What do you think?
Rate this book
Godless Grace: How Non-Believers are Making the World Safer, Richer and Kinder
This book is an attempt to dispel the widespread belief that atheists/humanists are without a moral compass and thus can't be trusted. A striking example of this was reported in 2006 in the New York University Law Review which documented the degree to which atheist parents were denied custody as a result of divorce. The evidence against this belief is the crux of the book...the almost two dozen stories by humanists from all walks of life and all parts of the globe who, in 2014, told of working hard to make our world safer, healthier, richer and kinder.
165 pages, Unknown Binding
First published January 1, 2015
2 people are currently reading
11 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 - 3 of 3 reviews
August 10, 2015
I'm really disappointed with this work, because I had high expectations for it. The question of morality and atheism is an old one. However, a group of atheists have almost nothing in common but an unbelief in a supernatural being. So there is no common cultural or religious morality to bring them together, no creed or mutual belief. So one atheist can accept Protestant Christian morals. Another atheist can accept Sunni Islamic morals. A third can chose none at all, or morals of their own unique construction. Any religious group will have a common set of beliefs, based on the revelations of a supernatural being, that will define good and evil, virtue and sin, and the punishment for evil and the rewards for virtue. But deciding to be an atheist means a disbelief in the original morality coda that came from such a supernatural being.
So, is there a common set of morals that all atheists believe? Certainly not, although this idea was not explored in this book. What was demonstrated was that many atheists do "good" things for the community, without defining why they are considered good at all, or who is to judge that what they do is even good at all. Without a common definition of terms, any argument is sterile, and this book is one of them.
Several times in the book, the atheists examined try to explain their virtuous work. But as atheism destroys the concept of sin as defined by a supernatural being, they also destroy the concept of virtue. To live for others is a moral belief of religious people and some atheists. But to live "for me and mine only" is also just as valid a set of morals as anything away from a religious premise. And the books is simply filled with unintended examples of this.
The most prominent one is the biography of an atheist woman who was molested by a priest when she was a minor, and this is what turned her away from the church and religion. Yet this priest was obviously not a Christian who believed the Christian faith and expected a Godly judgement in the after life. The logical result is that this man was probably an atheist using a priest's office as a camouflage to hide and protect his predatory nature, a wolf in sheep's clothing, so to speak. Later in the book, much time is devoted to explaining the number of clergy who are "coming out of the closet" and admitting that they are atheists, and the number of atheist organizations that support and assist them in doing so. Evidently there are a number of atheists who are also clergy, and yet no examination of the moral dichotomy of being both a religious leader and an atheist at the same time are not discussed.
Also, although tolerance is frequently promoted as being an universal atheist moral belief (Ha! Ha! Ha!), the authors describe a confrontation between religious leaders promoting abstinence and the atheist charitable group handing out condoms, there was no recognition that both sides were moral, only that the atheist's belief was not respected, even though the authors expected it to be the superior moral stance. Indeed, the whole concept of different morality is dismissed, and only the moral belief of the authors and some of the contributors are lauded. It also makes you wonder what was edited out of the book as well.
The concept of a "Golden Contract" or a secular morality between the citizen and the state is also overlooked. This has nothing to do with religion, but the with the implied agreement between the citizens and the government to protect and defend each other. The state protects against alien invasion and criminals, and the citizens obey the rules, pay their taxes and submit to the military draft. Punishment of the individual for not upholding the golden contract is secular- fines, imprisonment or even death. The punishment for the state in not upholding the golden contract with the citizens is rebellion. The logical examination of these morals (absent nationalism, "Motherland" and spiritual citizenship) as being acceptable to atheists because they are not religiously based, is not even looked at. This is a sizable overlook.
Finally, with all the moral beliefs in the world to choose from, it is not surprising that some atheists would continue with the religious morality they were taught as children. But with no supernatural being to judge, and with no afterlife of eternal reward or punishment, it is also not surprising that some atheists will put self interest before anything else. Thus, the atheist who lies, steals, cheats, rapes and murders, but all this isn't discovered until after their death, wins. With no spirit to suffer torment, why worry about what is to come later? Or as Jonathan Swift wrote in a different context, why not raise your own children as a source of food? Or of sexual comfort? Or as cheap and expendable slave labor? Some religious moral beliefs forbid this, others do not, and atheists are free to choose not only what to believe, but also what they can get by with. And as the atheist posing as a clergyman, questions of oaths, integrity and godly beliefs can be scrapped when they come between the man and his prey. If he gets away with it until the day he dies, he wins. And one atheist can judge him after his death as being an immoral beast; another can praise his cleverness and ability to use religious office as camouflage to obtain his desires. In neither case does the perpetrator have to worry about a celestial judgement and afterlife, and after his death, will have no worries about who does or does not judge him.
The entire book is, in many ways, simply a defense against the attack that atheists don't have morals. The book is an attempt to show that many atheists, too many to mention, are virtuous. But as atheism gets rid of sin, it also gets rid of virtue. And in the end, there is nothing to bring atheists together except their mutual disbelief in a supernatural being. There is nothing sinful in that. There is also nothing virtuous in that, either.
I don't recommend this book.
So, is there a common set of morals that all atheists believe? Certainly not, although this idea was not explored in this book. What was demonstrated was that many atheists do "good" things for the community, without defining why they are considered good at all, or who is to judge that what they do is even good at all. Without a common definition of terms, any argument is sterile, and this book is one of them.
Several times in the book, the atheists examined try to explain their virtuous work. But as atheism destroys the concept of sin as defined by a supernatural being, they also destroy the concept of virtue. To live for others is a moral belief of religious people and some atheists. But to live "for me and mine only" is also just as valid a set of morals as anything away from a religious premise. And the books is simply filled with unintended examples of this.
The most prominent one is the biography of an atheist woman who was molested by a priest when she was a minor, and this is what turned her away from the church and religion. Yet this priest was obviously not a Christian who believed the Christian faith and expected a Godly judgement in the after life. The logical result is that this man was probably an atheist using a priest's office as a camouflage to hide and protect his predatory nature, a wolf in sheep's clothing, so to speak. Later in the book, much time is devoted to explaining the number of clergy who are "coming out of the closet" and admitting that they are atheists, and the number of atheist organizations that support and assist them in doing so. Evidently there are a number of atheists who are also clergy, and yet no examination of the moral dichotomy of being both a religious leader and an atheist at the same time are not discussed.
Also, although tolerance is frequently promoted as being an universal atheist moral belief (Ha! Ha! Ha!), the authors describe a confrontation between religious leaders promoting abstinence and the atheist charitable group handing out condoms, there was no recognition that both sides were moral, only that the atheist's belief was not respected, even though the authors expected it to be the superior moral stance. Indeed, the whole concept of different morality is dismissed, and only the moral belief of the authors and some of the contributors are lauded. It also makes you wonder what was edited out of the book as well.
The concept of a "Golden Contract" or a secular morality between the citizen and the state is also overlooked. This has nothing to do with religion, but the with the implied agreement between the citizens and the government to protect and defend each other. The state protects against alien invasion and criminals, and the citizens obey the rules, pay their taxes and submit to the military draft. Punishment of the individual for not upholding the golden contract is secular- fines, imprisonment or even death. The punishment for the state in not upholding the golden contract with the citizens is rebellion. The logical examination of these morals (absent nationalism, "Motherland" and spiritual citizenship) as being acceptable to atheists because they are not religiously based, is not even looked at. This is a sizable overlook.
Finally, with all the moral beliefs in the world to choose from, it is not surprising that some atheists would continue with the religious morality they were taught as children. But with no supernatural being to judge, and with no afterlife of eternal reward or punishment, it is also not surprising that some atheists will put self interest before anything else. Thus, the atheist who lies, steals, cheats, rapes and murders, but all this isn't discovered until after their death, wins. With no spirit to suffer torment, why worry about what is to come later? Or as Jonathan Swift wrote in a different context, why not raise your own children as a source of food? Or of sexual comfort? Or as cheap and expendable slave labor? Some religious moral beliefs forbid this, others do not, and atheists are free to choose not only what to believe, but also what they can get by with. And as the atheist posing as a clergyman, questions of oaths, integrity and godly beliefs can be scrapped when they come between the man and his prey. If he gets away with it until the day he dies, he wins. And one atheist can judge him after his death as being an immoral beast; another can praise his cleverness and ability to use religious office as camouflage to obtain his desires. In neither case does the perpetrator have to worry about a celestial judgement and afterlife, and after his death, will have no worries about who does or does not judge him.
The entire book is, in many ways, simply a defense against the attack that atheists don't have morals. The book is an attempt to show that many atheists, too many to mention, are virtuous. But as atheism gets rid of sin, it also gets rid of virtue. And in the end, there is nothing to bring atheists together except their mutual disbelief in a supernatural being. There is nothing sinful in that. There is also nothing virtuous in that, either.
I don't recommend this book.
July 12, 2015
Title of Review: If God's all-powerful, why doesn't God just fix everything?
As each of the authors of Godless Grace introduced themselves, they fully disclosed their early beginnings as an atheist. Both David Orenstein, Ph.D., who knew at the age of eight that he was an atheist, and Linda Ford Blaikie, who knew at the age of eighteen, made it clear that neither of their conclusions was as a result of family influences. Like the humanists whose stories are in the book, there's a wide variety of familial religious backgrounds, with very few coming from families that were atheist (making them literally "free thinkers.")
It was refreshing that the stories came from those other than the authors. I liked that most of the stories were just one page long. There were a few which were several pages, but frankly, I found them less interesting.
This book is an attempt to dispel the widespread belief that atheists/humanists are without a moral compass and thus can't be trusted. A striking example of this was reported in 2006 in the New York University Law Review which documented the degree to which atheist parents were denied custody as a result of divorce. The evidence against this belief is the best part of the book...the almost two dozen stories by humanists from all walks of life and all parts of the globe who, in 2014, told of working hard to make our world safer, healthier, richer and kinder, often through the involvement of dozens and dozens of secular humanist organizations worldwide, one of the most interesting of which is the Freedom from Religion Foundation's Clergy Project, which provides support and counsel to clergy and former clergy who no longer are “believers.”
For me, the hardest part of writing a review of a book I enjoyed so much, is not being able to give all of the examples of the wonderful things these non-religious people do. The most often given reason as to why their work is so rewarding and the overall theme of the book is, “They see themselves as self-described servants to and for humanity who do their good work not to please any gods or to save themselves from eternal damnation, but to benefit all humans and other beings on the planet.” It doesn't get much better than that.
Who would benefit most from this book? I think it's those who have recently come to the same conclusion that all atheists eventually come to, their families who worry about the plight of their loved one and especially those secular humanists who want to explore some of these experiences themselves.
As each of the authors of Godless Grace introduced themselves, they fully disclosed their early beginnings as an atheist. Both David Orenstein, Ph.D., who knew at the age of eight that he was an atheist, and Linda Ford Blaikie, who knew at the age of eighteen, made it clear that neither of their conclusions was as a result of family influences. Like the humanists whose stories are in the book, there's a wide variety of familial religious backgrounds, with very few coming from families that were atheist (making them literally "free thinkers.")
It was refreshing that the stories came from those other than the authors. I liked that most of the stories were just one page long. There were a few which were several pages, but frankly, I found them less interesting.
This book is an attempt to dispel the widespread belief that atheists/humanists are without a moral compass and thus can't be trusted. A striking example of this was reported in 2006 in the New York University Law Review which documented the degree to which atheist parents were denied custody as a result of divorce. The evidence against this belief is the best part of the book...the almost two dozen stories by humanists from all walks of life and all parts of the globe who, in 2014, told of working hard to make our world safer, healthier, richer and kinder, often through the involvement of dozens and dozens of secular humanist organizations worldwide, one of the most interesting of which is the Freedom from Religion Foundation's Clergy Project, which provides support and counsel to clergy and former clergy who no longer are “believers.”
For me, the hardest part of writing a review of a book I enjoyed so much, is not being able to give all of the examples of the wonderful things these non-religious people do. The most often given reason as to why their work is so rewarding and the overall theme of the book is, “They see themselves as self-described servants to and for humanity who do their good work not to please any gods or to save themselves from eternal damnation, but to benefit all humans and other beings on the planet.” It doesn't get much better than that.
Who would benefit most from this book? I think it's those who have recently come to the same conclusion that all atheists eventually come to, their families who worry about the plight of their loved one and especially those secular humanists who want to explore some of these experiences themselves.
November 19, 2016
Note: I received this as an "Early Reviewer" in exchange for a review.
I desperately wanted to like this book but I just don't. Perhaps I would have if it had been more organized and thought out. Because I agree with the authors that a book of this kind should be written, I'm even more disappointed.
I have to admit that I'm relieved I'm not the only reviewer who feels this way. The authors of this book aren't particularly talented writers. Their proof readers also leave a lot to be desired. Please refer to the review written by "Trismegistus" http://www.librarything.com/review/12... who articulated those thoughts so beautifully. Reviewer "Bragan" also has some views I share. See: http://www.librarything.com/review/11...
The introduction/first third of the book was repetitive and muddled. The writing would circle back to statements made pages prior then go off on another tangent before circling back to an even different thought. Then it would repeat itself pages later.
The interviews were in many cases so poorly transcribed into story form that I got to the point where I would just skim through or skip the personal stories altogether.
The last third was perhaps the most useful part of the book. Here the authors seem to come into their own, articulating where atheists live and what organizations they belong to. In addition, there is a very extensive listing of organizations along with contact information. Perhaps for that reason alone I'm giving the book 3 stars.
I desperately wanted to like this book but I just don't. Perhaps I would have if it had been more organized and thought out. Because I agree with the authors that a book of this kind should be written, I'm even more disappointed.
I have to admit that I'm relieved I'm not the only reviewer who feels this way. The authors of this book aren't particularly talented writers. Their proof readers also leave a lot to be desired. Please refer to the review written by "Trismegistus" http://www.librarything.com/review/12... who articulated those thoughts so beautifully. Reviewer "Bragan" also has some views I share. See: http://www.librarything.com/review/11...
The introduction/first third of the book was repetitive and muddled. The writing would circle back to statements made pages prior then go off on another tangent before circling back to an even different thought. Then it would repeat itself pages later.
The interviews were in many cases so poorly transcribed into story form that I got to the point where I would just skim through or skip the personal stories altogether.
The last third was perhaps the most useful part of the book. Here the authors seem to come into their own, articulating where atheists live and what organizations they belong to. In addition, there is a very extensive listing of organizations along with contact information. Perhaps for that reason alone I'm giving the book 3 stars.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews