Customer Reviews

An Atheist Defends Religion: Why Humanity is Better Off with Religion Than Without It

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Don't take the stars too seriously in this case. I think this book will be useful to some and useless to others.

Roger Sheiman, "grew up in a religious-neutral, theologically confused household. [...] went to a Jesuit college and learned to do what Jesuits do--question everything, including religion. Self-reflection and critical reasoning were the forces that molded me into an obstinate atheist."

Sheiman would like to believe in God, but can't, yet finds his atheism rather barren. "devoid of depth, value, and meaning." I simply disagree, so these arguments don't move me. The reader who is troubled by such questions would probably do well to pick up this book. To be fair, Sheiman is speaking about society at large more than giving individual advice.

Unlike David G. Myers in A Friendly Letter to Skeptics and Atheists: Musings on Why God Is Good and Faith Isn't Evil, he does not urge atheists and skeptics to practice religion in hopes of becoming religious. He does, however, think that religion is a great force for good in the lives of humanity. At times he is talking about any and all religions, but at other times he exalts Christianity above all others.

I came to atheism by another route: I was religious as a child and became disillusioned. To me, accepting atheism was finding a sanctuary. I share some of the distress of Sheiman and others at militant atheism, as practiced by the belligerent Dawkins, Hitchens, etc., but I am also disheartened by the fact that atheists are attacked merely for being atheists, so I suppose one might argue that one might as well be tactless.

I don't find Sheiman's glorification of religion entirely convincing. The argument that churchgoers are superior people simply doesn't resonate, giving my experience with actually going to church. I don't look back and think that those were loving, supportive people and that I miss the experience of going to church. I know several deeply religious people who are truly models for humanity, but I'm not convinced that it is their church-going and not their nature that makes them so wonderful. Consider the Phelps family of the Westboro Baptist Church who picket soldiers' funerals and spew hatred with almost everything they say publicly. They certainly seem to be ardent in their faith and practice. Even so, I know good people who find their churches central to their lives, and I would never attempt to take it away from them.

Sheiman has a lot of impressive statistics, but there are other counter statistics. Some similar statistics, especially in David G. Myers book, seem a little ambiguous. The conservative Christian David Kinnaman reveals in the book unChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity... and Why It Matters that public opinion about Christians has gone south. especially among those under thirty, as people find them overly judgmental, hypocritical and insensitive. When one compares these to the case made in Phil Zuckerman's Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment, it will take a better head than mine to make sense of it all. Why isn't the United States a "kinder, gentler nation" since it is so religious? Why don't we score better on measures of social welfare? Mike Cuthbert of NPR was interviewing T. R. Reid about his new book The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care and wondering, rather indignantly, why "post-religious" wealthy European democracies are willing to provide health care as a right, and the church-going United States allows tens of thousands of people to die every year from treatable diseases. I'm not sure that "large" and "not homogeneous" are adequate explanations if all religions strive for human welfare; besides the US is still largely Christian and was even more so in the past.

There is one part of the book which is truly bad, and the most charitable interpretation that one can make is that Sheiman has seriously misunderstood works like The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design. That is chapter 11, "The Existential Implications of Science: Does Life Have a Purpose?". His CARL (Chance + Accidents + Randomness + Luck) is a misrepresentation of the arguments of science; the only question is whether or not it is deliberate. In evolution, as Dawkins and many other science writers have explained, CARL is acted upon by natural selection, which is not at all random, so the chapter is almost entirely nonsense and put me quite out of patience with Sheiman. The entropy argument has been repeatedly discredited: it applies to closed systems, and the earth is an open system constantly receiving energy from the sun.

He further posits "intelligent design without intelligence divine." Stephen Gould, who he quotes in other places, would argue vehemently against his claim that life tends toward complexity. I find this concept too poorly developed to make sense of how this is supposed to work. If this comforts Sheiman on a personal level, I wouldn't try to argue him out of it, but as presented for general consumption in this book, I find it very unconvincing, and personally, unnecessary.

I really enjoyed reading this book. This is, I believe, the closest thing to a "neutral" position that we will find in the never-ending atheism-vs.-theism debate.

Sheiman has obviously done his homework -- he pulls quotes from probably a hundred other authors, and covers just about every topic imaginable, from the violence perpetrated by religious extremists (i.e. terrorists) to evolution/creation in the public school classroom. He describes himself as "an atheist sympathetic to theists," so throughout the book, he takes every attack that militant atheists (such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens) have made on religion and picks it apart. He makes a case for why religion is GOOD for society (and for the individual, as cases allow) and is actually flourishing when it has been predicted that we would "evolve away" from religion.

I also very much appreciated his distinction between science (which is values-neutral) and what he calls "scientism," a perversion of science that militant atheists use to justify their attack on religion. I am a Christian that loves science, so it has always bothered me when people pervert science for their own agenda (religious or not). I sincerely hope his coining of the term "scientism" catches on, and religious people will begin to embrace science more fully.

My only issue with this book is that I often felt like I was reading a textbook. It was, for the most part, very dry and sometimes difficult to read. I think in the interest of reaching more people, it could have been a little bit more colloquial and a little less academic in its linguistic styling.

Sheiman gives excellent arguments showing why the "New Atheists" are wrong in claiming that science can explain everything, wrong in claiming that science "disproves" God, and wrong in claiming that religion is inherently inferior to atheistic secularism. He also shows that both faith and reason are equally necessary for all critical thought, whether in science or in religion. As I was reading I kept wondering, "So why isn't Sheiman a theist?" As it turns out, he takes all of the properties which have normally been identified with "the supernatural" and simply attributes them to aspects of nature which cannot be detected by science. Thus for Sheiman there is no "supernatural" because the entirety of "the natural" is all there is, even though science can never uncover all of nature's secrets. Ultimately I suppose the "New Atheists" will claim that Sheiman's views are not really any different than a deist's. But Sheiman will respond that whether or not his views are logically distinct from a bland, general deism, he is still entitled to call himself an atheist because he cannot bring himself to believe that the "scientifically undetectable" aspects of nature should be given the "supernatural" label.

"An Atheist Defends Religion" offers a thoughtful synthesis of the great theological questions of our time and an eloquent treatment of religion that will generate discussion for years to come. Moreover, Sheiman goes a long way to identify the affirmative dimensions of religion that challenge the thinking of mainstream atheism. Ultimately, his book isn't only a philosophical examination of humanity's need for faith. He also helped me understand what faith means in my life.

I have spent most of my adult life with a nebulous sense of my own beliefs. This book helped to articulate my needs and how religion satisfies those needs. Paradoxically, "An Atheist Defends Religion" offers a new religious paradigm that does a better job defining religion than books written by so-called religious experts. Whether you're a believer or atheist (and I am somewhere in between), this book will help you understand the meaning of religion from the perspective of the consumer of religion -- you.

Bruce Sheiman seeks to resolve the science-religion conflict by envisioning both disciplines as serving one common purpose: the flourishing of humanity. Sheiman first describes the three dominant understandings of the religion-science debate:

(1) The "Irreconcilable Conflict" model is driven by extremists on both sides of the spectrum; in the minds of extremists, there is little hope for rapprochement; the only way there can be a resolution is in defeat of the other side.

(2) The "Mutual Respect" model, offered by S.J. Gould, says that science and religion occupy separate "magisteria" or domains; Sheiman says this paradigm is inadequate because it still holds that the two disciplines are intrinsically incompatible.

(3) The "Integration" model, offered by religious scientists like Francis Collins ("The Language of God"), brings the two disciplines together by subsuming all of science under one Divine Creator, which obviously does not satisfy unbelievers.

According to Sheiman, the most constructive way to understand science and religion is in their "Shared Vision of Humanism," wherein both disciplines are dedicated to the advancement of the human enterprise. Like religion, science is devoted to the alleviation of human suffering and the perfection of humankind. And like science, religion promises the collective progression of humanity. Sheiman asserts that the time has come to affirm the vital importance of science and religion to humanity and to the planet.

After reading this book, I must say that I was really impressed with how Mr. Sheiman the author was able to present an insightful and educational look into how religion has played an influential role in shaping human history particularity in the western world, and also how it has been mostly a positive one. While Mr. Sheiman himself clearly states that he is an atheist, he is also an "aspiring theist" though explains why he remains in the position he is in. Nevertheless, he can understand, appreciate, and even respect what religion gives people as I do and its inherent valve it consists of overall. He delves into issues such as finding life's meaning not in the typical sense of what we do professionally or how we live personally, but rather to seek why there is existence at all and what sort of role and purpose one has in the cosmic scheme of things if anything at all. Of course the meaning of life varies from person to person, therefore there is no universal answer to this specific question. However, if there has been any institution that exults and elevates humanity to greater levels of spiritual and cosmic worth which we seek in different ways for what Mr. Sheiman calls "Transcendental Spiritual Reality" it has been religion as he explains and I humbly concur with him on this issue. Almost everyone including those who are secularist( like myself though I'm not an atheist) seeks this whether one believes in a god or not.

Mr. Sheiman even goes into how religion as an institution as been effective in upholding ethics to the highest standard while explaining people can be good without religion, there is a profound difference between innate goodness that had been discovered from the findings of Harvard Psychologist Marc Hauser who has argued that people do have an innate sense of right and wrong. However, Mr. Sheiman says that while this may be scientific discovery does have validity, is has been religion that has been the moral and ethical bridge that connects innate goodness of being manifested through actual behavior for the most part. This being from chapter 2, also contains statistics from various sources that religious organizations give more charity then those of secular ones. He also provides empirical data from numerous studies that have shown that religion has been a powerful catalyst in helping people to recover from illnesses, preventing depression, suicide, substance abuse, and other things like those that do harm to someone from chapter 4. In chapter 5 is perhaps my favorite so far in terms of how religion has been a contributing factor of righteousness to promote human rights and progression of science contrary to the contentions of militant atheists who cherry-pick the worst historical events that involves religion. Science emerged as a result of religious aspirations to know that there was a reason and purpose for why the universe and nature is here, and therefore science didn't continue to grow because of a few so-called enlightened thinkers who revolted from religious dogma. Instead, most of the vast majority scientists throughout history were religious as Mr. Sheiman argues who've made great achievements because of their religious convictions. He also goes into a variety of other issues that surround religion, such as the spectrum between religious and secular fundamentalism which clearly is indicated by the way Sheiman explains how both are equally detrimental, therefore religion is not always to blame for extremism all the time. Also how in my favorite chapter "Militant Atheist's abuse of science" where Sheiman addresses how the problem between science and religion is not the case, but rather of religion versus what has been called "scientism". This specifically refers to how the militant atheists literally misuse science to make it deliberately that science is strictly atheistic and incompatible with religious insight which Sheiman makes a great rebuttal that this is invalid. I personally appreciate how he talked about that which I haven't seen any atheists acknowledge that and how especially scientific reductionism makes one feel to be nothing more than the sum of their biological parts as described by prominent scientists like Frances Crick and EO Wilson. The last three chapters discuss how religion and science are not contradictory, but rather complementary to each other in terms of one obtaining knowledge of the natural world, and the other to find the meaning and purpose with such knowledge that is discovered. Also how both reason and faith are not in conflict, but rather are intertwined for both science and religion as he explains thoroughly and persuasively.


Finally, the last chapter as to whether life itself has a purpose existentially speaking beyond what we as individuals give it. This is of course a fundamental question we all ask each other and ourselves from time to time and some of us find the answer and some don't or just keep looking for it. He uses an acronym called CARL meaning chance+accidents+randomness+luck+ not in reference to evolution itself which is far from random, but rather to the origins of both life and the universe being truly being accidents ( which I myself I'm very skeptical about). Also he proposes what he calls "intelligent design without intelligent divine", that I don't really agree with, but can nevertheless respect and appreciate for what Sheiman is trying to say in terms of trying to find a middle ground so to speak between religious literalism and scientific materialism. In closing, I must say that this has been a great read that clearly displays that not all atheists are dogmatic, militant, or intolerant towards theists or religious belief itself. I just hope one day we can as human beings can get passed our differences whether one is a theist, deist, agnostic, or an atheist, and judge each other for who we are not for our positions as mentioned. I truly admire and appreciate Mr. Sheiman as to leveling the playing field in showing that despite religion's shortcomings and dark side, it does have a good and benevolent side to it as well. While I myself am a formal Christian, I did for sometime have my own disdain for religion because of certain doctrines and beliefs that for me seemed to not make sense and just became disenchanted with it. But nevertheless, these days I make the personal endeavor to try to look at the good religion does have since I don't have the inclination to engage in a hate-feast towards it since there's enough of hate and intolerance in the world as it is. I just hope whoever reads this will consider what Sheiman has to offer regardless of what the more popular atheists who consistently denounce religion always say. It always helps to keep a balanced perspective on such issues like this along with keeping an open mind about it.

Bruce Sheiman's book is lucid, learned, and illuminating. He makes a subtle but important distinction. Sheiman recognizes this and calls it "The Great Debate Stalemate." He picks up where all the others leave off.

Though an atheist, he is an enlightened one who believes that the world is a better place because people believe God exists. He affirms the enormous value of religion in contemporary society, irrespective of the God question.

Wide-ranging, detailed, well researched, meticulously argued and beautifully written, Sheiman presents a definitive analysis of the role of religious belief and transcendence in our history and our life. It brings a new understanding to the complex relationship between human existence and the transcendent nature of God. "An Atheist Defends Religion" should be required reading for anyone who claims to be a believer, an agnostic or an atheist.

As a writer of book reviews for a mainstream Christian publication, I enthusiastically recommend Sheiman's book--even though he is an atheist. He makes no arguments for atheism. Rather, he candidly acknowledges he wants to believe in God "because, on balance, religion provides a combination of psychological, emotional, moral, communal, existential, and even physical-health benefits that no other institution can replicate." He backs these claims up with a clear and through analysis of hundreds of published studies. While arguments in best-selling books by other atheists recite and exaggerate negative behaviors by religious people, Sheiman discredits those arguments with verifiable facts, not visceral feelings.

From my perspective as a retired lawyer (and former atheist), I believe Sheiman has proved his case that "the world is a better place because people believe God exists."

Among Sheiman's many interesting observations, he draws a distinction in the book's Introduction between what "consumers of religion experience (meaning, values, purpose) and what producers of religion offer (organization, doctrine, scripture)." He points out that most critics of religion emphasize the latter to the exclusion of the former. As a consequence, such atheists seem incapable of seeing the many documented benefits of believing in God.

This is a delightful book. The author, a self-professed atheist and "aspiring theist," provides a provocative analysis of religion, spirituality, and what he calls the "Transcendent Spiritual Reality," while sharing with the reader his own personal search for meaning in life. Throughout the book, Sheiman provides support for his conjecture that the purpose of religion is to reunite us with the Ultimate Reality from which we originated. He also speaks of the "Divine" as the "highest value." Certainly, these are not the words of an orthodox atheist, but one who questions and remains open to the possibilities of the existence of God, as well as to the lack of existence of God.

His astute analyses provoke us to think deeply about our own lives and beliefs, with his words at times deeply resonating within ourselves, at other times causing us to vehemently deny their validity. In either case, the result is a profound look into our own personal searches.

This work is thoroughly and carefully researched with helpful quotes included, along with easily identifiable sources. Sheiman's inclusion of the discussion of several religious perspectives, both Eastern and Western, was particularly attractive to me and make for a well-rounded analysis. In addition, Sheiman's reflections on his personal experiences make for an enjoyable read. An Atheist Defends Religion comes highly recommended.

"An Atheist Defends Religion" should be read by every believer who must occasionally defend his faith from atheist critics. Sheiman makes a convincing case for the enduring value of religion that's all the more persuasive because it comes from a non-believer. It's a much-needed corrective to the smug, anti-religious bigotry prevalent among cultural elites, which regards religious faith as a force for evil in the world.

That being said, many believers will take issue with Sheiman's implication that religion is easily conformed to the secular society in which it is found - i.e., that modern religion became more open,compassionate, pluralistic, and humanistic largely as a response to Western society's evolution. (Sheiman also cites the opposite example, that religions operating in closed and authoritative societies, such as in the Middle East, have tended to become reactionary, not because of the religions themselves, but because of the political climate in which such religions -- mainly Islam -- are found.).

From a believer's perspective, there's much to like in Sheiman's theory: Religion sheds the blame for much of the evil that men have done in the name of religion throughout history. But there's a trade-off: Religion arguably also loses credit for the "Ascent of Man."

Despite Sheiman's deep respect for religion, it's hard for a believing reader to ignore the fact that he merely considers it a powerful and mostly positive cultural force that influences, and is influenced by, other cultural forces, such as technology and art. He can't be faulted for this -- as a sociologist of religion, he's in the company of such thinkers as Max Weber (and, more recently, Rodney Stark, and the evolutionary psychologist Robert Wright). But a true believer will be unmoved, preferring instead to see the workings of God's Providence in history.

As the Catholic writer Flannery O'Connor said when it was suggested to her that the body and blood of Jesus Christ were not really present in the Eucharist: "If it's just a symbol, the hell with it."

But it would be unreasonable to expect faith-based arguments from an atheist. Instead, believers should be thankful that Sheiman has had the courage to take a clear-eyed look at the effects of religious belief on cultural progress. His book will appeal to a broad range of readers turned off by the "either/or" choice between dogmatic atheism and religious fundamentalism.