Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists

by Dan Barker, Richard Dawkins (Foreword)

One man shares the story of his transformation from evangelical Christian to atheist and examines the train of thought that brought him there.

After almost twenty years of evangelical preaching, missionizing, and Christian songwriting, Dan Barker "threw out the bathwater and discovered that there is no baby." In Godless, Barker describes the intellectual and psychological path he followed in moving from fundamentalism to freethought. Godless includes sections on biblical morality, the historicity of Jesus, biblical contradictions, the unbelievable resurrection, and much more. It is an arsenal for skeptics and a direct challenge to believers. Along the way, Barker relates the positive benefit readers will experience from learning to trust in reason and human kindness instead of living in fear of false judgment and moral condemnation.

Advance Praise for Godless:

"Valuable in the human story are the reflections of intelligent and ethical people who listen to the voice of reason and who allow it to vanquish bigotry and superstition. This book is a classic example." —Christopher Hitchens, author of God is Not Great.

"The most eloquent witness of internal delusion that I know—a triumphantly smiling refugee from the zany, surreal world of American fundamentalist Protestantism—is Dan Barker." —Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion.

"Godless was a revelation to me. I don't think anyone can match the (devastating!) clarity, intensity, and honesty which Dan Barker brings to the journey—faith to reason, childhood to growing up, fantasy to reality, intoxication to sobriety." —Oliver Sacks, author of Musicophilia.

"In Godless, Barker recounts his journey from evangelical preacher to atheist activist, and along the way explains precisely why it is not only okay to be an atheist, it is something in which to be proud." —Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine.

"Godless is a fascinating memoir and a handbook for debunking theism. But most of all, it is a moving testimonial to one man's emotional and intellectual rigor in acclaiming critical thinking." —Robert Sapolsky, author of Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers

Genres: Religion, Nonfiction, Atheism, Philosophy, Biography, Science, Memoir

392 pages, Paperback

First published September 1, 2008

About the author

Daniel Edwin Barker is an American atheist activist and musician who served as an evangelical Christian preacher and composer for 19 years but left Christianity in 1984. He and his wife Annie Laurie Gaylor are the current co-presidents of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. He has written numerous articles the organization's newspaper Freethought Today. He is the author of several books including Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist. Barker has been an invited speaker at Rock Beyond Belief. He is on the speakers bureau of the Secular Student Alliance.

Reviews

[A.J. · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm closing in on having read all the major atheist books in existence, I think. Out of all of them, this is the only one so far offering an inside look at the evolutionary process of a fundamentalist evangelical Christian into a hardened atheist who eats children and celebrates Halloween twice a year. Deconversion stories all seem to share a common narrative arch––the most important aspect of which is a period of glaring ignorance and indoctrination followed by an awakening of the mind to other viewpoints and shortcomings of the believer's sacred text. Dan Barker narrates this very well. You know the story is honest because it lacks a climax, a rooftop shootout, a falling bridge, a last stand. The process of losing faith in faith is known to be a long one, or a journey of a thousand small steps. Barker's took him from fundamentalism to liberalism to atheism; from preacher to apostate.

Full disclosure: I skipped or skimmed some of the middle part of the book. I'm sorry, but there's just no way I can sit through the Kalaam Cosmological Argument again. Five hundred times is enough, and it's as flaccid and stupid as it was the first time I heard it. I also skipped the rants against biblical genocide. I've read the Old Testament. I know what's there.

Perhaps the strongest part of the book were the lists of biblical contradictions. The attempts to put together a coherent resurrection account was particularly concise and effective. Barker did a fine job demonstrating the evidence (or rather lack of it) for a historical Jesus, and painted a nice picture of the primary sources available from the time period. He wisely employed a number of apt metaphors to give a modern reader an understanding of the situation. Bart Ehrman outclasses him in his books, sure, but he's a professional historian. Barker's joining a pickup game well in progress, but he holds his own.

Ideally a number of sections could have been shortened. I don't bitch about overall length much when it comes to books. That's all relative anyway to what is needed. But 350 pages was a bit steep. He could have not listed every preacher he ever knew who was a closet atheist, or spend so many pages detailing his foundation's social efforts. I can't complain too much because I skimmed a lot of it, however for a book to get the holy grail of five stars, it needs to be aware of a reader––especially a religious one––who picked this up for a purpose other than finding out the modern history of the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

All told, four stars. The deconversion story is a different species of the same genus, yet the overall effect is different than reading, say, Christopher Hitchens, who was born with a bottle of whisky in one hand and the other hoisting a finger at religion.

[Susan · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this book fascinating for the simple reason that the author's experience mimicked so much my own. I may not have been an evangelical preacher, as the author was, but I was about as devout a Mormon as one could be when, in the '80s (and I in my 30s and a mother of six), I came to the painful realization that I did not really believe it all and left my church. It was, without equal, the most painful episode of my life; and in time, I believe, the most liberating for myself and my family. And this is also, without equal, the most personal book review I've posted.

[Kevin · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Dan knows deeply what it is like to be a wingnut, a faith-head, a fully paid-up nut job, an all singing, all glossolaling religious fruit bat . . . The socially unacceptable habit of thinking led him directly to realize that his entire life so far had been a time-wasting delusion.” -Richard Dawkins, 2008

I purchased Godless roughly six years ago and for six years it sat on my bookshelf gathering dust. The subtitle, How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists, intrigued me enough to buy the book but not quite enough to actually read the book. Being an ex-southern baptist myself I knew firsthand that the bar for becoming an “evangelical preacher” was set pretty low. Barker may have finally reasoned his way out of the quagmire of superfluous dogma, but that was no guarantee that he could hold the attention of an enlightened, secular audience. My expectations, at least in the beginning, were not high.

“I have decided that the evidences for Christianity are not solid evidences. The bible is an unreliable document, and it is a very uninspiring document. My heart cannot accept what my mind rejects.” -Dan Barker, 1984

Godless is essentially two separate books. The first is an autobiography. Mr Barker recounts his “calling” to become a minister (at age 15) and his subsequent adventures and misadventures in Jesus Land. Somewhere around age 30 the unanswered questions started to arise—Dan calls it his “intellectual itch” that needed scratching—and by the time he was 34 he had admitted to himself that he was a secular, freethinking atheist.

“I did not lose my faith—I gave it up purposely.”

After the intensely personal autobiography comes the second book of Godless, the philosophical treatise on the fallacies and flaws of religious belief—specifically (but not exclusively) Christian belief.

There is an exaltation of reason and a debasement of superstition here quite unlike anything I’ve encountered before. Whereas thinkers like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are adept at dismantling theology from the outside-in, Barker does it from the inside-out. It is a perspective that emanates from familiarity and it speaks to the courage of an individual who chose honesty over hypocrisy even when he had everything to lose.

All 5 stars.

[Marvin · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have a lot of mixed feelings about this book.

First of all, what is a leading atheist? I never knew we had a vote. Since I'm more of an agnostic dabbling in the philosophical side of Buddhism, I may not have been eligible to vote. Being a leading freethinker makes sense since it implies an interest in freedom of speech and fighting for the choice to think for oneself, which Barker does admirably. But a leading atheist? That sounds a little forced to me, not to mention egotistical.

Second, Dan Barker's journey from minister to atheist is only one third of this book and it is the most interesting part. His journey parallels many people's journey including my own. He does an excellent job explaining the struggles in leaving a fundamentalist world for one that fits the reality of existence.

Yet I have one problem with the author. He is a true believer. In essence, he went from being a fundamentalist evangelical preacher to being a atheist evangelical preacher. The tone of the rest of the book becomes...well...preachy. While other "leading" atheists like Harris and Dawkins are pointing out the errors and traps of religion, they are also fine with people making their own choices. Barker still seems most interested in conversions, a key fixture in being a true believer. This becomes transparent in the rest of the book where he explains his reason for being an atheist and examines the arguments against theism, specially Christianity. Most of what he say makes sense but when he rips apart more universal and common sense teachings like the Golden Rule or parts of the Sermon on the Mound, there seems to be a bit of bitterness, maybe even competitiveness in his style.

So I recommend the first third of this book but recommend you go to other books if you are interested in why atheists say what they say or for the general arguments for and against the existence of God. But overall it is an enjoyable read.

[Tanja Berg · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed this book of an evangelical preacher turned atheist. It’s very difficult to break out of religion if that’s the way you were brought up, I can attest to this myself. The funny part of my journey is how Jehovas’ witnesses, preying on me when I was newly moved to another country, were the ones to force me take a stand. I quite gleefully tell any new ones that show up that “no sorry, you lot already made me an atheist” before I close the door. Because when I realized that their take on Christianity wasn’t for me, none of the rest was either.

Of course, this author was a preacher and Christianity was his livelihood. It was a brave thing to confess his stance. People reacted wildly differently. His parents also deconverted, I find that amazing. His wife left him.

I have to admit, I have never publicly confessed to my deeply religious family that I am not. I am quite sure they know, but for peace, no body speaks of it.

The middle of the book is a very long explanation of everything wrong in the Bible. Okay, not everything, but a lot. Most of it already familiar as I have read most of the Bart D Ehrman book available on audio. It’s amazing how people who purport that the Bible is the ultimate truth has never read the Gospels in parallel. If you do that, the discrepancies crop up galore. Jesus was from Nazareth, no he had be from Bethlehem - this problem resolved in different ways. The lineage of Jesus given from Joseph, in different number of generations and with hardly any of the same names. Why would Joseph’s lineage matter anyway, since he wasn’t the father? I understand how this middle part can get a little long and tedious. However, I got Covid while reading and listening to this while sick was incredibly comforting. I didn’t want it to end.

The last part is how the author made a good life for himself as an atheist. New life, new career and new friends.

One more thing: you do not need religion to have a strong moral backbone. Morality is ingrained in us and weakened by religion. Do you do good because there is an angry god in the sky watching you? That’s extrinsic motivation and that’s much weaker than intrinsic motivation - doing the right thing for its own sake. Picking the rain worm out of the puddle and into the field because it has value in itself.

And furthermore: life is precious because it’s finite. This life is all you get, enjoy!

[Curtis · Rating 4 out of 5]

A lot of the book is the pretty typical "arguments for the nonexistance of God" stuff, but I thought the biographical section to be the most interesting. Barker does a great job of describing exactly what was going on in his head when he began to question his Christianity.

[Andrew · Rating 1 out of 5]

Awful. Complete drivel. Do not read. I have no idea why this is so popular.

For being the president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Dan Barker is an incredibly poor writer. I hope, for everyone's sake, he is a better orator.

This book chronicles, as the title implies, the transition of an evangelical minister from fundamentalist Christianity to outspoken atheism. As he tells it in this book, the story went like this:
1) Was raised fundamentalist Christian. Father was a pastor. Did mission trips in high school, became a pastor very young, went around preaching and evangelizing and never questioning anything.
2) Learned that some Christians thought parts of the bible were figurative. Used this as inspiration to learn about what other people might think that is different than what he spent thirty years thinking. Turns out there are a lot of other things besides fundamentalist Christianity.
3) (Two pages after #2) Is now a devout atheist.
4) Writes letters to all of his friends, family, pastors he has known, and is mildly surprised to get a negative reaction!

Unfortunately, this seems to lead Barker to the notion that most people are Christians because they just haven't bothered to think about the possibility that it's not true, and that they would move on to beome atheists if someone would just tell them.

Barker spends a chapter writing about the public debates he holds with prominent Christians or other pastors, and is more than happy to tear apart their arguments by taking concepts to illogical extremes and by pointing and laughing at (admittedly, ridiculous) statements they make. He makes a point about falsifiability, claiming that his atheism is falsifiable but laughing at theists for not accepting alternative evidence:

If you were to tell me that God predicted to you that next March 14 at 2:27 a.m. a meteorite composed of 82 percent iron, 13 percent nickel and 3 percent iridium, approaching from the southwest and hitting the Earth at an angle of 82 degrees, would strike your house (not mine, of course), penetrating the building, punching a hole through your Navajo rug upstairs and the arm of the couch downstairs, ending up 17.4 inches below the basement floor and weighing 13.5 ounces, and if that happened as predicted, I would take that as serious evidence that atheism is falsified. If Jesus would materialize in front of a debate audience, captured on videotape, and if he were to tell us exactly where to dig in Israel to find the ark of the covenant containing the original stone tablets given to Moses—well, you get the idea. Atheism is exquisitely vulnerable to disproof. Theism is not.

At one point, Barker tries to argue that the concept of omniscience is self-inconsistent, since knowing everything includes the fact that you know everything, which includes the fact that you know the fact that you know everything, [...]. He describes this as infinite recursion, explaining: "An omniscient being blows the stack. It cannot function." (If he's going to bring computers into it, he might discover that this problem is easily solved with self-pointers.)

He then goes on to argue that the concept of god as outside time is senseless: "There is no way to be 'outside' of time, as if there were an edge or border to it. [...] Time is a dimension, not a thing." Barker would do well to pick up Edwin Abbott's "Flatland", for a very simple explanation of how one can exist outside of space and time.

His explanations for "Why I Am an Atheist" and his critiques of the Bible are pretty entirely paraphrased from Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason". Go read those instead.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for criticizing fundamentalist Christianity. But if you're going to do that, do it correctly and professionally---don't stoop to logical fallacies and making fun of what they say.

[Jane · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a phenomenal read. Barker is articulate, intelligent, witty and immensely likable. His deconversion from fundamentalist preacher to staunch atheist comes across as honest (not to mention the only logical conclusion when someone is sincerely seeking truth). I have nothing but admiration for someone who is able to let go of a fallacious belief when faced with overwhelming evidence that it is wrong. I wish more people would have the courage to ask questions and seek out a similar path for truth the way that Barker did. It’s a bit sad that religion is such a taboo subject, although, I suspect it has a bit to do with religious individuals being inculcated since childhood not to question their beliefs, and to also attack those who do. I’ve only met one religious person who was genuinely supportive of open discourse on religiosity or lack-of, and whom I had no fear about voicing all of my opinions in their entirety. She didn’t avoid answering questions, didn’t get angry, defensive or behave in the ways believers typically do when you ask questions. We had some pretty good conversations, and I thank her for it. It’s one of the reasons I like reading books from prior believers, it offers some understanding about the mind of the believer that one doesn’t always get because believers rarely want to talk. Then it has the added bonus of showing the metamorphosis from believer to non-believer. Barker does a great of job of letting the reader inside, to how he once was and how he is today.

I enjoyed the whole book, but if I had to pick something I particularly liked, it would have to be the chapter where he wrote a letter to theologians from the perspective of god asking some pretty thought-provoking questions. He just pointed out some things that really emphasized the absurdity of christianity that I never really thought about—I guess because I never imagined I was god before.

[Wayne Barrett · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5

I thought this was a great piece of inspiring and educational writing. First of all, this mans experience closely mimicked mine. I was raised in a a Christian belief, indoctrinated in its faith from the time I was born and was being primed for the ministry as a young man. Through my own soul-searching and extensive research I finally had to admit to myself that I simply did not believe the bible or the Christian religion, or any other religion for that matter, was true. I went from a dedicated Christian to an agnostic, and then finally to a full blown atheist. And believe me, it wasn't so simple and it didn't happen over night. Especially when I spent my childhood being told about Hell, the Devil, the Anti Christ and the mark of the beast. It was a struggle but I finally found the courage to make the break. (When questioned I like to say it's because I once was blind, but now I see.)

Secondly, the book is a great source of facts and cross references to the many contradictions of the bible. With the exception of a couple of lingering tales pertaining to his personal life, I thought this was almost the perfect book for someone with serious questions about the validity of their belief and also as a source of education in the area of the non-exsistance of God.

I also think this is a great book for someone who feels that they are being demeaned or attacked for their stance. This book is simple, powerful, and unless you are close minded and stubborn, it's full of facts that will contradict any religious dogma thrown your way and give you easy answers to questions that may be hindering you from fulfilling the enjoyment of life.

If you are searching for a book on the subject, I highly recommend this one. Oh, wait... I think that's an image of Jesus I see in my grilled cheese. Never mind, it was Jerry Garcia.

[Jarkko Laine · Rating 3 out of 5]

Now, here's a book that's very hard to rate objectively. I liked a lot of it, mostly the parts where Barker told about his own life: the struggles with Christianity, becoming atheist, and then living as an atheist.

When he criticizes Christianity, things get a bit more complicated. I agree with a lot, maybe even most of his arguments, but it's all about a fundamentalist approach to Bible and other Christian doctrines. In fact a lot of his reasoning is exactly the same as what has been said by "liberal" Christian scholars such as Marcus Borg (whom I'm a big fan of) or John Dominic Crossan or John Shelby Spong (among others). And they don't consider themselves atheist.

So, here's the conflict: I'm not sure if I the reason why I find that section lacking is in the book itself or just a psychological thing where I don't want to accept all of Barker's view...

Anyway, this is yet another challenging book for Christians brave enough to really think about their faith and why they are Christians. I will recommend it, but a word of warning is in place: this quest made Barker give up Christianity.

[Wrenn · Rating 1 out of 5]

TLDR: Uneducated Christian deconverts into uneducated atheist.

Found this book to be quite problematic, not just because Dan is an atheist. Although all atheist books I read will lose a star here or there due to differences of beliefs, I try to remain neutral with the book's substance.

I did happen to enjoy learning about Dan’s life. He was raised as a fundamentalist Christian, raised in the church, and declared himself to be a passionate follower of Christ. His resume as a preacher is mildly impressive. His passion and devotion to God seemed well-fed but his education and study of scripture did seem to be lacking. Apparently, Dan Barker never questioned anything that was said to him when he was a Christian. One day he learned that Christians thought that parts of the Bible were figurative (Genesis creation account) and then 2 pages later he was an atheist. This part of the book really disappointed me because I was hoping to see a more deconstructed account of his deconversion. After the biography, the book became insufferable. If you want to see into the worldview of a hardened person given over to their sins, this would serve well.

For someone that claims to be highly educated on Christianity, Dan Barker gives himself too much credit. It seems that his biblical reading comprehension is incredibly low. For example, Dan had an issue with God existing out of time and the biblical language used to describe God doing stuff. Since God had to decide something, how would he make decisions outside of time without a beginning to make that decision? And how could God “change his mind” if he is all-knowing? Even my uneducated high school self would know this is just anthropomorphic language. I have a long list of other examples in my notes but will refrain from writing them all. Just know that he is consistent with his complaints about these kinds of “contradictions”. It almost seems like intellectual dishonesty. Not surprised this is a best-seller book among atheists, because if atheists are going to debate Christians, a book about an ex-Christian preacher would be the perfect material to do so. However, Dan seems to have little understanding of the actual teachings of Christianity. As a result, atheists uneducated about Christianity will read this book trusting in Dan’s word, unfortunately. The best example of this is from page 196. Dan, Jesus does not tell us to be fake nice. He teaches us to actually love one another. Love that is full of grace, compassion, forgiveness, and joy. NOT empty niceness. Even the basic commandment of “Thou shall not murder” he insisted meant “kill”. Since he changed that one word, he was able to make up a bunch of contradictions.

The worst part of his education is that he denies the fact that Jesus existed. Bart Ehrman, a fellow atheist, even rejects this idea of Jesus being a myth or legend. There’s simply too much historical evidence to support this. Dan rejects the historical evidence in favor of explanations to the contrary. Dan’s standards would force him to reject the existence of Alexander the Great, a huge historical figure we know existed despite the fact we have no evidence of his existence till more than 400 years after his death. I found this section quite amusing and helpful because now I know the arguments that will be used when people deny the existence of Christ.

He’s quite condescending and spiteful towards Christians and theists. He made some accusations and claims about certain Christians that are lies and beliefs that are false. He said that a preacher named Doug Wilson said that bashing a baby’s head into rocks is moral. Luckily, I actually listen and am very familiar with Doug Wilson. In fact, he has an entire sermon dedicated to Psalm 137 you can go on youtube to see that he does not think smashing baby heads on rocks is moral lol. His worst lie was saying that Hitler was Christian. LOL, No he was not. Hitler was heavily involved with mysticism, the occult, and pseudoscience. Just because he mentions Jesus or “god” does not mean he was a Christian.

His philosophy can be confusing in the way he tries to explain it and asserts it as fact. He made a lot of claims about how morality should work but at one point says that morality is found in nature (page 213). If you really believed that Dan, would you still support LGBT+ since it is incompatible with evolution? He got really caught up with the concept of infinity and time. I actually thought this section of the book was decently written even though I’m somewhat lacking in my philosophical education. The last section was quite sad since he admitted that life is meaningless ultimately. He made an attempt to create value from life with “ultimate meaningless” but I found it contradictory and unconvincing.

You would be better off reading some Bart Ehrman. Dan has a special distaste for the Biblical God. He is completely hostile to Jesus and it is clear the Lord has hardened his heart. The veil over his eyes has completely blocked the truth. The only one able to save Dan from his depravity is the Lord and I pray that the Lord works a miracle in Dan’s life.

[Ensiform · Rating 3 out of 5]

The subtitle is rather misleading, as the "how" can basically be boiled down to "I started reading things other than the Bible," while the rest of the book’s 360 pages is devoted to attacks on theism. Using logical arguments (pointing out discrepancies and contradictions in Biblical teaching; arguing that by definition God cannot be timeless, nor can a god be both infinitely merciful and infinitely powerful), moral arguments (citing the many barbarous acts the Bible condones), and linguistic arguments (citing arguments over translations of the Bible), among others, Barker attempts to dismantle the idea of an inerrant Bible and a moral Christian God.

He’s rather successful in his arguments – as he notes, God being the arbiter of both sin and salvation can rather be likened to a "doctor who cuts you to sell you a bandage" – though as a zealot himself, he often goes overboard, getting bogged down in minutiae that don’t really matter, such as the exact shade of meaning of a Hebrew verb for "to kill," or dismissing Christ's Golden Rule (it would bolster his claim to be a true freethinker if he admitted that there are some moral ideals worth emulating in the Bible). He comes across too often as smug because of this. Since it's demonstrably true that, for example, prayer doesn’t work, and that good people are not always rewarded in life, Barker would be better off isolating those bigger issues instead of allowing himself and the reader to get distracted by minutiae that require more erudition than he has in any case to fully explain. At times the book reads like a collection of magazine articles, all dealing with theism, to be sure, but clearly cobbled together from a few decades of research and debate rather than proceeding organically from one another. He concludes his various jeremiads with the hope that real salvation is not found in some fantasy afterlife, but by working together for a better real world here and now, for the living. On the whole, it's a worthy addition to the freethinker’s library, if flawed by what is really Barker’s hubris.

[Terence M [on a brief old bloke's hiatus] · Rating 2 out of 5]

"Godless" - A review note made on October 25, 2023:

My records show that I first joined Goodreads in October, 2011 when, in my enthusiasm, I loaded an estimated 3-4,000 books into the GR system. I am confident I would have categorised Dan Barker's "Godless" as "To Read" at that time.

It appears that I started reading "Godless" in April 2013 and finished it in August 2014. I presume that a book that took me 15 months to read is not one that generated too much excitement in me. I can presume also that the positive forward written by Richard Dawkins in 2008, would have been a major encouragement for me to buy Dan Barker's book in the first place. I remember little about "Godless" now, but in August 2014 I thought it was worth a rating of 2-Stars at that time.

Today, I read an excellent 5-Stars review posted by my GR good friend Kevin, who says about "Godless" and Dan Barker: "There is an exaltation of reason and a debasement of superstition here quite unlike anything I’ve encountered before."

Knowing that Kevin devours books about the Philosophy of Religion, Religious Faith, and Secularism, etc, at a true sub-mariner's rate of knots, I highly recommend this, and Kevin's many other reviews:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Well done, shipmate!

[Autumn Kotsiuba]

I wish more Christians would read this.

Disclaimer? I'm a Christian (even after reading this book. Weird, right?). But I truly do wish Christians would read more than just "Christian literature." How can you know what you believe unless you understand what you don't believe? Without deciding what you believe?

So. This book...The first section on his story certainly offered the author some credibility for me personally, as I fall under the evangelical category. The meat of the book...well. Okay. I have an undergrad in Biblical Studies. Just an undergrad. That's not a lot. And I'm only 21. But I was able to counter every major "flaw" in his argument. Overall, I wasn't offended; it was definitely interesting to get his perspective.

But. I'm not on Goodreads to have theologic discussions. I believe in reading about Christianity, Atheism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam. I believe in having an open mind. I believe in trying to understand.

I'm not going to give this book one star, and I'm not going to give it five. Do I agreed with it? No. Am I glad I read it (and would I recommend it to a friend)? Absolutely.

[James Rye · Rating 3 out of 5]

My holiday reading was Godless: How An Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists by Dan Barker. I had travelled a similar journey (albeit in a less publicised way). Having made the change from being an evangelical leader, preacher, counsellor, and author (for over 30 years) to an unashamed, blogging atheist, I thought it would be interesting to read the human story. I wondered how far Barker’s experience would parallel my own, and if his analysis of his change would help me see my own in a new perspective. I am really glad that I read through to the end of the book.

The book is divided into four sections: his life as a believer; his loss of faith; more detailed reasons for rejecting Christianity; his present work for the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF).
His faith didn’t disappear overnight, and I could certainly identify with the agony of the period where he felt so hypocritical. On the outside everything was OK and everybody was looking to him for Christian leadership and teaching, but on the inside the certainty of his faith was shifting dramatically. And once the faith had really disappeared, his experience certainly shed light on my own clinging to a pretence for so long. Not only was I clinging to a culture and people that I had known for most of my adult life, but I was also clinging to a public reputation that I had established. In our cases, faith wasn’t just a private matter, but it also came with a history, a community, and an important identity. The faith was private, but the ‘ baggage’ was public and, in some ways, was more ‘psychologically sticky’.

Once he had decided to ‘come out’ as an atheist and resign his Christian employment, he sent out over 50 letters to people just to inform them of the change. It was both amusing and painful to see some of the replies he received. Although some people have remained good friends, many tried to cope with the rejection of his faith (and of their faith) by saying the following kinds of things. You must be rejecting your faith because: you dislike authority; or, you want to live a sinful life; or, you like stiring up trouble; or, you are arrogant; or, you have been badly hurt by Christians; or, you are disappointed that your prayers haven’t been answered; or, you are an angry person; or, you have been seduced by scientists; or, you don’t know the meaning of love; or, you never were a real Christian in the first place.

Whatever the truth, or falsehood of those statements, Barker makes the telling point that they are all addressed at attacking the person, and not one of them seriously tries to understand or get to grips with the reasons he gave for no longer believing in the bible or the god of the bible. Barker lost his faith when he started to read and question what he had been given. But nobody in his associates were willing to engage in a debate with him about historical accuracy, textual criticism. or contradictions. To use his supposedly god-given brain meant that he was evil. I certainly have shared the same sense of disappointment and frustration at the unwillingness of believers to engage in a debate using reason and fact to consider claims of truth.

At this point, the book really started to take off for me. Barker spends some considerable time explaining in detail why he is an atheist. I found it refreshing to be reminded of familiar things and compelling to be taken in detail into areas that I hadn’t yet faced up to myself.

Examples of the familiar:

Numbers don’t mean anything by themselves. Claiming that Christianity must be true because so many people believe it is pointless. Millions of people may be wrong (and have been in the past). And if numbers validates truth, what about the millions of people who believe in religions that are opposed to Christianity (Islam and Judaism, for example).

Personal experience doesn’t prove anything. It is well documented that we create meaning by interpreting personal experiences, but those interpretations can be wrong, and we can have experiences caused by a whole range of things. Saying: “It must be true because I have experienced it!” can easily by countered by: “I have had an experience that proves that it isn’t true!”

As a believer I often used the books of Josh McDowell to argue the case for Christianity, especially on the historicity of Jesus, and on the proofs of the Resurrection. Barker carefully drives a coach and horses through this kind of material. What I found particularly sad is that many liberal Christians would also agree with Barker about the intellectual inadequacy of the evangelical case. The material has been around for years, but I, and many others, were far too willing to accept second-hand knowledge and not look at the foundation for it.

Examples of material that I personally found compelling, new, and challenging:

There is no external historical confirmation for the New Testament stories, and the stories themselves are contradictory. Barker takes us through the references to Jesus in the later secular historians and shows the paucity of the evidence. The reference to Jesus in Josephus (so loved by evangelicals) magically appears in versions of Josephus two centuries after Josephus is supposed to have written it. The historical Jesus is far more a shadowy figure than evangelicals would have us believe.

Barker also shows that the resurrection narratives are contradictory and inconsistent. He frequently challenges believers to write a simple narrative of the resurrection, using every simple detail from the New Testament, without omitting a single detail.

Both atheists and believers could learn from this book. Sadly, I know that very few of the latter will dare to read it. It deserves a wide readership amongst believers, not least because of Barker’s authority. He knew Christianity form the inside. He knows the bible inside out and can quote chapter and verse. Being a charismatic he knew about religious experience in a big way. Yet, despite that knowledge, the edifice started to crumble when he began to think outside the box of his culture and do the kind of thinking that has helped civilization move forward for millions of years.

[Stan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am agnostic at best, but I don't think I would like Dan Barker very much in real life. He seems to be one of those people who always think that what they think is right and brilliant, and they need to tell you all about it, and try to convince you to believe it too. His journey -- which sounds far but maybe was not so much -- was from being an evangelistic Christian preacher to being an evangelistic atheist, aggressively promoting his beliefs in either guise. He delights in describing how successful he was in selling Christianity and "saving souls", and later how clever he became in debating against Christians. There is a narcissistic, self-aggrandizing tone to his writing. Perhaps even worse, in my opinion, is that even with his own religious background, now that he has changed his mind, he tends to depict Christians as mindless sheep or superstitious idiots.
My favorite parts of the book were the chapters dealing with the contradictions in the bible and in God's and Jesus' messages, the morality or lack of it in the bible, and historical evidence relating to the existence of Jesus. He makes the idea that Christianity is a hodgepodge of appropriated bits from previous cults and religions, inflated by time and legend, seem plausible.

[Book Shark · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely fantastic. A thoroughly enjoyable read. Mr. Barker takes you through a personal journey to freethinking. My only question, Mr. Barker what took you so long???

I'm an avid reader and I can honestly say that this is one of the best books ever written about this topic. It's freethinking at is best, Mr. Barker's clear intellect is displayed for all to enjoy.

Positives:
1. Interesting transformation to Atheism
2. Well written, eloquence throughout
3. Well organized
4. Well informed
5. Good use of scripture
6. Reference quality (good source for debating friends)

Negatives:
1. I wanted more.

In summary, a well written, interesting story that provides inspiration not found in the scriptures themselves. A true joy to read.

[Beauregard Bottomley · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had read the author's more recent book, "The life driven purpose" and had wanted to know a little bit more on how a person goes from a superstitious based mindset to a reason based one. He only touches a little bit on his transition in this book. I would recommend Jerry DeWitt's book "Hope After Faith" for a more detailed look at that kind of journey. I would say though that this author gave some of the best arguments on reason verse fundamentalism I've seen in one book. This book, I suspect, has led many people who were previously certain in the inerrancy of the bible and in their faith (pretending to know things they don't know) in to the path of reason, science and rationalism because the author knows the kind of falsehoods that are used with in the fundamentalist system of make believe.

[kelly · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dan’s personal story of going from evangelical Christianity to atheism was riveting. It’s followed by sections on “Why I am an Atheist” and “What’s Wrong with Christianity,” which get into philosophical arguments, a lot of which were new to me, and fascinating (with a couple boring ones in between). I recommend this book to anyone who has general questions about atheism and its arguments, or would wonder what made an evangelical turn atheist.

I always like including a few of memorable passages and pithy quotes:

“In general, atheists claim that god is unproved, not disproved. In any argument, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.”

[From the chapter “For Goodness’ Sake,” in which he explains how atheists can be good without God.:]

“If we try to minimize harm and enhance the quality of life, we are moral. … To be moral, atheists have access to the simple tools of reason and kindness. … The way to be moral is to first learn what causes harm and how to avoid it. This means investigating nature—especially human nature: who we are, what we need, where we live, how we function and why we behave the way we do.”

“People who find ‘moral absolutes’ in the revelation of a deity have never agreed on what those absolutes are.”

“If the only way you can be forced to be kind to others is by the threat of hell, that shows how little you think of yourself. If the only way you can be motivated to be kind to others is by the promise of heaven, that shows how little you think of others. Most atheists will say, ‘Be good, for goodness’ sake!’”

Lastly, I just love how this chapter “The Fall” starts:
“It was 1979 and Jesus had not returned.”

[Sally · Rating 4 out of 5]

Because the author gives both his experiences as a gung-ho evangelical preacher and as a gung-ho atheist, the book is particularly interesting. It also brings together material such as contradictions among the Gospels and answers to common objections to atheism. Not a deep book, but entertaining and worthwhile.

[Joe Sampson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sets out persuasively the arguments for atheism. Shows that the arguments for God's existence are unconvincing. Shows that the Bible is historically unreliable, contradictory, promoting of cruelty and unscientific.

[Damian · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not a bad book. A good introduction for those trapped in fundamentalist religion, especially of the Christian variety. The book does fail to address other visions of the divine; classical theism, deism, pantheism, panentheism, and all the various human reflections associated with them. As Chekhov said, "Between ‘God exists’ and ‘God does not exist’ there lies an enormous field, which a wise man crosses only with great effort.”

[Jason M. Wester · Rating 5 out of 5]

The power of Barker’s Godless is in its behind-the-scenes focus on what happens when an honest preacher figures out that his sermons are dishonest. As Barker puts it, Godless shows what happens when a believer loses faith in faith.

Barker began his career as an evangelical minister when he was fifteen years old. He attended a Bible college, married a Christian woman, and spawned four children, all the while figuring out ways to scrape out a living by freelance preaching and composing songs of worship. I was struck by how he earned his living as a preacher, like some sort of freelance performance artist. He’d go to whichever church invited him, give the sermon or conduct the music, grab a check, and move on to the next gig. At heart, he was an evangelical, one who spreads the “good news”, does the work of God. He would have done so if no money were involved.

A highly intelligent man, doubt entered his thinking. It was a gradual process that took five or six years. During that time, he read everything he could get his hands on, from history to philosophy, from science to apologetics, and then it happened. One day, he woke up and something was different. He admitted to himself that he no longer had faith in Christianity. He admitted to himself that he had become and atheist.

My path to atheism mirrors Barker’s in many respects. My guess is that most Christians-turned-atheists come to atheism via an intellectual process of fits and starts. I read and pondered, and much like Barker, one day I woke up and I could no longer deny that I was an atheist. The admission, the coming clean with myself and my family, was a weight lifted off my shoulders.

Barker then did what I think is an honest and ethical move. He wrote to all of his Christian associates and friends and revealed his atheism. He lost friends and he gained friends. His coming out revealed his true friends. And thus began his life as an atheism evangelist, meaning his passions were now devoted to reason, not faith, to knowledge, not ignorance, and he used his talents for speaking and composing to debate and spread the word about the good life without religion.

The book is valuable for the look it gives to the gradual process that one goes through when he or she de-converts from Christianity. Many Christians, he writes, do not understand how this happens. In frustration, they trot out lines such as:

You are angry with God (Atheists are often painted with the brush of anger by Christians).
You are deeply troubled.
You are full of pride and are putting yourself above God.

And others. But the point is, atheists do not come to disbelieve in gods via emotion, but via intellect. They come to it from close analysis and deep reflection. Further, very little choice is involved aside from the choice to read and ask questions. The disbelief part comes rather naturally.

The book can be divided in half. The first half is his telling of his de-conversion tale. The second half lays out the case against Christianity by means of a detailed analysis of the utter failure of Christians to prove their god, or any god, exists. Barker then provides as good a summary of the lack of evidence for a historical Jesus that I’ve seen, concluding that the Jesus of the bible is more myth than man. The book concludes by showing how his life has improved since he scuttled superstition for evidence-based living.

This is usually cited as one of the essential tomes on the atheist’s bookshelf, and I agree. This one is not to be missed.

Highly recommended.

[Elliott Bignell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Barker speaks as one who has been on the other side of the fence and found it in himself to climb over. You'd think that this would be a unique insight into the zany world of American religious fundamentalism, but unfortunately Dan wrote it too late, and he has obviously achieved a full 180° turn. He no longer beliefs the silliness and cannot fully reproduce it. No matter, because he has written a fine book from this side of the fence instead.

He is at his strongest when he addresses the content and contradictions of the Bible and of Christianity. His background equips him well to deal with this material and he makes a strong case, pointing up dozens of discrepancies. The other religions barely get a mention, which could be seen as a weakness, but I think reflects the fact that he is speaking to an ostensibly Christian culture as a former insider. Most of those reading this book will share that cultural milieu and have concerns with Christianity, whether as believers, as defenders of secular education against ID, or whatever.

I found his arguments a little weaker when dealing with more philosophical problems like the Cosmological Argument. Problems with cause and effect within time can easily be swept away by one who is prepared to postulate a deity standing outside the Universe and viewing time from sideways, so to speak. Dan attempts to address this by the definition of "Universe" as having nothing outside it, but it seems a little forced. What if the believer making the postulation does not subscribe to that definition and believes that the "universe" in which our time applies is not the "universe" in which God's time applies but is subsumed within it? I do not wish to actually work through this suggestion for consistency but merely to point out that if I, a militant atheist, am not convinced then there is no way a believer is going to capitulate.

Aside from the occasional niggle of this kind, which accounts for the one missing star, I thoroughly enjoyed this book and achieved some new insights. In particular, that even most inerrantist scholars accept that the age of Ahaziah as he began his reign is discrepant between II Kings 8:26 (22 years) and II Chronicles 22:2 (42 years). It is accepted that this was a copying error, possibly due to a damaged manuscript, but argued by inerrantists that the original was inerrant. So where is it? The original is not extant. So inerrantists who are actually aware of this discrepancy are in the position of having to admit that any concrete example of their "inerrant" text actually contains errors. The original may or may not have been perfect but any copy that you can actually quote is not, by definition, inerrant. The consequences of this for an inerrantist position are clearly catastrophic. (Moreover, they are even worse if one tries to argue that 22 and 42 are not actually discrepant.) If you like thinking about the consequences of this kind of thing you'll love the book.

To quote Barker, "We have suffered enough from the divisive malignancy of belief. Our planet needs a faithectomy."

It also needs Dan Barker. Welcome to the community, Dan.

[Steve · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have mixed feelings about this book. Part 1 of the book entitled "Rejecting God" is the most interesting as it is the author's personal story of his journey from fundamentalist Christianity to atheism.

Part 2, "Why I am an atheist" is very dense and philosophical - and I appreciated some of Baker's arguments and critiques regarding God and the various arguments often offered for God's existence by Christian apologists - some of which are clearly wanting.

Part 3, "What's wrong with Christianity?", was the worst part of the book. It consists of a hurried survey through the Bible intended to prove that inerrantism is unsustainable (I agree that it isn't sustainable). But in this section Baker proof texts in much the same way as many fundamentalist Christians do - he gives almost no consideration to context (cultural, historical, or textual) unless it serves his purpose. For example, he criticises what he sees as the moral commands of the Beatitudes and doesn't realise that these are not moral commands. The context is Jesus blessing the marginalised oppressed group of people in front of him who were going through the experiences he was describing in each of the Beatitudes. While some Christians see the Beatitudes as a moral code, this is not the only way of reading the text. Baker's book fails in genuinely engaging with the text and sharing alternative perspectives with the reader. It is highly biased towards Baker's conclusions (which may not be wrong but are not offered fairmindedly).

Because Baker came from a fundamentalist background, he falls into the trap of treating the text of the Bible as a flat set of propositions. Apart from the fundamentalist, few educated Christians would take it that way. So this whole section of the book, in my opinion, would have been better left to another, more scholarly book, rather than plonked into this book in the way it is.

Part 4, "Life is Good!" becomes a boring listing of all the people Baker has met that he deems important to the atheist/humanist cause (it is hard to avoid thinking he is engaging in name-dropping) and events he has participated in. There are a few autobiographical stories that are of interest. His brief discussion on the scientific hypotheses for the origin of religion and his discussion of the basis of meaning and morality without God are worth reading but are overshadowed by the interminable minutiae of the rest of it.

In summary, Part 1 is worth reading to gain an insight into Baker's journey and what was going on inside his head as he struggled with the loss of his faith. I think there are other books that do a better job of the material in the other parts of the book. Baker needed a good editor to make this book shorter and more powerful.

[Lisa · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was very thorough and informative. I enjoyed the story of how Dan Barker went from preacher to atheist. The sections of the book with information about bible contradictions and such was a little tedious for me. Some people may find it very interesting, and perhaps I may need to reference it in the future.

[Nat · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow. Barker surely has had an interesting life. As his friends say, he is now an 'evangelical athiest" -- founder of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Perhaps the second best 'athiest' book I have encountered. Thought-provoking and engaging.

[India · Rating 2 out of 5]

His interpretation of the Bible is from a fundamentalist perspective; all of his arguments are made from this stance. He does not take advantage of the multiplicity of interpretations that exist in Christianity.

[Katie · Rating 5 out of 5]

the first few chapters were hard to get through because they were just a yawn. But it is quite interesting and true.

[Pat · Rating 5 out of 5]

Surprisingly good review of nontheism. I'm surprised it isn't more popular. Great reference. I'll refer to it often.