What do you think?
Rate this book
Christian Atheist: Belonging without Believing
Christian Atheist examines the growing religious phenomenon of those who are drawn to Christianity without accepting its metaphysical claims or dogma. Throughout the history of the Church there have been many people like this who have sat differently to the central creedal claims, but in the contemporary 'god delusion' culture, more are coming out to claim acceptance for their views. The key to the book is a set of interviews with people who fall broadly into the 'Christian Atheist' category; some are more agnostic and less sceptical than others, but what they have in common is the rejection of traditional belief in God, counterbalanced by an admiration for the aesthetic genius of Christianity (leading to a sense of deeper value), the Christian moral compass, and in some cases the community aspect of Christian life.
140 pages, Paperback
First published June 16, 2011
9 people are currently reading
47 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
August 7, 2012
Christian Atheist examines the growing religious phenomenon of those who are drawn to Christianity without accepting its metaphysical claims or dogma. Throughout the history of the Church there have been many people like this who have sat differently to the central creedal claims, but in the contemporary 'god delusion' culture, more are coming out to claim acceptance for their views. The key to the book is a set of interviews with people who fall broadly into the 'Christian Atheist' category; some are more agnostic and less sceptical than others, but what they have in common is the rejection of traditional belief in God, counterbalanced by an admiration for the aesthetic genius of Christianity (leading to a sense of deeper value), the Christian moral compass, and in some cases the community aspect of Christian life.
July 5, 2016
Christian bookshops and church gift-shops are not places where I would usually expect to find books that call out to be read. The University Church of St Mary the Virgin, in Oxford, which is over 900 years old and, says Wikipedia, "the centre from which the University of Oxford grew", would have, I ween, a congregation not easily satisfied by the usual devotional pap. There I found something to pique my interest.
The term Christian atheist was coined, Mountford informs us, by the English writer of children's books Philip Pullman, to denominate a person whose culture is fundamentally Christian though he does not share the supernatural beliefs of Christianity, the main sticking-point being the existence of God. Pullman compares the Church of England part of his psyche to "a piece of barbed wire fence embedded in the bark of a tree" (p.1); it is a thing that cannot be disentangled. Christians who doubt their faith, and write books about it for Christian bookshops, generally treat doubt as a form of predictable human frailty, such as the want of faith that led St Peter to a ducking when he tried to emulate the water-walking of Christ. It's refreshing to encounter a voice within the Church that doesn't set the faithful on a pedestal above others who, though sympathetic, cannot in conscience subscribe to all the impossible things that a prescriptive orthodoxy demands of them. Faith, to my way of thinking, isn't a virtue; and having it does not necessarily confer moral benefits. Plenty of good people don't believe; and I certainly don't feel any pangs for the absence of God. At the time of my own youthful conversion to atheism, I found little difficulty in renouncing ties with the club of believers; but apparently there are many who do find the renunciation difficult.
Mountford's book opens a respectful dialogue with this unorthodox fringe of the Church flock. It would be unkind to suggest that this is just the price the modern Church must pay to shore itself up against eroding church attendance; I think Mountford’s sympathy is perfectly genuine. The introduction into his sermons of a few ideas gleaned from conversations with declared Christian atheists elicited interest and sympathy among the congregation, with some freely acknowledging themselves to be of the same mind.
"What emerged was a widespread difficulty with the supernatural claims about God, especially the miraculous and the problem of how an omnipotent God could allow evil and suffering in the world. This was counterbalanced by a strong affirmation of the communal benefits of the life of the Church, a commitment to Christianity's moral compass, and a valuing of the aesthetics of religion - the sense of transcendence that can be felt in response to art, music and the resonant language of the bible and Christian liturgy." (p.7)
This book explores the bonds that keep unbelieving members inside the Church, despite their disregard for doctrine and articles of belief. It has chapters of discussion with churchgoers who freely admit that their attendance is motivated by extraneous factors: the music, the architecture, the language of the liturgy, the connection to history, the ethical norms that the Church offers through narrative, perceived benefits for family and community, and the outreach and charitable work.
The question “How heterodox are you entitled to be?” (p.55) demands a response. Are such people, the choir Christians and the Easter-and-Christmas Christians, merely “hangers on” or has the demographic base shifted? Paul Snowden, a professor of philosophy who was interviewed for the book, thinks that adherence to certain core beliefs, he suggests “God, Christ, revelation” (p.57), are a necessary condition of belonging to the Church, and a person without some such basic beliefs is not a Christian in any recognizable sense of the word. Mountford, who takes the position that “religion is more about relationships and values” (p.56), acknowledges the challenge but reformulates it in a more inclusive way:
"Paul’s ‘God, Christ and revelation’ formulation is intended, I think, not so much to create a static orthodoxy (goal posts) as to flag up an agenda that cannot be ignored by anyone who wishes to take the Christian religion seriously, even as a hanger on. Thus the Christian Atheist will also take seriously the discussion that this agenda sets out, whatever conclusions (if indeed conclusions are possible) she eventually reaches, …” (p.58)
There is an clear distinction between the notion of a core of belief and an “agenda that cannot be ignored”, but the difficulty has been glossed over. Such a proceeding is rationally unacceptable, but Mountford is an empiricist not a rationalist, highlighting the historical context of the creation of doctrine. This book isn’t a theological treatise; it’s a discussion of prevailing ideas, with a humane bias. He urges a case for choosing a “spirit of the law” approach to doctrine over a rules approach, and privileges good actions (orthopraxy) over orthodoxy.
"Karen Armstrong’s take [Armstrong is a British writer on comparative religion] on orthodoxy emphasises action over belief. If she is right, then those who seriously engage with the Christian moral challenge are just as close to the Christian centre as those who emphasise belief in a metaphysical God. In fact, you could argue that time spent on abstracted thought about God and the contemplation of what constitutes right teaching, especially where it touches the unknowable, is an easy diversion from Christ’s call for humility, compassion, mercy and service to others." (p.72)
I’m gratified that I would be acceptable as a member of Brian’s congregation, if I were minded to apply, and that I would find other people there whose sensibilities aren’t so very far removed from my own. In the Peter Cook / John Cleese film The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer (1970) the Archbishop of Canterbury is caricatured as a public figure who is so trendy that he’s willing to entertain the idea that Christians need not believe in God. The joke doesn’t seem so funny now; atheists professing Christianity do exist in the Anglican communion, and they’re coming out.
I’ve heard Christianity characterized as “a conversation”, probably by a speaker on a religious broadcast, and dismissed it as a faddish term intended to mystify and mollify the unbelievers; but Mountford’s Anglicanism really is a conversation, a discussion undertaken in good faith that promotes trust and mutual understanding. Blessed are the peacemakers.
The term Christian atheist was coined, Mountford informs us, by the English writer of children's books Philip Pullman, to denominate a person whose culture is fundamentally Christian though he does not share the supernatural beliefs of Christianity, the main sticking-point being the existence of God. Pullman compares the Church of England part of his psyche to "a piece of barbed wire fence embedded in the bark of a tree" (p.1); it is a thing that cannot be disentangled. Christians who doubt their faith, and write books about it for Christian bookshops, generally treat doubt as a form of predictable human frailty, such as the want of faith that led St Peter to a ducking when he tried to emulate the water-walking of Christ. It's refreshing to encounter a voice within the Church that doesn't set the faithful on a pedestal above others who, though sympathetic, cannot in conscience subscribe to all the impossible things that a prescriptive orthodoxy demands of them. Faith, to my way of thinking, isn't a virtue; and having it does not necessarily confer moral benefits. Plenty of good people don't believe; and I certainly don't feel any pangs for the absence of God. At the time of my own youthful conversion to atheism, I found little difficulty in renouncing ties with the club of believers; but apparently there are many who do find the renunciation difficult.
Mountford's book opens a respectful dialogue with this unorthodox fringe of the Church flock. It would be unkind to suggest that this is just the price the modern Church must pay to shore itself up against eroding church attendance; I think Mountford’s sympathy is perfectly genuine. The introduction into his sermons of a few ideas gleaned from conversations with declared Christian atheists elicited interest and sympathy among the congregation, with some freely acknowledging themselves to be of the same mind.
"What emerged was a widespread difficulty with the supernatural claims about God, especially the miraculous and the problem of how an omnipotent God could allow evil and suffering in the world. This was counterbalanced by a strong affirmation of the communal benefits of the life of the Church, a commitment to Christianity's moral compass, and a valuing of the aesthetics of religion - the sense of transcendence that can be felt in response to art, music and the resonant language of the bible and Christian liturgy." (p.7)
This book explores the bonds that keep unbelieving members inside the Church, despite their disregard for doctrine and articles of belief. It has chapters of discussion with churchgoers who freely admit that their attendance is motivated by extraneous factors: the music, the architecture, the language of the liturgy, the connection to history, the ethical norms that the Church offers through narrative, perceived benefits for family and community, and the outreach and charitable work.
The question “How heterodox are you entitled to be?” (p.55) demands a response. Are such people, the choir Christians and the Easter-and-Christmas Christians, merely “hangers on” or has the demographic base shifted? Paul Snowden, a professor of philosophy who was interviewed for the book, thinks that adherence to certain core beliefs, he suggests “God, Christ, revelation” (p.57), are a necessary condition of belonging to the Church, and a person without some such basic beliefs is not a Christian in any recognizable sense of the word. Mountford, who takes the position that “religion is more about relationships and values” (p.56), acknowledges the challenge but reformulates it in a more inclusive way:
"Paul’s ‘God, Christ and revelation’ formulation is intended, I think, not so much to create a static orthodoxy (goal posts) as to flag up an agenda that cannot be ignored by anyone who wishes to take the Christian religion seriously, even as a hanger on. Thus the Christian Atheist will also take seriously the discussion that this agenda sets out, whatever conclusions (if indeed conclusions are possible) she eventually reaches, …” (p.58)
There is an clear distinction between the notion of a core of belief and an “agenda that cannot be ignored”, but the difficulty has been glossed over. Such a proceeding is rationally unacceptable, but Mountford is an empiricist not a rationalist, highlighting the historical context of the creation of doctrine. This book isn’t a theological treatise; it’s a discussion of prevailing ideas, with a humane bias. He urges a case for choosing a “spirit of the law” approach to doctrine over a rules approach, and privileges good actions (orthopraxy) over orthodoxy.
"Karen Armstrong’s take [Armstrong is a British writer on comparative religion] on orthodoxy emphasises action over belief. If she is right, then those who seriously engage with the Christian moral challenge are just as close to the Christian centre as those who emphasise belief in a metaphysical God. In fact, you could argue that time spent on abstracted thought about God and the contemplation of what constitutes right teaching, especially where it touches the unknowable, is an easy diversion from Christ’s call for humility, compassion, mercy and service to others." (p.72)
I’m gratified that I would be acceptable as a member of Brian’s congregation, if I were minded to apply, and that I would find other people there whose sensibilities aren’t so very far removed from my own. In the Peter Cook / John Cleese film The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer (1970) the Archbishop of Canterbury is caricatured as a public figure who is so trendy that he’s willing to entertain the idea that Christians need not believe in God. The joke doesn’t seem so funny now; atheists professing Christianity do exist in the Anglican communion, and they’re coming out.
I’ve heard Christianity characterized as “a conversation”, probably by a speaker on a religious broadcast, and dismissed it as a faddish term intended to mystify and mollify the unbelievers; but Mountford’s Anglicanism really is a conversation, a discussion undertaken in good faith that promotes trust and mutual understanding. Blessed are the peacemakers.
June 27, 2012
This is a generous and engaging book that works well as a broad introduction and exploration of Christian Atheism. Christian Atheism is broadly defined in the book and it is to the credit of the author that he allows his interviewees and subjects to do much of the defining. The term covers a broad range of positions and the book includes interviews and quotes from people formed in the Christian tradition e.g. Phillip Pullman (who describes himself as a Book of Common Prayer Atheist) and atheists who are keen to engage with the church and Christian traditions. Particularly fascinating are those people who contributed to the author's research who regularly attend church services and events, in some cases even being members of the choir and PCC. The overall theme of the book is call for honest admission and hospitality on the part of the church to recognise the presence of atheists who wish to engage with Christianity on a variety of levels, and to recognise their important contribution to the development of church life and thought.
The book is only intended as an introduction and for a short text (c.130 pages) it manages to cover a wide range of themes. However, I did find that this could be frustrating as important points were alluded to then left undeveloped. Overall I found that the book's structure to be somewhat disjointed, perhaps as a result of the author trying to explore a broad phenomenon rather than articulate a closed argument. Given the subject matter of the book it is perhaps no surprise that the focus is on Christian orthopraxy (doing the right thing) rather than orthodoxy (believing the right thing), and whilst the author stops short of saying Christianity is essentially about what you do rather than what you believe it is very much the direction of travel. Whilst there is a brief comment to the effect that believe and practice cannot be separated, the interplay and connection between the two feels largely unexplored - perhaps as this would steer the discussion into more divisive waters. There are limitations with the interview sample being both small and seeming to consist largely of well-educated middle class Oxford denizens. As an introduction this is fine, but limits the extent to which the author's findings can be safely extrapolated.
The question I kept asking myself in the course of reading this book was whether Christian Atheism could be seen an energetic movement within the broad and dynamic sweep of the Christian story, or whether it is something more transitional, vestigial even, a position for those who cannot quite kick the habit Christianity in one go. My sense on reading the book is perhaps that it is more the latter, a symbiotic position dependent on Christian theism, which in itself is capable of containing a wide range of beliefs and doubts. The author's intent is to push for both greater honesty and openness, and it is certainly a pertinent text for our times (if you happen to live in Western Europe or areas of similar culture). However, a more comprehensive and wide-ranging study would be required in order to ask whether the phenomenon of Christian Atheism is a small and passing phase, or whether it represents something more substantial and game-changing.
The book is only intended as an introduction and for a short text (c.130 pages) it manages to cover a wide range of themes. However, I did find that this could be frustrating as important points were alluded to then left undeveloped. Overall I found that the book's structure to be somewhat disjointed, perhaps as a result of the author trying to explore a broad phenomenon rather than articulate a closed argument. Given the subject matter of the book it is perhaps no surprise that the focus is on Christian orthopraxy (doing the right thing) rather than orthodoxy (believing the right thing), and whilst the author stops short of saying Christianity is essentially about what you do rather than what you believe it is very much the direction of travel. Whilst there is a brief comment to the effect that believe and practice cannot be separated, the interplay and connection between the two feels largely unexplored - perhaps as this would steer the discussion into more divisive waters. There are limitations with the interview sample being both small and seeming to consist largely of well-educated middle class Oxford denizens. As an introduction this is fine, but limits the extent to which the author's findings can be safely extrapolated.
The question I kept asking myself in the course of reading this book was whether Christian Atheism could be seen an energetic movement within the broad and dynamic sweep of the Christian story, or whether it is something more transitional, vestigial even, a position for those who cannot quite kick the habit Christianity in one go. My sense on reading the book is perhaps that it is more the latter, a symbiotic position dependent on Christian theism, which in itself is capable of containing a wide range of beliefs and doubts. The author's intent is to push for both greater honesty and openness, and it is certainly a pertinent text for our times (if you happen to live in Western Europe or areas of similar culture). However, a more comprehensive and wide-ranging study would be required in order to ask whether the phenomenon of Christian Atheism is a small and passing phase, or whether it represents something more substantial and game-changing.
February 11, 2025
2.5 / 5: This was fine.
Christian Atheist is an exploratory text on the phenomenon of atheists and agnostics remaining in the Christian religious tradition not out of belief but for community, moral guidance and contemplation, and the aesthetics of religious art and poetry. Mountford is speaking from the perspective of a believer and vicar; the book is less instructive and more a collection of interview and text snippets and explanations of the author's thinkings as he tries to understand the Christian atheist. There were some good elements here, particularly on the nature of doubt and the aesthetics of Christian religious tradition, but it felt very undeveloped and disjointed. I'm someone who could be described as a Christian atheist and am often deeply moved by religion so the best thing that comes from this text for me are the references to other people and works that will probably speak to me.
Christian Atheist is an exploratory text on the phenomenon of atheists and agnostics remaining in the Christian religious tradition not out of belief but for community, moral guidance and contemplation, and the aesthetics of religious art and poetry. Mountford is speaking from the perspective of a believer and vicar; the book is less instructive and more a collection of interview and text snippets and explanations of the author's thinkings as he tries to understand the Christian atheist. There were some good elements here, particularly on the nature of doubt and the aesthetics of Christian religious tradition, but it felt very undeveloped and disjointed. I'm someone who could be described as a Christian atheist and am often deeply moved by religion so the best thing that comes from this text for me are the references to other people and works that will probably speak to me.
