What do you think?
Rate this book
Agnostic: A Spirited Manifesto
A widely admired writer on religion celebrates agnosticism as the most vibrant, engaging—and ultimately the most honest—stance toward the mysteries of existence.
One in four Americans reject any affiliation with organized religion, and nearly half of those under thirty describe themselves as “spiritual but not religious.” But as the airwaves resound with the haranguing of preachers and pundits, who speaks for the millions who find no joy in whittling the wonder of existence to a simple yes/no choice?
Lesley Hazleton does. In this provocative, brilliant book, she gives voice to the case for agnosticism, breaks it free of its stereotypes as watered-down atheism or amorphous “seeking,” and celebrates it as a reasoned, revealing, and sustaining stance toward life. Stepping over the lines imposed by rigid conviction, she draws on philosophy, theology, psychology, science, and more to explore, with curiosity and passion, the vital role of mystery in a deceptively information-rich world; to ask what we mean by the search for meaning; to invoke the humbling yet elating perspective of infinity; to challenge received ideas about death; and to reconsider what “the soul” might be. Inspired and inspiring, Agnostic recasts the question of belief not as a problem to be solved but as an invitation to an ongoing, open-ended adventure of the mind.
One in four Americans reject any affiliation with organized religion, and nearly half of those under thirty describe themselves as “spiritual but not religious.” But as the airwaves resound with the haranguing of preachers and pundits, who speaks for the millions who find no joy in whittling the wonder of existence to a simple yes/no choice?
Lesley Hazleton does. In this provocative, brilliant book, she gives voice to the case for agnosticism, breaks it free of its stereotypes as watered-down atheism or amorphous “seeking,” and celebrates it as a reasoned, revealing, and sustaining stance toward life. Stepping over the lines imposed by rigid conviction, she draws on philosophy, theology, psychology, science, and more to explore, with curiosity and passion, the vital role of mystery in a deceptively information-rich world; to ask what we mean by the search for meaning; to invoke the humbling yet elating perspective of infinity; to challenge received ideas about death; and to reconsider what “the soul” might be. Inspired and inspiring, Agnostic recasts the question of belief not as a problem to be solved but as an invitation to an ongoing, open-ended adventure of the mind.
224 pages, Hardcover
First published April 5, 2016
83 people are currently reading
1291 people want to read
About the author
Lesley Hazleton
17 books744 followers1. My new book 'Jezebel: the untold story of the bible's harlot queen' is just out (Doubleday). Yes, she was framed. No, she was no harlot. Yes, she was magnificent.
2. Won't bore you with the whole bio -- it's in the 'About the Author' page on www.jezebelbook.com. For now: British-born, lived for a long time in the Middle East, now live in the very Pacific Northwest.
3. Favorite drink is grappa.
Natural habitat is high desert (which must have something to do with my living on a houseboat/floating home at sea level...)
Am gnostic agnostic (and yes, will write a long piece/short book explaining that one day).
2. Won't bore you with the whole bio -- it's in the 'About the Author' page on www.jezebelbook.com. For now: British-born, lived for a long time in the Middle East, now live in the very Pacific Northwest.
3. Favorite drink is grappa.
Natural habitat is high desert (which must have something to do with my living on a houseboat/floating home at sea level...)
Am gnostic agnostic (and yes, will write a long piece/short book explaining that one day).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 126 reviews
August 30, 2019
I love this book. It took me a couple of weeks to read it, and I liked it so much, I'm working through it again.
Lesley Hazelton puts in to words so many thoughts that have entertained me without being codified for so many years. I like thinking about whether I agree, or might have come to a different conclusion in each of the eight chapters.
Food for thought, indeed.
Update: I was just noticing that my original thoughts aren't here. Ah, yes, I remember that I was a victim of the disappearing review, and this is the one that I sent in disgust and disappointment.
Let me say that Lesley's voice is captivating, and such a pleasure to listen to, it lifts me. She reads it as well as if she were speaking to you alone, and she's a very good writer, clear, compassionate, and thoughtful. It's not for everyone, but it does merit serious attention, and I found it easier to listen than to read it. I did both. I listened twice, though. And I will, again.
Lesley Hazelton puts in to words so many thoughts that have entertained me without being codified for so many years. I like thinking about whether I agree, or might have come to a different conclusion in each of the eight chapters.
Food for thought, indeed.
Update: I was just noticing that my original thoughts aren't here. Ah, yes, I remember that I was a victim of the disappearing review, and this is the one that I sent in disgust and disappointment.
Let me say that Lesley's voice is captivating, and such a pleasure to listen to, it lifts me. She reads it as well as if she were speaking to you alone, and she's a very good writer, clear, compassionate, and thoughtful. It's not for everyone, but it does merit serious attention, and I found it easier to listen than to read it. I did both. I listened twice, though. And I will, again.
April 30, 2016
A lovely meditation on appreciating ambiguity.
April 12, 2016
I thought Lesley Hazleton's book "Agnostic: A Spirited Manifesto" was a very refreshing read. A brilliantly and beautifully written book that will open wide the doors of perception, the mind, of the reader, leaving him or her with a different view of the world...a world with no boundaries and with infinite possibilities and no confining beliefs, myths and dogmas. Definitely a book that will appeal to everyone on the religious spectrum. Highly recommend.
Won this book in a goodreads giveaway.
Won this book in a goodreads giveaway.
April 26, 2016
The book was slight. Wide margins, larger print, few original ideas, rather quotes from well-known thinkers with the author's thoughts on their ideas, plus personal anecdotes used to illustrate points which makes it less a "manifesto" and more a memoir.
August 2, 2016
This thoughtfully written book is not here to change your views on spirituality. It is not here to try and convert you to agnosticism. It is here to explore the idea of agnosticism and to defend the view as something more than a "scapegoat". I would highly recommend this book to anyone with any degree of faith, whether you're a diehard Christian or a diehard atheist or somewhere in between. It is an easy read and extremely meaningful. I finished it in two days because I could not put it down.
September 4, 2021
A celebration of ambiguity and intellectual humility, which is essentially the core of what it means to be an agnostic. Really liked it.
August 3, 2018
I’ve been reading through the Dewey Decimal numbers related to religion for my Dewey Decimal challenge. So far, I’ve read books on cults (a memoir and some narrative nonfiction), which had little to do with mainstream religion. I also read a book on Catholicism that was interesting, but that definitely didn’t relate to my own beliefs. I’ve been trying to push myself outside my comfort zone and I think I could still do more of that. However, with this book, I wanted to learn more about a perspective I agree with. Although I’d describe myself as agnostic, I probably know less about agnostics as a group than I do about many religions. I picked up this collection of essays on agnosticism’s answers (or lack thereof) to the big questions to help remedy that gap in my knowledge.
I related to this book less than I expected to. I certainly agree with the wikipedia definition of agnosticism (the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable). The author of this book took that concept in some directions that didn’t work for me. For instance, she seems to relish uncertainty and believe it enhances the awe we can feel for the supernatural. I acknowledge the existence of uncertainty, but actively dislike it. She was also vehemently against people being certain of pretty much anything. I found that insistence (certainty?) that anyone who is certain is wrong at least as off-putting as someone trying to convert me to their religion.
I did think this book was well written and served as a good introduction to agnosticism. It is clearly the author’s personal views on religion, rather than an objective history of agnosticism, and includes many of her own experiences. I didn’t find it less useful for that reason and enjoyed the personal perspective. If you don’t like books that surprise you by containing memoir elements, however, be forewarned. I think it’s worth mentioning that the author gently mocks the certainties of some mainstream religions. It wasn’t enough that I found it offensive or unnecessary, since it was generally in support of a particular argument she was making. It might be off-putting to someone who is more religious, but I’d suggest giving this short book a try if you’re curious about the topic and bailing if it doesn’t work for you.
This review first published at Doing Dewey.
I related to this book less than I expected to. I certainly agree with the wikipedia definition of agnosticism (the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable). The author of this book took that concept in some directions that didn’t work for me. For instance, she seems to relish uncertainty and believe it enhances the awe we can feel for the supernatural. I acknowledge the existence of uncertainty, but actively dislike it. She was also vehemently against people being certain of pretty much anything. I found that insistence (certainty?) that anyone who is certain is wrong at least as off-putting as someone trying to convert me to their religion.
I did think this book was well written and served as a good introduction to agnosticism. It is clearly the author’s personal views on religion, rather than an objective history of agnosticism, and includes many of her own experiences. I didn’t find it less useful for that reason and enjoyed the personal perspective. If you don’t like books that surprise you by containing memoir elements, however, be forewarned. I think it’s worth mentioning that the author gently mocks the certainties of some mainstream religions. It wasn’t enough that I found it offensive or unnecessary, since it was generally in support of a particular argument she was making. It might be off-putting to someone who is more religious, but I’d suggest giving this short book a try if you’re curious about the topic and bailing if it doesn’t work for you.
