The Faith of a Heretic

by Walter Kaufmann

Originally published in 1959, The Faith of a Heretic is the most personal statement of the beliefs of Nietzsche biographer and translator Walter Kaufmann. A first-rate philosopher in his own right, Kaufmann here provides the fullest account of his views on religion. Although he considered himself a heretic in all things, he was not immune to the wellsprings and impulses from which religion originates, believing that it is among the most vital and radical expressions of the human mind. Beginning with an autobiographical prologue that traces his evolution from religious believer to "heretic," the book touches on theology, organized religion, morality, suffering, and death--all examined from the perspective of a "quest for honesty." Kaufmann also subjects philosophy's faith in truth, reason, and absolute morality to the same heretical treatment. The resulting exploration of the faiths of a nonbeliever in a secular age is as fresh and challenging as when it was first published.

In a new foreword, Stanley Corngold vividly describes the intellectual and biographical context of Kaufmann's provocative book.

Genres: Philosophy, Religion, Nonfiction, Theology, Spirituality, History, Biography

414 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1978

About the author

Walter Arnold Kaufmann was a German-American philosopher, translator, and poet. A prolific author, he wrote extensively on a broad range of subjects, such as authenticity and death, moral philosophy and existentialism, theism and atheism, Christianity and Judaism, as well as philosophy and literature. He served for over 30 years as a Professor at Princeton University.

He is renowned as a scholar and translator of Nietzsche. He also wrote a 1965 book on Hegel, and a translation of most of Goethe's Faust.

Reviews

[Nick · Rating 5 out of 5]

This graceful statement of Kaufmann's basic spiritual outlook and call for intellectual integrity could serve as a soul enema for anyone. Kaufmann's discussion of the moral superiority of Old Testament Judaism (real social-moral concern for others divorced from otherworldly reward) to Christianity ("blessed are the meek...for I shall pay them off!") will certainly stick with me, as will his analysis of the weak-sauce liberal Protestant theologians of the 20th century, who purport to offer everything we moderns want "and heaven too." Kaufmann returns again and again to Jesus's exhortations to honesty: don't put new wine into old wineskins; make your yes, yes, and your no, no. The religious thinkers he discusses fail to follow these maxims all too often.

But the most important part of the book for me was Kaufmann's discussion of virtues, namely his dismissal of hope (the child of fear and cowardice!) and championing of his invented "humbition" (humility + ambition). His virtues combine into a tragic outlook that recognizes that the world is a rough place and that we have limited time to accomplish what little we can. Hope denies or at least de-emphasizes these truths whereas humbition looks them square in the face. Also, Kaufmann's spiritual "paganism"--having multiple "ultimate concerns" instead of one--seems a lot more workable and in tune with human nature than the religious demand to focus one's life on one point. No, Soren: purity of heart is not to will one thing. Yes, Friedrich: from here on out everything unconditional belongs to pathology.

[Paul Dinger · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this book in college and I can honestly say it has stayed with me. This is not a book you read in order to believe anything, but to doupt Everything. You will not come away knowing what Kauffmann knows but wondering if you know as much as you think you do. The target here is intellectual dishonesty and it is revealed and dragged thru the mud. I have been having a dialoge with this book since reading it and it's companion piece. Some books you read, my old philosophy teacher used to say, and some you experience. This is a book you experience.

