Humanist perspective: Arguments for gods

Some of the most common arguments for the existence of a god are presented below, with a humanist perspective on each. Some of these arguments are very old, but they are still used today. Some have arisen as part of Christian theology and some are relevant to many religions’ concepts of a god or gods.

Humanists demand evidence before they will believe something. They believe that none of these arguments provides persuasive enough evidence that a god exists. For many people, their reaction to many of these arguments often depends on the belief position they start from. It is easy for many believers to look at the criticisms of these arguments and say, ‘Well you would disagree, because you don’t believe.’ But it is important to note that religious believers, and not just atheists, have refuted many of these arguments.

Many religious believers would probably say that their religious conviction is not the conclusion of an argument. Instead, they would say they simply have ‘faith’, or they experience a sense of a god directly in their lives, or see his or her presence illuminated in the world around them. However, there are still believers who will make use of these arguments and will fall back on them when pressed. And for some of those who do not feel any personal experience of a god or gods, these arguments may present the only way of persuading them otherwise. It is therefore worth assessing them.

Many of the arguments are, at their best, only arguments for deism (a god that does not intervene in human affairs) and say nothing about what such a god would be like or how we should live our lives. Some people in history who identified themselves as humanists also claimed to be deists. However, many modern humanists believe that if these people lived today, aware of our current scientific understanding of the universe, they would instead be atheists or agnostics. It involves a huge leap of faith to take any of these arguments as evidence for an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent god.

Humanists accept that they cannot prove that a god does not exist. Many, however, feel the existence of evil and suffering in the world makes the existence of an all-powerful, all-loving god highly improbable. They therefore choose to live their lives on the basis that there is no god. (See Humanist Perspective: The Problem of Evil.)

Some people argue that humanists and atheists have faith just like religious people do. They argue that no evidence or argument would convince a humanist or an atheist to believe in god; they would always try to argue the evidence away. On the contrary, humanists, by definition, are prepared to adapt or change their beliefs according to the evidence. A humanist would always look first for a natural rather than a supernatural explanation, but if the evidence were strong enough, then they would be willing to change their minds. This is one of the key differences between Humanism and religions. Humanists are not dogmatically committed to atheism, but they are committed to using evidence to inform their beliefs.

British Humanist Association ©2016

Humanist perspective: Arguments for gods

The teleological argument

‘Surely the regular, ordered movement of the planets, the complexity of the universe, and the way living things are perfectly suited to their environment is proof of an intelligent designer?’

This argument is usually called ‘the argument from design’. It comes originally from ancient Greece, but was taken over by Christian thinkers such as St Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274). The clergyman William Paley (1743–1805) presented the argument as follows:

‘Imagine if we found a watch. We would reasonably assume that its complexity needed a designer. Therefore we should assume that the complexity of a human being, the Earth, or the whole cosmos also needs a designer.’

The philosopher David Hume presented a number of criticisms of such an argument. Firstly, while we may be familiar with watchmaking and so are able say with confidence that a watch was designed, we have no experience of world-making and so can say nothing about whether the world was designed. Secondly, just because two things are alike in one respect (both the watch and the universe are complex) does not mean they are necessarily alike in another respect (they have both been designed). Lions and cats are both very similar in many respects, but just because a lion can roar does not mean a cat can. Watches and universes are also very different in many respects. For one, a universe is made from natural materials, while a watch is made from artificial, man-made parts.

There are further problems with the argument. Firstly, pockets of the universe may appear ordered, but there is also a tendency towards chaos. It is just as easy to argue that the universe is violent, ugly, and chaotic as it is to say it is beautiful and ordered.

The teleological argument also assumes that order has to be designed, and can’t just occur naturally. A shaken jar of soil and water settles into a highly ordered pattern, with larger particles at the bottom, then finer particles, then liquid, and no designer is involved at all. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection provides a robust scientific explanation of why animals appear designed to fit their environments. Those living creatures which are better suited to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce. Over time, animals and plants therefore become better and better adapted to their environment. Giraffes don’t have long necks because they were designed that way. They have long necks because those with longer necks were more easily able to reach the leaves of tall trees and therefore better able to survive, reproduce, and pass on their genes and characteristics to their offspring.

British Humanist Association ©2016

There are also many things in the natural world that, if they were designed, do not appear to have been designed particularly well. Our eyes have a blind spot and our appendix is of no use to us (it is also potentially life-threatening). Barnacle geese build their nests on high mountain cliffs; the chicks have to jump from the cliffs soon after they are born and before they can fly in order to find food. Many do not survive. Surely an all-powerful designer could have come up with better designs.

More recently, the intelligent design movement has argued that some features of biological organisms are too complicated for evolution by natural selection to explain. They argue that it is therefore only fair that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution by natural selection in science education. However, the belief that just because we do not yet have a complete explanation for something it must be irreducibly complex is unscientific. And, indeed, many of the examples that intelligent design theorists highlight can in fact be explained by natural selection. Intelligent design theory has no place in the science classroom.

A contemporary updating of the design argument stems from the fact that our universe appears to have been ‘fine-tuned’ for life. Even if we can explain many of the features of our universe, the initial conditions still need to be explained. Had certain physical conditions been slightly different, the universe could never have supported life. It is a kind of ‘Goldilocks universe’. It is just right. The probability of its existing by chance, they claim, is therefore so small that it must have been designed.

There are a number of problems with this argument. Firstly, some scientists question whether, in fact, there is only a narrow set of conditions that could have led to life. Others say ours may be only one of many possible universes in a multi-verse and therefore it is not at all unlikely that some of these universes would have the right conditions for life. Even if we agreed that the conditions of our universe were so improbable that they implied a designer had fashioned them, we would be left with the implication that the designer must be at least as complex, and therefore must also have a designer, and so on.

When we can’t find a naturalistic explanation (such as natural forces and laws) for something, it is tempting to look for an intentional explanation (an explanation based on the desires and goals of rational agents). However, we should always be careful before we do. Throughout human history, there have been many things that we were initially unable to explain through natural causes, but now can (disease, the weather, the apparent movement of the sun and moon). There is no reason to assume that we will not be able to explain the existence of the universe through natural causes either.

Finally, Hume also pointed out that, even if we accepted that the argument from design proved the existence of a creator, it would say nothing about what that creator was like. We would have no way of knowing or assuming, for example, that this creator was a single, omnipotent, benevolent god. It might be some other natural being, an advanced civilisation, or a computer programmer.

If the universe were ‘fine-tuned’, it seems clear that it was not fine-tuned with us as its purpose. The vast majority of the universe is hostile to human life. Even if we accepted that the universe was fine-tuned for human life, then the design process has been incredibly inefficient and cruel. In the time it took for human beings to arrive, it has been estimated that over 99% of all species have gone extinct. That leaves many questions about the nature of the designer.

‘It is a huge, and as it stands, unjustified leap from the conclusion that the universe is the product of an intelligence to the conclusion that this intelligence is, say, the all-powerful and limitless benevolent god of love worshipped by Christians, Muslims, or Jews.’

Stephen Law, philosopher

British Humanist Association ©2016

Humanist perspective: Arguments for gods

The ontological argument

‘If you are able to think of a perfect being, you must believe in his existence, because if he didn’t exist, he wouldn’t be perfect.’

This argument is usually called ‘the ontological proof’. Ontology is the philosophical study of being and existence. The argument claims we can know god exists just by thinking about the idea of god. We don’t need to look for any evidence.

This argument comes from St Anselm in the eleventh century. St Thomas Aquinas rejected the argument; however, René Descartes revived it in the sixteenth century. Anselm’s argument was that god is ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’. God is the greatest thing we can think of. Things, he argued, can exist only in our imagination, or they can also exist in reality. If god only existed in our imagination, then he wouldn’t be the greatest thing we could imagine. An even greater being could be imagined: one that lived in our mind and in reality. Therefore, god must necessarily exist in reality. A perfect being must exist, otherwise it wouldn’t be perfect.

The problem with the argument was spotted immediately by Anselm’s contemporary, Gaunilo of Marmoutiers (a Benedictine monk). He said the argument meant all sorts of other perfect things must exist: a perfect island, a perfect human, a perfect bacon sandwich. Anselm responded that the argument only works for necessary beings, of which there is only one: god. The problem is that he is then assuming the thing that he is trying to prove. The argument says nothing more than this: if a perfect being exists, then it necessarily exists. This boils down to: if god exists, then he exists. It is a circular argument. It does not prove that such a being exists in the first place.

The philosopher Immanuel Kant also pointed out that existence is not a feature of something. It is just the case that existence is necessary for anything to have any features at all. We don’t add anything to the description of a sum of money (e.g. £100) by saying ‘and it exists’. It’s still the same amount of money. £100 is still £100. You don’t add anything to your description of god by saying ‘and he or she exists’. It makes no sense to say that a god who does not exist lacks an important feature. Existence is not a quality that something may or may not have, so it makes no sense to say that a god who possesses the quality of existing is ‘more perfect’ than one who lacks that quality.

British Humanist Association ©2016

Humanist perspective: Arguments for gods

The cosmological argument

‘Everything that happens has a cause. But something must have happened in the first place to start the chain of causation moving. This ‘first cause’ is what we call god.’

The cosmological argument says that the universe must have a cause. It is often called the ‘argument from first cause’ and was proposed by St Thomas Aquinas. If everything must have been caused by something, then how did everything begin? There must, according to Aquinas, be something that didn’t need a cause that could start everything off. For Aquinas, this ‘prime mover’ must be god.

For many, the argument is unsatisfactory. Firstly, it is possible that the universe did not have a beginning. It may instead have existed forever and therefore need not have had a first cause. Secondly if you assume that everything has a cause, then you need to address the question, ‘What caused the first cause?’ If it was god, then what caused god? One response to this criticism is that god created the chain of causation when he created the universe. God did not therefore need a cause, since causes are something he created.

However, if god didn’t need a cause, then not everything needs a cause, and so perhaps the universe doesn’t need a cause either. What reason do we have for assuming the first cause must necessarily be a god, rather than something natural? The fact that science hasn’t yet explained everything about the origin of the universe is not a reason for assuming a ‘first cause’ and calling it god.

Even if we accepted that the first cause was a god, this argument tells us nothing about what that that god is like. The argument provides no evidence that such a god is omnipotent or benevolent, nor that he or she shares any of the attributes of the gods of any religion, or that he or she still exists today.

British Humanist Association ©2016

Humanist perspective: Arguments for gods

The moral argument

‘Because morality exists, there must be a god.’

The moral argument does not say that it’s impossible to be good if you don’t believe in god. It is obvious that we can, and many atheists demonstrate this. It says we can’t be good if a god does not exist. The argument claims our experience tells us that objective moral values exist (for example, we all know killing is wrong), and if objective moral values exist, they need someone to set the standard for those values (a law-giver). The best explanation for this is a god.

The philosopher Immanuel Kant said that our moral experience makes it necessary for us to believe in a god (although he carefully avoided saying that this means a god exists). Without an objective moral reference point, all of our moral judgements would be subjective, leading to relativism, which would mean no one person’s opinion would be more valid than anyone else’s. The idea that we need a god to tell us what is right or wrong is called the ‘divine command theory’.

However, the non-existence of objective moral values does not necessarily lead to relativism or the impossibility of morality. Even if there is no external guarantee of objective moral truth, we can still use reason to help us assess moral claims. There can be other criteria on which we can judge people’s actions rather than simply whether a god would approve. Many would also argue that several of the divine commandments found in holy books and proposed by religious figures of authority are amoral by our modern standards. Modern psychology is also getting closer to providing an account of how our values and moral systems arose from our biological and cultural evolution. And it could be argued that this provides an objective basis for morality in our human nature, rather than in anything external to human beings.

More seriously, however, if god is the source of objective moral truth then we are left with the problem first described by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato. It is called the Euthyphro dilemma. It asks, ‘Is something good because god commands it, or does god command it because it is good?’ If the first case is true, then morality seems arbitrary. We are left with many of the problems we had if it is simply down to human individuals to decide what is right or wrong. It would mean god could command anything he or she wanted to be good (even things that we would not agree were good, like making people suffer). Nor could we judge god as ‘good’ because he or she couldn’t be otherwise.

On the other hand, if the second case is true – that god commands something because it is good – then what need is there for god? There is some other reason that things are good beyond god, and morality would therefore exist without god.

Some identify god with good. They say that god is not the creator of the standard of goodness, but is that standard itself. However, if that is all theists mean by god, then an atheist who believed in an objective morality can simply agree, but can prefer to choose the word ‘good’ instead of ‘god’ to describe this thing. The argument also gives us no evidence for a god that is anything more than a moral standard. It does not commit us to a belief in a god who is the creator of the universe or who shares any of the other features of the gods of the different religions.

British Humanist Association ©2016

Humanist perspective: Arguments for gods

The personal argument

‘But I’ve had a religious experience.’

Over human history, people have often claimed to have had a personal experience that has convinced them of the existence of a god or higher power. They may claim to have heard a voice in their head or seen visions. They may speak of the feeling of awe and wonder they get from the natural world, or the numinous quality of an experience that made them feel like a god was near or that they were part of something more powerful. They may claim to have had a near-death experience. These experiences are often described as revelations: the feeling that some truth or knowledge has been revealed through communication with a deity.

It is understandable why such experiences might give people personal reasons to believe in a god or gods. For many, they provide the most powerful evidence of a god or higher power. Indeed, without such revelations it could be argued that many of the world’s largest religions would not exist. Such experiences were the trigger for many of their founding figures’ beliefs (e.g. St Paul, Muhammad, Siddhārtha Gautama). However, they provide no evidence that a god or gods exist. Many different people are convinced that their personal experience has shown them the true path, but these revelations about gods or supernatural forces are often contradictory – they cannot all be right.

We should always look for natural explanations of such phenomena first. Neuroscience and psychology are giving us a much better understanding of how the human brain works and are providing scientific explanations for many of our experiences. Many research projects have examined religious experiences and discovered that such experiences can be triggered by manipulating certain areas in the brain, or are consequences of other stimuli, such as temporal lobe epilepsy or oxygen deprivation. Often, there is a natural explanation.

When it comes to awe and wonder, or numinous experiences, again, there are natural explanations. It is possible to see awe and wonder in the world without the need to believe it reveals anything supernatural. Many humanists will speak of such experiences. It is also natural to feel like we are all part of something bigger. We are! We are all part of humanity, the natural world, and the cosmos.

Defenders of the argument from religious experience sometimes compare it with our belief in an independently existing external world, which is similarly based on direct experience. ‘Our experience of the external world could all be an illusion,’ they say, ‘but we make a leap of faith when we trust our experience and believe in an external world. Why should we not make a similar leap of faith and trust our religious experience as evidence for the existence of a deity?’ However, our experience of the external world is much more trustworthy than supposed experiences of god. Religious experience varies wildly across the globe and has varied wildly throughout human history, while we nearly always agree about our sensory experiences of the external world. Our sensory experiences of the outside world are constantly confirmed both by ourselves and by everyone else.

British Humanist Association ©2016

Humanist perspective: Arguments for gods

Argument from consensus

‘God must exist, because in all societies and throughout history the vast majority of human beings have believed in a god, and they can’t all be mistaken.’

Lots of people believe in different gods, but do they all exist? Perhaps all these different gods are different versions of the same god. Would that not add evidence to the claim that a god exists? But then lots of people don’t believe in god: does this mean god doesn’t exist too? When lots of people believe something, it feels like it is more likely to be true, but consensus of opinion does not make something true. Many years ago, almost everyone believed the Sun moved across the sky rather than the apparent motion being due to the rotation of the Earth. However, the fact that many people believed these things did not make them true. We cannot simply believe things into existence.

There are, of course, many things that lots of people believe in that do exist, even when they may not have had first-hand experience of such things. The reason people believe in icebergs, for example, is because there is a wealth of evidence available in books, photographs, and documentaries, through our understanding of the properties of water, and through our personal experience of ice in drinks. We can therefore rationally conclude that icebergs exist. It is this evidence behind people’s belief that gives us good reason to conclude that icebergs exist. Does the same evidence exist for a god or gods? If it did, would we need to use the argument from belief?

Some people say, ‘Well, if I believe then god exists for me’. But that kind of existence, if it is a kind of existence at all, does not give us any evidence of a universe-creating, omnipotent, benevolent god.

British Humanist Association ©2016

Humanist perspective: Arguments for gods

Pascal’s wager

The French philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) put forward a pragmatic argument for why we should believe in a god:

Either god exists or doesn’t exist.1) If god exists and we believe, we will be rewarded with infinite happiness (an infinite gain)2) If god exists and we don’t believe, we will be punished with infinite suffering (an infinite loss)3) If god does not exist and we believe, we will miss out on some finite pleasure (a finite loss)4) If god does not exist and we don’t believe, we will gain some finite pleasure (a finite gain)

God exists God does not existBelieve in god Eternal happiness A small lossDon’t believe in god Eternal punishment A small gain

The rational choice, according to Pascal, was therefore to believe in god: if you are right you gain much, and if you are wrong you lose little.

There are, however, a number of flaws with the argument.1) The many different religions propose many different gods. What if we choose to believe in the

wrong one? What if the real god is none of those worshipped by religious believers?2) Would a god be happy that we believed based only on a calculation or a gamble?3) We can’t all simply choose to believe in something. We can’t switch our beliefs on or off. We either

believe or we don’t. Would a god be happy if we simply feigned a belief?

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this argument only analyses whether we should believe; it says nothing about whether a god actually exists. The French philosopher Voltaire (1694–1778) said, ‘The interest I have to believe a thing is no proof that such a thing exists.’

The Roman Emperor and stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius (121–180), proposed an alternative gamble about how we should lead our lives that promotes living a good life over the necessity to believe in a god:

‘Live a good life. If there are gods and they are good, they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you because of the values you have lived by. If there are gods that are not good, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods at all, then you will be gone, but you will have lived a noble life that will continue in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.’

British Humanist Association ©2016

Humanist perspective: Miracles

Two different kinds of events are sometimes described as miracles: firstly, events that are unlikely but happy coincidences and, secondly, events that break the laws of nature. Examples of the first kind include people recovering from serious illnesses or surviving life-threatening events. Examples of the second kind are a human being walking on water, or a dead person returning to life.

Some people believe that such events provide evidence that a god or gods are interfering in the natural world. However, others think all such events have a natural explanation.

In the case of unlikely but happy coincidences, many people think that they are just that: coincidences. Given the almost infinite number of events that happen every day, some of these are in fact bound to be ones which we might have thought extremely unlikely. When does an ordinary coincidence become a ‘miracle’? There doesn’t appear to be anything that makes a ‘miracle’ any different from an unlikely coincidence. The most likely explanation is simply that something unlikely happened. Unlikely things happen all the time.

It is also interesting to note that, in cases where people recover from serious illness or escape the consequences of natural disasters, people can be very quick to thank a god for such an outcome. They rarely, however, refer to any divine responsibility for the disease or the natural disaster in the first place, or for the deaths of many others who were not so lucky. While a god or gods are often brought up to explain a happy coincidence, they are rarely mentioned in connection with unhappy coincidences.

When it comes to miracles that supposedly break the laws of nature, they either have a natural rather than supernatural explanation, or they simply didn’t happen.

‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.’Carl Sagan, astronomer and cosmologist (1934–1996)

Miracles that allegedly break the laws of nature often seem to have happened far away or long ago. For many, they are therefore just stories rather than true events, or the conclusions of witnesses who were either unreliable or lacking an understanding of modern science. Miracles very rarely seem to happen in experimental situations where they can be repeated and properly tested. In the past, there were many things we did not understand, such as why people got ill or recovered. However, modern science has given us a much better understanding of such events. Just because we can’t explain something today, does not therefore mean we won’t be able to explain it in the future. There are also often good scientific explanations for apparently impossible things. Religious statues weeping blood, for example, can be explained. Water builds up in the porous clay of the statue and oozes out of tiny flaws in the glaze, sometimes coloured by pigments in the clay.

British Humanist Association ©2016

Humanist perspectives: Miracles

‘A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.’David Hume, philosopher (1711–1776)

The philosopher David Hume argued that we should always examine the evidence for any ‘miracle’ and weigh up the different possible explanations, basing our beliefs on reason and experience. This way of looking at the world is called scepticism. Hume believed we should always ask whether it is more likely that the normally secure laws of nature broke down for a moment or that something else happened. Perhaps, for example, we were mistaken about what we saw or heard (we can be more susceptible to error when it is something we want to believe). Or perhaps someone is lying to us, possibly with the motivation of making us believe. Hume would say both of the above are more likely than that the laws of nature broke down, and so it is rational to conclude that, instead, we were mistaken or are being deceived.

‘When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately [wonder] whether it be more probable that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact … should really have happened.’

David Hume, philosopher (1711–1776)

Hume’s logic applies just as much to claims of faith healing, alternative medicines and therapies, and sightings of UFOs. Today, there is big money to be made from such claims, which should also always make us wary.

Interestingly, many religious people don’t believe in miracles either, as they raise awkward questions: Why would god perform these miracles? Why intervene in the laws of nature to make a statue weep but not save people from a tsunami? Why would god save some and not others, or everyone?

Even if miracles that broke the laws of nature did happen, we would be left with no evidence that it was caused by a particular god and not something else. Given that many religions claim miracles as evidence for the truth of their beliefs, they would give us little help deciding which of the many religions, if any, were true.

Questions about miracles for discussion

1) What is the difference between a miracle and a coincidence?2) Can there ever be sufficient evidence for a miracle to outweigh the overwhelming evidence for the

laws of nature? What would be good evidence for a miracle?3) Would it be possible for a miracle to be scientifically confirmed?4) Why are gods used to explain happy coincidences but not unhappy coincidences?5) Why would a god intervene in the laws of nature to make a statue weep but not save people from a

tsunami?6) Why would a god save some people from a natural disaster and not others, or everyone?7) Even if miracles that broke the laws of nature did happen, how would we know it was caused by a

particular god and not something else? Would it tell us anything about the nature of a god?8) Given that many religions claim miracles as evidence for the truth of their beliefs, how would we

know which were true?

British Humanist Association ©2016

Humanist perspective: Arguments for gods

General questions for discussion:

1) Do any of the arguments for the existence of god convince you? Why or why not?2) If none of the arguments is convincing, does that mean you can’t believe in god?3) How might a humanist respond to each of the arguments for the existence of god?4) Which of the arguments are arguments for a god with all the features of the Christian god? 5) Which of the arguments are only arguments for a god of deism?6) If each of these arguments proves the existence of god, what does it tell us about that god?

Further resources:

Humanist perspectives: Atheism, agnosticism, and Humanism; Gods; The problem of evil Film – How do we know what is true?: humanism.org.uk/thatshumanism/ Thought experiments relating to the burden of proof:

o en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot o en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn o en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

‘The Parable of the Invisible Gardener’ by John Wisdom, later developed by Anthony Flew Arguments for and against the existence of god:

atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/arg/blarg_index.htm Crash Course Philosophy videos:

o ‘Anselm and the Argument for God’: www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmTsS5xFA6k&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNgK6MZucdYldNkMybYIHKR&index=9

o ‘Aquinas and the Cosmological Arguments’: www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY&index=10&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNgK6MZucdYldNkMybYIHKR

o ‘Intelligent Design’: www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e9v_fsZB6A&index=11&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNgK6MZucdYldNkMybYIHKR

o ‘Indiana Jones & Pascal’s Wager’: www.youtube.com/watch?v=S93jMOqF-oE&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNgK6MZucdYldNkMybYIHKR&index=15

William Paley and the Divine Watchmaker: Radio 4 animation: www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNPSiaU62yk

Sketpic magazine – ‘The non-fine-tuned universe’: www.skeptic.com/reading_room/non-fine-tuned-universe/

Thomas Aquinas and the First Mover Argument: Radio 4 animation:www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJH18VqdttY

Law, Stephen, Humanism: A very short introduction (OUP, 2011) Baggini, Julian, Atheism: A Very Short Introduction (OUP, 2003)

British Humanist Association ©2016