What do you think?
Rate this book
After Atheism: Science, Religion and the Meaning of Life
If science has replaced God, is life necessarily meaningless? This book argues that the advances of science and the retreat of religion in secular society does not have to mean a life without spirituality.
209 pages, Paperback
First published January 15, 2008
2 people are currently reading
28 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 - 2 of 2 reviews
January 1, 2017
This is by an Anglican priest who became an atheist and then settled for agnosticism, which he presents as a step up from atheism (he finds atheism 'lacking', 'meaningless', and of having a 'poverty of spirit'). Those who agree with Vernon on this will find some solace in this work; for others like me, it is more a source of irritation.
My own 'spiritual' journey went from an intensely devout and unquestioning certainty of belief (as a Catholic seminarian), through agnosticism, and on to the liberation of atheism. For me, Vernon's dismissal of atheism is much like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. He seems to argue that atheism 'requires' a denial of anything and everything 'theism' has provided in the past (a conceptual error too often found in anti-atheist rantings). He then searches through selected ancient philosophers and other thinker (as if atheists don't!) to distil some wisdom from highly selective portions of their works. This is easy enough to do, especially if you re-define words, playing on their ambiguity of meaning. Thus Vernon finds himself in the 'safer' waters whereby he thinks he can have his cake and eat it too.
The value of being agnostic lies in its potential to expose the 'big lie' used by established, organised religions to assert their unambiguous and exclusive access to the divine. Instead of embracing the freshness and freedom from all religious organisations that atheism provides, however, agnostics seem to want to hedge their bets, 'just in case'. This appeals to those who want to live 'good' lives (as if atheists don't!) basically lauding ignorance (which they re-label 'humility' — again implying that atheists aren't humble: they see them as proud and arrogant). All well and good, perhaps, but in my opinion, misguided: as misguided, in fact, as the organised religions agnostics like to eschew.
Among arguments against agnosticism, perhaps the most disturbing is their appeal to ignorance as being somehow 'good'. Other arguments include two which for me speak meaningfully against it.
Firstly, it is from agnostics that other religions, cults, sects, etc. reap their greatest conversion rewards; agnostics are more easily mislead by charlatans (who 'know' the 'truth') — and it is worth remembering the classic example of Paul making great inroads for his version of Christianity by claiming his own personal true knowledge of the 'unknown god' of the Greeks...
Secondly, when we come to die, as die we must, an agnostic must approach this universal event in extreme fear and trepidation. We all of us might react at the approach of the end of our life with the question 'What if?' For atheists this question, if it arises, will hold the least trepidation; for believers, especially those of the Christian bent, where God 'knows all secrets', it can be terrifying; for agnostics, it would seem to hold nothing but unrelieved anxiety, agony and suspense.
My own 'spiritual' journey went from an intensely devout and unquestioning certainty of belief (as a Catholic seminarian), through agnosticism, and on to the liberation of atheism. For me, Vernon's dismissal of atheism is much like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. He seems to argue that atheism 'requires' a denial of anything and everything 'theism' has provided in the past (a conceptual error too often found in anti-atheist rantings). He then searches through selected ancient philosophers and other thinker (as if atheists don't!) to distil some wisdom from highly selective portions of their works. This is easy enough to do, especially if you re-define words, playing on their ambiguity of meaning. Thus Vernon finds himself in the 'safer' waters whereby he thinks he can have his cake and eat it too.
The value of being agnostic lies in its potential to expose the 'big lie' used by established, organised religions to assert their unambiguous and exclusive access to the divine. Instead of embracing the freshness and freedom from all religious organisations that atheism provides, however, agnostics seem to want to hedge their bets, 'just in case'. This appeals to those who want to live 'good' lives (as if atheists don't!) basically lauding ignorance (which they re-label 'humility' — again implying that atheists aren't humble: they see them as proud and arrogant). All well and good, perhaps, but in my opinion, misguided: as misguided, in fact, as the organised religions agnostics like to eschew.
Among arguments against agnosticism, perhaps the most disturbing is their appeal to ignorance as being somehow 'good'. Other arguments include two which for me speak meaningfully against it.
Firstly, it is from agnostics that other religions, cults, sects, etc. reap their greatest conversion rewards; agnostics are more easily mislead by charlatans (who 'know' the 'truth') — and it is worth remembering the classic example of Paul making great inroads for his version of Christianity by claiming his own personal true knowledge of the 'unknown god' of the Greeks...
Secondly, when we come to die, as die we must, an agnostic must approach this universal event in extreme fear and trepidation. We all of us might react at the approach of the end of our life with the question 'What if?' For atheists this question, if it arises, will hold the least trepidation; for believers, especially those of the Christian bent, where God 'knows all secrets', it can be terrifying; for agnostics, it would seem to hold nothing but unrelieved anxiety, agony and suspense.
December 26, 2023
I feel this book has really moved me forward. It is good to be reminded that we cannot know God, that we can in general know very little with absolute certainty and that it is hubris to think so. I like what he says about science “overreaching” and how he dismantles bigoted scientists like Dawkins. It is, after all, not religion, but science hand-in-glove with capitalism that has brought the world to the sorry state it is in now. He is quite right to say that scientism and religious fundamentalism are pretty much the same thing, i.e. people arrogantly assuming that they have all the answers.
Interesting to read that he thinks the religious fundamentalists are merely mimicking the scientists when they are claiming biblical accounts as fact; that literalism is a relatively new attitude. By contrast, in medieval times God was more commonly seen as a mystery to contemplate, and Vernon traces this through core medieval thinkers such as Thomas Aquinus and Meister Eckehart. Vernon suggests to see doctrines not as statements trying to express objective realities, but as paradoxes inviting contemplation of the mystery. This made a lot of sense to me. Likewise most of science, the Dawkinses of the world aside, has moved on from its naïve positivism and acknowledges the limits of our understanding. We have known it since Kant, since Plato, since Socrates that we cannot know what things are in and of themselves, only how they appear to our perception.
The gist of the book is that an agnostic is very different from both an atheists and a theist, though probably more religious than areligious in their overall attitude. Vernon makes a very insightful comment that the main difference between an atheist and a religious person is that the atheist sees existence as a random fact while the religious person sees it as a gift.
Another thing I really liked about the book is how it drove home the importance to let God be big enough. Any “God” who fits into a human definition would be a human-sized God and therefore a false idol. Whatever we can imagine as the biggest of the big, the most all-encompassing thing in the universe, God must transcend it. We need to watch our God-talk that it does not become idle chatter, and acknowledges that God is unfathomable and ineffable. The only truly appropriate response to the infinite awesomeness of God, after all the talking is done, is silence.)
Interesting to read that he thinks the religious fundamentalists are merely mimicking the scientists when they are claiming biblical accounts as fact; that literalism is a relatively new attitude. By contrast, in medieval times God was more commonly seen as a mystery to contemplate, and Vernon traces this through core medieval thinkers such as Thomas Aquinus and Meister Eckehart. Vernon suggests to see doctrines not as statements trying to express objective realities, but as paradoxes inviting contemplation of the mystery. This made a lot of sense to me. Likewise most of science, the Dawkinses of the world aside, has moved on from its naïve positivism and acknowledges the limits of our understanding. We have known it since Kant, since Plato, since Socrates that we cannot know what things are in and of themselves, only how they appear to our perception.
The gist of the book is that an agnostic is very different from both an atheists and a theist, though probably more religious than areligious in their overall attitude. Vernon makes a very insightful comment that the main difference between an atheist and a religious person is that the atheist sees existence as a random fact while the religious person sees it as a gift.
Another thing I really liked about the book is how it drove home the importance to let God be big enough. Any “God” who fits into a human definition would be a human-sized God and therefore a false idol. Whatever we can imagine as the biggest of the big, the most all-encompassing thing in the universe, God must transcend it. We need to watch our God-talk that it does not become idle chatter, and acknowledges that God is unfathomable and ineffable. The only truly appropriate response to the infinite awesomeness of God, after all the talking is done, is silence.)
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews