Reddit reviews Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism

I'm happy to see this question, as it so happens I just recently learned the answer myself and am eager to share it with /r/atheism.

My source is Richard Carrier's Sense and Goodness Without God. Carrier is an atheist philosopher and historian. In a section "2.2.1 Religion Didn't Win by Playing Fair," he explains:

----

> ... all the other religions whose holy books are cited above outright condemn and slander not only atheists and doubters, but anyone of a different religious creed. ... they all make terrifying threats against doubters and unbelievers. The reasons why many of the major religions persist today reinforce this conclusion.

(You can look at Islam's vicious attitude against apostates and unbelievers, but Christianity works much the same way)

He later talks about the history of Christianity:

> Christianity... started in one tiny place, when the rest of the earth was populated by a wildly marvelous diversity of religious beliefs - and yet, curiously enough, the concept of warfare over religious differences was virtually nonexistent. Most people in ancient times believed it was proper to respect the gods of other peoples. This changed on a global scale when Christianity was spread, quite literally, by the sword. Those who attempted to assert their religious differences were harassed, tortured, robbed of their land and belongings, even killed. Before it achieved political power, Christianity was a small sect, a heresy against the Jewish faith, that had to accept equality among all the other religions of the Roman Empire. Yet it was the first religion to openly attack the religions of other people as false... Needless to say, Christianity only truly flourished when it had the ability to eliminate the competition - when it had the full support of Rome's Emperors after 313 AD, and when, in 395 AD, every religion other than Christianity was actually outlawed. Through force and decree Christianity was immersed in the cultural surroundings of lands near and far, and in an environment where it was widely accepted, if not the only thing accepted, it spread and planted itself among subjugated peoples.

> Colonization of the world, more often than not by robbery and warfare, spread Christianity into the Americas and other corners of the earth, just as Islam was spread throughout Asia and Africa. It is not a coincidence that the two most widespread religions in the world today are the most warlike and intolerant religions in history. Before the rise of Christianity, religious tolerance, including a large degree of religious freedom, was not only custom but in many ways law under the Roman and Persian empires. They conquered for greed and power, rarely for any declared religious reasons, and actually sought to integrate foreign religions into their civiliation, rather than seeking to destroy them. People were generally not killed because they practiced a different religion. Indeed, the Christians were persecuted for denying that the popular gods existed - not for following a different religion. In other words, Christians were persecuted for being intolerant.

Carrier mentions that religious intolerance was first expressed in the Hebrew Old Testament, where God leads the Jews in genocide.

> With the radical advent of Christianity, this self-righteous intolerance was borrowed from the Jews, and a new twist was added. The conversion of infidels by any means possible became the newfound calling card of religious fervor, and this new experiment in human culture spread like wildfire. By its very nature, how could it not have? Islam followed suit, conquering half the world in brutal warfare and, much like its Christian counterpart, it developed a new and convenient survival characteristic: the destruction of all images and practices attributed to other religions. Muslims destroyed millions of statues and paintings in India and Africa, and forced conversion under pain of death (or more subtle tricks ... taxing ...), while the Catholic Church busily burned books along with pagans, shattering statues and defacing or destroying pagan art... . Laws against pagan practices and heretics were in full force throughout Europe by the sixth century, and as long as those laws were in place it was impossible for anyone to refuse the tenets of Christianity and expect to keep their property or their life. Similar... Islamic countries even to this day... .

This also explains why, of the three bellicose Abrahamic religions, Judaism didn't end up going much of anywhere: Judaism is not evangelical, i.e. it doesn't try to proselytize and/or convert. The "new twist" was wildly successful for Christianity and Islam.

Ironically enough in these days when Christian fundamentalists deny the Theory of Evolution, Christianity won by the simple process of natural selection:

> Simply imagine two competing religious points of view, one holding the idea that other religions are to be respected and that war is justified only in defense, the other holding that war is justified in converting infidels to the only true faith, and that this faith must by its very calling be spread across the world. Which religion will survive and grow, and which will be stamped out and forgotten? The answer is self-evident - and yet it has nothing to do with which religion is actually true.

Dang, I've cited large parts of the chapter. I hope this is "fair use!" OK, I'll wrap up by sharing his conclusion:

> So the new idea that only one religion is true and all others are evil or false, and the idea that this true faith must be carried across the globe in order to save everyone from doom, are the very attributes that guaranteed the survival of Christianity and Islam, and the elimination of nearly all other religions in the world. Both these characteristics are much more plausible explanations for the widespread acceptance of Christianity and Islam than the claim that "they are widespread because they are true" or "this is evidence of God's design." How could both Christianity and Islam credit their spread to their unique truth? Clearly, at least one of them has to be false, proving that such vast success does not need truth behind it. And they can't both be the result of God's design, unless God is confused.

----

I see no reason to doubt Carrier's interpretation; history is his specialty, and he cites lots of references, which I'll be happy to share if requested. Understanding this makes a bittersweet irony of Christianity's and Islam's sanctimonious claims to being "religions of peace," and I'm anxious to expose this wicked and pervasive lie at every opportunity.

EDIT: Typos, inevitably. Also, highlighting for TL;DR.

Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted (2010)

In this deliciously satisfying book, the author, a New Testament scholar, carefully reviews and assesses the New Testament with a detailed and extremely thorough analysis of the figure we call Jesus. This is not a rant, not an attack on Christianity, this is an objective and critical analysis of the New Testament, showing how the entire Jesus myth and indeed, all of Christianity is a purposely-designed fabrication rife with contradictions, inaccuracies, and sometimes outright falsehoods.

John Loftus - Why I Became an Atheist (2008)

If you want a one-stop total critique of Christianity, this is the book you're looking for. The author is a former Christian apologist turned extremely angry and prolific atheist. In this book Loftus attacks the full span of Christianity, addressing the philosophical arguments against theism, the historical incompatibilities and inaccuracies of the Bible, and the contradictions between creationism and modern science, and throughout it all is an undercurrent of personal experience as Loftus explains his own deconversion from devout evangelicalism to enraged atheist.

Concerning atheism.

These are for the people going "Well, I'm an atheist. Now what?" There's more to atheism than eating babies and posting fake facebook conversations on r/atheism. There's much more truth, beauty, and value in a universe without a celestial supervisor, where humans are free to make our own purposes and dictate our own paths. Thinking for yourself and recognizing the natural wonder of the universe is far greater than the false consolation any religion can provide you. These books show how.

Michael Martin - Atheism: A Philosophical Justification (1989)

In this book, Martin attempts a two-pronged defense of atheism: first by attacking theistic arguments regarding the implausibility of morality and purpose without God, second by defending against attacks specifically on atheism. In such a manner he makes a strong case for both negative and positive atheism. Though extremely dated, this book is a classic and a must-read for any atheist.

Erik J. Wielenberg - Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe (2005)

In this book, Wielenberg advances a naturalist philosophy and addresses the problem of nontheistic morality as weakly espoused by the likes of Dostoevsky and C.S. Lewis. First he challenges the claims of theistic morality, next he advances naturalistic ethics and displays how theological justification is unnecessary for a good and moral life. Concepts such as intrinsic morality, inherent human tendencies such as charity and altruism, and the idea of moral obligations are all addressed.

Richard Carrier - Sense and Goodness Without God (2005)

In this book, Richard Carrier, perhaps most well-known as one of the major modern debunkers of the Jesus myth, continues the trend of expanding metaphysical naturalism, but this is a more complex and thorough work covering the full spectrum of a developed worldview, addressing nearly every topic beyond just morality, and presents a complete philosophical outlook on life that is easy to comprehend and evaluate. A solid starting point for the newly atheist.

My personal picks.

Now, since this is my list after all, and after typing up all of that, I think I've earned the right to make my own recommendations. These are books that I think people should read that don't necessarily have anything to do with atheism.

Markos Moulitsas - American Taliban (2010)

This book reads like a collection of loosely-related blog entries, some of them written by angry teenagers, and Moulitsas himself is no philosopher or professor, but is still an important read for those of you who haven't been paying attention. In this book, the founder of Daily Kos draws the extremely obvious and transparent similarities between the religious right of America, and the Islamofascists across the pond, and displays how modern conservatism has largely been hijacked and/or replaced by a complex political machine intent on maintaining the power of a small group of white, male, Christian elite.

Chris Hedges - American Fascists (2007)

Okay, time for a more sophisticated take on the issue than Daily Kos stuff. Those of you who plan on staying and fighting in the US rather than simply getting the fuck out while you still can need this book. With a critical and objective eye, Hedges displays the dark and tumultuous underbelly of America and shows how an extremely powerful and well-organized coalition of dominionists is slowly taking over the country and seeking to transform it into a theocratic state. Those of you who are moderate Christians and similarly despise the lunatic fringe of Christians should also read this book. Hedges analyzes this Christian Right movement, allied with totalitarianism and a denial of reality, that has declared a jihad (or a "teahad", if you're a Tea Partier) on secularism and even on Christianity itself, utilizing religion for its darkest and most sinister purpose - committing cruelty and intolerance upon others in the name of divine supervision.

CJ Werleman - God Hates You, Hate Him Back (2009)

This is one of my favorite books and is a great book to unwind with after a critical look at Christianity. The biggest problem with the Bible is not the contradictions, the outright falsehoods, or even the blatantly made-up and ridiculous bullshit about magic and miracles and supernatural nonsense - it's the fact that, taking it all at face value, the God described in the Bible is the single most despicable and terrifying fictional villain ever imagined by humanity. This is a character that seems to actively despise mankind, and in this book, Werleman shows why with a hilarious and thorough analysis of the Bible. This book reads like Monty Python and is just as funny - not meant to be taken seriously of course unless you're a Biblical literalist, but still a great read.


Well, that's all I got. This list took about half a day to compile and is itself also woefully inadequate, there's quite a bit of books I haven't gotten around to reading yet. But, it should be much more sufficient than the current r/atheism reading lists and I've done my best to include the most recent works. If you have any books to add that you feel are noteworthy, please feel free to post them. I hope this list can help many people in their understanding of philosophy and atheism.

Discussions on free will always raise my ire. It seems that the majority of philosophers in the field are compatibilists but theists seem to always be ignorant of the last 300 years of philosophical thought in the area of free will. Appeals to quantum mechanics strike me just as absurd as libertarian free will. Random effects at the quantum level do not degrees of freedom in action make.


Unfortunately most people are stuck in the determinism vs libertarian mindset. Compatibilism offers an amazingly powerful argument to the contrary. Other good resources (besides the stanford philosophical dictionary I linked above) are the discussion on free will in Richard Carrier's Sense and Goodness Without God and Daniel Dennett's Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Having.

Richard Carrier - Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism. That book is amazing.

Read this for a snapshot.

I don't know how one can read the above book and still have faith.

I recommend Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism by Richard Carrier.

I'm an atheist, and most will hate me for this, but I don't recommend The God Delusion. There are better books, and Dawkins is much better when he writes about biology.

Atheist worldview book: I recommend Sense and Goodness without God by Richard Carrier

Books about Christianity (there are so many to recommend, but these are some favorites):

• The Christian Delusion by various authors.
  
• Gospel Fictions by Randel Helms
  
  I'm a big fan of Spong, so I would recommend any of his books. Also Robert M. Price is worth looking into, he has lots of free sermons and writings available from when he was a liberal pastor and theologian, which he is not anymore.
  
  

Good books: 'The Moral Landscape' by Sam Harris and 'Sense and Goodness Without God' by Richard Carrier.

Rather than merely jump down your throat for the tone of your post--I think everyone else has sufficiently chastised you, and I'll say more about that in general at the end--let me make a few constructive suggestions.

>For example, when philosophers argue for the non-existence of reality or unkownableness of things I just want to shake them and say "get your head our of your fucking ass and look out the window! There is obviously a real world out there."

This sounds very much like naive realism, which is a genuine position held by some philosophers (albeit not very commonly). You might find Quee Nelson's The Slightest Philosophy interesting if you want to learn more about naive realism and its history. She's not a mainstream professional philosopher, but the book is quite a fun read.

The kinds of intuitions you're describing also suggest that you'd be inclined toward naturalism, very broadly constued. In general, naturalists see philosophy as continuous with (or even part of) science, and reject philosophical arguments that either ignore or purport to "transcend" scientific knowledge and reasoning. Naturalist (or naturalized) philosophy tends to take scientific theories very seriously, and is often aimed at excavating the foundations of various sciences. This is a significantly more popular position within professional philosophy (though certainly not a universal one). That SEP link I posted should give you a good overview. The anthology Naturalism Without Mirrors can also serve as a good survey. Richard Carrier's Sense and Goodness Without God is a less rigorous "pop-philosophy" treatment of the subject, but is a frequently cited basic introduction to some of the principles, and aimed at non-philosophers.

Now, with all that said, I strongly suspect that you're going to find understanding any of the links I posted (with the possible exception of Carrier) rather difficult to understand without some background in philosophy. Naturalism emerged as a reaction and/or successor to various movements within the history of philosophy, and without some idea of the context in which the discussion is happening, you're apt to find the going rather difficult.

I should mention that I say this as someone who shares a lot of the views you described: I have very little patience for most of the history of philosophy, and find much of what goes on in contemporary mainstream philosophy incredibly, frustratingly obtuse. However, I developed that opinion as a result of decades of rigorous study of philosophy, rather than based on my first impressions as a beginner. I can say with fairly high confidence that if you were able to dismiss what you were reading as nonsense so quickly that you can't even recall what you've read, you probably didn't really understand what you were reading. Much of historical philosophy might be misguided or wrong, but the people who wrote it were emphatically not stupid, and their ideas are worthy of honest, serious engagement even if you think they're mistaken.

It might help to look at reading the canon as something like running on a treadmill in a gym. If someone told you that they thought running on a treadmill was silly because they'd tried it for a minute and hadn't gotten anywhere, you probably would think that they'd missed the point. The point of running on a treadmill isn't to get somewhere, but rather to improve your own fitness level. One side effect of this improvement is that when you do run in order to get somewhere, you can run much faster and for much longer. If it helps, think of reading philosophy like that: as a kind of "mental workout" that helps you sharpen your critical faculties and analysis skills, so that when you encounter arguments that you're actually interested in engaging with, you'll be better able to give them serious thought.

To that end, I'd suggest that you try some of the literature that you dismissed as pointless again, but this time with the intention of reading it, understanding it, and articulating why you think it's bullshit. Reading Descartes and coming away with "well that was dumb and obviously wrong" is missing the point in the same way that telling a guy running on a treadmill "you'll never get anywhere that way" is missing the point. What exactly do you find so dumb about it? What ideas specifically are mistaken? In what way are they mistaken? What are the implications of the mistakes you noticed? I suspect that once you try to seriously answer these questions, you'll discover that it's much harder than it looks, and that (perhaps) you don't have as much of a grasp on the ideas as you thought you did.

I recommend Sense and Goodness without God. Very accessible, quite pithy, and doesn't harp a lot about God.

Richard Carrier used to consider himself a Taoist before giving that up as well in favor of simple atheism.

Do check out his book "Sense and Goodness Without God; a Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism" it is quite good and he talks a bit about his history with Taoism as well as the ethics of non-belief.

http://www.amazon.com/Sense-Goodness-Without-God-Metaphysical/dp/1420802933

I've never actually read this book, but I really respect the author's scholarship and thinking. The title seems like it might be in the ballpark of what you're looking for. Or, you can look into related books:

https://www.amazon.com/Sense-Goodness-Without-God-Metaphysical/dp/1420802933

Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism

Of the four, I'd probably recommend Harris. Given the freedom, I wouldn't recommend any of them if you're trying to expand a theist's mind.

Suggestion 1 from me is Guy Harrison's "50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God". He goes through the 50 most common reasons people gave him when he asked, and explained why an average skeptic/atheist doesn't find those reasons compelling.

Suggestion 2 is probably a volume on naturalism (for example "Encountering Naturalism" or Carrier's "Sense and Goodness Without God"). Firmly establishing a coherent, complete worldview that doesn't require gods can be a valuable step.

Richard Carrier's Goodness and Sense Without God Its become a manual to me on defining life without a god. He's incredible because he specializes in taking complex ideas and making them digestible to your average layperson (okay, upper high school/ college age person).
he also gave a talk at skepticon this november ( I was in the fourth row :D) and it was wonderful

> My grandfather's death was not the only occurrence similar to this, but MANY times i've "seen" death.

How many misses? How good were the hits, really? Those are the questions I would ask.

> You use yourself and your environment to change your inner self, thereby changing how YOU act in the world.

This is where I find your perspective somewhat confusing.

You talk about a "spiritual" experience involving "energy", but when you say things like this, it sounds like most of your view is compatible with there being nothing actually mystical going on. I could say I change my inner self and change how I act in the world, though I most often use much more mundane tools to do so, like studying, and learning to admit when I'm wrong.

> while it's true that saying "i don't know" can be freeing or an easy way out, an even better way to look at it is "i don't know, but i look forward to knowing one day". Understanding yourself takes a lifetime, and i'm not done yet. Just because there is no god doesn't mean i've stopped thinking about things i don't understand, or trying to understand my inner self. Just stopping everything having to do with self discovery is a stagnant way to live.

What I've stopped doing is looking for supernatural explanations. I've only done this as a shortcut, not because I think one should never look for such explanations, but because it seems so unlikely to be true that I can find so many better things to do with my time.

Saying "I don't know," especially coupled with "and I'd like to find out," makes sense. But there is a difference between keeping an open mind and being deliberately agnostic about everything. Take Russel's Teapot -- I don't know for sure whether or not that exists, any more than I know whether or not a god exists, or whether or not the spirit exists, but I wouldn't seriously entertain the idea that it does.

> because why not? I have no idea if you're even checking back on this...

I'm not sure if I will be, though I'll notice if you reply. I just had a relatively full day, took me awhile to get back to you.

But why not what? Why not follow a religion? Well, if I think it's false, that would be a reason not to. Or if I think it's probably false.

> If we're talking about philosophy, i'm a fan of Taoism, but not Taoists. The Tao Te Ching was one of the more enjoyable reads i've come across.

Interesting way of putting it. Just the Tao Te Ching, then, as opposed to the weird interpretations people have added over the years?

> I've also read several atheist writings, but sometimes they get a bit angry or aggressive for me. Not enjoyable (Penn Jillette is an exception for me). Atheist FICTION is fun, though, and i like it a lot.

I have a few things to recommend, then, if you're looking for less-aggressive, more thoughtful approaches...

Richard Carrier's Sense and Goodness Without God is so far my favorite book on the topic. Like many atheists, he is not afraid to speak his mind, but the theme, tone, and purpose of this book is to explain his entire world-view. I don't think I've seen a complete world-view presented and defended so clearly before.

The "Without God", and the religion, is a relatively small part of what the book is really about. Mostly, it is there to answer objections a theist might pose. For example, when he puts forth his own morality -- a fairly complete and well-defended moral theory, I think -- he of course must compare and contrast it with common religion ideas of morality, and defend it against common attacks made by the religious.

I've also found several YouTube channels to be quitely thoughtful. Evid3nc3 has a series on his deconversion, telling one of the most complete and sympathetic stories I've seen of a Christian slowly losing his faith. One point often missed is that for most of the process, he was still a Christian.

Philhelenes has quite a few videos, some silly, some argumentative... But there are a few which stand alone as truly astounding: Science Saved My Soul, Why Didn't Anybody Tell Me?, She Sparkled, and a few others I'll probably remember later.

And AronRa is entertaining and informative, though confrontational without apology. I enjoy him more than Penn Gillette, anyway. I'd start here.

>"Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ - the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming."

One quote doesn't make a truth; there are many historians debating the existence of an actual Jesus.

-Richard Carrier, historian and author of Sense and Goodness Without God
-Earl J. Doherty, historian and author of The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus
-Robert M. Price, Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies, author of Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition?

And many more, if you cared to do any research yourself. I might suggest you start here.

>How much does Paul need to tell the Corinthians about Jesus life in order to make the letter acceptable to you?

If Paul related anything about a living Jesus, that'd be great; all he acknowledges is that Jesus was crucified; nothing about his life works, no quotes, etc. The point being, if Paul is talking about an actual man who lived, you'd think he'd say "When Jesus multiplied the fishes and loaves," or "When Jesus healed the leper," or "when Jesus gave us the beatitudes on a mountain side," etc. When preachers speak of Jesus and his life, they recount his actions.

Anyways, you obviously don't care enough to do your own research, and I'm not going to continue arguing with you when you refuse to link to any substantial arguments by reputable scholars, as you've asked me to do and I have obliged repeatedly.

> God wants you to "be good" because He has given you the ability to do so. That is, be good for the sake of being good.

If that were true, there would be no reason for heaven and hell. Just admit it -- "God" is a "father" figure for people who cannot grow up. You need a system of punishments and rewards in order to behave... because you can't trust yourself to behave.

> Santa is an icon for the commercialization of Christmas and nothing more.

No argument here. And you can certainly argue that "presents vs. coal" in the stocking is a system of rewards/punishments for good behavior. But I'm still looking in the Bible for the passage that says "Be good for goodness sake."

While you may believe that God = "Good," many people believe that Morality can exist without some external, transcendent basis.

http://www.amazon.com/Sense-Goodness-Without-God-Metaphysical/dp/1420802933

http://rondam.blogspot.com/2008/05/can-morality-exist-without-god.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma%20rel=

Sense and Goodness Without God

I'd give him "Sense & Goodness Without God" by Richard Carrier. I think it's one of the most thorough, and eloquently put argument for atheism I've ever read. I cannot imagine anyone reading and understanding this book will walk away and at least have a great respect for atheist philosophy. Your friend may be denying gods existence by halfway through the book, most likely. http://www.amazon.com/Sense-Goodness-Without-God-Metaphysical/dp/1420802933

http://www.amazon.com/Sense-Goodness-Without-God-Metaphysical/dp/1420802933