The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom

Rating:
Summary: Concise refutation of agnosticism, materialism & empiricism.
Review: "New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom" analyzes the arguments, logic and assumptions underlying modern humanist, skeptic, atheist and agnostic thought, showing them to be internally incoherent & self-refuting.

After a 37 page survey of the massive impact of these beliefs on modern society, the author spends a chapter examining different definitions of atheism. He spends 4 pages describing the definition "without a belief in God", showing how that if atheists assert nothing (have no axiomatic base), they could not actually say anything about theism. The author then spends a chapter on the causes of atheism, describing 10 different types of atheists. He sketches the biographies of prominent atheist/humanist thinkers throughout history who developed atheism to "strike back" at God, after suffering severe emotional & personal traumas, or experiencing compulsions to engage in immoral behavior.

Morey spends 30 pages on the logical errors of unbelief, outlining 13 of the most common ones. For example, #8 points out how atheists build their position on self-refuting propositions like: "There are no absolutes" (this is an absolute statement that refutes itself), "There is no truth" (except the one just given?), "Only empirically verifiable or falsifiable statements have any meaning" (this statement is by it's nature incapable of verification, thus contradicts itself). Atheism and agnosticism cannot be expressed without simultaneously contradicting the ideas they assert. They are beliefs of convenience, not reality.

The author goes on to discuss the errors in the hidden assumptions of materialism & empiricism before closing with sample debates and a convenient multi-page chart of atheist arguments, the hidden assumptions behind them, and why those assumptions are examples of bad reasoning.Atheist arguments from top proponents are quoted at length. For example, a review asserted "The Art of Deception" was mischaracterized, being a guide HOW NOT to be deceived rather than one explaining HOW TO deceive. However, a full page is quoted from the book which, ironically, teaches that one should always claim to be misquoted ...

The book is well done. The author shows the basis of modern secular thought, instilled in everyone nowadays (Nobel prize winners on down), to be false, dismantling its foundations in concise strokes. This book effectively replaces whole shelves of other books, sections of libraries and most of modern culture, as they are based on demonstrably incoherent assumptions and garbled, emotional rationalizations. Once the book is understood, and with practice, the reader comes away equipped to fearlessly confront, control and defeat any so-called "rational, logical" atheist, agnostic, or humanist, from Carl Sagan, to Michael Shermer to Madyln O'Hare to the typical Internet debater.

If a few percent of the population read this book and understood how messed up with nonsense they are, the world might become a very different place. This is the kind of book you stock up on so you can give away to those actually interested in the truth of things, or those who should be. Buy deep, buy often.

Rating:
Summary: Great Intro to Atheistic Personalities
Review: Dr. Moray has written a book that very accurately explains the common personalities of the average atheist you are likely to run into. I found his description quit accurate in describing the common day-to-day atheist that I meet, at least the more vocal ones.

He starts by giving a small historical analysis of how the atheist movement got started, and how it was able to reach the levels that it has. He continues by analyzing a few of the prominent atheist of our times, and showing their underlying beliefs. He then goes on to show how important it is for us to realize this, and the outcomes of what has happened in other cultures if we don't stand up against them. After this, Dr. Moray puts emphasis on the philosophical mistakes of atheism, and how they try to be a non-negating "religion". Dr Moray than goes to atheist's flaws in how they analyze the bible, and easy answers to give to such illogical attacks. Dr. Moray than concludes with several sample debates he has gotten into that involve different attacks on Christianity.

There are some other points to consider about this book. One being that this book is small, so it is more intended as an introduction than as an answer all- be all analysis of the theistic atheistic debate. The second point is this book has many of the old, not as forceful arguments against atheism. While still prevailing against atheistic philosophy, there are many more forceful arguments that have been developed against atheism. Authors like, Greg Bahnson, Ravi Zacharia, J.P. Moreland, and Alvin Plantiga, have far superiorly demonstrated the fatal flaws of atheism. However, this can not be counted against Moray since his book is pretty old(1986) and was probably much more ingenious in its time. The third point is that sometimes in the book, on certain arguments, Morays arguments reduce to jumps from the premises to the conclusion. Without too much emphasis on the middle steps necessary to arrive at the conclusion. He gets ahead of himself and jumps to the conclusion without walking the reader through all the steps. Although his conclusions are valid, this would make it hard to follow for the average novice reader interested in atheistic mistakes. This would also turn off many "sincere" atheist trying to understand the arguments presented by theists. The last point I would like to make, and probably the least important, is that the book, especially at the beginning, has a "hard to follow" writing style. Sometimes Moray makes grammatical mistakes that cause you to lose track of what he is saying, and force you to reread his statements.

With all that said, this book is great for any American who sincerely loves his country, and what it was built on, and wishes to protect that from any influences that cause its downfall.

Rating:
Summary: It's So True!
Review: Dr. Morey has exposed the true agenda of anti-Theist's: TO CRUSH RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!

Dr. Morey gives a sample debate in his book with atheist Sheila Thompson from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. I've listened to that debate on audio tape and she played the same old game that all anti-theist play, such as Arguing from silence (Which she tried to make valid), arguing from ignorance and ad hominem attacks. She even grossly took verses out of context. And to make things worst, She relied on books written by 19th century German Rationalist Theologians or relies on writers that rely on those rationalist theologian's. How pathetic and unscholarly! What she didn't know is that those arguments, made by those rationalist theologians, have been throroughly refuted by many Christian theologians such as Dr. Gresham Machem, Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, Dr. James Robinson, Dr. John Warwick Montgomery, etc, etc. This book list all of them including the books they have written.

Dr. Morey shows that all of the arguments made by atheist are logically invalid, historically inaccurate and even downright fabricated.

I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants a good does of how illogical atheist are and learn what their agenda is: DESTROY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

Rating:
Summary: An arsenal against atheism!
Review: Here is the table of contents:

Introduction
Chapter One: The Crazy Sixties
Chapter Two: The Erosion of Freedom
Chapter Three: The New Atheism
Chapter Four: Defining Atheism
Chapter Five: The Causes of Atheism
Chapter Six: Logic and the Atheists
Chapter Seven: Logical Errors of Atheism
Chapter Eight: Materialism
Chapter Nine: A Sample Debate
Chapter Ten: Jesus and Paul
Chapter Eleven: Atheists in Action
Conclusion
Appendix: Answers to Common Objections
Bibliography

After reading this book, you'll have a good idea of what atheism is and how to confront it. Dr. Morey looks at the fundamental presuppositions of atheism and finds the fallacies. Here is one of my favorite parts (under "Materialism") in the book (p.98):

They (atheists) would have us accept:
a. Everything ultimately came from nothing.
b. Order came from chaos.
c. Harmony came from discord.
d. Life came from nonlife.
e. Reason came from irrationality.
f. Personality came from nonpersonality.
g. Morality came from amorality.
Believing the above claims of the materialist takes far greater faith than believing that a personal, infinite, rational God created this universe!

NEW ATHEISM is also a good critique on George Smith and Madalyn Murray O'Hair and then some. Furthermore, you can get Morey's debate with Dan Barker. Bob Morey has a reputation for his uncompromising approach. I recommend all his literature.

Rating:
Summary: More disappointing drivel
Review: The review by Apologia below offered some of the content of Morey's book. It is the same tired, outworn and flimsy mischaracterization of non-believers that you'll find on hundreds of Christian "apologetic" websites.

Here's what Morey thinks atheists "would have us accept":

A: "Everything ultimately came from nothing" - Wrong. This isn't my claim, and it's not what I would have others believe. In fact, this sounds more like Christianity, which asserts the idea of "creatio ex nihilo" - creation from nothing. Rather, I say that "everything ultimately comes from existence," since existence exists. When Christians then ask, "Where did existence come from?" I simply ask what kind of answer could satisfy this question other than "Nothing," since nothing is the only alternative to existence. Again, who is it that wants to start with nothing? The problem is that believers want begin with a consciousness, which they claim is responsible for the existence of everything else, and this commits them to the primacy of consciousness view of reality, which is a stolen concept and results in the fallacy of pure self-reference. Unnecessary. Existence exists.

B: "Order came from chaos": Wrong again. I don't start with "chaos." This is Morey's fabrication, and it only resembles Christianity. For not only does Christianity hold that the universe was created from nothing, the Bible also states that before there was order on earth, it was "without form, and void" (Gen. 1:2) - i.e., chaotic. Contrary to this, I hold that 'order' is an epistemological as opposed to a metaphysical concept, as Christians seem to think. The concept which properly corresponds to what Christians are thinking about when they claim that atheists hold that "order came from chaos," is the concept 'identity', which is a corollary of the fact of existence: that which exists is that which exists - to exist is to be something specific. It does not take rocket science - or an invisible magic being - to figure this out. Like the concept 'existence', the concept 'identity' is also axiomatic; theists must assume these concepts even in their attempts to deny them.

C: "Harmony from discord": How is this supposed to be any different from the accusation that "order came from chaos"?

D: "Life came from nonlife": When have I ever this position? Morey and those who think his book is worth the nine dollars Amazon's asking for would have to document this for this accusation to have any relevance to me. Again, doesn't this sound like Christianity? For it holds that life comes from god. But if there are no gods, then essentially they claim that "life came from nonlife." What the Christian really wants to say is that life came from some prior intentionality - an invisible magic being which can whip up any life form at the drop of a whim. If people want to believe in invisible magic beings, that's they're business. And while I would suggest that they grow up, I would also point out that this does not explain how life came about, since it presumably begins with life already (since "God" is claimed to be living). But look at the question: "Where did life come from?" - this question by its nature assumes that life came from something other than life (i.e., nonlife). I would say this is a question for scientists - not theologians - to investigate, since it is a scientific question. Let the theologians bicker about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. I hold that life came from existence.

E: "Reason came from irrationality": Again we have Morey speaking for all atheists, even though he's probably too insecure to engage them himself. Ironically, this position mirrors Christianity. For what could be more irrational than perfection creating imperfection? Christians of course want it to be the case that man's rationality comes from a god, even though wishing won't make it so. But it is principally upon this - desires and wishes - that they make such claims in the first place. Essentially, they claim that a god exists because they want it to exist. That is the nature of faith, and they resent the fact that this is apparent to nonbelievers. Even on Christianity's own premises, the Christian god could not be rational. Rationality pertains to discovering and validating new knowledge and governing one's actions according to such knowledge. But this god is said to be omniscient, which means it has no need to discover or validate knowledge. Furthermore, the Christian god is said to be perfect, immortal, indestructible and complete. Thus it has no needs and therefore cannot value anything (being perfect and complete it already has everything it could need) nor could it know threat (since it is immortal and indestructible). Frankly, such a being would not need to act in the first place. Any actions it would take would be actions motivated completely by whimsy, i.e., it is irrational.

F: "Personality came from nonpersonality": When have I stated this? This is essentially no different than the accusation found above, namely that "life came from nonlife." Again Morey misses the mark.

G: "Morality came from amorality": Morey cannot cite one instance when I, an intransigent atheist, ever made such a claim, and I dare him to try to document such an instance. This is another of Morey's many unsubstantiated mischaracterizations of atheists. One must ask: If Morey's apologetic is so good, as many of these reviewers seem to think, why must Morey continually misrepresent atheists in order to attack them? I have repeatedly asked Christians to explain why man should be moral, and all their answers ultimately amount to the same thing: to save their putrid hides from a burning hell, and that's all. What's so amazing is that in the same breath they also condemn selfishness! Will believers ever see the errors of their ways? Not if they think the kind of tripe Morey is peddling serves as any standard for thinking.

Rating:
Summary: The Atheists are Running Scared
Review: This book demolishes the arguments of atheists by attacking their worldview on a rational basis. Dr. Morey doesn't attack the atheists themselves, although he does try to distinguish between various types of skeptics. This is perhaps the best book on this topic, and I have personally seen atheists come to a decision for theism when these arguments are employed. Dr. Morey presents clean, clear rational refutation of the ploys and manipulations of those who do not believe in God. Radical atheists are terrified of the defenses presented in this book; and as he has been so successful, they have tried desperately to sabotage his efforts. I recommend this book highly. It is perhaps my favorite book on apologetics because the arguments are easy to understand and are exquisite in their logical defense of the existence of God.

Rating:
Summary: Lousy Book
Review: This is a lousy book on the topic of theism vs. atheism. This book is simply not a scholarly work. If you want to do serious research on this topic I recommend getting something written by a professional philosopher. One fine book that comes to mind is Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology by Quentin Smith and William Lane Craig.

Rating:
Summary: Lousy Book
Review: This is a lousy book on the topic of theism vs. atheism. This book is simply not a scholarly work. If you want to do serious research on this topic I recommend getting something written by a professional philosopher. One fine book that comes to mind is Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology by Quentin Smith and William Lane Craig.