Customer Reviews

Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe

5 star:		(20)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

A lot of books have been written in the last few years exploring whether or not there is a God. This is not one of them.

Refreshingly, Greg Epstein starts a step further down along the line of debate. His premise, stated simply, is this; However they got there, there is now a significant portion of the population who simply do not believe in God. And yet most of them (including himself)live what would be thought of by most as perfectly "good" lives, raising their children, taking care of their parents, helping out in the community, and the like. They are people you would like to have as neighbors. So if they don't believe in God, why do they act in this way? Why aren't they all out marauding, looting and pillaging? If not God, what do they believe in?

Of course, there is no one answer. But in a straight-forward, learned, yet conversational style, Epstein takes us on a brief tour of the history of non-religious based thought and ethics (which extends back as far as religious history.) He then turns to explaining a simple, rational, functional basis for exploring morality and ethics in society, and how one can do this by synthesizing the lessons of history and human experience, aided by science and research. But Epstein's emphasis is on the story of the human experience. He recognizes there are needs beyond cold rationalism to find out what is important in life. There is a place for a sense of awe, for humility, for art and nature. But he finds it in places other than a belief in God.

Epstein knows that atheism is a negative statement, that is to say, a statement of what is not believed rather than what is believed. This leads him to spend the later chapters in an explanation of Humanism, a "lifestance" (his word, which I like immensely) rather than a religion, encompassing a view of life in which compassion, joy, service and human interaction is lived and celebrated for its own sake. One of the strengths of the book is that this Lifestance is not presented in a confrontational mode. He does not shape this explanation in terms of "this is better than religion" although it is clear it makes more sense to him. Rather, it is presented as a "here is what I believe, and more importantly, why it makes sense to me" fashion. He is quick, and even eager, to point out that many of the ideas that shape Humanism are recognizble in religious traditions as well. These lessons are not to be tossed out just because one doesn't believe in God. Some still make sense, some do not. His emphasis throughout is that the important thing is what people do and how they behave to each other.

The books of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens argue that belief in God makes no sense. If your question is whether there is a god, then read those authors (and their religious counterparts.) But if you are now at a place where that question is settled, the question that then presents itself is- how do I live my life? Greg Epstein provides an answer in this excellent book, which is sure to be a work that will resonate for years to come.

The release of a Greg Epstein's book, Good Without God, is a welcome resource for anyone who wishes to have more than just a superficial idea of what it means to be a humanist. In his discussion, Epstein reaches out to a wide range of people: nonbelievers, nonreligious, atheists, agnostics, anyone who do does not feel that their morality is derived from a belief in a god. Even the progressively religious can be humanist, or at least friendly allies, since the basic framework for being a humanist is to seek the best in yourself and others, and to believe in your own ability to make a positive difference in the world.

Good Without God does not focus on criticizing faith based beliefs; rather it seeks to bring an understanding of the natural goodness of humanity. It emphasizes the need for humanists to carve out a space in society in which like-minded, concerned, nonreligious citizens can come together to share their beliefs, celebrate life, and collaborate in making the world a better place for everyone. As a group, we should look for and expect more than simply toleration from society. Rejecting and refusing to accept alienation from religious communities and making our collective voices heard is an important theme in the book. As Epstein emphasizes "being a good person in a vacuum is not a very satisfying experience". We too, crave fellowship with people in a forum that is inclusive, supportive, and one in which we can grow together.

Morality is not about sinners and saints, heaven and hell, damnation and punishment. It's about alleviating unnecessary suffering and promoting human flourishing and dignity. As the Author emphasizes, "Not a single version of the golden rule requires a god". The time has long since come for the creation and recognition of a common forum in which nonreligious people can together mark life's events - marriages, births, deaths and a shared understanding of life. As Epstein emphasizes, within this forum we can "develop aesthetically powerful rituals and a sense of engagement with culture, serve the community with uncommon bravery and measureable success; and play a leading role in the most urgent social struggles of the age." This book leaves no doubt that "Being Good" is a characteristic that is not solely derived from living in awe and fear of a god. Being good blossoms from the hearts of people who feel the awe of nature, are energized by the bonds of love, sympathize with the plight of those in need, and are moved to action to make the world a better place. The sincerity of these emotions and the virtues they evoke do not depend upon an outside force. They come from within.

My favorite independent bookstore in the whole world is owned by a brother/sister pair of atheists. On separate occasions, each of them reached for Good Without God when they saw me walk in, held it up, and said "Hey, you might be interested in this book." It made me fear that I have something ungodly about my appearance. But you know, they were right. I DID find this book interesting. Rather than get caught in a withering cross-fire from atheists on one side, and devout believers in God on the other, let me take cover behind the always popular FAQ format.

FAQ's about Good Without God:

Q. A bit about the author?
A. Greg Epstein is the Humanist chaplain/rabbi at Harvard University. He has a B.A. in Religion and in Chinese, and also a Master of Arts in Judaic Studies, both degrees from the University of Michigan. He's a musician and has played in a rock and roll band.

Q. Greg Epstein does not believe in a God, does he have a theory as to why so many people do?
A. Yes, he does. Perhaps his most interesting theory is the "God is a Mental Spandrel" hypothesis. A spandrel is the somewhat triangular space that exists between two adjacent archs. Envision the row of arches often seen in the interior of large cathedrals or mosques, often lining the sides of the church: there is a pillar, then an arch that connects to the next pillar, then an arch to the next pillar, etc. Often, the space between each arch is filled in with masonry, and subsequently richly illustrated with designs or drawings. These filled in spaces are called spandrels. The God spandrel, Epstein conjectures, is based on two evolutionary traits of the human brain, both deeply ingrained. The first is Causality. If we humans weren't good at causality, we wouldn't be good at surviving. Put your hand in the fire, you'll get burned. Pet a sabretooth tiger, you'll get bit. Cause, effect. The second trait is that because WE experience consciousness, we attribute that quality of experience to other things: other people, our pets, trees, even our cars when we curse at them for not starting. Between our drive to attribute cause and effect to everything we see, and our drive to somewhat indiscriminately recognize consciousness all around us, is the mental spandrel that we fill in: God. God is a wonderful CAUSE in life, and we like attributing CONSCIOUSNESS to that CAUSE.

Q. Without God giving us the rules (e.g. the Ten Commandments for Judeo-Christians, other sets of rules for other folks), why would anyone be ethical, or good? Why not party hardy until we drop? Why not rape and pillage whenever we think we can safely get away with it, if God isn't up there with a ledger keeping score?
A. Because, Epstein says, we desire dignity. I'll quote Epstein on dignity: "There's a state in which you're aware of your own vulnerability and mortality, and that awareness allows you to connect with others from a place of strength and empowerment." "Being in this state feels good in both the short term and long term--good enough to motivate us strongly. And so our goal is to get there and try to stay there." Not exactly Kant's Categorical Imperative, but fertile thought for a rousing red wine and beer fueled book club discussion.

Q. Is Humanism a religion?
A. Well, of course, define religion. But here's one listed definition: "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." And by that definition, yes, humanism is a religion, with movements within movements, vigorous attempts to define the tenets of humanism, even churches of humanism (one of which is in Central Park). Epstein himself, with the title of both chaplain and rabbi, unmistakably evokes a sense of religion. He becomes even more evocative of religion when he includes detailed information regarding humanist holidays, humanistic rituals for births, deaths, and marriages (none of which involve the blood of infants of other faiths!).

Q. Is Epstein an evangelist?
A. This is what Rabbi Epstein has to say to you, if you don't believe in God but do want to make the world a better place: "That's why I am asking you now, whether in conjunction with a local Humanist, atheist, or secular group, or on your own initiative if no such group exists near you, to organize a meeting about Humanism in your home, or elsewhere in your neighborhood." And he says, "This is the beginning -only a beginning--of a movement that will change our world....As we can learn from a nearly two-thousand-year-old saying, it is not your responsibility to finish the work, but neither are you free to desist from it. Let us go out and make a difference now." In, short, I'd say the answer to the question is affirmative.

You'll have your own questions, without a doubt. A few parting thoughts. For those of you that feel that godless people are Satan incarnate, Good Without God is an important opportunity to read the list of charitable social programs that have been started by humanists, and an illuminating look into the minds of people that don't believe in God, but dedicate their lives to doing good. You'll like Rabbi Epstein. If he believed in souls, I'd say he had a compassionate and caring one. Me? Though I was once enrolled in a Franciscan seminary to become a Catholic priest, I'm now a non-believer (and a do-gooder). Epstein does not speak for me. I don't like the "oughtness" of his call to do good. I am not a humanist. Maybe a planet-ist, or a universe-ist, but Epstein's focus on humans as the apparent rotational axis of the world is slightly, oddly, offensive to me. There is way more going on out there than the little tide pool we humans are splashing around in, and the infinities of wonder that existence holds seems diminished by the term "humanist. If my dog could understand it (he's a very bright dog) he would call "Humanism" an exclusive, rather than an inclusive, term.

Epstein espouses Humanistic judaism. He explains that Jewishness is a cultural thing and not necessarily a religious belief, hence, one can be a Jew without believing in god. He also explained that Humanism is about "Dignity" and the idea of living our lives well, in pure altruistic fashion, which is an end in itself; and more importantly, that we can do so without believing in gods of any kind. Non-religious people can and are good people. He pointed out that if they weren't good without god, why are they not out marauding and killing people. He also explained why we can and are good without god, and added a clear chapter on how this can be achieved. Humanism has a dash of existentialism in it, as he says, "like it or not, we are responsible for what we do about it all in this life". Referring to Rick Warren's "Purpose Driven Life" he says that "it is the height of arrogance to be so openly prejudiced against those who agree with him about the need for purpose but prefer Islam, Judaism, or simply the Humanist faith in our ability and responsibility to build a healthier world for the sake of our loved ones and all humanity." Warren believed and wrote that Christianity is the only way to a higher purpose in life and detractors face tan eternity in hell. So much for Christian love. It appears clearly from this book that the popular Christian retort that atheism, Darwinism (and Humanism) are also religions is erroneous in that religion is only a semantic turn of phrase. The crucial issue is not whether one's beliefs are necessarily religious, but whether we believe that there is such a thing as god, and whether we can be good without believing in that being. This was a very lucid, enlightening book, written in the most humble, unprovocative language.

One might have expected a better reasoned book from the Humanist Chaplain at Harvard. Instead, most of it reads like an extended "rap", in which Humanism is presented as a kind of self-help therapy. Greg Epstein's attempts to define "Humanism" are immature and inadequate: "Humanism is a bold, resolute response to the fact that being a human being is lonely and frightening." or "Humanism is being good without God." (p. xiii) Epstein makes the astounding admission that, having majored in religion in college, he "only learned of Humanism after graduation". (p. xvii) He still has a long way to go before understanding humanist philosophy, whose heritage goes back more than two and a half thousand years.

The core problem of Epstein's book is that he is soft on religion, covering up the atrocities that have been committed, and are still being committed, in the name of religion. Epstein never comes to grips with the opposition between science and superstition -- that is, the scientific allegiance to knowledge and reason versus the religious adherence to taboo and dogma. Without giving specific reasons, Epstein disapproves of the forthright atheist books by Richard Dawkins (_The God Delusion_) and Christopher Hitchens (_Good is not Great_). And yet, the books by Dawkins and Hitchens are far superior to his own -- better written, more informative, and much more interesting.

Epstein tries to show that all major religions have had one of another form of the Golden Rule. But he misrepresents Judaism, by giving this quote: "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellowman...." (p. 113) In fact, it is abundantly clear from Talmudic commentary that "fellowman" means "fellow Jew", not "fellow human being". There is no Golden Rule universalism in Judaism.

For over thirty pages Epstein attempts to reinterpret the Ten Commandments. For the Third Commandment ("Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain..." he substitutes "Be positive and constructive rather than negative and disrespectful." -- which is inane and dishonest. It is not a matter of being nice. For many centuries Judaism and Christianity provided the death penalty for blasphemy. Likewise, when Epstein reinterprets the Fourth Commandment ("Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy....") as "To be healthy, you must balance work, play and rest", he glides over the fact that for many centuries those who violated the sabbath were put to death or at least severely punished. Most of the Ten Commandments represent *taboo morality* rather than rational ethics.

Epstein misrepresents such commandments as the Sixth Commandment ("Thou shalt not kill.") -- which in its original context did not forbid killing another human being, but only and specifically killing a fellow Jew. Richard Dawkins goes into this matter carefully, showing that the god of the Old Testament (Jehovah, Yahweh, or whatever) time and again demanded that his people commit genocide against others -- that they indiscriminately slaughter men, women, children, and even animals of non-Jews. On this point, check out an article by John Hartung, "Love Thy Neighbor", which is available on his web site).

As a corrective to Epstein's whitewashing of Old Testament religion, I highly recommend Israel Shahak's book, _Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The weight of three thousand years_. It's a fact-filled and elegantly concise book, with Forewords by Gore Vidal and Edward Said.

Humanism is a serious philosophy, not a form of therapy. I cringed when reading Epstein's prescriptions for conducting a funeral: "Gather family and friends together before the ceremony to share stories and memories for an hour or so. Laugh and cry. Have your helper take notes or record the conversation." Perhaps the "helper" should have a video recorder on hand, to capture those tearful moments.

I considered giving this book an extra star, arguing that at least Epstein's heart is in the right place. But I'm not sure that it is.

The book is printed on poor quality paper, and has neither index nor bibliography.

I just finished Good Without God this evening. I've been changed. I've known I was an atheist since I was 18 and always felt as if there was something missing. I felt a disconnect from the amazing women in my family (all strong Christians) as if I could not be as "good" as them. Now I know where to begin changing that feeling! It's like I knew there was a way and Mr. Epstein showed me a map.
It was also nice to read something not quite so "us vs. them" in tone as Dawkins etc.
The resources in the back were helpful too.
It was the first "atheist" book I've read that left me feeling really excited and hopeful.

Often I am asked about my Humanist lifestance by others who are interested in Humanism or by those who do not understand this philosophy. I can now direct them to a book that solidifies my views of tolerance and human flourishing and that is not anti-religious like some of the "new atheists" books out there. A perfect gift for those who no longer believe in "organized" religion and/or God and is looking for something to replace the void.

I can see why this book gets mixed reviews. It's very difficult to be balanced and neutral when it comes to writing about religion, morality, atheism, humanism and so on. I too think Epstein critique of the "new atheists" movement, led by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc, is too harsh and he doesn't give the movement enough credit for bringing atheism out of the closet, so to speak. The new atheist movement--if it can be called that--has been instrumental in giving voice to people who have longed to openly declare ourselves non-believers, without fear and retribution. I think Epstein could have devoted a chapter or section of his book to how "new atheism" has played an important role in the struggle against religious dogma.

On the other hand, I find Good Without God a useful book about humanism. I've always felt that it's important that we as atheist not just declare what we don't believe in, but more so what we do believe in. While i don't want to see religious dogma replaced by "humanist" dogma--if there is such a thing--i think humanism should be understood as a world view that says we human beings must learn how to live together on this planet. We must care about our own well being and the well being of our brothers and sisters, for we're all that we have. We know there's no supernatural being that is going to save us. We know there's no supernatural demonic forces that causes people to do evil things. There's only us and nature, and we must learn how to coexist with it.

Good Without God also points out some of the ways non-believers can lead "spiritual lives" without praying to non-existent gods, and such. He discusses the power of meditation, the appreciation and power of life- affirming art, and the importance of community--including long established rituals for how we recognize marriages, celebrate the birth of babies, confront the death of our love ones, and even how we need to reflect on the role of humanism and what it says about war, poverty, and inequality.

This is one of the few books I've read about humanism, so i really can't say if it's better or worse than other books on the subject. But the subject of humanism and how we define will become increasingly more important as we move from a religious, theistic-centered society, to a more secular one.

I'd summarize "Good without God" as two main parts:
1) If you don't believe in a God with supernatural powers that interfere or manage your day to day activities, you're not alone, and there is long rich history of famous like-minded people that have had very positive impact on the world.
2) Humanists (Greg's favorite word, but he doesn't care if you're atheist, skeptic, bright, or a rational naturalist), can live a life in dignity. Those who do not believe in the supernatural yet want to lead a good purposeful life should not being afraid of "coming out", defending themselves in the national discourse. They should connect with others in the Humanist community and do good together. He provides a list of organizations at the end of the book.

Prior to reading, I heeded the warnings of those saying this book is too "religious," but this wasn't my impression. Greg recognizes that scientific critical thinking is the key to better understanding our world and improving mankind's condition (e.g., agriculture to feed, airplanes to connect). But he also recognizes that people are emotional, and have the need to connect with others and be part of something bigger than themselves. To be fair, there were a few (rare) occasions where his word choices seemed to say Humanism is a Church.

But to sum it up, I believe the perspective here is that the major religions were all created by people anyhow. These religions have good parts like institutions in that create a sense of community and support through rituals, activities, philosophies. They also have bad parts like supernatural doctrine that are prone to manipulation by those in power.

There's tremendous opportunity to move forward with the good and just drop the bad stuff. He also mentions that most Christian, Agnostic, or other lifestancers, are doing just that: Keeping the ethics (e.g., don't do to others what you don't want done to you) - which pre-dates all the major religions anyhow, participating in the rituals (e.g., celebrating Christmas), and dropping the scientifically unsupported religious doctrines - Greg mentions even the Vatican's position today is that evolution is real (I didn't check this).

BTW, the "Faith Instinct" by Nicholas Wade, is a pretty good book using archeology and other studies to describing why humans may have evolved to believe in the supernatural. For example he touches on studies of isolated pre-theistic hunter-gatherer communities that participate in some pretty intensive rituals to prepare for war, key seasonal events in farming, and other activities.

Harvard's Humanist Chaplain, Greg Epstein, has performed an enormous mitzvah for not only the humanist/freethinker/atheist/agnostic minority, but also for majority/believer/religious folks who are curious enough to read this important and positive work -- Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe Whether one is a person wallowing in negativity, having internalized the majority's stereotype of those whose beliefs fall outside the norm, or a person who cannot fathom how a "non-believer" can possibly aspire to lead an ethical life, one can benefit from reading Epstein's cogent exploration of what non-religious people do believe, and where the beliefs of "infidels" and the faithful may intersect to provide heretofore untapped opportunities for social progress.