Customer Review

36 of 58 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Clear definitions and sharp arguments, no: double-thinking theist, yes, 3 Nov. 2009
This review is from: Why There Almost Certainly Is a God: Doubting Dawkins (Paperback)
I am an atheist. Welcome to my world a world of clean, sharp ideas, of naturalistic explanations. Keith Ward (I'll call him Ward for short - in the hope that he might gain household status) is a theist and his world is far from the clean and sharp arguments promised in the introduction to his supposed rebuttable to Dawkins.

Ward is a theistic philosopher. When someone writes reams about something we have no evidence of they often descend into pure banality and Ward is no exception. His philosophy background enables him to understand the crux of the matter and that is a clash in worldviews of naturalism and theism (read supernaturalism). Ward uses the word materialism to denote what I phrase as naturalism. I'm not aware of the distinction between the two - indeed, there may not be one. He's very gracious in his temerity to postulate God at every point and ultimately he says that his God hypothesis relies on a personal explanation.

Lift the lid on the arguments and you'll find at the heart of them the God of the gaps. These are: our difficulty explaining consciousness and the argument from first cause.

Ward slowly builds his God hypothesis and it relies on his (and our) trouble explaining consciousness. Ward follows our established norms by stating that consciousness arises from brain matter but he also believes that there is a ghost in the machine. Quite what this ghost is he never actually states but upon trudging your way through the book you just know he's talking about the soul.

One part to his God hypothesis is that God is "an unembodied mind, a pure spirit that has knowledge and awareness". This seems a shaky foundation for a hypothesis. He can't possibly think of a rebuttal and the only thing he can think to defend it is, "I see no reason why not?" Well, metaphysical-spirit-ether clouds consisting of pure consciousness have never been common in my world. They seemed very common in Star-Trek [the original series]. We have only two models of intelligence (the brain and the computer) and they, at their very basic level, consist of the processing and storage of data. Obviously, metaphysical-spirit-ether consciousnesses are simple and contain no working parts. In short, I think it's sheer baloney.

When one engages in theology they just sound stupid. Ward thinks that because our ghost in the machine (soul) is pure consciousness and because God is pure consciousness then our soul is attracted to God because it is good and enjoyable. I'm condensing a number of paragraphs throughout the book into a simple sentence but, believe me, I have kept his thoughts intact and have shown them to be pure lunacy.

Dawkins has often parodied the religious mind saying that it is - allow me to paraphrase - a hotbed of contradictions never resolved and the most amazing double-think existing. Ward uses this parody back at Dawkins and it fell flat on me and I'll explain why. Ward writes that the pure consciousness that is God would be incapable of doing evil, has he read the Old Testament? And that God would be incapable of committing suicide, has he read the New Testament where God kills himself to appease himself? Again, the Christian God that he believes in isn't a simple consciousness. According to the bible and Christians, God exists in three centres of consciousness with one centre ready-made for self-sacrifice. Such double thinking is part of the natural theistic mind. The atheistic mind is free from such absurd contradictions.

Ward is explaining the God hypothesis and not the God of any particular religion. He's a class philosopher and Ward knows that to move from the deistic God to the Christian God is like climbing a philosophical cliff face and would need an argument so clever that it would look like Dawkins' mount improbable explanation. Sadly, Ward can't come close to battling Dawkins in argument.

On the plus side however, he does write some useful thoughts on the multiverse theory which, I admit, undermines it somewhat.

Ward, being a philosopher, must and should try to look for a superlative to the naturalism vs. theism dichotomy. I believe that John W. Loftus has found it and describes it adequately in his book, "Why I became an atheist". Ward, if you're reading this then please write a rebuttal to this unanswerable book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines ">here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking on the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-2 of 2 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 12 Aug 2010 22:41:57 BDT
Francis, A says:
"I am an atheist. Welcome to my world a world of clean, sharp ideas, of naturalistic explanations"

Gosh, we like ourselves, don't we. Who says you have this power? Your assumption of this is magical thinking, plain and simple. Being an atheist does not make you a logistician or a scientist any more than loving horses makes me an jockey. Far from it in fact - your prejudice and bias actually makes you less Reasonable than, say, an agnostic.

The 'religious mind' is no more a bed of double-think than the atheist who decries religion for failing to live up to his own standards, while lacking any defined morality of his own. Read The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day if you don't believe me.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Aug 2010 08:59:02 BDT
A. Hawkins says:
The first paragraph of my review is intended as a form of satire as this arrogance is found within the opening chapters of Ward's book. I guess you have to have read the book in order to understand why I am apparently cocksure.

Sorry, I've already read the Irrational Atheist by Vox Day. I didn't think much of it. The thinking found within was just plain wrong on many different levels. Although, I admit he does score some points over Dawkins and Harris particulary in reference to the role of relgion within war. I'm almost ashamed at Dawkins, Harris et al to voice such an opinion in the first place. But Vox Day had better aim his next rebuttal book at John W. Loftus and his crew. They are the new debunkers of Christianity.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›