[Hugh Coverly · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kaufmann presents his "quest for honesty" in religion, theology and philosophy. When I first read this book twenty years ago, I was still immersed in theological studies at seminary, and now I am a committed atheist. As an atheist, my latest reading of the book reconfirmed my absence of belief in God. In clear and precise language Kaufmann presents devastating critiques of God, religion, theology and philosophy. The book has a contemporary feel, even though it betrays its age by references clearly set in the late 1950s. The New Atheists might find the book antiquated because of its use of Old Testament and New Testament references, ancient and Enlightenment philosophers, existentialism, and modern theologians such as Paul Tillich and Rudolf Bultmann. Even if one is not prepared to follow Kaufmann through this territory, one can still learn much from and appreciate his more original and personal statements in the opening and closing chapters, especially those on The Quest for Honesty and Commitment, and later those on Organized Religion, Morality, and Death. In the end, Kaufmann is not an atheist--I believe he comes awfully close--but a self-identified heretic. As a heretic Kaufmann questions the unfounded foundational beliefs held by religion and propped up by theology, and the failure of contemporary philosophy to tackle the big questions in order to focus on the minutiae of language and other specialist topics. Atheists may find support in following Kaufmann's approach, even if they don't reach his conclusions.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was terrific -- but it strikes me that Kaufmann is so much better on Nietzsche and Hegel than he is on himself. Written when he was, I think, about 40, the thing reads so much like the work of a very (albeit very gifted) young man: eager to find for himself in Freud what he saw that Freud found in Nietzsche, but not having found it yet, not having achieved the confidence or, quite, the freedom. Faith of Heretic remains passionately, one might say gloriously, adolescently, Existentialist throughout: tarrying on the brink of the abyss rather than (as he says correctly about Shakespeare) having escaped it once inside.

One of the book's many virtues is that it is mostly cognizant of all this. Another is that it celebrates the imperfections of the great thinkers for the ways that they enable our own humble ambitions (or "humbitions," as Kaufmann valorizes them). This is good strategy: at one point, Kaufmann considers the possibility that, after all, he has been softer -- with prejudice -- on Judaism than he has been on Christianity, practiced himself what he calls in others philosophical/rhetorical "gerrymandering." When he dismisses that consideration way too soon, the reader has at least been prepared.

One keeps wanting to refer to him as "Walter." Here, he is, I think, a little unfair, unsurprisingly, with to respect Heidegger, more surprisingly so to Kierkegaard. A single throwaway reference to Confucius (and a couple to E.R. Dodds, who I love) I found more exhilarating than the repeated engagement with sociological studies on sectarianism and (sorry, this is my own fault, I know) the vast body of text-historical, biblical scholarship that was so relatively new, relatively hot at the time Kaufmann wrote this...and with which he is clearly so much more patiently familiar with than am I.

Recommended to anyone who is, as I am, charmed by Kaufmann's translations, philosophical studies, literary-critical exegeses -- but maybe read some of the other stuff first.

[Paul O'Leary · Rating 3 out of 5]

Kaufman's exploration of religion and the need to keep an open mind feels dated to me. His targets are names less remembered than they once were, such as Bultmann and Tillich. He argues persuasively that a religion denuded of troublesome facts until its essence is distilled is in essence on a par with any other religion worthy of the name. Covering this up has been the job of theologians since religious dogma separated one God from another. This position and it's attached consequences were once shocking to the public. Not so much now. Kaufman is a very good writer with complete mastery of his materials, yet the subject seems well, no, over canvassed already. This book was published in 1961 when religion was still something of a touchy subject. Also, an active topic of debate and focus for reform. Today, religion in America has moved out from the public sphere and into the private, that is, when it's able to afford its rent. The stakes simply aren't as high anymore. Kaufman's paean to always keep independent thought alive requiring the "faith of a heretic" against all thought-stifling dogmatic theology doesn't have the impact it once did. Certainly not a bad book. Critical thinking, undoubtedly, needs its proponents still. But I must confess I found it something of boring book. There are lessons that could be retold with profit, like Job's suffering and misery caused by a God from an authority which had nothing to do with godly morality, nor was it expected by Job himself. Kaufman's dictum that "honesty within limits" isn't honesty at all deserves proper attention, perhaps especially today. But once these basic lessons have been revisited the book starts to weigh heavier on one's time and lighter on one's mind. Kaufman's book on Nietzsche is a pathbreaking classic. This offering, sadly, is not.

[Giovanni Generoso · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kaufmann made me strive to obtain, by God's grace, I pray, the faith of a heretic.

[Chad · Rating 5 out of 5]

I first stumbled upon Faith of a Heretic in the works cited of To Heal a Fractured World: The Ethics of Responsibility by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. Though from the same faith tradition, Kaufmann and Sacks arrive at very different conclusions about the role of faith and religion. While Rabbi Sacks sees a very important role for organized religion, Kaufmann is largely critical of it. One thing that come to agreement on is respect for the Hebrew prophets and their calls to repentance. Sacks quotes the following quote on war from Kaufmann:

It is hard to do justice to the originality of men who, in the eighth century BCE, untutored by the horrors of two world wars with poison and gas and atom bombs, and without the frightening prospect of still more fearful weapons of destruction, insisted that war is evil and must be abolished, and that all peoples must learn to dwell together in peace.

While Kaufmann's critique of religion is absolutely scathing, he holds up the Hebrew prophets such as Amos, Isaiah, and Jeremiah as moral exemplars. The distinction can be summed up in one passage:

The point is not just that religion tends to become repulsive when it prospers, or that religion is at its best in times of persecution... What makes the decisive difference is not whether religion is persecuted or not, but whether religion is a pious name for conformity or a fighting name for non-conformity.

Kaufmann finds nobility in the role of a heretic that can't be found in the conformity inherent in organized religion.

Institutions

I think my favorite parts of Kaufmann's Faith of a Heretic is his sharp critique of theologians. In one passage, he compares them to lawyers:

[Theologians] are really closer to lawyers than they are to either philosophers or scientists... In the first place, they accept books and traditions as data that is not up to them to criticize. They can only hope to make the best of these books and traditions by selecting the most propitious passages and precedents; and where the law seems to them harsh, inhuman, or dated, all they can do is have recourse to exegesis.

Secondly, many theologians accept the morality that in many countries governs the conduct of the counsel for the defense. Ingenuity and skillful appeals to emotion are considered perfectly legitimate; so are attempts to ignore all inconvenient evidence, as long as one can get away with it, and the refusal to engage in inquiries that are likely to discredit the predetermined conclusion: that the client is innocent. If all else fails, one tries to saddle one's opponent with the burden of disproof; and as a last resort one is content with a reasonable doubt that after all the doctrines that one has defended might be true.

Big oof. It hurts because there is just so much truth to it. I read a few passages of Kaufmann to my mom, and she said, "Why are you reading this? He sounds like someone who is miserable and only wants to hurt people." Perhaps to some it appears masochistic to read such hard critiques of your own faith. We can only become better when we see our faults-- and we tend to be blind to our own faults. I would like to say I follow Kaufmann's own method:

And if there are experiences I have not had, books I have not read that have helped to form you, tell me about them so I can read them and think about them. What more could I say?

I would like to comment on Kaufmann's self-assigned role as a heretic. Namely, what would a heretic be without an institution? Without something to conform to, there would be no non-conformists. I admit, that Kaufmann admits this. He distinguishes between two types of heretics:

There are heretics from resentments and iconoclasts who attack from outside what they never loved. There are also heretics from love who feel grateful to many with whom in the end they cannot agree.

There are heretics like this in my own faith, one of my favorite models being Sterling McMurrin (who also, incidentally, labelled himself a heretic). I even admire such heretics and believe they may our institutions better. Although I have a different model for my reconciliation of my faith with my own morals best exemplified by Lowell Bennion himself. Lowell Bennion lifted where he stood. He had many personal disagreements on doctrine that he acknowledged publicly. But the way he most distinguished himself was in his embodiment of the message of the Hebrew prophets: he was out serving the widows and the fatherless. Kaufmann draws attention to a similar character from Christian history, St. Francis of Assisi:

The Rule of Saint Francis represents a notable exception. Without taking issue with the doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic church, and while fully subordinating his judgment to the church's, he tried to create an island of love in an unloving world.

I view a faith tradition not only by those who are "inside" but also those who are "outside," and I claim them as part of our spiritual heritage. Not only necessarily as a "bad example" but as an example of striving for truth and love and justice. I don't believe you can so easily separate the wheat from the tares by looking at who is inside an institution and who is outside.

I am currently reading a history of the Catholic church from an adherent of the faith. In one passage, he also acknowledged one positive aspect of heretics:

The development of doctrine is a progressive widening and deepening of the meaning of the original truth, and heresy can be either false innovation or a rigid adherence to older teachings. Dogma is seldom officially defined unless it has first been questioned, and heresy perhaps serves the divine purpose of forcing the Church to reflect more deeply on her beliefs, to understand them in ever more comprehensive and precise ways.

I find myself drawn to the role of a heretic in my own faith tradition, at least on the personal level. Perhaps I shouldn't say heretic, and instead use Lowell Bennion's terms prophetic religion versus priestly religion. Yet I see the vital role that institutions play. There are two vital roles the institutional church plays. The first comes from Clayton Christensen's statement of beliefs:

Because of the way the church is organized, it puts opportunities to help others in my path every day. It facilitates my efforts-- and in some instances almost compels me-- to practice Christianity daily, not just believe in it.

Without a community in which to practice our faith, our faith becomes dead. This is especially true in our atomized and individualistic society. In my church community, I rub shoulders with people very different from me. Learning to love those whom you don't choose to associate is a very important role of the institutional church.

The second role is related but different: as individuals, we are flawed. We easily become blinded by what G. K. Chesterton referred to as the spirit of the age. As an individual, I can help contribute to the search for truth, but I acknowledge my own reasoning by itself is limited no matter how skilled or knowledgeable I am. I am a collection of biases. I like Jonathan Haidt's concept of institutionalized disconfirmation for the role of institutions, in this case universities:

Each professor is-- like all human beings-- a flawed thinker with a strong preference for believing that his or her own ideas are right. Each scholar suffers from the confirmation bias--the tendency to search vigorously for evidence that confirms what one already believes. One of the most brilliant features of universities is that, when they are working properly, they are communities of scholars who cancel out one another's confirmation biases. Even if professors often cannot see the flaws in their own arguments, other professors and students do them the favor of finding such flaws. The community of scholars then judges which ideas survive the debate. We call this process institutionalized disconfirmation.

Finally, I would like to more fully describe Lowell Bennion's juxtaposition of the priestly and prophetic roles in religion. Bennion takes this ideas from Max Weber:

Weber described prophets as men who spoke "as one having authority" out of their own calling. They broke with the existing order; they were critics of the immoralities and religious formalities of their people, such as I've illustrated with Isaiah and Micah. Like Jesus, they were revolutionary in their day: "It is written . . . but I say unto you." Jesus didn't reject the old, but he gave a new thrust and a different emphasis to that which had gone before: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." (Matthew 23:23.)

Prophets try to get people to put religion in perspective, to see it in terms of great fundamentals and in terms of ethics as well as theology. Prophets have never been bound by the past. They speak for God afresh in the interest of man, in the light of the great ideals of religion, and in the light of God's purpose and character. The other type of religious leader, Weber calls a priest. By this he means a man in any faith whose primary concern is to conserve the religion of the founder—of a Moses or Christ, for example. The priest canonizes scripture, refines doctrine, establishes tradition, records history, performs sacred rites and sacraments. In this way he builds and maintains the church, welding the believers into a meaningful fellowship.

Religion wouldn't survive if we just had the prophetic word. It would die with the prophet. Religion needs an order of religious leaders who are concerned with conservation and preservation. And I have the greatest respect for men who have done and who do this for us. If we didn't come together and partake of the sacrament as a body of believers; if we didn't sing Mormon hymns together and pray together; if we didn't have traditions to inspire us, we wouldn't exist as a religious movement, and maybe our individual religious life would fade out.

Lowell Bennion acknowledged the vital roles of both the priestly and the prophetic. Kaufmann acknowledges the priestly role, but dismisses it with the following:

The theologians pay a price for perpetuating a mass movement; they are not content, as the prophets were, with a small remnant. If each spoke out boldly and unequivocally, no mass movement would be left.

Religion would be much the weaker force without the priestly.

Prophetic versus Christian

As mentioned earlier, Kaufmann's role model that he sets forth is the Hebrew prophets. In his critique of religion, he praises the Hebrew scriptures while completely demolishing the New Testament. Yet he doesn't acknowledge any bias:

My account of the New Testament is less positive than my analysis of the Old Testament... It is odd in a book that attacks the double standard and pleads for honesty... Still, I shall not plead guilty to a charge of gerrymandering the Bible. It is essential to recognize the discontinuity between the prophets and Jesus.

I found three primary critiques of Christianity in Kaufmann's chapter on Christianity:

First, is his accusation of otherworldliness. Christianity does not adequately engage with the things of this world. Jesus's statement to render to Caesar what is Caesar's is taken as a sign of indifference on political and moral issues. This charge isn't new either. Roman pagans made the same accusations in the early rise of the Catholic Church:

Even though Christians obeyed the law, their otherworldliness was thought to hasten the decline. They formed their own society within the Empire, obedient to the state in a passive way (they prayed even for evil emperors) but detached from it. Jesus authorized the payment of taxes, and Christians pointed out that not only were criminals virtually unknown to them, but they also cared for their own poor rather than letting them become public charges.

From the same history, the author points to one advantage of otherworldliness, where others saw a lack of commitment to the things of this world:

The Sermon on the Mount was the heart of Jesus's social teaching, but He laid down no plan for a just social order and thereby deprived all social orders of divine authority, something that, paradoxically, made social change possible.

The second major criticism is Jesus's lack of novelty. He didn't introduce anything the Hebrew prophets hadn't already taught. The only exception was his divinity as the Son of God:

Moral questions could be argued; one was used to different opinions... It was Jesus' conception of his own person that caused astonishment... the scribes condemned Jesus not for being too liberal but for blasphemy-- for what he said about himself.

This one doesn't really hit too hard as a Latter-Day Saint; we claim that the same gospel was preached throughout all history (a claim perhaps even harder to defend, but I digress).

Finally, Kaufmann leverages the accusation of unbridled individualism. Throughout the New Testament, every commandment is connected to a personal blessing:

"Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume, and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal."... The Jesus of the Gospels appeals to each man's self-interest.

Read the full review at https://historyengineers.com/2021/03/...

[DoubleM · Rating 5 out of 5]

Walter Kaufmann's erudite tome was not what I expected; which was another religious zealot proclaiming that his faith was the one and only and that all should adopt it, adhere to it, and follow his thinking. Boy, was I surprised. Mr. Kaufmann cited the writings of the great, historical minds of the ages, comparing, contrasting, and analyzing their treatises on religion, philosophies, psychology, politics, and just plain common sense. His basic premise is that we each must learn and think for ourselves, no one else can do that for us.

This is not a book to be read as a substitute when there are only re-runs on TV. It is a book to be read at one's own pace and absorbed so that new ideas may be formed and acted on in our individual lives. "The Faith of a Heretic" is a REFERENCE book which should be consulted, as needed, to live a successful life. I will return to it from time to time, if for no other reason than to delete the erroneous ideas which I have carried with me since childhood. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

[Bruce · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked this a lot, despite some rambling and redundancies. It is a very intelligent critique of religion and philosophy (a sequel to his earlier Critique of Religion and Philosophy) which is often insightful and informative. Kaufmann gives a lot of himself in the book, and I came to wish he were still alive so I could discuss certain topics with him.

[Ramses · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of those books I will buy my own copy of and keep on my shelf for years to come. It may need to be consulted occasionally.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE FAMED PHILOSOPHER DEVELOPS “MY OWN VIEW OF THINGS”

Walter Arnold Kaufmann (1921-1980) was a German-American philosopher, translator, and poet, who taught for over 30 years at Princeton University.

He wrote in the Preface to the 1978 edition of this book (originally published in 1961), “The conception of the book was prompted in part by an anonymous review of my ‘Critique of Religion and Philosophy.’ The point was that a critique of various philosophies and religions was not enough, as long as ‘we do not seem to be offered any adequately developed view of things to take their place.’ … ‘The Faith of a Heretic’ tried to meet that challenge by developing my own view of things. It represents an attempt to answer the questions, What can I believe? How should I live? What do I hope?”

After citing some pre-Socratics, he says, “Clearly, these men were heretics. They not only opposed the common sense of their time and some of the most revered names of the past but they did not presume to speak in the name of the Lord or to interpret correctly a previously misunderstood tradition. They pitted their own thinking against the religion and the poetry they knew. And by breaking with the exegetic mode of thought and every other form of appeal to authority, they initiated philosophy.” (Pg. 16)

He notes, “Commonly, people think of philosophy as a quest, however ill advised, for truth. John Dewey called it the quest for certainty. But it is more illuminating to say that, at its best, philosophy is the quest for honesty.” (Pg. 23)

He argues, “If we discard our reason, mortify our understanding, and take leave of our senses, how can we be sure that what we accept is the word of God? The mere fact that something is presented to us as the word of God is clearly insufficient…. Perhaps it is a misunderstanding to pray to the God of Christendom; perhaps we should rather pray to Allah, or to Shiva, or possibly to some Australian god, or to some idol? How are we to choose if evidence and reason are thrown out of court?” (Pg. 75-76)

He points out, “compare what men like [Paul] Tillich and [Reinhold] Niebuhr actually believe and disbelieve with the beliefs of avowed fundamentalists, or of Martin Luther and John Calvin, or of St. Augustine and St. Athanasius, or of St. Paul and St. John the Evangelist: surely, the beliefs and disbeliefs of our two most celebrated Protestant theologians are much closer to mine than they are to those of millions of their fellow Christians, past and present.” (Pg. 97)

He asserts, “Tillich does not merely gerrymander incidentally; he depends utterly on gerrymandering and the double standard to escape from a pervasive relativism that would relegate Christianity to being nothing more than one of many faiths that are patently false as usually understood but capable of impressive interpretations, if only one has a little ingenuity… Millions of Christians today believe, in effect, that in the first-century controversy between the Jews and the early Christians the Jews were right. Like the Jews, they believe that the early Christians were wrong when they claimed that on the third day Jesus rose from the dead…” (Pg. 124)

He begins Chapter Vi by saying, “No other problem of theology or the philosophy of religion has excited so sustained and wide an interest as the problem of suffering… One’s strategy is trying to defend or to attack the claim that God exists obviously depends on what is meant by ‘God.’ It may be objected that it is not so difficult to isolate what might be called the popular conception of God. The problem of suffering is of crucial importance because it shows that the God of popular theism does not exist.” (Pg. 137)

He observes, “Much has been made of the Golden Rule, and when it was found that Hillel, the Pharisee, an older contemporary of Jesus, had … [taught] the so-called negative formulation of the Golden Rule… Protestant theologians were quick to… claim that Jesus’ formula was far superior. In reply to that, three things need to be said: First, the negative version can be put into practice while the positive version cannot; and anyone who tried to live up to Jesus’ rule would become an insufferable nuisance. Second, no such formula should be overestimated in any case; try, for example, to derive a sexual ethic from Jesus’ rule… Finally, there are the wonderful words … [of] Thomas Hobbes… ‘…they that insist upon single texts, without considering the main Design, can derive no things from them clearly; but rather…make every thing more obscure than it is…” (Pg. 212-213)

Of Jesus’ interpretation of the Jewish laws, he comments, “the old morality is not protected but undermined… and no new morality is put in its place. Where murder is not considered importantly different from calling a man a fool, nor adultery from a lustful look, the very basis of morality is denied: the crucial distinction between impulse and action. If one is unfortunate enough to have the impulse, no reason is left for not acting on it.” (Pg. 214)

He contends that Kant’s moral philosophy “is inconsistent with Kant’s own philosophy. One of the c.entral claims of his greatest work, the ‘Critique of Pure Reason,’ was that such categories as causality, unity, and substance have no valid application beyond our experience, and that any attempt to employ them in speculations about what transcends experience is completely illegitimate. Yet Kant postulates God as a single, substantial cause of that conjunction of happiness and virtue which his moral sense demands.” (Pg. 280)

Finally, he summarizes his own ethics: “My own ethic is not absolute but a morality of openness. It is not a morality of rules but an ethic of virtues…. Here are four cardinal virtues. The first … is a fusion of humility and aspiration… What I praise is … humility winged by ambition… The second cardinal virtue is love. ‘Love’ … is only a fusion of several things that deserves the name of a cardinal virtue… Love as a virtue … is not content to perceive and sympathize; it involves the willingness to assume responsibility and to sacrifice… The third cardinal virtue is courage… Courage is vitality knowing the risks it runs… Even when allied with causes to which we detest, courage speaks to us, the voice of conscience, calling us from sloth and resignation, a reproach and an appeal. The fourth virtue is honesty… thorough honesty is the rarest and most difficult of all the virtues; and without that, each of the other three is somewhat deficient.” (Pg. 304-311)

As with Kaufmann’s ‘Critique,’ his negative arguments are more impressive than the “positive” ethic and positions he ultimately proposes. But this is still a vastly illuminating, engagingly-written book that will be of great interest to anyone studying contemporary philosophy.

[Sam Rice · Rating 4 out of 5]

Difficult to say I’d “recommend” this book - it’s exceptionally well-written, very thought-provoking, and I enjoyed it immensely. However, it is also extremely dense. It took me a very long time to finish, mainly because I could only really read and integrate relatively small sections of the text at a time. Kaufmann has done a fantastic job of presenting important questions about faith (his own as well as faith in general), without necessarily seeking answers. He does make some claims and assumptions in order to support his arguments that I don’t entirely agree with, for example claiming that most [people who believe in God] have never seriously considered the possibility that they might end up in Hell after they die (I personally would argue that this consideration is exactly what drives many believers to seek God in the first place). Overall though, Kaufmann makes very fair claims and presents well-structured criticisms of popular religious thought, especially those formed by dogma or otherwise originating from an established, hierarchical orthodoxy. Questions like the ones asked in The Faith of a Heretic should be seriously pondered (though not necessarily answered, as Kaufmann himself would likely admit) by anyone serious about their own beliefs and faith.

[Ian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Much of the book is spectacular. Kaufmann is at his best when dismantling; he is a demolition expert rendering Christian organized religion down to its foundation and a few jagged posts. For the majority of the book I was utterly transfixed and furiously taking notes on Kaufmann’s argument method as well as his own positions and inspiration I derived from those. But I found the book slumps towards the end as Kaufmann turns his gaze first toward Freud, then existentialism, and finally to employing experimental forms. Chapters XI and beyond eluded me as to why they were included since they appeared as such a departure from the rest of the book. I was also surprised at the large number of typographical errors (perhaps a hasty digital scan from an earlier edition?) and the very inconsistent citation of sources - unusual for a university press publication. These latter criticisms keep this one from being five stars.

[finoallafine]

This one has been on my to read list for a long time, ever since I read the short essay which inspired the book (or so I think), and then his other works and scholarship.

I recommend having a read, it's only a few pages.

Walter Kaufmann, 'The Faith of a Heretic', Harper's Magazine, http://walterkaufmann.com/articles/19...

[Andy]

disappointingly tepid for someone who has written such lucid and enlightening works on other philosophers

[Kelly DeWeese · Rating 5 out of 5]

Big love to Kaufmann for articulating exactly what feels so icky about the pursuit of personal salvation

[Douglas Graves · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the first pure philosophy books I’ve read. There is a great deal of assumed background knowledge from other classic works that I just didn’t have. Still, I found the writing incredibly accessible and overall edifying.

The take away: Honesty. Honesty to yourself and to others (enneagram 4s will love this book). If we are not honest with ourselves about how we feel, what we actually believe, how our beliefs conflict then it will be impossible to discover our true selves and true purpose. It also means we cannot be truest honest with others and can never be truest known. Honesty, one of Kaufmann’s four cardinal virtues, is the one that points true north. That, according to him, keeps us oriented and moving toward wholeness.

[Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

What the childish and puerile 'new atheists' tried to do in more recent times was once done with actual style and knowledge by Walter Kaufmann, someone who actually knew what they were talking about.

He is still buried deep within that world I once inhabited which I can no longer abide, the intellectual school of liberalism (meant in the general rather than American political sense) but the fact that he can be so convincing even from such a vantage point is refreshing considering most of the drivel that has leaked out of that corner of the intellectual world for the past 50-odd years.

If you have a friend interested in exploring the ethics of atheism, agnosticism, etc and they have an above pop-polemic reading level recommend this over the more recent and popular works on the topic.

[Ryan Young · Rating 5 out of 5]

Herr Kaufmann thinks clearly. I dearly wish everyone i ever knew would read this book and endeavor to understand its points. he has a gentle way of elucidating difficult concepts, as if he were richard dawkins without the rancor. he is well versed in ancient and contemporary philosophy, ancient and contemporary religion, and even psychology, such as it was in the 1950s.

honesty. he wants us to aspire to honesty. with ourselves. with our children. with our neighbor. not sincerity, but honesty. the kind of honesty that springs from courage, that kind of honesty that leads to love. A book for the nearest shelf, to be consulted.

read it and let's all talk about it!

[Emily · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book years ago, but I still think about it from time to time. Some of it makes no sense (not to be confused with being hard to understand, mind you) and is arranged in a strange way. But, Kaufman has some fascinating ideas. My favorite was his chapter on God being either all-powerful OR all-merciful. You have to choose one or the other, Kaufman argues-- and he won't tell you which to choose. I also think what he has to say about death is amazing.

[Brian Reinhart · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best book on atheism and non-religion that I've ever read, and I've read a lot of them. Kaufmann is smarter, nimbler, kinder, more understanding, and more insightful than Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc.

Try to find the later paperback with the red cover that has a new preface. Not that this classic is available anywhere, when it should be everywhere.

[Jerry Wall]

Good morality discussion. `Biblical moral code doesn't work because based on fear of punishment or bribe with hope of reward. Decisions to be moral should be based on a thought process using reason to decide on appropriate aspects of such a code

[Robert · Rating 3 out of 5]

Entertaining, witty, interesting, though often intellectually dishonest; first published in 1959, certainly one of the progenitors of the anti-authoritarian spirit of the baby-boomers to the faddish atheism of today.

[Chris Bonds · Rating 5 out of 5]

Don't have time to write a review just now, will say this is one of the best books I've read in a long time.

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

Walter Kaufmann is a person who represents a generalized humanities education par excellence: he is intent in finding out truth and life through honesty and critical thinking. He's witty, well-read, and generally insightful. Sometimes he's not as charitable as he should be, and his dislike for organized religion comes off as brash sometimes, but a good amount of his aggressiveness can be understood in context: Kaufmann was writing amidst the largely-unauthentic religious revival of the 50s and 60s, was constantly pestered by people offended by him, and in the spotlight largely for his revitalization of Nietzsche studies.

Though some chapters are better than others, this collection of his thoughts serves as a great introduction to his other works.