An Intelligent Person's Guide to Atheism

An Intelligent Person's Guide to Atheism by Daniel Harbour (Duckworth, London, 2001).

'This book is about why atheism is correct, why theism is incorrect, and why anyone who cares about the truth should be an atheist'^†. Harbour argues his thesis by contrasting two opposing world views: the 'Spartan meritocracy' and the 'Baroque monarchy'. The former 'starts with minimal assumptions and recognises that they might be wrong and need revision'; the latter 'starts with a rich view of the way the world is and forbids revision of the basic assumptions'. The author argues for the superiority of the Spartan meritocratic approach in that it both supports the 'paradigm of rational enquiry … the most successful attempt to understand the world that the world has ever seen', and, when applied to the organisation of society, supports morality, justice and freedom. He argues that we have inbuilt moral intuitions which have evolved with human societies – 'theism, God, or religion are [not] fundamental to morality' – in fact theism is 'an impediment to moral behaviour. … The source of the problem is dogma, the heart of the Baroque monarchy, or religion, and of theism'. Although 'there is no straight and simple correspondence between atheism and theism, and the two world views …, the Spartan meritocracy does guide one to atheism nonetheless'.

Although he does not refer to Popper, the political aspects of Harbour's Spartan meritocracy appear similar to the views of Karl Popper. Compare the following extracts:

1. from Philosophy and the Real World : An Introduction to Karl Popper by Bryan Magee:

   So not only do authorities which forbid prior critical examination of their policies condemn themselves to making many of their mistakes in a more expensive form, and discovering them later, than they need; they also – if, as is usually the case, they likewise forbid critical examination of the practical application of their policies – condemn themselves to pressing on with mistakes for some time after these have begun to produce injurious unintended consequences. The whole approach, characteristic of highly authoritarian structures, is anti-rational. As a result the more rigid perish with their false theories, or at best (if they are lucky and ruthless) ossify, and the less rigid make a progress which is bruised, costly and unnecessarily slow.

2. from An Intelligent Person's Guide to Atheism by Daniel Harbour:

   Democratic ideals, such as freedom and justice, are, in virtue of their complexity and ineffability, difficult to attain. They are, in consequence, best pursued by the principles of Spartan meritocracy, by hardheaded trial and error and argument. ... The influence of religious institutions on government, whether direct or indirect, is wrong. It is antidemocratic. In the attempt to achieve justice and freedom and, in short, democracy, issues of such importance are at stake that we cannot afford to leave them in the grasp of stipulation, unreason, and religion.

   Harbour presents a readable, strongly reasoned argument for atheism and against theism. However, even if you are not a wholehearted atheist, you may still appreciate the case for secularism. The arguments may not be new, but the need to keep our politics free from religion or other dogma needs constant reemphasis.

   Gordon Peckham, Exeter.

   ^†words between ' and ' are quoted verbatim from Harbour's book.