What do you think?
Rate this book
Everybody Is Wrong About God
A call to action to address people’s psychological and social motives for a belief in God, rather than debate the existence of God
With every argument for theism long since discredited, the result is that atheism has become little more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs. Thus, engaging in interminable debate with religious believers about the existence of God has become exactly the wrong way for nonbelievers to try to deal with misguided—and often dangerous—belief in a higher power. The key, author James Lindsay argues, is to stop that particular conversation. He demonstrates that whenever people say they believe in “God,” they are really telling us that they have certain psychological and social needs that they do not know how to meet. Lindsay then provides more productive avenues of discussion and action. Once nonbelievers understand this simple point, and drop the very label of atheist, will they be able to change the way we all think about, talk about, and act upon the troublesome notion called “God.”
With every argument for theism long since discredited, the result is that atheism has become little more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs. Thus, engaging in interminable debate with religious believers about the existence of God has become exactly the wrong way for nonbelievers to try to deal with misguided—and often dangerous—belief in a higher power. The key, author James Lindsay argues, is to stop that particular conversation. He demonstrates that whenever people say they believe in “God,” they are really telling us that they have certain psychological and social needs that they do not know how to meet. Lindsay then provides more productive avenues of discussion and action. Once nonbelievers understand this simple point, and drop the very label of atheist, will they be able to change the way we all think about, talk about, and act upon the troublesome notion called “God.”
224 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 2015
38 people are currently reading
625 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
December 22, 2015
A refreshing book that explores the psychosocial needs that are met by a belief in a deity. The book assumes that the debate over God’s existence is over and that it is demonstrably false — a contentious assumption despite the assertion by the author that it is no longer worthy of any further discussion and could perhaps be seen as a somewhat arrogant assertion. However, if one is prepared to accept this starting point for the sake of argument, Lindsay provides a rich and complex analysis of the function that a belief in “God” (as opposed to God without scare quotes) serves in those who believe and what it would mean to construct a truly secular society where those same needs are met.
The book argues for a post-theistic society where atheism as a label is not needed because it is no longer defining itself in terms of theism. Apart from being a bit repetitive, Lindsay’s perspective is well articulated with respect for those who believe in “God” (notice the scare quotes) and the purpose it serves — although his communication is sometimes bordering on the aggressive (then again, this might be needed given the trenchant criticisms that fundamentalist Christians make about atheism and atheists).
The last part of the book is particularly useful as the author attempts a very general articulation of how the ‘… primary needs “God” exists to address relate\[d] to meaning making, control, and esteem, which manifest in terms of attribution, control, and sociality in various complicated and overlapping ways’ might be addressed in a post-theistic society. One group of individuals who really need to read this book (apart from atheists themselves) are those theists who persistently claim that atheists cannot live a full or ethical life.
In my view, this book is essential reading as it moves the debate beyond circular arguments about the existence of God and seriously deals with the way forward for a secular society that is not grounded in a belief in a supernatural god. It should provoke in-depth discussion by anyone who has any views about God, “God”, gods or none of these. Whether theist, atheist, or post-atheist, this is a significant read.
The book argues for a post-theistic society where atheism as a label is not needed because it is no longer defining itself in terms of theism. Apart from being a bit repetitive, Lindsay’s perspective is well articulated with respect for those who believe in “God” (notice the scare quotes) and the purpose it serves — although his communication is sometimes bordering on the aggressive (then again, this might be needed given the trenchant criticisms that fundamentalist Christians make about atheism and atheists).
The last part of the book is particularly useful as the author attempts a very general articulation of how the ‘… primary needs “God” exists to address relate\[d] to meaning making, control, and esteem, which manifest in terms of attribution, control, and sociality in various complicated and overlapping ways’ might be addressed in a post-theistic society. One group of individuals who really need to read this book (apart from atheists themselves) are those theists who persistently claim that atheists cannot live a full or ethical life.
In my view, this book is essential reading as it moves the debate beyond circular arguments about the existence of God and seriously deals with the way forward for a secular society that is not grounded in a belief in a supernatural god. It should provoke in-depth discussion by anyone who has any views about God, “God”, gods or none of these. Whether theist, atheist, or post-atheist, this is a significant read.
February 10, 2017
Suffers from a seemingly common New Atheist pitfall of ignorance about the topic making the author feel like an innovator. Nothing I didn't encounter as a first year religion student 19 years ago, except for some of the absurd conclusions, poor definitions, and palpable self-satisfaction.
January 7, 2016
An exercise in word manipulation with no point. Don't waste your time.
Read
December 29, 2024Around its publication in December 2015, I heard of the title and planned to read it someday. Nine years later, I finally picked it up, at first not recognizing the author's name. In Lindsay's introduction, he refers to the word atheism as used by "the most prominent atheist writers of the beginning of this century, among them Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens [d. 2011], Daniel Dennett [d. 2024], the late Victor Stenger [d. 2014], and Jerry Coyne." And instantly I realized. This is a group of people who in the mid-2000s talked about how religion was nonsense and in the mid-2010s — around the time of the publication of this book — collectively shifted to a different "culture war" front to talk about how marginalized identities are nonsense. I'm not sure about Hitchens and Stenger only because they died before the new discourse took root, but the others lived to participate in it. Lindsay also heavily relies on Jonathan Haidt, who does not himself find the need utter anti-trans statements but, in 2015, co-founded the Heterodox Academy, which organizes and platforms anti-trans academics.
Together with Peter Boghossian, Lindsay has been engaging in public transphobia since at least 2017 when they got a hoax paper published, and they co-wrote a book, How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide, in 2019. Lindsay popularized the "groomer" slur. He founded New Discourses which has had anti-trans podcast episodes since at least 2020. Bafflingly to me (I'd have to look into how this happened), despite his insistence that theism is nonsense and his association with prominent atheists, his New Discourses ended up in the hands of Christian nationalist Michael O’Fallon, who had been involved with the project since at least 2019. In 2020, Lindsay co-wrote Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms Everybody. In 2021, he co-wrote Counter Wokecraft: A Field Manual for Combatting the Woke in the University and Beyond. He spoke at a 2023 conference of Genspect, an anti-trans group. Earlier this year (2024) he co-wrote The Queering of the American Child: How a New School Religious Cult Poisons the Minds and Bodies of Normal Kids.
None of that is what this book, Everybody Is Wrong About God, seems to be about. But if this book (now nine years old) has some retrospective importance, it is because of how it fits into this cultural shift and sheds light on it. That may not have been precisely what the author intended it at the time to mean, but it is how I read it today.
Lindsay's anti-trans positioning does matter to me, for the usual reasons of why any given reader may find it difficult, impossible or undesirable to attempt to separate the messenger from the message (or the artist from the art, etc.). It changes my reading, as I approach the text forensically to see if it contains hints of how Lindsay became anti-trans. No, the answer isn't explicit, but I can grab a few threads.
Here's what the book is about:
By its 2015 publication, Lindsay seems to have tired of the previous 10 years of the "New Atheist" discourse. He says: "The goal is to cease with theism and atheism and leave belief in God behind entirely, to go post-theistic, and we need to do it now." The word "God" is only a "psychosocial construct." Should we be motivated to endlessly debate a psychosocial construct, especially someone else's? "Frankly," he says, "much of what gets called the 'atheism movement' has to die. It should have died years ago, at least." He's bored (I surmise) and wants to move on to the next thing. He doesn't explicitly put that personal spin on it, though. He makes his case in more principled language: "there's a category mistake involved in turning atheism into an identifiable kind of thing, say a philosophy or a worldview."
He's writing for people who are already atheist-leaning, and I sense that he's talking primarily to academics and allied professionals who might someday find themselves arguing with someone's theistic viewpoint.
Look here, he says: Theism is nonsense. It isn't "well-defined," and no arguments for God's existence deserve serious academic consideration. If a theist says something specific you'd like to address, by all means deal with it, but in most cases you can simply decline to engage theism as a generality. "Ignoring it, scoffing at it, and outright making fun of it are sufficient..." By contrast, atheism is a "null position." It isn't itself an ideology that has to be taught. It's simply the absence of belief in nonsense. Therefore there's no way to become skilled at atheism per se. You can acquire skills you may feel are related to atheism, like science, communication, etc. And you may find that you share (or don't share) certain values with others who happen to be atheists. But there's no way to "do" atheism itself, other than to repeat the obvious: there's no reason to believe in God. Thus, "we should avoid branding anything with atheism and should, in fact, stop acting like atheism is a thing at all." A major pitfall of banging the drum for a-theism is that it cognitively reinforces attention on theism. Part of "get[ting] over God...means getting over being explicit about being 'without God.'" In atheism's classical versions, it contains embedded assumptions about the definition of God it's resisting — and, like, why would you want to? "By saying that 'God doesn't exist,' we force enough meaning into the term `God' to keep people able to believe in it and argue that it does [exist]." Society should simply be "post-theistic." The term atheism "shouldn't exist" either.
Near the end, he says:
These days, you'll often hear anti-trans people (including the secular liberal ones) refer to being trans as a "religion," a "cult," a "delusion," etc. Psychiatry has long applied the language of psychiatric delusion to trans people. But the use of religious delusion as an accusation against trans people was developed, I suspect, more recently through the New Atheists.
Lindsay:
This model represents not only what atheists routinely say about theists, but what professional transphobes these days routinely say about trans people: that we trans people have an incorrigible certainty about a claim that's obviously false, but that the responsibility for this delusion falls partly on society and culture for tolerating or including us, since (supposedly) if the culture would simply reject and isolate trans people, transness would be more readily interpreted as nothing more than an individual delusion of the trans person and it would be easier for most people to reject the possibility of anyone's transness. It's sort of a circular claim: After all, what's considered "normal" or "abnormal" is unavoidably a group decision, and a person (like Lindsay, say, or like a trans person, for that matter) hopes the society will establish and perpetuate the judgments and outcomes they'd personally prefer.
Anyway, this book did not need to be 200 pages. His call for post-theism is as I summarized it here. It would have worked better as a magazine essay.
The book would be more useful to readers like me today had he instead explained more about his agenda and the specific conversations I imagine he had with his fellow New Atheists about their planned right-wing, anti-queer turn.
In sum, though I agree with some of the insights about theism and atheism provided here, I disapprove of the book's secret cultural function as viewed within a wider landscape. When someone like Lindsay announces he's going post-theistic, someone with a journalist's instincts ought to ask, "What's he planning to do with his free time?" Nine years later, we have the answer.
Together with Peter Boghossian, Lindsay has been engaging in public transphobia since at least 2017 when they got a hoax paper published, and they co-wrote a book, How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide, in 2019. Lindsay popularized the "groomer" slur. He founded New Discourses which has had anti-trans podcast episodes since at least 2020. Bafflingly to me (I'd have to look into how this happened), despite his insistence that theism is nonsense and his association with prominent atheists, his New Discourses ended up in the hands of Christian nationalist Michael O’Fallon, who had been involved with the project since at least 2019. In 2020, Lindsay co-wrote Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms Everybody. In 2021, he co-wrote Counter Wokecraft: A Field Manual for Combatting the Woke in the University and Beyond. He spoke at a 2023 conference of Genspect, an anti-trans group. Earlier this year (2024) he co-wrote The Queering of the American Child: How a New School Religious Cult Poisons the Minds and Bodies of Normal Kids.
None of that is what this book, Everybody Is Wrong About God, seems to be about. But if this book (now nine years old) has some retrospective importance, it is because of how it fits into this cultural shift and sheds light on it. That may not have been precisely what the author intended it at the time to mean, but it is how I read it today.
Lindsay's anti-trans positioning does matter to me, for the usual reasons of why any given reader may find it difficult, impossible or undesirable to attempt to separate the messenger from the message (or the artist from the art, etc.). It changes my reading, as I approach the text forensically to see if it contains hints of how Lindsay became anti-trans. No, the answer isn't explicit, but I can grab a few threads.
Here's what the book is about:
By its 2015 publication, Lindsay seems to have tired of the previous 10 years of the "New Atheist" discourse. He says: "The goal is to cease with theism and atheism and leave belief in God behind entirely, to go post-theistic, and we need to do it now." The word "God" is only a "psychosocial construct." Should we be motivated to endlessly debate a psychosocial construct, especially someone else's? "Frankly," he says, "much of what gets called the 'atheism movement' has to die. It should have died years ago, at least." He's bored (I surmise) and wants to move on to the next thing. He doesn't explicitly put that personal spin on it, though. He makes his case in more principled language: "there's a category mistake involved in turning atheism into an identifiable kind of thing, say a philosophy or a worldview."
He's writing for people who are already atheist-leaning, and I sense that he's talking primarily to academics and allied professionals who might someday find themselves arguing with someone's theistic viewpoint.
Look here, he says: Theism is nonsense. It isn't "well-defined," and no arguments for God's existence deserve serious academic consideration. If a theist says something specific you'd like to address, by all means deal with it, but in most cases you can simply decline to engage theism as a generality. "Ignoring it, scoffing at it, and outright making fun of it are sufficient..." By contrast, atheism is a "null position." It isn't itself an ideology that has to be taught. It's simply the absence of belief in nonsense. Therefore there's no way to become skilled at atheism per se. You can acquire skills you may feel are related to atheism, like science, communication, etc. And you may find that you share (or don't share) certain values with others who happen to be atheists. But there's no way to "do" atheism itself, other than to repeat the obvious: there's no reason to believe in God. Thus, "we should avoid branding anything with atheism and should, in fact, stop acting like atheism is a thing at all." A major pitfall of banging the drum for a-theism is that it cognitively reinforces attention on theism. Part of "get[ting] over God...means getting over being explicit about being 'without God.'" In atheism's classical versions, it contains embedded assumptions about the definition of God it's resisting — and, like, why would you want to? "By saying that 'God doesn't exist,' we force enough meaning into the term `God' to keep people able to believe in it and argue that it does [exist]." Society should simply be "post-theistic." The term atheism "shouldn't exist" either.
Near the end, he says:
"theistic morals themselves are just human moral frameworks that define religious moral communities, not absolute moral laws given from On High. That is, we need to help people transition from the moral absolutism so often attendant to theistic morals to a position where honesty and humility about our assumptions about right and wrong are central. It is imperative that we help people realize that their moral communities are unlikely actually to know right and wrong with certainty, and that conversation is a necessary component between moral communities with differing frameworks."This bewilders me because of how quickly he slid into anti-trans agitation, which is itself a form of moral absolutism that pretends to know for certain that it's wrong to be trans and that rejects honest and humble conversation with trans people. On the other hand, I can see his positioning here: "It is imperative that we help people realize that their moral communities are unlikely actually to know..." [emphases mine] He thinks it's other people who aren't capable of reflection. Other people, he seems to assume, do not need to help him find the truth. Nowhere in this book did I notice him talking about how being in dialogue with religious people may have enlarged his understandings.
These days, you'll often hear anti-trans people (including the secular liberal ones) refer to being trans as a "religion," a "cult," a "delusion," etc. Psychiatry has long applied the language of psychiatric delusion to trans people. But the use of religious delusion as an accusation against trans people was developed, I suspect, more recently through the New Atheists.
Lindsay:
"Religious belief...(1) is nearly always based upon the certainty of faith — this sometimes being taken as a doctrine of what faith means — (2) rarely changes in the face of contravening evidence (incorrigibility), and (3) is false in content (and often patently ridiculous in this regard). That is, the superior evidence is to the contrary [i.e., the evidence is that there's no God] yet beliefs in God are held in a delusional way, with strong conviction, and so the delusion shoe [i.e., the label of delusion] seems to fit pretty snugly."He acknowledges, however, that it feels hard to describe something as a delusion if lots of people encourage or pressure each other to believe it. "Social norms" are doing work here. If a false belief is a social norm, it's maybe not quite a delusion.
This model represents not only what atheists routinely say about theists, but what professional transphobes these days routinely say about trans people: that we trans people have an incorrigible certainty about a claim that's obviously false, but that the responsibility for this delusion falls partly on society and culture for tolerating or including us, since (supposedly) if the culture would simply reject and isolate trans people, transness would be more readily interpreted as nothing more than an individual delusion of the trans person and it would be easier for most people to reject the possibility of anyone's transness. It's sort of a circular claim: After all, what's considered "normal" or "abnormal" is unavoidably a group decision, and a person (like Lindsay, say, or like a trans person, for that matter) hopes the society will establish and perpetuate the judgments and outcomes they'd personally prefer.
Anyway, this book did not need to be 200 pages. His call for post-theism is as I summarized it here. It would have worked better as a magazine essay.
The book would be more useful to readers like me today had he instead explained more about his agenda and the specific conversations I imagine he had with his fellow New Atheists about their planned right-wing, anti-queer turn.
In sum, though I agree with some of the insights about theism and atheism provided here, I disapprove of the book's secret cultural function as viewed within a wider landscape. When someone like Lindsay announces he's going post-theistic, someone with a journalist's instincts ought to ask, "What's he planning to do with his free time?" Nine years later, we have the answer.
March 27, 2021
James Lindsay contributed to Cynical Theories, a book I am still trying to acquire. I have heard him speak on a number of podcasts. He is an impressive man. This is a highly rationale argument for the rejection of God as being irrelevant. It gives the best rationale ‘logos’ argument against spirituality. It completely misses the need for mythos in our day to day lives. He treats all theology as ‘bullshit’ (with no regard for the truth) that might have been relevant prior to the Enlightenment but have no relevance today. I started this in January and put it down a number of times to complete other readings. It did not captivate me.
“Given the question about belief in God, where theism says, ‘yes’; atheism says, ‘no’; and agnosticism says, ‘I’m not sure’ – ignosticism says. ‘I don’t know what you’re asking me’” (p 93). This is Lindsay’s main thesis is that of ignosticism. Religion is not worth debating or the energy of serious thought. It is a valid perspective and he makes his point well.
“Voltaire referred to the same idea when he said, “Everyman is the creature of the age in which he lives; very few are able to raise themselves above the ideas of the time” (p 47). I just found this an interesting quote to reflect on. Paul Graham writes an expanded essay on this premise in “What you can’t say”. I think wisdom is seeking the truths and heuristics that you would not be embarrassed by in any age and religion is a good starting point for this. This does not mean we should not be critical of our own religious thoughts. It has to work in the real world over a period of a lifetime.
Lindsay gives a mathematic argument for miracles. Suggesting that by chance miracles happen every day. It reminded of the anecdotes of seeing a car with license plates RX1982 and finding a special significance and meaning of this configuration. For me it is I had a dog called Rex in 1982 (not so random), what a miracle. By design we are pattern finding creatures, to the point we see patterns when they are not there. They are just random and us assigning meaning to it. Lindsay suggested that a 1:1000000 event happens to us everyday. Mostly it is just noise, but sometimes we assign meaning to it (and religious miracles were seen in these events, then mythologised). Lindsay gives an rationale account of why religions evolved. We developed and kept them because they were useful, but we have science now and they are of
Lindsay acknowledges if we stopped attending to our Religions today it would leave a gap in a lot of people lives and in society in general. He suggests secular strategies for filling the void once religion is no longer relevant. I think Lindsay misses the point of utility of religion in its current guise. I believe in the need for myth, mysticism and symbols. Yuval-Harari makes the point that money is our strongest mythological belief. How are we going to replace the symbol that is money in Lindsay’s post religious world? He sees religion and God in a limited capacity of organised religion.
I thought he was wrong and limited in his thought, only able to see the world as rational and blind to the value of symbol and mythos. My takeaway thoughts are the perfect rationalism requires perfect knowledge. I suspect no one has perfect knowledge, therefore perfect rationalism is not possible. Lacking perfect knowledge, one must take a leap of faith on the basis of good enough knowledge. If you cannot have perfect knowledge one must act ‘as if’ the knowledge they have is true. Acting ‘as if’ the knowledge is true it is a statement of faith in the presumptions and knowledge you have. This is where religion comes in. Religions have taken certain heuristics and built stories to exemplify the heuristics that lead one towards wisdom and a good life. I base a lot of my own thinking and act ‘as if’ these heuristics are true and it seems to be working out well. Thus, because we cannot have perfect knowledge or rationalism, we need a mythical knowledge to help guide us in our lives. It does not mean that we should not challenge our heuristics and understanding every day and be constantly trying to seek improvement. The best use of Mythos is when it is based on Logos. Mythos becomes corrupted when we ignore Logos.
James Lindsay is a brilliant man, as intelligent and as rationale as anyone could be. I am choosing to act ‘as if’ he is wrong about God. Lindsay believes “Everybody is Wrong About God”, I would include him in this (and me). Ultimately God is unknowable is a feature of a lot of religious texts. Lindsay could humbly accept this applies to him as well as anyone. God is a mystery by nature.
“Given the question about belief in God, where theism says, ‘yes’; atheism says, ‘no’; and agnosticism says, ‘I’m not sure’ – ignosticism says. ‘I don’t know what you’re asking me’” (p 93). This is Lindsay’s main thesis is that of ignosticism. Religion is not worth debating or the energy of serious thought. It is a valid perspective and he makes his point well.
“Voltaire referred to the same idea when he said, “Everyman is the creature of the age in which he lives; very few are able to raise themselves above the ideas of the time” (p 47). I just found this an interesting quote to reflect on. Paul Graham writes an expanded essay on this premise in “What you can’t say”. I think wisdom is seeking the truths and heuristics that you would not be embarrassed by in any age and religion is a good starting point for this. This does not mean we should not be critical of our own religious thoughts. It has to work in the real world over a period of a lifetime.
Lindsay gives a mathematic argument for miracles. Suggesting that by chance miracles happen every day. It reminded of the anecdotes of seeing a car with license plates RX1982 and finding a special significance and meaning of this configuration. For me it is I had a dog called Rex in 1982 (not so random), what a miracle. By design we are pattern finding creatures, to the point we see patterns when they are not there. They are just random and us assigning meaning to it. Lindsay suggested that a 1:1000000 event happens to us everyday. Mostly it is just noise, but sometimes we assign meaning to it (and religious miracles were seen in these events, then mythologised). Lindsay gives an rationale account of why religions evolved. We developed and kept them because they were useful, but we have science now and they are of
Lindsay acknowledges if we stopped attending to our Religions today it would leave a gap in a lot of people lives and in society in general. He suggests secular strategies for filling the void once religion is no longer relevant. I think Lindsay misses the point of utility of religion in its current guise. I believe in the need for myth, mysticism and symbols. Yuval-Harari makes the point that money is our strongest mythological belief. How are we going to replace the symbol that is money in Lindsay’s post religious world? He sees religion and God in a limited capacity of organised religion.
I thought he was wrong and limited in his thought, only able to see the world as rational and blind to the value of symbol and mythos. My takeaway thoughts are the perfect rationalism requires perfect knowledge. I suspect no one has perfect knowledge, therefore perfect rationalism is not possible. Lacking perfect knowledge, one must take a leap of faith on the basis of good enough knowledge. If you cannot have perfect knowledge one must act ‘as if’ the knowledge they have is true. Acting ‘as if’ the knowledge is true it is a statement of faith in the presumptions and knowledge you have. This is where religion comes in. Religions have taken certain heuristics and built stories to exemplify the heuristics that lead one towards wisdom and a good life. I base a lot of my own thinking and act ‘as if’ these heuristics are true and it seems to be working out well. Thus, because we cannot have perfect knowledge or rationalism, we need a mythical knowledge to help guide us in our lives. It does not mean that we should not challenge our heuristics and understanding every day and be constantly trying to seek improvement. The best use of Mythos is when it is based on Logos. Mythos becomes corrupted when we ignore Logos.
James Lindsay is a brilliant man, as intelligent and as rationale as anyone could be. I am choosing to act ‘as if’ he is wrong about God. Lindsay believes “Everybody is Wrong About God”, I would include him in this (and me). Ultimately God is unknowable is a feature of a lot of religious texts. Lindsay could humbly accept this applies to him as well as anyone. God is a mystery by nature.
April 12, 2019
The core thesis of this book, that people wittingly or unwittingly use the term ‘God’ to refer to the framework of ideas that allows them to share their moral thinking and express their social and psychological needs, is a refreshingly different addition to the sea of ‘Atheist’ literature out there, (which can often come across as a litany of ‘you won’t believe all the wacky ideas theists have’).
It is a nuanced position, and is useful for people seeking to productively engage in discussions with theists about what they really think rather than to simply abrasively dismiss their beliefs as ludicrous.
It took me an absolute age to get through because, for such a slim volume, it is very dry. Nevertheless I am pleased that I persevered.
A thought-provoking read, although it really does labour its point!
It is a nuanced position, and is useful for people seeking to productively engage in discussions with theists about what they really think rather than to simply abrasively dismiss their beliefs as ludicrous.
It took me an absolute age to get through because, for such a slim volume, it is very dry. Nevertheless I am pleased that I persevered.
A thought-provoking read, although it really does labour its point!
January 11, 2016
A bit repetitive, otherwise this book is a debate opener. The author makes several good observations about the so-called "Great Debate", especially why, instead of wasting time with philosophical-style arguments about religion, we should be taking on projects that address the main reason people hold their beliefs and thus help them become free of faith. A good supplement to Peter Boghossian's Street Epistemology, John W. Loftus' Outsider Test of Faith and Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind.
May 14, 2017
Wow. Not many words for this review. A bit of a mind fuck to be honest - perhaps I just wasnt in the headspace to truly appreciate the arguments here atm. Think this will require digestion time and another read ...I think this book makes some very interesting points - and would be a great discussion starter...
January 2, 2021
This is a long 250 pages, arguing for a distinction between three viewpoints. There is the well-known distinction between theists who believe that God exists and atheists who reject the existence of God. But the author insists that a third position is possible: people can believe in ‘God’ as a useful (albeit, he insists, mythical) concept which enables them to deal with their ethical and psycho-social needs.
Whilst believing in ‘God’ instead of a theist God, or an atheist not-God is an interesting idea, its not clear from the book what the point of making the distinction is. At times the author seems to suggest that the distinction is useful because it is impossible to wean people off the word ‘God’ (Kindle Loc 2067-2068). But the last chapters seem to be a plea to do precisely that weaning, in order to go Post-theistic (Loc 3377-3378). If the author's ideal scenario is indeed eradicating both God and ‘God,’ then what is the point of writing a book to promote the concept of ‘God?’
I think this point is particularly significant when we see the very negative way in which theism is depicted. The author insists that atheism has won the war of ideas, so theism is not ‘valid’ (Loc 134-136). It is a gigantic misguided (and infantile) mistake (Loc 138, 617-8), It’s a pretence (Loc 299-300), a ‘poison’ (Loc 3384-3385). It is ‘preposterous’ ‘cognitive biases’ (Loc 1894-1895), moral piracy (2067), a scam (Loc 1997) ‘sheer nonsense (Loc 2153-4) and a ‘fradulent product’ (loc 1382). The author notes that it leads to the ‘serious problem’ of being ‘deluded’ (Loc 2928), although he is at pains to make it clear that he is not claiming that all theists actually are deluded (Loc 2915). Theists are merely ‘confused’ (Loc 613).
If theism is as dreadful as the author claims, and if its followers are as confused as he claims, then why is the book arguing for a new, potentially more complicated distinction between ‘God’ and God, which has the potential to just add to the confusion.
Ultimately, the book takes 250 pages to make the point that if atheists are to truly banish God, then they need to find a way of replacing theist language about God (‘God’) which includes the moral and social concepts which theists still find helpful within theism, when they talk about God. (Loc 3397-3398). However, this point was made by Don Cupitt and the Sea of Faith movement, which was launched in 1984 with a TV programme and a series of books. This book doesn’t seem aware of that prior scholarship and so, sadly, the book doesn’t seem to really move any of the issues forward.
Whilst believing in ‘God’ instead of a theist God, or an atheist not-God is an interesting idea, its not clear from the book what the point of making the distinction is. At times the author seems to suggest that the distinction is useful because it is impossible to wean people off the word ‘God’ (Kindle Loc 2067-2068). But the last chapters seem to be a plea to do precisely that weaning, in order to go Post-theistic (Loc 3377-3378). If the author's ideal scenario is indeed eradicating both God and ‘God,’ then what is the point of writing a book to promote the concept of ‘God?’
I think this point is particularly significant when we see the very negative way in which theism is depicted. The author insists that atheism has won the war of ideas, so theism is not ‘valid’ (Loc 134-136). It is a gigantic misguided (and infantile) mistake (Loc 138, 617-8), It’s a pretence (Loc 299-300), a ‘poison’ (Loc 3384-3385). It is ‘preposterous’ ‘cognitive biases’ (Loc 1894-1895), moral piracy (2067), a scam (Loc 1997) ‘sheer nonsense (Loc 2153-4) and a ‘fradulent product’ (loc 1382). The author notes that it leads to the ‘serious problem’ of being ‘deluded’ (Loc 2928), although he is at pains to make it clear that he is not claiming that all theists actually are deluded (Loc 2915). Theists are merely ‘confused’ (Loc 613).
If theism is as dreadful as the author claims, and if its followers are as confused as he claims, then why is the book arguing for a new, potentially more complicated distinction between ‘God’ and God, which has the potential to just add to the confusion.
Ultimately, the book takes 250 pages to make the point that if atheists are to truly banish God, then they need to find a way of replacing theist language about God (‘God’) which includes the moral and social concepts which theists still find helpful within theism, when they talk about God. (Loc 3397-3398). However, this point was made by Don Cupitt and the Sea of Faith movement, which was launched in 1984 with a TV programme and a series of books. This book doesn’t seem aware of that prior scholarship and so, sadly, the book doesn’t seem to really move any of the issues forward.
April 10, 2018
Update:
On reflection, Chpt. 10 basically covers what's wrong with this book -- it focuses on a symptom rather than a disease. Unless the author seriously intends to argue that theism of any kind is, itself, a form of evil -- which is an untenable position; it takes one good person who believes in something that could be called a god to counter.
What are problematic, however, are various fundamentalist hate groups (collectives defined by proscriptions and hatred of the other) and chapter 10 references the strongest link between all of them. Wealth inequality, income inequality, ineffective social services, lack of public spaces, bad schools and absent libraries, lack of direct involvement in governance, envy, having a group that is worse off than you to justify your own suffering, and all other social evils -- in a word: Suffering is the cause of the evils in religion, not religion itself. We should be far more concerned with ending suffering for its own sake, and for the sake of ending its concomitant evils, than we should ever be with what we might just consider a silly idea.
It really doesn't help to lean so heavily on Harris - who is a perfect example of how you can be oblivious to consequences o your ideology without an actual religion (He frequently argues in favor of genocide, colonialism, and blaming the victims for being savages -- and then says that's exactly not what he said before saying it again -- moreover,if his chapter on how America's actions are always inherently good of intent, despite the abuse of reality that is the results of those actions in every instance isn't exactly religious apologetics, nothing is), let alone Hitchens, who wholeheartedly endorsed genocide and seemed to fully understand that's what he was doing, where Harris seems to be legitimately ignorant. I don't care for Pinker either, but for very different reasons.
If you want to make the world a better place -- BSing about religion isn't, at all, a way to do that.
On reflection, Chpt. 10 basically covers what's wrong with this book -- it focuses on a symptom rather than a disease. Unless the author seriously intends to argue that theism of any kind is, itself, a form of evil -- which is an untenable position; it takes one good person who believes in something that could be called a god to counter.
What are problematic, however, are various fundamentalist hate groups (collectives defined by proscriptions and hatred of the other) and chapter 10 references the strongest link between all of them. Wealth inequality, income inequality, ineffective social services, lack of public spaces, bad schools and absent libraries, lack of direct involvement in governance, envy, having a group that is worse off than you to justify your own suffering, and all other social evils -- in a word: Suffering is the cause of the evils in religion, not religion itself. We should be far more concerned with ending suffering for its own sake, and for the sake of ending its concomitant evils, than we should ever be with what we might just consider a silly idea.
It really doesn't help to lean so heavily on Harris - who is a perfect example of how you can be oblivious to consequences o your ideology without an actual religion (He frequently argues in favor of genocide, colonialism, and blaming the victims for being savages -- and then says that's exactly not what he said before saying it again -- moreover,if his chapter on how America's actions are always inherently good of intent, despite the abuse of reality that is the results of those actions in every instance isn't exactly religious apologetics, nothing is), let alone Hitchens, who wholeheartedly endorsed genocide and seemed to fully understand that's what he was doing, where Harris seems to be legitimately ignorant. I don't care for Pinker either, but for very different reasons.
If you want to make the world a better place -- BSing about religion isn't, at all, a way to do that.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 4, 2021
I propose a new title: Everyone is wrong about everything since no one can be sure of anything.
Lacks the long view of history. Read Durant, Toynbee, etc... Our future is predictable. The theory is quite solid, unlike this book which is a sliver of the big picture.
Second. He should probably read more on the functional/social nature of religion. His myopic view of the obvious: people with needs need god (humble people) and people who need nothing do not need God (proud). So how do you solve being proud if you were born that way? Well, that is a discussion for another day, but its easier than you think.
Reminds me of a couple verses in specific:
"And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."
- So, people are essentially with unlimited power, or as I like to think, have most of their time to create whatever uselessness they desire.
"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."
And we all know what happened after both of these statements.
- So these define a global human corruption, which begs the question that no one can answer today: what is evil? well that is ever culturally changing, and books have been written, but I find Haidt is off to a a start at least at a group level when comparing moral values of liberals/conservatives. E.g. we all agree violence is bad (and gone for now)--duh. But otherwise, the only clear difference is the Purity/Sanctity element. #3 and #4 is far less clear.
Lacks the long view of history. Read Durant, Toynbee, etc... Our future is predictable. The theory is quite solid, unlike this book which is a sliver of the big picture.
Second. He should probably read more on the functional/social nature of religion. His myopic view of the obvious: people with needs need god (humble people) and people who need nothing do not need God (proud). So how do you solve being proud if you were born that way? Well, that is a discussion for another day, but its easier than you think.
Reminds me of a couple verses in specific:
"And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."
- So, people are essentially with unlimited power, or as I like to think, have most of their time to create whatever uselessness they desire.
"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."
And we all know what happened after both of these statements.
- So these define a global human corruption, which begs the question that no one can answer today: what is evil? well that is ever culturally changing, and books have been written, but I find Haidt is off to a a start at least at a group level when comparing moral values of liberals/conservatives. E.g. we all agree violence is bad (and gone for now)--duh. But otherwise, the only clear difference is the Purity/Sanctity element. #3 and #4 is far less clear.
December 14, 2015
Really enjoyable book. It manages to be unapologetic and lucid in its ideas without slipping into the tiresome condescension or feigned, theatrical incredulity that blights so much writing on the subject.
June 8, 2016
If you are already non-religious, then I think this is the single best book you can read on the subject of God/atheism. Everybody Is Wrong About God completely changed the way that I think about atheism. This book is highly recommended and James Lindsay delivers as usual.
May 31, 2021
I rated this a 3. One star off from my grave disagreement about the content's thesis. Another star off for a lot of repetition. Other stars are for challenging and new ideas.
Mr. Lindsay postulates that God as an actual entity (even if imaginary), and "God" as a psycho-social idea form are two separate things that we, theists, confuse each other as one thing, that "God" as a needs fulfillment is really the only real reason to hold a belief in God. "God" is just a reflection of our ideal self and so on.
Where Mr. Lindsay is wrong is assuming theists have no idea what he is saying at all. What he describes is how spirits work, and particularly the Holy Spirit work, in the mental realm, as described in the Bible. The "God" manifestation he is dealing about is the Holy Spirit part of the Trinity. Spirits are conscious, sentient personified abstracta and concepts and ideas. They are likenesses. If the notion of abstracta and spirits are the same, then it's just a naming conflict.
The question though is, do spirits have power to affect reality? Is there a super map that determines the territory? Maps do determine territories, for example, blueprints of buildings yet to be built, and power makes those buildings. It is power that makes map into a territory. So does God have power to make "God" reality? That is the question.
But we see that Lindsay carefully say that he finds no value in abstracta. He is a natural man, indeed.
1 Corinthians 2:14
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
(Natural here means naturalism)
God reflects back ourselves. God made us in His image, and thus what we project about God
Psalms 18:26
“With the pure thou wilt shew thyself pure; and with the froward thou wilt shew thyself froward.”
See, the real disagreement is with post-theists, we theists do acknowledge that God fills needs, but we assert that the same psycho-social concept is so transcendent that it affects physical reality, that there is a point in the transcendence where God and "God" merges into one thing. Post-theists and atheists say no, we say yes.
In the Hume-istic sense, the super skepticism that usually marks like movements, Lindsay fails. Sure, science and such fills needs of attribution, but only to a limited extent, because infinite regress is right there to pull out the rug underneath. Hume's law states "what is" does not say anything about "what ought to be". Lindsay has to carefully say that humanity should contract, let ideas not be more, let humans not pursue their higher selves, just stay in your lane. Lindsay is saying just stick to "what is". Be content, eat, drink, be merry, and die.
He also often pushes the Nordic countries as some utopia, but does he not know it has one of the highest suicide rates? The happiness factor is only maintained by the suicides.
Let us perform the greatest scientific experiment. Death will decide the existence of God, then we will confirm the hypotheses in death. Will we fade into the void or see God Almighty?
Mr. Lindsay postulates that God as an actual entity (even if imaginary), and "God" as a psycho-social idea form are two separate things that we, theists, confuse each other as one thing, that "God" as a needs fulfillment is really the only real reason to hold a belief in God. "God" is just a reflection of our ideal self and so on.
Where Mr. Lindsay is wrong is assuming theists have no idea what he is saying at all. What he describes is how spirits work, and particularly the Holy Spirit work, in the mental realm, as described in the Bible. The "God" manifestation he is dealing about is the Holy Spirit part of the Trinity. Spirits are conscious, sentient personified abstracta and concepts and ideas. They are likenesses. If the notion of abstracta and spirits are the same, then it's just a naming conflict.
The question though is, do spirits have power to affect reality? Is there a super map that determines the territory? Maps do determine territories, for example, blueprints of buildings yet to be built, and power makes those buildings. It is power that makes map into a territory. So does God have power to make "God" reality? That is the question.
But we see that Lindsay carefully say that he finds no value in abstracta. He is a natural man, indeed.
1 Corinthians 2:14
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
(Natural here means naturalism)
God reflects back ourselves. God made us in His image, and thus what we project about God
Psalms 18:26
“With the pure thou wilt shew thyself pure; and with the froward thou wilt shew thyself froward.”
See, the real disagreement is with post-theists, we theists do acknowledge that God fills needs, but we assert that the same psycho-social concept is so transcendent that it affects physical reality, that there is a point in the transcendence where God and "God" merges into one thing. Post-theists and atheists say no, we say yes.
In the Hume-istic sense, the super skepticism that usually marks like movements, Lindsay fails. Sure, science and such fills needs of attribution, but only to a limited extent, because infinite regress is right there to pull out the rug underneath. Hume's law states "what is" does not say anything about "what ought to be". Lindsay has to carefully say that humanity should contract, let ideas not be more, let humans not pursue their higher selves, just stay in your lane. Lindsay is saying just stick to "what is". Be content, eat, drink, be merry, and die.
He also often pushes the Nordic countries as some utopia, but does he not know it has one of the highest suicide rates? The happiness factor is only maintained by the suicides.
Let us perform the greatest scientific experiment. Death will decide the existence of God, then we will confirm the hypotheses in death. Will we fade into the void or see God Almighty?
July 13, 2021
“Every time someone says that he believes in God, he’s saying that he has psychological or social needs that he doesn’t know how to meet.”
“To have a good reason to believe something, we have to have robust reasons to think that it is true, not merely comforting or convenient.”
“…whatever it is that ‘God’ means to people, a hugely significant part is having a sense of control in life.”
“The resistance to belief revision exhibited in fundamentalism seems somehow to be directly dependent on psychological needs (for example, the need for purpose in life, which is tied to needs regarding coping with death, and the need for a sense of control in an uncertain and dangerous world) and social needs (say, the need for a strong, cohesive community in which we can understand and value ourselves) that are more powerful than the need to hold beliefs that are actually true.”
Negatives: I think the book could have been shorter if the author didn’t repeat so many of his points. It would seem like I get the point he’s trying to make and we’re moving on to another point; then we’re back on that point again. There was one too many times of “I’ll talk about this a little here and then in more detail later in the book.”
Positives: Overall the book was insightful. I enjoy learning about the psychology of belief in dieties or having “faith.” I could also peer into my past and make sense of why I believed as well as make sense about loved ones that still believe. In addition I agree with the author that “atheism” has got to go. It’s a negative and silly label that serves no useful purpose.
Ironically, in the “about the author” section, the author is described as an “atheist voice” even though he spent quite a bit in the book explaining why we shouldn’t use the term “atheist.”
I also chuckled at the acknowledgements in which the author goes on in detail thanking various people. At the end he puts Sam Harris on quite the high pedastal saying that he was the “real intellectual force behind this book.” A whole paragraph for Sam Harris as one of the two people the author wants to “name directly” to thank and then…get this — one sentence for his wife (not named) for putting putting up with him while writing the book. Bwahahahaha Lmao.
“To have a good reason to believe something, we have to have robust reasons to think that it is true, not merely comforting or convenient.”
“…whatever it is that ‘God’ means to people, a hugely significant part is having a sense of control in life.”
“The resistance to belief revision exhibited in fundamentalism seems somehow to be directly dependent on psychological needs (for example, the need for purpose in life, which is tied to needs regarding coping with death, and the need for a sense of control in an uncertain and dangerous world) and social needs (say, the need for a strong, cohesive community in which we can understand and value ourselves) that are more powerful than the need to hold beliefs that are actually true.”
Negatives: I think the book could have been shorter if the author didn’t repeat so many of his points. It would seem like I get the point he’s trying to make and we’re moving on to another point; then we’re back on that point again. There was one too many times of “I’ll talk about this a little here and then in more detail later in the book.”
Positives: Overall the book was insightful. I enjoy learning about the psychology of belief in dieties or having “faith.” I could also peer into my past and make sense of why I believed as well as make sense about loved ones that still believe. In addition I agree with the author that “atheism” has got to go. It’s a negative and silly label that serves no useful purpose.
Ironically, in the “about the author” section, the author is described as an “atheist voice” even though he spent quite a bit in the book explaining why we shouldn’t use the term “atheist.”
I also chuckled at the acknowledgements in which the author goes on in detail thanking various people. At the end he puts Sam Harris on quite the high pedastal saying that he was the “real intellectual force behind this book.” A whole paragraph for Sam Harris as one of the two people the author wants to “name directly” to thank and then…get this — one sentence for his wife (not named) for putting putting up with him while writing the book. Bwahahahaha Lmao.
September 22, 2020
3.5
This is basically a post-god book. The assumption is that most people in the western world are coming around to the idea that religion is false - but there are still believers remaining.
Its like racism in that sense - while the vast majority of the western world agrees that racism is wrong - there are still very small pockets still around.
His goal is to move beyond if there is a god and to understand why people believe in god and how they use religion for psychological and therapeutic means and how Religion/God can be replaced with other methods.
Some notes:
* Cigar manufacturers gave credence that smoking is OK by performing their own studies into its harmful effects. Similarly, atheists responding to aheists give credence to religion and God.
* God is an idea or concept that helps us make sense of our confusing, complicated world.
This is also why the concept of God is so similar across religions.
* Atheism could be viewed as going against an evolutionary need in terms of belief in God - religion piggybacks on our evolutionary adapted psycho-social needs. (Attribution, Sociality/Community, Control, etc...)
* Atheist has become a pejorative term because people view it as meaning: I reject your moral code. I reject your core values.
* Belief in God is a coping mechanism - especially when you have no control. This is manifested through prayer and ritual. (This is like Dr James Kugel's example of constantly pressing an elevator button even though we know it is not going to come faster - it gives us some sense - however false - of control and doing something).
This is basically a post-god book. The assumption is that most people in the western world are coming around to the idea that religion is false - but there are still believers remaining.
Its like racism in that sense - while the vast majority of the western world agrees that racism is wrong - there are still very small pockets still around.
His goal is to move beyond if there is a god and to understand why people believe in god and how they use religion for psychological and therapeutic means and how Religion/God can be replaced with other methods.
Some notes:
* Cigar manufacturers gave credence that smoking is OK by performing their own studies into its harmful effects. Similarly, atheists responding to aheists give credence to religion and God.
* God is an idea or concept that helps us make sense of our confusing, complicated world.
This is also why the concept of God is so similar across religions.
* Atheism could be viewed as going against an evolutionary need in terms of belief in God - religion piggybacks on our evolutionary adapted psycho-social needs. (Attribution, Sociality/Community, Control, etc...)
* Atheist has become a pejorative term because people view it as meaning: I reject your moral code. I reject your core values.
* Belief in God is a coping mechanism - especially when you have no control. This is manifested through prayer and ritual. (This is like Dr James Kugel's example of constantly pressing an elevator button even though we know it is not going to come faster - it gives us some sense - however false - of control and doing something).
December 19, 2024
Devoid of concrete vignettes describing actual people practicing their religion and leaning heavily into a “lump of theism” fallacy, this reads as a puerile, yet technical evaluation of religion. It attempts to convince you that engagement in the dichotomy of believer/nonbeliever will ultimately be obviated when society magically arrives at an enlightened moment when faith and theism are no longer necessary. Given their breathless repetition that mocking a religion is not mocking a person, I propose the author should mock the deities from the top 5 world religions and see what occurs as a natural experiment. Hand-waving as if all religious practices are the same and are open to the same-enough critiques is the height of epistemic arrogance which I pray (though I’m not particularly religious) the author has grown beyond. There are religions that have unequivocally made the world a better place for humanity and there are religions which still behead people in public.
The strongest argument offered in this writing, that theism is an emergent psychological phenomena of man’s need for meaning and moral connection with fellow humans, is otherwise completely botched by treating it as fact or even factual. A Bayesian presentation would portray this as a possible explanation as to why religion is so fundamentally ubiquitous to the human experience. Instead you, dear reader, are to have faith that the de facto explanation is true and you may reject the null hypothesis: all humans are mystics.
Perhaps everybody IS wrong about God, but the author is not only not right, he is not even wrong.
The strongest argument offered in this writing, that theism is an emergent psychological phenomena of man’s need for meaning and moral connection with fellow humans, is otherwise completely botched by treating it as fact or even factual. A Bayesian presentation would portray this as a possible explanation as to why religion is so fundamentally ubiquitous to the human experience. Instead you, dear reader, are to have faith that the de facto explanation is true and you may reject the null hypothesis: all humans are mystics.
Perhaps everybody IS wrong about God, but the author is not only not right, he is not even wrong.
May 24, 2017
I've never been completely comfortable with the term "atheist" because I've thought it describes me in terms of what I don't do/believe rather than in terms of what I find to be true. I've often uses it in a qualified or hyphenated way, but prefer other terms. Lindsay starts from a similar premise, and in a Luke Skywalkerish kind of way, explains that... more than a decade after "The God Delusion" it's time for "atheism" (as we know it) to die. Like the Jedi, it's fulfilled its purpose and something else needs to replace it.
Lindsay asks us to focus on the reasons that religion and "god" are such compelling propositions to so many people. Rather than focus on the tired metaphysical "is there a god?" question, he focuses in on the psychological/social needs that the belief in such an entity fulfill for some people, and asks the important question of how to provide for those needs without resorting to iron-age legends.
Lindsay does a good job of asking the questions, and explaining why these questions (rather than the metaphysical ones) are the important ones to ask. He exhaustively -- too exhaustively in my opinion -- explores all the ways "god" matters to people. This exploration is fully half the book. Then he loses steam completely in trying to suggest how we might move forward.
Well researched and exhaustively annotated, it's nonetheless too long and loses focus towards the end. Worth reading, if only because it helped clarify some of my own conflicted thoughts about "organized atheism."
Lindsay asks us to focus on the reasons that religion and "god" are such compelling propositions to so many people. Rather than focus on the tired metaphysical "is there a god?" question, he focuses in on the psychological/social needs that the belief in such an entity fulfill for some people, and asks the important question of how to provide for those needs without resorting to iron-age legends.
Lindsay does a good job of asking the questions, and explaining why these questions (rather than the metaphysical ones) are the important ones to ask. He exhaustively -- too exhaustively in my opinion -- explores all the ways "god" matters to people. This exploration is fully half the book. Then he loses steam completely in trying to suggest how we might move forward.
Well researched and exhaustively annotated, it's nonetheless too long and loses focus towards the end. Worth reading, if only because it helped clarify some of my own conflicted thoughts about "organized atheism."
December 22, 2023
Though there was a lot I agreed with in this book, I didn’t particularly care for it and wouldn’t recommend it. The style of writing just isn’t my preference, and it gets a bit repetitive, in my opinion. Instead, I would recommend all of Sam Harris‘s books and Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind, since Lindsay references them frequently throughout. I’d also recommend Lindsay’s later collaboration with Peter Boghossian, How to Have Impossible Conversations, which I think is far more useful than this one, and which I enjoyed far more than this or Boghossian’s first book, A Manual for Creating Atheists, which is also referenced heavily here.
June 6, 2017
I have a lot of books on this subject, perhaps all of the major ones, and I think the author makes many unique diamond bullet points that I haven't heard before.
I made my mind up on this subject a long time ago (as a teenager), however, I'm still interested in why we as a civilization keep tripping up on the childhood deserve of mythology. The author lights a pathway out of the mythology quagmire—towards a post-theism world. Great read.
I made my mind up on this subject a long time ago (as a teenager), however, I'm still interested in why we as a civilization keep tripping up on the childhood deserve of mythology. The author lights a pathway out of the mythology quagmire—towards a post-theism world. Great read.
January 19, 2022
This is an excellent book that presents new ideas of what God and belief are and are not, and pulls in scholarly thinking from across different disciplines. I have a doctorate in philosophy and theology, and I learned so much from this book. I also appreciated the way things I’d already learned were presented in a fresh and challenging way. I listened to this as an audio book, and for the first time I’m going to buy the paper version so I can go back to some of his ideas.
Read
November 26, 2019I have a basic premise: "Every time someone says that he doesn't believe in God, he's saying that he has psychological or social needs that he doesn't know how to meet." This is an assumption I will repackage as a conclusion, and hopefully sell a few books. See you on Patreon!
April 20, 2021
James has been making some persuasive arguments for a while and going back a few years ago to when he wrote this book it's not surprising he was making great arguments then too. I was skeptical at first but found myself adapting his view before finishing the book.
January 18, 2018
This author explains what religious belief does for believers. The same framework can be applied to politics.
November 18, 2021
Too much talking, barely reaches any point.
February 26, 2024
"Stop talking about religion" in 200 pages: the book.
May 28, 2025
Interesting ideas. Looks at the psychological causes that drive people toward religion.
February 20, 2016
A friend of mine recommended this. I absolutely loved the beginning parts and found the idea of "post-theistic" rather than "atheistic" to be helpful. And I really liked his analogy of the sound-board and understanding that people have differing beliefs in what their God-concept really means.
But....
I lead a discussion group whose purpose is to foster inter-religious dialogue (including, or maybe especially, between atheists and Christians). This is something that matters deeply to me for many reasons - among them the fact that I have deconstructed my own formerly fundamentalist belief system and come to what I feel is a much more healthy view of spirituality. That being said, I feel that Lindsay makes some mistakes that I see all too often. Let me preface the following by first pointing out that Lindsay's suggestions for how to help people move out of authoritarian religion are usually good suggestions and definitely a step in the right direction.
The first problem I see is that Lindsay doesn't seem to give religion credit where credit is due. He wants religious people completely disqualified from participating in any kind of intellectual discussion (which I don't think will be a helpful strategy for accomplishing what he wants - particularly for people in my neck of the woods, which is often referred to as "the Bible Belt"). He will also occasionally make comments to the effect of blaming organized religion for slavery - which in one sense is a fair jab, but in another sense, I feel that it ought to be considered that the same religion which he's implying supported slavery also led the charge which was the source of its downfall. Figure that one out and you'll figure out a better strategy for dealing with the problem of the absolute authority of religion. I mean that I think sometimes it's a better strategy to use religion's own principles "against itself" (and I put that in quotes because I think that when you understand that the Golden Rule is truly the unifying principle that trumps all other principles, you're not really trying to destroy a religion as much as you are trying to help it grow up and become more mature by pointing out its own principles to itself).
Another problem I see is that he seems to be making a very common mistake I see in that he seems to think that the only concept which can be legitimately referred to as God is a deity - or an independent being. But pantheism and panentheism are actually quite common beliefs, especially considering that Hinduism is one of the largest religions in the world's population. And I think pantheistic or panentheistic belief systems (think: "the Force", almost) can be healthy, are not necessarily irrational, and definitely don't require denial of the latest scientific trends.
My friend who recommended this book to me asked what it would look like if Lindsay gave religion enough credit. The first thing that came to my mind was Joseph Campbell. Campbell's writings sparked people's imagination, while at the same time challenged much of religion. He recognized that religious stories were myths - but also was quick to point out that the popular attitude towards myth is wrong. This can be illustrated by the title of the TV show (a show I love, by the way): Mythbusters. The general attitude towards myth is that it is synonymous with "lie". Rather, what Campbell tried to get at is that religious stories are using metaphor to illustrate hard to understand truth about our place in the universe, our relationship to our fellow man, etc. When we take metaphor literally, we get it all wrong - but the solution is not to say that metaphors are stupid and useless, but to help people understand what the metaphor is pointing to. And coming to a healthier understanding of the myth where we recognize that it is not literal truth but also that it points to deeper truths can help us to have healthier dialogue where we don't get into shouting matches between the religious and non-religious (it also helps when the non-religious person actually appreciates the myth's worth while pointing out that it is a myth and is not meant to be taken as literal truth).
All that being said - I enjoyed this book and found it challenging, and hope to have conversations about it with people.
But....
I lead a discussion group whose purpose is to foster inter-religious dialogue (including, or maybe especially, between atheists and Christians). This is something that matters deeply to me for many reasons - among them the fact that I have deconstructed my own formerly fundamentalist belief system and come to what I feel is a much more healthy view of spirituality. That being said, I feel that Lindsay makes some mistakes that I see all too often. Let me preface the following by first pointing out that Lindsay's suggestions for how to help people move out of authoritarian religion are usually good suggestions and definitely a step in the right direction.
The first problem I see is that Lindsay doesn't seem to give religion credit where credit is due. He wants religious people completely disqualified from participating in any kind of intellectual discussion (which I don't think will be a helpful strategy for accomplishing what he wants - particularly for people in my neck of the woods, which is often referred to as "the Bible Belt"). He will also occasionally make comments to the effect of blaming organized religion for slavery - which in one sense is a fair jab, but in another sense, I feel that it ought to be considered that the same religion which he's implying supported slavery also led the charge which was the source of its downfall. Figure that one out and you'll figure out a better strategy for dealing with the problem of the absolute authority of religion. I mean that I think sometimes it's a better strategy to use religion's own principles "against itself" (and I put that in quotes because I think that when you understand that the Golden Rule is truly the unifying principle that trumps all other principles, you're not really trying to destroy a religion as much as you are trying to help it grow up and become more mature by pointing out its own principles to itself).
Another problem I see is that he seems to be making a very common mistake I see in that he seems to think that the only concept which can be legitimately referred to as God is a deity - or an independent being. But pantheism and panentheism are actually quite common beliefs, especially considering that Hinduism is one of the largest religions in the world's population. And I think pantheistic or panentheistic belief systems (think: "the Force", almost) can be healthy, are not necessarily irrational, and definitely don't require denial of the latest scientific trends.
My friend who recommended this book to me asked what it would look like if Lindsay gave religion enough credit. The first thing that came to my mind was Joseph Campbell. Campbell's writings sparked people's imagination, while at the same time challenged much of religion. He recognized that religious stories were myths - but also was quick to point out that the popular attitude towards myth is wrong. This can be illustrated by the title of the TV show (a show I love, by the way): Mythbusters. The general attitude towards myth is that it is synonymous with "lie". Rather, what Campbell tried to get at is that religious stories are using metaphor to illustrate hard to understand truth about our place in the universe, our relationship to our fellow man, etc. When we take metaphor literally, we get it all wrong - but the solution is not to say that metaphors are stupid and useless, but to help people understand what the metaphor is pointing to. And coming to a healthier understanding of the myth where we recognize that it is not literal truth but also that it points to deeper truths can help us to have healthier dialogue where we don't get into shouting matches between the religious and non-religious (it also helps when the non-religious person actually appreciates the myth's worth while pointing out that it is a myth and is not meant to be taken as literal truth).
All that being said - I enjoyed this book and found it challenging, and hope to have conversations about it with people.
January 6, 2017
Read this book if you're interested in how a 'post-theistic' society might develop from a 'god is dead' hypothesis
Lindsay begins his invigorating book (true if you're a believer or otherwise) by asserting that the argument regarding the existence of god has been won and that the world has decided: people don’t believe in god anymore (intellectually speaking, that is).
If you look around you, you might be surprised by this suggestion. It seems that we find the religious everywhere. In places like China and Africa, there are growing numbers of Christians. Add Christians to Muslims and you have half the world’s population. Is Lindsay really suggesting they have lost the war, and atheists have won?
He tackles this in two ways. The first is the suggesting that the work of the so-called ‘new atheists’ has fatally struck a blow for the intellectual credibility of theism. The point at which this happened was when Richard Dawkins’ book ‘The God Delusion’ ceased to be an outrageous controversy. Theists have lost the scientific, intellectual and philosophical argument, Lindsay asserts.
I use 'asserts' advisedly, because Lindsay doesn’t spend much time arguing this position. Instead, he devotes a larger part of the book to forwarding a second position in which he attempts to undermine theism, the 'mythology' of belief. In a section called ‘What about God’ in the introduction, he foreshadows the long chapter at the center of the book which addresses the issue directly:
In other words, even if you’re a believer, you don’t really believe in what you believe. You believe in the mythology of ‘god’, which he calls ‘theism’. And for Lindsay, theism is a dirty word.
What you believe in instead is a set of needs, cultural and psychological, that are unmet. He argues that belief is not divinely inspired but is caused by cultural practice and psychological needs - for 'attribution' (explanations), control and social needs, and so on. So, according to Lindsay, when theists say they believe in god, they are really saying they have a set of needs that they haven't been able to fulfil. It's how to fulfill those needs, for all of us, that should be the basis for discussion in a post-theist world.
Similarly, atheists - or, the term atheism at least - is criticised because it, too, inculcates a series of values which shouldn't exist. New Atheism, in particular, is outmoded because of its connection (warranted or otherwise) with unnecessary 'baggage' that Linsday isn't happy with.
It reminds me of that joke: a young man is walking through the streets of Derry in the 1970s one early Sunday morning. An old man stops him and says: Are you a protestant or a Catholic, fella? He replies: Neither. I’m an atheist. So the old man says: Aye, but which kind - a protestant of a Catholic atheist?
If you call yourself an atheist, you might also be calling yourself (to whomever is listening) a humanist, a secularist, a believer in scientism, and so on. Lindsay wants to do away with all that and suggests dropping the use of ‘atheist’ altogether.
It's these kinds of conversations - for believers and non-believers alike - that we should be having in the post-theistic world.
Lindsay begins his invigorating book (true if you're a believer or otherwise) by asserting that the argument regarding the existence of god has been won and that the world has decided: people don’t believe in god anymore (intellectually speaking, that is).
If you look around you, you might be surprised by this suggestion. It seems that we find the religious everywhere. In places like China and Africa, there are growing numbers of Christians. Add Christians to Muslims and you have half the world’s population. Is Lindsay really suggesting they have lost the war, and atheists have won?
He tackles this in two ways. The first is the suggesting that the work of the so-called ‘new atheists’ has fatally struck a blow for the intellectual credibility of theism. The point at which this happened was when Richard Dawkins’ book ‘The God Delusion’ ceased to be an outrageous controversy. Theists have lost the scientific, intellectual and philosophical argument, Lindsay asserts.
I use 'asserts' advisedly, because Lindsay doesn’t spend much time arguing this position. Instead, he devotes a larger part of the book to forwarding a second position in which he attempts to undermine theism, the 'mythology' of belief. In a section called ‘What about God’ in the introduction, he foreshadows the long chapter at the center of the book which addresses the issue directly:
We should wonder, if we are to feel comfortable with declaring the idea of theism dead, how we might give an account for widespread belief in God if the idea is bankrupt. That is, how can so many people believe so firmly in God if the idea is bogus? And this is an important question, one so important that a good deal of space in the middle of this book will be devoted to it.
One thought that may differentiate my thinking from that of many other nonbelievers is that I take very seriously the idea that people mean something when they say the word “God,” and not only that, they also have some idea of what they mean by it... The insight shared in this book is just that what they mean when they say “God” is not best accounted for by theism. That is, belief in “God” mistakes something real, or real enough, for something mythological.
Specifically, it seems that “God” is an abstract mental construction that people employ to help them meet or ignore various psychological and social needs.
In other words, even if you’re a believer, you don’t really believe in what you believe. You believe in the mythology of ‘god’, which he calls ‘theism’. And for Lindsay, theism is a dirty word.
What you believe in instead is a set of needs, cultural and psychological, that are unmet. He argues that belief is not divinely inspired but is caused by cultural practice and psychological needs - for 'attribution' (explanations), control and social needs, and so on. So, according to Lindsay, when theists say they believe in god, they are really saying they have a set of needs that they haven't been able to fulfil. It's how to fulfill those needs, for all of us, that should be the basis for discussion in a post-theist world.
Similarly, atheists - or, the term atheism at least - is criticised because it, too, inculcates a series of values which shouldn't exist. New Atheism, in particular, is outmoded because of its connection (warranted or otherwise) with unnecessary 'baggage' that Linsday isn't happy with.
It reminds me of that joke: a young man is walking through the streets of Derry in the 1970s one early Sunday morning. An old man stops him and says: Are you a protestant or a Catholic, fella? He replies: Neither. I’m an atheist. So the old man says: Aye, but which kind - a protestant of a Catholic atheist?
If you call yourself an atheist, you might also be calling yourself (to whomever is listening) a humanist, a secularist, a believer in scientism, and so on. Lindsay wants to do away with all that and suggests dropping the use of ‘atheist’ altogether.
It's these kinds of conversations - for believers and non-believers alike - that we should be having in the post-theistic world.
July 20, 2018
Initially lured in presuming it would be a thought-provoking, paradigm-shifting new approach to theology or spiritual engagement, it turned out to be a self-appointed sequel to the discussion forged by Dawkins, Harris, et. al, about how to rid society of belief in a God.
Undaunted, I plowed forward, having fairly thoroughly acquainted myself with the premises of "new atheism" many years ago, and, even as a person of faith, disagree with only very few of them. (I happen to married to an evolutionary biologist...)
Religious groups' common adversary of anti-religious sentiment and secularism has recently bound faith practitioners together, ironically producing widespread collective amnesia to the fact that many of the arguments used against the religious were--in a not too far distant past--used by the religious against other religious factions: "Such-and-such a premise is unreasonable, makes no sense, is based solely on unexamined tradition, false books, false prophets, bogus claims, etc. etc." Even some of the most faithful Christians may scoff at paganism, Greek mythology, or even Islam as being "obviously false." The ace-in-the-hole for most people of faith is applying these arguments to "the others" while presuming an exception to their own belief system. Most seem to gleefully approach faith as a sure conviction of knowledge rather than an admission of ignorance. But I digress.
Mr. Lindsay articulates some useful concepts that, while intended to supplement an atheist rhetorician's toolkit, also serve to help believers crystallize their concept of God. "God," Lindsay argues, is a set of psycho-social needs met or ignored by means of a mythological embodiment. Believers will insist on the being-ness or person-hood of deity, but must acknowledge that the way they interface with God day-to-day is not interfacing with his body, audible voice, or heavenly space. It is rather (through prayer, church, service, scripture, etc.) by engaging mental faculties and participating in community. Lindsay gets this, and hopes to lasso that psycho-social component of theism, deconstruct it in naturalistic terms, and get both the religious and non-religious to agree on a common idea of "god" that does exist irrespective of any mythological or faith-based proposition. God as a real "idea" is what he wants to get at. The religious will balk at that, because it challenges faith-based claims about the nature of reality, but even Joseph Smith framed a theistic approach to God as the "first thoughts... of the existence of God" (Lectures of Faith 2)
Anyways, the book was needlessly long and rambling, and his overt discipleship to Sam Harris was a bit tiresome. His points were well taken, and the concepts he brings forth are useful, even if I think he is premature in his wholesale dismissal of faith-based approaches to life and his claims of the final victory of godlessness.
Undaunted, I plowed forward, having fairly thoroughly acquainted myself with the premises of "new atheism" many years ago, and, even as a person of faith, disagree with only very few of them. (I happen to married to an evolutionary biologist...)
Religious groups' common adversary of anti-religious sentiment and secularism has recently bound faith practitioners together, ironically producing widespread collective amnesia to the fact that many of the arguments used against the religious were--in a not too far distant past--used by the religious against other religious factions: "Such-and-such a premise is unreasonable, makes no sense, is based solely on unexamined tradition, false books, false prophets, bogus claims, etc. etc." Even some of the most faithful Christians may scoff at paganism, Greek mythology, or even Islam as being "obviously false." The ace-in-the-hole for most people of faith is applying these arguments to "the others" while presuming an exception to their own belief system. Most seem to gleefully approach faith as a sure conviction of knowledge rather than an admission of ignorance. But I digress.
Mr. Lindsay articulates some useful concepts that, while intended to supplement an atheist rhetorician's toolkit, also serve to help believers crystallize their concept of God. "God," Lindsay argues, is a set of psycho-social needs met or ignored by means of a mythological embodiment. Believers will insist on the being-ness or person-hood of deity, but must acknowledge that the way they interface with God day-to-day is not interfacing with his body, audible voice, or heavenly space. It is rather (through prayer, church, service, scripture, etc.) by engaging mental faculties and participating in community. Lindsay gets this, and hopes to lasso that psycho-social component of theism, deconstruct it in naturalistic terms, and get both the religious and non-religious to agree on a common idea of "god" that does exist irrespective of any mythological or faith-based proposition. God as a real "idea" is what he wants to get at. The religious will balk at that, because it challenges faith-based claims about the nature of reality, but even Joseph Smith framed a theistic approach to God as the "first thoughts... of the existence of God" (Lectures of Faith 2)
Anyways, the book was needlessly long and rambling, and his overt discipleship to Sam Harris was a bit tiresome. His points were well taken, and the concepts he brings forth are useful, even if I think he is premature in his wholesale dismissal of faith-based approaches to life and his claims of the final victory of godlessness.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews