What do you think?
Rate this book
Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart: Rewriting the Ten Commandments for the Twenty-first Century
Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart asks an essential question for the 45 million Americans who self-identify as “So, you don’t believe in God; now what?” This question is increasingly important, as one-third of young adults under the age of thirty consider themselves nonreligious. With a scientific eye and an empathetic heart, the authors turn conventional perceptions about atheism on their head. They show that atheism need not be reactionary (against religion and God), but rather that it can offer a clear set of constructive principles to live by, which establish atheism as a positive worldview. Following a philosophical approach grounded in logic and evidence, Bayer and Figdor take readers on an inspiring journey to discover how to live a reasonable, ethical, and happy life without God. The readers are engaged at every step, encouraged to self-reflect and ultimately uncover their own set of personal beliefs.
188 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2014
21 people are currently reading
620 people want to read
About the author
Lex Bayer
1 book8 followersLex Bayer serves as a board member of the Humanist Connection, a humanist, atheist, and agnostic nonprofit organization serving Stanford University and Silicon Valley. His foray into the philosophy of belief began with an award-winning paper on religion while an undergrad at Stanford University. Lex is a technology entrepreneur and inventor holding more than twenty patents. As CEO and cofounder of his first company, he pioneered a payments platform that grew to service five million customers and was ultimately acquired by Visa Inc.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
September 24, 2025
Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart
Individuals in the contemporary United States continue to disagree about many important things. This disagreement is becoming reflected in increasingly strongly-held and polarized theologies or theological philosophies. Even without modern disagreements, questions about God, reality, and ethics have long fascinated reflective people.
In their new short, eloquently written book, "Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart: Rewriting the Ten Commandments for the Twenty-first Century" Lex Baker and John Figdor explore these fundamental questions from an atheist perspective. Baker, an engineer and entrepreneur who is active in the humanist movement, was raised in South Africa as an Orthodox Jew before questioning and abandoning religion as a young man. Figdor was raised in New York State in a Protestant home and gradually came to question and abandon his religious beliefs.He currently serves as the humanist chaplain at Stanford University. The authors make good use of their backgrounds and experiences in writing this book.
The book is primarily directed to people who already are nonreligious, but it also is an attempt to present arguments and to persuade others. From the writing style and many references to contemporary culture in the book, the authors write largely for young people of college age or somewhat older. But the questions addressed in the book are not limited by the reader's age or cultural background. The aim of the book is not to debunk religion or God. Instead the book aims to show how atheism may lead to a happy, rewarding and ethical life.
The book proposes a "rewriting" of the Ten Commandments as "Ten Non-commandments" which are to be based on reason, to the extent possible, and subject to change with better evidence as opposed to being written in stone. This approach is gimicky, perhaps, but it includes an important teaching. It encourages readers to consider ethics and knowledge in their own terms and merits rather than as commands from on high. Plato taught this lesson in an early dialogue, the "Euthyphro" which is mentioned in the book but not discussed at length.
The book is divided into two parts. Part I, "A Framework for Facts" develops five non-commandments exploring the nature of belief, knowledge and reality, culminating in the non-commandment that "There is no God". Part II, "A Framework for Ethics" develops a value theory to accompany the factual theory of part I. The authors deny the universal, objective character of moral reality. They argue that people generally pursue their own happiness and interests as they, frequently erroneously, see them. They then develop a morality and an ethics based on enlightened self-interest that stresses the value and the joy of helping other people. They develop their theory on a personal level and then explain how it might apply to social questions.
Much in this book is fascinating, valuable, and challenging. As noted, I find it of critical importance in my own thinking to separate ethical, moral, and belief questions from a claimed source in, at the least, a personal God and in revelation, regardless of how interpreted. With that said, the book covers a great many complex questions that thinkers have wrestled with for a long time in a way that some readers will find too quick and fast. The first part of the book establishes the authors' naturalism. It is based on a sense-data theory of empiricism and a correspondence theory of truth that needs fleshed out much more if it is to be plausible. The first part also relies on a foundationalism which may be questioned. The foundation is softened by the authors' recognition of fallibilism -- that even basic assumptions may be subject to change.
The second part of the book introduces a reliance on introspection that may not be fully consistent with the theory of reality developed in the first part. The authors take science, as explained in part I, as setting the paradigm and only possibility for "objectivity" and they deny the possibility of "objective" ethics in the sense that science is objective. They develop a "subjective" ethics and claim it can account for and correct the ethical intuitions of individuals. Whether the authors' establish a subjective basis for morality can readily be questioned. In approaches such as that taken in this book, which are arguably based on a scientific reductionism, it may well be that "objective" moral considerations are tacitly smuggled into the analysis of the book. Such questions can be raised against other ethical systems such as that of Spinoza, which are much more fully developed and which try to combine a naturalistic outlook with a strong ethics.
The book has a liberating quality which is commendable even if it leaves many questions. Other writers have taken other, different approaches to nontheism. For example the late Ronald Dworkin (1931 --2013) was a legal philosopher who moved gradually to broader philosophical questions throughout his life. His last book, "Religion without God" explores many of the questions that Bayer and Figdor consider in their book. Dworkin rejects theism but he also rejects the naturalism of this book. He also strongly rejects this books empiricist, sense-based epistemology. He claims that values are real and objective, but different from science, that human life is purposeful and meaningful, and that the physical universe may exhibit a coherence and unity and can be seen to be of intrinsic value and wonder. Dworkin distinguishes between naturalism, theism, and nontheistic religion and argues eloquently but briefly in favor of the third alternative. Readers who are inclined to reject theism but who are not convinced by naturalism may want to read Dworkin's book for a start. The form of atheism and naturalism presented by Bayer and Figdor may not be the only alternative. To their credit, the authors invite readers to explore their own thoughts, to wrestle with principles and reasons, and to try to set out in succinct form the nature of their beliefs. This is a worthwhile but difficult exercise.
I enjoyed revisiting religious questions with Bayer and Figdor and learned from their book. These questions are important and difficult. The publicist for the book kindly sent me a review copy.
Robin Friedman
Individuals in the contemporary United States continue to disagree about many important things. This disagreement is becoming reflected in increasingly strongly-held and polarized theologies or theological philosophies. Even without modern disagreements, questions about God, reality, and ethics have long fascinated reflective people.
In their new short, eloquently written book, "Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart: Rewriting the Ten Commandments for the Twenty-first Century" Lex Baker and John Figdor explore these fundamental questions from an atheist perspective. Baker, an engineer and entrepreneur who is active in the humanist movement, was raised in South Africa as an Orthodox Jew before questioning and abandoning religion as a young man. Figdor was raised in New York State in a Protestant home and gradually came to question and abandon his religious beliefs.He currently serves as the humanist chaplain at Stanford University. The authors make good use of their backgrounds and experiences in writing this book.
The book is primarily directed to people who already are nonreligious, but it also is an attempt to present arguments and to persuade others. From the writing style and many references to contemporary culture in the book, the authors write largely for young people of college age or somewhat older. But the questions addressed in the book are not limited by the reader's age or cultural background. The aim of the book is not to debunk religion or God. Instead the book aims to show how atheism may lead to a happy, rewarding and ethical life.
The book proposes a "rewriting" of the Ten Commandments as "Ten Non-commandments" which are to be based on reason, to the extent possible, and subject to change with better evidence as opposed to being written in stone. This approach is gimicky, perhaps, but it includes an important teaching. It encourages readers to consider ethics and knowledge in their own terms and merits rather than as commands from on high. Plato taught this lesson in an early dialogue, the "Euthyphro" which is mentioned in the book but not discussed at length.
The book is divided into two parts. Part I, "A Framework for Facts" develops five non-commandments exploring the nature of belief, knowledge and reality, culminating in the non-commandment that "There is no God". Part II, "A Framework for Ethics" develops a value theory to accompany the factual theory of part I. The authors deny the universal, objective character of moral reality. They argue that people generally pursue their own happiness and interests as they, frequently erroneously, see them. They then develop a morality and an ethics based on enlightened self-interest that stresses the value and the joy of helping other people. They develop their theory on a personal level and then explain how it might apply to social questions.
Much in this book is fascinating, valuable, and challenging. As noted, I find it of critical importance in my own thinking to separate ethical, moral, and belief questions from a claimed source in, at the least, a personal God and in revelation, regardless of how interpreted. With that said, the book covers a great many complex questions that thinkers have wrestled with for a long time in a way that some readers will find too quick and fast. The first part of the book establishes the authors' naturalism. It is based on a sense-data theory of empiricism and a correspondence theory of truth that needs fleshed out much more if it is to be plausible. The first part also relies on a foundationalism which may be questioned. The foundation is softened by the authors' recognition of fallibilism -- that even basic assumptions may be subject to change.
The second part of the book introduces a reliance on introspection that may not be fully consistent with the theory of reality developed in the first part. The authors take science, as explained in part I, as setting the paradigm and only possibility for "objectivity" and they deny the possibility of "objective" ethics in the sense that science is objective. They develop a "subjective" ethics and claim it can account for and correct the ethical intuitions of individuals. Whether the authors' establish a subjective basis for morality can readily be questioned. In approaches such as that taken in this book, which are arguably based on a scientific reductionism, it may well be that "objective" moral considerations are tacitly smuggled into the analysis of the book. Such questions can be raised against other ethical systems such as that of Spinoza, which are much more fully developed and which try to combine a naturalistic outlook with a strong ethics.
The book has a liberating quality which is commendable even if it leaves many questions. Other writers have taken other, different approaches to nontheism. For example the late Ronald Dworkin (1931 --2013) was a legal philosopher who moved gradually to broader philosophical questions throughout his life. His last book, "Religion without God" explores many of the questions that Bayer and Figdor consider in their book. Dworkin rejects theism but he also rejects the naturalism of this book. He also strongly rejects this books empiricist, sense-based epistemology. He claims that values are real and objective, but different from science, that human life is purposeful and meaningful, and that the physical universe may exhibit a coherence and unity and can be seen to be of intrinsic value and wonder. Dworkin distinguishes between naturalism, theism, and nontheistic religion and argues eloquently but briefly in favor of the third alternative. Readers who are inclined to reject theism but who are not convinced by naturalism may want to read Dworkin's book for a start. The form of atheism and naturalism presented by Bayer and Figdor may not be the only alternative. To their credit, the authors invite readers to explore their own thoughts, to wrestle with principles and reasons, and to try to set out in succinct form the nature of their beliefs. This is a worthwhile but difficult exercise.
I enjoyed revisiting religious questions with Bayer and Figdor and learned from their book. These questions are important and difficult. The publicist for the book kindly sent me a review copy.
Robin Friedman
July 26, 2016
Ten Commandments for Atheists
1. Thou shalt not believe in gods
2. Thou shalt not attack other people's gods.
3. Thou shalt not make gods in thine own image.
4. Thou shalt not make gods in the image of men, but not of women.
5. Thou shalt not conduct wars against other people in the name of thine own gods.
6. Thou shalt not impose thine own will on others and call it the will of god.
7. Thou shalt not espouse thine own beliefs and call it morality, nor write holy books filled with fiction and call it fact.
8. Thou shalt not enslave thy neighbours nor thyself, and call it freedom.
9. Thou shalt not confuse the church and the state.
10. Thou shalt not promise eternal life in return for good behaviour.
1. Thou shalt not believe in gods
2. Thou shalt not attack other people's gods.
3. Thou shalt not make gods in thine own image.
4. Thou shalt not make gods in the image of men, but not of women.
5. Thou shalt not conduct wars against other people in the name of thine own gods.
6. Thou shalt not impose thine own will on others and call it the will of god.
7. Thou shalt not espouse thine own beliefs and call it morality, nor write holy books filled with fiction and call it fact.
8. Thou shalt not enslave thy neighbours nor thyself, and call it freedom.
9. Thou shalt not confuse the church and the state.
10. Thou shalt not promise eternal life in return for good behaviour.
August 13, 2020
I enjoyed the book, the thesis, the supporting ideas and their consideration of counter-arguments. The book's logic is convincing, but I suspect that there are elements of a belief in a God that consist of more than logic. I can't offer a better explanation, but there is a beauty and an elegance to the laws that govern our existance and to accept that these laws sorted themselves out randomly is a challenge to this logic. Self-driving vehicles exist here now but don't ask me to ride in one . Self-driving universes? Hmm.
November 7, 2014
ATHIEST MIND, HUMANIST HEART (by Lex Bayer and John Figdor) sets out to rewrite the “Ten Commandments” from a non-religious perspective. The authors’ motivation is the continuing misperception that atheists, who have no foundation in either God or religion, also have no framework for their own beliefs, whatever they may be. As Figdor poses, “How does morality work without God?” Well, through a number of cogently argued chapters (and a wealth of helpful examples), this little book illustrates that through rational thought and shared assumptions, human beings are fully capable of living moral, ethical, and happy lives without adherence to any religious doctrines or supernatural beings.
I found this book to be a fascinating and insightful examination of human thinking, with an emphasis on principles that affirm humanist teachings. The so-called “Non-Commandments” Bayer and Figdor introduce really are more principles than commandments, since none of them are directives. Instead, these “Non-Commandments” state such logical truths as “The world is real,” “We can perceive the world only through our human senses,” and “We all strive to live a happy life.” They also assert (in their 5th Non-Commandment) that “There is no God,” which necessarily brings up questions of ethics, morality, and concepts of good and evil. Without God, upon what do we base our sense of right and wrong? Why choose to behave morally if there are no consequences to our acting immorally – and no rewards for doing good?
But as Bayer and Figdor argue, human behavior is motivated by our desires – and our desires are based on the urge to maximize life-happiness. If we all “strive to live a happy life” (the 6th Non-Commandment) and we “benefit from living in, and supporting, an ethical society” (the 9th Non-Commandment), then we will naturally behave in ways that will both support our society and make us happy. We won’t kill people, or steal, or lie because those things would be antithetical to both our own personal happiness and the functioning of an ethical society.
This may sound a bit like fluffy logic (and there are admittedly people who find personal happiness in committing anti-social acts), but the central point is valid. Bayer and Figdor contend that there is no such thing as a “universal moral truth,” meaning each of us is tasked with figuring out for ourselves what is right and what is wrong, and what is moral and what is not. They argue that our natural desires for both happiness and a supportive community will help us make the right choices and behave in constructive, moral ways.
Both Bayer and Figdor grew up in families with religious frameworks (Bayer was Jewish and Figdor was Christian), and they came to their conclusion that God did not exist over a period of time and after much introspection and debate. Theirs is a philosophical argument that makes sense to those for whom reason, rationality, and scientific truth are paramount. They are proposing a system for non-believers that will help them find truth and happiness without reliance on anything supernatural or mystical.
Unlike the authors, I am a life-long atheist – I grew up with atheist parents who taught me from birth to value rational thinking and to discount what they called “the idiocy of religion.” Because of that, I have never felt the need for any kind of “commandments” (religious or otherwise), or any kind of guidelines for the way I live my life. I have a strong personal sense of morality and ethics, and I have seldom thought much about why I believe the things I do, or why I make the choices I do. That said, this book has been revelatory in that it has inspired me to begin the process of figuring out my own “non-commandments” (although I prefer to call them principles). There’s a section near the end of the book that specifically addresses this process and encourages readers to do their own work to clarify their own lives. It’s a good idea.
Overall, this book is a valuable analysis of human thinking, and a fascinating exploration of how much we can do to live productive and happy lives through our own commitment to humanist principles. As the authors argue, without God, “all beliefs are based on reason and evidence rather than faith.” That’s an affirming and comforting statement, one that supports the way I have always lived my life. I recommend this book to atheists, humanists, agnostics, as well as to believers who have always wondered how non-religious people think.
[Please note: I was provided a copy of this book for review; the opinions expressed here are my own.]
I found this book to be a fascinating and insightful examination of human thinking, with an emphasis on principles that affirm humanist teachings. The so-called “Non-Commandments” Bayer and Figdor introduce really are more principles than commandments, since none of them are directives. Instead, these “Non-Commandments” state such logical truths as “The world is real,” “We can perceive the world only through our human senses,” and “We all strive to live a happy life.” They also assert (in their 5th Non-Commandment) that “There is no God,” which necessarily brings up questions of ethics, morality, and concepts of good and evil. Without God, upon what do we base our sense of right and wrong? Why choose to behave morally if there are no consequences to our acting immorally – and no rewards for doing good?
But as Bayer and Figdor argue, human behavior is motivated by our desires – and our desires are based on the urge to maximize life-happiness. If we all “strive to live a happy life” (the 6th Non-Commandment) and we “benefit from living in, and supporting, an ethical society” (the 9th Non-Commandment), then we will naturally behave in ways that will both support our society and make us happy. We won’t kill people, or steal, or lie because those things would be antithetical to both our own personal happiness and the functioning of an ethical society.
This may sound a bit like fluffy logic (and there are admittedly people who find personal happiness in committing anti-social acts), but the central point is valid. Bayer and Figdor contend that there is no such thing as a “universal moral truth,” meaning each of us is tasked with figuring out for ourselves what is right and what is wrong, and what is moral and what is not. They argue that our natural desires for both happiness and a supportive community will help us make the right choices and behave in constructive, moral ways.
Both Bayer and Figdor grew up in families with religious frameworks (Bayer was Jewish and Figdor was Christian), and they came to their conclusion that God did not exist over a period of time and after much introspection and debate. Theirs is a philosophical argument that makes sense to those for whom reason, rationality, and scientific truth are paramount. They are proposing a system for non-believers that will help them find truth and happiness without reliance on anything supernatural or mystical.
Unlike the authors, I am a life-long atheist – I grew up with atheist parents who taught me from birth to value rational thinking and to discount what they called “the idiocy of religion.” Because of that, I have never felt the need for any kind of “commandments” (religious or otherwise), or any kind of guidelines for the way I live my life. I have a strong personal sense of morality and ethics, and I have seldom thought much about why I believe the things I do, or why I make the choices I do. That said, this book has been revelatory in that it has inspired me to begin the process of figuring out my own “non-commandments” (although I prefer to call them principles). There’s a section near the end of the book that specifically addresses this process and encourages readers to do their own work to clarify their own lives. It’s a good idea.
Overall, this book is a valuable analysis of human thinking, and a fascinating exploration of how much we can do to live productive and happy lives through our own commitment to humanist principles. As the authors argue, without God, “all beliefs are based on reason and evidence rather than faith.” That’s an affirming and comforting statement, one that supports the way I have always lived my life. I recommend this book to atheists, humanists, agnostics, as well as to believers who have always wondered how non-religious people think.
[Please note: I was provided a copy of this book for review; the opinions expressed here are my own.]
December 11, 2014
I was thoroughly disappointed. Yes the authors do set out to find out what the 10 commandments for the 21st century could look like, and their thought process is open and on display for anyone to argue. However many of us who have come to see ourselves as atheists became so mainly by reading, sometimes by reading way more than what's good for us.
Going through philosophy you might bump into Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Emerson, Rousseau, any number of them who do not try to hold your hand and walk with you as if you were a rather slow child. I do understand why they thought this was necessary, but the main thing about the question "what do atheists believe in?" is that you can't answer it, except for a given individual, or at best a small subgroup of those who don't believe in god (whether full fledged atheism or some form of agnosticism).
There's no one there to tell you what to believe so you have to figure it out yourself. It is partly the point that the authors are making, I know. But instead of going through a dissertation of the founding assumptions of belief, they might have gone through some of the work defining our own morality, like "the expanding circle" by Peter Singer, ore gone through the declaration of human rights. Doing the Cartesian thing of questioning everything has been, for most atheists I know, the main reason why they've become atheists. Mostly, you don't need to teach them to think.
Maybe leading them through some of the abounding work in human morality and the implications as an atheists, and why being an atheists doesn't mean "you can do whatever you want, because there are no ultimate consequences" is high on the list of stupid statements to make to an atheists.
Going through philosophy you might bump into Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Emerson, Rousseau, any number of them who do not try to hold your hand and walk with you as if you were a rather slow child. I do understand why they thought this was necessary, but the main thing about the question "what do atheists believe in?" is that you can't answer it, except for a given individual, or at best a small subgroup of those who don't believe in god (whether full fledged atheism or some form of agnosticism).
There's no one there to tell you what to believe so you have to figure it out yourself. It is partly the point that the authors are making, I know. But instead of going through a dissertation of the founding assumptions of belief, they might have gone through some of the work defining our own morality, like "the expanding circle" by Peter Singer, ore gone through the declaration of human rights. Doing the Cartesian thing of questioning everything has been, for most atheists I know, the main reason why they've become atheists. Mostly, you don't need to teach them to think.
Maybe leading them through some of the abounding work in human morality and the implications as an atheists, and why being an atheists doesn't mean "you can do whatever you want, because there are no ultimate consequences" is high on the list of stupid statements to make to an atheists.
October 10, 2014
It's rare to find a book which wrestles with complicated philosophical questions in a very readable, approachable way while still being very clear about its logical steps and justifications. If you've ever wanted to think through and fully justify your beliefs and morals from the ground up, this is the book for you. If you've ever wanted to better understand what people who don't believe in a god CAN still believe in, this is the book for you. Or even if you're just generally interested in atheism, religious debate, philosophy of belief, or ethics, this is likely still a read you will find fascinating in its approach and hard to argue with -- despite its audacious goal of coming up with an entire system of belief about both the world itself and the moral issues we find ourselves dealing with everyday.
November 1, 2014
Morality in atheism, a book that needed to be written.
While the authors include their case for atheism, which may make it impossible for believers to read since they will probably generate constant interrupts (but, but), it would be a worthwhile read for them if they are interested in something other than illogical straw men constructed about atheists.
"I don't believe in God, now what?" is a question that every atheist needs to ask himself. Many of my Christian friends argue for absolute moral law from God but clearly large numbers subconsciously employ may of the methods described in this book as they pick, choose and reject the objectionable parts of the Bible and/or other books of revealed religion.
The authors focus on the importance of examining your own beliefs and provide a valuable tool for doing just that. Beyond food for thought, this book is a feast.
While the authors include their case for atheism, which may make it impossible for believers to read since they will probably generate constant interrupts (but, but), it would be a worthwhile read for them if they are interested in something other than illogical straw men constructed about atheists.
"I don't believe in God, now what?" is a question that every atheist needs to ask himself. Many of my Christian friends argue for absolute moral law from God but clearly large numbers subconsciously employ may of the methods described in this book as they pick, choose and reject the objectionable parts of the Bible and/or other books of revealed religion.
The authors focus on the importance of examining your own beliefs and provide a valuable tool for doing just that. Beyond food for thought, this book is a feast.
July 4, 2017
This book is a great way to write a thesis or dissertation in graduate school. I say this because AMHH does a great job of establishing the authors' arguments down to the core assumptions. Then, it guides you through the logical flow of ideas step by step. No stone is left unturned and every possibility is considered.
This book should not be taken as an insult to the reader's intelligence for how careful and transparent the arguments are displayed. Rather, it is following the principle of assuming nothing, that way no argument or idea is vague and therefore subject to subjective interpretation. The authors show you exactly how they arrive at every idea and do so masterfully.
Atheist or not, this book makes you think. What else can you ask for?
This book should not be taken as an insult to the reader's intelligence for how careful and transparent the arguments are displayed. Rather, it is following the principle of assuming nothing, that way no argument or idea is vague and therefore subject to subjective interpretation. The authors show you exactly how they arrive at every idea and do so masterfully.
Atheist or not, this book makes you think. What else can you ask for?
February 27, 2015
Strong effort, tightly consistent and coherent.
While inviting revisions, that's a high challenge. I want to see more right brain, emotional, flexible contribution, and I want some imperative for giving back what we have received, to make the world net-better for anyone having lived, as a moral requirement.
AI better be agnostic and atheist, so this will be relevant to technology control research.
While inviting revisions, that's a high challenge. I want to see more right brain, emotional, flexible contribution, and I want some imperative for giving back what we have received, to make the world net-better for anyone having lived, as a moral requirement.
AI better be agnostic and atheist, so this will be relevant to technology control research.
July 23, 2015
Very well-organized; included belief theorems, bibliographies, notes and references. The thing I liked most about this book is that the authors repeatedly say that by no means do they have all the answer. They present their beliefs and their justifications for those beliefs in a very easy to follow logical manner, and then encourage you to do the same. Great read.
February 11, 2015
very helpful for me as a new atheist
May 7, 2024
I borrowed Bayer & Figdor's "Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart" from my library after stumbling across Sean McDowell's YouTube video reacting to Daniel Burke's 2014 article "Behold, atheists' new Ten Commandments." This is not a long read, but it is packed with information. Putting the heaviest supporting research/extra info in appendices is, I think, the correct way to keep the book moving while not compromising on detailed arguments.
However, I would not have faulted them if they went further with fleshing out the chapters. I definitely finished this book with an appetite to know more about humanism. (But that's also a good thing!)
I'd recommend that Sean McDowell (and any other Christian apologist) read this for a really quick and dirty introduction to a type of non-theism that doesn't fit their stereotype of "atheists hate God" and might challenge their perspective on non-religious morality.
However, I would not have faulted them if they went further with fleshing out the chapters. I definitely finished this book with an appetite to know more about humanism. (But that's also a good thing!)
I'd recommend that Sean McDowell (and any other Christian apologist) read this for a really quick and dirty introduction to a type of non-theism that doesn't fit their stereotype of "atheists hate God" and might challenge their perspective on non-religious morality.
April 15, 2018
A short book in wich the authors construct the 10 non-commandment for atheists to replace the 10 Christian Commanndments. I felt that most of the points were made more convincingly in other books on atheism.
January 9, 2021
Loved it. A breath of fresh air after living in a religious culture that makes me feel confused, guilty, and pressured. Only other thing I wish they addressed is the religious claim that only belief in a god and an afterlife gives life meaning.
November 1, 2017
10 non commandments
September 18, 2021
Interesting read, would be 5* for new atheists or anyone curious about how Humanists would put together a worldview.
November 13, 2014
`It is hard enough to remember my opinions, without also remembering my reasons for them!' - Nietzsche
John Figdor is the humanist chaplain serving atheist, humanist, and agnostic communities at Stanford University, where he organizes events and programs for both students and community members in the San Francisco Bay area. He holds a master of divinity degree from Harvard Divinity School and was previously the assistant humanist chaplain at Harvard. Lex Bayer serves as a board member of the Humanist Connection, a humanist, atheist, and agnostic nonprofit organization serving Stanford University and Silicon Valley. His foray into the philosophy of belief began with an award-winning paper on religion while an undergrad at Stanford University. Lex is a technology entrepreneur and inventor holding more than twenty patents. Bright men, sensitive thinkers, excellent writers!
Figdor and Bayer have taken on a project that is daunting to most, enlightening to many. Their book very wisely mixes personal and philosophical information to create provides an accessible and practical guide the Big Question historically and traditionally faced by human beings: "Is there a God?", "How would we know?", and "If not, how do we live with each other?" They share that `surveys suggest that 19 percent of U.S. adults (approximately 45 million people) consider themselves non-religious. This number is on the rise with a third of adults under the age of thirty self-identifying as non-believers. The authors address the key questions for these non-believers: What are the guiding principles of atheism? What is left to believe in? Their book shows that atheism need not only be reactionary (against religion and God), but rather provides a clear set of constructive principles to live by that establish atheism as a positive worldview. The book encourages and guides the reader through the process of formulating his or her own set of personal beliefs.
The medium through which they make their arguments is an entertaining and insightful re-writing of the NON commandments for the 21st Century: 1. The world is real, and our desire to understand the world is the basis for belief, 2. We can perceive the world only through our human senses, 3. We use rational thought and language as tools for understanding the world, 4. All truth is proportional to evidence, 5. There is no God, 6. We all strive to live a happy life. We pursue things that make us happy and avoid things that do not, 7. There is no universal moral truth. Our experiences and preferences shape our sense of how to behave, 8. We act morally when the happiness of others makes us happy, 9. We benefit form living in, and supporting, an ethical society, and 10. All our beliefs are subject to change in the face of new evidence, including these.
Rarely has a book been so accessible to the reader in the discussion of atheism, agnosticism, and humanism. For readers yearning to understand the big questions this book is highly recommended.
John Figdor is the humanist chaplain serving atheist, humanist, and agnostic communities at Stanford University, where he organizes events and programs for both students and community members in the San Francisco Bay area. He holds a master of divinity degree from Harvard Divinity School and was previously the assistant humanist chaplain at Harvard. Lex Bayer serves as a board member of the Humanist Connection, a humanist, atheist, and agnostic nonprofit organization serving Stanford University and Silicon Valley. His foray into the philosophy of belief began with an award-winning paper on religion while an undergrad at Stanford University. Lex is a technology entrepreneur and inventor holding more than twenty patents. Bright men, sensitive thinkers, excellent writers!
Figdor and Bayer have taken on a project that is daunting to most, enlightening to many. Their book very wisely mixes personal and philosophical information to create provides an accessible and practical guide the Big Question historically and traditionally faced by human beings: "Is there a God?", "How would we know?", and "If not, how do we live with each other?" They share that `surveys suggest that 19 percent of U.S. adults (approximately 45 million people) consider themselves non-religious. This number is on the rise with a third of adults under the age of thirty self-identifying as non-believers. The authors address the key questions for these non-believers: What are the guiding principles of atheism? What is left to believe in? Their book shows that atheism need not only be reactionary (against religion and God), but rather provides a clear set of constructive principles to live by that establish atheism as a positive worldview. The book encourages and guides the reader through the process of formulating his or her own set of personal beliefs.
The medium through which they make their arguments is an entertaining and insightful re-writing of the NON commandments for the 21st Century: 1. The world is real, and our desire to understand the world is the basis for belief, 2. We can perceive the world only through our human senses, 3. We use rational thought and language as tools for understanding the world, 4. All truth is proportional to evidence, 5. There is no God, 6. We all strive to live a happy life. We pursue things that make us happy and avoid things that do not, 7. There is no universal moral truth. Our experiences and preferences shape our sense of how to behave, 8. We act morally when the happiness of others makes us happy, 9. We benefit form living in, and supporting, an ethical society, and 10. All our beliefs are subject to change in the face of new evidence, including these.
Rarely has a book been so accessible to the reader in the discussion of atheism, agnosticism, and humanism. For readers yearning to understand the big questions this book is highly recommended.
June 2, 2016
This is a really good book, for its target audience. I am not its target audience, so I didn't finish.
I thought I was the target audience, given my interest in all things religious/spiritual, including the atheist/humanist/agnostic spectrum. However, a lot of this book turned out to be Philosophy 101 which, while interesting and useful to folks who haven't seen it before, is a repeat for those who have already done a lot of reading in this field. It will be most helpful to people who have recently decided they don't believe in God (or have serious doubts), and are now wondering how to live a moral, ethical life without a divine north star to guide them.
The authors make it very clear that their conclusions are based on their own application of thought and reason, and not meant to be taken as (pardon the pun) gospel truth. They even include a chapter on writing your own set of non-commandments, which is very cool. There's an appendix of common religious objections, a list of all ten non-commandments on one page for easy reference, a second list of justifications for the non-commandments, and something called a "theorem of belief," in which if/then reasoning is put through its paces by summarizing all the propositions put forth in the book. It's the perfect thing to hand older teens and new adults when they start questioning what they've been raised to believe, and will definitely be of interest to a lot of adults who aren't really sure what they believe. Theists of all stripes will want to read it as well, if only to grok that Richard Dawkins and his acerbic personality don't represent the full spectrum of what atheists are like.
Recommended for medium to large public libraries, and add this to the teen section in larger collections, too. This wasn't the book for me, but in my professional opinion, it's a solid pick that will really round out your LC B section / Dewey 200s.
I thought I was the target audience, given my interest in all things religious/spiritual, including the atheist/humanist/agnostic spectrum. However, a lot of this book turned out to be Philosophy 101 which, while interesting and useful to folks who haven't seen it before, is a repeat for those who have already done a lot of reading in this field. It will be most helpful to people who have recently decided they don't believe in God (or have serious doubts), and are now wondering how to live a moral, ethical life without a divine north star to guide them.
The authors make it very clear that their conclusions are based on their own application of thought and reason, and not meant to be taken as (pardon the pun) gospel truth. They even include a chapter on writing your own set of non-commandments, which is very cool. There's an appendix of common religious objections, a list of all ten non-commandments on one page for easy reference, a second list of justifications for the non-commandments, and something called a "theorem of belief," in which if/then reasoning is put through its paces by summarizing all the propositions put forth in the book. It's the perfect thing to hand older teens and new adults when they start questioning what they've been raised to believe, and will definitely be of interest to a lot of adults who aren't really sure what they believe. Theists of all stripes will want to read it as well, if only to grok that Richard Dawkins and his acerbic personality don't represent the full spectrum of what atheists are like.
Recommended for medium to large public libraries, and add this to the teen section in larger collections, too. This wasn't the book for me, but in my professional opinion, it's a solid pick that will really round out your LC B section / Dewey 200s.
January 21, 2015
The authors use a Chesterton quote to motivate a quest to outline their atheist credo in 10 non-commandments. They are somewhat misguided in using the 10 commandments,which are not a credo, but it does give a reason to limit their credo to 10 simple statements. They present quite a few very interesting ideas and provide an example of how one could construct a framework for ethical thought without the need for a god or gods. I suggest every thinking, ethical human would be served by reading this.
I was especially entertained by their inversion of Pascal's wager. In there version there is no way to tell whether A) there is a god who will reward you with eternal life in heaven only if you commit suicide in 10 minutes of receiving his good news or B) there is no such god. Considering that you are at risk of losing eternal happiness you should accept the wager and commit suicide. They also present the trolley car paradox in discussing ethics. You can watch a trolley car run over and kill 5 people or throw someone on the tracks to stop the trolley and save the five others. Do you stand by or do you sacrifice that person? As they discuss there are no objective ethical principles you have a choice to make and there are all sort of questions that come to mind. Do you know the people involved? Are the 5 people your closest family and friends. I wonder if you could extort money from the people involved in making your decision. Is that too unethical? :)
I was especially entertained by their inversion of Pascal's wager. In there version there is no way to tell whether A) there is a god who will reward you with eternal life in heaven only if you commit suicide in 10 minutes of receiving his good news or B) there is no such god. Considering that you are at risk of losing eternal happiness you should accept the wager and commit suicide. They also present the trolley car paradox in discussing ethics. You can watch a trolley car run over and kill 5 people or throw someone on the tracks to stop the trolley and save the five others. Do you stand by or do you sacrifice that person? As they discuss there are no objective ethical principles you have a choice to make and there are all sort of questions that come to mind. Do you know the people involved? Are the 5 people your closest family and friends. I wonder if you could extort money from the people involved in making your decision. Is that too unethical? :)
August 29, 2018
As an enlightened, optimistic atheist, I was really looking forward to reading this book, but the subtitle should have tipped me off.
While there are definitely some positive things about the book--especially the authors' pronouncement that I was free to disagree and formulate my own non-commandments--I found that it just didn't live up to its promise. While the reasoning used to arrive at their conclusions is very sound, it is based on assumptions nearly as tenuous as the original ten commandments.
The thing that bothers me the most--not just about this book, but about almost every atheist philosophical work--is that by its very nature it frames its conclusion in the negative. "Non-commandments" is the first of many negative statements. I just don't see my own personal beliefs in the negative; rather, I see atheism as an amazingly positive philosophy. So, when their fifth non-commandment turned out to be "there is no god," I had to ask why even make that statement? After all, the first non-commandment was "the world is real." This is a great positive statement that implicitly excludes the supernatural, ie. god or gods. There is no reason to post that as a negative statement.
I am, however, going to take their advice and write my own statement and it will begin with their first statement. The world is real.
Recommended only for atheists who have no grasp on their own philosophy.
While there are definitely some positive things about the book--especially the authors' pronouncement that I was free to disagree and formulate my own non-commandments--I found that it just didn't live up to its promise. While the reasoning used to arrive at their conclusions is very sound, it is based on assumptions nearly as tenuous as the original ten commandments.
The thing that bothers me the most--not just about this book, but about almost every atheist philosophical work--is that by its very nature it frames its conclusion in the negative. "Non-commandments" is the first of many negative statements. I just don't see my own personal beliefs in the negative; rather, I see atheism as an amazingly positive philosophy. So, when their fifth non-commandment turned out to be "there is no god," I had to ask why even make that statement? After all, the first non-commandment was "the world is real." This is a great positive statement that implicitly excludes the supernatural, ie. god or gods. There is no reason to post that as a negative statement.
I am, however, going to take their advice and write my own statement and it will begin with their first statement. The world is real.
Recommended only for atheists who have no grasp on their own philosophy.
January 28, 2015
It's been a while since I've read a philosophy book, and I assume since it's been twenty years since college that those professors I had are no longer still with us.
I entered to win this book to answer why an Atheist has a moral code. The answer seems to be (it's a philosophy book so you determine the answer) that Atheists are Humanists who believe in the good of Humanity. Having met Humans they lost me there and the next 3/4 of the book didn't get me back.
Religious types seem to think that non-believers are missing something, and the two authors seem to tow that line. So the book mimics religious thomes and patterns. But here's a thing- trying to cram something perceived as missing into a non-existing "hole" doesn't work.
I won a copy thru Goodreads' Firstreads program. I will be passing this book onto an old buddy who majored in philosophy for his first college degree.
I entered to win this book to answer why an Atheist has a moral code. The answer seems to be (it's a philosophy book so you determine the answer) that Atheists are Humanists who believe in the good of Humanity. Having met Humans they lost me there and the next 3/4 of the book didn't get me back.
Religious types seem to think that non-believers are missing something, and the two authors seem to tow that line. So the book mimics religious thomes and patterns. But here's a thing- trying to cram something perceived as missing into a non-existing "hole" doesn't work.
I won a copy thru Goodreads' Firstreads program. I will be passing this book onto an old buddy who majored in philosophy for his first college degree.
December 29, 2014
45 million Americans identify as nonreligious.
That's a pretty big number.
Maybe most of them are lazy and don’t want to go into details when they’re checking in at the hospital reception desk. Because, honestly, that’s the only time anyone has ever asked me anything about my religious preferences.
In any case, it’s important to remember that empathy is a quality that doesn’t rely on one’s religious beliefs and upbringing. It’s a good reminder that you can live a rich life filled with compassion and humanity without God. There’s nothing disrespectful or unreasonable about this book- it’s simply trying to help with the larger questions that one would normally use religion to crutch themselves through. Atheism deserves a fair shake, after all.
Fortunately, this book doesn’t have an agenda: instead, it focuses on examining your own beliefs and offers a few useful tools for doing so.
Thank you for this book!
I received this book via Goodreads First Reads for review.
That's a pretty big number.
Maybe most of them are lazy and don’t want to go into details when they’re checking in at the hospital reception desk. Because, honestly, that’s the only time anyone has ever asked me anything about my religious preferences.
In any case, it’s important to remember that empathy is a quality that doesn’t rely on one’s religious beliefs and upbringing. It’s a good reminder that you can live a rich life filled with compassion and humanity without God. There’s nothing disrespectful or unreasonable about this book- it’s simply trying to help with the larger questions that one would normally use religion to crutch themselves through. Atheism deserves a fair shake, after all.
Fortunately, this book doesn’t have an agenda: instead, it focuses on examining your own beliefs and offers a few useful tools for doing so.
Thank you for this book!
I received this book via Goodreads First Reads for review.
March 16, 2016
This book is written mostly to atheists, but it is immensely helpful for Christians (and really anyone with religious beliefs) to understand the reasoning behind why atheists believe the way they do. I found it to be a challenging book. It was difficult for me to read simply because the authors think and process ideas very differently than I do. The rely heavily on probabilities and some deductive reasoning. But that's what made the book so helpful. Their logic was sound, even though I couldn't agree with their base assumptions. In one of the appendixes, they address common arguments that believers provide for why atheists should believe in god(s). The believer's arguments that they presented were really weak, and not ones that I would use at all, so the rebuttals that the authors make as atheists are rebuttals that I would also make as a Christian.
January 5, 2016
A neat little book for believers and non-believers alike. This is most definitely NOT a religion/god bashing book or as profound as Christopher Hitchens but rather a logical, reasonable attempt at rewriting the Ten Commandments for a secular society. Lex Bayer and John Figdor take the reader on friendly adventure into ethics, morals, happiness, and positivism...without god. They even have appendices that outline their logical thought processes so the reader gets a better understanding on how the authors came to their conclusions. It is also a book that challenges readers to look deep inside themselves and ask the hard questions about life and to question their long-held beliefs. In the end, the authors leave it up to the reader to decide their own values and personal beliefs.
December 31, 2015
I won this as a goodreads giveaway and was thrilled to receive it! It took me a while to get through this one even though it is a short book. The concepts are excellent and I agree wholeheartedly, but it was not an enjoyable read per say. Certain chapters were more interesting than others, but overall, the meat of the book was excellent. I would definitely recommend, because I came away with some great knowledge. Slow read, but good book.
July 6, 2015
A clear, logical argument for the fact that there is no God and for how a person and a society can build a robust moral and ethical system without Him/Her/It.
Dawkins covered the same material in THE GOD DELUSION and I found his treatment of the subject more engaging.
Dawkins covered the same material in THE GOD DELUSION and I found his treatment of the subject more engaging.
July 4, 2015
Written in an advanced language. Very cerebral. Good writing and well thought out.
February 10, 2015
Heavy philosophical lifting. I can see this being a great book for some, but it didn't work that well for me at this point in my life.
April 30, 2015
Thought-provoking and helpful for anyone who likes contemplating belief.
August 12, 2016
Pretty good book about building a moral framework using logic and reason instead of divine authority.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews