What do you think?
Rate this book
Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe
A provocative and positive response to Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and other New Atheists, Good Without God makes a bold claim for what nonbelievers do share and believe. Author Greg Epstein, the Humanist chaplain at Harvard, offers a world view for nonbelievers that dispenses with the hostility and intolerance of religion prevalent in national bestsellers like God is Not Great and The God Delusion. Epstein’s Good Without God provides a constructive, challenging response to these manifestos by getting to the heart of Humanism and its positive belief in tolerance, community, morality, and good without having to rely on the guidance of a higher being.
272 pages, Hardcover
First published September 1, 2009
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 251 reviews
July 29, 2016
It really hit me at the beginning of high school. Perhaps I am a late bloomer compared to some. But there I was in Mrs. Madsen's literature class. We were discussing Creation "myths" from other countries. We had just finished reading a story from Africa about how the Black Man was made from a dark lump of mud. His wife was made from the same gooey clod as well. The story progressed from there though I no longer remember the details. I just remember instantly thinking to smug self, "Ha, silly Africans. That's not... wait. Uh, wha - ooooohhhhhh." That began the questioning in earnest.
Good Without God should perhaps be titled "What Secular Humanists Believe" instead of "What a Billion Nonreligious People DO Believe". Epstein, a Humanist chaplain at Harvard, takes great pains to outline his faith - and I would call it "faith". He details how the New Atheists such as Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins have vehemently announced what they don't believe. But for many of us, that is not enough. Humans still need some kind of creed or reason, rather than just raging against what they don't believe in to all who will listen. Now don't get me wrong. Dawkins and company have made it much easier to talk about Atheism in general, and those of us who have not been able to identify with Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism etc. are somewhat indebted to him for that. But there is a lot of pessimism that can accompany Atheism in SOME circles. I have been active in some of those circles myself, and I was struck by the negativity of some of my company who continuously made snide comments regarding others beliefs and practices. I can certainly understand this viewpoint from some that have been hurt by religion, and there are many. Neither am I saying that all Atheists feel or act this way. I am merely stating that some of the views Dawkins and his contemporaries espouse - and the way they espouse them - lend themselves to this kind of behavior. Epstein says if you tear this down, what do you put in its place? Human beings have a need to be social and belong - this is something churches and church groups or temples or synagogues accomplish rather nicely. The nonbelievers are much less organized.
Epstein posits that Humanists believe "that the most important purpose of human life is for every individual to strive for and attain self-fulfillment - to become what each is capable of and to help others do the same." This is a theory to which one can find purpose in one's life. Not only can a Humanist not justify a belief in God, but they also believe in being the best being they and can be and helping others to do the same. Call me naive, but this is incredibly powerful to those of us who feel that Atheism is not just poking holes in the Bible.
Epstein describes why it is important to believe in each other and to act with a moral objective. Like many other writers he endeavors to refute that now old misnomer that we need the God and the Bible so that we don't act like conscienceless sociopaths. He also writes the book to explain Humanism to those who are of Christian or other faiths. His tone is inclusive, something that there is often a dearth of on both sides of the religious debate. Epstein has written a book that is ultimately to explain how the nonreligious find purpose, compassion and community.
Good Without God should perhaps be titled "What Secular Humanists Believe" instead of "What a Billion Nonreligious People DO Believe". Epstein, a Humanist chaplain at Harvard, takes great pains to outline his faith - and I would call it "faith". He details how the New Atheists such as Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins have vehemently announced what they don't believe. But for many of us, that is not enough. Humans still need some kind of creed or reason, rather than just raging against what they don't believe in to all who will listen. Now don't get me wrong. Dawkins and company have made it much easier to talk about Atheism in general, and those of us who have not been able to identify with Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism etc. are somewhat indebted to him for that. But there is a lot of pessimism that can accompany Atheism in SOME circles. I have been active in some of those circles myself, and I was struck by the negativity of some of my company who continuously made snide comments regarding others beliefs and practices. I can certainly understand this viewpoint from some that have been hurt by religion, and there are many. Neither am I saying that all Atheists feel or act this way. I am merely stating that some of the views Dawkins and his contemporaries espouse - and the way they espouse them - lend themselves to this kind of behavior. Epstein says if you tear this down, what do you put in its place? Human beings have a need to be social and belong - this is something churches and church groups or temples or synagogues accomplish rather nicely. The nonbelievers are much less organized.
Epstein posits that Humanists believe "that the most important purpose of human life is for every individual to strive for and attain self-fulfillment - to become what each is capable of and to help others do the same." This is a theory to which one can find purpose in one's life. Not only can a Humanist not justify a belief in God, but they also believe in being the best being they and can be and helping others to do the same. Call me naive, but this is incredibly powerful to those of us who feel that Atheism is not just poking holes in the Bible.
Epstein describes why it is important to believe in each other and to act with a moral objective. Like many other writers he endeavors to refute that now old misnomer that we need the God and the Bible so that we don't act like conscienceless sociopaths. He also writes the book to explain Humanism to those who are of Christian or other faiths. His tone is inclusive, something that there is often a dearth of on both sides of the religious debate. Epstein has written a book that is ultimately to explain how the nonreligious find purpose, compassion and community.
September 26, 2012
On the religious spectrum, I don’t fall anywhere in particular. My Japanese father was Buddhist, though he never demonstrated any proclivity towards spirituality as far as I could tell. My mother was raised Jewish, but I believe she identifies more with the cultural aspects than the religious ones.
So where do I fall? Well, um, I’m not sure. I’ve always been attracted to the cultural aspects of various religions and spirituality, but there isn’t a single one that catches my fancy. I hate that religion is used as an excuse to shed blood, to discriminate, and to divide lines across populations. I don’t believe in a God, or really even any gods for that matter. I bet you can figure out where this is taking me…
Why wouldn’t a person like me pick up a book by this title? Though I do not subscribe to any religion or believe in a God or gods, I do believe in some pretty crucial concepts like respect, equality, and empathy. Epstein, the Humanist Chaplain at Harvard, creates a space for nonreligious folks like me to say, “Yeah, hey, just because I’m not religious doesn’t mean I’m some immoral, narcissistic, hateful mess!”
Humanism isn’t anything new, but it’s little discussed and not considered a “legitimate” philosophy that might, for instance, be included in interfaith dialogue. Humanists don’t necessarily want to “convert” people or tear them away from their beliefs, but simply have their own non-belief acknowledged as part of the overall conversation around ethics and morality. Why we do good shouldn’t matter. What should matter is that we do do good. Whether it’s for God, to earn a better place in the afterlife, or simply because we want the world we live in to be pleasant, we all have something worthwhile to contribute.
So where do I fall? Well, um, I’m not sure. I’ve always been attracted to the cultural aspects of various religions and spirituality, but there isn’t a single one that catches my fancy. I hate that religion is used as an excuse to shed blood, to discriminate, and to divide lines across populations. I don’t believe in a God, or really even any gods for that matter. I bet you can figure out where this is taking me…
Why wouldn’t a person like me pick up a book by this title? Though I do not subscribe to any religion or believe in a God or gods, I do believe in some pretty crucial concepts like respect, equality, and empathy. Epstein, the Humanist Chaplain at Harvard, creates a space for nonreligious folks like me to say, “Yeah, hey, just because I’m not religious doesn’t mean I’m some immoral, narcissistic, hateful mess!”
Humanism isn’t anything new, but it’s little discussed and not considered a “legitimate” philosophy that might, for instance, be included in interfaith dialogue. Humanists don’t necessarily want to “convert” people or tear them away from their beliefs, but simply have their own non-belief acknowledged as part of the overall conversation around ethics and morality. Why we do good shouldn’t matter. What should matter is that we do do good. Whether it’s for God, to earn a better place in the afterlife, or simply because we want the world we live in to be pleasant, we all have something worthwhile to contribute.
July 11, 2016
'Good without God' is an introduction to Humanism. The tone is that of an educated preacher talking to people less educated. I can see myself recommending this to my fundamentalist relatives, especially those who can read but they rigidly guard what they see, hear or associate into their lives; but for myself, it felt gentrified, as well as explaining the obvious over and over. Frankly, I don't see the point of a religion without a god, anymore than I can see a religion with a god. I don't need a Religion of any kind to be Good.
While I'd recommend this book to the more simple Religious folk who want to understand Humanism, it still is about celebrating a numinous Humanity with Love. I guess I passed through this stage of my life and I'm done with it since I became an adult. Don't misunderstand me, I think doing good is the Gold Standard of being human. I'm simply over being Good as a worshiped entity and purpose of Life. I think if I was to worship anything, which I don't, I would pick scientific progress as a guiding light, and put doing Good as a one of the items I'd want science to address and solve, as it did by producing indoor plumbing.
While I'd recommend this book to the more simple Religious folk who want to understand Humanism, it still is about celebrating a numinous Humanity with Love. I guess I passed through this stage of my life and I'm done with it since I became an adult. Don't misunderstand me, I think doing good is the Gold Standard of being human. I'm simply over being Good as a worshiped entity and purpose of Life. I think if I was to worship anything, which I don't, I would pick scientific progress as a guiding light, and put doing Good as a one of the items I'd want science to address and solve, as it did by producing indoor plumbing.
January 15, 2010
"Good Without God" serves as a very good introduction to humanism, and for that reason is worthy of four stars if you're new to humanism or are humanism-curious.
As a long-standing atheist / humanist, I have some quibbles with "GwoG," especially with his occasional willingness to throw them bad ol' New Atheists under the bus. I understand and appreciate Epstein's point that it's best for humanists to confidently declare their atheism and move on to more constructive activities, especially with sympathetic liberal religious folk. However, I believe that we're still in a sad position in which atheists need to be willing to get in the trenches and fight where necessary, and be willing to hurt some egos in the process.
Sure, I'd never ask Christopher Hitchens to come over to my parents' house to defend atheism, but I'm always thrilled to see him on my teevee when the Catholic League has a hissy-fit.
But this isn't a major theme in Epstein's book, and thus isn't a damning criticism.
If you've ever thought, "I'm an atheist -- now what?" this book is probably for you.
As a long-standing atheist / humanist, I have some quibbles with "GwoG," especially with his occasional willingness to throw them bad ol' New Atheists under the bus. I understand and appreciate Epstein's point that it's best for humanists to confidently declare their atheism and move on to more constructive activities, especially with sympathetic liberal religious folk. However, I believe that we're still in a sad position in which atheists need to be willing to get in the trenches and fight where necessary, and be willing to hurt some egos in the process.
Sure, I'd never ask Christopher Hitchens to come over to my parents' house to defend atheism, but I'm always thrilled to see him on my teevee when the Catholic League has a hissy-fit.
But this isn't a major theme in Epstein's book, and thus isn't a damning criticism.
If you've ever thought, "I'm an atheist -- now what?" this book is probably for you.
February 2, 2010
I read this book and keep thinking - "That's exactly how I feel". Epstein says the things I've thought a long time, and he does it so clearly. I wish I lived somewhere where I could find a community of people to interact with that felt this way too. Actually, I think there are more people around here who go to church that go for the fellowship, but would agree with most of what Epstein puts up - if they were willing to read it.
One of Epstein's points that I like best is that we shouldn't argue whether or not God exists - but should discuss what can we do to be good people. I'm going to reread this a lot, to let it all sink in, and then really work on doing some new stuff in the "help others" column.
One of Epstein's points that I like best is that we shouldn't argue whether or not God exists - but should discuss what can we do to be good people. I'm going to reread this a lot, to let it all sink in, and then really work on doing some new stuff in the "help others" column.
November 28, 2010
In Good without God, Greg Epstein is not trying to engage the debate on whether God exists, or to critique religion. His goal is to defend non-believers, and to formulate a positive, ethical outlook on life that does not depend on theism for its legitimacy.
He is also peroccupied with building communities that can meet the same needs that churches fulfill for traditional religions. These needs include culture, literature, and ritual, counseling; guidance for children, support groups, community service, and political engagement. Many believers enjoy the benefits of supportive, life-affirming community; so why not non-believers?
A concern I have is that Epstein leaves Humanism open to attack when he refers to Humanism as rejecting "objective values" early in the book. As the book proceeds, however, it becomes clear that he holds some "core values" as being essential: self-responsibility and the dignity of the individual, empathy and dignity accorded between people, honesty and integrity, and growth and improvement, among others. The application of these values to particular ethical dilemmas might change with time, but for most Humanists, these core values do not.
The only real drawback for my was the history of atheism/free thinkers, although he does reference Doubt as source for a more in depth look at the history of freethought. I think it would have been nice to have had a more comprohensive background. I understand why Epstein choose not to include a more detailed section on the subject, but I still feel that it would have enriched the understanding of those who are unfamilar with the movement.
One of my favorite passages that sums up the whole book for me:
"Being good blossoms from the hearts of people who are awed by nature, energized by the bonds of love, sympathetic 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."
He is also peroccupied with building communities that can meet the same needs that churches fulfill for traditional religions. These needs include culture, literature, and ritual, counseling; guidance for children, support groups, community service, and political engagement. Many believers enjoy the benefits of supportive, life-affirming community; so why not non-believers?
A concern I have is that Epstein leaves Humanism open to attack when he refers to Humanism as rejecting "objective values" early in the book. As the book proceeds, however, it becomes clear that he holds some "core values" as being essential: self-responsibility and the dignity of the individual, empathy and dignity accorded between people, honesty and integrity, and growth and improvement, among others. The application of these values to particular ethical dilemmas might change with time, but for most Humanists, these core values do not.
The only real drawback for my was the history of atheism/free thinkers, although he does reference Doubt as source for a more in depth look at the history of freethought. I think it would have been nice to have had a more comprohensive background. I understand why Epstein choose not to include a more detailed section on the subject, but I still feel that it would have enriched the understanding of those who are unfamilar with the movement.
One of my favorite passages that sums up the whole book for me:
"Being good blossoms from the hearts of people who are awed by nature, energized by the bonds of love, sympathetic 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."
April 20, 2011
This is a book about Humanism, a “religion” that is badly misunderstood, trampled in Christian media as selfish. Epstein sets the record straight, articulating the beliefs he preaches as a Humanist chaplain. He points out that in our generation “we’ve successfully responded to the head of religion, but not to the heart of religion … we’ve produced a very heady atheism. But I believe in the heart of Humanism.”
I can’t call this an evangelical book, since Epstein stresses goodness over belief. He seems to care less about which religious setting we claim as our own, and more about our humanitarian practices. Epstein calls for a unified approach to human goodness, transcending religion. The real point of Humanism is that God is beside the point. Epstein seems to be no fan of the aggressive new atheism, and instead calls for atheists and agnostics to strive for religious literacy, while imploring religious people and Humanists to enter into a deeper dialogue and cooperation.
As such in this book, you will learn a great deal about the “religion” of Humanism. I continue to put quotations around the word “religion” because, while Humanism is a lifestyle and philosophy, it does not embrace the supernatural in any way. Faith is required, but not in any particular caricature of God, especially since (as Epstein points out more than once) the word “God” itself can mean pretty much anything we want in today’s world.
Film writer/director Joss Whedon put it this way: “The enemy of Humanism is not faith—the enemy of Humanism is hate, it is fear, it is ignorance … But faith is something we have to embrace. Faith in God means believing absolutely in something, with no proof whatsoever. Faith in humanity means believing absolutely in something with a huge amount of proof to the contrary. We are the true believers.”
Let me close with a poem by Yehuda Amichai that Epstein promotes as a sort of Humanist prayer:
Roshi, Roshi—when I banged my head on the door
When I banged my head on the door, I screamed,
“My head, my head,” and I screamed, “Door, door,”
and I didn’t scream “Mama” and I didn’t scream “God.”
And I didn’t prophesy a world at the End of Days
where there will be no more heads and doors.
When you stroked my head, I whispered,
“My head, my head,” and I whispered, “Your hand, your hand,”
and I didn’t whisper “Mama” or “God.”
And I didn’t have miraculous visions
of hands stroking heads in the heavens
as they split wide open.
Whatever I scream or say or whisper is only
To console myself: My head, my head.
Door, door. Your hand, your hand.
I can’t call this an evangelical book, since Epstein stresses goodness over belief. He seems to care less about which religious setting we claim as our own, and more about our humanitarian practices. Epstein calls for a unified approach to human goodness, transcending religion. The real point of Humanism is that God is beside the point. Epstein seems to be no fan of the aggressive new atheism, and instead calls for atheists and agnostics to strive for religious literacy, while imploring religious people and Humanists to enter into a deeper dialogue and cooperation.
As such in this book, you will learn a great deal about the “religion” of Humanism. I continue to put quotations around the word “religion” because, while Humanism is a lifestyle and philosophy, it does not embrace the supernatural in any way. Faith is required, but not in any particular caricature of God, especially since (as Epstein points out more than once) the word “God” itself can mean pretty much anything we want in today’s world.
Film writer/director Joss Whedon put it this way: “The enemy of Humanism is not faith—the enemy of Humanism is hate, it is fear, it is ignorance … But faith is something we have to embrace. Faith in God means believing absolutely in something, with no proof whatsoever. Faith in humanity means believing absolutely in something with a huge amount of proof to the contrary. We are the true believers.”
Let me close with a poem by Yehuda Amichai that Epstein promotes as a sort of Humanist prayer:
Roshi, Roshi—when I banged my head on the door
When I banged my head on the door, I screamed,
“My head, my head,” and I screamed, “Door, door,”
and I didn’t scream “Mama” and I didn’t scream “God.”
And I didn’t prophesy a world at the End of Days
where there will be no more heads and doors.
When you stroked my head, I whispered,
“My head, my head,” and I whispered, “Your hand, your hand,”
and I didn’t whisper “Mama” or “God.”
And I didn’t have miraculous visions
of hands stroking heads in the heavens
as they split wide open.
Whatever I scream or say or whisper is only
To console myself: My head, my head.
Door, door. Your hand, your hand.
February 19, 2010
When I first saw Greg Epstein on the Bill Maher show last year I knew I found a kindred spirit -- someone who was not only comfortable with being an atheist but who made it his life's work to help atheists better understand their own situation and work together for the common good of all mankind.
I know that sounds a little over the top, but frankly it's how I feel and after reading his book I feel even stronger now that it is possible to live a good life without god and be able to appropriately communicate this truth when need be.
What is so great about Good Without God is that it is not a book about why atheism is right and religion is wrong. Unlike other popular books recently (The God Delusion, etc.) this book refrains from defending atheism and arguing against the existence of god, but rather explains how atheists can live a good life without god and how important it is for atheists to have a community of their own.
The sense of community Epstein writes about is exactly the reason why my wife and I have recently started going to meetups of other atheists. Just because we don't believe in god and don't go to church does not mean we don't need community. Humans need community.
This book is full of history and ideas and definitions. It gives atheists a common language and a common goal. The weird thing is that common goal has always been my ultimate goal in life -- to live a good life, help others and leave some kind of legacy. Epstein uses the term "dignity" to describe how we should live and I really like that term. It suggests that we do what is right because it is right, not because of some promise of future glory or reward. It suggests that we do unto others as we would have done unto us, which is a concept that has its roots long before the theists adopted it as their "golden rule." It suggests that we respect each other, and respect the planet and, with all due respect to religious leaders, make living a good life our purpose with no ulterior motive.
This is a great book for atheists, non-believers, Humanists, agnostics, and others who do not believe in god to read. It is also a wonderful book for religious people to read if they are interested in learning something about the estimated one billion nonreligious people in the world rather than making assumptions about how we choose to live. In other words, it's a book that can help bring us together rather than force a wedge between us. That is a great lesson for all mankind, religious and nonreligious.
I know that sounds a little over the top, but frankly it's how I feel and after reading his book I feel even stronger now that it is possible to live a good life without god and be able to appropriately communicate this truth when need be.
What is so great about Good Without God is that it is not a book about why atheism is right and religion is wrong. Unlike other popular books recently (The God Delusion, etc.) this book refrains from defending atheism and arguing against the existence of god, but rather explains how atheists can live a good life without god and how important it is for atheists to have a community of their own.
The sense of community Epstein writes about is exactly the reason why my wife and I have recently started going to meetups of other atheists. Just because we don't believe in god and don't go to church does not mean we don't need community. Humans need community.
This book is full of history and ideas and definitions. It gives atheists a common language and a common goal. The weird thing is that common goal has always been my ultimate goal in life -- to live a good life, help others and leave some kind of legacy. Epstein uses the term "dignity" to describe how we should live and I really like that term. It suggests that we do what is right because it is right, not because of some promise of future glory or reward. It suggests that we do unto others as we would have done unto us, which is a concept that has its roots long before the theists adopted it as their "golden rule." It suggests that we respect each other, and respect the planet and, with all due respect to religious leaders, make living a good life our purpose with no ulterior motive.
This is a great book for atheists, non-believers, Humanists, agnostics, and others who do not believe in god to read. It is also a wonderful book for religious people to read if they are interested in learning something about the estimated one billion nonreligious people in the world rather than making assumptions about how we choose to live. In other words, it's a book that can help bring us together rather than force a wedge between us. That is a great lesson for all mankind, religious and nonreligious.
November 5, 2013
I love this book. So much so, I actually bought it.
It's all about just being a good person for the sake of being a good person. It's very uplifting! One of the main things I liked about this book is that Greg Epstein is very respectful towards religions. While I'm not religious, I dislike books/authors who are very negative & condescending towards religions.
It's all about just being a good person for the sake of being a good person. It's very uplifting! One of the main things I liked about this book is that Greg Epstein is very respectful towards religions. While I'm not religious, I dislike books/authors who are very negative & condescending towards religions.
April 18, 2011
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.
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.
February 10, 2021
As expected from the outset, Epstein sets out to defend the thesis of his book (that one can be good without God), but he is basically addressing a strawman of the Christian position. Christian philosophers don't argue that Atheists can't do good things or lead generally good lives, they argue that we can't ground the existence of morality without God. That's a very different claim. If there's no objective standard for morality, then it's not clear how you can say that someone who wants to take advantage of someone is any morally worse than someone who helps those in need.
Aside from that, this book really doesn't add anything new to the discussion, though it does provide a bit of a history of Humanism. But he clearly has an ignorance about the history of religion (especially Christianity). And he claims that one in five Americans are Atheists or otherwise secular people, but this is a gross overstatement (it's probably closer to 2-4% of Americans are secular or nonreligious, not 25%).
Even more bizarre, there's at least one chapter in this book in which he didn't address the topic at all. He has a chapter entitled "Can You Be Good *With* God?" But he never addresses the topic. He just continues talking about Humanism and how you can be good without God.
All in all, a pretty forgettable book.
Aside from that, this book really doesn't add anything new to the discussion, though it does provide a bit of a history of Humanism. But he clearly has an ignorance about the history of religion (especially Christianity). And he claims that one in five Americans are Atheists or otherwise secular people, but this is a gross overstatement (it's probably closer to 2-4% of Americans are secular or nonreligious, not 25%).
Even more bizarre, there's at least one chapter in this book in which he didn't address the topic at all. He has a chapter entitled "Can You Be Good *With* God?" But he never addresses the topic. He just continues talking about Humanism and how you can be good without God.
All in all, a pretty forgettable book.
May 31, 2013
Although not as expansive as I might have hoped, this book earns a spot on any atheist/humanist's bookshelf. I personally resonate more with his ecumenical (if I can borrow the term) approach to religious beliefs and especially religious people, as compared to the more strident "new atheist" authors. I'll admit to enjoying a Dawkins smackdown as much as the next heathen, but as a humanist chaplain, Epstein takes much greater pains to recognize the full spectrum of religiosity and the allies to be found particularly in moderate-to-liberal religious circles.
If I had to identify something that kept this from being a 4-star book for me, it may be that the author often approached topics from a personal perspective, and I was looking for something a little more broad in scope or philosophical. On the bright side, I did pick up some good recommendations for further reading in those areas, and a few of his more punchy quotes stuck with me. This is a book I could certainly recommend to a friend not well acquainted with the lifestance of humanism.
If I had to identify something that kept this from being a 4-star book for me, it may be that the author often approached topics from a personal perspective, and I was looking for something a little more broad in scope or philosophical. On the bright side, I did pick up some good recommendations for further reading in those areas, and a few of his more punchy quotes stuck with me. This is a book I could certainly recommend to a friend not well acquainted with the lifestance of humanism.
July 9, 2012
Excellent in content, beautiful in tone, I love this book. Epstein goes far beyond examining how & why many of us think (as opposed to "believe") there is no God. And he goes beyond explaining how atheists, among others, are mostly wonderful, lovely, caring people. He clearly and lovingly discusses what we can DO with our world view, how we can, given our philosophy, engage our world.
January 26, 2018
Usually, I don't write reviews but this book made me do it. I expected much more than I found in it. This is a very desperate cry for recognizing the humanism as a new religion. I bought the book to find the answer to the question "what is the basis of goodness without God". Maybe I didn't read good enough even though my understanding of English is much better than writing.
September 1, 2010
I listened to a lot of Fresh Air interviews over the course of a 3,000 mile road trip around the Pacific Northwest with my family. After a particularly interesting interview, I would add whatever book was being discussed to my wish list. First I would pull over, of course.
This is one of the books on that wish list. Because the interview was so interesting and because I've been looking for a book like this for a while, I really wanted to like this book more than I ultimately did.
Greg M. Epstein, the Humanist Chaplain(?) at Harvard(!), wrote this book as a positive statement of Humanist (read atheist) values and a description of a meaningful life without God. The problem is that, perhaps overcorrecting for the recent batch of ornery atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, Mr. Epstein is offering a sort of "compassionate Humanism" that stands equal with the "other" religions.
I feel that this book needs a little more bite and a lot more passion if it really wants to achieve its purpose. The Humanism in this book is the secular version of those churches out here in California where people play acoustic guitar and have crosses made of felt glued on the altar. I want some Sturm und Drang to go with my atheism, please.
Come to think of it Alain de Botton wrote some very good articles about a Humanist church. I'll dig up the links if anyone wants to read them.
He does make some very good points, though:
- Why is it okay for people to announce that they would never vote for an atheist? What exactly are they trying to deflect?
- This is a much larger issue than just "science vs. religion," which is a very limited way to frame your world view. It's not like we are a bunch of Galileos having our great scientific discoveries denounced.
- Whether or not you believe in God is a meaningless question. The real question is what do you believe about God. People can stretch what they mean by "God" so much as to make it an almost meaningless concept.
- He neatly dispatches New Age and dressed up, westernized Eastern Religions. I wish I could find the quote but he compares eastern mysticism to a beautiful woman from another part of the world -- she's beautiful, she's mysterious, she's out of your league.
- He points out that the lovable Dalai Lama is against gay marriage.
- There is even a Humanist version of AA called SMART for those who have problems with the whole higher power thing. (I don't think the higher power thing is enforced very strictly because a woman once told me that dolphins were her higher power.)
- I agree with him that people should be literate about religion though I think it's important as a cultural touchstone, not so that we can learn to be more accepting or whatever. Refusing to read the Bible is the same as refusing to read Shakespeare.
- It is much cooler and more succinct to write "Eric Clapton is God" than "Eric Clapton exemplifies the values that we Humanists cherish," so perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to let go of God. (I made this one up.)
But Mr. Epstein loses me in the chapter where he goes through the Ten Commandments and interprets them to Humanist values. Why is the burden of proof on him? I can't think of anything else from the Bronze Age that we are trying so hard to preserve for anything other than historical value.
Until the Mayan calendar runs out in 2012 and destroys the world, I think I'm going to be catching up on my Christopher Hitchens.
This is one of the books on that wish list. Because the interview was so interesting and because I've been looking for a book like this for a while, I really wanted to like this book more than I ultimately did.
Greg M. Epstein, the Humanist Chaplain(?) at Harvard(!), wrote this book as a positive statement of Humanist (read atheist) values and a description of a meaningful life without God. The problem is that, perhaps overcorrecting for the recent batch of ornery atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, Mr. Epstein is offering a sort of "compassionate Humanism" that stands equal with the "other" religions.
I feel that this book needs a little more bite and a lot more passion if it really wants to achieve its purpose. The Humanism in this book is the secular version of those churches out here in California where people play acoustic guitar and have crosses made of felt glued on the altar. I want some Sturm und Drang to go with my atheism, please.
Come to think of it Alain de Botton wrote some very good articles about a Humanist church. I'll dig up the links if anyone wants to read them.
He does make some very good points, though:
- Why is it okay for people to announce that they would never vote for an atheist? What exactly are they trying to deflect?
- This is a much larger issue than just "science vs. religion," which is a very limited way to frame your world view. It's not like we are a bunch of Galileos having our great scientific discoveries denounced.
- Whether or not you believe in God is a meaningless question. The real question is what do you believe about God. People can stretch what they mean by "God" so much as to make it an almost meaningless concept.
- He neatly dispatches New Age and dressed up, westernized Eastern Religions. I wish I could find the quote but he compares eastern mysticism to a beautiful woman from another part of the world -- she's beautiful, she's mysterious, she's out of your league.
- He points out that the lovable Dalai Lama is against gay marriage.
- There is even a Humanist version of AA called SMART for those who have problems with the whole higher power thing. (I don't think the higher power thing is enforced very strictly because a woman once told me that dolphins were her higher power.)
- I agree with him that people should be literate about religion though I think it's important as a cultural touchstone, not so that we can learn to be more accepting or whatever. Refusing to read the Bible is the same as refusing to read Shakespeare.
- It is much cooler and more succinct to write "Eric Clapton is God" than "Eric Clapton exemplifies the values that we Humanists cherish," so perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to let go of God. (I made this one up.)
But Mr. Epstein loses me in the chapter where he goes through the Ten Commandments and interprets them to Humanist values. Why is the burden of proof on him? I can't think of anything else from the Bronze Age that we are trying so hard to preserve for anything other than historical value.
Until the Mayan calendar runs out in 2012 and destroys the world, I think I'm going to be catching up on my Christopher Hitchens.
Read
July 8, 2011As a Humanist, Epstein finds it more important to focus on values than on the lack of theistic underpinnings for those values, especially when the word "God" is used so liberally that it is difficult to pin down its meaning. He explains that there are different kinds of atheism and nihilism and different theories about why ethics evolved. He provides a long discussion about dignity, a complex virtue which includes self-awareness and taking responsibility for oneself while also empathizing with and being generous to others. Dignity partially depends on acknowledging differences between people.
He has no sympathy for the idea that atheists cannot be ethical, calling it a "prejudice" and attributing it to some of history's cruelest figures. He pointed out that "as soon as you get into forgiving bad religious people on the basis that they might not have really believed, in fairness you'd probably have to look at many seemingly great people who said they did what they did to honor God but may actually have had much more secular reasons for doing it." (p. 30)
Disagreeing with a simplified Buddhist expression about eliminating desire and attachment, Epstein says that it is good to care about ourselves and others. We want to be ethical, and for most of us, this means acknowledging our emotional lives and sharing our experiences with a community. Epstein cites Steven Pinker who said that considering other people's feelings is ingrained in our consciousness because of our need for long-term cooperation and social cohesion. (p. 20) He explained various types of cooperation outlined by Martin Nowak: kin selection; direct reciprocity, or tit for tat; indirect reciprocity, or paying it forward; network reciprocity; and group selection.
We are naturally prone to believe that other people have minds, thoughts, intentions, and we continue believing that they exist even when we cannot see them. Self-consciously, we worry about what they might be saying about us behind our backs, and what they might be plotting. From there, it is a simple leap to a belief in an invisible, all-seeing God. Epstein rehashes a claim that the idea of God is a "spandrel," that is, a byproduct of other, more useful evolutionary useful mental processes.
What is mentioned in the previous paragraph could function as a summary of much of Jesse Bering's recent book, The Belief Instinct, for those who prefer a more conversational presentation of these ideas. The first part of Epstein's book tends to be a little academic, focusing on the history and theory of Humanism, while the end becomes very practically oriented regarding how people can live fulfilling lives in Humanist community, serving others in need and meeting their own needs for art, nature, and companionship.
Epstein also rejects the "Noble Lie" defense of religion, which is the admission that there probably is no God coupled with the claim that people's lives are enhanced when they at least play "make-believe" that there is a God. He questions the modern Jewish metaphor of "tikkun" (healing) as a stand-in for the concept of social justice and other forms of good deeds, since much of what is needed to improve the world is not restoring the world to an earlier, better state, but inventing something totally new for the future.
He has no sympathy for the idea that atheists cannot be ethical, calling it a "prejudice" and attributing it to some of history's cruelest figures. He pointed out that "as soon as you get into forgiving bad religious people on the basis that they might not have really believed, in fairness you'd probably have to look at many seemingly great people who said they did what they did to honor God but may actually have had much more secular reasons for doing it." (p. 30)
Disagreeing with a simplified Buddhist expression about eliminating desire and attachment, Epstein says that it is good to care about ourselves and others. We want to be ethical, and for most of us, this means acknowledging our emotional lives and sharing our experiences with a community. Epstein cites Steven Pinker who said that considering other people's feelings is ingrained in our consciousness because of our need for long-term cooperation and social cohesion. (p. 20) He explained various types of cooperation outlined by Martin Nowak: kin selection; direct reciprocity, or tit for tat; indirect reciprocity, or paying it forward; network reciprocity; and group selection.
We are naturally prone to believe that other people have minds, thoughts, intentions, and we continue believing that they exist even when we cannot see them. Self-consciously, we worry about what they might be saying about us behind our backs, and what they might be plotting. From there, it is a simple leap to a belief in an invisible, all-seeing God. Epstein rehashes a claim that the idea of God is a "spandrel," that is, a byproduct of other, more useful evolutionary useful mental processes.
What is mentioned in the previous paragraph could function as a summary of much of Jesse Bering's recent book, The Belief Instinct, for those who prefer a more conversational presentation of these ideas. The first part of Epstein's book tends to be a little academic, focusing on the history and theory of Humanism, while the end becomes very practically oriented regarding how people can live fulfilling lives in Humanist community, serving others in need and meeting their own needs for art, nature, and companionship.
Epstein also rejects the "Noble Lie" defense of religion, which is the admission that there probably is no God coupled with the claim that people's lives are enhanced when they at least play "make-believe" that there is a God. He questions the modern Jewish metaphor of "tikkun" (healing) as a stand-in for the concept of social justice and other forms of good deeds, since much of what is needed to improve the world is not restoring the world to an earlier, better state, but inventing something totally new for the future.
April 21, 2010
So, I can't say that Greg Epstein is the best writer I've ever read, but this book gives voice to many of the ideas that have been floating around in my head for years, which is something I truly appreciate.
The book is really divided into two sections: the history of atheism/non-believers, and the current roles/beliefs of the non-religious community. Some of the history lessons get a bit draggy, but I am still glad that I read them, as they contained some good information.
Epstein generally has a casual and accessible style, and this is definitely a friendlier and less aggressive approach to the topic of atheism than some other current writers have taken. He seems to have a couple of goals here: 1. to speak to the non-religious/questioning community and give them a sense of their historical and community roots; and 2. to assert that the non-religious community does not pose a threat to the religious community, and that in fact we have a great deal in common and should be working together.
I think this is definitely a worthwhile read, both for those who have been looking for the right expression of their non-believer status, as well as for those who just don't understand the nuances of what it means to be an atheist/non-religious.
The book is really divided into two sections: the history of atheism/non-believers, and the current roles/beliefs of the non-religious community. Some of the history lessons get a bit draggy, but I am still glad that I read them, as they contained some good information.
Epstein generally has a casual and accessible style, and this is definitely a friendlier and less aggressive approach to the topic of atheism than some other current writers have taken. He seems to have a couple of goals here: 1. to speak to the non-religious/questioning community and give them a sense of their historical and community roots; and 2. to assert that the non-religious community does not pose a threat to the religious community, and that in fact we have a great deal in common and should be working together.
I think this is definitely a worthwhile read, both for those who have been looking for the right expression of their non-believer status, as well as for those who just don't understand the nuances of what it means to be an atheist/non-religious.
September 4, 2021
1. The Author is asking, Can We be Good Without God?
I'd say -- Yes.
2. So, what more?
Let’s see, I used one word to give truth.
So 269 pages is quite a lengthy explanation. Because, being good doesn’t depend on belonging to any of the major world's religious tradition.
3. Fine, Fine, What do you like from this work?
This Book is well written. I like the stories, references to contemporary people, Rebecca Goldstein, Thomas Nagel.
I felt happy when I saw him referring Clifford Geertz, although I haven't finished his work on Cultures.
3. So, Where did he fall short?
I think, no theist would argue that one can’t be a good person without God or any sort of religious tradition.
Most of the content is repetitive, if one is familiar with Diderot, Baron D'Holbach, Voltaire, Robert Ingersoll.
4. So, Should I read it or not?
If you don't know anything on this topic, sure.
Deus Vult,
Gottfried
I'd say -- Yes.
2. So, what more?
Let’s see, I used one word to give truth.
So 269 pages is quite a lengthy explanation. Because, being good doesn’t depend on belonging to any of the major world's religious tradition.
3. Fine, Fine, What do you like from this work?
This Book is well written. I like the stories, references to contemporary people, Rebecca Goldstein, Thomas Nagel.
I felt happy when I saw him referring Clifford Geertz, although I haven't finished his work on Cultures.
3. So, Where did he fall short?
I think, no theist would argue that one can’t be a good person without God or any sort of religious tradition.
Most of the content is repetitive, if one is familiar with Diderot, Baron D'Holbach, Voltaire, Robert Ingersoll.
4. So, Should I read it or not?
If you don't know anything on this topic, sure.
Deus Vult,
Gottfried
June 21, 2022
Epstein's Good Without God is of most interest to two camps: the humanist-curious and the in-need-of-inspiration secularist. The final chapter on community is the strongest chapter, as it's both honest about the previous failures of humanist organizations and clear in what is needed if humanists are to build the important cohesion already belonging to religious cultures. The weakest chapter is the first, which begins well enough by laying out straightforward ways secularists/humanists can conceive of the good, but ends with a confused discussion of values and objectivity that mistakes epistemic certainty with objectivity and a belief in eternal truths. The book's primary aim doesn't rest, or need not rest, on any conclusions from these few pages--thankfully. I found the book a solid, but not groundbreaking presentation of the key dimensions of humanism. Experts in philosophy are encouraged to skip this one.
January 20, 2013
I had turned away from traditional religion a while ago and was searching for understanding of what I now believe. I found myself agreeing with almost everything in this book. I took a note for almost every page. Religion provides a sense of community that atheists and agnostics should not have to give up simply because they do not believe in God or religion. Humanism is all about leading good lives and creating a better world now rather than relying on an afterlife or supernatural power. There is a need for religious literacy to battle the fear and prejudice that are bred by ignorance.
Epicurus (pg 43):
Nothing to fear in God;
Nothing to feel in Death;
Good can be attained;
Evil can be endured.
Jefferson (pg 51): "...the human mind will some day get back to the freedom it enjoyed two thousand years ago. This country, which has given the world an example of physical liberty, owes to it that of moral emancipation also."
H = S + C + V (pg 81)
Epicurus's eudaimonia (pg 92):
"Happiness is not something that you can find, acquire, or achieve directly. You have to get the conditions right and then wait. Some of the conditions are within you, such as coherence among the parts and levels of your personality. Other conditions require relationships to things beyond you: just as plants need sun, water, and good soil to thrive, people need love, work, and a connection to something larger. It is worth striving to get the right relationship between yourself and others, between yourself and your work, and between yourself and something larger than yourself. If you get these relationships right, a sense of meaning and purpose will emerge."
Humanist version of Commandments (pg 118):
1. Seek the best in yourself and others, and believe in your own ability to make a positive difference in the world.
2. Pursue truth and honesty in all you do; be weary of allowing power, status, or possessions to substitute for moral courage, dignity, and goodness.
3. Be positive and constructive rather than negative and disrespectful.
4. To keep healthy, you must balance work, play, and rest.
5. All members of the family should respect each other.
6. Don't kill.
7. Don't be unfaithful.
8. Don't steal.
9. Don't lie.
10. When you see nice things owned by others, let them be your inspiration, rather than a source of bad feelings. If there are things that you want, work hard to get them.
Poem by Yehuda Amichai (pg 122):
Roshi, Roshi—when I banged my head on the door
When I banged my head on the door, I screamed,
“My head, my head,” and I screamed, “Door, door,”
and I didn’t scream “Mama” and I didn’t scream “God.”
And I didn’t prophesy a world at the End of Days
where there will be no more heads and doors.
When you stroked my head, I whispered,
“My head, my head,” and I whispered, “Your hand, your hand,”
and I didn’t whisper “Mama” or “God.”
And I didn’t have miraculous visions
of hands stroking heads in the heavens
as they split wide open.
Whatever I scream or say or whisper is only
to console myself: My head, my head.
Door, door. Your hand, your hand.
Reward behavior you like, ignore behavior you don't (128).
Martin Luther King Jr, 1967 (pg 154): "...we are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly."
(pg 179) "Identity is about belonging somewhere".
Epicurus (pg 43):
Nothing to fear in God;
Nothing to feel in Death;
Good can be attained;
Evil can be endured.
Jefferson (pg 51): "...the human mind will some day get back to the freedom it enjoyed two thousand years ago. This country, which has given the world an example of physical liberty, owes to it that of moral emancipation also."
H = S + C + V (pg 81)
Epicurus's eudaimonia (pg 92):
"Happiness is not something that you can find, acquire, or achieve directly. You have to get the conditions right and then wait. Some of the conditions are within you, such as coherence among the parts and levels of your personality. Other conditions require relationships to things beyond you: just as plants need sun, water, and good soil to thrive, people need love, work, and a connection to something larger. It is worth striving to get the right relationship between yourself and others, between yourself and your work, and between yourself and something larger than yourself. If you get these relationships right, a sense of meaning and purpose will emerge."
Humanist version of Commandments (pg 118):
1. Seek the best in yourself and others, and believe in your own ability to make a positive difference in the world.
2. Pursue truth and honesty in all you do; be weary of allowing power, status, or possessions to substitute for moral courage, dignity, and goodness.
3. Be positive and constructive rather than negative and disrespectful.
4. To keep healthy, you must balance work, play, and rest.
5. All members of the family should respect each other.
6. Don't kill.
7. Don't be unfaithful.
8. Don't steal.
9. Don't lie.
10. When you see nice things owned by others, let them be your inspiration, rather than a source of bad feelings. If there are things that you want, work hard to get them.
Poem by Yehuda Amichai (pg 122):
Roshi, Roshi—when I banged my head on the door
When I banged my head on the door, I screamed,
“My head, my head,” and I screamed, “Door, door,”
and I didn’t scream “Mama” and I didn’t scream “God.”
And I didn’t prophesy a world at the End of Days
where there will be no more heads and doors.
When you stroked my head, I whispered,
“My head, my head,” and I whispered, “Your hand, your hand,”
and I didn’t whisper “Mama” or “God.”
And I didn’t have miraculous visions
of hands stroking heads in the heavens
as they split wide open.
Whatever I scream or say or whisper is only
to console myself: My head, my head.
Door, door. Your hand, your hand.
Reward behavior you like, ignore behavior you don't (128).
Martin Luther King Jr, 1967 (pg 154): "...we are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly."
(pg 179) "Identity is about belonging somewhere".
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 18, 2022
I have a very religious background, and it's not uncommon for me to (still!) hear people express incredulity that anyone could be Good Without God- as if those who no longer have to worry about going to hell will now rush about on a crazed killing spree here on earth. This book offers a nice introduction to Humanism- its history and tenets. It seemed to be written for those who are athiests/agnostics and looking for words to describe their position and for those "believers" who want to understand this position. I listened to the audiobook (the ebook was not available from my library) and I think I might have gotten more from the book if I had read it instead.
August 2, 2010
This book was lent to me by my boyfriend a few weeks ago. I started it a few days ago, and finished it with mixed feelings today. Epstein tries very hard to create a middle ground between religion and the "new atheists" such as Dawkins and Hitchens. It served as a good introduction to the idea of humanism and how one can still participate in community and charity without having to believe in the supernatural.
However, this book gets three stars and not more because it lacks the edge that those new atheists have in their texts. I respect those who don't want to attack religious beliefs but try to coexist. For someone who has come to terms with their own atheism and lack of active community, I found the book very dry. I am very much okay without a church or a clergy to answer to. People who don't believe in god, but still want that sense of belonging, will find this book in a much better light than I did. It was very informative on how to be good without god. Other than that, I didn't learn much from it. Again, this is an entirely subjective review because of my previous dealings with both Christianity and atheism. To those new to the idea of life without god, I'd highly recommend it. For the rest of us who consider atheism to be old hat, you can still be good without this book.
Sorry, sorry, couldn't resist the awful pun there... :)
However, this book gets three stars and not more because it lacks the edge that those new atheists have in their texts. I respect those who don't want to attack religious beliefs but try to coexist. For someone who has come to terms with their own atheism and lack of active community, I found the book very dry. I am very much okay without a church or a clergy to answer to. People who don't believe in god, but still want that sense of belonging, will find this book in a much better light than I did. It was very informative on how to be good without god. Other than that, I didn't learn much from it. Again, this is an entirely subjective review because of my previous dealings with both Christianity and atheism. To those new to the idea of life without god, I'd highly recommend it. For the rest of us who consider atheism to be old hat, you can still be good without this book.
Sorry, sorry, couldn't resist the awful pun there... :)
March 19, 2013
While the book was interesting, it is also a polemic as much as a philosophical treatise. Epstein makes one fatal error in his prescription for secular spirituality. He believes that non-religious communities can fill the gap left by the disappearance of religious communities. My experience tells me he is simply wrong. I'd like to believe he's right, and for some people he clearly is, but for a very large number of people, no commitment to social justice will fill the mystical void of religion. Most people just don't want to have to think that hard. What Epstein describes is, to a large extent, liberal protestantism, and liberal protestantism has been collapsing for decades. People are simply unwilling to make the sort of long-term intense commitment to humanistic, secular institutions that they are to religious institutions. You won't go to hell for failing to make it to the UU church on Sunday. That doesn't make religion good or true--it just means that religions exist for a reason. They have filled a psychological need for billions of people over hundreds of thousands of years. The cold reason of secular humanism doesn't fit as nicely into the human psyche.
April 25, 2010
Epstein is a humanist rabbi, who writes passionately about humanism as a religion without gods. He discusses the history of humanist thought, its present status as a movement poorly understood--and about its strong ethical commitment. I like his emphasis on doing, not believing, as the measure of the good life. His commitment to community and his suggestions as to how to be culturally true to one's traditions at the same time being part of the world ring true to me, as a fulfilled humanist-unitarian-universalist.
July 5, 2011
I've been trying, for a while now, to figure out exactly where I stand in terms of "belief." This book helped me to solidify my thinking about my attitudes about faith and goodness and humanity. Written like a conversation with a friend, this novel is easy to read, reasonable, and respectful, to both atheists and believers; it's a positive book about how nonreligious people find purpose and meaning in their lives without the constraints of organized religion, and makes a strong case for a long and well documented history of nonbelievers who make up a tradition of secular humanism.
July 12, 2021
I hadn't heard of Humanism until I discovered this book. Clearly I've lived under a Christian rock all my life. While I'm still not sure I could fully explain Humanist philosophy to someone else, I can give it a good go and at least give them a basic idea, thanks to Epstein's book.
At first it was a bit off-putting to read statements that felt like a shrug-off of things I have always been expected to take very seriously, so I told myself a couple of times, "You're not reading this book to prove anything to the author--he doesn't know you and has no idea you're reading his book--you're reading this to gain a different perspective and to learn." And it worked. I read this book with an avid interest in what Epstein was sharing.
I actually found myself nodding in agreement many times throughout this book, as Humanist ideals are very much in line with those of any other individual who wishes to be a good person and leave the world a better place than that which they entered. If you have any desire for those two things, you will agree with a lot of what Epstein says, too, and may even find yourself wondering if you're truly, without having realized it before, a Humanist.
While a book of this nature initially sounds intimidating and overwhelmingly academic, I assure you it absolutely is not. Epstein has an easy voice to read, and while he is obviously incredibly well-read and highly educated, as well as deeply passionate about what he believes, he knows how to express himself in a way that is not exclusive to those of us who don't necessarily want to entrench ourselves in heavy cerebral examinations of complex topics. And while there are certainly many more things you can learn about Humanism even after enjoying Epstein's book, if you're just looking for a different perspective or to gain a general understanding of Humanist thought, this is without question the book for you.
I appreciated the list of additional resources at the back of the book, as well. It is a good way to segue from Epstein to something deeper or more focused if you're interested.
At first it was a bit off-putting to read statements that felt like a shrug-off of things I have always been expected to take very seriously, so I told myself a couple of times, "You're not reading this book to prove anything to the author--he doesn't know you and has no idea you're reading his book--you're reading this to gain a different perspective and to learn." And it worked. I read this book with an avid interest in what Epstein was sharing.
I actually found myself nodding in agreement many times throughout this book, as Humanist ideals are very much in line with those of any other individual who wishes to be a good person and leave the world a better place than that which they entered. If you have any desire for those two things, you will agree with a lot of what Epstein says, too, and may even find yourself wondering if you're truly, without having realized it before, a Humanist.
While a book of this nature initially sounds intimidating and overwhelmingly academic, I assure you it absolutely is not. Epstein has an easy voice to read, and while he is obviously incredibly well-read and highly educated, as well as deeply passionate about what he believes, he knows how to express himself in a way that is not exclusive to those of us who don't necessarily want to entrench ourselves in heavy cerebral examinations of complex topics. And while there are certainly many more things you can learn about Humanism even after enjoying Epstein's book, if you're just looking for a different perspective or to gain a general understanding of Humanist thought, this is without question the book for you.
I appreciated the list of additional resources at the back of the book, as well. It is a good way to segue from Epstein to something deeper or more focused if you're interested.
January 16, 2024
4 1/2 stars
May 24, 2020
Pretty much everything you'd ever like to know about humanism.
October 30, 2021
Good enough without god
A sturdy primer that’s definitely dated now. Even so, it was a very clarifying read as I better understood the method for maturing my own Humanist beliefs.
A sturdy primer that’s definitely dated now. Even so, it was a very clarifying read as I better understood the method for maturing my own Humanist beliefs.
July 28, 2011
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.
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.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 251 reviews