Godless Morality: Keeping Religion Out of Ethics

by Richard Holloway

Richard Holloway's highly acclaimed analysis of contemporary morality has met with great success in the U.K., while causing a great deal of controversy with its broadminded and refreshingly unhypocritical and honest views on life in modern society. Godless Morality tackles issues that affect us all -- it is a book with which every member of our society should engage. "Holloway's language and style are engaging, his research conscientious and his conclusions thoughtful and frequently wise." -- The Sunday Times (London) "A passionate, provocative and commonsense challenge to easy cant." -- The Observer (London) "A Book of Morals for our brave new world, by a very wise man indeed. Inspiring. Fascinating. Full of hope." -- Fay Weldon "This is a courageous book for a bishop to write, and everything it says about morality is right...." -- Literary Review

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Religion, Theology, Atheism, Politics, History

192 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2000

About the author

Richard Holloway is a Scottish writer, broadcaster and cleric. He was the Bishop of Edinburgh from 1986 to 2000 and Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church from 1992 to 2000.

Reviews

[Rebecca · Rating 4 out of 5]

(3.5) A clear, convincing and compassionate case for why the Bible should not be the basis of societal morality. You might assume this would come from one of the New Atheists, but nope – Holloway was the Bishop of Edinburgh at the time he wrote this. His arguments are along the lines of: Christians have been too quick to codify context-specific rituals and traditions into blanket law; we have a tendency to pick and choose what we want the Bible to say (emphasizing the parts about sex and ignoring the bits about the poor and social justice); we’ve gotten it wrong before when it comes to morality (slavery is just the beginning); and, in general, we try to oversimplify the diversity and mystery of human life. This was written in 1999. The most helpful chapter is about homosexuality, while those about the legalization of marijuana, abortion and bio-ethics feel rather dated. There are many brilliant statements, but the practical application part isn’t as successful.

Some favorite lines:

“mature people try to learn to live with contradictions rather than insisting on neat resolutions.”

“this is the origin of morality, this need to find some kind of balance between instinctive and intentional life, between the drive of the species and the consciousness of the individual.”

“scripture was made for humanity and not humanity for scripture. We should not, therefore, have to torture [contort] scripture into self-contradictory positions, when it no longer conforms to our experience of truth and value. It is much more honest to abandon it”

“Morality is more an art than a science and it calls for a certain versatility from us”

“most human disagreement is between opposing goods rather than between right and wrong.”

“We assume that our pleasures, because they are ours, are more benign and less problematic than the pleasures of strangers.”

“Human nature has a tendency to hedonistic inflation, to turn good or neutral things into bad by using them excessively.”

[Emily · Rating 4 out of 5]

cover-judging, i figured this was going to be a treatise in praise of secular humanism by a secular humanist - also an outside chance it'd sound dawkinsy.

actually, it's a musing on an inclusive notion of morality by a retired scottish bishop. christian, liberal and interestED (in how the world operates, about how his moral opposites feel and why, and in the possibilities for engaged debate rather than divisive animosity). welcome stuff for sure.

the basic premises:

--neither the religious nor the non-religous own the corner on morality, so quit acting like it, both of yis.

--following dogma to its dotted Ts and crossed Is is a recipe for stagnation and is, ultimately, the morally easy way out (ready-made difficult decisions, rather than the case-by-case struggle).

i liked it for its eyes-&-mind-open approach. i did think he used some wide-reaching analogies now and again, and strayed a bit from the focus on/comparison with religious morality at times - especially the chapter on drugs. i also could have done with section breaks within the chapters.

ultimately, i missed a rallying call - great notions, now how to encourage them in our lives? but hey. work for the readers.

[Rebecca · Rating 2 out of 5]

I think I bought this book because it was 99p in a Kindle sale... it didn't really tell me anything new, although it was refreshing to see common sense and wisdom coming out of a former Bishop, and I have no doubt it will be a revelation to some readers, which is a very good thing indeed. Sadly though, the crazies who really need to learn from this book will probably never read it, so its positive effect will be limited to those who already have a brain.

[Erin Brown · Rating 4 out of 5]

*3.5 Picked up and put down a few times as wasn’t in the mood, not a reflection on the content.

Puts forward the idea of a fluid moral code that doesn’t limit itself to the constrains of scripture and organised religion. All the more interesting as written by a man of the cloth! Goes to the root of seemingly controversial / taboo ethical dilemmas and exposes hypocrisy or lack of reason, removing the nonsensically traditional from the moral.

Particularly enjoyed the chapter on genetic engineering and would be interested to read a more recent edition of this 1990’s book of short essays.

[Domhnall · Rating 5 out of 5]

The wielding of God’s alleged opinions in the particulars of moral debate is almost universally unhelpful and hinders rather than helps us negotiate ourselves round awkward corners. [p161]

The Bible’s exhortations to act justly and defend the weak against the predations of the strong have enduring value – because human nature, sadly, never changes in this respect – but its precise instructions for managing the institution of slavery or protecting men from ritually polluting themselves by contact with menstruating women clearly come from a social system that is light years away from our own and should be ignored. [p162]

Jews and Muslims are aware of the difference between a ritual and a moral prohibition but certain parts of the Christian tradition seem to have lost the distinction and have fallen into a major intellectual confusion in the process… It is important, therefore, to distinguish between particular ritual pieties and universally applicable moral principles. [p13]… Christians have too easily transposed ritual into moral sin in their interpretation of the Bible. [p14] That is why debating with religious people about the morality or immorality of certain activities can be frustrating… they move from the realm of moral to religious discourse. [P15]

Cupid’s arrows strike us with desires that are blind not only to the actuality of the beloved, whom we observe through a haze of delight and longing, but to the consequences for our own peace of mind. Cupid cares for none of these things; he does his work and flies away. [P42]

The distinctive thing about the Christian ethic of sexuality is that, in one of its dominant forms, it sees the sex drive itself as uniquely constitutive of human sinfulness, as the very vehicle that transmits the virus of sin through history. [P43]

If we listen to John Harris’s test of moral verifiability this becomes clearer. “For a moral judgement to be respectable it must have something to say about just why a supposed wrong action is wrongful. If it fails to meet this test it is a preference and not a moral judgement at all.” [P62]

We either have to deny the evidence of history and our own experience, which shows that women are just as likely to be good leaders as men, or we deny the infallibility of Paul. The sane and obvious thing to do is to say the Paul got it wrong, or, more appropriately, that what might have been wrong for Paul’s day is wrong for ours. [P70]

It is the identification of God with transient social attitudes that is religion’s greatest strength and its greatest weakness. It is this supreme confidence that gives religion its power, but at the price of building into it the cause of its own destruction. [P73]

Priests create a place of power for themselves by getting into position between nature and God, or humanity and political ideology… All priesthoods or official systems are in constant danger of living parasitically on the anguish we experience in searching for honest ways to live in a world of competing claims…. The saying, if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him, is a warning against all traditions that claim to have an exclusive patent on the mind of God. [P76, 77]

This unfettering of the market has been paralleled by a number of cultural and social movements that question traditional approaches to human relations and human freedom. The result has been described as the political triumph of the Right and the cultural triumph of the Left, creating a revolutionary situation in human affairs that some people find exhilarating and many find distressing. [p89 ]

…the drama and tragedy of the moral life lies in the fact that most human disagreements are between opposing goods rather than between right and wrong. [P93]

That is why there is more than an element of farce in the current debate about sex and drugs in society. Mother and father are tucked up in bed in the attic reading their prohibitionist tracts while their children in the basement are experimenting with stuff their parents have not even heard of. [P106]

…the philosopher John Harris … writes: Many people have supposed the answer to the question “when does life begin to matter morally?” is the same as the answer to the question “when does life begin?” The moment of conception may seem to be the obvious answer to their question of when life begins, but of course the egg is alive well before conception … the sperm too is alive and wriggling. Life is a continuous process that proceeds from generation to generation continuously evolving. It is not, then, that life begins at conception. [p116]

We have recognised that moral struggles are frequently between competing goods, rather than between a straight good and a straight evil. But that does not mean that anything goes, that there are no forms of conduct which, as rational human beings, we could condemn. The principle of harm is a very broad one, and it calls for subtle elucidation in particular situations, but it is a useful guide in steering our way through the currents of debate about what is or is not allowable or moral behaviour. [P160]

[Chad · Rating 4 out of 5]

Godless Morality is, perhaps surprisingly given its title, written by Richard Halloway, Bishop of Edinburgh. The book was another well-calibrated recommendation from my Goodreads page. The title both intrigued me and perhaps disgusted or frightened me. A book written by a Bishop suggesting we take God out of ethics? It sounded like a wolf in sheep's clothing, a bishop who had lost his faith and yet retained his clerical position as a means of spreading his opinions and influencing people, an attempt to challenge a religious tradition from the inside, or to strip Christianity of what is deemed unessential leaving a weak-sauce humanism. A quick Wikipedia search on Halloway describes him as "having taken an agnostic worldview... has become increasingly radical and has described himself as "after-religionist." I was reminded of the "Three Pale Men" from C. S. Lewis's Pilgrim's Regress, who offer John, the protagonist, some shelter:

Mr. Neo-Angular: "You will fare badly here. But I am a Steward, and it is my duty according to my office to share my supper with you. You may come it."

Mr. Neo-Classical: "I am sorry that my convictions do not allow me to repeat my friend's offer. But I have had to abandon my humanitarian and egalitarian fallacies."

Mr. Humanist: "I hope that your wanderings in lonely places do not mean that you have any of the romantic virus still in your blood."

They sit and till a patch of soil that is too thin and weak to grow anything but a few rotting potatoes, symbolizing the over-diluted nature of these modern philosophies.

And, I have to admit, that is in part what you will find here if you are a member of a rich religious tradition. The book, however, does have its merits. Halloway is attempting to create a space where we can engage in ethical discussions and all be on the same page in a pluralistic society. Too often if our political and ethical debates, we are talking over one another. We don't have the same set of assumptions or values, and we de-humanize those with whom we are talking. Political discourse today is composed of a series of echo chambers, not really engaging with those from the other side in any meaningful way. I appreciate the attempt to revive true discussion, seeking to understand the values of those with whom you disagree.

But creating this space doesn't mean we have to sacrifice our own moral systems. Halloway admits this, but he speaks rather condescendingly to those who choose to remain in what he calls "intact moral communities":

People have the right to opt for what is called an intact moral community, if they want to. An intact moral community is a body, such as a religious group, that chooses to maintain an existing tradition in its entirety, in spite of the critical erosions of time and change upon it. Choosing to submit to an intact moral system is one way of avoiding the pain and expenditure of time that moral dilemmas place us in. We rarely reach final, universally compelling conclusions in moral debate, but we do have to make decisions for our own lives and the lives of others. The root meaning of the word 'decide' suggests the activity of cutting through, rather than painstakingly unravelling, a tangled knot. One way of dealing with moral complexities is to opt into a system and let it decide for us. This does not deliver us completely from intellectual argument, however, because we will continue to live in a larger culture that embraces a number of other moral approaches, but our act of submission to a particular system removes moral uncertainty from our lives by transferring it to an external authority whose judgements we obey. In other words, opting into an intact moral community will not deliver us from the pains of disagreement with others, though it may, as a decision in intellectual economy, release us from personal doubt. There may be friction with other intact moral communities that operate from different premises, and there will be certainly conflict with groups that maintain an open approach to disputed questions.

That description perhaps fits Mormons to a T. He makes religious persons sound weak, because they have chosen to outsource their morality to authority figures. I admit that this is often done. To use some lingo from another book I just read, Halloway is describing a Stage 3 faith where religion is used as a source of identity and authority. Halloway himself speaks somewhere between a Stage 4 and Stage 5 faith that recognizes inconsistencies within belief systems and seeks to live in the reality of paradox.

I like that Halloway expects a lot of people. If we were to attempt to implement Halloway's system, people would have to respect others' differences of opinion, and they would have to give up easy solutions to moral dilemmas. Both of these are often not the case on both the right and the left.

Some may immediately accuse Halloway of moral relativism. I was concerned about that as well. One of his first chapters is called "Ethical Jazz." You are meant to improvise in the realm of ethics. Ethics is more often than not a choose between good and evil, but a choice between competing goods, and there has to be room for sway in one direction or another. Halloway seeks to distinguish his approach from moral relativism:

The situation of moral pluralism is not at all the same thing as absolute moral relativism. We can acknowledge and even celebrate the fact of different moral systems, without falling into the trap of believing there are no moral principles that help us to define what it means to be human. The challenge that faces us is to separate the basic principles that might help to guide us through what has been called the moral laze from the kind of absolute systems that claim to know the right answer to every moral dilemma that faces us.

I appreciate this approach, and I think it challenges both religious and non-religious folks to take ethical dilemmas seriously. He challenges relgious folks to not be morally condescending to those who are not:

Religious moralists, in practice, flit between empirical and absolute justifications for their assertions, moving from the former to the latter when the argument is going against them...
That is why the use of God in moral debate is so problematic as to be almost worthless. We can debate with one another as to whether this or that alleged claim genuinely emanated from God, but who can honestly adjudicate in such an Olympian dispute?

Halloway proposes several solutions to ethical issues in the public square from sex education, gay marriage, abortion, and drug legalization. In all cases, he suggests leaving ethical choices to individuals within a few clearly defined boundaries. Traditionalists will probably gripe more than others at these solutions. But I will admit that he examines the values at stake at all positions involved, and seeks to find a responsible compromise.

Despite his attempt at playing fair, Halloway clearly has some beef with traditional religious groups, and describes them as essentially power structures. He gets many of his ideas from Nietzche that I wholeheartedly disagree with e.g.

From a psychological point of view 'sins' are indispensable in any society organized by priests: they are the actual levers of power, the priest lives on sins, he needs the commission of sins'... Supreme law: 'God forgives him who repents'-- in plan language: who subjects himself to the priest.

And it is from this strand that Halloway pulls most of his criticisms of traditional religion from. Chesterton has my favorite response to Nietzche:

If we said what we felt, we should say, “So you are the Creator and Redeemer of the world: but what a small world it must be! What a little Heaven you must inhabit, with angels no bigger than butterflies! How sad it must be to be God; and an inadequate God! Is there really no life fuller and no love more marvelous than yours; and is it really in your small and painful pity that all flesh must put its faith? How much happier you would be, how much more of you there would be, if the hammer of a higher God could smash your small cosmos, scattering the stars like spangles, and leave you in the open, free like other men to look up as well as down!”

But there are plenty of moments when I find Halloway to be profound. I like it when he acknowledges the need of authority to maintain moral systems and not devolve into moral relativity:

For moral systems to work, we have to accord them some kind of authority over us. The dilemma is that they then work too well, so that reforming them becomes difficult. But this, paradoxically, is a sign of their effectiveness. If they could be overturned without much of a struggle, they would lack the very authority they need if they are to condition us into some kind of conformity. Moral change is always bound to be contentious, though it seems to characterize human history. There are always those who defend the status quo, because it provides stability and continuity, and there are always those who push against it, because they experience it as morally stunting and imprisoning.

In this respect, I believe we shouldn't try to undermine traditional sources of authority, but we should try to teach people to approach them in more nuanced ways.

I like his challenge to all to stop advocating for moral positions from dogma, whether it be political or religious, and engage in the reality of moral dilemmas:

"For a moral judgement to be respectable, it must have something to say about just why a supposed wrong action is wrongful. If it fails to meet this test it is a preference and not a moral judgment at all."

I like his advocacy for a morality based on moderation as well as consent that works well for adding nuance to competing values:

In the sense defined by Aristotle, a virtue is a mean between two extremes of a good thing. There can be no virtue of an activity that is clearly wrong in itself, such as murder. Virtue applies to things that are good in themselves or morally neutral, but which we can easily abuse, if we are not careful. Virtue lies in finding the mean, the balance, between the two. The virtuous person lives a balanced life.

The book is well-written and gives a very ambitious vision of what ethical discourse could be. Despite disagreeing with him on religion and on some of his proposed solutions, but I find his approach to be refreshing. Which is exactly the point of the book.

[Becky · Rating 4 out of 5]

richard Holloway seems like a super cool dude. what a compassionate book

[Alexandra · Rating 1 out of 5]

Yet another case where a person with expertise in one field, thereby feels entitled to propound his ill-formed opinions on a wide range of matters.

This series of essays are based on the typical liberal fallacy - the assumption that everyone really wants everyone to be happy, and all conflict and cruelty arise out of misconceptions, which 'enlightened' thinking should be able to straighten out.

A brief look at the last century should demonstrate the foolhardiness of this assumption - there are always a small minority of ruthless individuals whose aim is to achieve the optimum situation for themselves, and are quite content to achieve this at the expense of everyone else. And the more this "everyone really wants to get along" argument is promulgated, the more successful the psychopaths are - because they are assumed not to exist.

Starting from a faulty premise drastically reduces the value of this book; but it is not terribly well-reasoned either. I spotted several factual inaccuracies, apparently arising from the former Bishop's assumption that America is the pattern on which the rest of the world is modelled.

This is not theology, and as philosophy it is shoddy work. It is another manifestation of our celebrity culture, which enables a man given authority in one field to abrogate it to give spurious validity to the airing of his personal prejudices in another.

[David Layton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Holloway, the Bishop of Edinburgh, is not renouncing god in this book. Rather, he is arguing that the Bible does not make a very good authority in matters of modern morality. Written at the end of the 1990s, during a rising tide of fundamentalism in the English speaking world, Holloway argues why the fundamentalists are wrong and that a better option for dealing with contemporary issues is a moderate relativistic utilitarianism (though he does not use the word utilitarianism), informed by but not strictly adherent to religious ideals. The structure of the book goes thus: The introduction and chapter 1 set what one might call the theoretical concerns of the book. This is the part that corresponds most closely to the title. In these chapters, Holloway lays out why scripture and church doctrine do not work as guides for modern ethics. Basically, the argument here is that those "laws" were made by people at particular times in particular cultural circumstances in which they made some kind of sense. However, time moves on, and when these laws no longer make sense, insistence upon strict conformity to those laws causes more harm than good. Chapters 2-6 take up specific ethical hot issues of the late 1990s: feminism, sexuality, drug legalization, abortion, informed suicide, and reproductive technologies. By the end of chapter 2, one becomes aware that Holloway's target audience is not fundamentalists, or the nonreligious, but rather the Scottish Episcopal Church in which he serves. Even so, his discussion of the various issues usually takes the same trajectory - explain why religion has little useful to say about the matter, and then advocate for a liberal-minded piecemeal approach to resolving the issues. The arguments on these issues, pro and con, may strike a contemporary (2024) reader as ground already built upon, nothing really all that new. The one point where the book is still part of the controversy (since none of these issues has yet left us) is his continued statements that religion has little relevant to say on these matters, and that those who look upon them through strict religious ideology view these matters incorrectly. It is an eminently readable book, a quick review of major social controversies, and a refreshing statement of purpose from a perspective that too often remains silent on these issues: the liberal church perspective.

[Adam · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thoughtful, engaging intelligent writing. All the more so because the author is a Bishop (ex-Bishop now). I was ready to be irritated and expecting to argue with the author, but the unsupportable viewpoint and comical statements never arrived from this impressive author. A must read for souls considering moral theory in a contemporary pluralist society. The early chapters discuss the broader
problems of humanity's limited understanding in the area of ethics and the development from a morality of command to a morality of consent. These chapters, insightful, memorable and eminently quotable, are where the books greatness lies. The book concludes with chapters regarding modern issues or dilemmas in a variety of specific cases.

[Aoife ✨️ · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is a very slow starter but it is a fantastic book which explores the disadvantage of basing our moral systems on religious convictions and beliefs. As my Mam says, "there's too much Catholicism and not enough Christianity". What that means is that too many people are trying to preach a Gospel but aren't willing to be good to people. I massively appreciate the way Holloway discusses such controversial topics, such as abortion from both sides but comes to a reasonable conclusion.
For a book that was published in 1999, it has aged criminally well. If I discovered that it was a new release then I wouldn't be surprised at all.

[Daniel Watkins · Rating 4 out of 5]

It may be 20 years old now, but it’s still relevant. I thought it was really clearly written and I like the emphasis on improvisatory, consent-based morality. I appreciate also that the issues discussed (including drugs, abortion, and reproductive science) are treated without a hardline black or white judgment.

[Fictional Detectives {Rob} · Rating 3 out of 5]

A great philosophy book with a great insight to different philosophical views involving god and religious believes. I shan’t talk about it here as religion and philosophy in general can be a sensitive topic especially morality. But other philosophical books I read in the future may get more insight in my reviews.

[Renato · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book is quite different from what I was expecting. There are a lot of interesting points of view about the most debated issue in ethics, but there is very little about godless morality. No philosophical construction. Still, I found it interesting. Holloway shows a fine prose and the book is short enough to forgive some repetitions and excursions.

[Daniel B-G · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting concept, but after 35 pages and two chapters, I had no idea what the author actually wanted to say, or even what he had said. There was no scaffolding to hold up the argument, which in itself faint like an indistinct echo of an idea.

[Stephán O'HÁrtagain · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting read, I really enjoyed it. Short but to the point!

[Linda · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found Richard Holloway's thoughtful, compassionate writing in this collection of essays to be as thought-provoking (and wise!) as I've found it in the many other books of his which I've read.

[M.G. Mason · Rating 4 out of 5]

It created a stir when first published. Of course, most rational people know that it is entirely possible to lead a good moral life without having to believe in religion, any deity or defined set of dogmas or superstitions brought from on high by people who wear funny clothes and consider themselves beyond criticism, but when the idea is being expounded by a former Anglican Bishop, it was bound to ruffle a few feathers. Richard Holloway was the Bishop of Edinburgh until his retirement and today makes a career as a political and social writer. It is also suspected, yet he has never stated such, that part of his reason for retiring was because he had abandoned his faith altogether.

But I'm not here to debate the man or what he might now think of the core concepts of Christian belief but whether the book achieves what it sets out to do, and that is to demonstrate that it is perfectly possible to reject religious dogmas on morality and lead a good life. It also attempts to demonstrate in no uncertain terms that many of our religious traditions on sex and relationships, drugs, alcohol, cloning, stem cell research and even abortion are rarely as clear cut as they would like to portray. Most interesting for me is how he attempts to distinguish the difference between a moral sin (one that causes harm to others) and ritual sin (one that is a breaking of a covenant with God) has been distinctly blurred in Christianity. For example, homosexuality ought to be considered a sin only to one who takes a Christian oath because of the scriptural sanctions against it; yet it should not be considered sinful for those who do not choose a Christian lifestyle. He hints at a degree of conceitedness in the way that Christianity blurs this line between this ritual sin and moral sin and that it is not something that Jews and Muslims are generally guilty of, that true morals ought to be about observable consequences, not the quoting of superstitions.

If he is not an atheist, then he is perhaps the only Christian who truly understands the atheist position and why we consider many of their arguments to be empty rhetoric, near valueless and absurd at best and downright dangerous ideology desperately clinging to a bygone age of pre-Enlightenment totalitarianism and willing to bribe, threaten and kill to maintain that at worst. He also discusses the modern knee-jerk reactionary attitudes of morality from churches who are becoming more and more entrenched against the 'democratisation' of morality, the idea that things become unethical through consent and that despite claims from certain churches that they have driven liberation and social reform, the opposite is often usually true as church institutions sometimes find they have no choice but to change their attitude in line with the public outcry.

Does it set out to do what it professes? In my mind most certainly, it is a very powerful piece of writing that will make you look at social issues in a different light, whether that be sex and relationships, drugs or cloning there is bound to be something to challenge even the most liberal of us.

My only criticisms are to do with flow. Holloway seemingly hops around from time to time and I wish it had been more structured and given a thorough going over by an experienced editor. But this is a minor criticism and the content doesn't suffer for it.


See more book reviews at my blog

[Tim · Rating 5 out of 5]

A consider, thoughtful and above all intensely reasonable exploration of why we should not rely on religion as a source of morality, and how a secular alternative should be constructed. For a Humanist like myself, there was a bit too much focus on Christianity in places, but the chapters covering drugs, abortion and voluntary euthanasia were excellent. As with his book 'Looking in the Distance', this is an ideal work for anyone drifting away from religion towards un-belief, and even for the confirmed non-believer there is much to be learned from Holloway's approach.

[Samaa Ahmed · Rating 4 out of 5]

Perhaps there is nothing revolutionary about this book, in the sense that it does not propose anything novel, but what I think makes it so special is that it is a radical text (as in very progressive, but not in a cop out "liberal" way) that is not anti-religion.

This is a very sensible, logical book, that is very thoughtfully written. I learned a lot about the Christian tradition from this book, and Holloway's explanations of Biblical passages help to contextualize a lot of the references. It is feminist and political while being quite gentle, so it is an easy read for those who may have more conservative viewpoints.

Holloway writes critically about religion and tradition without being insensitive to religious folks, and writes compassionately about historical trends without making excuses for past mistakes and transgressions. Would absolutely recommend.

[Emma Glaisher · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was pretty much my first foray into ethics/philosophy (and even, in an absent sort of way, theology), certainly since my teens. I found it fascinating, thought-provoking and will definitely be reading it again.

Lots of quotable stuff I will be sticking provocatively in my Facebook status, I think.

I would love to read more by this man whose faith (I have none) is so comfortably unfettered by random collections of interesting old writings cobbled together nearly 2000 years ago.

[Shishir · Rating 3 out of 5]

Treat life as an Art as opposed to a science.
Music art and playfulness in all forms are spiritual experiences. Artistic creativity and ethics.
Adapt, evolve, take risks – play in life like you were a child.
Young skip to school, get fully absorbed in the now.
Humor smile fun enjoy jokes sports
Enjoy and ground yourself with nature.

[Alden · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thought-provoking. Wide-ranging discussions of several moral topics, including homosexuality, drugs, abortion and cloning, with the overall position that "command morality" no longer works. Instead, the author offers the metaphor of an improvised jazz composition as the modern approach to defining morality.

[Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

The start of this book is excellent. The author discusses difference between human morals and institutional morals. The later chapters where he discusses ethical approaches to reproductive sciences seemed a bit unfocused.

Worth reading for the ideas presented though.

[Brian Dunkel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Godless Morality is one of my all-time favorite theological/philosophical pieces. Holloway's differentiation between morals and ethics is classic. He is one of the most deeply empathetic religious leaders of our time.

[Roland · Rating 5 out of 5]

Extremely intelligent book

[Caroline Jackson-man]

Vic and I are going for a cuppa with Richard Holloway one day

[Elaine · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rationally and succinctly expressed. A interesting look at the world, as we enter an age of morality without authority.

[Hugh Magee · Rating 5 out of 5]

A brilliant and courageous book. Goes to the heart of the 'ethical dilemma" that arises when religion and ethics are allowed to interact.

[Richard Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very challenging book which fairly places ethical behaviour in a context which does not require an underpinning from any supernatural entity or received religion.