This review first published at Doing Dewey.
September 28, 2017
I feel a little guilty offering this book two stars. It is one of the few that I really wanted to stop reading and set aside. I finished it only because it is so brief. My first impression is that this is a rambling memoir of a talented writer who is well educated, enjoyed life, and is reflecting on the journey. Her conclusion is that she is...agnostic. A part of me wonders if she knows what "agnostic" and "manifesto" mean. Of course she does; but reading this book, readers may have doubt.
To start with, this is not a manifesto. There is no creed, framework, or theology. Each chapter tackles something like "what is God?" "What comes next?" "What is the soul?" Some of these chapters are torturous reading. The last chapter on the soul is especially vexing and seemingly disorganized. Some of the early chapters are similarly difficult. Towards the middle, she actually does nail down some ideas. Readers who make it to page 105 finally see some coherent argument when she says agnostics are free to believe or experience anything without the need to believe, explain, and understand everything [taught to them by their religion].
The next two chapters constitute her clearest points in that she focuses on the beyond. "What is the meaning of life?" She disregards the idea of striving to please God, as though God is either self-aware or interested. Maybe? Who knows. Her previous chapter on God is strange: If there is a God, and she believes, she "wins." If there is a God, and she does not believe, she "loses." If there is no God, she "loses." Her chapters on meaning are interesting. I suspect Hazleton is a fascinating person to engage in conversation. She appears to endorse a Kafka-esque view that the meaning of life is to end. She comes to this view by considering the many ways people struggle to extend their lives. That struggle alone does not seem like living. Hazleton clearly lived. I am reminded of a cartoon of two elderly women drinking mai tais and saying 'to Hell with dying peacefully in bed, when I show up at the pearly gates I'm going to tell Peter it was one wild ride.' Hazleton's logic is that who wants to live forever? What could they do? Would they be tortured monsters like Dracula and Frankenstein? The goal should be how you live, not pushing it further and further away. Interesting.
Nowhere does Hazleton define agnosticism. She barely uses it in the book. She does not attack religion; but suggests where it is weak, and where it is strong. The ritual and dogma is intended to comfort revelers, rather than instruct them. Again, one can see Hazleton's concern with the beyond. There is no wholesale acknowledgement of the organization or the purpose of the big religions. She simply describes a free mind that is open to metaphor and belief. She does not condemn believers, nor does she embrace Christopher Hitchens. In short, her manifesto, is to believe whatever you want. But, hedge your bets, in case, you know, if God is an invisible man in the clouds watching you, and rooting for you to....please Him.
In sum, this is a rambling conversation rather than a book. It is not a well-organized manifesto. There is no clear concept of what an agnostic believes. At times the conversation with Hazleton is fun and interesting. Other times it is drab and painful. There are kernels of wisdom from a life well-lived. But it is not easy getting to them.
To start with, this is not a manifesto. There is no creed, framework, or theology. Each chapter tackles something like "what is God?" "What comes next?" "What is the soul?" Some of these chapters are torturous reading. The last chapter on the soul is especially vexing and seemingly disorganized. Some of the early chapters are similarly difficult. Towards the middle, she actually does nail down some ideas. Readers who make it to page 105 finally see some coherent argument when she says agnostics are free to believe or experience anything without the need to believe, explain, and understand everything [taught to them by their religion].
The next two chapters constitute her clearest points in that she focuses on the beyond. "What is the meaning of life?" She disregards the idea of striving to please God, as though God is either self-aware or interested. Maybe? Who knows. Her previous chapter on God is strange: If there is a God, and she believes, she "wins." If there is a God, and she does not believe, she "loses." If there is no God, she "loses." Her chapters on meaning are interesting. I suspect Hazleton is a fascinating person to engage in conversation. She appears to endorse a Kafka-esque view that the meaning of life is to end. She comes to this view by considering the many ways people struggle to extend their lives. That struggle alone does not seem like living. Hazleton clearly lived. I am reminded of a cartoon of two elderly women drinking mai tais and saying 'to Hell with dying peacefully in bed, when I show up at the pearly gates I'm going to tell Peter it was one wild ride.' Hazleton's logic is that who wants to live forever? What could they do? Would they be tortured monsters like Dracula and Frankenstein? The goal should be how you live, not pushing it further and further away. Interesting.
Nowhere does Hazleton define agnosticism. She barely uses it in the book. She does not attack religion; but suggests where it is weak, and where it is strong. The ritual and dogma is intended to comfort revelers, rather than instruct them. Again, one can see Hazleton's concern with the beyond. There is no wholesale acknowledgement of the organization or the purpose of the big religions. She simply describes a free mind that is open to metaphor and belief. She does not condemn believers, nor does she embrace Christopher Hitchens. In short, her manifesto, is to believe whatever you want. But, hedge your bets, in case, you know, if God is an invisible man in the clouds watching you, and rooting for you to....please Him.
In sum, this is a rambling conversation rather than a book. It is not a well-organized manifesto. There is no clear concept of what an agnostic believes. At times the conversation with Hazleton is fun and interesting. Other times it is drab and painful. There are kernels of wisdom from a life well-lived. But it is not easy getting to them.
May 18, 2016
interesting read if you have an open mind and are willing to ponder infinity and the universe
September 17, 2017
Nice to read anything on agnosticism at all, and Lesley is a lovely writer. I'd like something more... more, but this is fine.
June 25, 2018
This book beautifully captures the experience of agnosticism. It is not an argument; it is an exploration.
March 13, 2018
Beklentim büyüktü belki de ama yazarın konuyu (bir konusu var idiyse şayet :)) ele alış tarzınızı çok yüzeysel buldum. Alıntılar ve kitabın sonundaki referanslar dışında pek bir özelliği olmayan bir kitap. Konu bütünlüğünün olmadığı bu kitapla yazar acaba ne anlatmak istedi, şu an hala düşünüyorum, henüz bulamadım. Okuduk ama ne okuduk biz şimdi dedim bitirdiğimde :).
Belirtmeden geçemeyeceğim; yazarın kendi düşünme, sonsuz küçüğü ve büyüğü kavrama ve/veya kuşatma kapasitesini övdüğü kısımlar, bence özellikle gereksizdi.
Herkese iyi okumalar
Belirtmeden geçemeyeceğim; yazarın kendi düşünme, sonsuz küçüğü ve büyüğü kavrama ve/veya kuşatma kapasitesini övdüğü kısımlar, bence özellikle gereksizdi.
Herkese iyi okumalar
March 12, 2018
Very satisfactory read
This is exactly the type of book I love. It was like a conversation with a friend about ideas and concepts that aren’t part of every day banter. A very timely read as out culture struggles with the concept of religions role in society and the rise of the “spiritual non religious”.
This is exactly the type of book I love. It was like a conversation with a friend about ideas and concepts that aren’t part of every day banter. A very timely read as out culture struggles with the concept of religions role in society and the rise of the “spiritual non religious”.
January 31, 2022
Picking a non fiction on an interesting topic just to discover that it's more of a memoir of the author is so damn frustrating. If you want to write a memoir just be brave and call it a memoir!
May 16, 2024
Appreciated the thoughts on transcendence and purpose. I thought the Mt.Rainier and Milky Way parts were especially beautiful. The idea of perfection as a dead end and lifeless state was also interesting. After reading, I want to be a more open and honest soul and be more appreciative of each moment of life. So it was a very worthwhile read for me.
February 5, 2023
I honestly don't know what to make of this book. Lesley Hazleton identifies as both Jewish and agnostic. I think she's arguing here that agnostics are better able to appreciate the mysteries of existence than devout believers or atheists. She writes:
She follows this introduction with seven more chapters, each focusing on a particular "grand existential question". Chapter Two deals with God and the impossibility of describing with words something that is inherently beyond any description. Chapter Three discusses the importance of doubt; nothing should be taken "on faith" and "faith" is not the same thing as "belief".
In Chapter Four, Hazleton writes about mystery, the way that beautiful music or beautiful scenery can launch you into an altered state of consciousness. What do such experiences mean, if they mean anything? Chapter Five discusses the very human tendency to ascribe meaning and purpose to the events of our lives, even if our intellect says they're just random chance and the universe probably doesn't care one whit about us.
Death and the afterlife are the subject of Chapter Six; Hazleton examines why it is assumed we fear death, and why anyone would want to live forever. Hazleton uses Chapter Seven to explore how we each fit into what may be an infinite cosmos, which is, let's face it, utterly inconceivable to our finite minds. Finally, she concludes with Chapter Eight, which talks about soul. Not "the" soul, for which there is no evidence, but "soul" as "a dimension of being that defies the narrow lens of dogma".
True to her word, Hazleton provides no answers or explanations. She asks and she describes, but it doesn't go anywhere. As a writer, she has style and and has clearly thought deeply on these issues. She displays wide-ranging research and a lifetime of seeking. But ultimately, this so-called manifesto has no call to action.
