Scan barcode
annecrisp's review against another edition
1.0
This book is boring. It might contain interesting ideas, but the writer's poor writing overpowers them. He needed his editor to explain to him that not every sentence needs to have multiple clauses, semi-colons, and/or hyphens. It made my brain hurt.
kb_208's review against another edition
4.0
A pretty good look at the unethical and immorality of religion, while giving a very good incite into the alternative of humanism. Most of these anti-religion books don't give an alternative to religion, just the reasons why they are bullshit. Humanism is something I've connected with quite heavily these past few years. It's an easy and very flexible belief system that believes in the tenets of science and reason. AC Grayling is one of my personal favorite authors when it comes to this type of philosophy. His essays from some of his other publications are very enjoyable to read and very insightful.
paladintodd's review against another edition
3.0
Skipped the first part so I can't comment on that.
The second part makes a good argument that you can make a ethical life without religion. I'm not sure that's a hard argument to make.
It didn't cover why that wouldn't necessarily lead to an evil life or even that it shouldn't. It stresses acting to your individual values, which self-preservation is certainly one, which can certainly lead to an un-ethical life even if you aren't hurting others.
The second part makes a good argument that you can make a ethical life without religion. I'm not sure that's a hard argument to make.
It didn't cover why that wouldn't necessarily lead to an evil life or even that it shouldn't. It stresses acting to your individual values, which self-preservation is certainly one, which can certainly lead to an un-ethical life even if you aren't hurting others.
davidjme's review against another edition
2.0
If I were in AC Grayling's class, I'd skip his lectures.
I really wanted to like this more. I bought it primarily because of the emphasis on secular humanism as a replacement for religion, which runs counter to a lot of the new atheist stuff I've read/listened to lately, which has tended just to go for the fundamentalist jugular. What I got was a book that droned, mischaracterised mainline apologetic arguments, was witheringly condescending.
At least Hitchens had flair.
I really wanted to like this more. I bought it primarily because of the emphasis on secular humanism as a replacement for religion, which runs counter to a lot of the new atheist stuff I've read/listened to lately, which has tended just to go for the fundamentalist jugular. What I got was a book that droned, mischaracterised mainline apologetic arguments, was witheringly condescending.
At least Hitchens had flair.
ashrafulla's review against another edition
4.0
This rating is independent of whether I agree with the author. There are many points where I question Grayling's reasoning. For example, trusting that an individual's reasoning is sound if it passes a skeptic's test seems to be too requiring of everyone being good. In fact I think Grayling's description of humanism explicitly requires a limit on the numbers of selfish actors, which isn't so true in religion (religious pressure can force ambivalent humans to be somewhat moral).
The book is, however, a very good explanation of the arguments posed by atheists for their position and against the position of existence of a deity. Every argument is clear and most nuances are explained thoroughly. In addition the style has only a small bit of foreign-word syndrome so you can more easily assimilate and pressure the arguments. Grayling is a bit of an ass but he is upfront and not pushy about that, which allows him to stand strong without seriously demeaning anyone (unless you take his words out of context and extrapolate).
Grayling's antireligious arguments regarding the construction of religion are well founded but assailable. I think he'd only get as far as admitting an impasse in fighting tradition & the wisdom of the ancients. He completely nails the imposition of fake morality (sex education, intellectual debates, capital punishment, etc) on religion. That is the biggest part a theist should take away: the big religions have completely failed in the edges of their moral order. They must adapt as they have done before to a changing, liberalizing society.
As for humanism, the general feeling I get from Grayling is that humanism requires two to tango and whether he meant to or not, he wants to be one of the two. By that I mean he justifies humanism as an individual successfully defending his ethics against a skeptic. Grayling never really defines that skeptic. Is that skeptic a humanist, and if so is humanism running under the same problem of group acceptance that cults offer? Is that skeptic anyone, in which case all I have to do is find the skeptic that agrees with me? Can I dismiss some skeptics but not others? That part of his humanism ground is shaky and it doesn't involve his specific implementation of humanism.
The book is a quick and understandable read so I recommend it, especially for theists who get a quick exposure to atheism's main arguments.
The book is, however, a very good explanation of the arguments posed by atheists for their position and against the position of existence of a deity. Every argument is clear and most nuances are explained thoroughly. In addition the style has only a small bit of foreign-word syndrome so you can more easily assimilate and pressure the arguments. Grayling is a bit of an ass but he is upfront and not pushy about that, which allows him to stand strong without seriously demeaning anyone (unless you take his words out of context and extrapolate).
Grayling's antireligious arguments regarding the construction of religion are well founded but assailable. I think he'd only get as far as admitting an impasse in fighting tradition & the wisdom of the ancients. He completely nails the imposition of fake morality (sex education, intellectual debates, capital punishment, etc) on religion. That is the biggest part a theist should take away: the big religions have completely failed in the edges of their moral order. They must adapt as they have done before to a changing, liberalizing society.
As for humanism, the general feeling I get from Grayling is that humanism requires two to tango and whether he meant to or not, he wants to be one of the two. By that I mean he justifies humanism as an individual successfully defending his ethics against a skeptic. Grayling never really defines that skeptic. Is that skeptic a humanist, and if so is humanism running under the same problem of group acceptance that cults offer? Is that skeptic anyone, in which case all I have to do is find the skeptic that agrees with me? Can I dismiss some skeptics but not others? That part of his humanism ground is shaky and it doesn't involve his specific implementation of humanism.
The book is a quick and understandable read so I recommend it, especially for theists who get a quick exposure to atheism's main arguments.