the-new-atheism

by michael-poole

Recently, the "new" atheists have been putting out books, articles, bus ads, and TV programs in attempts to sway people to their cause. Through these tactics they've managed to gain a large amount of public attention and media exposure—but do their arguments really hold water? Using the analogy put forward by esteemed philosopher Anthony Flew, Michael Poole examines the new atheists' use of the “10 leaky buckets” tactic of argumentation—presenting readers with a sum of arguments that are each individually defective, as though the cumulative effect should be persuasive. This closer look at the facts reveals that the buckets are, indeed, leaky.

96 pages, Paperback

First published May 1, 2010

Reviews

[ایلا اکبری]

حقیقتا ارزشی ندیدم در تمام کردن این کتاب.
۱۰ گزاره کلی از نوآتئیسم آورده شده و نقد شده(به شدت با سفسطه)
و سوال من اینجاست.
چگونه اقای مایکل پول نظریه های اقای چارلز داوکینز و اقای دنت در آتئیسم را که در چند کتاب چندین صفحه‌ای به آن‌ها پرداخته شده در یک کتاب ۱۰۰ صفحه‌ای رد کرده؟

[David Sarkies]

It looks like this guy took Dawkin's bait
13 September 2009

While it is good to understand the arguments that Athiests make against Christianity, I do not see Athiesm, or anything that the athiests say, particularly new. Personally, I found this book to be rather dull and simply went over the same ground multiple times but not actually having any specific purpose. That's not to say that what Poole is trying to do is bad, but rather that this is not the type of book that I am really interested in. I guess the only reason I bought it was because it was small, cheap, and looked interesting. While it is objectively small, and was objectively cheap, subjectively I simply did not find it interesting, but then I guess it has more to do with argument rather than trying to prove anything.
I like argument: that is putting forward a hypothesis and then exploring the evidence that adds weight to the hypothesis. This book does not do that. Rather it takes another persons argument (in this case Richard Dawkins) and seeks to undermine his arguments at every opportunity. Granted I have not read any of Dawkin's books (as of the writing of this commentary), and I must admit that having read two books like this, my mind has been poisoned against Dawkin's arguments which results in me having no desire to read any of his books (and even then, there are lots of other books that I would rather read than a book whose stated goal is to turn Christians into atheists).
I guess this is a good book for Christians who want to be able to know how to debate atheists in such a setting, but personally, I'm not one of those people, and while I believe what I believe, I tend to try and avoid ego contests where two sides try to out do each other with well strung debates which don't end up convincing anybody of anything.

[Marilyn]

I found this book a very well written debate over the validity of the "New Atheists'" arguments against the existence of God and the value of religion. It examines both sides of each argument and raises some very good points about the flaws and fallacies associated with each argument. I found it compelling that, though not exactly championing the cause of those who have faith in a higher power, it systematically and logically examines and exposes the flaws in some of the main arguments against religion. I thoroughly enjoyed this book.

[Frank Peters]

The book was short and to the point. Poole politely and logically counters 10 common but false arguements used by popular atheists. I hope that all atheist would read this book, so that if they continue in their (un) belief, they at least move on to more logical and more honest arguments.

[Daniel Anderson]

This is a nice pocket book to keep handy for referencing the scientific statistics covered in the book. Poole offers some criticisms for Hitchen's book god is not great ,and Dawkin's book the God Delusion.

[Juan]

Great counter-arguments to Dawkins, Hitchens, et al.

[Nick Kinsella]

Hmm. Got a bit bogged down with itself, although I agree with many of the points he makes.