What do you think?
Rate this book
Dlaczego jesteśmy ateistami
50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists presents a collection of original essays drawn from an international group of prominent voices in the fields of academia, science, literature, media and politics who offer carefully considered statements of why they are atheists. Features a truly international cast of contributors, ranging from public intellectuals such as Peter Singer, Susan Blackmore, and A.C. Grayling, novelists, such as Joe Haldeman, and heavyweight philosophers of religion, including Graham Oppy and Michael Tooley.
Contributions range from rigorous philosophical arguments to highly personal, even whimsical, accounts of how each of these notable thinkers have come to reject religion in their lives.
Contributions range from rigorous philosophical arguments to highly personal, even whimsical, accounts of how each of these notable thinkers have come to reject religion in their lives.
407 pages, Unknown Binding
First published January 1, 2009
22 people are currently reading
359 people want to read
About the author
Russell Blackford
57 books33 followersRussell Blackford is an Australian writer, philosopher, and critic, based for many years in Melbourne, Victoria. He was born in Sydney, and grew up in Lake Macquarie district, near Newcastle, NSW. He moved to Melbourne in 1979, but returned to Newcastle to live and work in 2009.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
February 22, 2010
50 Voices of Disbelief Why We Are Atheists is a book that I bought as a gift for a friend and, as I am wont to do, I read it before sending it along (after all, how else would I know if it's worth giving?). I probably wouldn't have bought this for myself, but I did find it an interesting read.
The writers are a fairly diverse bunch, though two sizable minorities are scientists and science fiction / fantasy writers. Essentially, they were all asked to contribute an essay on the theme of "Why I Am an Atheist" or "Why I Am Not a Believer" or whatever it is for each person, and a number of approaches were taken, the four main ones being: 1) a personal narrative about loss of faith or growing up an atheists, 2) arguments against either theism generally or a particular religion (most often Christianity) 3) "atheist issues" essays, and 4) seeking to understand the religious impulse. Some, naturally enough, combined two, three, or all four of these forms. The essays came from a mixture of men and women, North and South Americans, people from the Commonwealth nations (including a couple from India), Europeans, African nations, as well as Middle Eastern countries. Some were believers, up to and including time in seminary with the intention of becoming a minister, while others have never believed in God or gods. Some are politically and socially active advocating for atheism, some are quietly going about their lives without regard to religion.
The arguments against religion had a tendency to become repetitive, with the Problem of Evil taking a central position, though there were some interesting variations and interesting other philosophical arguments. The personal stories tended, on the whole, to be more interesting, as we felt we were meeting interesting people and hearing about their efforts to understand the nature of the reality in which we find ourselves. Some of the scientists had some interesting things to say, though I'll save some of that for future blog entries.
Ultimately, I'm not sure whether this collection is meant to bolster the lack of faith of unbelievers, to challenge believers, or a bit of both. The former seems more likely--or at least a more likely aim to be successful at--but I'd be interested to see if any believers have picked it up and reviewed and what they took away from it.
The writers are a fairly diverse bunch, though two sizable minorities are scientists and science fiction / fantasy writers. Essentially, they were all asked to contribute an essay on the theme of "Why I Am an Atheist" or "Why I Am Not a Believer" or whatever it is for each person, and a number of approaches were taken, the four main ones being: 1) a personal narrative about loss of faith or growing up an atheists, 2) arguments against either theism generally or a particular religion (most often Christianity) 3) "atheist issues" essays, and 4) seeking to understand the religious impulse. Some, naturally enough, combined two, three, or all four of these forms. The essays came from a mixture of men and women, North and South Americans, people from the Commonwealth nations (including a couple from India), Europeans, African nations, as well as Middle Eastern countries. Some were believers, up to and including time in seminary with the intention of becoming a minister, while others have never believed in God or gods. Some are politically and socially active advocating for atheism, some are quietly going about their lives without regard to religion.
The arguments against religion had a tendency to become repetitive, with the Problem of Evil taking a central position, though there were some interesting variations and interesting other philosophical arguments. The personal stories tended, on the whole, to be more interesting, as we felt we were meeting interesting people and hearing about their efforts to understand the nature of the reality in which we find ourselves. Some of the scientists had some interesting things to say, though I'll save some of that for future blog entries.
Ultimately, I'm not sure whether this collection is meant to bolster the lack of faith of unbelievers, to challenge believers, or a bit of both. The former seems more likely--or at least a more likely aim to be successful at--but I'd be interested to see if any believers have picked it up and reviewed and what they took away from it.
May 10, 2020
Zaledwie kilka wartościowych tekstów od strony filozoficzno-logicznej, wiele opisujących osobiste doświadczenia autorów. Oczekiwałam więcej.
June 18, 2013
This book would be more interesting if I could find sense in the order of the essays. It feels like they had 50 essays and just drew randomly. They aren't arranged in any kind of theme. No "I was a Born Again, but saw ..." No "I was never really a theist".. Just whatever.
SO being a collection of 50 essays by 50 authors with nothing in common other than the fact that they're atheist the level of writing of course varies greatly too. There are some essays that are very academia oriented: many citations, a clear thesis, a clear conclusion. There are others that read more like a blog post. There are some that I wonder who they though their audience was.
There are some interesting points in here, but it's hard to recommend books like this because they are so crap shoot. I skimmed a lot of the later essays.
I will recommend the Michael Shermer essay because he's actually an accomplished writer who finds a good ground between academic and popular writing.
SO being a collection of 50 essays by 50 authors with nothing in common other than the fact that they're atheist the level of writing of course varies greatly too. There are some essays that are very academia oriented: many citations, a clear thesis, a clear conclusion. There are others that read more like a blog post. There are some that I wonder who they though their audience was.
There are some interesting points in here, but it's hard to recommend books like this because they are so crap shoot. I skimmed a lot of the later essays.
I will recommend the Michael Shermer essay because he's actually an accomplished writer who finds a good ground between academic and popular writing.
February 4, 2016
Unfortunately, I did not like the writing nor presentation style of the author, Ben Dupre. The writing is not really inspiring, and I found the way factoids, cutouts, boxed snippets were used on EVERY PAGE to be highly distracting.
I much prefer a book on philosophical ideas to have each chapter to be easily read from the start of the chapter to the end of the chapter. However, Dupre's writing style is to constantly ask the reader to refer to the factoids/cutouts/snippets placed all over the chapter. Although such a layout is visually pleasant, when it comes to reading and studying, the scattered layout fails badly.
Perhaps Dupre had intended for each idea to be read standalone. Unfortunately, I don't think this works either. As each philosophical idea is usually influenced by the idea that preceded it, philosophical ideas should best be arranged topically, and within it, chronologically. I don't feel that the topics were well arranged.
I much prefer a book on philosophical ideas to have each chapter to be easily read from the start of the chapter to the end of the chapter. However, Dupre's writing style is to constantly ask the reader to refer to the factoids/cutouts/snippets placed all over the chapter. Although such a layout is visually pleasant, when it comes to reading and studying, the scattered layout fails badly.
Perhaps Dupre had intended for each idea to be read standalone. Unfortunately, I don't think this works either. As each philosophical idea is usually influenced by the idea that preceded it, philosophical ideas should best be arranged topically, and within it, chronologically. I don't feel that the topics were well arranged.
July 31, 2010
Definitely one of the best books I've ever read on disbelief. Essay collections are usually very spotty, but the quality of writing was very high overall for this book, and I really enjoyed the viewpoints from non-Christian-tradition atheists (something you rarely get to hear). Definitely a saver.
December 12, 2010
An excellent collection from a wide variety of contributors.
June 1, 2024
AN EXCELLENT COLLECTION OF BRIEF ESSAYS BY A WIDE VARIETY OF PERSONS
The editors wrote in the Introduction to this 2009 book, “Why did we come together to edit a volume of humanist thought? Why did we ask some 50 scientists, philosophers, science fiction writers, political activists, and public intellectuals from across the globe to put down in writing the reasons that convinced them personally that there is not an all-powerful, all-knowing, good and loving God watching over us? The answer to this is surprisingly simple: we think it is important for Voices of Reason to be heard at this point in our history. Religious fanaticism seems to have become ever more successful in preventing even multicultural societies from discussing the merits, or otherwise, of religious ideologies versus humanist alternatives… it is important to speak out when religious ideologies and their lobbyists encroach on our individual freedoms.” (Pg. 1) Contributors include J.J.C. Smart, Michael Shermer, James Randi, Sean Carroll, Victor Stenger, Susan Blackmore, Peter Singer, etc.
J.L. Schellenberg notes, “But even if all the arguments for atheism I have discovered… turned out to be unsound, I would remain a nonbeliever. I might not be an atheist, but I’d certainly be an agnostic as part of a wider skepticism about religious belief. This wider skepticism has been growing in recent years from new insights about the world’s evolutionary structure and the very early stage of development our species currently occupies within it. My new skepticism, an EVOLUTIONARY skepticism, represents the deepest reason I would give today for not being a religious believer of any kind. And... yet through another strange twist … it appears that in the depths of evolutionary religious skepticism can be found the seeds of new life for religion.” (Pg. 31)
Graham Oppy argues, “it is impossible for a universe to have a cause of its coming into existence. That… does not entail… that there is no cause of the initial singularity from which… the local space-time in which we are embedded arose.” (Pg. 53)
Michael Shermer notes, “Once I stopped believing in God in the late 1970s, I thought that the whole issue of God’s existence or nonexistence would simply fall by the wayside… And yet for a concatenation of reasons involving both my personal and professional lives, God just won’t go away. In these three plus decades I have moved from being an evangelical born-again Christian to a non-believing scientist… there isn’t much I have thought about God that I have not already written about, so here I would like to think about how to think about God. Call it MetaGod.” (Pg. 65) He continues, “When I began my graduate studies in experimental psychology … I was still a Christian, although the foundations of my faith were already cracking… Since I was no longer surrounded by Christians, it was not only acceptable to express doubt and skepticism, there were no social penalties for being an agnostic or even atheist… religion almost never came up in the lab or classroom. We were there to do science, and that is all we did. Religion was simply not part of the environment. So it was not the fact that I learned about evolutionary theory that rent asunder my Christian faith; it was the fac that it was okay to challenge any and all beliefs without fear of psychological loss or social reprisal.” (Pg. 67)
Sean Carroll points out, “Of course, causality is undoubtedly a useful concept in our everyday lives. That usefulness springs from a brute fact about our physical universe: the arrow of time, pointing from a low-entropy past to a higher-entropy future. Although the laws of physics are reversible… entropy never spontaneously decreases… But at a deeper level of elementary particles obeying the laws of physics, the complete history of the universe can be readily computed from the state at any one time. And where does this leave the cosmological argument? In a shambles, as far as revealing profound truths about the universe is concerned. There is no division of beings into ‘contingent’ and ‘necessary,’ no fundamental distinction between effects and causes. There is only the universe, obeying its laws. That is a complete, self-sufficient description of reality. And no need for God.” (Pg. 109)
He adds, “It must be frustrating for a theist to pose these questions, only to hear the atheist’s answers: ‘Why not?’ and ‘Just because.’ At a very deep level, those answers are right. Our experience in the everyday world allow us to ask questions of the form, ‘Why is it like that?’ and expect a reasonable answer. But for the universe as a whole, we have no such expectation. It may very well be that the universe just is the way it is, and there is no deeper explanation to be found. Of course, there might also be such an explanation; for example, it may be that every possible universe exists, and an anthropic selection effect implies that are only around to ask the question in universes where intelligent life is possible. Or---not. The particular kind of universe in which we find ourselves may very well be a brute fact, waiting to be discovered and free of further explanation. The important point is that it is allowed to be a brute fact; nothing we know about the universe, or about logic, requires that there be some sort of explanation outside of the universe itself.” (Pg. 110)
Victor Stenger states, “Let us look … at the claim that the constants of physics are so finely tuned that, without that tuning, life as we know it would not exist. This argument is called the anthropic principle.. In the stronger version of the anthropic principle, the constants somehow were chosen to produce us. Theists say it was God’s doing. Scientists have proposed an alternative in which there are multiple universes with different constants and so, by the weak anthropic principle, we are in the universe suited for us. Many theists have ridiculed the idea of multiple universes, saying it is unscientific since we cannot observe the other universes… However, science often deals with the directly unobservable, and multiple universes are suggested by modern cosmological theories that agree with all existing data.” (Pg. 115)
Susan Blackmore says of her earlier research into psychic phenomena, “People often ask me whether al that research wasn’t a complete waste of time… I say no… those years taught me a great deal. Gradually I was lured back towards that original experience and to wondering what had been going on and why. Instead of looking for the paranormal, I studied unusual experiences: not only out-of-body experiences… but near-death experiences… alien abduction experiences… and simple misjudgments of probability that convince people that they predicted someone’s death or knew when someone was ill.” (Pg. 201))
This book will be of great interest to Atheists, Skeptics, and other Freethinkers.
The editors wrote in the Introduction to this 2009 book, “Why did we come together to edit a volume of humanist thought? Why did we ask some 50 scientists, philosophers, science fiction writers, political activists, and public intellectuals from across the globe to put down in writing the reasons that convinced them personally that there is not an all-powerful, all-knowing, good and loving God watching over us? The answer to this is surprisingly simple: we think it is important for Voices of Reason to be heard at this point in our history. Religious fanaticism seems to have become ever more successful in preventing even multicultural societies from discussing the merits, or otherwise, of religious ideologies versus humanist alternatives… it is important to speak out when religious ideologies and their lobbyists encroach on our individual freedoms.” (Pg. 1) Contributors include J.J.C. Smart, Michael Shermer, James Randi, Sean Carroll, Victor Stenger, Susan Blackmore, Peter Singer, etc.
J.L. Schellenberg notes, “But even if all the arguments for atheism I have discovered… turned out to be unsound, I would remain a nonbeliever. I might not be an atheist, but I’d certainly be an agnostic as part of a wider skepticism about religious belief. This wider skepticism has been growing in recent years from new insights about the world’s evolutionary structure and the very early stage of development our species currently occupies within it. My new skepticism, an EVOLUTIONARY skepticism, represents the deepest reason I would give today for not being a religious believer of any kind. And... yet through another strange twist … it appears that in the depths of evolutionary religious skepticism can be found the seeds of new life for religion.” (Pg. 31)
Graham Oppy argues, “it is impossible for a universe to have a cause of its coming into existence. That… does not entail… that there is no cause of the initial singularity from which… the local space-time in which we are embedded arose.” (Pg. 53)
Michael Shermer notes, “Once I stopped believing in God in the late 1970s, I thought that the whole issue of God’s existence or nonexistence would simply fall by the wayside… And yet for a concatenation of reasons involving both my personal and professional lives, God just won’t go away. In these three plus decades I have moved from being an evangelical born-again Christian to a non-believing scientist… there isn’t much I have thought about God that I have not already written about, so here I would like to think about how to think about God. Call it MetaGod.” (Pg. 65) He continues, “When I began my graduate studies in experimental psychology … I was still a Christian, although the foundations of my faith were already cracking… Since I was no longer surrounded by Christians, it was not only acceptable to express doubt and skepticism, there were no social penalties for being an agnostic or even atheist… religion almost never came up in the lab or classroom. We were there to do science, and that is all we did. Religion was simply not part of the environment. So it was not the fact that I learned about evolutionary theory that rent asunder my Christian faith; it was the fac that it was okay to challenge any and all beliefs without fear of psychological loss or social reprisal.” (Pg. 67)
Sean Carroll points out, “Of course, causality is undoubtedly a useful concept in our everyday lives. That usefulness springs from a brute fact about our physical universe: the arrow of time, pointing from a low-entropy past to a higher-entropy future. Although the laws of physics are reversible… entropy never spontaneously decreases… But at a deeper level of elementary particles obeying the laws of physics, the complete history of the universe can be readily computed from the state at any one time. And where does this leave the cosmological argument? In a shambles, as far as revealing profound truths about the universe is concerned. There is no division of beings into ‘contingent’ and ‘necessary,’ no fundamental distinction between effects and causes. There is only the universe, obeying its laws. That is a complete, self-sufficient description of reality. And no need for God.” (Pg. 109)
He adds, “It must be frustrating for a theist to pose these questions, only to hear the atheist’s answers: ‘Why not?’ and ‘Just because.’ At a very deep level, those answers are right. Our experience in the everyday world allow us to ask questions of the form, ‘Why is it like that?’ and expect a reasonable answer. But for the universe as a whole, we have no such expectation. It may very well be that the universe just is the way it is, and there is no deeper explanation to be found. Of course, there might also be such an explanation; for example, it may be that every possible universe exists, and an anthropic selection effect implies that are only around to ask the question in universes where intelligent life is possible. Or---not. The particular kind of universe in which we find ourselves may very well be a brute fact, waiting to be discovered and free of further explanation. The important point is that it is allowed to be a brute fact; nothing we know about the universe, or about logic, requires that there be some sort of explanation outside of the universe itself.” (Pg. 110)
Victor Stenger states, “Let us look … at the claim that the constants of physics are so finely tuned that, without that tuning, life as we know it would not exist. This argument is called the anthropic principle.. In the stronger version of the anthropic principle, the constants somehow were chosen to produce us. Theists say it was God’s doing. Scientists have proposed an alternative in which there are multiple universes with different constants and so, by the weak anthropic principle, we are in the universe suited for us. Many theists have ridiculed the idea of multiple universes, saying it is unscientific since we cannot observe the other universes… However, science often deals with the directly unobservable, and multiple universes are suggested by modern cosmological theories that agree with all existing data.” (Pg. 115)
Susan Blackmore says of her earlier research into psychic phenomena, “People often ask me whether al that research wasn’t a complete waste of time… I say no… those years taught me a great deal. Gradually I was lured back towards that original experience and to wondering what had been going on and why. Instead of looking for the paranormal, I studied unusual experiences: not only out-of-body experiences… but near-death experiences… alien abduction experiences… and simple misjudgments of probability that convince people that they predicted someone’s death or knew when someone was ill.” (Pg. 201))
This book will be of great interest to Atheists, Skeptics, and other Freethinkers.
January 28, 2010
As might be expected from 50 different essays, I have mixed reviews. Some were not accessible. Most accessible were the personal stories. The common theme (too common around the middle of the book) was that most of the essayists could not reconcile the idea of a benevolent, all-powerful god with the amount of suffering in the world. There are other arguements made, but this is the key one. If you've lost interest about the middle of the book, skip forward, I found the second half more variable than the first (including essays from people leaving religions other than Christianity). I particularly like Susan Blackmore's and Peter Singer's (with Marc Hauser) essays - I need to read more Peter Singer. Michael Tooley's was particularly interesting: examining Jesus's ethics.
I'd give it 3.5 stars, if the ratings allowed 1/2 stars.
I'd give it 3.5 stars, if the ratings allowed 1/2 stars.
January 22, 2010
One of my birthday presents to myself was this book: a collection of essays by people from various fields on why they don't believe in any god(s). As a concept, this book is fantastic. The majority of the essays were definitely interesting and often even inspiring (no pun intended). Some, on the other hand, were dry and tedious, and reading through it quickly is while still retaining the differences in argument and voice is pretty much impossible. Due to my narrative addiction, I certainly preferred the essays that were more personal in nature as opposed to those which were mostly logical arguments. Still, there are only a couple which I wouldn't reccommend as thought provoking, and many which I will no doubt read again.
November 21, 2012
A very frustrating read. At the start of this collection, all stories were from true atheists, but after a while, the conviction of the storytellers became less and less concrete. In short; it is NOT 50 stories of disbelief. There are too many stories from agnostics that lean atheist, but are still in fact agnostic. If I wanted to read a book about agnostics, I would have checked out '50 Voices of Ambivalence: Why We Are Undecided'.
Of the essays written by actual atheists, there are lots of great quotes to use as weapons against believers' leery eyes and persistent 'why?'s.
Of the essays written by actual atheists, there are lots of great quotes to use as weapons against believers' leery eyes and persistent 'why?'s.
February 7, 2017
In this collection of 50 essays each author describes in detail why he or she is a non-believer. Although the paths to atheism are varied, from gradual or sudden distancing from religious observance, thoughtfully considered philosophical or scientific reasoning, or simply never having experienced belief in the first place. Although a number of the compositions are compelling and engrossing, I found an equal number to be somewhat dry reading. The selections would have been improved by a greater diversity of authors.
July 17, 2018
A wonderful addition to any atheist/skeptic library. 50 voices is the personal reasons and musings of individuals who have followed the evidence to its conclusion on the question of whether one should believe in a god or gods, or not. Each voice is different, but enlightening in their quest for the truth of such an impactful topic. I thoroughly enjoyed its concise chapters. Also, the range of people that submitted papers for this collection is refreshing; everyone from former Christians to philosophers to writers to scientists. I'd read it again!
February 1, 2010
This book had some interesting essays (Why I'm not a muslim). To some total insipid crap that is nothing but politics (Does anyone really think P Seger has shit to say about anything). Overall interesting, but top many people are defining themselves as what they don't believe and seem silly. Give it a read but don't worry about reading all of the essays.
August 27, 2011
It's become clear to me that I don't care any more about why people don't believe in god than why they do. The concept is such a non-factor in my life that I just can't muster any real interest. Some of the essays are very well written, but don't really present any ideas that are new or novel on the subject.
September 14, 2019
A book I read bits of here and there, for the last few weeks. Nothings no. Haven’t read before and if you read it in one sitting, I think it might be a little repetitive, as all of s atheists have all reached at least one of the viewpoints and arguments presented here.
I think I just like reading these books because religion is always in my face.
I think I just like reading these books because religion is always in my face.
January 22, 2010
I couldn't finish this. I don't know what I was expecting, but the first four or five chapters were just so hyper-technical. It's not that I didn't see merit to the content, but it was just so boring that I finally gave up.
March 10, 2010
For anyone who is a nonbeliever or questioning, this book of essays is a great source. The essays are all very thoughtful, and are largely from academics. This book is more focused on the reasons for nonbelief and not polemics.
October 21, 2023
Aside from maybe 2 entries, this book was a sophomoric embarrassment. Of the 50, only Stenger's entry was mildly thought-provoking - that's about the best I can say about it. Most came across as self-indulgent whining.
February 28, 2010
An interesting but uneven collection, like many multi-authored works.
March 15, 2014
very patchy
April 26, 2010
I thoroughly enjoyed these essays.
March 25, 2012
Nothing begins, and nothing ends.
March 18, 2013
good examples and points of view
June 29, 2018
I guess that things must be presented in a complex manner in order to compete with this topic. Otherwise, don't present.... right? This book seems to delight in the obscure, rambling, and off-putting.... probably just me.
I have been secular for as long as I can remember.
The mumbojumbo of the church, the smoke and mirrors and bells and make-believe never added up for me. The chaos and deaths and miseries over the centuries attributable to Religions, just added to the hypocrisy evident everywhere. I'm satisfied to practice the Golden Rule as a non-believer; it's a whole lot easier.
So this book didn't clarify my standing, at least for me.
It was already clear.
I have been secular for as long as I can remember.
The mumbojumbo of the church, the smoke and mirrors and bells and make-believe never added up for me. The chaos and deaths and miseries over the centuries attributable to Religions, just added to the hypocrisy evident everywhere. I'm satisfied to practice the Golden Rule as a non-believer; it's a whole lot easier.
So this book didn't clarify my standing, at least for me.
It was already clear.
December 26, 2020
niesamowicie ciężko czyta się tę książkę, widać, że jest to mocno wręcz naukowy język. W wielu esejach jest w kółko powtarzane to samo, natomiast jest to też ogromny zbiór wiedzy na temat ateistów, boga, religii, wiary itd
September 9, 2024
A handful of excellent essays (Austin Dacey, Julian Savulescu, Christine Overall), accompanied by a wider sea of mediocre thinking and writing.
July 21, 2025
For me, the book is a 4-star read.
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews