Customer Reviews

The Good Atheist: Living a Purpose-Filled Life Without God

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

I appreciate Dans ambitious writing in his latest book, The Good Atheist.(TGA) It being welcomed by me mostly for his keen and unfavorable critique of Rick Warrens "Purpose Driven" best seller book about how to cultivate a religiously submissive slave mentality.

Warren says to "die to self," to be acquiescent to an imaginary God and Barker says to proudly live your life abundantly for yourself. Warren thinks you are unworthy, stating "it's not about you," and Barker says "not so fast" it IS about you. TGA clearly defines humanist secular values to be recognized, embraced and practiced, with those liberating freethought values being starkly contrasted with the "lowly worm" Christian worldview.

Additionally, if you are needing a quick anthology of well known good atheists / secular humanists that think and live like Barker, you'll now have such a profession referenced collection at your finger tips with TGA.

It might also be noted that even good atheists like me can occasionally experience disillusionment too, for I gave TGA a less than favorable 4 star rating. I don't know if it is fair to judge a book by what was NOT included, but if I may be slightly disappointed in the good publisher, because, for some well thought out reason I'm sure, they left out several really good chapters I was privileged to have proofread in editing prior to printing. I don't mean to disparage Ulysess Press and I don't pretend to know what's best in publishing like they do. I can only hope those good chapters will be included in Barkers next book.



This addendum below is written by me on behalf of a friend, Dave Merner, who doesn't have a computer and asked me to type his review:

Dave Merner (aka Equa Sapa)

If the authors goal was to give encouragement to those struggling with non-belief, he then did a good job.

I read books with two purposes in mind; 1. To learn, and 2. To be entertained, and this book failed in those regards.

Dan's book "Godless" was an excellent combination of personal story and reasoned argument.
In contrast, "The Good Atheist" feels like it was slapped together and rushed to press to meet a publishing obligation.
Basically it consists of an essay on why it is demeaning to find purpose in life by being a slave to a god. Dan delivers a good analogy using the Robinson Crusoe story, but his explication of finding purpose apart from God is very lacking. I was expecting the book to be an exploration of what it means to live a well-rounded meaningful life without believing in an imaginary deity. Instead, the rest of the book consists of short bios of atheists, and their contributions to society. The book isn't bad, but if I had been able to look through it, I probably wouldn't have spent the money on it.

I bent the binding of The Good Atheist, Living a Purpose-Filled Life Without God, by Dan Barker, in hopes that I would either come out of it in some way affirmed or finally have a resource for a person struggling with the decision to let go of their faith. When I closed the book, I felt like a sore eared member of the choir. The majority of Barker's book is an appeal to authority and celebrity, a mishap of astonishing proportion when speaking about, to, or for, a community that prides itself on its rational thought.

The Good Atheist is an attempt to address and refute the assertion of bestselling book The Purpose Driven Life by Saddleback Church Pastor Rick Warren that God gives people their purpose. In earnest, Barker only gives himself twenty-five pages to make his argument about the dangers of Rick Warren's The Purpose Driven Life and to examine how atheists can live good, purposeful lives. The rest of The Good Atheist is a series of topically or categorically collected quotes from atheists, agnostics, or free thinking famous people.

Barker does make an interesting and insightful point about the consequences of a life given to us preplanned by God, as Christians contend. He contends that if our lives come to us with a chosen outcome and path, we are not in control of ourselves. If we were created to worship God and spend our days serving him, we have no autonomy. The Christian contention that we must live within the parameters of the plan set out by God to worship and praise him is not a contention of freedom. It makes us slaves.

A new atheist, or a person who is going through the de-theist-ing process, may find his slavery argument a precious bit of emotional nourishment that facilitates their metamorphosis for a short while. It may be especially true for the people who are leaving a more fundamental version of their faith. If the book was only twenty five pages long, this one nugget may be enough to make it worth reading, but it followed by one hundred sixty two pages and is prefaced with ten more.

I slogged through the first few pages of tedious semantic arguments about the difference between having a "purpose driven life" and a "purpose-filled life". I understood Barkers argument, and even though it was reasonably well argued, it was without resonance or a meaning beyond flipping off Warren. Instead of outlaying a convincing argument of how, or why atheists can and do live lives with meaning, Barker spent his pages pushing back against a theistic world view.

After his ho-hum shoving of Warren, Barker then starts his "Profiles in Disbelief" section of the book, which is nearly ten times as long. I believe he hopes that if someone realizes they like an atheist, they may like atheists in general more. The quotes are interesting but are nothing more than a published celebrity endorsement of the idea of atheism.

There is little literary embellishment in The Good Atheist. It is a pretty easy read, appropriate for an airport or on a beach. I am not ashamed that it is on my bookshelf, but I probably will not be pulling it out again. It offers little to me emotionally, literally, intellectually, or theologically.

Disclosure: I have been closely acquainted with Dan Barker's brother for many years.

I was a huge fan of Dan Baker's Godless because it was a great counter attack to Geisler's I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. Unfortunately, The Good Atheist falls short as being a noteworthy follow-up because it fails to give the reader anything to reflect on. Baker's hate towards religion is understandable, but it seems like he is a now a pastor for an atheist' organization that doesn't exist. By clumping atheists together as one massive group with the same philosophy in life; Baker fails at hitting the main points when it comes to breaking away from the stereotypes most atheists face today.

I was expecting some kind of analysis of the origins of morality. The first chapter covers this issue, but not in great depth. The rest of the book consists of descriptions of and writings by atheists through time until present day. The book is light reading.

I write this with a heavy heart because I am a member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation and the author is a co-President of FFRF. Other reviews here sum up the major problem of this book - it all-too-briefly glosses over what most readers will assume to be the main point of the book (since it's the subtitle on the front cover): "Living a Purpose-Filled Life Without God". Instead, the vast majority of the book is basically just a Bartlett's Quotations From Famous Atheists, with the author's argument being "Look at all these famous accomplished atheists with great lives!"

I guess the book isn't totally useless - if I have an atheist dinner party any time soon, I'll have a book full of witty bon mots from which I can borrow at will. If you want an intellectual treatise, though, this ain't it.

(PS: As a gay man, I was rather appalled to see that for some reason, the author likes the term "homosexuals" when most of the rest of thinking society has moved on to "gays and lesbians". "Homosexuals" is so Masters & Johnson.

Another reviewer seems shocked that a book named "The Good Atheist" doesn't include a list of bad atheists. At first I was ready to criticize that point as obviously off-target, and then remembered how surprised I was to learn that Fox's Book of Martyrs - Or A History of the Lives, Sufferings, and Triumphant - Deaths of the Primitive Protestant Martyrs consisted almost entirely of martyrs. He is also mistaken about Margaret Sanger not being in the book--she is, but not listed as a eugenicist. I think it's possible to celebrate a person's accomplishments without necessarily listing them by their flaws. I think reformer Martin Luther was more than merely a virulent anti-Semite, for example, although he was that, too.

But enough reacting to what other reviewers might have said.

"The Good Atheist" has a solid premise and in an accessible, easy-to-carry package presents(with welcome help from an introduction by the talented Julia Sweeney, perhaps best known in atheist circles for Letting Go of God) the radical notion that a person can be good without a god. Not only good--but remarkable, fulfilled, compassionate, and yes, purpose-driven. In fact, the first section of the book makes the powerful case that a religious believer acting as a slave to her deity isn't actually "purpose-driven" in a sense we should admire, because the purpose is someone else's and is often taken up under threat or by bribery. Barker argues convincingly that a mind free of superstition and servility is necessary for a fulfilling life.

But nowhere do I see him arguing that it is sufficient.

For that, Barker turns to the inspirational (we need a better word) example of the many, many atheists and non-religious folks throughout history who have contributed so much to human existence. Writers, artists, activists--nearly every major field of human endeavor gets mention. Barker was under no obligation to include bad or indifferent atheists because the point of the book is to demonstrate to the faithful that life without gods can be moral, fulfilling, and purposeful, and to give atheists examples of things fellow nonbelievers have accomplished.

At that level, it is a success and I recommend it. But if you wish to dig a little deeper, I recommend two resources that provide a more comprehensive treatment of similar topics: regarding living the good life as a nonbeliever, check out The Atheist's Way: Living Well Without Gods and The Choice of Hercules: Pleasure, Duty and the Good Life in the 21st Century, and for a wonderful compendium of atheist quotations, see The Atheist's Bible: An Illustrious Collection of Irreverent Thoughts. If you're in a hurry or not a big reader, Barker's book will suit you just fine, but if you're one who likes to dig deeper, you might find the fleshed out volumes more satisfying.

Although I enjoyed reading another book from one of my favorite authors, I was disappointed to discover it a little bit of a rehash of former information from his and other authors' books.

Many religious believers, particularly from conservative Christian backgrounds, think that without faith in a God, purpose and meaning would disappear from life. At best, nonbelievers would be left with shallow and self-centered purposes in their lives.

Barker confronts this common conservative Christian conviction directly, in his opening essay and in the selection of quotations from nonbelievers that make up the bulk of the book.

The opening essay is interesting, as a window into a conservative Christian mindset as much as a critical response. I doubt it is completely applicable outside a conservative Christian context; but that is what Barker knows best, and his examination of the debate from his ex-believers perspective is worthwhile.

I feel more ambivalent about the sections with quotations. On one level they work well: how better to impress upon readers that nonbelievers can lead purposeful and productive lives than to let a wide range of accomplished skeptics speak for themselves? On the other hand, the quotations end up being a more generic collection of expressions of nonbelief. It would have been better for the topic of the book if the quotations were more focused on the question of a "purpose-filled life without God." I understand such quotations may not have been plentiful and easy to come by, but the result now lacks some focus. It can even reinforce the stereotype that nonbelievers care more about bashing religion than about achieving meaningful lives without supernatural beliefs.

On balance, however, this a good addition to any personal library. It is direct, easy to read, and still regularly though-provoking. Have fun with it.

OK, I admit at the start that I am not quite an atheist... a life-long Christian, I had a faith crisis some years back when I found I could no longer support my beliefs, but have gotten to a point where I can also not accept the "faith" of the atheist. But without a real faith in either, I had hoped that Dan would really accomplish his stated goal of digging for anything like the impression of meaning that I had in my Christian past. No sale. As others point out, this is primarily a series of biographically-based case studies of atheists who accomplish a lot, and the argument assumes they are happy-- or at least that if I were to emulate those people I would be happy. It's more useful for smart-aleck quotations than for real analysis. Some of his heroes even state they are happy or successful or whatever positive assertions they choose to make about themselves. Fine. I guess that made them "happy" in their own apologetics. But that proves nothing more than the converse that any atheist worth his intellectual salt would reject out of hand. Or the alternative of finding a lot of happy and successful people of faith, which would be far easier. Finding someone with a world view who "succeeds" is not a reason to support that world view, and really gives no basis for ethics or meaning.

What is called for, I think, is a rationale for the meaning of any life at all absent something bigger than the self to live for. Some have created a socially-defined ethic, but that only works if you take an unsupportable assumption that others are more important or valuable than you are. At this point in my journey (having read quite a bit but certainly not everything), I am not convinced that atheism per se can result in meaning aside from the "pursuit of happiness" argument that borders on hedonism, or at least epicureanism or utilitarianism. I personally have not seen a lot of progress since Schopenhauer-- or maybe Torquatus! So far no one has convinced me that atheism can provide meaning in the traditional sense. I was looking for some help in that direction and was sharply disappointed.

So what is a "Good Atheist" if there is no basis for a personal value judgment? Sounds circular at its heart.