in God precisely because much more is at stake. Religious belief in those countries causes untold harm, hence the backlash from reality based people is growing stronger. Mind you, you can even see this in a country as backwardly religious as Jamaica, for instance, where debates between atheists and the religious establishment are raging even in mainstream newspapers. The tide is turning as ever more people speak out against religious fairy tales. Reminds me of Richard Dawkins who said (I am paraphrasing here): There is more to religion than vicars giving tea parties, there are evil consequences!

Udo you call this book “a humanist/atheist coming out party “, do you think it will inspire atheists who are still “in the closet” to come out?

Udo: I hope so. With a bit of luck the book might be adopted for college courses and might encourage students to join us in speaking out. Who knows, people might use it as an alternative Christmas gift and so initiate discussions with their believing friends, relatives and colleagues. Especially in societies that are very religious, books such as ours could have a significant impact. They have the potential to make skeptical people realize that they actually are not alone at all in their doubts.

Udo, Russell, what course, do you think, would benefit from this book as textbook? Philosophy? Ethics? Or something else? And are you planning on using it in your own classrooms?

Russell: I'm not likely to be doing any teaching after this year – I hope to maintain some kind of honorary research position at Monash or another university, but will otherwise be writing and editing full time. However, I can see the book being used in a range of courses. Most obviously, it could be used in philosophy of religion courses, but, for example, a course in sociology might also look at contemporary debates about religion. That could include the New Atheism phenomenon, however that is best understood.

Udo: Yep, I agree with Russell. This volume could be used in any number of courses and disciplines ranging from philosophy to cultural studies, and politics.

When you approached the publisher, how did they react? What did they say?

Udo: This has not been difficult at all. I have been working with Wiley-Blackwell for close to a decade and produced books as well as academic journals for and with them. They were very excited and very supportive from the start about the project.

While contacting contributors, what was the general feeling you got from them about the project?

Udo: We have not had serious difficulties attracting contributors – in fact, we had to turn down a few who approached us when word spread about the forthcoming anthology. It is true that a few authors we would have liked to attract turned us down, but this was not because they did not see the value of the project. They were plain overwhelmed with other work, tragedies in their family lives, the types of things that prevent you sometimes from doing the things you would like to do. I can’t think of anyone who turned us down because of doubts about the project.

Russell: Reactions varied of course, but we were generally met by a tremendous amount of enthusiasm. It even came from some of the people who were too heavily committed to contribute. No doubt different individuals had different motivations varied, but there was a strong mood that this was going to be a timely book, an opportunity for many people to have their say, all in one place, as to why they reject religion and the authority over us that it claims. We were tapping into a lot of widespread resentment, all over the world, of religion's claim to be able to tell us how to live our lives, and, in many cases, to tell governments what conduct to permit or not permit its citizens.

Lastly, why should anyone buy it? How will it enrich their lives?

Udo: Honestly, what surprised me most is how many of the contributors took our invitation seriously and divulged their personal reasons for being atheists. I found their essays most enlightening and entertaining. It’s greatly enriching to learn about these well-known people’s struggles that led them down the reality-based path. There are also contributions that are strictly academic and analytical in nature. As a philosopher I appreciate a carefully constructed and expressed analysis. So, in a sense, the mix and diversity of our voices is what makes this volume such a rich anthology.

Russell: What Udo said … and I want to emphasize the sheer diversity of the book. The contributors don't always agree with each other on such things as the future of religion, or how conciliatory we should be towards its more liberal manifestations. But that just makes the book even more thought provoking.

More Information:
Pre-order your copy of 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists today on Amazon.com