Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
194 of 201 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
"Good Without God" is just plain good., November 4, 2009
This review is from: Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe (Hardcover)
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
35 of 39 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Great resource for anyone who wishes to have a better understanding of what it is to be a humanist., November 24, 2009
This review is from: Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe (Hardcover)
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
208 of 256 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Book Too Religious for the Nonreligious, December 4, 2009
This review is from: Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe (Hardcover)
Secular Humanism is fairly reasonable, but this is Religious Humanism or Humanistic Judaism (a la Sherwin Wine) by a Rabbi of Humanistic Judaism, promoting a creed rather than focusing on our evolutionarily developed and ingrained morality. The author's titles of "chaplain" and "rabbi" should have tipped me off. I have collected some of the quotes and observations throughout the book to give examples of the religious nature of the book. I have shortened my original review due to complaints about length, but it's still a little long, since I should give reasons for not liking it. For an example of how people are good without gods, see Society without God. For a better book on the nature of morality, check out The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule.
Throughout the book, Rabbi Epstein has the disconcerting habit of applying the title of Humanism to any form of religious skepticism that has ever occurred, past or present, likely from a desire to make the "movement" more universal than it actually is. Plus, getting other facts and figures wrong, such as the time that Rabbi Hillel flourished (pg 92), seems inexcusable. One that is familiar with the history around the "Golden Rule" should appreciate Hillel, among others, was around before Jesus.
Introduction
pg xv - "Not believing in anything is a belief too -- in nihilism" Huh? Translation: If you're a nonbeliever, and you're not with us, you're against us. He also quotes Joss Whedon saying that we are the "true believers." If you read the entire section on this page entitled "Is Humanism a Faith," it is evident he is talking about belief in a certain belief system, faith, lifestance, etc. -- not just individual things in life. To posit nonbelief as necessarily Humanistic or Nihilistic is to engage in the logical fallacy of "false dilemma."
Chapter 1
pg 8 - Rabbi Epstein seems to think humans are the pinnacle of evolution...the inevitable outcome.
pg 13 - "Humanists think scientifically and the 'burden of proof' is on those who assert a belief, not those who deny it." - The 'burden of proof' part is correct, but by the standards of the quote from pg xv, Humanists are asserting a belief rather than just denying one. I hate those pesky contradictions.
pg 34 - "each person as having inherent worth and dignity" - Not on planet Earth. (See my final comments for clarification.)
pg 34,35 Humanism does seem speciesist and anthropocentric to me. On pg 35: "values and ethical behavior...can only really be found in human beings" - This is an error, probably from unawareness of scientific studies that have been done on other species. (Evolution or Creed?)
By the end of chapter one, I feel like a religious person is knocking on my door, trying to convert me to Humanism.
Chapter 2
Great chapter on history - but I should just read Doubt: A History, since it is incessantly quoted.
Chapter 3
pg 64 - "because we haven't discovered the common purpose, the mission that will unite us as a movement." - Scary. Read The True Believer.
pg 67 - "if you...don't literally believe in heaven or hell, then you too are a Humanist." - Nope...not inevitable by any stretch, but I suppose he is widening the net to enlarge the crowd of the faithful.
pg 92 - "Rabbi Hillel, from the second century CE" - I suppose Rabbi Epstein is Jewish, but Hillel was in the first century BCE (c.70 BCE-c. 10 CE)
Chapter 4
pg 108 - "There is no good except between people." - This is wrong, and betrays again that the author has not familiarized himself with much science on (other) animal relationships. (again, Evolution or Creed?)
pg 108 - "A good medicine is one that cures people." - Well, good medicines don't always cure, and what about the good medicines do for (other) animals? Veterinarians may take exception to this Humanist view.
pg 109 - He mentions 77 virgins for the Muslim males in the afterlife, whereas the number in tradition is 72. I'm sure the extremists won't complain about the extra five unlucky virgins, though (or raisins, depending on your translation).
pg 119 - "Be positive and constructive rather than negative and disrespectful." - Sounds like a good platitude, but how about knowing what is appropriate and when? Positive thinking has its limits and myths.
pg 124 - "...I'm so comfortable calling Humanism a faith." - Not good.
pg 144 - "a friend named Sarah" from his account was cured of polycystic ovary syndrome through a combination of meditation, healthy eating, acupuncture, yoga, reiki, etc, and was "given a clean bill of health by a team of baffled specialists." -- Remember, "humanists think scientifically." **sigh**
pg 149 - Scientific discovery many times is not simply planned as the author suggests. Many discoveries come about accidentally while investigating something unrelated, which is why scientific exploration should not be hampered by the meager imaginations of planners.
Chapter 5 - Pluralism is necessary and religious literacy should be required. As the main thrust of this chapter, I agree.
pg 155 - "But if we're not willing to face even the slightest possibility of violence in order to spread our message, how can we expect change?" - This statement sounds religious and evangelical, bordering on visions of martyrdom, and places the author's type of humanism in the realm of mass movements not based on reason.
pg 161 - "We see our views as no better and no worse than anyone else's when it comes to whether they should become secular law." - Really? Does this sound obtuse to anyone else? So you're saying that Fred Phelps and his church have just as many valid points as a rationalist?
This chapter seems to give much attention to giving religious groups more validity than they deserve and allowing the worth of unbelievers to be measured by how much we are included in faith-related groups, functions, and programs. According to the Rabbi, if people are taught comparative religion, they would be taught atheism or humanism as simply other religions. This is unacceptable, as it misleads about what is religion or irreligion. Irreligion by definition is not religion, but I suppose this particular version of Humanism may be religion.
Chapter 6 - Most of the chapter goes into the (supposedly) wonderful nature of various types of religious or ethnocultural Humanism.
pg 169 - "Modern, organized Humanism began, in the minds of its founders as nothing more nor less than a religion without a God." - No thanks...I think I'll pass on any religion.
pg 179-180 - "there are no atheists when the chips are down, when you're in danger, whenever you want something so badly that all you can do, it seems, is close your eyes and pray for it." - He seems at first to deny the "atheist in foxholes" canard, then immediately agrees with it. He then proceeds to endorse some form of prayer or substitute for theistic prayer.
pg 220 - "This is the beginning -- only the beginning -- of a movement that will change our world." - He writes this even though he has argued so many previous times that humanism is such an old tradition.
Postscript
Includes Humanist Manifesto III, Humanism and Its Aspirations. This is some of the most sane writing in the entire book, yet was not written by the author of the book.
One of the things in HM III talks about each human having inherent worth and dignity. In other parts of the book, there is mentioned the idea of equality of all humans. I can agree with this in a purely political sense, such as standing before the law of the land (as Thomas Jefferson did), but I have known dogs with more inherent worth than some humans I have known (think psychopathy), and I'm sure most other people can relate. Compare Einstein with Manson or Hitler. See also The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature.
It is difficult to have the high view of all humanity promoted by religious Humanism or follow mass movements, but I can still acknowledge the worth of many Humanist ideals, mainly the ones that relate to being nontheistic and relying on a rational approach to life, including the use of science and free inquiry to evaluate reality claims, and along with philosophy, evaluate morality claims. I can also deeply appreciate the need to enjoy various types of art, beauty, literature, and higher forms of creativity. However, when evaluating voices that speak for belief or nonbelief, this book does not speak for me.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Jennifer Michael Hecht
by Darrel W. Ray
by Russell Blackford
by Jim Herrick
