What do you think?
Rate this book
Against Atheism: Why Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris Are Fundamentally Wrong
In this new book, Ian Markham analyzes the atheistic world view, opposing the arguments given by renowned authors of books on atheism, such as Richard Dawkins. Unlike other responses to the new atheism, Markham challenges these authors on their own ground by questioning their understanding of belief and of atheism itself. The result is a transforming introduction to Christianity that will appeal to anyone interested in this debate.
176 pages, Paperback
First published February 8, 2010
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
June 10, 2017
Ian Markham has written a beautifully crafted response to the rising tide of atheism, but disappointingly his arguments are riddled with logical fallacies. Even more surprising is the amount of ground he concedes to his opponents. Consequently, he comes across as more of an agnostic; a position he tries to correct by displaying his expertise of the Christian doctrine.
Markham, as many of his contemporaries, moves God more and more into the background, in an attempt to embed him into the fabric of the universe. Any being who is not only omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent but also intangible and invisible cannot be argued for or against with great logical foundation. As a result, many of his arguments come off as weak. It does not help that his arguments are concluded with ambiguous phrasing.
A prime example of such an argument is the following:
An another instance is when Markham states his argument against the multiverse theory:
Following the popular theme among defendants of theocracy, Markham uses the low hanging fruit of quantum mechanics to suggest that it might eventually explain the supernatural. The author also dodges some critical questions posed to him by the atheistic triumvirate of authors he so vehemently attacks. Because the author delves into the topics of Judaism and Islam, apart from Christianity, I would also have liked if he would have acknowledged the presence and significance of polytheistic religions (primarily Hinduism, which has about a billion followers). But I can understand why he wouldn't include it. Giving weight to a polytheistic religion while trying to explain the modern Christian worldview (a monotheistic one) would seriously undermine his answers to the questions posed by the atheist author trio, such as pain and suffering caused by God.
While it is easy to criticize him, it is only fair that I point out the positives. It is respectable that Markham is able to acknowledge the unconscionable deeds that have plagued religion throughout history. He also does an excellent job of pointing out flaws in the arguments posed by Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris. It is worth a read just for his critique of the three main proponents of atheism. The critique is many-a-time spot on but he fails to build on it and reach conclusions in a logical (at least semi-logical) way, often opting to ask the readers to take a leap of faith instead of hammering home his point with more supporting arguments.
Perhaps the book is best summarized by Brian T. Sullivan:
Markham, as many of his contemporaries, moves God more and more into the background, in an attempt to embed him into the fabric of the universe. Any being who is not only omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent but also intangible and invisible cannot be argued for or against with great logical foundation. As a result, many of his arguments come off as weak. It does not help that his arguments are concluded with ambiguous phrasing.
A prime example of such an argument is the following:
When you have two contrasting explanations for a phenomenon, it is legitimate to ask which makes “more sense” of the phenomenon. Again, as a pointer, the suggestion I am making is that the Christian narrative makes more sense of the phenomenon than the naturalistic one.When medical science was rudimentary, blood letting made the most sense. At the same time, washing hands to disinfect didn't make sense. Go figure!
An another instance is when Markham states his argument against the multiverse theory:
The principle of Ockham’s razor (always opt for the hypothesis which is the simplest explanation for the data) would challenge the multiverse theory.At the same time, he conveniently ignores the raft of religious texts, anecdotes and logical loopholes that have to be accepted as true (at least partially true) and/or ignored, before accepting the existence of an all-powerful entity. Also, chooses to ignore the fact that while Ockham's Razor is a powerful tool in philosophy, it is hardly so in science. Applying the argument above, Neil Bohr's planetary model of the atom would be the best while the current electron cloud model doesn't stand a chance.
Following the popular theme among defendants of theocracy, Markham uses the low hanging fruit of quantum mechanics to suggest that it might eventually explain the supernatural. The author also dodges some critical questions posed to him by the atheistic triumvirate of authors he so vehemently attacks. Because the author delves into the topics of Judaism and Islam, apart from Christianity, I would also have liked if he would have acknowledged the presence and significance of polytheistic religions (primarily Hinduism, which has about a billion followers). But I can understand why he wouldn't include it. Giving weight to a polytheistic religion while trying to explain the modern Christian worldview (a monotheistic one) would seriously undermine his answers to the questions posed by the atheist author trio, such as pain and suffering caused by God.
While it is easy to criticize him, it is only fair that I point out the positives. It is respectable that Markham is able to acknowledge the unconscionable deeds that have plagued religion throughout history. He also does an excellent job of pointing out flaws in the arguments posed by Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris. It is worth a read just for his critique of the three main proponents of atheism. The critique is many-a-time spot on but he fails to build on it and reach conclusions in a logical (at least semi-logical) way, often opting to ask the readers to take a leap of faith instead of hammering home his point with more supporting arguments.
Perhaps the book is best summarized by Brian T. Sullivan:
Markham's comparison of Nietzsche to the New Atheists is particularly insightful, and moderate Christians will find plenty of useful apologetic material on the reasonableness of classical, nonfundamentalist Christianity… This book will be enjoyed by academically minded believers looking to bolster their arguments against atheism. However, it is probably too theological for most general readers and not likely to persuade many nonbelievers.
January 14, 2012
Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris head the movement of New Atheists (or "Brights" as Dawkins calls them), and are increasingly feeding inaccurate, misinformed information to the public. Ian Markham sets out to correct this error and show how the New Atheists are misrepresenting the arguments for God, even missing out very strong arguments, and not really facing up to the moral and ethical implications of atheism. So does Markham do a good job at countering atheism?
The book starts off well, with two imaginary characters, Fred and Natalie, an atheist and theist respectively, explaining their worldviews. Markham then continues, explaining Hitchens', Harris', and Dawkins' points of view as well. He does all this very well. The next chapter is on Nietzsche, who Markham calls "the last real atheist", and is possible the best chapter in the book. It explores Nietzsche's atheism and his attempts to reach a moral and ethical framework without God, and shows he demonstrated that if "God is dead", then the language of morality is incoherent. This is Markham's best argument against New Atheism: no-one really faces up to the moral implications of the lack of God; whether you believe in God or otherwise is not an attribute you can bolt onto your worldview, but rather defines it.
Following on from this triumphantly insightful chapter, is the bizarre "Interlude from God's Perspective", which is a two page long piece on his interpretation of how God felt when creating the universe. It seems odd to have such a subjective view on God in a book that tries to be objective, especially before he has laid out a lot of the terms he flings round in the "interlude".
The next two chapters restore his credibility, however, with a wonderful outline on the possibility of a spiritual dimension, and how physical sciences support this theory. He begins with a chapter pointing out aspects of humanity such as morality and art that make no sense without God (as partly explained before), also attacking Dawkins' argument that raising a child in a religious household is child abuse; rather, one needs to be encouraged to develop a "spiritual sense", and this is best done young, as with music, food and art. The next chapter on "Physics: The Grown-Up Science" is equally credible and commendable, pointing out how quantum theory supports human agency (electrons moving without cause) and divine intervention. The chapter's main thrust, however, is the anthropic principle. This theory says that universal constants such as the speed of light and gravity are improbably fine-tuned for the formation of planets suitable for life after the Big Bang. The alternative is the multiverse theory, where there are an infinite number of universes, in most of which planets and stars do not form properly to support life. However, as there is no evidence for the multiverse, God, for whom there is a lot more evidence as Markham has pointed out, is a more suitable theory to explain the suspiciously fine-tuned nature of the universe. These two chapters clearly articulate reasons for believing, as opposed to the criticisms of not believing in earlier chapters.
From here, the book takes a wrong turn. Markham is a liberal, evolutionist Christian, and I have no problem with him being so. However, his theology for the rest of the book is so odd and often off-topic, I don't think he does a much better job at critiquing theology than Dawkins does. His chapter on "The Revealing God" says that both the traditional account of the Fall, and the very unorthodox view of the Fall argued for by Primavesi are both wrong, without giving his correct version, or even saying why the others are wrong. He then briefly handles a few difficult Biblical passages, such as the order of genocide by God, saying that these have been explained in detail and that atheists should read these explanations, but still making a bizarre argument that seems to imply that Scripture is not God-inspired and inerrant.
His accounts of Christianity and Islam in the next two chapters are okay, arguing that the New Atheists misrepresent both religions and how the popularity of their arguments are reactions to 9/11, which is itself a misrepresentation of most Muslim's views. The next chapter is brief overview of suffering and ethics in a religious light, which seems fairly pointless as it just scratches the surface without really going into any detail.
The final chapter is awful. Markham makes the case that as there is always uncertainty as to which faith is correct, we should accept all religions as being appropriate interpretations of the divine. His argument for pluralism is very weak, and he also goes off on tangents, making the case for homosexual Christians which just seems very off-topic. The following conclusion is , well, a conclusion of the book with a recommended reading list that seems fairly decent.
Overall, the arguments he outlines in the book are either very good, or total trash. He tries to force his extremely controversial version of Christianity into the book, rather than taking a lowest-common-denominator interpretation, for example the Nicene Creed. If he wants to have that view, I'm okay with it, it's when he implies it's what all Christians believe and goes off on unnecessary tangents to explain it. The first half of the book is great, but the rest of it is just slow and muddy, bringing down the credibility and relevancy of his book. I wish he'd just cut out the flak, and expanded upon his viewpoint of ethics and suffering from a religious perspective. If you're a strong Christian yourself, it's a decent read with some good points (if a lot of bad ones), but it is certainly not a book to give to an atheist or agnostic if you don't want your faith being misconstrued.
