The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality

by André Comte-Sponville, Nancy Huston (Translator)

The perfect antidote to the fiery rhetoric that dominates our current national debate over religion, The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality is the ideal companion to such bestsellers as The God Delusion and God Is Not Great. In this inspiring book, bestselling author and philosopher André Comte-Sponville offers a new perspective on the question of God's existence, acknowledging the good that has come of religion while advocating tolerance from both believers and non-believers. Through clear, concise, and often humorous prose, Comte-Sponville offers a convincing appeal for a new form of spiritual life-one that at its heart celebrates the human need to connect to one another and the universe.

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

212 pages, Hardcover

First published September 27, 2006

About the author

André Comte-Sponville, philosophe matérialiste, rationaliste et humaniste, est né à Paris, en 1952. Ancien élève de l'Ecole Normale Supérieure de la rue d'Ulm, agrégé de philosophie, docteur de troisième cycle, il est aussi Docteur Honoris Causa de l'Université de Mons-Hainaut, en Belgique.

André Comte-Sponville fut maître de conférences à la Sorbonne1 (Université Paris I) jusqu'en 1998, date depuis laquelle il se consacre exclusivement à l'écriture et aux conférences qu'il donne en dehors de l'Université.
André Comte-Sponville est membre du Comité Consultatif National d'Ethique depuis mars 2008.

André Comte-Sponville a souvent été invité sur les plateaux télévisés, notamment chez Michel Polac, Bernard Pivot, Guillaume Durand, Frédéric Ferney, Christine Ockrent, Patrick Poivre d'Arvor et Serge Moati.

Reviews

[John M · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am happy to call myself a Christian, and I am happy to say that this book is the champion of atheistic apologetic literature. Were I an atheist, it would be the champion of my standing, but alas, the irrational draw of grace.

No more the scientism-choked, condescending, semantic hijacking typical of George Smith, Dawkins, and (most recently) the expositional regurgitation of Dan Barker's latest. Here is a philosophical voice ringing with intelligence and humanity, unambiguously inclined to life and the mystery and mystique of life in place of the neurotic clasping for scientific or rationally ascertained truth, concisely and artfully compacting his arguments into barely over two hundred pages of medium-sized font. Comte-Sponville's writing is in the humble spirit of Camus, and everywhere his spirit is similar to his, and everywhere the writing just as poetic, if not more so.

Indeed, Camus is noted for his appendical statement in The Myth of Sisyphus that in religion "man is freed from the weight of his own life. But if I know that, if I can even admire it, I also know that I am not seeking what is universal, but what is true. The two may well not coincide." C.-S. would agree wholeheartedly with this remark; and while his atheism is based in the inability to find God through experience or under the rubric of reason, he admits that theism is admirable ground -- even preferable ground, were it not for uncertainty --, and his own arguments (for and against) are gloriously originally stated. At heart, it isn't God that is needed to explain mystery; rather, mystery is irreducible as mystery: "the existence of being is intrinsically mysterious. This is what needs to be understood -- this, and the fact that the mystery is irreducible." A bit of a metaphysical assumption? Big deal. Metaphysics allows for these assumptions; an atheistic ontology is arguably just as arbitrary as a theistic one. And from C.-S.'s standing, theism has failed at its own criteria (notably the existence of evil with a claimed good God -- no news in the God debate, but forcefully argued by C.-S.), so the ground is open.

At virtually every other page there are hidden incomparable nuggets of immaculately stated wisdom:

"What incites people to commit massacres is not faith; it is fanaticism, whether religious or political.... Horror is numberless, with or without God. Alas, this tells us more about humanity than it does about religion" (p. 76).

"[A:]nything and everything we can say positively about God will bear the mark of anthropomorphism.... But what could possibly be said about God, above and beyond anthropomorphism, if not precisely nothing?" (pp. 106-107).

"Believing in God... is a sin of pride. It is imagining a grand cause for a meager effect" (p. 122).

"Freedom of thought is the only good that is perhaps more precious than peace, for the simple reason that, without it, peace would merely be another name for servitude" (p. 133).

Plenty more. The man is a goldmine, and in addition to his unique statements he effortlessly amalgamates the words of Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, Pascal, Montaigne, Spinoza, Camus, and even Heidegger to dress his points, overtly interpreting them with lucidity, very clearly grasping the hearts of their thoughts. And I haven't even begun to speak of the third section, which is an outline of his atheistic spiritualism -- a beautiful metaphysic, donned with the deepest meditations, blazing with originality. The reader must find out for himself.

Of course, for all the wisdom and eloquence compacted in this lucid mind, I don't agree with all of it, and that's fine; what I have is perhaps the best book on a worldview supplemented by atheism, and this is priceless. Andre Comte-Sponville's is the new vision; throw out the American attempts, ignorant of philosophy and trans-scientific thinking. The French intellectuals deserve another historical tally. My highest recommendations for critical analysis of theism, and may all the churchmen crucify me.

[Heron · Rating 3 out of 5]

The end of this book horribly disappointed me. Reading two-thirds of a beautifully written book supporting atheism raised me to a delightful level of happiness. Which was swiftly destroyed by the chapter on atheistic mystical experiences. What a crock. What about life without transcendence?

[Roberto Macias]

This book was a huge disappointment, and I will try to explain why.

It speaks about the spirituality of Atheism, which is a possitive point, and begins by giving a definition of religion in an ethnological sense and separating it from the onthological definition. It is with this definition that the book begins and excels, clearly differentiating between god and a religion.

Later on however, the book tries to explain which parts of a religion (as a common belief in a set of moral values, rites, etc. and specifically for the author, a god) can be discarded, and which are a must for a working society. This is in itself an excelent proposal, and begins well, except it results in an apology for abandoning his christianity.

The author goes on taking all christian values with absolute value and then just discards god. This may be valid, and is even understandable for some one raised as a roman catholic. It is however ridiculous to suggest that the morality suggested by christianity should be taken directly. The whole point of an atheist spirituality is to suggest an ethic without morality, i.e. a set of values independent of god or religion.

Taking all catholic values "because they come from our historical background" is tantamount to the onthological proof of god's existence. And the worst is yet to come. After this point, the author actually preaches, going on about his reasons to become an atheist (which is irrelevant to the subject of an atheist spirituality), and then quotes the existence of "evil" as one reason, then negating the existence of evil himself (by negating the existence of absolutes).

On the overall, the author lacks seriously reflecting about the subject, rather than posting what he thinks and then apologizing for it. It sets out as a philosophical book, yet lacks serious lucidty. Finally, there is no philosophical exploration of atheism in the book, there is only the affirmation that the negation of god does not negate the existence of moral values, which are necessary for any working human society. But there is no need of a book for that, it can be written in a sinle sentence.

[Bruce · Rating 1 out of 5]

Wow, this was one of the wonkiest books I've ever read. Don't take the quaint and accessible title as a sign that it's in ANY way written for a mainstream audience; quite the contrary, it came off to me more like a 300- or 400-level college philosophy text. Since I never even took PHI 101, and I find a great deal of philosophical ramblings to be about as interesting as a Catholic mass performed in the original Latin, this was one heck of a chore for me to complete.

There were a few mildly interesting observations mixed in with the dense, convoluted, and sometimes circular arguments with which the author engages (and indulges) himself, but they were relatively few and tended to be oblique when they could be found.

The one greatest piece of takeaway from this slog for me was the discovery that I actually DO have a favorite philosopher, even though I never really knew anything about him until discovering him through some anecdotes and quotes included here. So I might just take a deeper look at Spinoza and his writings, but I promise not to bore anyone here on Goodreads, at cocktail parties, or over dinner with my own excruciating philosophical "proofs" about the wholly unprovable.

[Bobby · Rating 3 out of 5]

A modern tendency – books about religion without spirituality get more and more popular. About The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality … poor book! Because the author doesn’t give good explanations of Atheist Spirituality. But they should. Everybody can criticize, it’s easy. But not everybody can offer something interesting and new. I remember only one modern author who can – Anatoliy Obraztsov with “a crossing or the drop's history” and writes about spirituality without religion too. Why one author is successful in it and André Comte-Sponville who has a great experience isn’t? Because, Obraztsov believes in religion and offers new ways of being spiritual without religion. André Comte-Sponville hates religion and offers nothing. He only hates…

[L Y N N · Rating 5 out of 5]

Please do not be deceived by the title and/or size of this book! It is a much “denser” read than I originally expected… The author is a modern-day philosopher who quotes material from any and all philosophers with which I am familiar (plus many others) in formulating a comprehensible argument to describe his own personal journey toward atheism. He accomplishes this without condemning any belief system, as long as those believers accept all others and do not ascribe to fanaticism, which he describes as “dangerous.” (There's an understatement...)

