The God Argument: The Case Against Religion and for Humanism

by A.C. Grayling

There have in recent years been a number of books - notably those by Christopher Hitchens, Richards Dawkins and Sam Harris - that have taken issue with religion and argued against it. Both sides in the debate have expressed themselves acerbically because there is a very great deal at stake. "The God Argument" thoroughly and calmly examines all the arguments and associated considerations offered in support of religious belief, and does so fully aware of the reasons people have for subscribing to religion, and the needs they seek to satisfy by doing so. And because it takes account of all the issues, its solutions carry great weight. In the first part of the book, Grayling asks: What are the arguments for and against religion and religious belief right across the range of reasons and motives that people have for being religious, and do they stand up to scrutiny? Can there be a clear, full statement of these arguments which once and for all will show what is at stake in this debate? In the second half of the book he asks: What is the alternative to religion as a view of the world and a foundation for morality? Is there a world-view and a code of life for thoughtful people who wish to live with intellectual integrity, based on reason, evidence and a desire to do and be good that does not interfere with people's right to their own beliefs and freedom of expression? "The God Argument" is the definitive examination of these questions, and a statement of the humanist outlook that recommends itself as the ethics of the genuinely reflective person.

Genres: Philosophy, Religion, Nonfiction, Atheism, Science, History, Spirituality

288 pages, Kindle Edition

First published March 14, 2013

About the author

Anthony Clifford "A. C." Grayling is a British philosopher. In 2011 he founded and became the first Master of New College of the Humanities, an independent undergraduate college in London. Until June 2011, he was Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck, University of London, where he taught from 1991. He is also a supernumerary fellow of St Anne's College, Oxford.

He is a director and contributor at Prospect Magazine, as well as a Vice President of the British Humanist Association. His main academic interests lie in epistemology, metaphysics and philosophical logic. He has described himself as "a man of the left" and is associated in Britain with the new atheism movement, and is sometimes described as the 'Fifth Horseman of New Atheism'. He appears in the British media discussing philosophy.

Reviews

[Manny · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book, which, I might as well say now, I had come to loathe before I reached page 40, is divided into two parts; the self-explanatory titles are "Against Religion" and "For Humanism". Although they are presented in that order, it will be easier to start with the second part and then go backwards. So, let's first look at Professor Grayling's arguments for humanism.

At one level, I immediately admit, there is not a thing I can say against him. Grayling invokes the liberal European tradition of philosophical debate that goes back at least as far as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, and which has been transmitted to our times by such luminaries as Epicurus, Lucretius, Marcus Aurelius, Montaigne, Spinoza, Voltaire, Gibbon, Hume, Diderot, Marx, Schopenhauer, Darwin, Huxley, Nietzsche, Dewey, Russell, Einstein, Camus and Sartre. Unless you belong to a very rigid fundamentalist sect, you're probably going to think that at least some of these people are good guys. You may even be prepared to forgive Grayling for bathetically appending Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Victor Stenger to the end of his list. After all, aren't most of us in favor of beauty, freedom of speech, intellectual boldness and the right to come to our own conclusions unhampered by stifling dogma? Hands up everyone who's in favor of ugly, narrow-minded, rigid repressiveness: I am unsurprised to see few hands.

The problem is that if your basic message is "read widely and without prejudice from the great writers of the Platonic tradition, think for yourself and have no fear", the book risks being so short that with a little ingenuity it can probably be made to fit on a T-shirt. Grayling has to fill up the other 249 pages with something, and this is where things start to go wrong. The "For Humanism" half consists of a series of increasingly tedious chapters where Grayling explains his opinions on a range of topics where ethics are involved. I'm not saying he's necessarily wrong on any of these (though I was startled by his suggestion that prostitutes should be made available on the British National Health Service), but he's cut the ground out from under his feet before he's even started. If we're supposed to be fearless, undogmatic free thinkers, there's no reason why we should believe anything he says; we should be reading a wide range of sources and drawing our own conclusions. Of course, if he were a brilliant and original writer himself, we might come across some unexpected insights that changed our minds about things. But he's no Bertrand Russell. His prose is dull and clunky, and most of the time he recycles the usual left-wing staples: abortion and euthanasia are good, selling arms is bad, people should be allowed to express their sexuality freely, faith schools are immoral. If you're already signed up to these ideas you'll be yawning, and if you hate them then then there's no chance his rhetoric will sway you. At least the NHS prostitutes were a novel idea, but there weren't a great many more.

And so back to the first half of the book, where Grayling tells us what's wrong with religion in a way that makes Richard Dawkins look like a paragon of tact and understanding. Virtually frothing at the mouth, he explains that monotheistic religions - Buddhism and Confucianism get a free pass because they are "philosophies" - are delusions comparable with belief in fairies. (Fairies are mentioned remarkably often). Christianity is an obscure millenial cult that somehow managed to survive more the normal few decades, and which offers no moral guidance to its pathetic, sheep-like devotees, all of whom believe in this transparent lie only because they were brainwashed by their parents when too small to resist. Religious art is depressing, kitschy nonsense. I must say that I was flabbergasted. Perhaps I am missing his point, but this did seem to me a rather simplistic way of summing up, just to take the first few things that come into my head, the Books of Job and Ecclesiastes, the Sermon on the Mount, the parable of the Good Samaritan, Dante's Divine Comedy, Leonardo's Last Supper, the Pièta, most Victorian novels, L'immoraliste, Ash Wednesday, Kristin Lavransdatter, Jésus de Montréal and The Tree of Life. Most curiously, he seemed to be directly flouting his own rules. How exactly does this fit together with a program of understanding and tolerance, where respect for other people and recognition of diversity is paramount?

The book is mostly about moral philosophy (Grayling is apparently an expert on the subject), so I feel almost pedantic in mentioning a few egregious factual errors in other areas. It is mistaken to say that the sentence 'I can trisect a Euclidean angle using only rule and compass' is meaningless and hence strictly speaking impossible to think; Grayling is confusing non-well-formedness and falsity, and the common-sense point of view that the sentence is meaningful and can be thought is entirely correct. His account of the fine-tuning problem, which he discusses in connection with the Argument from Design, also betrays a complete lack of understanding. Indeed, if my 64 great-great-great-great-grandparents had not lived exactly where they did, and done exactly the things they did, I would not exist; but the fine-tuning paradox is not that I exist, or even that the human race exists, but rather that any observers exist at all. Grayling either doesn't get this or is willfully obfuscating the issues to score a cheap point.

What a dreadful, dishonest, badly-written, stupid book. If you're a creationist, rush out and buy a copy right now. It'll confirm everything you've ever said about those dumb liberals.

[Andy Wasley · Rating 4 out of 5]

With much atheist writing today focusing on the imperatives of tackling the myths, contradictions and dangers of religious faith, A C Grayling takes a markedly different approach in The God Argument. Following the abstract optimism of his humanist ‘Bible’ The Good Book , his aim here is to set out a positive and practical case for the humanist alternative to faith. Accordingly, he explains and dismisses the central arguments for religious faith – including the familiar teleological, ontological and moral arguments – in brisk order, careful to make sure his counter-arguments are clear to readers unfamiliar with the philosophical principles he draws upon. His positive case in favour of humanism focuses on the practicality of living ‘the good life’ and here is prose is unhelpfully dense in places. Overall, however, Grayling’s synthesis of modern ethics and Greek philosophy provides a compelling case for humanism that fairly balances the negative tone of other recent atheist books.

[Martin Cohen · Rating 1 out of 5]

What one star? Am I a true believer, and hence biased? But not at all, on the contrary, my interests are exactly like Grayling's, that is to say, 'the philosophical arguments'.

But if most books have some merits, I shall save the reader's time and not look to hard for these. After all, this is a book that comes surrounded by a cloud of self-congratulatory flim-flam.

The God Argument, by A. C. Grayling

Anthony Grayling’s promise to us is to thoroughly and calmly to examine “all the arguments offered in support of religious belief” and to do so not “acerbically” but calmly. Strange then that it briskly starts by thanking various “fellows in the cause”, such as (guess who) Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and cheeky Peter Cave. The word ‘cause’ is revealing of the mindset, even if the next line strikes an unconvincing note of inclusivity, offering, like a poorly structured sermon, "that every generation must travel its own road, but with the hope of arriving at a destination further along than its predecessors". (Can different roads pass by exactly the same places?) Perhaps a wiser thought and a better metaphor would have been: Every publisher must produce its own book explaining the same points about religion, but hope that each sells more than its predecessors.

This book however is supposed to be different from the others - a philosophical examination of the arguments. That is perhaps why it is called 'The God Argument'. Or perhaps the publisher came up with the name after Grayling submitted it. Although it is full of arguments in one sense: what philosophers call 'ad hominem' ones directed at "religious apologists". Thomas Aquinas, Leibniz and no doubt the local vicar would all fit into this group - but not it seems, curiously, Buddhists or followers of Confucius, as these “are philosophies”. Which means that they are alright.

Religion, as presented here, has negligible philosophical content. Rather it consists of hanging homosexuals; beheading or stoning to death adulterous women; subordinating women and children in Bible Belt America. "Throughout history, the religion-inspired suppression of women has robbed humanity of al least half of its potential creativity and genius". We’re only up to page two, by the way, of this exemplification of "calm rationality", as a review for the Church Times promises on the back cover.

But it doesn't seem very philosophical to me. Indeed, although Professor Grayling accuses the 'supporters of religion' of making lots of silly, elementary errors of logic, doesn't he himself commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent?

If religion is an evil influence on people, then people's minds will be addled and lots of bad things will result. (First premise.)
People's minds have been addled and lots of bad things have resulted. (Second premise.)
-------------
Religion is an evil influence on people. (Wonky conclusion.)

The problem with this reasoning is that there could be another explanation for the bad things - like maybe inbred sexism, or aggressive pursuit of economic self interest. But that, I suppose is sociology. Here we only do logic. Mind you, some claims do look rather sociological, like : "Whereas the consolations of religion are mainly personal, the burdens are social and political as well as personal." Likely Grayling has no time for the Protestant Work Ethic, that made being rich virtuous, and justified the entire capitalist system, generally seen as an important factor in social development, or perhaps he would rather we returned to a kind of philosophical Year Zero, 'before religion'. What would that be like? Ah, read Part the Second of the book.

"Briefly put, critical examination of religion's claims puts it in the same class as astrology and magic. Like these systems of thought, religion dates from mankind's less educated and knowledgeable early history and like them it has been superseded by advances in our understanding of the world and ourselves." Everywhere that science and education have advanced, so religion has dwindled in influence, says Grayling, neglecting the contrary example of the United States and focusing rather on North London (or indeed the long history of religion in nurturing learning). A list of people advancing science and education, hoping "to see the human liberated from religion and superstition" is offered, starting, of course, Dawkins and Dennett (but not Peter Cave) and ending with that great humanitarian, Christopher Hitchens. Parmenides, Plato, Confucius, ignorant folk like that, must yield way to those who have seen further.

The task of communicating the new knowledge is however complicated by the fact that religion is like "jelly" - constantly shifting position, so that just as you land a good blow on it, it wobbles to another place. (Take that, vile Church Times reviewer!) "This is in large part because the religious themselves often do not have clear ideas… about what is meant by 'religion', 'god', 'faith' and associated concepts." In fact, religious belief at root is either self-contradictory or meaningless. From such a starting point, anything at all follows 'logically', Professor Grayling explains. Quite so, but what then is the relevance of logical arguments to dismantle the religious edifice? It would seem, on the author's own account, a fool's enterprise.

Perhaps that is why the book is rather less about the traditional philosophical arguments (although they are rehearsed) than it is about belief. Grayling does not believe in religion. Maybe he wanted to once (I dunno) but he can't now.

Take the philosophical problem of evil'. Earthquakes cause a lot of suffering. "After an earthquake… people go to church to give thanks and pray for the dead… For what do they give thanks? That their gods (or the world designed by their gods) arbitrarily or otherwise destroyed and killed?" Now comes the 'killer argument' bit, Grayling says that the people praying in Church would not do so "if a terrorist had killed that many or destroyed that much". No, in that case the agent behind such acts would be seen as evil.

Grayling says 'religious apologists' cherry-pick the evidence to bolster their position. But he happily mocks Roman Catholics for hypocrisy in using contraception without feeling the need to acknowledge that many atheists turn up in Church for weddings or funerals. Or take what happens to Catholic women who do stick to the 'no contraception' rule": a lot of unwanted pregnancies. Grayling says 'consistency' is the virtue that should guide us - I'm not so sure. Curiously, American Catholics are more likely to opt for terminations than American Protestants - it is sometimes called the 'Abortion Paradox'. The child, it is said, is doubly unwanted because of God's displeasure at the sin. Logicians normally like paradoxes. Grayling discusses abortion at length but never deviates from his simplicities.

Grayling denies religion any role in learning, even though there at least he might have found 'an argument' for it. But it seems he was not looking too hard.

[Arianne X · Rating 4 out of 5]

Religion is Cruelty

The Oppressive Dead Hand of Religion

Whether it is in the feeling of guilt for not meeting impossible expectations, in the shame brought on from having perfectly natural desires or in the atrocities justified by religious belief, I spell region as C-R-U-E-L-T-Y. This should be obvious from a belief system which creates faith based on ignorance, superstation and mythmaking and then visits violence upon those it regards as enemies of the faith: a faith fit only for hopeful fools built on willful ignorance and selective blindness.

Rigid Moralism Lacking Nuance

This is really two books in one, Part 1 is a standard refutation of religious beliefs while Part 2 makes an impassioned, if not obvious, case for humanism. For a reader already versed in the irrationality and dangers of religion as well as the rationality and benefits of secular humanism, this book will be a review but with the added benefit of A.C. Grayling’s enjoyable prose styling. The great misfortune of this book, and books like it, is that it needs to be written. I lament the time, energy and effort wasted by writers such as A.C. Greying and readers like me in refuting the irrational nonsense of religious belief and making the case for humanism which should be axiomatic. This is because in places such as the U.S. religion is still a cultural force to be reckoned with. It is a force for regression and repression becoming everyday more powerful in twenty-first century America. Think of it, the beliefs of Iron Age and illiterate goat herders are on the ascendency in an ostensibly modern, technologically advanced nation of the twenty-first century.

Utter Conviction in Hopelessly Anti-Real Beliefs

At its base, religion demands the acceptance of a metaphysical other reality which primes people for accepting an entire other reality in culture and politics. Therefore, personal religious beliefs are no longer a private affair in that such beliefs are creating public burdens by distorting the culture, causing disruptions in social outcomes, destroying personal relationships, creating pernicious political consequences, and endangering public health as well as imperiling medical care and research. The acceptance of anti-reality religious beliefs primes people for the acceptance of pernicious cults and ludicrous conspiracy theories. Religion, or religious believers, are incapable of keeping their convictions to themselves, in the private sphere or in the personal realm, due to the very nature of religious belief itself. Such beliefs imbue the believer with a metaphysical certainty they are compelled to share or impose with great urgency and false but absolute assurance that they are acting in the best interest of their fellow human beings and society. In politics, one is no longer a political opponent, an opponent is now an evil enemy who needs to be vanquished by any means possible. Such a view is not due to ‘bad’ people, it is the result of religion making people ‘bad’.

Psychological Toxicity

When this book was written in, 2014 one could plausibly argue that human social relations were progressing in terms of mutual respect, tolerance, acceptance and understanding; that history was moving in a humanist direction. In this book, the author could credibly argue that we had made advances since the time of the horrifying crime of the Nazis, but is this still true? Now, we can substitute immigrant for Jew and 2025 will start to look like 1933. Progress is always reversible, and it is jaw dropping to see how far American society has regressed in a short period of time. Blinding religious superstation, bigotry and judgmentalism are in the ascendency and flexing their muscles in education. culture and politics. History is replete with the examples of oppression, violence, and cruelty of religion with political power. The existence of religious moderates is no comfort, not far behind the moderates, and enabled by the moderates, are the rebarbative and regressive religious extremists and fundamentalists. It is a short step from religious moderation to religious fundamentalism, i.e., getting back to the ‘true’ faith. Religious people do have non-religious beliefs, but these get crowded out by fundamentalist commitments.

One Short Coming

In Part 1, A.C. Greying discuses and refutes the three standard arguments for the existence of God in the standard fashion, viz., the teleological argument, the ontological argument, and the cosmological argument. He does not address the fourth argument, viz., the transcendental argument.

[Ryan Boissonneault · Rating 5 out of 5]

Taking an Axe to the Root of Religious Belief

Debates concerning religion and the existence of god can quickly get confusing because we often forget that we are frequently having (at least) three separate debates simultaneously, as A.C. Grayling points out in The God Argument: The Case Against Religion and For Humanism.

The first debate is metaphysical: we want to know if there are good or sufficient reasons for us to believe that god(s) or some divine agency exists. The second is social: we want to determine the influence religion should have in public debate and policy. And the third is moral: we want to establish whether morality comes from divine sanctions or else from human reflection and reason.

What is interesting to note—as Grayling correctly points out—is that if we answer the first question in the negative, and determine that there is no good reason to believe in the existence of god, then there is little point in discussing the social or moral ramifications of religious belief (insofar as it relies on god’s existence). It would make little sense to affirm that god does not exist—or that it is irrational to believe in god’s existence—and then to suggest that religious views predicated on god’s existence should be taken seriously in the public square or that our morality comes from a non-existent entity.

(Of course, people should have the freedom to form their own beliefs according to the dictates of their own conscience—and this should be respected in the personal sphere of life granted that harm is not inflicted upon others—but this certainly doesn’t mean that irrational ideas should receive undue and privileged public respect and influence. All ideas should be subject to challenge.)

So while there are many good reasons to fight for the separation of church and state, and many good reasons to prefer humanism over divine command theory (as Grayling masterfully covers), these issues are, largely, beside the point if it can be shown that there are no good reasons to believe that god exists in the first place. Therefore, by taking an axe to the root of religious belief—by demonstrating that belief in a supreme being is in fact highly irrational—we can resolve all debates simultaneously.

Let’s see if Grayling accomplishes this.

Explaining mysteries with mysteries

Let’s first consider this question: What counts as a good explanation? In very general terms, a good explanation must be both (1) specific and (2) testable. For example, a good explanation for how plants grow will include the details of photosynthesis and how plants convert light energy into chemical energy to be used to fuel the plants’ activity and growth. Photosynthesis is a good explanation because of the depth and specificity of the details, which makes the theory testable and falsifiable through experiment. Photosynthesis accounts for the available evidence in a specific way and would not be valid if the details of plant biology varied even slightly.

Conversely, what counts as a bad explanation? We can say, generally, that a bad explanation is one that is (1) non-specific and, therefore, (2) not testable or falsifiable. For example, if we were to say that plants grow through magic spells cast by invisible fairies, this could, in fact, account for all instances of actual and possible plant growth, but it would be impossible to test this theory because it’s not specific enough to be evaluated (and it actually shields itself against evaluation by asserting the invisibility of the fairies).

The key point is that the invisible fairy hypothesis would be consistent with plant growth even if plant biology were completely different. Because the hypothesis accounts for everything, in practical terms it accounts for nothing, or, as the philosopher of science Karl Popper would put it, “A theory that explains everything, explains nothing.”

The uncomfortable truth regarding the religious conceptions of god is that they are not as dissimilar from the invisible fairies as you might suppose. For example, we can ask the following question: Where did the universe and all of life come from?

Science, of course, provides some good (albeit incomplete) answers; modern physics and evolutionary biology describe, in painstaking mathematical and empirical detail, the physical and biological processes that make up the universe and life on earth. Scientific theories are testable and falsifiable and subject to refinement, and if the universe operated in slightly different ways, we would have to abandon our scientific theories and replace them with new ones.

What about the religious explanations for the existence of the universe and life on earth? They amount to little more than the argument that invisible fairies cast magic spells to grow plants. For example, modern versions of the cosmological argument—which claim that the universe requires a first cause—explicitly state that this first cause, which they call god, “transcends time and space,” which is, essentially, another way of saying that god is invisible and casts spells.

This is a necessary move for the theist to avoid a blatant contradiction. To see how, let’s quickly review a version of the cosmological argument known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA):

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
2. The universe began to exist;
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause, which is God.

We can immediately see the problem here: if everything requires a cause, then why doesn’t god require a cause? The theist will then claim, as theologian William Lane Craig maintains, that god requires no cause because god exists outside of time and space, just like our invisible garden fairies!

Similarly, design arguments for the existence of god take the same stance. Theists maintain that the complexity of the world requires a designer, but when asked if the designer, who must be at least as complex as the universe it created, also requires a designer, they will claim that god is not actually complex. So god exists outside of time and space and has no complex parts or properties to explain, yet somehow created the universe and continues to interact with it. This is sounding uncomfortably close to our plant-growing fairies.

The problem with the arguments for god’s existence should by now be readily apparent. Theists are attempting to explain the mysteries of the universe with another mystery, without noticing that the substitute mystery (god) requires the exact same explanations as the original mysteries it is supposedly explaining (the origin and complexity of the universe). Further, the arguments for god’s existence only work if god is defined in such a way as to be completely inaccessible to investigation or evaluation.

God, defined in this way, can account for everything, and even if the universe were completely different, the cosmological and design arguments would still apply. But we should take pains to always remind ourselves of Popper’s crucial point: namely, that theories that explain everything explain nothing.

Sagan’s dragon and Russell’s teapot

Carl Sagan famously made a similar point in his book The Demon-Haunted World. In the chapter titled “The Dragon in My Garage,” Sagan wrote:

“A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage.”

Suppose I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

We can reframe Sagan’s question as follows: What’s the difference between an atemporal, nonspatial, incorporeal, invisible god and no god at all? Theists, in their attempts to define god in such a way as to make their arguments coherent, end up stripping away all of god’s properties until there’s nothing left.

Bertrand Russell, writing in 1952, expressed the same point in a different way. In an analogy referred to as Russell’s Teapot, Russell wrote:

“Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

Notice that within Russell’s teapot analogy is an argument against agnosticism. If someone were to ask you to describe your beliefs regarding the existence of the china teapot, would you describe yourself as an a-teapotist or as a teapot agnostic? The teapot almost certainly doesn’t exist, and just because someone asserts its existence without evidence doesn’t make it more likely to exist, and therefore we have no reason to believe in it, or to even label ourselves as undecided.

Whether we are talking about invisible fairies, Sagan’s invisible dragon, Russell’s invisible floating teapot, or incorporeal, nonspatial gods, the point is always the same: the philosophical burden of proof always falls on those making the claims (since a virtually infinite number of claims can be made), rather than shifting the burden of disproof onto others. Further, mysteries cannot be solved by introducing other mysteries, and, without the weight of tradition, irrational explanations would not be persuasive on their own.

Ask yourself how many people would be persuaded by something like the cosmological argument if they didn’t already believe in god? The likely answer is very few. The weight of tradition gives credibility to worldviews that, on their own, are nothing short of absurd. The absurdity, however, is masked by the number of followers and the emotional appeal of the beliefs. But we must never sacrifice our intellectual integrity in service to consolation, wishful thinking, or tradition alone. Faith, or belief in the face of little to no evidence, or even contradictory evidence, is no virtue.

A Better Alternative

Once the mind has been liberated from belief in god and has been disabused of the idea that life’s meaning must be imposed from an external source, the individual is truly free to develop a richer conception of life as the pursuit of one’s own meaning, goals, relationships, and pleasures. Love, friendship, hobbies, community involvement, helping others, and many other pleasurable and worthwhile endeavors lose nothing from the fact that an invisible entity is not perpetually watching you from above.

So, what then, is the good life? The best answer seems to be that there is no single, one-size-fits all answer, and that at least part of the answer lies in the pursuit of ethical knowledge itself. Living the good life is not about finding a single author, tradition, or text to simply obey. Rather, living the good life is more about taking full advantage of your intellectual freedom and rational capacity to explore the great traditions of the past and to choose what best suits your own life and personality.

Crafting one’s own meaning and purpose based on the exploration of humanity’s collective wisdom as expressed in the great literature of the past and present seems infinitely more fulfilling than blind obedience to a single ancient text and viewpoint that cannot withstand critical scrutiny. As Grayling wrote:

“The message is clarion clear: to think for oneself is essential to the good life because what flows from doing so is one’s own. If others do the thinking for one, or if orthodoxies or traditions do it, one’s life is not one’s own. The good and well-lived life is not a servitude, but a service to one’s own chosen values. So the train of thought goes: freedom is what makes it possible to create meaning in one’s life, and the creation of meaning in one’s life is the good life itself.”

[robin friedman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Religion Or Humanism?

Many individuals have settled their beliefs about religion while many others, including myself, have experienced much doubt throughout life. Those with unsettled views probably have a larger tendency than others to gravitate towards philosophy, which tries to examine and assess broad questions about life and experience. In his new book, "The God Argument: the Case against Religion and for Humanism" (2013), the philosopher A.C. Grayling examines and rejects arguments in favor of religion and religious belief and opts instead for an outlook on life based on humanism/ Grayling is professor of philosophy and master of the New College of the Humanities, London. Grayling has written more than 30 books, many of which involve questions about religion and humanism. He is a "public philosopher" in that he writes for lay audiences as well as for technically trained philosophers and addresses questions of immediate philosophical impact as opposed to what are sometimes termed technical questions for specialists. In addition to addressing religion and humanism, Grayling has written studies of Descartes, Berkeley, and Wittgenstein.

The goal of the book is less to change minds than to articulate the reasons which, for Grayling, lead to the rejection of religion and theism. Equally important, Grayling wants to show that the lack of theistic belief does not lead to a meaningless, ethically random life. The case Grayling makes for humanism is as important to his project as the case against religion. Accordingly, the book is in two broad parts, the first of which is titled "Against Religion" while the second is titled, "For Humanism".

Religious belief involves intellectual questions but it also raises questions of emotion, psychology, history and more. Thus, in the first part of the book, Grayling engages in a broad discussion of the origins of religious belief, historically and for the individual, and of the role religion has served for its believers. Speaking broadly, Grayling sees religion as arising in a pre-scientific world view when people tried to explain phenomena on the basis of mind or intentionally-based behavior rather than as the operation of laws of nature, including physics, chemistry, and biology. He sees religion as having great personal uses for people in providing forms of consolation, meaning, and ethical standards; but he also sees religion as wreaking more harm than good in the form of intolerance and hatred, ignorance, superstition, and the undue supression of natural and proper human desires including, in particular, sexuality. Grayling explores these factors and then turns to an examination of various philosophical arguments that have traditionally been offered for theism, including the argument from design and the ontological argument, and finds them wanting.

The best part of the discussion consists in Grayling's formulation of the question: determining what "religion" and "god" mean. Religion, for Grayling, is a "set of beliefs and practices focused on a god or gods," a definition that excludes Theravada Buddhism and Confucianism, among other possible candidates. In a telling passage, Grayling points to the difficulty of engaging with religion due to to the shifting character of concepts of God. He writes:

"[C]ontesting religion is like engaging in a boxing match with jelly; it is a shifting, unclear, amorphous target, which every blow displaces to a new shape. This is in large part because the religious themselves often do not have clear ideas, or much agreement among themselves, about what is meant by 'religion', 'god' 'faith' and associated concepts. And this is not surprising given the fact that these concepts are so elastic, multiple, and ill-defined as to make it hard to attach a literal meaning to them."

The considerations Grayling identifies make "religion" and "god" elusive targets. Educated religious believers frequently have far different views than the majority of people who attend houses of worship. And those believers who disagree with "fundamentalism" frequently "cherry-pick" among doctrines, disregarding those they find offensive and substituting, sometimes in a dogmatic way of their own, a more "liberal" point of view. I sympathize with Grayling's discussion of this situation. He tries to address it by mounting a broad-based attack on theism, in terms of the existence of god and of the value of god as a means of explanation in morality, physical causation, or anything else.

In the second part of the book, Grayling defines and makes the case for humanism. He says:

"In essence, humanism is the ethical outlook that says each individual is responsible for choosing his or her values and goals and working towards the latter in the light of the former, and is equally responsible for living considerately towards others, with a special view to establishing good relationships at the heart of life, because all good lives are presmised on such. Humanism recognizes the commonalities and, at the same time, wide differences that exist in human nature and capacities, and therefore respects the rights that the former tells us all must have, and the need for space and tolerance that the latter tells us each must have."

Grayling proceeds to give a broad discussion of how an individual may choose the pattern of his or her life and work towards its meaning under a humanistic outlook. He also offers what he admits are his own points of view on a broad range of social issues, including the distribution of wealth, feminism, gay rights, vegetarianism, euthanasia, abortion, regulation of drugs, and more. His views tend to be well on the liberal range of the social spectrum.

The book is provocatively and elegantly written. Grayling writes with a commendable passion and fervor as he seeks to engage the reader in the process of thinking issues through to a conclusion. I share much of his approach. In my view, "humanism" and more generally "philosophy" are terms almost as elusive and shifting as "god" and "religion". Grayling's "humanism" has many attractive features, but its emphasis of individualism and choice of goals speaks primarily to a certain type of educated, modestly well-to-do individual with a degree of leisure in a developed country. And Grayling's arguments for social and political positions do not seem to me in all cases to be required by a humanistically based ethics. Perhaps individuals have other options between the religion that Grayling critiques on the one hand and his humanism on the other hand. The works of the American philosopher John Kekes, for example, show a secular thinker with a social ethics that differs markedly from Grayling's.

I mentioned that Grayling has written about Descartes and Wittgenstein. In the book under discussion, written for a law audience, Grayling perhaps does not fully flesh out philosophical underpinnings and arguments. He offers a short and rather perfunctory chapter titled "knowledge, belief, and rationality" on the difficult host of questions that philosophers describe as epistemological. I am not sure from this work alone, but Grayling appears committed to a strong view of rationality and proof and to a representational outlook with which many philosophers would disagree. The outlook is broadly that words and thoughts somehow "mirror" reality. And so, when the word "God" is used, it refers to an existing being or to nothing at all. Some philosophers would reject this outlook and allow for the possibility of a "God" that is not an existent "thing" or a "being". Also Grayling seems to me to privilege scientific forms of explanation and he adopts what is close to a verificationist theory of meaning. He writes, "[r]eligious claims are, accordingly, irrefutable because untestable; and by this criterion are therefore meaningless." The trouble with this is that verificationism has a long philosophical history. If theological claims do not pass verificationism, many other types of claims that people would now want to give up do not pass it either.

Grayling could reject these forms of critique or he could restate his position to meet them. I think his discussion, rejecting a representationalist theism is valuable. The book is liberating, challenging, and worth reading by those readers emeshed in religious questions.

Robin Friedman

[Selim Njeim · Rating 1 out of 5]

I don't usually put down a book before finishing it and decide to forget about it and move on to reading something else. This was one of the very rare exceptions to the rule aforementioned.
I didn't like the way the arguments were refuted, the style, the structure, how brief and not in-depth the chapters/analysis were, etc etc...

There are other books out there, on the same topic, which I have enjoyed reading way more.

[Book Shark · Rating 4 out of 5]

The God Argument: The Case Against Religion and for Humanism by A.C. Grayling

“The God Argument" is a very respectful, thought-provoking and accessible book that addresses the case against religion while making the compelling case for a superior ethical way of living, humanism. Accomplished author and English philosopher, A.C. Grayling, provides the reader with an excellent modern reference to the most important philosophical questions of ethics and morality. This stimulating 288-page book is broken into two parts: Part I – Against Religion, and Part II – For Humanism.

Positives:
1. Elegant dignified prose. The author is very respectful and treats this fascinating topic with utmost respect and care.
2. A philosophical focus on the most interesting topic, religion.
3. The author has a great command of the topic and does a masterful job of keeping it an accessible level without compromising the intellectual core of the topic.
4. The reality of contesting religion. “Contesting religion is like engaging in a boxing match with jelly: it is a shifting, unclear, amorphous target, which every blow displaces to a new shape”.
5. You never feel lost in this book. The author does a great job of staying focused on the task in hand, “In my view, the argument against religion is an argument for the liberation of the human mind, and the possibility of at last formulating an ethical outlook that humankind can share, thus providing a basis for a much more integrated and peaceful world.”
6. Does a good job of defining terms smoothly within the context of the narrative.
7. Thought-provoking ideas and concepts that challenge the trend, “This fact about the Chinese, the most numerous people on Earth and a large fraction of the Earth’s human population, gives the lie to the theory that belief in a god is hard-wired in the human brain.”
8. The inconsistencies of religious beliefs, “The evidence of the world is in fact far more consistent with the existence of an evil deity than a good deity, or at least a deity capable of evil and more than occasionally intent on causing it; but this is not a line that many religious apologists take.”
9. The roots of religion, “Religion is exactly the same kind of thing as astrology: it originates in the pre-scientific, rudimentary metaphysics of our ancestors.”
10. How science claims differ from religious ones. “Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I’m asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so . . .”
11. Debunking the three most popular arguments for “God”: argument from design (teleological), ontological argument, and the cosmological argument. Strong arguments against the theistic claims.
12. The dismantling of Pascal’s wager and the poor moral argument for the existence of a deity.
13. Debunking the notion for a designer, “In short, the explanatory value of the idea of a designer or deity to ‘explain’ in its turn the universe and the complexity of life in it is null.”
14. The danger of the Creationist lobby. “No scientists would wish students not to think critically about anything.”
15. The three separate debates between religion and its critics: theism-atheism debate, secularism debate, and a debate about the source and content of our moralities. Great stuff here. I enjoyed the defining of militancy.
16. Persuasive discussion on the merits of humanism. “In essence, humanism is the ethical outlook that says each individual is responsible for choosing his or her values and goals and working towards the latter in the light of the former, and is equally responsible for living considerately towards others, with a special view to establishing good relationships at the heart of life, because all good lives are premised on such.”
17. A brief historical look at secular humanism. Defining the good life.
18. Differing between ethics and morality. “Morality is about what is permissible and forbidden in particular realms of behaviour; ethics is about one’s character.”
19. Interesting section on abortions and assisted suicide (euthanasia). “In short, euthanasia – which we should understand as ‘a good dying’ – should be available to all of us, and not least to the ill and old if they desire it (not if someone else desires it for them).”
20. Comparing laws involving blasphemy. “Compare this to now-repealed nineteenth-century laws in certain states of the United States, where the penalty for anyone who ‘wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, His creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures’ was anything up to a year in jail and a fine not exceeding $300.”
21. One of my favorite points in the book, “Morality has to be grounded and justified independently of claims about the existence of gods or other supernatural agencies and what they are said to demand of their creatures.”

Negatives:
1. My biggest criticism of the book is the lack of citations; there was a total of forty to be exact. A well-written and provocative book like this warranted more.
2. My instinct tells me the book was rushed based on a couple of misspells that I caught (career, installment) and the aforementioned lack of citations. Not a major issue just not to the standards one expects from a book of Grayling’s caliber.
3. This book is intended for the masses and I must say I am grateful for the approach but for the more demanding reader and scholarly philosophers it may lack depth.
4. No mention of the now popular yet debunked Kalam version of the Cosmological argument.
5. Didn’t go after the concept of the soul, spirit, or some of the other popular metaphysical claims.
6. No formal bibliography.

In summary, this is a solid and enjoyable book to read. I can see myself going back to this book as reference. The author makes very solid, civil arguments against the claims of religion while convincingly pushing forward a more favorable ethical manner of living. Putting aside, the lack of citations and lack of depth in some areas, this is a highly recommended book!

Further suggestions: “Why Does the World Exist?” by Jim Holt, "Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity" and "The End of Christianity" by John Loftus, "Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism" and "Why I'm Not a Christian" by Richard Carrier, "Natural Atheism" and "Atheism Advanced: Further Thoughts of a Freethinker" by Dr. David Eller, "Man Made God: A Collection of Essays" by Barbara G. Walker, "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values" by Sam Harris, “The World Is Not as We Think It Is” by Dennis Littrell, "”Immortality” by Stephen Cave, , "God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist" by Victor J. Stenger, "Godless" by Dan Barker, "Christian No More" by Jeffrey Mark, and "The Invention of God" by Bill Lauritzen.

[Stephie Williams · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this book A. C. Grayling argues for two things. One is that supernatural beings, including god or other deities, do not exist, and that secular humanism is the best approach to life. After taking care of preliminaries about what is meant by god he goes on to discuss the irrationality of a belief in god. Then, he goes on to discuss the standard arguments for god and the manifold problems with them. He next shows the bankruptcy of religious morals, and he ends up the first part of the book demolishing creationism and intelligent design. The second part presents his arguments for the superiority of secular humanism for ethical and moral concerns over religious ones. He shows here its contribution to ethics, leading a good life, making a better world to live in, the importance of our shared humanity, the difference between ethics and morals (I had never seen this division before; he explains ethics is are personal concern with life and morality is how we treat others in large part due to our own personal ethics), and some modern issues that the Bible or other ancient religious texts have not much to say on them, including love, sex, drugs, and death. At the end he returns to show how religion is not equip to handle modern life and why secular humanism is a better path therein.

I have a number of comments based on pieces of text from the book. Pagination is from the Kindle edition. Page numbers are in brackets [].

[38] “This [religious studies in public schools] could not happen in the United States of America, which is officially a secular country, where public money cannot be used to promote religious activity.” Think again. Maybe not money spent on religious instruction in public schools, but public money is spent in various ways in support of religious charities. Plus, sessions of Congress still opens with a prayer, which bothers me to no end.

[92] “Two things that stand out in Plantinga’s claims are, first, that theism is more consistent with science than atheism because a universe ruled by a deity is an orderly one . . .” Except the universe is constantly becoming more and more disordered as time goes on. This is because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Sorry Plantinga can’t use an orderly universe in arguing for god’s existence. And we know that your deity is really the Christian god.

[96] “And then the rest of the argument [cosmological] falls into place: the chain of causes cannot run back infinitely, so there has to be a first cause, and since this first cause is itself not contingent upon or caused by anything else, it must be non-contingent, that is, necessary.” This is according Leibniz, who should have known better because his calculus requires that an approach to a limit that gets infinitely closer and closer.

[106] “In short, there is no need for an external enforcer to make us the kind of people who take such thoughts seriously . . .” Even so, we do operate under external enforcers. Parents and societal laws often fill these functions.

[115] “. . . one mark of intelligence is an ability to live with as yet unanswered questions.” And the ability to ask them.

[116] By this page I began to realize that Grayling certainly love his fairies.

[151] “The point is not to take dictation from those thinkers [such as philosophers], to read and then obey: rather, it is to read, discuss, and then take the best of their insights for one’s own use, and to make the resulting combination of ideas one’s own.” This could come straight out of Stephie’s playbook. Taking ideas and making them my own, exploring them in different ways.

[154] “Critics of Aristotle’s ethics are not very kind to it. They describe his doctrine of the middle path as middle-aged, middle class and middlebrow.” But in keeping with Grayling’s views: We get to choose our own set of virtues to live by with no guarantee that we will get it 100% right. Thus, Aristotle’s theory of the mean is a sound method to guide our actions, except we need to determine the virtues that fit us best. And it is only one ethical tool among many.

[160] ”It follows that ethical discussion cannot be about prescribing to individuals, but must instead be an exploration of the general characteristics that the diversity of good lives tend to display, together with the general principles suggested by morally relevant facts about human experience.” For me philosophy is at its best when it explores ideas and concepts.

[167] “. . . we are animals who thrive when engaged, and suffer from idleness.” Boredom is my biggest enemy.

[214] “I think it is a humanistic view to hold that people should not be too dependent on ‘fixes’ for their reliefs and satisfactions – the syringe of heroin, the glass after glass of whiskey, even the sleeping tablets and tranquillisers provided on prescription. Real reliefs and satisfactions come from relationships, the use of intelligence, curiosity and enquiry, activity directed at doing something or making something worthwhile.” As one who has lived in both modes of life the second is far far superior.

I think Grayling should be included in the triumvirate of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens making them the four horsemen of vocal atheists*, or angry atheists as there enemies would define them, not realizing that calling people names does not make their arguments wrong. I thoroughly enjoy the book. Grayling writes with great clarity and force, putting him up there as one of my favorite authors.

While convinced atheists and humanists won’t need Grayling’s arguments to go on believing as they do, it should help fuel the internal fires and maybe gain support for their own views. So, I do recommend the book to these already convinced atheists and secular humanist. Maybe more importantly, the reader who is not convinced already but is willing to read with an open and questioning mind, I think would benefit greatly. As usual with these kinds of books if you are a firm believer unless you want a headache don’t even pick the book up. Hey, but who knows maybe it will open a crack in your mind.

* Daniel Dennett could also be added, making “five golden rings.”

[Alan Bevan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Grayling is rigorously logical in his analysis of the god question. Some memorable concepts for me were:

* Grayling says he doesn't believe in 'gods, goddesses or supernatural agencies'. He suggests that saying one doesn't believe in God creates the illusion that there is a real being one is choosing not to believe in.
* He suggests that stamp collectors can form a common interest group but those choosing not to collect stamps are hardly likely to form a non stamp collectors group. In the same way, he argues those who don't believe in gods and goddesses are not likely to form a group.
* Many mythologies that predate Christianity have gods impregnating women and producing god like children.
* Everybody is an atheist with regard to almost all gods.
* 'Polite opposition did not abolish slavery. It took arguments, campaigns and fearless outspoken criticism… Freeing the human mind from the enslavement of superstition and religion requires the same approach.'
* 'The universe's parameters are not tuned on purpose for us to exist. It is the other way round: we exist because the laws happen to be as they are.' Grayling compares this to the improbability of our own existence. Given the extraordinary number of couplings in each individual's ancestry (not to mention timing and even the sperm race), the odds against us existing are stupendous. However, such an unlikely set of causes are necessary given that we do exist.
* I enjoyed Grayling's analysis of the various philosophical arguments for a god. For example, the 'necessary being' idea leads one to conclude that this being is incapable of taking its own life (and therefore not existing). So the necessary being can't be omnipotent.

The second half of Grayling's book argues the preference of humanism to religion as a basis for morality. I like the way he argues individual responsibility. It is hard to read this section without conceding it is a better way. As Grayling says, 'No wars have been fought over differences of opinion in botany.'

[Todd Martin · Rating 4 out of 5]

From a plurality of prime movers, the monotheists have bargained it down to a single one. They are getting ever nearer to the true, round figure.
- Christopher Hitchens

Faith is 'believing in what you know ain't so'
- Mark Twain

When Christopher Hitchens died from cancer in December of 2011 the world lost a powerful opponent of iron-age superstition and irrationality. He was the most pugnacious, and arguably the most eloquent, of the so-called Four Horsemen of New Atheism. His passing left huge shoes to fill, but I have to say that A.C. Grayling has done a decent job in his new book The God Argument: The Case against Religion and for Humanism. Though Grayling’s style is less bombastic, his background as an academic and philosopher gives him the tools necessary to carefully dismantle the rationale for religious (i.e. supernatural) beliefs as well as argue for their replacement with a humanistic worldview. As the subtitle suggests, the book is divided into two parts with the first consisting of a “Case against Religion” and the second of a “Case for Humanism”.

In his case against religion, Grayling dismantles the three primary methods apologists use to argue for god: the teleological argument, the ontological argument and the cosmological argument. While he does a nice job in this regard, the best moments come as he defines what people mean by ‘god’ and his dissection of the fact that they, by necessity, resort to ineffability to describe their creator. This ineffability (defined as “incapable of being expressed or described in words; inexpressible”) is a result of the fact that believers really have no distinct conception of the deity in which they supposedly believe. Their god is both loving and omnipotent, yet he allows tremendous suffering because it’s part of some mysterious plan. Everything from tsunamis, starvation, child abuse, bigotry, war, earthquakes and cancer is rationalized as being in accordance with this plan in the minds of believers. Why would a loving god create creatures that can only survive through violence by killing and eating each other? … It’s that “ineffable mystery” every single time and it is this mystery that explains everything there is to know about the world. This type of argument should be dismissed out of hand because, as Karl Popper put it, "A theory that explains everything, explains nothing".

In an era where science has developed (or is in the process of developing) naturalistic and testable explanations of the world, you would expect religion to begin loosening its grip on society. And in fact, that’s exactly what you find. Much of the western world is entirely secular and even in the US there’s a distinct air of desperation as evangelical Christians try everything from enacting laws to force their religious beliefs on others (creationism, marriage inequality, abortion bans), to creating their own insular forms of media (Christian radio, TV and movies) to indoctrination through homeschooling in an attempt to stave off the secularizing influence of the broader world. While they may delay the inevitable, the powerful historical trend away from religion and towards secularization is irrefutable.

Grayling sums up his section on religion nicely with the following:
The cumulative case against religion shows it to be a hangover from the infancy of modern humanity, persistent and enduring because of the vested interests of religious organizations, proselytization of children, complicity of temporal powers requiring the social and moral policing that religion offers, and human psychology itself.

Next, Grayling discusses humanism as a worldview to replace that typically held by religious belief. Wiki defines humanism as “a group of philosophies and ethical perspectives which emphasize the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers individual thought and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism).” Basically it holds that individuals must determine what is important and meaningful for themselves, instead of having it imposed from the outside.

Humanism allows individuals to flourish because it allows them to lead autonomous lives through pursuit of their own interests and needs. It offers strong support for individual human rights and dignity and recognizes that human relationships are central to a happy and fulfilled life. It seeks to reduce suffering and curtail those behaviors that are its source. Most importantly, it relies on evidence based decisions for its system of ethics (as opposed to some ancient book’s deeply flawed dictates).

The most common critique of humanism is that it leads to moral relativism. But this is a willful misreading of the system of thought. Human flourishing occurs when individuals have access to loving relationships, access to education, meaningful work, and live in an atmosphere free from fear and suffering. These universals form the basis of the philosophy, and while different people may place more emphasis on one aspect over another, in no case would behaviors that cause misery be acceptable. In stark contrast to religion, the humanistic worldview would not seek to kill those who profess different beliefs, prohibit contraceptives in an area devastated by AIDs, require a rape victim to give birth to her attacker’s child, condemn homosexuality and seek to restrict their right to marry or adopt children, or relegate women to a role as second class citizens. In short, replacing religion with humanism would make the world a better place to live.

[Steve · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent read! The book is divided into two sections. Section 1 evaluates common arguments in support of theism and shows how they are incoherent, inconsistent, or unnecessary - in particular unnecessary in forming the basis for ethics and morality. The second section lays out the way in which secular humanism may contribute to various ethical and moral issues. The writing is intelligent, witty, wise, sensitive, and compelling. Grayling is one of the most eloquent voices in contemporary “atheism” and secular humanism. Inspiring and hopeful.

[Joe Sampson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sets out clearly the arguments against the existence of God including what is, as far as I know, an original argument against the ontological argument. He then sets out the humanist worldview in detail; but to me it is lacking in arguments to justify humanism. Margaret Knight's "Morals Without Religion" I think does this better; also "Faith of a Humanist" by Bertrand Russell (In "Humanist Anthology", ed. Margaret Knight).

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting read. Grayling argues that ethics underline morality in society. Which entails three questions; what sort of person should I be? How should I live? What is my route towards, and contribution to, the good?

The author goes through theistic arguments of by design or teleological. The ontological argument where a deity exists by reason alone or by definition. The cosmological argument where the world cannot be its own cause or ground.There is also a moral argument that there cannot be morality unless there is a deity. Later he defines humanism as a general label for ethical views about the nature of the good and well lived life.

He shreds religion and points out the many contradictions such as conservative religious people opposing abortion and euthanasia while supporting the use of capital punishment and war. He also points out how liberals oppose capital punishment and war while supporting euthanasia and abortion.

He argues most people will go along with their particular status quo based on their family views and education. Sadly few people are taught to think rationally or ethically unless it is linked to their religious beliefs. This is unlikely to change dramatically but change is occurring with equality for women in Western countries, euthanasia, gay rights, separation of religion from state and education for all. Albeit the richer you are the better education although the danger of indoctrination are evident in many school curriculums.

Many reviewers mentioned Graylings sentence about the NHS providing sexual services. I suggest you read the chapter to get the context of what he is saying.

The book makes you think and reflect. Is Grayling bias, in places yes but he also does provide balance and well thought out arguments.

[Kusaimamekirai · Rating 4 out of 5]

In “The God Argument”, A.C. Grayling lays out his argument for religion as the basis of our ethical and spiritual world to be replaced by a more humanist worldview. By “humanist”, Grayling means a world where we are not governed by superstition about what we can eat, who we can sleep with, or how we can think.

“As a broad ethical outlook, humanism involves no sectarian divisions or strife, no supernaturalism, no taboos, no food and dress codes, no restrictive sexual morality other than what is implicit in the demand to treat others with respect, consideration and kindness.”

Each man and woman is free to explore their potential so long as it doesn’t interfere with or harm others. It is for me, an argument that I find difficult to disagree with.
Grayling argues that religion is a kind of totalitarianism equivalent to Stalinism or Maoism in which a single omnipotent power dictates how we live our lives and that true freedom is freedom from the arbitrary dictates or men (or spiritual beings). To simply take the word of someone or something without anything fact based evidence or life experience that validates or invalidates is unacceptable.

“It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. If a man, holding a belief which he was taught in childhood or persuaded of afterwards, keeps down and pushes away any doubts which arise about it in his mind, purposely avoids the reading of books and the company of men that call into question or discuss it, and regards as impious those questions which cannot easily be asked without disturbing it, the life of that man is one long sin against mankind.”

Grayling provides what may be one of my favorite examples for discarding faith in place of reason:

“Suppose I say: ‘Whenever I have gone outdoors in the rain without an umbrella, I have got wet. But my belief that I will get wet next time I go out in the rain without an umbrella is merely inductive; all past instances of getting wet in the rain because I had no umbrella do not entail that this will happen next time. So I will not take an umbrella with me the next time it rains, because it is possible that I will stay dry.’ I take it as uncontroversial that anyone who reasoned in this way would be viewed as irrational. This shows that the primary mark of rationality is reliance on evidence, taking relevant experience seriously, and using associated knowledge and theory appropriately. In the umbrella case, this means applying what one knows about rain, wetness, and what an umbrella does.”

Check again. Couldn’t agree more.
Grayling goes on to say that while he has no problem with people believing in a private fantasy of a supernatural being, the problem for society is that this belief is rarely confined to the realm of the private. Religion may offer private consolation to many in times of trouble but it is certainly not the only avenue to accomplish this. Art, music, literature, natural beauty, human relationships, and countless other things can also provide solace with the bloodshed and strife that seems to follow organised religion.

“Whereas the consolations of religion are mainly personal, the burdens are social and political as well as personal.”

“As a broad ethical outlook, humanism involves no sectarian divisions or strife, no supernaturalism, no taboos, no food and dress codes, no restrictive sexual morality other than what is implicit in the demand to treat others with respect, consideration and kindness.”

**high-fives Grayling** Well said sir.
The final chapters are taken up with how humanism and religion view love and sex. Let’s do this!

“It is hard to imagine how societies would get by without hypocrisy. Society has always implicitly recognised what is unappetisingly called the ‘hygienic’ function of prostitution, which is that it provides an outlet for people (mainly but not exclusively men) who do not have sexual partners otherwise, and it also satisfies the need for variety and sexual adventure in married men, thereby saving marriages. When divorce was impossible or difficult, prostitution not only saved marriages but also the institution of marriage. One would think that an important safety valve like sexual services would be respected and even funded on the National Health Service.”

Ummm…perhaps I should first say that I agree with Grayling that the stigma attached to prostitution is perhaps unfair. Not my cup of tea, but if you’re not hurting anyone go for it. This is the essence of Grayling’s humanist argument. Yet he loses me when he argues that prostitution “saves marriages” while seemingly overlooking the cost to others.
How many women are ok with their husbands having extra marital sex, be it with strangers or otherwise? Some perhaps, but I can’t imagine most women would see their husbands affairs as a net positive to their marriage (Grayling doesn’t explore how he would feel about his wife frequenting male prostitutes, but few men do in light of the fact that the vast majority of prostitutes service men). Some may tolerate it as a necessary evil but few would look favorably on it. And what of the children in such marriages? How do we explain dad’s behavior to them?
While Grayling argues for a more humanist view of the world, this is not the world we currently inhabit. For all of Grayling’s talk of taking morality and ethics out of the realm of theory and making it practical to our daily life, this would seem to be a situation where real world morality (infidelity damages families) and theory (infidelity should be acceptable) are particularly incompatible.

So in short: live a good life, don’t let other people tell you what to do, have all the prostitute sex you want while saving your marriage (and put it on the NHS tab), and rain makes you wet, carry an umbrella.

[G.R. Reader · Rating 1 out of 5]

Okay, since no one else is prepared to say it out loud, here's the question I'm sure we all asked ourselves when we got to Chapter 18. Did A.C. Grayling patronize prostitutes towards the end of his first marriage, when things had stopped working and they were just going through the motions? Reading between the lines, he sure makes it sound like the answer might be yes. But it would be nice to get that confirmed.

[Stella · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first half of this book (Against Religion) was a bit hard for me to get through. Not as thoroughly entertaining and educational as Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens taking down religion. More like a dry Vulcan analysis of human religions as illogical and unreasonable. The second half (For Humanism) was much more interesting to me, and quite thought provoking in parts.

[S.Ach · Rating 2 out of 5]

What a poorly constructed argument, presented in lackluster style, of a theme that I myself is inclined to.
I had been warned. Didn't heed. Paid the price.

[Al Bità · Rating 5 out of 5]

At the beginning of Chapter I of this book, Grayling writes:

“To put matters at their simplest, the major reason for the continuance of religious belief in a world which might otherwise have long moved beyond it, is indoctrination of children before they reach the age of reason, together with all or some combination of social pressure to conform, social reinforcement of religious institutions and traditions, emotion, and (it has to be said) ignorance — of science, of psychology, of history in general, and of the history and actual doctrines of religions themselves
This statement doubtless sounds polemical, but that is not the intention; rather it is setting out considered facts, each discussed later in these pages. They are important facts, because understanding them is essential to solving one of the world’s greatest problems: how to free the mind of humankind from attitudes and practices which are among the biggest impediments to peace and human progress, and to adopt in their place the humane outlook that is seriously concerned to promote both, and has a real chance of doing it.”

This book is Grayling’s current contribution to this problem — and what a pleasure it provides, with its intelligence explorations and discussions of so many relevant issues. And all done in his impeccable literary style and panache which makes him a standout while this debate continues.

The first part of this book is Graylings polemic against religion, and provides a thorough examination of the usual arguments still being proposed by believers. Grayling spells out what those arguments are, and effectively demolishes them all quite rationally as fallacies, particularly in regard to the belief that they “prove” the existence of “god”. The second part of the book addresses the belief that one needs religion as a basis for ethical and moral issues, and is concerned with presenting a strong case for the adoption of humanistic approaches instead. On pp. 146/7 Grayling writes:

”…humanism is an outlook based on two allied general premises…
…
The first premise is that there are no supernatural agencies in the universe, and the second, connected, premise is that our ethics must be drawn from, and responsive to, the nature and circumstances of human experience.”

This second part does just that: coolly, dispassionately, diligently.

This work is a perfect, painless expression of what is at stake. It is particularly pertinent for those who “feel” that they want to be atheists, but also “feel” that they like the trappings and ceremonies of their particular faith which make them feel happy and content in the sense of community and self identification associated with it. I can only refer the reader back to the first quote above: that their feelings are, essentially, based on ignorance (there really is no other word for it); but Graylings concern is not to belittle, but to make intelligible why that ignorance is actually part of, if not the cause of one’s problems with life. I doubt they could find a more caring and considerate teacher than Grayling; and so this book is recommended unreservedly for them especially. There really is nothing to fear. What is essential, however, is a greater sense of maturity and responsibility. One can hardly criticise that!

[4ZZZ Book Club]

We were joined by A. C. Grayling, ahead of a debate on church and state at the Sydney Opera House, to talk about the nature of humanism and the logic of atheism. Originally broadcast on 22/03/2013, the podcast is available at zedbookclub.com.

A. C. Grayling is a noted ethicist and philosopher. Previously a professor of philosophy at the University of London, he is now Master of the New College of the Humanities and a supernumerary fellow of St Anne’s College, Oxford. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature, a representative to the UN Human Rights Council, and a frequent broadcaster on BBC Radio. The author of over thirty books, he has explored the nature of liberty, the ethics of Allied Bombing in WWII, and published on Wittgenstein, Descartes and Russell. Over the last few years though, he has turned his attention to religion, joining the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens in pushing for a secular society, free from religious interference. In 2011 he published The Good Book, a retelling of the bible from a secular humanist perspective and his latest work is The God Argument: The case against religion and for a better alternative.

[Scott Lupo · Rating 4 out of 5]

An intellectual, thought-provoking book that gets to the heart of the main arguments for/against religion. A.C. Grayling does a really great job of laying out the main arguments for religion and then systematically defeating them with rational thought based on intellectual integrity, reason, evidence, and critical thinking. This is his set-up to the definition of Humanism and how this alternative to religion can lead to a much more compassionate and caring world. I really think this is a great book for religious and non-religious people. I believe it is non-threatening albeit critical of religion. It depends on the person. Some find any evidence against their beliefs threatening and will shut down while others are more open-minded. For the non-religious, this is not a book that bludgeons religion with a cudgel to death. Nor does it become vituperative in its criticism. In fact I think it is an informative and instructive book for the non-religious so that they know the main arguments and can successfully have a real discussion with those that are willing. It has definitely wet my appetite for more books on Humanism.

[✨Arline✨ · Rating 4 out of 5]

Why just white men?!

Lots of great info! I learned a good bit and have better arguments against religion and for atheism/humanism now.

However, my one (very consistent!) frustration with AC grayling and other humanist authors—where the hell are the women and people of color?!

The book is 260+ pages and he quotes not a single women and barely mentions women at all.

I can name a few black humanist women off the top of my head, and I’m not super educated on the topic.

When he does mention women, it’s in relation to “pornography, sex and subordination” in religious circles. He also lumps together racism and sexism, which yes, almost always go together.

He seems completely oblivious, however, to his own glaring exclusion of women or BIPOC as influential in humanism and on his writing in particular.

Just feels like another white man telling folks what is best for the whole world while only being influenced by the ancient Greeks and some old white guys.

[Edward Sullivan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Grayling offers a much more respectful, thoughtful, and compelling approach to the argument than "New Atheists" such as Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens who rely too much upon condescension and ridicule. Like those other authors Grayling is most successful in demonstrating the many failings of organized religion. I still don't see how it makes sense to use logic and reason to argue against something as illogical and unreasonable as religious faith. It's true that much evil has been done in the name of religion but I can't help but think that the greatest humanitarians in history have been motivated by religious faith. This is not a subject Grayling ever brings up and I'm curious to know what he'd say about this.

[Darjeeling · Rating 4 out of 5]

While this book gives a good overview of Humanism and it's arguments for anyone who is interested, it's optimism regarding the ability of Atheism, Humanism and Secularism to unite the world where religion has divided, belies an author blissfully or perhaps wilfully ignorant of Atheism+ and Social Justice, or of the various Communist revolutions for that matter. These unfortunate movements represent a living, breathing argument against his position that I do not feel he sufficiently addressed within the text.

[Devan Raj · Rating 5 out of 5]

Polite opposition did not abolish slavery. It took arguments, campaigns, and fearless outspoken criticism of the system and its fortifications. Freeing the human mind from the enslavement of superstition and religion requires the same approach. Faith is meant of as a belief held independently of whether there is a testable evidence in its favour, or indeed even in the face of counter evidence. This conceptual tree have to be cut down at the root.

[Peter · Rating 5 out of 5]

A total joy thus far. already worth five stars,

[Steven Dunn · Rating 2 out of 5]

An absolutely poor representation of theism and the arguments for it.

[Ryan Bell · Rating 2 out of 5]

Didn't finish it. I found it more simplistic than even Dawkins' God Delusion. A good intro, though, to the basic arguments.

[Rachel · Rating 5 out of 5]

A book about philosophy that's actually readable? I can barely believe it.

[Dave Schey · Rating 4 out of 5]

A.C. Grayling is a pleasure to read!