Well, I've just finished reading Armin's book, and I must say, as an atheist, I thought that he did a fine job.

Let's go over the pros and cons of the book together:

Pros:

- The book is succinct, precise, and well-written. Armin's writing flows very well, is not tiresome, does not go out of its way to use unnecessary "SAT vocabulary" and get's to the point.
- The chapters flow coherently, and sometimes build on each other. That's good organization.
- He covers many different questions, and does a swell job of doing it. He does add some subtle nuance to his counterarguments, which was appreciated as a seasoned atheist.
- If you're a seasoned atheist like myself, this book serves as a great refresher.
- If you have friends who are fledgling atheists, agnostics, or theists who are intellectually honest, this book is a great introduction to the topic, and less polemic than say, Boghossian's "A Manual for Creating Atheists," (although I enjoyed that book as well).
- The book is physically well-made, from the cover material, to the cover design, even the paper type.
- There are sources at the end of each chapter for further reading. Again, not only are there sources, but they are at the end of the chapter, which I find more convenient than sources at the end of a book.

Cons:

- It doesn't go into too much detail on any one of the chapters, but this is forgivable because Armin gives a good, concise treatment to all of them. The only ones that I wish had more detail were the ones that considered philosophical arguments for god, like the Transcendental Argument or the Cosmological Argument.

Biggest Caveat:

- In Chapter 14, which features his counterargument to the Transcendental Argument for God, aka TAG, Armin argues that the natural laws are descriptive not prescriptive, and doesn't really give philosophically objective treatment to both sides of the issue. Again, this is forgivable, as the book is meant to be succinct, and approachable for the layman, but the natural laws are not known to be descriptive to the degree of certainty with which he seems to state they are.

Let me go into detail. First off, the "natural laws" aren't even what Armin wanted to discuss in this chapter. He wanted to discuss "the laws of nature." These are two completely different things, but to someone who maybe doesn't have the philosophical background (academically or autodidactically), these are easily confused. I think this small slip up belies Armin's unfamiliarity with the arguments for prescriptive laws, and thus became my only major qualm with the book.

It's a fact that about 76% of professional philosophers are atheists, or are inclined towards atheism. This was demonstrated by the PhilPapers survey recently conducted amongst our top philosophical minds. But it's also a fact that out of 931 correspondents to the question of whether the laws of nature are Humean or non-Humean, 532 said that they are non-humean, or in other words, that they are prescriptive. Only 230 out of 931 said they are descriptive (Humean), and only 169 were "other." Even if you add the non-non-humean votes, that still comes out to 42.9%.

So while it's not a fact that the laws are either way, it is not as cut and dry as Armin presents it. I realize that there may be theistic baggage attached to a philosophical view that the laws are prescriptive, but there are reasons for professional philosophers to believe this. One of the most popular? The miracle argument.

It would certainly be a miracle, by Armin's definition, that the laws of nature (not natural laws) are only descriptions of how the world is, rather than prescriptions of how the world will be. Why? Because EVERY TIME we test a given law, it turns out to be true. That's why we call it a law. It would be a miracle that it's just a description, because if it were, that means there is a chance that that law will not uphold. Now we're not going to get into the difference between metaphysical and epistemic probability, but they do uphold when we test them. Every time. 100% of the time we test a law, it turns out to be true, but we don't want to say that it is an intrinsic part of the universe (that it is only a description from our mind)? I find that dubious. Obviously, there are other reasons to be a non-humean, but I'm just trying to speak concisely to a lay audience.

No material object can travel at light speed. That's not something that is alterable, or just a description. It cannot happen, because that particular law prevents it. The law is prescriptive, but it doesn't necessarily come from a law-giving mind. It just means that, according to non-humeans, there is a metaphysical structure underling physical reality, which is in actuality, not very farfetched. Again, this is not scientific fact. This is a philosophical position, but there is much justification for this position.

I realize this is getting a little deep for the purposes of a review, but it should be noted that this particular chapter had me shaking my head in disagreement. It's not necessarily that Armin is wrong, but that he could have gone in other directions with his argument. He is willing to concede (in argument) that there may be a mind that creates the laws, but that it has no purpose beyond creating these laws. Why not just say that the laws of nature could be part of a rich metaphysical structure made up of mathematical objects that exists more than abstractly? I'm sure Armin would say that mathematical objects are only abstracts of our mind, but again, I would call this into question too. For the laymen reading, abstract means existing only in our mind, sort of like tools for describing the universe (hence Armin's position that laws describe). In opposition to this would be "metaphysically existing" laws and number.

The truth is, just because you're an atheist, it doesn't mean you have to be a materialist. There are things that "exist" non-physically, or so I, and many professional philosophers will contend. And there is a certain irony in saying that abstract objects like laws of nature and mathematical entities are only found in minds. Namely, that it requires a mind to create them, which sounds an awful lot like theistic claims that there is a mind required to "create" these objects, which probably lead to Armin's allowing that there may be a mind that creates the laws. Don't get me wrong, I'm not misunderstanding the position of humeans, I'm just saying that there is a poetic irony here.

But as an atheist, you can be more nuanced than that. You can say that the laws of nature are prescriptive, but that they don't need a mind to exist in. The number 2, as in, the character "2," may not exist without human minds, but what "2" represents is not only true, but arguably a metaphysically existing object. That means it is timeless and spaceless. 2+2 is always 4. A=A is always true. If the laws of logic and hence math are necessarily true, that means they don't require our world (of spacetime) to be true. And if that is the case, then that means they can exist, naturally, without us to think them up. Not to mention, there is what is known as the "indispensability argument," which essentially says we should be committed to the existence of the objects that support our best scientific theories. Well, if you didn't already know, theoretical physics is all math. And this understanding of these mathematical objects allows us to send people to the moon and back. It's not a miracle that these mathematical "descriptions" of reality are true. These mathematical objects are not just abstractions in our mind that seem to fit the universe. They really are part of a discoverable metaphysical structure. Not by empirical science per se, but by pure logic. They exist. Existence doesn't mean "has a physical form." Existence means to "have objective reality or being." The same thing goes for laws of nature. If we're using them in our best scientific theories, we should be committed to their metaphysical existence; and not just say, "oh hm, yeah, it just happens to be the case that the system -called math- that we devised is so accurate that it can predict the path of comets years in advance. Oh yeah, but we evolved for life on the african savannah, not to grasp math or logic intrinsically, but eh, don't worry- our math is still so precise to the nth degree, and allows us to do amazing things."

No. Just... no. There is no coincidence that our brains were somehow able to devise a system that so matches the universe's inner-workings so precisely. We can predict the path of a comet because math and logic (as objects) are inherent to the world. The reason we can't "sense" these metaphysical objects is because our evolution dictated (metaphorically speaking of course) that it wasn't necessary for us to grasp such things. It was completely unnecessary for our survival. That's why metaphysics is so unintuitive to us, but why we can still grasp them conceptually in some manner. It's unintuitive because we were never "meant" to have shot rockets to the moon (as in, the environment we evolved in did not select for that ability), but we can still grasp them "conceptually" with our terrestrially evolved brains because they actually, objectively exist.

Anyway, last statement: a prime-mover may not necessarily be a god. It could be something like the Tao or Brahman, two "things" that aren't labeled "supernatural" nor have wills or minds or anything of that manner. And the laws of logic and mathematical objects could exist within such an entity. This is just an alternative view. You can still be an atheist and be a taoist. I'm going to end things here, but trust me, atheism is more nuanced than mild-nihilism. Just saying.

After all is said and done, Armin accomplished what he set out to do. Provide a book that will get people thinking, help get the critical faculties of theists and agnostics going, and refresh the minds of atheists. 4 stars.

Brand	N/A
Rating	4.5 (4436 ratings)
Price	$5.95
Category	Atheism

Why There Is No God: Simple Responses to 20 Common Arguments for the Existence of God