I was originally attracted to this book by the title; acknowledgeing spirituality can exist outside a belief in a deity or deities. In my opinion (and personal experience) the majority of people in U.S. society define spirituality as an expression of religious dogma, whereas many of us are developing a very strong sense of “spirituality” that can be practiced outside the realm of religious dogma! Spirituality can be intense and pragmatic without ANY religious institution, dogma, or ritual!

[Jeff · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked this author's nondefensive, matter-of-fact, well-reasoned embrace of atheism...and that he expresses nonpatronizing compassion/OKness for those who embrace a personal God. He's a very smart philosopher dude, and writes in accessible language (even when translated to English from his French), but still much of what he said was over my head...

[Gabriela Ventura · Rating 3 out of 5]

Como ateia e humanista, gosto de ler abordagens secularistas que não excluem a necessidade de uma vida espiritual - essa visão só parece contraditória porque é comum associar "espírito" ao sobrenatural, à transcendência. O que é uma BOBAGEM TREMENDA, mas não sou eu que vou dar aula de etimologia no Goodreads. (Não vou nem entrar no mérito de que estou escrevendo em português sobre um livro que sequer foi traduzido, e de que esse espaço está se tornando mais um diário de leituras do que resenhas que possam, porventura, ajudar outros leitores.)

O texto de Andre Comte-Sponville é dividido em entre grandes perguntas, que correspondem a capítulos: "Podemos nos virar sem religião?", "Deus existe? e "Pode existir uma espiritualidade ateísta?" Os dois primeiros capítulos, embora interessantes, são resumos meio básicos sobre como diferentes áreas de conhecimento (suas correntes e pensadores) lidam com os dois problemas. O último capítulo me deixou com uma impressão melhor; primeiro porque é um questionamento menos batido. Mas principalmente porque há uma ternura no olhar que o autor joga sobre a nossa relação com o absoluto, e na dissolução momentânea do ego - a sensação oceânica, sinalizada por Freud.

"(...) This is something anyone can experience by looking up at the night sky. All you need is a bit of concentration and silence. If the sky is very dark and clear, and you are in the country rather than the city, and you turn out all the lights, look up, and take the time to contemplate in silence...Darkness, which separates us from what is close at hand, bring us near to what is far away. You cannot see the far side of your own yard, but you can see billions of kilometers away with the naked eye. What is that whitish, opalescent streak? The Milky Way, "our" galaxy, or at least the one to which we belong--some one hundred billion stars, the nearest of which, with the exception of our own sun, is thirty trillion kilometers away. As long as the sun was shining, it locked us into the prison of light that is the world--our world. Now, provided there are no clouds, darkness reveals to us the light of the sky, which is the universe. I can barely see the ground beneath my feet, and yet, far better than in broad daylight, I can see the unfathomable that contains me."

[Onionboy · Rating 2 out of 5]

I am having a hard time deciding what score to give this book. The middle section was quite good, but there was a large section near the beginning and another at the end that were just agony for me to try to get through. Those parts were way too deep into philosophy for my taste. It made me wonder why I bothered to finish the book.
Overall it felt more like the author already made up his mind about spirituality, and was trying to build a case for it afterward.
Maybe I am not intellectual enough for this, but the philosophical talk really irritated me. He would continually talk in such extreme absolutes, make absolute assertions as if they were given, without room for debate, and then make grand assertions and conclusions based on that.
He made many good points, but nothing that was not stated better elsewhere.

[Leigh · Rating 2 out of 5]

thus far he appears to assume two fundamental things that I completely disagree with 1) that you have to had faith to be spritual or to understand spirituality and 2) that it is much more depressing being an athiest. That is because we don't believe in an after life the hwole world is bleaker and blacker than if you believe there are better things to come.

I cerntainly do not agree with either premise, and I see no evidence to suggest that the death of a loved one is harder because you don't believe - or more specifically easier because you do. In fact all the evidence suggests that certainly in christian based societies, there is no respite for believers - in fact they appear to gain no solace from the promsed 'afterlife' or 'heaven'!

[Христо Блажев · Rating 5 out of 5]

Духовност без Бог?: http://www.knigolandia.info/2009/11/b...

Възможно ли е да сте духовен и вярващ човек, но да нямате капка вяра в Бог или богове? Според Андре Конт-Спонвил в книгата "Духът на атеизма" това е напълно възможно.

Да видим що е религия. Авторът пише: "Религията е всяка организирана съвкупност от вярвания и ритуали, свързани със свещени, свръхестествени или трансцедентални неща, и по-специално с един или повече богове, вярвания и ритуали, които обединяват в една и съща морална или духовна общност онези, които ги припознават и практикуват". Туйто, ако вярващите трябваше да научат това наизуст, светът щеше да е пълен с атеисти.

[Adam Lauver · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's pretty good, but the entire last third of the book is so new-agey it's ridiculous (and this coming from someone who's usually sympathetic to new-age language). Overall it has a great message and preaches tolerance, respect, and love. It just doesn't dig incredibly deep into the issues, and, like I said, the third part is so out-of-character for the book as a whole. It's like the author dozed off and started sleep-writing... very odd. Again, I sympathize with new-age sentiments... but in this book it just seemed out of place and too much. All the same, it's a nice, short, inspiring read. I do recommend it.

[Craig Werner · Rating 5 out of 5]

Somehow or another, I'd failed to add this when I was compiling my life-time bookshelf, but I'm happy to rectify the error. Whether you're atheist, agnostic, or theist, Comte-Sponville's elegant apologia (in the classical sense--explanation more than apology) will force you to rethink the ethical implications of where you stand. I'll leave it there and let C-S speak for himself, but this is as good a book on the spiritual/ethical life as I've ever read.

[Willa · Rating 2 out of 5]

Frankly, the first 2/3 of this book was pretty good, but the last 1/3 is the same sort of useless babbling that religious talk of spirituality comprises. So if you see some point to this whole spirituality thing but want to approach it atheistically, by all means give this book a shot. Or western Buddhism. Whatever. For me, the book served to further reinforce my belief that talk of spirituality is a pointless exercise in wasted effort.

[Chad Alexander Guarino da Verona · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book changed my life in Philosophy class at UNH. Really started me down the path of pretentiousness that I’m still riding down to this day.

[Ed Smiley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Though not exactly a spoiler, this review contains numerous quotes from the book. This book meant a lot to me, so I want to do it justice by putting some effort into this review.

I said facetiously this is perhaps one of those books that will piss off everybody. By this I meant that although his stance is not conventionally religious, and that he clearly does not believe in theism in any way, some of his ideas will seem familiar to sympathetic religious people. For rigid religious fundamentalists, they will probably think it insidious. For some atheists, any concept of a unitive experience that cannot be pinned down into the most trivial mechanical reductionism, is a surrender to the darkest forces, and is one short step away from burning heretics.

Let me lay my cards on the table.

I could best describe myself as a mildly spiritual but not religious atheist, a non believer in a supreme being. (I use the term spiritual in a more general sense, as he does, and with no intent of conveying organized religion, dogma, or belief in the supernatural.) That sort of thing tends to make one feel very peculiar. Talk about cognitive dissonance! So this book was very personal for me.

Unfortunately atheism is a philosophical stance that "can't get no respect", at least in heavily religious countries like the United States--and, oddly, I have been assured that Rodney Dangerfield was an atheist. I don't understand why some people of some particular metaphysical persuasion are so upset that decent generous people hold the opposite opinion (this holds true for militant atheists too). Right now, as I write these words we seem torn apart by intolerance.

Comte-Sponville is absolutely frank about his views and absolutely tolerant and fair. He writes, "Remember the good Samaritan. He was neither Jewish or Christian. We have no idea what his faith was or what he felt about death. All we know is that he showed compassion and charity. And Jesus explicitly told us to imitate him, not a priest or a Levite." Somebody called this book a "masterpiece of atheist apologetics", and I only wish I had invented the term myself. (Atheists can be moral, and not plagiarize!)

I think many people of good will will find that this book is very congenial, regardless of their own beliefs. Comte-Sponville writes, "Among the people who had come up to chat with me after the lecture was a rather elderly Catholic priest...'I came up to thank you,' he said. 'I enjoyed your lecture very much.' Then he added, "I agreed with everything you said.'...I couldn't help adding,"still Father, I must admit it surprises me...I don't believe in God or the immortality of the soul.' 'Oh,' said the elderly priest with a benevolent smile, 'those are such secondary matters.'"

The book is divided into three parts. The first part is a discussion of the three cardinal virtues for atheists. The second is a discussion of reasons for believing and not believing in God. The third is a discussion of the unitive experience from an atheist perspective.

(I know that's kind of boring to say aloud, but, gentle reader, you wanted to know more about this book, so it must be said. )

The three classic Christian virtues are Faith, Hope and Charity. The greatest of these is Charity, or Love. Comte-Sponville agrees that Charity, love, compassion, is the greatest virtue, but he cannot accept, faith or hope, as they entail unfounded belief. So instead of Faith, he proposes Fidelity, being faithful to decency, toleration, and ethics. Instead of Hope he proposes Action. He interleaves this discussion with a fascinating and respectful gloss on Augustine and Saint Thomas.

He then discusses classic arguments for the existence of God, and offers arguments for the nonexistence of God. Many believers and non-believers alike are pretty agreed that such metaphysical arguments are pretty hazy. He agrees, but it seems to me such arguments serve not to prove anything, but to lead to understanding of what it would be like to believe something, or not believe something--and, as he points out, the burden of proof is on existence.

The existence of God proofs, such as the ontological proof, the first cause, and the argument from design are probably already familiar to the reader. So I won't go into them here. (And the ontological proof clearly proves something, just not what it is supposed to--maybe existence exists)

So let me summarize the three non-existence arguments. I gave them nicknames, I stress that he was too dignified to do so, but I will call them by my nicknames. First, what I call the Deadbeat Dad Argument: the loving father that hides from his children--they never get to see him. Second, the Sh*t Happens Argument: what is called in dignified circles the Problem of Evil: he has a very interesting discussion of this in relation to Simone Weil, and one approach which is to lessen God's omnipotence. The third argument is what I call the Just So Story Argument--immortality, salvation, etc.--is it too good to be likely?

And then, he discusses atheist spiritual experience--and this is what caused some controversy, or as he said, "Is there such a thing as atheist spirituality?...Whether or not you believe in God, the supernatural or the sacred, you are confronted with the infinite, the eternal and the absolute--and with yourself."

Let me first tell a little joke. Tom Lehrer once made a joke that he felt like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis. Perhaps this is what it is like when we have a mystical experience. But perhaps it is not the spiritual emergency it appears to be.

Comte-Sponville, although not conventionally religious in any way, is too honest to avoid complicating things by bringing this up. He describes a personal experience:

"We were walking. My mind emptied of thought.... And then, all of a sudden... What? Nothing: everything! No words, no questions, only--a surprise. Only--this. A seemingly infinite happiness. A seemingly eternal sense of peace....Yes, in the darkness of that night, I contained only the dazzling presence of the All. Peace. Infinite peace! Simplicity, serenity, delight."

What he expresses is a kind of being-at-home-in-the-world, but he stresses that it is for him, an acceptance of what is, not a flight to what is not, what he humorously calls "cheerful despair."

Religions interpret such unitive experiences in their particular ways. However, he goes on, "Reality suffices. Why subject it to anything else?...Ascetics leave it. Wise men take it....neither hope nor regret...."

As someone who has been deeply moved at times by the very experience of being in the world and my relation to it, a nonrational, but not irrational sentiment, and yet accepting no religious tradition, I am pleasantly surprised to hear him articulating ideas close to those of my own.

Because doing a book like this right in this small scale is so very difficult, and I wanted this book to do it well, I had very high standards, and for me it was somewhere between 4 and 5 stars.

[Eyad Aboelenin · Rating 3 out of 5]

life is too difficult, humanity too weak, labour too exhausting, pleasures too frivolous or rare, pain too frequent or atrocious, chance too unfair and haphazard for us to be able to believe that so imperfect a world is of divine origin!
كتاب في المجمل جيد ومنظم وبسيط ،ما اعجبني في سبونفيل انه عقلاني ومتسامح مع ذاته وعاش تجربة وكتب بصدق وناقش الحجج بموضوعية بعيدة عن الانحياز لموقفه واوضح اسباب عدم ايمانه بوضوح وانتقض الدوغمائية عاماً ،سواء من الدينيين او اللادينيين .
ومما اثار اعجابي سهولة عرض الحجج والرد عليها خاصة في الفصل الثاني من الكتاب .
الكتاب في المجمل جيد لاصحاب الفكر الحر .
Finally, and perhaps most important, there is the suffering that has been going on for thousands of years and for which humanity is not responsible. The children who have died of illnesses, often after enduring terrible pain. The millions of women who have died (and still do die, in some parts of the world) in childbirth, torn apart body and soul. The mothers of these children, and (if they are still alive) the mothers of these mothers, who, unable to give them relief or assistance, could only sit there looking on helplessly as the horror unfolded. Who will dare throw original sin in their faces? The countless deaths caused by cancer (not all of which can be chalked up to the environment or modern lifestyle), by the plague, malaria, cholera, Alzheimer’s disease, autism, schizophrenia, mucoviscidosis, myopathy, multiple sclerosis, Charcot’s disease, Huntington’s chorea . . . The deaths caused by earthquakes, tidal waves, hurricanes, droughts, floods and volcanic eruptions . . .It could only be laughable or obscene to explain away the misery of the just and the suffering of children by original sin. ‘We must be born guilty,’ wrote Pascal, ‘or God would be unjust.’ There is a third, far simpler possibility: namely, that God does not exist.

[Sarah · Rating 1 out of 5]

Décevant!
Le livre est structuré en trois parties, que je résume volontairement ici, car je ne recommande pas du tout sa lecture : ce résumé suffit largement.
1 • Peut-on se passer de religion ?
Oui, selon l’auteur, car les fonctions autrefois assumées par la religion (sens, morale, lien) peuvent être portées par la culture, la philosophie et l’humanisme.
2 • Dieu existe-t-il ?
Non. Comte-Sponville défend un athéisme rationnel, pour lequel l’existence de Dieu relève de la croyance et non du savoir.
3 • Quelle spiritualité pour les athées ?
Une spiritualité sans transcendance, fondée sur l’immanence, le silence, la contemplation, l’amour et le sentiment de l’absolu du réel.

Mon ressenti
Malgré des idées intéressantes, l’auteur se répète énormément et, lorsqu’il ne se répète pas, il accumule les références philosophiques de manière presque incessante. Le texte devient vite dense, indigeste et peu accessible, rendant la lecture laborieuse et nuisant à la clarté du propos.

Conclusion
Ce livre est paradoxal : à la fois inaccessible, par sa manière de convoquer des concepts philosophiques sans réelle introduction, par des phrases complexes s’étirant parfois sur près d’un tiers de page ; et en même temps décevant sur le fond, car sous couvert de vouloir être « accessible », il n’apporte que peu — voire aucune — idée réellement nouvelle à un lecteur déjà un tant soit peu initié à ces questionnements.

[Ивайло [IF Tomeff] · Rating 4 out of 5]

След около половината Стар и Нов Завет и няколко страници от Корана осъзнах, че не се нуждая толкова много от опознаване на религиите "отвътре", отколкото "отвън". "Духът на атеизма" е първата ми стъпка в това начинание. Смятам, че би било полезно четиво както за нерелигиозните, така и за религиозните.

Разглеждайки религиите от гледна точка на израза "опознай врага, за да го победиш", откривам за себе си един техен недостатък - ограничаване и самоограничаване (всяка религия твърди, че тя е вярната и истинната).

Ако прерифразирам израза, пак във връзка с религиите, откривам това, което ми е нужно: "опознай врага, за да откриеш, че не ти е враг". Всички религии са част света и от човечеството, във всички тях могат да се открият ценности и недостатъци. Най-важното е да се търси, да се подлага на съмнение и на проверка. Да се отделят ценностите от сляпото подчинение и желанието за контрол над другите.

Следващо четиво по темата - "Пътеводител в Библията" от Айзък Азимов.

[Başkan Perry · Rating 3 out of 5]

İlk iki bölüm inanılmaz iyiyken son bölümün benim gözümde mistik zırvalığa dönüşmesi aşırı yordu.

[Emily Warfield · Rating 1 out of 5]

I keep debating whether this book is worth coming back to despite its Islamophobia and conflation of atheism with white Western atheism and decided life is too short

[Amelia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Compte-Sponville makes it look easy. The American translation of the title (for all I know the British edition was more literal), "The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality" captures the simplicity of his work, though risking trivializing it.

Criticisms of the last third of the book are understandable. In my experience, the primary determinant of whether or not an individual identifies as an atheist seems to be the extent to which their personality is religious- prone to the feelings of oneness, etc., that C.S. discusses in this last third. This component of personality is partially rooted in the brain's structure and wiring; it can also be cultivated through activities like meditation, which anyone can do but which tend to attract the religious.

I consider myself to have a "religious" (or, I would prefer, "spiritual") personality. But that tendency is coupled, I hope, with a commitment to a search for truth and to intellectual and personal honesty. I have tried but can simply not bring myself to believe there is a God. That does not change my "religious" personality.

In his final section of his book, C.S. seems to address this perhaps unique segment of the population- people with "religious" (again, C.S. would call them spiritual) personalities who do not believe in God. He speaks of personal experiences- experiences which are had by some who adhere to religion and some who do not, and which are also *not* had by some who adhere to religion and by some who do not. These are the kind of experiences, however, tend to push people more in the direction of religion than irreligion. In fact, they are often used as arguments in support of the existence of God!

C.S. spends time making sense of them in terms of an atheist worldview, and allowing them to have meaning and value within that worldview. He does not claim that these experiences as universal to all individuals. But he does recognize that experiences are not arguments, but they are irrefutable in the sense that they exist. You may not have these experiences yourself, but others do- and C.S. is right to note they are experienced all over the globe in all societies and all times (though not by all individuals). Why should the atheist dismiss them as nothing but a trick of the brain, perhaps trying to fool her into religion? Why should she regard them as meaningless when they free her momentarily from her self-absorption and egocentricity?

Indeed, why should the atheist be any less concerned than the religious with her personal insignificance in the face of the universe? And why should she be any less aware of herself as a part of this universe equally with the rest of the animate and inanimate Earth, as equally part of the vast universe (though perhaps even less-long-"lived") as a speck of space dust? Are these questions really New Aged quackery? Is a brief erasure of the lines between the self and the rest of existence, or the silence underneath our daily worries truly nothing but New Aged twaddle? You may not experience this sense of smallness, or the falling-away of the ego, etc. but that doesn't make them valueless or bullshit-y. And there is no reason these feelings should be the realm of the religious alone- to say so is to deny that anyone can be atheist, to make atheism an exclusive club for only certain types of personalities in which only certain types of experiences are welcome. (How can that be in the spirit of atheism?) And in fact it would be denying that there can be an "atheist spirituality" at all, in many ways the entire premise of C.S.'s book.

To C.S.'s great credit, he does not make these spiritual experiences to be more than they are. They are not "proof" or "signs" of anything. They are subjective and occur from within the individual rather than from without; the universe itself does not speak to us. They simply occur, and we may reject them as worthless brain-tricks on the level of hallucination, or we may embrace the brief feelings of clarity and smallness and oneness they bring- the result of our physiology, certainly, but no less meaningful for that.

[Debbie Steiner · Rating 4 out of 5]

A pleasure to follow his thoughts, the way he deals with words and meanings; André deserves being called a real philosopher. There are for my taste a few unnecessary arguments stated, a whiff of presumption here and there. Still, good material to get one thinking and start discussing.

[John Roche · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book is broken into three sections: Religion, God's existence, and atheist spirituality. At the end there is a conclusion with his musings on love and truth.

The first section of the book has some thought provoking gems. Here he brilliantly develops his notion of the contrast between fidelity and faith, which I think he provides a very compelling distinction. Also, he goes into the dangers between the barbarous and the fanatic, again compelling and thought provoking.

The second section, on God's existence, is a rehash of an undergraduate class. No new insight is really presented in this section. Except that he argues against God with a politeness that is lacking in any book by Hitchens, Dawkins, or Harris.

The third section, atheist spirituality, struck me as utterly bizarre. Leaning on western philosophy and eastern mysticism, Sponville enters in a synthesis of ideas that I think needed an extra section to develop. He rejects heaven, but embraces eternity. He rejects God, but embraces Being. He acknowledges that the universe is unloving and that we are part of this unloving collection of mass and energy, yet he embraces love as our highest value (but are we not physically part of this loveless universe?) He goes on with a list of atheistic values that come with only a snippet of information. I can't really agree or disagree with him on this section because he doesn't really develop his point.

The conclusion is good and refers much to the first section.

What started out as a well articulated case for a spiritual life without any notion of the supernatural, spun out of control as the author seemed to loose focus in his attempt to keep the experience of Christianity without the divinity of God.

[Mark Gowan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sponville considers himself to be an atheist but given the subject matter of this book, one that is searching for a useful definition of spirituality that will somehow "fit" is version of life without a belief in God/gods. Sponville tries to commit the concepts of spiritualism and atheism but the marriage seems a sham.

He writes, "Far from being an oxymoron, the notion of atheistic mysticism..then becomes self-evident, both as a concept and as a historically observable phenomenon, admittedly more so in the East than in the West." (190). Sponville seems to define "mysticism" as curiosity, but this simply obscures the language. The argument seems to correlate atheism with a lack of curiosity concerning the unknown while at the same time using the unknown to justify mystical (spiritual) beliefs that he happens to lack.

The argument is not a new one, relegating science (proofs) as "relative" (189) without mentioning that the objects that proofs are relative to are important. Sponville offers up an argument that is illogical and irrational, but allows for such things because of how he defines the known and the unknown: mystical; something to be curious about.

From a philosophical/logical point of view, Sponville's argument fails. However, from a literary point of view the book is beautifully written and an interesting read. Sponville is obviously a wordsmith (in a positive way). His style and perhaps his beliefs can be considered the other side of the C.S Lewis coin (fideism [Lewis] vs. agnosticism/weak atheism [Sponville]).

A nicely written little book with some great fodder for thought, but from a hard philosophical point of view, not to be taken very seriously.

[Stan Murai · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author Andre Comte-Sponville makes a compelling case for spirituality outside the belief in a personal god. He rejects faith but not 'fidelity'. By which he means an attachment, commitment, or gratitude toward values, history and community that define human relationships. Most importantly, conflict and ethics will continue to exist even if one has no religion in the sense of the Judaeo-Christian or Islamic monotheistic traditions. He also points out that different forms of spirituality have always been present elsewhere in other cultures; Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism have not been identified or associated with deities, revealations, personal gods, or creators. Yet they are viable spiritual traditions. The author does not consider himself a dogmatic atheist, but he does spend much time to review the arguments that have attempted to prove the existence of god. In a time of increasing religious fundamentalism, his work could be an important guide for defining what is important in the human experience of spirituality that is not limited by sectarianism and intolerance. Also, the philosophically inclined will have an opportunity to revisit Kant's arguments that God and Immortality are unknowable but are nevertheless required in a belief system as postulates of practical reason.

[Zach · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm not sure who Comte-Sponville was writing this book for. To me, it almost reads like an apology to Christians rather than a guide for atheists. I agree that some form of religion, or more specifically "fidelity," may provide benefits to mind and spirit that some atheists are too quick to write off. His writings on this topic provide a roadmap for atheists hoping to reverse course and nourish a neglected spirit. For this reason, I think that the book's first section is relevant and important.

The following sections much less so. It seems unlikely that an atheist needs to read a bunch of arguments refuting the Christian faith, which is the majority of the second section. And if they do need a list of arguments, why stop at Christianity? Why not address all the various faiths of the world? The final section is the worst. Instead of following a major world religion, Comte-Sponville expects readers to adopt (or even care about) one man's sense of the universe and his place within it. No thanks! I'd rather go to the nearest place of worship, no questions asked; at least its beliefs stand the test of time.

Read this book if your atheism has left you feeling like a nihilist. Otherwise feel free to regift this book to your grandparents so they know you're not going to slaughter them and eat their remains just because you're an atheist.

[aFreeHumanist · Rating 5 out of 5]

Comte-Sponville’s "Little Book" is a tranquil, absorbed, and passionate essay on atheistic spirituality - an oxymoronic concept when first encountered. However, Comte-Sponville manages to present his arguments eloquently, motivated "by the love of philosophy" and truth, and not "the hatred of religion". His non-proselytizing tone is only surpassed by his sensibility. In the first part of the book, a triad of fidelity, communion, and love is established, to assure the reader of the non threatening nature of the writer's intentions. The second part is merely an exposition of a number of classical arguments for god's existence and their refutations. Nothing original, however, beautifully condensed. The third part is probably more poetic, still enlightening. Here we encounter the philosophy of godless spirituality and mysticism, where the immense nature of the mystical experience is explored. This is a compelling book about truth, love, and the love of truth.

[Tarek Mallak · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thank André Comte-Sponville for that book, it is THE book that changed my life.
Back when I started to recognise my atheistic views and my loss of faith, I felt dread of what I have become, I was afraid yet furious of losing my "humanity", I could not accept losing faith as I saw it walking out on humane values yet I could not force myself to retain any of it. I hope someone can imagine the feeling.
And one day, while walking in a book store, I get caught by the title and thought "what kind of an idiot puts "atheist" and "spirituality" in the same sentence?" and bought the book.
Reading it, I felt that finally someone knows what I am feeling! Who could have thought? That book showed me how human I can still be, that I can be an atheist and still look at the stars in awe, that I can still love art, that I can still have a meaning, that I can lose faith and still love...
Thank you André for being there.

[B · Rating 4 out of 5]

Generally speaking, I found this book to be a very readable and insightful apologia for atheist "spirituality"-- which the author defines in terms of ethics, wisdom, and certain peak psychological experiences where ego and interior monologues temporarily cease. The book strives to avoid extreme forms of thinking and warns of dogmatism, nihilism, obscurantism, and fanaticism generally: "I loathe fanaticisms of all kinds, including atheistic fanaticisms". Quotations and insights from various philosophers and historical figures add depth and display the author's wide reading. Critiques would include perhaps an overly romantic view of Eastern religions and a lack of exploration of how peak experiences might be actually encouraged -- rather than just being extremely rare and serendipitous events that some in fact never experience. Definitely a book worth reading, full of insights and displaying the author's generous, inquisitive, and irenic spirit.