Greg M. Epstein

Religious people who've been brought up with the belief that all morality comes ultimately from God sometimes have difficulty with the idea that it's possible for atheists to be good people. Without a god to answer to, the argument goes, there's not much stop you from committing rape, murder, theft, or any other nasty act that might enter your head. And if you don't believe in a Higher Power, then clearly you've got nothing good to live for, and are unlikely to spend your time doing anything show more but wallowing in decadent hedonism.

It's all nonsense, of course. Atheists don't have any higher proportion of axe murderers than any other segment of the population, and I personally have never attended a single depraved orgy. No, most of us nonbelievers have our own moral compasses, and it is in fact entirely possible to base a moral philosophy on compassion and respect for one's fellow humans, and on the desire to make life as satisfying and meaningful as possible for ourselves and those around us, without reference to divine edicts

This, more or less, is Humanism, and it's the subject of this book. Author Greg Epstein, a Humanist chaplain at Harvard University, discusses such topics as Humanist ethics, the historical roots of Humanism, different ideas about what it means to live a meaningful life without a god, the potential for Humanism to play a community-building role in people's lives in the same way that religions organizations do, and the importance of Humanists participating in interfaith understanding and cooperation.

That last is especially worth taking note of. Epstein, unlike many of the so-called "New Atheist" authors, does not regard religion as an enemy. He has little liking for the more extreme and intolerant varieties of religion, but he regards liberal congregations of any faith as the natural allies of Humanists. He's also not interested in arguing the existence or non-existence of God or engaging in coldly logical debate, preferring to focus on the more human, emotional aspects of what it means to live a good life, and on defining Humanists in a positive way based on what they believe in, rather than what they don't.

I do have a few quibbles here and there. Most notably, I look a little askance at the sleight of hand it takes to get that "one billion" figure in the subtitle. Epstein starts off the book by coming very close to defining a "Humanist" as anyone who does not believe in a well-defined deity but who does possess a sense of morality, regardless of how they self-identify. But the set of Humanist principles he later describes, broad though they might be, are surely not subscribed to by all of the billion (or, more realistically, half-billion) people fitting that description, especially inasmuch as they also embody a liberal, progressive political philosophy. In fairness, Epstein never actually gives the impression that he thinks he's speaking for all non-theists everywhere. But I think a more careful exploration of his definitions would probably have been a good thing.

I do in general agree with those principles myself, however, and overall I do like Epstein's clearly heartfelt attitude, even if we may disagree on a few details. Some of his descriptions of the part a Humanist community can play in people's ordinary lives (e.g. wedding and funeral services) are honestly quite moving, and I say that as someone who is not particularly big on ritual and who always vaguely distrusts the word "community."

Still, I don't think there was all that much here that was really new or particularly revelatory for me, personally. But I think it may be a good starting place for people who have abandoned or are questioning the faith they were raised with and struggling with the question of what that means for their own moral lives. It also might be of interest for those looking for a softer, less confrontational alternative to atheist writers like Dawkins and Harris. show less

Epstein's book is a refreshing break from the self-conscious atheism of Dawkins et al. The focus on what atheists do value, rather than on what we don't, was thought-provoking.

Now, Dawkins may be obsessed with debunking creationism and Hitchens with shocking you into submission, but at least they're engaging. This work is much more scholarly and amiable in tone and substance, which is all fine and good, but it's not something to get people fired up to join the Humanist movement. Nor is it a show more page-turner for some light entertaining reading.

It reads more as a pragmatic guidebook. Epstein spends little time on whether or not god exists, as what people think either way isn't important to his thesis, he's only concerned with how to live a good life without the guiding influence of gods. He is speaking to atheists who wonder what defines their values, since they reject any value set not grounded in human reason. He makes no effort to convince believers they're mistaken.

This is where the book excels. The survey of various ethical and moral philosophies is enlightening. Thinking about how exactly we know right from wrong, as we all surely do, was an enormously helpful exercise. He deftly disconnects goodness from divinity through comparing and contrasting thousands of years of the world's religions and philosophies. He leaves no question of our ability to live just, moral and fulfilling lives guided by nothing larger than human dignity.

It's when he devolves into a listing of Humanist beliefs, practices and politics that he started to lose me. I'm a liberal blue stater, but even I cringed at his Obama worship and constant avowal of liberal issues like gay marriage. I may love Obama and gay marriage, but I'm sure many atheists don't as they're far from universal values. The author's politics are writ large and detract from what should have remained a general survey of what nonbelievers value and why.

The drier prose and occasional grandstanding don't detract from the useful self-examination, however. I'd just suggest most people skip the last 1-2 chapters unless they bleed blue. As an ethical survey and source of Humanist organizations and additional readings, this work is an excellent resource. Epstein just doesn't have a future in political entertainment. show less

My Muslim women’s book club read this as our April selection. Our first complaint was “oh look, another Cambridge book about an educated, upper middle class, white male complaining about being discriminated against. Gimme a break!” Our second observation was one of our members who had just returned from visiting India. After witnessing the extreme poverty there, she felt that people needed to believe in something ‘better’. The individualism-heavy secular humanism faith system might show more be fine for wealthy societies, but in other cultures, people would not find much solace. As Jung said, “we also need a truth for those who are forced into a corner…Nietzsche speaks to those who need more freedom, not to those who clash strongly with life, who bleed from wounds and who hold fast to actualities

This book is good as an introduction to the variety of atheist and agnostic belief systems. One person in our group said she thought people became atheists because of bad experiences with organized religion or with parents/authority figures. She had never heard of someone who chose to be an atheist. Also, it was a relief to see that there are some agnostic and atheist people who want to work with traditional religious communities to do charitable work. What was a bit of a surprise was the desire of some atheists and agnostics to join together as a community. As one woman said, “But the great draw of being an atheist is the freedom you get from NOT having to join a community. I’ll bet a lot of people would not be so interested in joining a community because that would take away from the freedom part.”

My problem with this book is that I had the nagging suspicion that Epstein had confused ‘faith’ and ‘belief’. My reading was Epstein has the ordinary misinterpretation of faith: he considers faith an act of knowledge that has a low degree of evidence. However, this is not faith, this is belief. Faith is something completely different, and it is clearly defined in Paul Tillich’s essay “Dynamics of Faith” which I had to read to help me sort out things afterwards. I agree with Tillich’s definition of faith as “the state of being ultimately concerned”. Secular humanists regard man/mankind as something ultimate and eternal and they have faith in strategies which promote the flourishing of mankind. As Tillich notes:

“The romantic-conservative type of humanist faith is secularized sacramental faith: the divine is given here and now…It is faith, but it hides the dimension of the ultimate which it presupposes. Its weakness and danger is that it may become empty. History has shown this weakness and final emptiness of all merely secular cultures. It has turned them back again and again to the religious form of faith from which they came.” From ‘Dynamics of Faith’, 1956. show less

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 show more 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. show less