September 10, 2024
I found this a hard book to assess. It is interesting to read other perspectives. Being a Liberal-Christian myself, I found it interesting to learn about atheism in the Christian community. The book feels to be a set of interviews that does not make an extremely strong case for Christian-Atheism. The problem is that for theistic Christians would never be enticed to become Atheist, whilst many Atheists see it as a rejection of Christianity as a core reason as to why they are Atheist.
The book starts with laying out the foundations as to what Christian-Atheism is. The tenets include a rejection of a non-materialist world view, rationalism and the extrinsic benefits of Christianity demonstrated in community and worship. I think there are problems from the start. The book outlines that Christian-Atheism rejects the "fairytale" aspects of Christianity. But what exactly are the fairytale aspects of Christianity? It is fair to say that the Bible and Christian history is filled with claims that are non-materialistic of miracles and supernatural events. The Bible itself lacks any sort of underpinnings in a rational world view partly because it was written thousands of years ago. It was a few centuries ago that Liberal-Protestantism developed and I don't believe that this book does a good job in explaining why rejecting say the Exodus story then suddenly means you have to accept Atheism. Perhaps, it is that humanity's conceptualisation of God changes over time. But that doesn't mean that Christianity comes to being outright rejected. I don't believe in the absolute of atheism or theism but see belief in God is a spectrum between absolute non-belief to absolute belief.
In this regard, the book then spends much of its time interviewing people as to why they are no longer believers in God but why they haven't outright rejected Christianity. This might make the book more meaningful to people who are struggling to come to terms with losing their faith. However, there wasn't a strong argument as to why Christianity gives a strong framework post-theism. An argument based on the teachings of Jesus being interpreted from a naturalistic viewpoint would have been a good argument. The problem is that this would have made this book yet another Liberal-Christian position that was taken up by people like Albert Schweitzer many years before.
The chapter on Art and Christianity I do find compelling. It argues that as God is transcendent and unknowable, art strips this transcendence. This I think is a good argument as it is actually backed up with some research that religion is reinforced with art. Does this make you an Atheist though?
I think one of the biggest criticisms of this book I have is terminology and epistemological assumptions of Christian-Atheism that being, how do you lack faith enough to be an Atheist rather than simply being Agonistic. I would say that a Christian could be rather Agonistic on the belief of a God and still be a Christian. This book doesn't do enough in my mind to attract a broad tent in the same way that Liberal-Christianity does. A Liberal-Christian could be an Atheist, Agonistic or a Theist, while a Christian-Atheist would be a definite Atheist. Perhaps I am getting hung up on terminology, but I think that this book doesn't do enough in trying to advance what otherwise is a more extreme version of Liberal-Christianity. I would much prefer the term Christian-Humanist, as the original Humanists were Christian (such as Erasmus and even Calvin). As a result, I think the book struggles to define why specifically Atheism rather than a broader version of belief can be used.
An intriguing read. I don't necessarily agree with its arguments though.
The book starts with laying out the foundations as to what Christian-Atheism is. The tenets include a rejection of a non-materialist world view, rationalism and the extrinsic benefits of Christianity demonstrated in community and worship. I think there are problems from the start. The book outlines that Christian-Atheism rejects the "fairytale" aspects of Christianity. But what exactly are the fairytale aspects of Christianity? It is fair to say that the Bible and Christian history is filled with claims that are non-materialistic of miracles and supernatural events. The Bible itself lacks any sort of underpinnings in a rational world view partly because it was written thousands of years ago. It was a few centuries ago that Liberal-Protestantism developed and I don't believe that this book does a good job in explaining why rejecting say the Exodus story then suddenly means you have to accept Atheism. Perhaps, it is that humanity's conceptualisation of God changes over time. But that doesn't mean that Christianity comes to being outright rejected. I don't believe in the absolute of atheism or theism but see belief in God is a spectrum between absolute non-belief to absolute belief.
In this regard, the book then spends much of its time interviewing people as to why they are no longer believers in God but why they haven't outright rejected Christianity. This might make the book more meaningful to people who are struggling to come to terms with losing their faith. However, there wasn't a strong argument as to why Christianity gives a strong framework post-theism. An argument based on the teachings of Jesus being interpreted from a naturalistic viewpoint would have been a good argument. The problem is that this would have made this book yet another Liberal-Christian position that was taken up by people like Albert Schweitzer many years before.
The chapter on Art and Christianity I do find compelling. It argues that as God is transcendent and unknowable, art strips this transcendence. This I think is a good argument as it is actually backed up with some research that religion is reinforced with art. Does this make you an Atheist though?
I think one of the biggest criticisms of this book I have is terminology and epistemological assumptions of Christian-Atheism that being, how do you lack faith enough to be an Atheist rather than simply being Agonistic. I would say that a Christian could be rather Agonistic on the belief of a God and still be a Christian. This book doesn't do enough in my mind to attract a broad tent in the same way that Liberal-Christianity does. A Liberal-Christian could be an Atheist, Agonistic or a Theist, while a Christian-Atheist would be a definite Atheist. Perhaps I am getting hung up on terminology, but I think that this book doesn't do enough in trying to advance what otherwise is a more extreme version of Liberal-Christianity. I would much prefer the term Christian-Humanist, as the original Humanists were Christian (such as Erasmus and even Calvin). As a result, I think the book struggles to define why specifically Atheism rather than a broader version of belief can be used.
An intriguing read. I don't necessarily agree with its arguments though.
April 7, 2018
I thought this book showed some unbiased content about Christianity, talking about the power of songs and fiction.
Read
October 18, 2016Christian Atheist is a refreshingly open and understanding examination of the role of religion in our lives. Mountford takes an approach that eschews dogmatism (from both sides) and looks for common ground and meaning. As a Christian he defends institutional religion against the most vocal and rabid critics but recognizes its flaws and the depth of questions that are be raised by doubters. He argues that the moderate doubters have a valuable place in Christianity and that the challenges they represent should be met head on rather than rejected out of hand. Retreat into blind faith and back-against-the-wall combat with unbelievers will only result in disaster. Likewise, total rejection of any religious heritage or transcendent values can lead to the kind of empty materialism conservative religious people associate with atheism.
Ultimately this is a book about how the Church should adapt to the new status quo of an open society where it has no privileged place in intellectual thought. Mountford rightly suggests that Christians have to address concerns about their faith and understand that miracles will be challenged by those who cannot believe in them. He argues that cultural Christianity and a sort of open acceptance of Western heritage without the supernatural aspects of it is still valuable and should be accepted. Extremists on both sides will try to exclude anyone who stands somewhere in the middle and will end up doing themselves a disservice in the long run.
Interviews throughout the book examine the various perspectives of "Christian Atheists" who range from undergraduates to venture capitalists. Some see the church as a social glue that takes all comers and holds out a helping hand to those in need. Others value the cathedrals and medieval hymns that evoke something higher than ourselves. They hold mostly positive views of what Christian traditions can offer in their lives and generally dislike the fringes on both sides which would have them follow blindly.
I think every Richard Dawkins atheist should read this book, as should the Bible thumpers who can't let others be.
Ultimately this is a book about how the Church should adapt to the new status quo of an open society where it has no privileged place in intellectual thought. Mountford rightly suggests that Christians have to address concerns about their faith and understand that miracles will be challenged by those who cannot believe in them. He argues that cultural Christianity and a sort of open acceptance of Western heritage without the supernatural aspects of it is still valuable and should be accepted. Extremists on both sides will try to exclude anyone who stands somewhere in the middle and will end up doing themselves a disservice in the long run.
Interviews throughout the book examine the various perspectives of "Christian Atheists" who range from undergraduates to venture capitalists. Some see the church as a social glue that takes all comers and holds out a helping hand to those in need. Others value the cathedrals and medieval hymns that evoke something higher than ourselves. They hold mostly positive views of what Christian traditions can offer in their lives and generally dislike the fringes on both sides which would have them follow blindly.
I think every Richard Dawkins atheist should read this book, as should the Bible thumpers who can't let others be.
February 8, 2023
This book was the first I have read tackling the subject of those within church- often musicians- who appreciate much of Church and the Christian outlook but struggle with the actual beliefs. Unfortunately for me it did not live up to its promise. The interviews with people were interesting but it became somewhat disjointed and lost me at times, becoming a little too intellectual. I also was unsure what the author believed and why although he did try to explain. It would be interesting to read other books exploring these themes.
March 28, 2024
This book reads like a dissertation.
June 25, 2013
Well written but a bit too pondering and exploratory for my taste. Should have relied more on his interview subjects and less on his own scattered thoughts.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews