For God's Sake: An Atheist, a Jew, a Christian & a Muslim Debate Religion

by Jane Caro, Antony Loewenstein, Simon Smart

Four Australian thinkers come together to ask and answer the big questions, such as: What is the nature of the universe? Doesn't religion cause most of the conflict in the world? And Where do we find hope?

We are introduced to different belief systems – Judaism, Christianity, Islam – and to the argument that atheism, like organised religion, has its own compelling logic. And we gain insight into the life events that led each author to their current position.

Jane Caro flirted briefly with spiritual belief, inspired by 19th century literary heroines such as Elizabeth Gaskell and the Bronte sisters. Antony Loewenstein is proudly culturally, yet unconventionally, Jewish. Simon Smart is firmly and resolutely a Christian, but one who has had some of his most profound spiritual moments while surfing. Rachel Woodlock grew up in the alternative embrace of Baha'i belief but became entranced by its older parent religion, Islam.

Provocative, informative and passionately argued, For God's Sake encourages us to accept religious differences, but to also challenge more vigorously the beliefs that create discord.

Genres: Religion, Nonfiction

320 pages, Paperback

First published July 1, 2013

About the author

Jane Caro wears many hats; including author, lecturer, mentor, social commentator, columnist, workshop facilitator, speaker, broadcaster and award-winning advertising writer. Jane runs her own communications consultancy and lectures in Advertising Creative at The School of Communication Arts at UWS. She has published three books: The Stupid Country: How Australia is dismantling public education co-authored with Chris Bonnor (2007), The F Word. How we learned to swear by feminism co-authored with Catherine Fox (2008), and Just a Girl (UQP, 2011). She has also appeared on Channel 7’s Sunrise, ABC’s Q&A and ABC’s The Gruen Transfer.

Reviews

[Peter · Rating 4 out of 5]

Starts off honest enough, a nice feel to the book at least from the first 1/4 of the first chapter ( by an atheist), she says she is an atheist basically because she was brought up that way ( this worries me, I would prefer somebody who has seriously though about the topic , studied, read and thought a lot ) arghh. Hope she isnt the weakest link here, still - too early to tell. The intro /style /overall feel seems good ?)The muslim thus far and the Christian - as i read it, thus far their brains are put to lunch when the belief virus awakens :(
The Judaism guy thus far sounds very intelligent and reasonable. I am intrigued at his secular judaism view. ( imo round one beings to him for chapter one ).

( Dunno if I will tidy this review or not, will do it as a sort of diary of impressions (?))

Chapter two: Jane sounding very insightful, a big scare at childbirth. Rachel ( the muslim) still has her brain out to lunch. Simon the Christian not so smart, fluffs around with confirmation bias, is (woefully) impressed with apologetic style nonsense. The Secular Judasim guy (Anthony) delivering more insights, refreshing perspective. Jane and Anthony 1/4 of this chapter well worth reading. If this keeps up they alone will make the book well worth a purchase. ( the other two, useful s a perspective insight, as examples of the dangers of the god virus effects ) .

What is it to be a human being :
Jane and Anthony solid, interesting, logical.
Rachel & Simon some good points but both lose it when they claim sky magic. ( Rachel talks about Adam & Eve as if that actually happened, sigh. Simon also , ironically with Rachel think that to be human requires something - non human, ie magic man in the sky yada yada. )

What is a good life: Again Jane and Anthony steal the show while both Simon and Rachel ironically require something that is outside our life, that is not our life to have a good life, ie reduces to - our lives are not good unless ( insert their respective made up sky gods here ) , ie a negation of life, S&R both away with the fairies here.

How to know right from wrong: J & A, well worth reading, I want to "friend these two"! R & S genuine but in cloud cuckooland at times. Their idea of right and wrong? To stop thinking and use their respective magic books to tell them what right and wrong is. Simon especially fluff with his imaginary friend in the sky as "stable ground, something more etc" sigh . Am starting to think this book should be 50% the size :(

Where do you find hope? : Anthony the best here, followed by Jane. Simon and Rachel again stop thinking and appeal to their respective magic books. Simon blathers how the garden of eden story speaks of hope ( oddly seems to leave the door open for a literal take) classic inversion christianese style. Two nudists in a garden eat an apple and "God" decides to kill them and every other living thing, and every descendant thereof. Otherwise intelligent people such as Simon and Rachel having their brains lined with pages from a magic book sort of kills hope for me. Obviously at least one book isn't correct ( one of the good things about the God's sake book is that it really does contrast different believer frames while they are blissfully unaffected by the other believer variant. )

Summary : Jane's contribution well worth five stars, for me the big surprise is thar Anthony also five star material ! Alas the believers let the team down when they appeal to their respective magic books. While none are idiots, it does make me think that when they talk about their gods as real then 1: send Rachael to her room with ( blunt) scissors and cardboard geometric shapes ( in lieu of cardboard butterflies) to cut out, and 2: Simon, sit further away from him on the bus just in case he finds out his god is just make believe.

[Cheryl · Rating 3 out of 5]

A decently interesting discussion of various religious points of view revolving around common questions asked of religion but it lacked depth due to the brevity of each segment and didn't feature much in the way of challenging intellectual debate. A good read, I'd recommend it but nothing spectacular.