The book starts off well, with two imaginary characters, Fred and Natalie, an atheist and theist respectively, explaining their worldviews. Markham then continues, explaining Hitchens', Harris', and Dawkins' points of view as well. He does all this very well. The next chapter is on Nietzsche, who Markham calls "the last real atheist", and is possible the best chapter in the book. It explores Nietzsche's atheism and his attempts to reach a moral and ethical framework without God, and shows he demonstrated that if "God is dead", then the language of morality is incoherent. This is Markham's best argument against New Atheism: no-one really faces up to the moral implications of the lack of God; whether you believe in God or otherwise is not an attribute you can bolt onto your worldview, but rather defines it.
Following on from this triumphantly insightful chapter, is the bizarre "Interlude from God's Perspective", which is a two page long piece on his interpretation of how God felt when creating the universe. It seems odd to have such a subjective view on God in a book that tries to be objective, especially before he has laid out a lot of the terms he flings round in the "interlude".
The next two chapters restore his credibility, however, with a wonderful outline on the possibility of a spiritual dimension, and how physical sciences support this theory. He begins with a chapter pointing out aspects of humanity such as morality and art that make no sense without God (as partly explained before), also attacking Dawkins' argument that raising a child in a religious household is child abuse; rather, one needs to be encouraged to develop a "spiritual sense", and this is best done young, as with music, food and art. The next chapter on "Physics: The Grown-Up Science" is equally credible and commendable, pointing out how quantum theory supports human agency (electrons moving without cause) and divine intervention. The chapter's main thrust, however, is the anthropic principle. This theory says that universal constants such as the speed of light and gravity are improbably fine-tuned for the formation of planets suitable for life after the Big Bang. The alternative is the multiverse theory, where there are an infinite number of universes, in most of which planets and stars do not form properly to support life. However, as there is no evidence for the multiverse, God, for whom there is a lot more evidence as Markham has pointed out, is a more suitable theory to explain the suspiciously fine-tuned nature of the universe. These two chapters clearly articulate reasons for believing, as opposed to the criticisms of not believing in earlier chapters.
From here, the book takes a wrong turn. Markham is a liberal, evolutionist Christian, and I have no problem with him being so. However, his theology for the rest of the book is so odd and often off-topic, I don't think he does a much better job at critiquing theology than Dawkins does. His chapter on "The Revealing God" says that both the traditional account of the Fall, and the very unorthodox view of the Fall argued for by Primavesi are both wrong, without giving his correct version, or even saying why the others are wrong. He then briefly handles a few difficult Biblical passages, such as the order of genocide by God, saying that these have been explained in detail and that atheists should read these explanations, but still making a bizarre argument that seems to imply that Scripture is not God-inspired and inerrant.
His accounts of Christianity and Islam in the next two chapters are okay, arguing that the New Atheists misrepresent both religions and how the popularity of their arguments are reactions to 9/11, which is itself a misrepresentation of most Muslim's views. The next chapter is brief overview of suffering and ethics in a religious light, which seems fairly pointless as it just scratches the surface without really going into any detail.
The final chapter is awful. Markham makes the case that as there is always uncertainty as to which faith is correct, we should accept all religions as being appropriate interpretations of the divine. His argument for pluralism is very weak, and he also goes off on tangents, making the case for homosexual Christians which just seems very off-topic. The following conclusion is , well, a conclusion of the book with a recommended reading list that seems fairly decent.
Overall, the arguments he outlines in the book are either very good, or total trash. He tries to force his extremely controversial version of Christianity into the book, rather than taking a lowest-common-denominator interpretation, for example the Nicene Creed. If he wants to have that view, I'm okay with it, it's when he implies it's what all Christians believe and goes off on unnecessary tangents to explain it. The first half of the book is great, but the rest of it is just slow and muddy, bringing down the credibility and relevancy of his book. I wish he'd just cut out the flak, and expanded upon his viewpoint of ethics and suffering from a religious perspective. If you're a strong Christian yourself, it's a decent read with some good points (if a lot of bad ones), but it is certainly not a book to give to an atheist or agnostic if you don't want your faith being misconstrued.
February 19, 2019
Thoughtful response
This book is Markham's response to the recent books supporting the atheist view of the world. But this argument has been going on for a thousand years. Nothing new or ground breaking for either side. The bottom line is has it always has been, you either believe or you don't. You can't prove or disprove the existence of God, you can only chose to believe or not believe.
This book is Markham's response to the recent books supporting the atheist view of the world. But this argument has been going on for a thousand years. Nothing new or ground breaking for either side. The bottom line is has it always has been, you either believe or you don't. You can't prove or disprove the existence of God, you can only chose to believe or not believe.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews