Philosophers Without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life

by Louise M. Antony (Editor)

Atheists are frequently demonized as arrogant intellectuals, antagonistic to religion, devoid of moral sentiments, advocates of an "anything goes" lifestyle. Now, in this revealing volume, nineteen leading philosophers open a window on the inner life of atheism, shattering these common stereotypes as they reveal how they came to turn away from religious belief.
These highly engaging personal essays capture the marvelous diversity to be found among atheists, providing a portrait that will surprise most readers. Many of the authors, for example, express great affection for particular religious traditions, even as they explain why they cannot, in good conscience, embrace them. None of the contributors dismiss religious belief as stupid or primitive, and several even express regret that they cannot, or can no longer, believe. Perhaps more important, in these reflective pieces, they offer fresh insight into some of the oldest and most difficult problems facing the human mind and spirit. For instance, if God is dead, is everything permitted? Philosophers Without Gods demonstrates convincingly, with arguments that date back to Plato, that morality is independent of the existence of God. Indeed, every writer in this volume adamantly affirms the objectivity of right and wrong. Moreover, they contend that secular life can provide rewards as great
and as rich as religious life. A naturalistic understanding of the human condition presents a set of challenges--to pursue our goals without illusions, to act morally without hope of reward--challenges that can impart a lasting value to finite and fragile human lives.
Collectively, these essays highlight the richness of atheistic belief--not only as a valid alternative to religion, but as a profoundly fulfilling and moral way of life.

Genres: Philosophy, Atheism, Religion, Nonfiction, Essays, Spirituality, Academic

304 pages

First published June 27, 2007

Reviews

[robin friedman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Philosophers Without Gods

While philosophy and religion have long been my passion, I had a more specific reason for reading this collection of essays, "Philosophers Without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life" (2007), edited by Louise Antony. I had read Daniel Garber's 2009 Aquinas Lecture at Marquette University, Milwaukee, "What Happens After Pascal's Wager: Living Faith and Rational Belief" and was fascinated by Garber's careful, nuanced analysis of the nature of religious belief. Garber's Aquinas Lecture reaches the following seemingly paradoxical conclusion: "it seems to me that the conviction I have may well suffice for the salvation that I seek, the salvation that was the ultimate point of this whole exercise. And this leads to a delicious irony. It is possible that while the certainty that I arrive at through the Pascal Regimen may be good enough for eternal salvation, it isn't good enough for everyday life". Garber makes reference to his essay "Religio philosophi: Some Thoughts on God, Reason, and Faith" in "Philosophers Without Gods", the book under review here. I was so impressed by Garber's essay that I purchased "Philosophers Without Gods" immediately.

The book consists of essays by twenty philosophers, including Garber, and the editor of the volume, Louise Antony. Each of the philosophers in the book self-identifies as an atheist. In their individual essays, the philosophers explain why he or she does so and how he or she came to reject theism. The essays are all within the Judaic or Christian understanding of theism. They discuss Jewish and Christian theology and, crucially, they all engage with Biblical texts. It is important at the outset to be reminded that the Abrahamic faiths and the Bible do not necessarily exhaust theism.

Philosophical studies of religion and of atheism are legion but what sets "Philosophers Without Gods" apart is the personal, searching character of the essays. This is particularly the case for the first of the two parts of the book, which consists of ten essays under the heading "Journeys". These essays are heavily experiential in tone as the writers explain what led them to atheism, frequently after growing up in religious homes. Not accidentally, I think, the essays also suggest why their writers opted to become philosophers and to explore questions of religious faith in detail. I did not become an academic philosopher, but the book resonated with me and reminded me of my own life, journeys, and searchings.

In particular, the first four essays are by philosophers raised in Judaism. Garber's essay "Religio Philosophi" is in this group and it has a much more personal tone than his broader, more academic Aquinas Lecture. Garber describes his fascination with religious questions, particularly with the Christian mysticism and early Christian thought he encountered in his philosophical studies. For all the appeal and wisdom he drew from this tradition, Garber explains that he remained a nonbeliever and an atheist. The Aquinas Lecture, if I understand it correctly, is slightly more open to the possibility of belief.

The remaining three essays by Stewart Shapiro,Joseph Levine, and Louise Antony are also steeped in different ways in Judaism and show respect for its teachings even while the authors largely reject the religion. The six remaining essays in Part I by Daniel Farrell , Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Edwin Curley (the outstanding recent translator of the works of Spinoza), Marvin Belzer, James Tappenden, and Daniel Dennett are likewise heavily autobiographical, personal, and insightful from a perspective beginning in Christianity. I was deeply moved by the essays in this part of the book. The essays are accessible to readers who have faced questions of religious faith in their own lives and require no particular background in philosophy.

The essays in Part Two, "Reflections" continue the personal, meditative character of the essays in the first part but they tend to focus on specific philosophical issues. Thus the essays, including Elizabeth Anderson's "If God is Dead is Everything Permitted" address the claim that without God, "everything is permissible" or subject to relativism. The problem of evil, long a difficulty for religion is the subject of several essays, including the reconstructed essay "Divine Evil" by the late David Lewis.. Some of the essays, including "Transcendence without God" by Anthony Laden, and "Without the Net of Providence" by Kenneth Taylor discuss and reformulate traditional religious concepts in a secular way. I found these discussions insightful. David Owen's essay "Disenchantment" suggests the limitations of science even in a world without God. Marcia Homiak's "An Aristotelian Life" explores the "Nichomachean Ethics" as offering an alternative to theism. And the essays by Simon Blackburn, Richard Feldman, Georges Rey, and Jonathan Adler address aspects of atheism and theism in dialogue. In general, the essays in Part II of the book are somewhat more technical than those in Part I. Some of them are couched in the idiom of modern analytic philosophy.

This book is valuable for many reasons. For me, much of it was deeply personal and related to questions in my life. The book allows philosophers to speak for themselves and shows the still crucial character of the discussion between theism and atheism in understanding and in leading a good human life. More broadly, the book shows the continuing importance of philosophical thinking, an importance which sometimes is slighted by philosophers themselves. The book encourages the reader to think deeply about assumptions and about large issues. I do not consider myself an atheist but I also am not a theist within the terms of this book. I was glad to find this book and to think through it.

"Philosophers Without Gods" will appeal to serious readers with a strong interest in religious questions.

Robin Friedman

[Stephie Williams · Rating 5 out of 5]

A Most Excellent Book

This is the best book I have read since September last year (2014). The book is a collection of essays by a number of academic philosophers. In the first part, are essays that describe how their authors got to be atheists or how they live their lives. In this part of the book, I found a number of the essays were uplifting. They describe similar development of their atheism as my own. All of them were enjoyable. In the second part, the essays concentrated on various aspects of their authors' atheist ideas. This part I found to enrich my own ideas; some added ideas that I had not considered before. All the essays in this book were well written and straight forward. No gobbly-gook! Which I find to be the case with most atheist writings. I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in how atheism plays out in other people's lives, or who want to expand there knowledge of atheist ideas.

[David Crumm · Rating 1 out of 5]

An Insular Circle of Atheists Argue with their Students

In her introduction to this book, University of Massachusetts professor emeritus of philosophy Louise Antony promises that readers will be surprised by the diversity of voices in this volume published by the esteemed Oxford University Press.

In fact, the opposite was true as I read this book. Now, full disclosure, I've been a journalist covering religious and cultural diversity in the U.S. and around the world for 50 years, so I know and have come to respect a wide range of atheists both here and overseas. This book isn't diverse. It's an insular circle gathered between two covers.

In curating this book, Antony failed from the moment of her initial invitations. She invited only philosophers. She claims it's an international volume, but 18 are American and 2 are from the UK. Common arguments are repeated too many times throughout the book. For example, a number of these writers dwell on "the problem of evil": If there is a loving God, how can there be so much evil in the world? Plus, there are too many writers here railing against evangelicals or fundamentalists or traditionalist Catholics. It's a very Americans-talking-to-Americans collection.

This could have been much more fascinating. Belief and unbelief are fascinating subjects! I've devoted my career to covering a global diversity of responses to that vast spiritual range of approaching life. Why are we here? How shall we live? Does anything we do matter? These are the timeless, defining questions of humanity.

It's not boring, and that's why I'm so frustrated with Atony for producing a boring book. She clearly cares deeply about her atheist colleagues and argues that they are collectively often maligned as somehow evil. Well, I know from decades of reporting that they're not evil and some of the world's most noble people are unbelievers.

So, before I go any further, let me recommend a couple of other books by atheists that I regularly recommend to readers. I think James Gustave Speth's Bridge at the End of the World is a must-read volume for anyone who cares about our planet. And I have made gifts to friends of E.O. Wilson's The Creation and Letters to a Young Scientist. Both scholars are atheists and both care deeply about the core questions of existence—and our risks of extinction on this planet.

None of the writers in this volume have the stature of a Wilson or a Speth. Worse from my perspective is that these writers don't seem to share their extroverted, positive engagement with the world. In fact, reading these essays, many of which are personal and biographical, I suspect most of these folks are introverts. A few of these writers provide telling details that suggest they might be on an autistic spectrum, especially a handful that lay out two-dimensional arguments against the possibility of God that might trouble a questioning undergraduate—but are flimsy on the face of it. These few authors I'm referring to here don't seem capable of understanding the spiritual wonderment that Pew Research tells us is a part of the daily lives of a majority of Americans. I begin to suspect that some of these writers became philosophers because they simply couldn't understand what felt like an inscrutable component within their friends' lives. Most of the writers explain that they prefer secular philosophy because it provides them a more rational approach to life that they can navigate through scholarship.

Unfortunately, in some cases, this leads to flat-out blindness. One writer actually argues that science has "disenchanted" the world, because "scientists" now understand how the world, the cosmos and the human body work. Really? Tell that to the cutting-edge scientists who regularly express their deep wonderment at ongoing discoveries. And tell that to the families of the 10 million people who still die each year after their often-agonizing and still deeply mysterious struggles with cancer.

Try saying to those folks: There's no spiritual wonderment left in the world. Science has solved all problems. That argument might stump some undergraduates in a Philosophy 101 course, but in the real world? Hardly!

And that's another very troubling aspect to this book. In a handful of cases, readers can tell that some scholars represented here are real jerks. They look down on their undergraduates and seem to enjoy playing with undergraduates' naive attempts to navigate the waters of philosophy and religion. I came away from this book with a list of scholars that—Thank God!—I never studied under during my various returns to universities for additional classes and fellowships. Maybe that's one good reason to buy this book: You'll find some scholars whose classes you can advise undergraduates to avoid.

But all of those problems do not even touch this book's biggest failing: It's quite simply not a global exploration of these issues. It's a very homogenous circle, like a clique of scholars who perhaps know each other through the various annual conferences they attend.

What do I mean? In my reporting, for instance, I've met and interviewed Italian Communist atheists and Vietnamese Communist atheists—whose interior and public lives are in different cosmos. They have vastly different concepts of the terms "Communist" as well as "atheist." Another example: I've reported for many years on the global spread of Humanistic Judaism, which is a movement that deeply respects Jewish heritage, culture and values but does not include a belief in God. A third example: One of the most fascinating areas of the theism-and-atheism spectrum is Buddhism, which in many global forms is—as the Dalai Lama himself has said in English—"Godless." A fourth example: Pew Research tells us that China has evolved into a world of hundreds of millions of people who do not believe in God, while many still practice rituals and philosophical traditions that are thousands of years old.

Doesn't that sound like the fascinating outline for a book about atheism? I think so! Unfortunately, it's not this book. None of those topics—and my list of missed examples could go on and on—are addressed by Antony and her friends.

I purchased this book because I wanted to enjoy it. I began reading with high hopes. And, I did enjoy the opening two chapters, but then I began to realize the limitations of this insular circle of friends. I am writing at this length, because I'm someone who is known to folks nationwide for covering religious diversity and people do occasionally ask me what books to read related to atheism.

I continue to suggest: Start by reading Speth and Wilson.

[James Murphy · Rating 5 out of 5]

This interesting collection of essays about atheism by contemporary philosophers is divided into 2 parts: Journeys and Reflections. It's the Journeys I thought more meditative. They're essays dealing with how those philosophers, raised in religious backgrounds, came to their unbelief. They're more reminiscent and explanatory. The reflections of the 2d part are more characteristic of the heavy lifting philosophy does, disciplined argument steeped in logical thought.

The concepts supporting atheism are pretty much what I'd expected on beginning the book. It's the articulation of those ideas in such clear, reasoned argument which give the essays their power. And much of it, as several essays point out, is common sense based on irrefutable fact. The existence of God is central to everything here, and a thread running through it all is that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The logic of philosophy. Another major topic is the rationalization that the existence of God is neither necessary or sufficient for morality. Further, that there are many different standards of morality.

In the first section, dealing with the journey to unbelief, a main point made is that one can only come to realistic perceptions about faith if one has the background necessary to allow the formation of realistic conclusions. Children can't make such distinctions themselves. Other essays address self-deception as a component of religious belief. I found the writing of Georges Rey refreshing. He censures the polemics of Dawkins and Dennett claiming religious people are lacking in intelligence. The essay by Elizabeth Anderson I thought very forceful. It addresses the meaninglessness of religion today. The function of early deisms was to provide explanations, in the absence of science, for events which had no human cause, such as plague, drought, even good weather. Today's science provides proof.

The subtitle, "Reflections on Atheism and the Secular Life," suggests a gentler, more contemplative approach to the issues discussed, a reasoning for the advantages of a secular life. The essays are too rigorously professional for that. At the same time they're balanced and presented in ways that are inoffensive. Some of them do make for challenging reading. However, it's not so difficult as to be inaccessible. In the first couple of pieces I was confused by details of the Torah as described by philosophers raised in the Jewish tradition. And I got lost in the thicket of Richard Feldman's essay called "Reasonable Religious Disagreements." Mostly it's reading as manageable as the yachts in the cover painting, tranquilly maneuvering through a bay of sunshine.

[Steve · Rating 5 out of 5]

Aside from a few ad hoc generalizations, this is why I like reading philosophy. Well-reasoned, thought-provoking essays from atheists who hail from religious and non-religious backgrounds to let the world know their moral compass is alive and well.

And their compass will never irrationally tell them to do something counter-intuitive to human kind.

[ExtraGravy · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is split into two parts. Part one is called Journeys. I read every essay in this section and enjoyed/benefited from them all. They are like personal testimonies to their loss of faith. I could have read many more of these. Part two is called reflections and these essays were more hit and miss for me.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A SERIES OF TWENTY PHILOSOPHICAL ESSAYS REJECTING TRADITIONAL RELIGIOUS FAITH

Editor Louise M. Anthony wrote in the Introduction to this 2007 collection, “This volume is meant to contribute to a more just understanding of those who have rejected religious belief. It collects essays from twenty leading philosophers from Great Britain and the United States, all of whom abjure traditional religious faith. Contributors to the first section… write in a personal vein, describing and reflecting upon the development of their own positions on issues like the existence of God and the basis of moral value. Authors in the second section … discuss in a more general way philosophical questions that arise in connection with religion and theology: Is religious faith really a form of belief? Can an atheist affirm the meaningfulness of human existence? Without God, is anything sacred?... I hope the reader will be struck … by the marvelous diversity of perspectives expressed in these pages, some of which the reader may find quite surprising. Many of the authors, for example, express great affection for particular religious traditions, even as they explain why they cannot, in good conscience, embrace them.”

Ms. Anthony explains in her own essay, ‘For the Love of Reason,’ “I continued to consider myself a devout Catholic all during high school… But while I carried my religious identity with me to college, I carried right along with it a still-unsated curiosity about matters theological and moral. The one was about to come crashing into conflict with the other… The first rumblings of distress arose with our survey of the traditional arguments for the existence of God…. I had to admit in the end that none of them seemed fully convincing… But then came the day that literally changed my life---the day when I first heard the ‘argument from evil.’ … I was not satisfied with the proffered explanations of natural evil. I saw no particular reason to believe, other than the mere desire to do so, that an OMNIPOTENT God could not devise a better way of organizing the world than the plans currently in evidence.” (Pg. 48-49)

She continues, “By the middle of my first semester, I was experiencing a full-blown crisis of faith… In the end, it was more philosophy that saved me. My class… was studying the basis of moral value [in Plato’s dialogue Euthyphro]… are acts of kindness, courage, and so forth good only because they are the kinds of things God happens to like? Or is it rather that God, being perfectly good, likes such acts because they are good? The first possibility struck me as morally repugnant: it made God’s preferences morally arbitrary… on the second option… [God’s] prescriptions and prohibitions do not CONSTITUTE moral goodness; they are, rather, MANIFESTATIONS of it… Once I realized that God was not necessary for there to be objective moral value, I also realized that religious BELIEF was not necessary for anyone to be a good person… At last I was ready to admit to myself that I no longer believed in God.” (Pg. 51)

Walter Sinnott-Armstrong recalls, “a student … asked me to debate William Lane Craig in an open forum at Dartmouth. I agreed. I knew that Craig had been studying these issues full-time for many years, and he was known as a master debater. Still, if I did not try to articulate my views, I would see myself as a coward. So I accepted. Nervously, I prepared by looking at Craig’s Web site, where I found his standard arguments. Then I checked with colleagues at Dartmouth about each point. I was ready. The debate went well for me. For weeks afterward, atheists came out of their closet to congratulate me… Not much later, I received an invitation to debate Craig again. I was told that this time he insisted that I go first. Fine. So I constructed my three arguments against the existence of God… and debated him in a large evangelical church. This one went pretty well, too. I felt as if I was doing something important… I found a publisher, and Craig and I published a debate book together, each adding responses to each other’s criticisms. Some of my Christian friends do not appreciate our book. They tell me that their brand of Christianity is nothing like the kind that Craig defends … Despite some opposition, our book’s reviews and reactions have been generally gratifying… This exchange indicates a larger problem. Many theists feel perfectly justified in abusing atheists… Most atheists I know let ridiculous religious views go unchallenged… Whatever the reason, theists speak out, but atheists remain silent.” (Pg. 77-78)

Edwin Curley states, “So far, my objections have been mainly theological; they are objections to teachings whose basis is primarily scriptural rather than philosophical… I know many Christians will not feel that their understanding of Christianity requires them to accept all these doctrines… I think Christians who adopt a freer attitude toward scripture---and do not feel that their acceptance of Christianity commits them to predestination, or Hell, or original sin, or justification by faith, or exclusivism---those Christians have their hearts in the right place, I say. But I also think their feet may be firmly planted on the slippery slope to heresy, and that more conservative Christians… have a clearer right to call themselves Christians. How much of traditional Christianity can you reject and still be a Christian?” (Pg. 85)

Daniel Dennett reveals, “Two weeks ago, I was rushed by ambulance to a hospital, where it was determined … that I had a ‘dissection of the aorta’… Fortunately for me, the fact that I’d had a coronary bypass graft seven years ago probably saved my life… As I now enter a gentle period of recuperation, I have much to reflect on about the harrowing experience itself and even more about the flood of supporting messages I’ve received since word got out about my latest adventure. Friends were anxious to learn if I had had a near-death experience… Had I had an epiphany?... or was my atheism still intact and unchanged?... I saw with greater clarity than ever before … that when I say ‘Thank goodness!’… I really do mean THANK GOODNESS! There is a lot of goodness in this world, and more goodness every day, and this fantastic human-made fabric of excellence is genuinely responsible for the fact that I am alive today.” (Pg. 113-114)

Simon Blackburn suggests, “there is another option for meaning, and for our interpretation of religious art, which is to look only within life itself… There is sufficient meaning for human beings in the human world… A smile does not need to go on forever in order to mean what it does. There is nothing beyond or apart from the processes of life. Furthermore, there is no one goal to which all these processes tend, but we can find something precious… in the processes themselves. There is no such thing as THE meaning of life, but there can be many meanings within a life… But equally, many hopes are vain and reports of the transcendent realm strike many of us as nothing but wish fulfillment, fiction, and delusion… And things do not gain meaning just by going on for a very long time, or even forever… Too much [time] and they become boring. An infinity and they would be intolerable.” (Pg. 190-191)

Georges Ray asserts what he calls ‘meta-atheism,’ meaning: “Despite appearances, many Western adults who’ve been exposed to standard science and sincerely claim to believe in God are self-deceived; at some level they believe the claim is false… Note that I’m not at all concerned to criticize religious PRACTICES---meditating, keeping a sabbath, attending church, or engaging in rituals surrounding birth, marriage and death. I am certainly not unsympathetic to religious resistance to the crass ‘materialism’ and commerciality of much contemporary culture, nor even opposed to some sense of what people call the ‘spiritual,’ understood as a certain respectful feeling toward the world and other people, and a valuing of their less superficial properties. I am concerned only with the CONTENT of the SUPERNATURAL CLAIMS that are made on behalf of these practices and attitudes. It is only these that I suspect are understood by most people in my culture to be obviously false.” (Pg. 245) Later, he adds, “The simplest argument for atheism is that one should disbelieve a hypothesis whose expected consequences don’t mesh with any evidence. More bluntly: absence of evidence is evidence of absence---at least after you’ve looked.” (Pg. 248)

This is a very interesting collection of essays, that will be of great interest to those studying the Philosophy of Religion, Atheism, and other forms of skepticism.

[Dale · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a collection of essays on various topics related to religious belief by writers who are mostly not religious believers. Many of the writers were ex-religious believers and seemed to have some sort of longing for their previous beliefs, or were upset in some way that they could no longer believe. I found those sorts of attitudes uninteresting.

The 2 essays that were moderately interesting were by Simon Blackburn (a sort of personal hero of mine) and Richard Feldman, a professor of philosophy at the University of Rochester.

Blackburn explored the question of respect for religious belief. He told an anecdote about having been invited to dinner by a religious person, a person who knew that Blackburn was an atheist. The host then proceeded to ask Blackburn to participate in some minor way in a religious observance - he was asked to wear some kind of hat, or something. Blackburn refused, and says that the rest of the evening was pretty uncomfortable (as one can well imagine). From this story, Blackburn then explores the meaning of respect, and its application to religious belief and to religious practices (two very different things, of course). In the end he concludes that respect for religious belief should be no different than respect for any other kind of belief - it has to be based on the reason and evidence that lead to that belief, and it is simply wrong, or a misuse of the word 'respect', to respect beliefs for which there is no evidence. On the question of respect (in a different sense, meaning 'toleration for' or even 'participation in') of religious practice, Blackburn remains undecided.

Feldman wrote an interesting essay asking whether it is possible even in principle for there to be reasonable disagreement. That is, if I believe A and you believe B, and it cannot be true that A and B are both true (though perhaps both might be false), is it possible for us to have a reasonable disagreement. Is it possible for me, believing A, to say that you are reasonable to believe B? He sets out the rules of the game fairly well: assume that we each have access to the other's evidence and reasons for the opposing belief, and suppose that we are able to mutually question and probe each other's beliefs. In that case, if I continue to say that your belief in B is reasonable, can I still maintain my belief in A, or do I have to say that I must withhold judgment?

[Lachlan · Rating 5 out of 5]

During the Darwin Festival in Cambridge, there was inevitably some discussion of the impact of evolutionary theory on religion, although this theme luckily did not dominate proceedings at all. The prominent atheists Richard Dawkins (recently characterized by Fern Elsdon-Baker as "Darwin's Rottweiler") and Daniel Dennett were both there, but their contributions were generally mild. What struck me was the casuistry of the (few) spokespeople for the religious view as against the straightforwardness of the representatives of science -- whose wonder at the complexities of evolved life and whose commitment to ethical issues were very apparent, and much applauded. Against this background, I picked up Philosophers without Gods at Heffers, the legendary Cambridge bookshop. It contains twenty essays by contemporary US and UK atheist philosophers, most of whom do other kinds of philosophy as their "day job": epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of language/mathematics/logic, feminism, etc. The first ten essays are autobiographical, tracking the course of the authors' thinking from early childhood to mature adulthood. This works very well for me, since the emphasis is on inner debates and personal choices (Dennett is here, too, talking of his experience after life-saving surgery). The second half of the book is meatier, as the writers use the tools of philosophical argument to grapple with the heavy issues: is enchantment, is transcendence, possible without God?; is a good life possible without religion?; do religions deserve the respect they still tend to get?; are believers deceiving themselves?; are fanaticism and religion necessarily linked?; can you have a reasonable debate with a believer? Although parts of the book are hard-hitting, none of the authors thinks that believers are stupid, and most have affection for religious traditions (one of many moving moments in the book is where one atheist philosopher confesses to visiting churches and leaving coins in the collection box for restoration work). No matter what your own personal position is, this book will be a lasting source of inspiration and reflection.

[Socraticgadfly · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great book of essays, each running from around 10 to 20 pages in length, about issues of "deconversion" to non-theism, all by people who are now professional philosophers.

Only one, Dan Dennett, is an outright Gnu Atheist. Only a few others might be called "evangelizing atheists." But none is a shirking violet as to how they address these issues.

Some spend more time on their actual deconversion and how that appears from a philosophic angle. Others, whether evangelizers or not, focus on their current relations with religion in general, or conservative apologists for the religion of their childhood, either Christianity or Judaism. (The one small down point: no ex-Muslim atheist philosopher seems to be in this book.) On this issue, the different philosophers vary within themselves on issues such as "respect" for Christianity in general (I'm taking this as the "default" in America and Britain alike), or how much respect, or whatever, more liberal versions of Christianity deserve.

Others focus more on their post-deconversion lives, including with bits of wistfulness, though not full regret, for some parts of their past. One, Paul Farrell, whom has promised me some materials via snail mail, talks about second-order values and applying those in a secular way after having learned to in a Catholic way when younger. (I found this triggered thoughts of Catholic, and Lutheran in my case, "vocation," and also got me to thinking about Aristotelian flourishing, among other things.)

Anyway, per that last comment, you'll probably gather, if you're someone who follows my reviews, that this is a book to read. There's no formal logic or anything else even very close to being technical or jargonistic.

[Eli · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was about time for me to finish this anthology. Im much of a passive reader; I dont do the detailed-analytical-reviews thing. If you want to read other voices other than Hitchens or whatever, i highly recommend this book. It left me wanting for more, probably because Ive been reading books of this sort for a while, and was not so impressed. I liked that they included the essay "If God is dead, is everything permitted?". Had already read it in Hitchens anthology. I understand the book was published and marketted for the anglo-speaking world, which is dominated by Christianity and Judaism... But I was expecting at least one or two essays on something else. Of course, in general, the arguments can be applied to other religious discourses (like Adler's take on fanatism). I enjoyed "Divine Evil. The Neglected Argument". Dont remember the authors name (and I am on my fucking cellphone now). I enjoy some autobiographical stuff, but when too many of the authors fill space with that kind of material, it becomes a little annoying. But in general, its a good anthology. Its always nice to read other voices.

[Earl Biringer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting collection of essyas by atheistic philosophers, but nothing ground-breaking here. The first section is pretty acccessable to the non-philosopher as it deals with the personal side of their "conversions." the second section can probably be a little dense (but not too much so) to those unused to the academic philosophical lexicon, but is still worth reading - the struggle isn't too painful! The last three essays are probably of most interest from a purely philosophical perspective as they at least put an intriguing spin on some old arguments: David lewis talks about how any concept of god results in the determinition that he/she/it must be an evil being; George Rey attempts to show that all religious believers are engaging in some level of self-deception; and Jonathan Adler comes to the cocnusion that fanatacism (and therefore the potential for terrorism) are the natural result of all true (non-self-deceptive) religious belief.

[Malola · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent. Definitely worth reading. Though, I think (excepting a couple of essays) it's somewhat introductory, BUT still a very fine read all along. David Owens' points on the pharmacy of the future were very interesting, especially when considering the value of prudency.
Overall the authors ponder on the inevitable conclusion: the tension (if not contradiction) of religious doctrine.

[Ashna Singh · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very very very good book.

[Jc · Rating 3 out of 5]

As mentioned in previous book comments, collections of papers/essays are always mixed bags. This one certainly is. I wanted to like it more (certainly a great title, and L.M. Anthony's intro and essay are both good), but half the essays are saying the same thing in almost the same words (okay, I get it - Aristotle's Aethics is important). There is so much to discuss related to the main topic, so I wish the authors had been better prompted to vary their topics a bit more. About half the essays are really good, the others are so, so to downright boring (and just repeating what you already read in the better ones). Often the essays read like a lay person's stereotype of how philosophers speak. For what it's worth, I found most of the essays in the first part ("Journeys"), while a bit redundant, were worth the read. For the second part ("Reflections"), just randomly choose 3-4, then skip the rest.

[Paul C. Stalder · Rating 4 out of 5]

Most of these collected essays are well-written, informative, and quite thoughtful. Some were pheonomal; essays that I re-read in order to fully digest the content within. As with most collections of essays, handful were dreadful. To my suprise, the ones which I disliked the most were authored by the editor of the work. Antony may be able to bring a good collection together, but I would recommend skipping the essays authored by her.

[zadie navarrete]

give this book to your fanatic family member that only knows the caricature of atheists (he shall not be named but his name does rhyme with dichard rawkins)

[Nancy Dinan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some brilliant essays some very boring ones

[Andrew Schaeffer · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great collection of essays. Learned some new things

[Clare Pacella · Rating 4 out of 5]

Memoir + philosophy + existence of god??? SIGN ME UP! It is fascinating to see how people, particularly philosophers, fall out of faith and how they cope with any feelings of loss (or gain) from those experiences. I found this anthology much more compelling than God and the Philosophers, which I also had to read for class. Some essays are drier than others, but that’s okay because there are many different authors with interesting perspectives! I especially loved the essays that included childhood anecdotes and humor.

[Charlie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Atheists are a small minority in the English-speaking world but rather common in departments of analytic philosophy. This book lets atheist philosophers speak for themselves. The first half consists of "Journeys," in which the authors autobiographically recount how they became atheists and philosophers (two often related conversions). The second half consists of "Reflections," essays that explore some question of philosophy from a specifically atheist perspective, defend atheism, rebut religion, or offer a combination thereof.

I found the premise interesting but not all that exciting. The essays too were mixed. Some of the ones I found best written:

Joseph Levine's (ch. 2) journey from yeshiva rabbi in training to anti-Zionist secular humanist.

Louise Antony's (ch. 4) journey from troubled but fervent Catholic to somewhat troubled adamantly atheist freethinker (?).

Edwin Curley's (ch. 7) journey from evangelical Christian to atheist, "backwards" through C. S. Lewis.

Anthony Laden's (ch. 11) reflection on transcendence and "invisible people," in conversation with Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics.

Marcia Homiak's (ch. 12) reflection positing updated Aristotelianism as a replacement for religious morality.

Richard Feldman's (ch. 16) epistemological essay on what constitutes reasonable religious disagreement.

[Catherine · Rating 3 out of 5]

I expected some scholarly pieces on the relationship between religion and philosophy, but this book is rather different. They are personal essays written by contemporary western philosophers (all American, I think) on the ways in which their conflict was or was not resolved. The general consensus seems to be that morality can exist independently of the presence of "God," which is a profound relief to all; the question then remains, what is the point of "God?" None of the philosophers set out to prove or disprove the existence of God; they are much more interested in the function of a divine being with respect to moral governance, predestination, etc. Not surprisingly, most of the philosophers in question came from deeply religious backgrounds or grew up with people who were religious in the conventional sense. The childhood answers remain unresolved, despite their adulthood search for the truth.

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent collection. The Atheist books that have received the most attention in recent years have all had angry tones (I haven't read them all of course, but in interviews their authors come as angry) and as bracing as that can be for those of us who share the authors' beliefs it can also be off putting. Enter Philosophers Without God which is calm and reasonable, as one would expect from a book written by philosophers.
Of course, if all this had to offer was a polite tone it wouldn't be worth much. Luckily the essays in the book are wonderful. Taking a variety of subjects related to Atheism they provide a rich look at the diversity of thought doubters have. My personal favorites were the ones that mixed autobiography with the philosophy. I wish I had been reading this along side a religious friend so we could discuss the essays. I know I'll read this again someday for both enjoyment and enlightenment.

[Russell · Rating 5 out of 5]

This collection of essays by philosophers who are atheists is sheer pleasure and I cannot recommend it highly enough. It is an unfortunately novel joy to read writings about religion where the authors have thought so deeply about the subject. Few of the essays even resemble the kind of tirades against religion that many people will probably expect from a book of this type. In fact, nearly all of them are very thoughtful and respectful, even as they offer criticism. Several of the authors even write extremely personal essays where they sometimes even suggest that they miss being religious.

I recommend this book to anyone interested in the subject matter whether they are an atheist, agnostic, or even highly religious. Any thoughtful reader will gain something from these wonderful essays.

[A YOGAM · Rating 4 out of 5]

Philosophers Without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life ist ein Buch, das von Louise M. Antony herausgegeben wurde. Es handelt sich um eine Sammlung von Essays, in denen 20 zeitgenössische Philosophen, die selbst Atheisten oder Agnostiker sind, über ihre Gründe für den Verzicht auf religiösen Glauben und über ihr Leben ohne Gott nachdenken. Die Essays behandeln persönliche und philosophische Erfahrungen, reflektieren über Moral und Sinn im Leben ohne Religion und diskutieren, wie eine säkulare Weltanschauung mit Themen wie Ethik, Glück und existenziellen Fragen umgeht.
IN ARBEIT!

[Joel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Forget "the new Atheists" (except Dennett, I guess, who has a chapter here), this is the best new book on atheism.

The first half consists of atheist philosophers from a variety of backgrounds reflecting on the paths that led them to atheism, and it is, except maybe for "Foreskin's Lament", the best thing I have read all year.

The second half consists of more philosophical "thinkpieces", which are slightly more of a mixed bag (a few of them are kind of on the dense side). But the book would get 5 stars based on the first half alone. Highly recommended!

[Ray A.]

Part One, "Journeys," is based to some extent on the experience of the writers and raises some questions worth thinking about, though they deal more with religion than with God. Part Two, "Reflections," is often very abstract and doesn't shed any new light on the standard arguments against faith and the existence.

[Kitty · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall it was excellent. A couple of the essays were a little less interesting to me, but most were great. Highly recommend it. I hope to own a copy because I'd like to reread some of the essays.

[Onyango Makagutu · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very good read, well thought out and convincing.

[Chris O'Neill · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was disappointed. It got repetitive after the 6th essay. I was hoping for some perspectives outside of the Judeo-christian traditions. Unfortunately, it did not deliver.