What do you think?
Rate this book
The Meaning of Belief: Religion from an Atheist’s Point of View
“[A] lucid and thoughtful book… In a spirit of reconciliation, Crane proposes to paint a more accurate picture of religion for his fellow unbelievers.” ― James Ryerson, New York Times Book Review
Contemporary debate about religion seems to be going nowhere. Atheists persist with their arguments, many plausible and some unanswerable, but these make no impact on religious believers. Defenders of religion find atheists equally unwilling to cede ground. The Meaning of Belief offers a way out of this stalemate.
An atheist himself, Tim Crane writes that there is a fundamental flaw with most atheists’ basic religion is not what they think it is. Atheists tend to treat religion as a kind of primitive cosmology, as the sort of explanation of the universe that science offers. They conclude that religious believers are irrational, superstitious, and bigoted. But this view of religion is almost entirely inaccurate. Crane offers an alternative account based on two ideas. The first is the idea of a religious the sense people have of something transcending the world of ordinary experience, even if it cannot be explicitly articulated. The second is the idea of the fact that religion involves belonging to a specific social group and participating in practices that reinforce the bonds of belonging. Once these ideas are properly understood, the inadequacy of atheists’ conventional conception of religion emerges.
The Meaning of Belief does not assess the truth or falsehood of religion. Rather, it looks at the meaning of religious belief and offers a way of understanding it that both makes sense of current debate and also suggests what more intellectually responsible and practically effective attitudes atheists might take to the phenomenon of religion.
Contemporary debate about religion seems to be going nowhere. Atheists persist with their arguments, many plausible and some unanswerable, but these make no impact on religious believers. Defenders of religion find atheists equally unwilling to cede ground. The Meaning of Belief offers a way out of this stalemate.
An atheist himself, Tim Crane writes that there is a fundamental flaw with most atheists’ basic religion is not what they think it is. Atheists tend to treat religion as a kind of primitive cosmology, as the sort of explanation of the universe that science offers. They conclude that religious believers are irrational, superstitious, and bigoted. But this view of religion is almost entirely inaccurate. Crane offers an alternative account based on two ideas. The first is the idea of a religious the sense people have of something transcending the world of ordinary experience, even if it cannot be explicitly articulated. The second is the idea of the fact that religion involves belonging to a specific social group and participating in practices that reinforce the bonds of belonging. Once these ideas are properly understood, the inadequacy of atheists’ conventional conception of religion emerges.
The Meaning of Belief does not assess the truth or falsehood of religion. Rather, it looks at the meaning of religious belief and offers a way of understanding it that both makes sense of current debate and also suggests what more intellectually responsible and practically effective attitudes atheists might take to the phenomenon of religion.
224 pages, Hardcover
Published October 30, 2017
42 people are currently reading
509 people want to read
About the author
Tim Crane
37 books33 followersTim Crane is a professor of philosophy at the Central European University (CEU) in Budapest and Vienna.
He works in the philosophy of mind, and attempts to address questions about the most general nature, or essence, of the human mind, and about the place of the mind in the rest of nature.
He works in the philosophy of mind, and attempts to address questions about the most general nature, or essence, of the human mind, and about the place of the mind in the rest of nature.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
September 24, 2020
Szinte látom az egyházszakadást az ateisták közösségén belül. Lesznek a dawkinsiánusok (az "új ateisták"), akik a vallást mint olyat az egész emberi civilizáció rákfenéjének tekintik, idejétmúlt, irracionális maradványnak, aminek felszámolása eljuttat minket az Észszerűség Paradicsomába. Aztán lesznek a craneiánusok (a "mérsékeltek"), akik szerint viszont maga a vallás felszámolásának gondolata irracionális, következésképpen meg kell tanulnunk tolerálni a hívőket. Tegyük hozzá: a mérsékelt ateistákat se keverjük össze az agnosztikusokkal. Az agnosztikus ugyanis úgy véli, nem áll rendelkezésünkre elegendő adat ahhoz, hogy Isten létének vagy nemlétének ügyében felelősen dönthessünk, ezért a kérdéssel nem foglalkozik. Crane viszont maga is ateista, vagyis hiszi, hogy Isten nem létezik. Azt sem gondolja továbbá, hogy magát a hitet tisztelnie kell - de ezzel együtt úgy véli, szükséges, hogy tolerálja. (Hisz tolerálni csak azt lehet, amit nem kedvelünk, ez benne a pláne.) Meg aztán attól még, hogy a hitet nem tiszteli, tisztelheti hordozóját, a hívő embert.
A szerző abból a felismerésből indul ki, hogy ateisták és keresztények vitája már több évszázada tart, mégsem látszik, hogy bárki nyerésre állna, vagy közeledtek volna az álláspontok. Az ateista agytrösztök szakmányban állítják elő az olyan érveket, amelyeknek - véleményük szerint - alapjaiban kéne aláásniuk a vallásos érzületet. Aztán tessék, Ferenc pápa mégse dobta sutba a tiarát, és ment el műbútorasztalosnak - ki érti ezt? Ebből Crane szerint az következik, hogy az ateisták egyszerűen egy olyan kereszténnyel vitatkoztak, aki teljesen más, mint ahogy a valódi keresztény gondol magára. Úgy tekintettek rájuk, mint akik egy tudományos hipotézist tettek azzal, hogy Isten létezik, és csak azért nem ismerték el eddig a hipotézis tarthatatlanságát, mert nem elég érthetően (vagy agresszívan) magyarázták el nekik, miért hibás. De ez egy alapvetően téves megközelítés.
Az "új ateizmus" érvrendszere nagyjából két problémakörre fókuszál: az egyik a vallási erőszak* kérdése, ami alapvetően hitelteleníti a vallási üzeneteket, a másik pedig a "természetfeletti lény" fogalma, aminek létét cáfolva a vallás egésze alól ki lehetne rúgni a hokedlit - legalábbis szerintük. Crane viszont úgy látja, azért szállnak el ezek az érvek a keresztények füle mellett, mert ők ezeket marginális kérdéseknek érzékelik, hitéletük a gyakorlatban teljesen mást érzékel központinak. A szerző szerint a vallásos érzés (minden vallás esetében) két alapvető dologra épül:
a.) a vallási késztetésre, vagyis az igényre, hogy a dolgok mögöttes értelemmel bírjanak**, és legyen az életen túl egy transzcendens "láthatatlan rend", és a
b.) a vallási azonosulásra, vagyis hogy a vallást az egyén úgy élje meg, hogy ezzel egy közösséghez, illetve a közösség történelmi hagyományához kapcsolódhasson***.
Persze Crane nem mondja, hogy minden magát vallásosnak tartó emberben ott vannak ezek (például Semjén Zsoltban). Hisz elképzelhető, valakiben körvonalazott késztetés van a hitre, de sose járt templomban, és életében nem igyekezett hitéről más hívőkkel szót ejteni. És olyan is akad, aki minden vasárnap áldozik, rendszeresen gyón, vagyis a keresztények közösségéhez tartozik, de valójában nulla érzéke van a transzcendenciához. Ugyanakkor a hit alapvető pillérei mégis ezek, és ezeket a pilléreket nem kezdi ki egy magabiztosan odavetett "ha Isten teremtette a világot, ki teremtette Istent?"-típusú beugrató kérdés, vagy annak firtatása, hogy ha Isten jó, akkor ugyan miért van a világban rossz. Mégpedig azért nem, mert erre a hívő azt válaszolja, hogy Isten útjai kifürkészhetetlenek. De ezzel nem megkerülni akarja a kérdést. Nem azt vallja be, hogy tudása hiányos, ahogy azt az ateista hiszi, hanem épp saját hite központi gondolatát fogalmazza meg: hogy rajtunk túl vannak olyan dolgok, amiket nem érthetünk. Számára ez nem kifogás, hanem az egésznek a lényege.
Bátor könyv abban az értelemben, hogy potenciálisan sok mindenkit elidegeníthet magától. Egyes hívőktől eleve kap egy rossz pontot, hisz deklarálja, hogy nem tiszteli hitüket. Az agresszív ateistákat azzal bosszantja fel, hogy nem mondja fel a leckét a kereszténység bűneiről, és szót se ejt arról, hogyan kéne a hívőknek gondolkodniuk az ateistákkal kapcsolatban. (Ezt Crane, gondolom, nem olyan dolognak véli, amit neki kell megoldania.) Talán a magamfajta agnosztikusok fogadják leginkább nyitottan, de hát nekik eleve nem sok bajuk van a hívőkkel általában (csak egyes hívőkkel), szóval nekik meg minek. Mégis: ez a könyv egy hihetetlenül inspiráló, értékes fejtegetés, ami sok örömet okozott. A nyitott gondolkodás szép példája, olyan válaszokat kínál a jövőre nézve (amit várhatóan számos vallás képviselője és számos ateista fog együtt alakítani), amelyekből lehetne építkezni.
* A vallási erőszak mibenlétének taglalása fontos eleme a kötetnek. Crane szerint joggal jelenthetjük ki, hogy bizonyos erőszakformáknak van vallási motívuma, ám ez nem azt jelenti, hogy a vallás önmagában erőszakos, hanem hogy a vallás (annak ellenére, amit állít) nem tudja megfelelően kezelni az emberi állat erőszakra való hajlamát. (Sőt: bizonyos szekták, egyházi vezetők, vagy maguknak az egyházi megmondóember szerepét kisajátító politikusok még rá is erősíthetnek ezekre a hajlamokra, ám ezzel nem magát a vallást, hanem önmagukat minősítik. Bár ezzel együtt nyilván elvárható, hogy a valódi egyházi vezetők az ilyen tendenciáktól világosan elhatárolódjanak és harcoljanak ellenük.)
** Dawkins gyakran érvel úgy, hogy az élet értelmét a valláson kívül is számos dologban meg lehet találni: például a családban vagy a tudományos kutatásban. Ugyanakkor bár az egyén élete megtelítődhet értelemmel ilyenkor, ez az általában vett "emberi élet" értelmével kapcsolatban nem biztos, hogy megoldást kínál.
*** A vallási azonosulás Crane szerint a vallás sajátosan elhanyagolt aspektusa. Az új ateisták például ritkán foglalkoznak vele, ők a hitet a kozmogónia megállapítások és az erkölcsi szabályrendszerek elegyének tekintik. Holott mind az iszlám Öt Pillére, mind a Tízparancsolat számos olyan (sőt: többségében olyan) törvényt tartalmaz, ami se nem kozmogónia, se nem erkölcsi parancs, hanem az azonosulást elősegítő szabály.
A szerző abból a felismerésből indul ki, hogy ateisták és keresztények vitája már több évszázada tart, mégsem látszik, hogy bárki nyerésre állna, vagy közeledtek volna az álláspontok. Az ateista agytrösztök szakmányban állítják elő az olyan érveket, amelyeknek - véleményük szerint - alapjaiban kéne aláásniuk a vallásos érzületet. Aztán tessék, Ferenc pápa mégse dobta sutba a tiarát, és ment el műbútorasztalosnak - ki érti ezt? Ebből Crane szerint az következik, hogy az ateisták egyszerűen egy olyan kereszténnyel vitatkoztak, aki teljesen más, mint ahogy a valódi keresztény gondol magára. Úgy tekintettek rájuk, mint akik egy tudományos hipotézist tettek azzal, hogy Isten létezik, és csak azért nem ismerték el eddig a hipotézis tarthatatlanságát, mert nem elég érthetően (vagy agresszívan) magyarázták el nekik, miért hibás. De ez egy alapvetően téves megközelítés.
Az "új ateizmus" érvrendszere nagyjából két problémakörre fókuszál: az egyik a vallási erőszak* kérdése, ami alapvetően hitelteleníti a vallási üzeneteket, a másik pedig a "természetfeletti lény" fogalma, aminek létét cáfolva a vallás egésze alól ki lehetne rúgni a hokedlit - legalábbis szerintük. Crane viszont úgy látja, azért szállnak el ezek az érvek a keresztények füle mellett, mert ők ezeket marginális kérdéseknek érzékelik, hitéletük a gyakorlatban teljesen mást érzékel központinak. A szerző szerint a vallásos érzés (minden vallás esetében) két alapvető dologra épül:
a.) a vallási késztetésre, vagyis az igényre, hogy a dolgok mögöttes értelemmel bírjanak**, és legyen az életen túl egy transzcendens "láthatatlan rend", és a
b.) a vallási azonosulásra, vagyis hogy a vallást az egyén úgy élje meg, hogy ezzel egy közösséghez, illetve a közösség történelmi hagyományához kapcsolódhasson***.
Persze Crane nem mondja, hogy minden magát vallásosnak tartó emberben ott vannak ezek (például Semjén Zsoltban). Hisz elképzelhető, valakiben körvonalazott késztetés van a hitre, de sose járt templomban, és életében nem igyekezett hitéről más hívőkkel szót ejteni. És olyan is akad, aki minden vasárnap áldozik, rendszeresen gyón, vagyis a keresztények közösségéhez tartozik, de valójában nulla érzéke van a transzcendenciához. Ugyanakkor a hit alapvető pillérei mégis ezek, és ezeket a pilléreket nem kezdi ki egy magabiztosan odavetett "ha Isten teremtette a világot, ki teremtette Istent?"-típusú beugrató kérdés, vagy annak firtatása, hogy ha Isten jó, akkor ugyan miért van a világban rossz. Mégpedig azért nem, mert erre a hívő azt válaszolja, hogy Isten útjai kifürkészhetetlenek. De ezzel nem megkerülni akarja a kérdést. Nem azt vallja be, hogy tudása hiányos, ahogy azt az ateista hiszi, hanem épp saját hite központi gondolatát fogalmazza meg: hogy rajtunk túl vannak olyan dolgok, amiket nem érthetünk. Számára ez nem kifogás, hanem az egésznek a lényege.
Bátor könyv abban az értelemben, hogy potenciálisan sok mindenkit elidegeníthet magától. Egyes hívőktől eleve kap egy rossz pontot, hisz deklarálja, hogy nem tiszteli hitüket. Az agresszív ateistákat azzal bosszantja fel, hogy nem mondja fel a leckét a kereszténység bűneiről, és szót se ejt arról, hogyan kéne a hívőknek gondolkodniuk az ateistákkal kapcsolatban. (Ezt Crane, gondolom, nem olyan dolognak véli, amit neki kell megoldania.) Talán a magamfajta agnosztikusok fogadják leginkább nyitottan, de hát nekik eleve nem sok bajuk van a hívőkkel általában (csak egyes hívőkkel), szóval nekik meg minek. Mégis: ez a könyv egy hihetetlenül inspiráló, értékes fejtegetés, ami sok örömet okozott. A nyitott gondolkodás szép példája, olyan válaszokat kínál a jövőre nézve (amit várhatóan számos vallás képviselője és számos ateista fog együtt alakítani), amelyekből lehetne építkezni.
* A vallási erőszak mibenlétének taglalása fontos eleme a kötetnek. Crane szerint joggal jelenthetjük ki, hogy bizonyos erőszakformáknak van vallási motívuma, ám ez nem azt jelenti, hogy a vallás önmagában erőszakos, hanem hogy a vallás (annak ellenére, amit állít) nem tudja megfelelően kezelni az emberi állat erőszakra való hajlamát. (Sőt: bizonyos szekták, egyházi vezetők, vagy maguknak az egyházi megmondóember szerepét kisajátító politikusok még rá is erősíthetnek ezekre a hajlamokra, ám ezzel nem magát a vallást, hanem önmagukat minősítik. Bár ezzel együtt nyilván elvárható, hogy a valódi egyházi vezetők az ilyen tendenciáktól világosan elhatárolódjanak és harcoljanak ellenük.)
** Dawkins gyakran érvel úgy, hogy az élet értelmét a valláson kívül is számos dologban meg lehet találni: például a családban vagy a tudományos kutatásban. Ugyanakkor bár az egyén élete megtelítődhet értelemmel ilyenkor, ez az általában vett "emberi élet" értelmével kapcsolatban nem biztos, hogy megoldást kínál.
*** A vallási azonosulás Crane szerint a vallás sajátosan elhanyagolt aspektusa. Az új ateisták például ritkán foglalkoznak vele, ők a hitet a kozmogónia megállapítások és az erkölcsi szabályrendszerek elegyének tekintik. Holott mind az iszlám Öt Pillére, mind a Tízparancsolat számos olyan (sőt: többségében olyan) törvényt tartalmaz, ami se nem kozmogónia, se nem erkölcsi parancs, hanem az azonosulást elősegítő szabály.
January 23, 2018
Thinking about atheism and religion is a fraught business, more about polemics than actual thinking, at least from my view as an agnostic. A few years ago the Marxian and atheist Terry Eagleton skewered New Atheists in Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens in a series of published lectures called Reason, Faith, and Revolution,essentially because they didn't know their theology. It was witty and quite funny, but then I like Eagleton as a thinker and writer and didn't think the skewered duo were particularly logical, just angry and incoherent. I speak here as an agnostic interested in religious belief.
Tim Crane is a philosopher, writing in clear and measured terms. An atheist himself, he examines the "God Debate" as Eagleton's book has it , from a different perspective, although with a similar conclusion that the New Atheist movement are barking up the wrong tree, essentially because they don't know enough about it, presume all of it is about a cosmology, that violence is associated with it and it's not rational. Accordingly they appeal to a particular version of rationality in order to convince believers that they're wrong.
He constructs a particularly interesting idea of what religion is, in the process stating that as an atheist he doesn't personally accept the transcendental aspect of religion, but that's really irrelevant. It's not what he thinks but what believers think. He references William James' Varieties of Religious Experience a number of times, an excellent text, as well as the sociologist Emile Durkheim whose work on religion was very influential at one time.
Crane points out in this and other ways that the New Atheist approach isn't really a good strategy as the reasons for belief aren't something that can be argued in that way and the supposed opposition between religion and science is simply false. He backs up this and other claims by talking about why people believe. There's a social component of course and he makes a useful analogy with a family. Regarding violence, he demonstrates that religion isn't the only cause of violence. That's pretty easy actually if you read any history, but an important feature of his argument is that there's rarely a situation with just one cause, and he uses Northern Ireland, the Thirty Years War and rge recent Balkans War as examples.
He finishes with an interesting discourse on what tolerance means, as well as moral relativism, a somewhat murky area for me.
Reading this book is like talking with someone in a quiet reasonable fashion, even when he disagrees or is dismantling some idea or claim. He injects his own perspective into the discussion on occasions, simply to explain what his perspective is and how it might differ from how he's explained the religious perspective.
I enjoyed reading this book very much, reading the last half on the train, at a cafe and then on the train home. It's a small book, the size of my hand, and the cover is a suitable medieval painting, illustrating ine interweaving of belief and the social in the seven sacraments, some of them anyway. An excellent text all round and I'll be looking for more of his work, on whatever topic.
Tim Crane is a philosopher, writing in clear and measured terms. An atheist himself, he examines the "God Debate" as Eagleton's book has it , from a different perspective, although with a similar conclusion that the New Atheist movement are barking up the wrong tree, essentially because they don't know enough about it, presume all of it is about a cosmology, that violence is associated with it and it's not rational. Accordingly they appeal to a particular version of rationality in order to convince believers that they're wrong.
He constructs a particularly interesting idea of what religion is, in the process stating that as an atheist he doesn't personally accept the transcendental aspect of religion, but that's really irrelevant. It's not what he thinks but what believers think. He references William James' Varieties of Religious Experience a number of times, an excellent text, as well as the sociologist Emile Durkheim whose work on religion was very influential at one time.
Crane points out in this and other ways that the New Atheist approach isn't really a good strategy as the reasons for belief aren't something that can be argued in that way and the supposed opposition between religion and science is simply false. He backs up this and other claims by talking about why people believe. There's a social component of course and he makes a useful analogy with a family. Regarding violence, he demonstrates that religion isn't the only cause of violence. That's pretty easy actually if you read any history, but an important feature of his argument is that there's rarely a situation with just one cause, and he uses Northern Ireland, the Thirty Years War and rge recent Balkans War as examples.
He finishes with an interesting discourse on what tolerance means, as well as moral relativism, a somewhat murky area for me.
Reading this book is like talking with someone in a quiet reasonable fashion, even when he disagrees or is dismantling some idea or claim. He injects his own perspective into the discussion on occasions, simply to explain what his perspective is and how it might differ from how he's explained the religious perspective.
I enjoyed reading this book very much, reading the last half on the train, at a cafe and then on the train home. It's a small book, the size of my hand, and the cover is a suitable medieval painting, illustrating ine interweaving of belief and the social in the seven sacraments, some of them anyway. An excellent text all round and I'll be looking for more of his work, on whatever topic.
Read
October 3, 2023Jest to wartościowa książka, prezentująca sensowniejsze podejście do religii w porównaniu chociażby z dyskutowanym w niej podejściem nowoateistycznym.
###
"Przedstawiłem religię jako połączenie dwóch elementów: impulsu religijnego i identyfikacji, których spoiwem jest sfera świętości" (127).
"Religijne zapatrzenie w transcendencję kojarzone jest zwykle [...] z 'nadprzyrodzonością' i 'nadprzyrodzonymi bytami'. Według mnie jest to kwestia problematyczna pod paroma względami. [...] [...] pojęcie nadprzyrodzoności opiera się na koncepcji przyrody jako autonomicznej, rządzącej się włąsnymi prawami całości, przeciwstawionej Bogowi i temu, co boskie. Ta koncepcja jest jednak wytworem XVII-wiecznej rewolucji naukowej - wcześniej zatem nie obowiązywała. Pisząc te słowa w 1912 roku, Durkheim trafnie rzeczy ujął:
'Takie rozumienie idei nadprzyrodzonej jak nasze istnieje od niedawna: w rzeczywistości zakłada ono, jako negacja, istnienie idei przeciwstawnej, która nie zawiera niczego pierwotnego. Ażeby o pewnych faktach móc powiedzieć, że są nadprzyrodzone, należało już sobie uświadomić istnienie , to znaczy połączenie zjawisk wszechświata według związków koniecznych, zwanych prawami'.
Jeśli więc chcemy opisać to, co nazywam impulsem religijnym, z punktu widzenia tradycji, do której ów impuls przynależy, nie powinniśmy włączać pojęcia nadprzyrodzoności do naszej definicji religii' (18-19).
silny przejaw irracjonalności, coś na kształt patologii umysłu, forma odurzenia (100).
"Sigmund Freud, widzac w religii dziecięce urojenie, rówież sytuował ją w sferze pozaracjonalnej. [...] W dorobku Marksa i Freuda nie brakuje trafnych spostrzeżeń, ale ich szeroko zakrojone wizje są nieprzekonujące i powinniśmy je odrzucić" (101).
"Ktoś może wierzyć, że istnieje niewidzialny porządek [świata], bo chce w to wierzyć; bo dzięki temu czuje się człowiekiem głębokim lub przenikliwym; bo ktoś, kogo podziwia, zachęcił go do tego [...] albo dlatego, że został poddany indoktrynacji" (103).
"Wielu naukowców i akademików, którzy spędzili życie na dociekaniu szeroko rozumianej prawdy, na ogół przecenia zarówno skuteczność, jak i sens wytykania ludziom tego, że się mylą" (126).
###
"Przedstawiłem religię jako połączenie dwóch elementów: impulsu religijnego i identyfikacji, których spoiwem jest sfera świętości" (127).
"Religijne zapatrzenie w transcendencję kojarzone jest zwykle [...] z 'nadprzyrodzonością' i 'nadprzyrodzonymi bytami'. Według mnie jest to kwestia problematyczna pod paroma względami. [...] [...] pojęcie nadprzyrodzoności opiera się na koncepcji przyrody jako autonomicznej, rządzącej się włąsnymi prawami całości, przeciwstawionej Bogowi i temu, co boskie. Ta koncepcja jest jednak wytworem XVII-wiecznej rewolucji naukowej - wcześniej zatem nie obowiązywała. Pisząc te słowa w 1912 roku, Durkheim trafnie rzeczy ujął:
'Takie rozumienie idei nadprzyrodzonej jak nasze istnieje od niedawna: w rzeczywistości zakłada ono, jako negacja, istnienie idei przeciwstawnej, która nie zawiera niczego pierwotnego. Ażeby o pewnych faktach móc powiedzieć, że są nadprzyrodzone, należało już sobie uświadomić istnienie , to znaczy połączenie zjawisk wszechświata według związków koniecznych, zwanych prawami'.
Jeśli więc chcemy opisać to, co nazywam impulsem religijnym, z punktu widzenia tradycji, do której ów impuls przynależy, nie powinniśmy włączać pojęcia nadprzyrodzoności do naszej definicji religii' (18-19).
silny przejaw irracjonalności, coś na kształt patologii umysłu, forma odurzenia (100).
"Sigmund Freud, widzac w religii dziecięce urojenie, rówież sytuował ją w sferze pozaracjonalnej. [...] W dorobku Marksa i Freuda nie brakuje trafnych spostrzeżeń, ale ich szeroko zakrojone wizje są nieprzekonujące i powinniśmy je odrzucić" (101).
"Ktoś może wierzyć, że istnieje niewidzialny porządek [świata], bo chce w to wierzyć; bo dzięki temu czuje się człowiekiem głębokim lub przenikliwym; bo ktoś, kogo podziwia, zachęcił go do tego [...] albo dlatego, że został poddany indoktrynacji" (103).
"Wielu naukowców i akademików, którzy spędzili życie na dociekaniu szeroko rozumianej prawdy, na ogół przecenia zarówno skuteczność, jak i sens wytykania ludziom tego, że się mylą" (126).
May 30, 2018
Originally gave this three stars but on reflection after re-reading the last chapter on tolerance, I changed my opinion. Three stars for some of common sense offered and his critique of fellow atheists (Dawkins and the other more militant atheists). But overall the book is a hodge podge of definitions that ultimately lead nowhere. Everything defined in terms of everything else and then the final terms are left "for further study"; eg. democracy, free speech and tolerance all have their limits but we'll leave what those limits might be, for another day. In trying to make sense of his own beliefs the author leaves the reader unenlightened, at best. Like a book on air from a fish's point of view.
March 13, 2018
In essence this book is the author's response to the New Atheists' argument against religion, who he views as having gone overboard. Crane makes the point that religious belief goes beyond belief in a supernatural being, and argues that, even though one may disagree with the specific beliefs of the religious (as he does), those beliefs are not necessarily irrational; they may be wrong, but they may serve a purpose, both individually and collectively.
July 7, 2024
parę dobrych takeów ale dupy nie urwało
August 16, 2018
I can see that my shelves need some work. What a motley jumble is Culture and Values.
A professor of philosophy, an atheist himself, explains why the scientific and philosophical arguments of the New Atheists (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, et al.) can’t persuade people of faith that their belief in gods is erroneous. Crane says that most atheists’ view of religion is too narrow. It is not merely a collection of cosmological beliefs with an overlay of morality; it is, according to Crane, “a systematic and practical attempt by human beings to find meaning in their world and their place in it, in terms of their relationship to something transcendent.” Crane stresses that he is not discussing theology but everyday belief.
One essential component is what Crane calls the “religious impulse,” the belief in what William James called an unseen order (transcending reality) and the harmony that comes in aligning oneself with it. Crane describes this as the difference between finding meaning in life and finding the meaning of life. Another essential element is identification, comprising religious practice, belonging to a group and participating in its activities. Linking these two is the idea of the sacred, objects or texts that point to the transcendent and unify the members of a religion.
Another argument that atheists make against religion is that it has caused more harm than good in promoting violence by believers against those not of their faith. Crane, while acknowledging that religious violence (that which is based on theology) certainly does exist, calls this “a large exaggeration [that] does not survive either a careful scrutiny of the facts or a proper understanding of what makes a conflict religious.” He argues that many conflicts attributed to religion are fundamentally political or cultural.
The book ends with a chapter on tolerance. Religion is widespread, education doesn’t sway many people toward nonbelief, so those of us who don’t believe may as well try to understand those who do in the interest of societal harmony. Tolerance doesn’t imply respect of beliefs, rather the opposite, but one can act with respect toward individuals as long as their beliefs don’t conflict with laws “reasonably formulated and coherent.” Crane specifically excludes discussion of issues under litigation now, such as discrimination vs. so-called religious liberty—too large a subject. He is concerned more with social behavior.
I am an atheist and generally agree with the arguments of the New Atheists, so far as I have read them, which isn’t much. But I like Crane’s perspective. His writing is clear and even handed. While I liked the book, it’s a bit more abstract than I have a head for, and it’s not the fault of the book that I have trouble retaining the abstract concepts he’s trying to explain.
A professor of philosophy, an atheist himself, explains why the scientific and philosophical arguments of the New Atheists (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, et al.) can’t persuade people of faith that their belief in gods is erroneous. Crane says that most atheists’ view of religion is too narrow. It is not merely a collection of cosmological beliefs with an overlay of morality; it is, according to Crane, “a systematic and practical attempt by human beings to find meaning in their world and their place in it, in terms of their relationship to something transcendent.” Crane stresses that he is not discussing theology but everyday belief.
One essential component is what Crane calls the “religious impulse,” the belief in what William James called an unseen order (transcending reality) and the harmony that comes in aligning oneself with it. Crane describes this as the difference between finding meaning in life and finding the meaning of life. Another essential element is identification, comprising religious practice, belonging to a group and participating in its activities. Linking these two is the idea of the sacred, objects or texts that point to the transcendent and unify the members of a religion.
Another argument that atheists make against religion is that it has caused more harm than good in promoting violence by believers against those not of their faith. Crane, while acknowledging that religious violence (that which is based on theology) certainly does exist, calls this “a large exaggeration [that] does not survive either a careful scrutiny of the facts or a proper understanding of what makes a conflict religious.” He argues that many conflicts attributed to religion are fundamentally political or cultural.
The book ends with a chapter on tolerance. Religion is widespread, education doesn’t sway many people toward nonbelief, so those of us who don’t believe may as well try to understand those who do in the interest of societal harmony. Tolerance doesn’t imply respect of beliefs, rather the opposite, but one can act with respect toward individuals as long as their beliefs don’t conflict with laws “reasonably formulated and coherent.” Crane specifically excludes discussion of issues under litigation now, such as discrimination vs. so-called religious liberty—too large a subject. He is concerned more with social behavior.
I am an atheist and generally agree with the arguments of the New Atheists, so far as I have read them, which isn’t much. But I like Crane’s perspective. His writing is clear and even handed. While I liked the book, it’s a bit more abstract than I have a head for, and it’s not the fault of the book that I have trouble retaining the abstract concepts he’s trying to explain.
November 5, 2017
religion, as I see it, attempts to find the meaning of life as a whole. . . p. 8
the transcendent ti something beyond or outside our experience. p. 11
I believe (as atheist) the world around us that we experience, together with the invisible world described by science is all there is. p. 18
there are great religions in which the idea of gods and spirits are absent. p. 19
[religion thinks or hopes ] world is not meaningless. p 40
Faith is not certainty, but something more like a committed stwruggle to understand in the face of the palpable mystery of the world. p. 77
John Rawls . . . veil of ignorance . . . "imagine what principles we would choose to govern a fair society if we did not know which position we would occupy in it. " p. 95
filioque . . . debate between the relative hierarchy of the divinity of the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ. p. 131 [how does that fit into monotheism?
It is not the case that religion has been responsible for the worst atrocities in human history, but in various complex ways it has been responsible for a lot of misery.p. 166
When should we stop tolerating the behavior of others? p. 182
. . . if someone is breaking the law, then we have no obligation to tolerate them. . . p. 184
the transcendent ti something beyond or outside our experience. p. 11
I believe (as atheist) the world around us that we experience, together with the invisible world described by science is all there is. p. 18
there are great religions in which the idea of gods and spirits are absent. p. 19
[religion thinks or hopes ] world is not meaningless. p 40
Faith is not certainty, but something more like a committed stwruggle to understand in the face of the palpable mystery of the world. p. 77
John Rawls . . . veil of ignorance . . . "imagine what principles we would choose to govern a fair society if we did not know which position we would occupy in it. " p. 95
filioque . . . debate between the relative hierarchy of the divinity of the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ. p. 131 [how does that fit into monotheism?
It is not the case that religion has been responsible for the worst atrocities in human history, but in various complex ways it has been responsible for a lot of misery.p. 166
When should we stop tolerating the behavior of others? p. 182
. . . if someone is breaking the law, then we have no obligation to tolerate them. . . p. 184
May 13, 2018
Crane sets out many thought-provoking ideas about why most people cling to their religion, and how those he calls "New Atheists" are missing the point of religion, when they criticize believers. A worthwhile read, but it ignores the everyday problems fundamentalist christian activists cause in the USA, particularly in the public schools: attempting to ban the teaching of evolution and science in general, diverting public money to religious schools that teach their dogmas, fighting sex education for children and teens, passing state laws that purport to limit what doctors can tell their patients.... Is it really the "New Atheists" that are doing things wrong?
The final jaw-dropper was the chapter on "Toleration," which ended by resurrecting a disastrous and deluded phrase from Cold War days: peaceful coexistence.
The final jaw-dropper was the chapter on "Toleration," which ended by resurrecting a disastrous and deluded phrase from Cold War days: peaceful coexistence.
November 15, 2021
An insanely quick read. I enjoyed the challenge to my own religious beliefs and the different articulated viewpoints of atheism that I previously had no experience with. However, there were several missed opportunities where I wish the author could've gone more in depth and better explore the topic at hand rather than say "this is too advanced for the purpose of this book" and move on. Not a bad introduction to the concept of atheism though in my opinion, especially when set in comparison to already existing religious beliefs.
April 12, 2025
In "The Meaning of Belief", philosopher Tim Crane offers a lucid and intellectually generous account of religion that stands apart from the often polemical treatment it receives in modern atheist discourse. Writing as an atheist himself, Crane’s approach is refreshingly non-reductive. Rather than dismissing religious belief as irrational or obsolete, he seeks to understand it on its own terms—through the lens of its emotional resonance and social embeddedness. The book is structured around two central ideas: the religious impulse, which speaks to the human sense of the transcendent and the search for meaning, and the identification, which reflects the communal and historical continuity of religious life. These concepts provide a robust philosophical framework for understanding religion not as a system of falsifiable propositions, but as a framework for interpreting human existence.
Crane is particularly effective in dislodging the widespread misunderstanding that religious belief is akin to a weak or misapplied form of scientific reasoning. In drawing a careful distinction between scientific inquiry and religious life, he resists the temptation to collapse one into the other. Where science aims at empirical knowledge through experimentation and falsification, religion, Crane argues, is rooted in existential meaning, narrative, and ritual. These distinctions are not made to elevate religion above critique, but to position it within the proper philosophical and anthropological context—a context often ignored by the so-called New Atheists.
What emerges is a nuanced portrait of belief that neither affirms nor denounces religion, but instead dignifies it as a deeply human phenomenon deserving of philosophical clarity rather than ridicule. Crane’s argument does not seek to reconcile faith and reason, nor to render religious doctrines palatable to secular minds. Rather, he offers a model for understanding belief as a sincere and historically rich dimension of human experience. For readers interested in philosophy of religion, secular humanism, or the broader tensions between faith and reason, "The Meaning of Belief" is a thoughtful and necessary contribution—one that invites empathy, even in disagreement.
Crane is particularly effective in dislodging the widespread misunderstanding that religious belief is akin to a weak or misapplied form of scientific reasoning. In drawing a careful distinction between scientific inquiry and religious life, he resists the temptation to collapse one into the other. Where science aims at empirical knowledge through experimentation and falsification, religion, Crane argues, is rooted in existential meaning, narrative, and ritual. These distinctions are not made to elevate religion above critique, but to position it within the proper philosophical and anthropological context—a context often ignored by the so-called New Atheists.
What emerges is a nuanced portrait of belief that neither affirms nor denounces religion, but instead dignifies it as a deeply human phenomenon deserving of philosophical clarity rather than ridicule. Crane’s argument does not seek to reconcile faith and reason, nor to render religious doctrines palatable to secular minds. Rather, he offers a model for understanding belief as a sincere and historically rich dimension of human experience. For readers interested in philosophy of religion, secular humanism, or the broader tensions between faith and reason, "The Meaning of Belief" is a thoughtful and necessary contribution—one that invites empathy, even in disagreement.
January 22, 2019
I found Tim Crane's approach to relations between atheists ("we atheists," I should state clearly) and the religious far more satisfactory than the New Atheism's dogmatics as I understand them. On the other hand, I'm not sure that the New Atheism's dogmatics really exist except as essayists' proposals -- they don't represent anything that's been agreed on, a consensus that is to say, or anything that has been tested for effectiveness. Crane's approach isn't really satisfactory either, but that's on the premise held by so many British philosophers that nothing is ever really satisfactory, and that such limitations should be accepted and even made the foundation of a way of moving forward. I spent twenty plus years as a practicing Catholic who didn't really believe in any of the dogma of the faith, so I can testify to the accuracy of Crane's emphasis on identity and a sense of a need for greater meaning, as opposed to any pseudo-scientific mythology, as the base of religious practice for many. The only area in which I think Crane really falls short is in his willingness to place very little blame for violence on religious affiliation; this doesn't invalidate his argument, but it causes me to wonder why he felt it so important to attribute similar levels of violence to non-religious groups throughout the twentieth century. Christians were deeply complicit in the Holocaust, on the one hand; and the violence that led to mass deaths via imprisonment and famine in the Soviet Union and China were not the result of non-religious group practice equivalent to that of ISIS, say, but rather the practices of totalitarian governments. Such distinctions are meaningful to me, but seemingly not to Crane.
September 22, 2018
The author argues for a more tolerant attitude towards religious belief. What makes this interesting is that the author is an atheist. +
He bases his argument on the narrow definition of religion that some (New Atheists) have used. He claims that just doubting the cosmological claims of religion is relatively easy, but if you conceive religious belief as a combination of the Religious Impulse ("there must be something more") and Human Identification (social, cultural, tribal etc), the program becomes more difficult and possibly should even be avoided. The entire book spins out these definitions and the logic of his arguments.
His attempts to absolve religions from many unsavory historical events was less compelling for me, but of course other human proclivities, not to mention political organizations, contribute to even the most obvious of religious wars, for instance.
Individuals interested in these issues should give this volume a read. It is straightforward, brief, and lacks a lot of the philosophical jargon that puts off many non-philosophers.
He bases his argument on the narrow definition of religion that some (New Atheists) have used. He claims that just doubting the cosmological claims of religion is relatively easy, but if you conceive religious belief as a combination of the Religious Impulse ("there must be something more") and Human Identification (social, cultural, tribal etc), the program becomes more difficult and possibly should even be avoided. The entire book spins out these definitions and the logic of his arguments.
His attempts to absolve religions from many unsavory historical events was less compelling for me, but of course other human proclivities, not to mention political organizations, contribute to even the most obvious of religious wars, for instance.
Individuals interested in these issues should give this volume a read. It is straightforward, brief, and lacks a lot of the philosophical jargon that puts off many non-philosophers.
September 25, 2019
A few interesting ideas. I liked Crane's definition of the religious impulse -- I find it useful. I also think he makes a good point that New Atheists reduce religion to mere cosmology, which really does not get at the heart of why people are religious. Finally, one of his points about tolerance is on the money: to tolerate something does not imply that you respect it, but rather that you have an aversion to it. Otherwise, there would be no need to tolerate it at all.
Overall, though, I found the book quite boring, and many of the points made to be obvious. I was quite glad when it ended. I would give 2.5 stars if I could.
Overall, though, I found the book quite boring, and many of the points made to be obvious. I was quite glad when it ended. I would give 2.5 stars if I could.
December 29, 2021
The writer’s assessment of much recent atheistic critiques of religion could not have offered by a person of faith. His depth of knowledge can be helpful to believers in understanding their beliefs and practices. It is a most helpful look at religion for those of us who approach these matters without presumption that we are right! I expect Crane’s personal views are right from a scientific point of view, but faith has given me a way to approach life in community with humility and kindness. I must confess I did struggle with his arguments in chapter 2 over pessimistic and optimistic atheistic positions, but in general found the book accessible and helpful.
January 14, 2018
Very clear and straightforward crtique of the New Athiests, mostly on the basis that they don't understand the object of their criticism.
Religion is systematic and practical attempt by human beings to find meaning in the world and their place in it. (1) Systematic, (2) Practice-oriented, (3) Meaning-seeking, (4) Directed towards transcendence.
Religion is motivated by (1) the religious impulse towards the transcendent and (2) social identification, which are unified by a celebration of the sacred. Athiests should tolerate religious belief, not antagonize it.
Religion is systematic and practical attempt by human beings to find meaning in the world and their place in it. (1) Systematic, (2) Practice-oriented, (3) Meaning-seeking, (4) Directed towards transcendence.
Religion is motivated by (1) the religious impulse towards the transcendent and (2) social identification, which are unified by a celebration of the sacred. Athiests should tolerate religious belief, not antagonize it.
April 3, 2022
Nekem Crane gondolkodása közelebb áll a habitusomhoz (vagy csak öregszem), minden esetre az üvöltöző ateizmus kontraproduktívabb lehet a dikurzus szempontjából és a békére kell törekedni. Az elfogadással/tolerálással kapcsolatos érvek teljesen rendben voltak szerintem.
February 13, 2018
The book's summary description does a great job of describing what you find here. My only comment is, "well done!" The book delivers.
June 9, 2018
A critique from an atheist to other classic atheists' view toward religions. For me it had some new insights about religion.
July 24, 2018
Good analysis and fair exposition of religion. Some times allows his bias to leak through, but mostly spot on.
September 27, 2018
This book is an appeal to strident atheists for tolerance of religious practice and belief, with a succinct critique of their most common criticisms of religion. Recommended.
November 6, 2018
Crane critiques both religious belief and the "New Atheists" who, he maintains, don't understand it.
October 5, 2020
宗教信仰与超自然不同。宗教追寻“神”或“神迹”所创造的运行宇宙的法则，是稳定的、规律的，符合所谓自然的法则；超自然则是超越自然，不在自然法则框架中的存在，不应该算作是一种宗教。
April 15, 2021
I appreciate this book. I want to reread it.
February 25, 2018
A must and pleasant read for anyone who participates in debates about the role of religion in our society.
June 11, 2018
This is a sound attempt to understand the phenomenon of religion (not to be identified with the belief in God) and to provide reasons to tolerate it, within the boundaries of the rule of law. The aim is not to convert the religious to the truth, but to live in peace with them. In doing so, Crane provides a welcome and measured critique of New Atheism.
January 17, 2020
Although undoubtedly idealised in places, Crane ultimately succeeds in painting a more realistic and more useful picture of religion than the New Atheists.
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews