Contents:
You may not have these experiences yourself, but others do- and C. Why should the atheist dismiss them as nothing but a trick of the brain, perhaps trying to fool her into religion?
Why should she regard them as meaningless when they free her momentarily from her self-absorption and egocentricity? Indeed, why should the atheist be any less concerned than the religious with her personal insignificance in the face of the universe? And why should she be any less aware of herself as a part of this universe equally with the rest of the animate and inanimate Earth, as equally part of the vast universe though perhaps even less-long-"lived" as a speck of space dust? Are these questions really New Aged quackery?
Is a brief erasure of the lines between the self and the rest of existence, or the silence underneath our daily worries truly nothing but New Aged twaddle? You may not experience this sense of smallness, or the falling-away of the ego, etc. And there is no reason these feelings should be the realm of the religious alone- to say so is to deny that anyone can be atheist, to make atheism an exclusive club for only certain types of personalities in which only certain types of experiences are welcome.
How can that be in the spirit of atheism?
And in fact it would be denying that there can be an "atheist spirituality" at all, in many ways the entire premise of C. They are not "proof" or "signs" of anything. They are subjective and occur from within the individual rather than from without; the universe itself does not speak to us. They simply occur, and we may reject them as worthless brain-tricks on the level of hallucination, or we may embrace the brief feelings of clarity and smallness and oneness they bring- the result of our physiology, certainly, but no less meaningful for that.
Aug 19, Debbie Steiner rated it really liked it. There are for my taste a few unnecessary arguments stated, a whiff of presumption here and there. Still, good material to get one thinking and start discussing. Oct 03, John Roche rated it liked it. The book is broken into three sections: Religion, God's existence, and atheist spirituality.
At the end there is a conclusion with his musings on love and truth. The first section of the book has some thought provoking gems.
Can we do without religion? Can we have ethics without God? Is there such thing as 'atheistic spirituality'? In this powerful book, the. The perfect antidote to the fiery rhetoric that dominates our current national debate over religion, The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality is the ideal companion to.
Here he brilliantly develops his notion of the contrast between fidelity and faith, which I think he provides a very compelling distinction. Also, he goes into the dangers between the barbarous and the fanatic, again compelling and thought provoking. The second section, on G The book is broken into three sections: The second section, on God's existence, is a rehash of an undergraduate class. No new insight is really presented in this section.
Except that he argues against God with a politeness that is lacking in any book by Hitchens, Dawkins, or Harris. The third section, atheist spirituality, struck me as utterly bizarre. Leaning on western philosophy and eastern mysticism, Sponville enters in a synthesis of ideas that I think needed an extra section to develop. He rejects heaven, but embraces eternity. He rejects God, but embraces Being. He acknowledges that the universe is unloving and that we are part of this unloving collection of mass and energy, yet he embraces love as our highest value but are we not physically part of this loveless universe?
He goes on with a list of atheistic values that come with only a snippet of information. I can't really agree or disagree with him on this section because he doesn't really develop his point. The conclusion is good and refers much to the first section. What started out as a well articulated case for a spiritual life without any notion of the supernatural, spun out of control as the author seemed to loose focus in his attempt to keep the experience of Christianity without the divinity of God.
Jul 25, Stan Murai rated it really liked it Shelves: The author Andre Comte-Sponville makes a compelling case for spirituality outside the belief in a personal god. He rejects faith but not 'fidelity'. By which he means an attachment, commitment, or gratitude toward values, history and community that define human relationships. Most importantly, conflict and ethics will continue to exist even if one has no religion in the sense of the Judaeo-Christian or Islamic monotheistic traditions.
He also points out that different forms of spirituality have The author Andre Comte-Sponville makes a compelling case for spirituality outside the belief in a personal god. He also points out that different forms of spirituality have always been present elsewhere in other cultures; Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism have not been identified or associated with deities, revealations, personal gods, or creators. Yet they are viable spiritual traditions. The author does not consider himself a dogmatic atheist, but he does spend much time to review the arguments that have attempted to prove the existence of god.
In a time of increasing religious fundamentalism, his work could be an important guide for defining what is important in the human experience of spirituality that is not limited by sectarianism and intolerance. Also, the philosophically inclined will have an opportunity to revisit Kant's arguments that God and Immortality are unknowable but are nevertheless required in a belief system as postulates of practical reason.
May 21, Tarek Mallak rated it it was amazing Shelves: Back when I started to recognise my atheistic views and my loss of faith, I felt dread of what I have become, I was afraid yet furious of losing my "humanity", I could not accept losing faith as I saw it walking out on humane values yet I could not force myself to retain any of it. I hope someone can imagine the feeling.
And one day, while walking in a book store, I get caught by the title and thought "what kind of an idiot puts "atheist" and "spirituality" in the same sentence? Reading it, I felt that finally someone knows what I am feeling! Who could have thought? That book showed me how human I can still be, that I can be an atheist and still look at the stars in awe, that I can still love art, that I can still have a meaning, that I can lose faith and still love However, Comte-Sponville manages to present his arguments eloquently, motivated "by the love of philosophy" and truth, and not "the hatred of religion".
His non-proselytizing tone is only surpassed by his sensibility. In the first part of the book, a triad of fidelity, communion, and love is established, to assure the reader of the non threatening nature of the writer's intentions. The second part is merely an exposition of a number of classical arguments for god's existence and their refutations. Nothing original, however, beautifully condensed. The third part is probably more poetic, still enlightening. Here we encounter the philosophy of godless spirituality and mysticism, where the immense nature of the mystical experience is explored.
This is a compelling book about truth, love, and the love of truth. I am having a hard time deciding what score to give this book. The middle section was quite good, but there was a large section near the beginning and another at the end that were just agony for me to try to get through. Those parts were way too deep into philosophy for my taste. It made me wonder why I bothered to finish the book. Overall it felt more like the author already made up his mind about spirituality, and was trying to build a case for it afterward.
Maybe I am not intellectual enough f I am having a hard time deciding what score to give this book. Maybe I am not intellectual enough for this, but the philosophical talk really irritated me. He would continually talk in such extreme absolutes, make absolute assertions as if they were given, without room for debate, and then make grand assertions and conclusions based on that. He made many good points, but nothing that was not stated better elsewhere. That is because we don't believe in an after life the hwole world is bleaker and blacker than if you believe there are better things to come.
I cerntainly do not agree with either premise, and I see no evidence to suggest that the death of a loved one is harder because you don't bel thus far he appears to assume two fundamental things that I completely disagree with 1 that you have to had faith to be spritual or to understand spirituality and 2 that it is much more depressing being an athiest. I cerntainly do not agree with either premise, and I see no evidence to suggest that the death of a loved one is harder because you don't believe - or more specifically easier because you do.
In fact all the evidence suggests that certainly in christian based societies, there is no respite for believers - in fact they appear to gain no solace from the promsed 'afterlife' or 'heaven'! Feb 15, Adam rated it really liked it. It's pretty good, but the entire last third of the book is so new-agey it's ridiculous and this coming from someone who's usually sympathetic to new-age language. Overall it has a great message and preaches tolerance, respect, and love.
It just doesn't dig incredibly deep into the issues, and, like I said, the third part is so out-of-character for the book as a whole.
It's like the author dozed off and started sleep-writing Again, I sympathize with new-age sentiments All the same, it's a nice, short, inspiring read. I do recommend it. Very friendly overview of a spiritual outlook on life that does not require god or gods. It examines definitions of morality, hope, faith, love, communion and many other human qualities. Comte-Sponville looks at arguments for and against god--especially the Christian god.
His writing is light, friendly and intelligent. I've enjoyed and learned a quite a lot from it. I am, and have been an atheist for many years, but I gained new insight into my own feelings about life and how to best live my own Very friendly overview of a spiritual outlook on life that does not require god or gods.
I am, and have been an atheist for many years, but I gained new insight into my own feelings about life and how to best live my own life. So if you see some point to this whole spirituality thing but want to approach it atheistically, by all means give this book a shot. For me, the book served to further reinforce my belief that talk of spirituality is a pointless exercise in wasted effort.
Sep 28, Craig Werner rated it it was amazing Shelves: Somehow or another, I'd failed to add this when I was compiling my life-time bookshelf, but I'm happy to rectify the error. Whether you're atheist, agnostic, or theist, Comte-Sponville's elegant apologia in the classical sense--explanation more than apology will force you to rethink the ethical implications of where you stand. Mar 22, Jeff rated it liked it. I liked this author's nondefensive, matter-of-fact, well-reasoned embrace of atheism He's a very smart philosopher dude, and writes in accessible language even when translated to English from his French , but still much of what he said was over my head Dawkins, Hitchens, and other pissed off atheists.
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers.
And the worst is yet to come. The two may well not coincide. Comte-Sponville is absolutely frank about his views and absolutely tolerant and fair. In the wake of the death of my own mother, mortality has been on my mind somewhat more than usual. For me, the book served to further reinforce my belief that talk of spirituality is a pointless exercise in wasted effort.
To view it, click here. Part of the attraction for me was the mention of Stoic philosophy and Eastern thought, which I find appealing. The author is respectful of all religions, a refreshing change from other atheist reads. The ending of this book was so simple and clear: View all 11 comments. Jan 01, Ed Smiley rated it really liked it. Though not exactly a spoiler, this review contains numerous quotes from the book.
This book meant a lot to me, so I want to do it justice by putting some effort into this review. I said facetiously this is perhaps one of those books that will piss off everybody. By this I meant that although his stance is not conventionally religious, and that he clearly does not believe in theism in any way, some of his ideas will seem familiar to sympathetic religious people.
For rigid religious fundamentalist Though not exactly a spoiler, this review contains numerous quotes from the book. For rigid religious fundamentalists, they will probably think it insidious. For some atheists, any concept of a unitive experience that cannot be pinned down into the most trivial mechanical reductionism, is a surrender to the darkest forces, and is one short step away from burning heretics.
Let me lay my cards on the table. I could best describe myself as a mildly spiritual but not religious atheist, a non believer in a supreme being. I use the term spiritual in a more general sense, as he does, and with no intent of conveying organized religion, dogma, or belief in the supernatural. That sort of thing tends to make one feel very peculiar.
Talk about cognitive dissonance!
So this book was very personal for me. Unfortunately atheism is a philosophical stance that "can't get no respect", at least in heavily religious countries like the United States--and, oddly, I have been assured that Rodney Dangerfield was an atheist. I don't understand why some people of some particular metaphysical persuasion are so upset that decent generous people hold the opposite opinion this holds true for militant atheists too. Right now, as I write these words we seem torn apart by intolerance.
Comte-Sponville is absolutely frank about his views and absolutely tolerant and fair. He writes, "Remember the good Samaritan. He was neither Jewish or Christian. We have no idea what his faith was or what he felt about death. All we know is that he showed compassion and charity. And Jesus explicitly told us to imitate him, not a priest or a Levite. Atheists can be moral, and not plagiarize! I think many people of good will will find that this book is very congenial, regardless of their own beliefs. Comte-Sponville writes, "Among the people who had come up to chat with me after the lecture was a rather elderly Catholic priest I couldn't help adding,"still Father, I must admit it surprises me I don't believe in God or the immortality of the soul.
The first part is a discussion of the three cardinal virtues for atheists. The second is a discussion of reasons for believing and not believing in God. The third is a discussion of the unitive experience from an atheist perspective. I know that's kind of boring to say aloud, but, gentle reader, you wanted to know more about this book, so it must be said. The three classic Christian virtues are Faith, Hope and Charity. The greatest of these is Charity, or Love.
Comte-Sponville agrees that Charity, love, compassion, is the greatest virtue, but he cannot accept, faith or hope, as they entail unfounded belief. So instead of Faith, he proposes Fidelity, being faithful to decency, toleration, and ethics. Instead of Hope he proposes Action. He interleaves this discussion with a fascinating and respectful gloss on Augustine and Saint Thomas. He then discusses classic arguments for the existence of God, and offers arguments for the nonexistence of God. Many believers and non-believers alike are pretty agreed that such metaphysical arguments are pretty hazy.
He agrees, but it seems to me such arguments serve not to prove anything, but to lead to understanding of what it would be like to believe something, or not believe something--and, as he points out, the burden of proof is on existence. The existence of God proofs, such as the ontological proof, the first cause, and the argument from design are probably already familiar to the reader.
So I won't go into them here. And the ontological proof clearly proves something, just not what it is supposed to--maybe existence exists So let me summarize the three non-existence arguments. I gave them nicknames, I stress that he was too dignified to do so, but I will call them by my nicknames.
First, what I call the Deadbeat Dad Argument: And then, he discusses atheist spiritual experience--and this is what caused some controversy, or as he said, "Is there such a thing as atheist spirituality? Whether or not you believe in God, the supernatural or the sacred, you are confronted with the infinite, the eternal and the absolute--and with yourself. Tom Lehrer once made a joke that he felt like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis. Perhaps this is what it is like when we have a mystical experience.
But perhaps it is not the spiritual emergency it appears to be. Comte-Sponville, although not conventionally religious in any way, is too honest to avoid complicating things by bringing this up. He describes a personal experience: My mind emptied of thought And then, all of a sudden No words, no questions, only--a surprise.
A seemingly infinite happiness. A seemingly eternal sense of peace Yes, in the darkness of that night, I contained only the dazzling presence of the All. However, he goes on, "Reality suffices. It makes one stop and realize the incredible complexity of reality and all the millions of details that have been seemingly miraculously though that can be explained by science brought together to produce something so breathtaking. There are similar ideas in the Buddhist and some of the eastern religions.
Comte-Sponville says that a similar experience can be received from a particularly moving piece of music, and in this way — coupled with the communion, fidelity, and love — one once again marvels at the incredibility of humanity. Everyone is entitled to believe what they want; what we have to respect is the right to this, and that it is our choice as human beings, and not our choice to tell others what to believe.
If you liked this review and are interested in purchasing this book, click here. Telander mengenai review atas buku Tuan Comte-Sponville ini dalam sebuah blog https: You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Twitter account.
You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of new comments via email. Notify me of new posts via email. The other three arguments which led him to believe that God does not exist are: Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Email required Address never made public.
Post was not sent - check your email addresses! Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.