Think of this book, then, as an exploration of the agnostic perspective, of the zones of thought that open up once you break free of deceptively neat categorizations, and that then feed back into each other in fresh and unexpected ways. ... No "answers" here, then. I make no claim to truth, let alone "the Truth," ... I offer this book as an agnostic manifesto... one that makes no claims to truth, offers no certainties, eschews brashly confident answers to grand existential questions.
She follows this introduction with seven more chapters, each focusing on a particular "grand existential question". Chapter Two deals with God and the impossibility of describing with words something that is inherently beyond any description. Chapter Three discusses the importance of doubt; nothing should be taken "on faith" and "faith" is not the same thing as "belief".
In Chapter Four, Hazleton writes about mystery, the way that beautiful music or beautiful scenery can launch you into an altered state of consciousness. What do such experiences mean, if they mean anything? Chapter Five discusses the very human tendency to ascribe meaning and purpose to the events of our lives, even if our intellect says they're just random chance and the universe probably doesn't care one whit about us.
Death and the afterlife are the subject of Chapter Six; Hazleton examines why it is assumed we fear death, and why anyone would want to live forever. Hazleton uses Chapter Seven to explore how we each fit into what may be an infinite cosmos, which is, let's face it, utterly inconceivable to our finite minds. Finally, she concludes with Chapter Eight, which talks about soul. Not "the" soul, for which there is no evidence, but "soul" as "a dimension of being that defies the narrow lens of dogma".
True to her word, Hazleton provides no answers or explanations. She asks and she describes, but it doesn't go anywhere. As a writer, she has style and and has clearly thought deeply on these issues. She displays wide-ranging research and a lifetime of seeking. But ultimately, this so-called manifesto has no call to action.
December 31, 2020
Reading a book like this won't necessarily make one a lot of friends. Start poking around the concept of agnosticism and you'll likely be called a "fence-sitter" (or worse). Religious persons may be disappointed in the lack of strict adherence to a single deity, while out-and-out atheists may scoff at even the notion of a "higher power". Being in the "muddled middle" can be an interesting experience. For the most part, author Lesley Hazleton does a solid job here of building a case that the lack of an "eternal answer" one way or the other might not be a cop-out.
Hazleton covers a number of different areas regarding agnosticism, including the concept of eternity, why "certainty" is a bit of a misnomer in this area, and how keeping one's mind open can lead to enrichment in certain aspects. Some areas will move you more than others, but perhaps most convincing, however, are the author's thoughts on the differences between "faith" and "belief". Those types of conversations are what really reeled me in and kept me engaged.
I often find myself "caught in the middle", much like Hazleton. While I don't adhere to any one religious branch or sect, I also have trouble believing that a higher power (other than random evolutionary chance) isn't pulling some cosmic strings in this game called life. What Hazleton tries to really hit home here is that since finding a definitive, provable answer to either side of that equation may be impossible almost by definition, is it really worth declaring one's self one way or the other?
Like I said, a book like this will produce many strong emotions. While reading, my religious upbringing made me feel ashamed/fearful at times while turning the pages. By definition (not overly religious; not atheistic), I'm an agnostic, but again I'm more trying to keep an open/flexible mind about that next step beyond this mortal coil. Books like this "Spirited Manifesto" are interesting to me as I continue upon this journey.
Hazleton covers a number of different areas regarding agnosticism, including the concept of eternity, why "certainty" is a bit of a misnomer in this area, and how keeping one's mind open can lead to enrichment in certain aspects. Some areas will move you more than others, but perhaps most convincing, however, are the author's thoughts on the differences between "faith" and "belief". Those types of conversations are what really reeled me in and kept me engaged.
I often find myself "caught in the middle", much like Hazleton. While I don't adhere to any one religious branch or sect, I also have trouble believing that a higher power (other than random evolutionary chance) isn't pulling some cosmic strings in this game called life. What Hazleton tries to really hit home here is that since finding a definitive, provable answer to either side of that equation may be impossible almost by definition, is it really worth declaring one's self one way or the other?
Like I said, a book like this will produce many strong emotions. While reading, my religious upbringing made me feel ashamed/fearful at times while turning the pages. By definition (not overly religious; not atheistic), I'm an agnostic, but again I'm more trying to keep an open/flexible mind about that next step beyond this mortal coil. Books like this "Spirited Manifesto" are interesting to me as I continue upon this journey.
June 5, 2016
I was so excited to find this book but it wasn't really helpful to me. I was hoping it would make me feel better about feeling the way I do but it seemed too technical. still glad there are books out there like this.
May 6, 2018
I really liked this book; it made me think and both the subject matter and writing style were excellent. I borrowed it from my local public library but hope to actually purchase this in the not too distant future. Definitely recommended!
September 2, 2017
I wanted more from this book. I read "spirited" in the title as "strong"-"manifesto" also made me expect a stronger explanation. She seems to equate "agnostic" with "mystical" and recommends that people revel in the mystery of the world.
April 29, 2022
Quotes from the hard copy, because I can't write in a library book:
Ch. 1, P 19: "Looking squarely at how we have idolized certainty and demonized doubt, I highlight the creative value of doubt, without which real faith is impossible. Instead of insisting on a "theory of everything," I consider the vital role of mystery in a deceptively information-rich world; ask what we mean by the search for meaning; question the assumption that we all necessarily fear death and yearn for the cold realm of immortality...."
Ch. 2, P 28: "As storytellers have always known and psychologists have only recently confirmed, humans are patter-seeking creatures. That is, we seek out narrative. Or rather, we impose it. This is the dynamic behind the stories we tell of ourselves, editing and curation them so that they 'make sense.' We search for a through thread: a linear narrative instead of a series of more or less random occasions where, consciously or not, we went this way instead of that. We discover intention, or perhaps invent it. Thus the unnerving ease of the 'elevator resume,' ... or the popularity of memoirs in which messy realities have been edited out. We create meaning, and in so doing, obey the narrative need for a protagonist."
Ch. 3, P 57: "Reality may require acceptance, but it does not require belief."
Ch. 3, P 59: "The more firmly I hold a belief (and note that word *hold*, that sense of possession, of its being *mine*), the more liable it is to fossilize into conviction, as tightly constricted as...a convict in his cell. And when my belief is so adamantly held that it becomes central to my identity, your disbelief then undermines not only the assumed truth of what I believe, but *me.*"
Ch. 3, P 61; "Muhammad did not float down that mountain: he fled down it, trembling not with joy but in fear for his sanity. And if this reaction strikes us now as unexpected, even shockingly so, that is only a reflection of how badly we have been misled into demonizing doubt and idolizing belief."
Ch. 3, P 67: "What's really being betrayed here, however, is faith itself. To conflate faith with belief is to eviscerate faith, even though the two have been used as virtual synonyms for centuries."
Ch. 3, P 76: "The statements of science are not of what is true and what is not true, but of what is known to different degrees of certainty. Every one of the concepts of science is on a scale graduated between, but at neither end of, absolute falsity and absolute truth."
Ch. 5, P 127: "The absence of an 'ultimate' meaning of life - a grand, over-arching explanation of everything - does not render life empty of relevance. On the contrary, it makes it all the more relevant. It means we can no longer use divine intent as an excuse...It places responsibility directly on us - responsibility for how we act, for what we do, for our relations with others, with our society, with our planet. It is we who determine meaning by what we do. And part of that meaning is the awareness that we are not and cannot always be in control, that we are indeed subject to chance, to serendipity, to the unforeseen, the unanticipated, the fortuitous."
Ch. 6, P 144: "Doctors now have the ability to prolong life, or more precisely, to delay death. But when they act on it, many experience a kind of medical future shock, realizing with dismay that what they have really prolonged is suffering."
Ch. 6, P 156: "We need endings. To live forever is the stuff of nightmares....The ability to die is an integral part of what makes us human."
Ch. 7, P 164: "One of the great conundrums of human consciousness is that we can conceive of things that, strictly speaking, we can't conceive of. We conceive, that is, of the inconceivable, and this is what makes infinity so ineffably daunting. Infinity is the view from nowhere. It challenges not only what we think of as common sense, but also our whole concept of the world. (snip) And since it is immeasurably larger and grander than the anthropomorphic divinity of biblical renown, infinity may in fact be closer to how most people really think of God than anything theology has yet conceived of."
Ch. 7, P 169: "This is what infinity does. It teems with paradox and conundrum. It soars beyond conventional ideas of rational and irrational, leaving you either gaping in awe or laughing helplessly at everything you thought you knew."
Ch. 8, P 193: "...It's important to reclaim soul from those who still conceive of it as a thing with an immortal life of its own, independent of the body. However vague we may be about it, I think most of us recognize soul not as a thing, but as a dimension of being that defies the narrow lens of dogma, going far beyond traditional religious ideas such as those I grew up with."
Ch. 8, P 202: "You wall yourself off when you expect the worst. Better the devil you know, you tell yourself, than the unpredictability of the unknown; better to be ruled by the past than by hope for a different future."
Ch. 1, P 19: "Looking squarely at how we have idolized certainty and demonized doubt, I highlight the creative value of doubt, without which real faith is impossible. Instead of insisting on a "theory of everything," I consider the vital role of mystery in a deceptively information-rich world; ask what we mean by the search for meaning; question the assumption that we all necessarily fear death and yearn for the cold realm of immortality...."
Ch. 2, P 28: "As storytellers have always known and psychologists have only recently confirmed, humans are patter-seeking creatures. That is, we seek out narrative. Or rather, we impose it. This is the dynamic behind the stories we tell of ourselves, editing and curation them so that they 'make sense.' We search for a through thread: a linear narrative instead of a series of more or less random occasions where, consciously or not, we went this way instead of that. We discover intention, or perhaps invent it. Thus the unnerving ease of the 'elevator resume,' ... or the popularity of memoirs in which messy realities have been edited out. We create meaning, and in so doing, obey the narrative need for a protagonist."
Ch. 3, P 57: "Reality may require acceptance, but it does not require belief."
Ch. 3, P 59: "The more firmly I hold a belief (and note that word *hold*, that sense of possession, of its being *mine*), the more liable it is to fossilize into conviction, as tightly constricted as...a convict in his cell. And when my belief is so adamantly held that it becomes central to my identity, your disbelief then undermines not only the assumed truth of what I believe, but *me.*"
Ch. 3, P 61; "Muhammad did not float down that mountain: he fled down it, trembling not with joy but in fear for his sanity. And if this reaction strikes us now as unexpected, even shockingly so, that is only a reflection of how badly we have been misled into demonizing doubt and idolizing belief."
Ch. 3, P 67: "What's really being betrayed here, however, is faith itself. To conflate faith with belief is to eviscerate faith, even though the two have been used as virtual synonyms for centuries."
Ch. 3, P 76: "The statements of science are not of what is true and what is not true, but of what is known to different degrees of certainty. Every one of the concepts of science is on a scale graduated between, but at neither end of, absolute falsity and absolute truth."
Ch. 5, P 127: "The absence of an 'ultimate' meaning of life - a grand, over-arching explanation of everything - does not render life empty of relevance. On the contrary, it makes it all the more relevant. It means we can no longer use divine intent as an excuse...It places responsibility directly on us - responsibility for how we act, for what we do, for our relations with others, with our society, with our planet. It is we who determine meaning by what we do. And part of that meaning is the awareness that we are not and cannot always be in control, that we are indeed subject to chance, to serendipity, to the unforeseen, the unanticipated, the fortuitous."
Ch. 6, P 144: "Doctors now have the ability to prolong life, or more precisely, to delay death. But when they act on it, many experience a kind of medical future shock, realizing with dismay that what they have really prolonged is suffering."
Ch. 6, P 156: "We need endings. To live forever is the stuff of nightmares....The ability to die is an integral part of what makes us human."
Ch. 7, P 164: "One of the great conundrums of human consciousness is that we can conceive of things that, strictly speaking, we can't conceive of. We conceive, that is, of the inconceivable, and this is what makes infinity so ineffably daunting. Infinity is the view from nowhere. It challenges not only what we think of as common sense, but also our whole concept of the world. (snip) And since it is immeasurably larger and grander than the anthropomorphic divinity of biblical renown, infinity may in fact be closer to how most people really think of God than anything theology has yet conceived of."
Ch. 7, P 169: "This is what infinity does. It teems with paradox and conundrum. It soars beyond conventional ideas of rational and irrational, leaving you either gaping in awe or laughing helplessly at everything you thought you knew."
Ch. 8, P 193: "...It's important to reclaim soul from those who still conceive of it as a thing with an immortal life of its own, independent of the body. However vague we may be about it, I think most of us recognize soul not as a thing, but as a dimension of being that defies the narrow lens of dogma, going far beyond traditional religious ideas such as those I grew up with."
Ch. 8, P 202: "You wall yourself off when you expect the worst. Better the devil you know, you tell yourself, than the unpredictability of the unknown; better to be ruled by the past than by hope for a different future."
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 6, 2019
I never thought I’d describe a book about agnosticism as “too heavenly minded as to be no earthly good,” but, well, here we are.
When I picked up “Agnostic: A Spirited Manifesto” by Lesley Hazelton, I thought that I would be getting, well, a manifesto. I thought I’d be getting a book that defined problems that secular people, particularly agnostics, face in modern society. I thought I’d be getting an action plan for improving conditions for their specific problems.
How foolish of me to expect a book to live up to its promise of having the word “manifesto” in its title.
Instead, Hazelton rambles on and on about what is or isn’t her interpretation of god. And for the life of me, even though this book is all about her particular interpretation of god and religion, I couldn’t honestly tell you what she thinks about anything. It all feel arbitrary and nothing is grounded in actual human reality. This is as annoying as you can imagine.
While we’re being totally transparent here, I have to give this book a failing grade for two primary reasons. First, Hazelton paints gigantic broad brush about news and splits hairs about “believing in it.” (Page 56) You don’t have to “believe” in news to see what’s true or not. There’s, you know, evidence. She doesn’t bother to make basic distinctions among different types of news (a tabloid is going to be wildly different from a community newspaper, a magazine is going to be different from a business-to-business publication, etc.) Seriously, please educate yourself so you have some basic media literacy because this off-hand bullshit comment is pathetic.
Sub point to this, she also doesn’t understand how mass market paperback genres work either, e.g. mystery novels. Without a solution to the mystery, it’s not a mystery novel. You can like whatever part of the novel you like best, there’s nothing wrong with that, the promise the author makes to the reader is that after introducing said mystery, there is a solution to it.
Second “you do this and I fail you” policy, is that Hazelton deliberately and repeatedly mischaracterizes other secular positions. She only quotes the most popular and arguably the most extreme atheists in her book. She does this with Christians, too, which is lazy and boring.
Frankly, this book is garbage.
Had this book actually lived up to the promise of its title, I probably would have enjoyed it.
When I picked up “Agnostic: A Spirited Manifesto” by Lesley Hazelton, I thought that I would be getting, well, a manifesto. I thought I’d be getting a book that defined problems that secular people, particularly agnostics, face in modern society. I thought I’d be getting an action plan for improving conditions for their specific problems.
How foolish of me to expect a book to live up to its promise of having the word “manifesto” in its title.
Instead, Hazelton rambles on and on about what is or isn’t her interpretation of god. And for the life of me, even though this book is all about her particular interpretation of god and religion, I couldn’t honestly tell you what she thinks about anything. It all feel arbitrary and nothing is grounded in actual human reality. This is as annoying as you can imagine.
While we’re being totally transparent here, I have to give this book a failing grade for two primary reasons. First, Hazelton paints gigantic broad brush about news and splits hairs about “believing in it.” (Page 56) You don’t have to “believe” in news to see what’s true or not. There’s, you know, evidence. She doesn’t bother to make basic distinctions among different types of news (a tabloid is going to be wildly different from a community newspaper, a magazine is going to be different from a business-to-business publication, etc.) Seriously, please educate yourself so you have some basic media literacy because this off-hand bullshit comment is pathetic.
Sub point to this, she also doesn’t understand how mass market paperback genres work either, e.g. mystery novels. Without a solution to the mystery, it’s not a mystery novel. You can like whatever part of the novel you like best, there’s nothing wrong with that, the promise the author makes to the reader is that after introducing said mystery, there is a solution to it.
Second “you do this and I fail you” policy, is that Hazelton deliberately and repeatedly mischaracterizes other secular positions. She only quotes the most popular and arguably the most extreme atheists in her book. She does this with Christians, too, which is lazy and boring.
Frankly, this book is garbage.
Had this book actually lived up to the promise of its title, I probably would have enjoyed it.
June 21, 2016
My problems with this:
1) This is not a manifesto. A manifesto must have some cohesive list of intentions or opinions, and while Hazleton definitely has some opinions, they're not particularly stream lined or serving any particular argument. Granted, the very thread of agnosticism is that you tend to see both sides of every argument.
2) She contradicts herself on a very important point. First, she refutes the idea of God having human like qualities because she states this is just human egoism. So, even just the usage of "He" in Scripture is erroneous and it would be closer to say "it," though even that is too close to humanizing an entity that is supposed to be so disparate from us as to be unknowable. Then, in her last chapter, she talks about how she prefers the idea of a God who makes mistakes, as opposed to a perfect God (which she said sounded boring.) However, is there anything more humanizing that we can do to a deity than to make them fallible? If God were fallible, he would be human. She negates her own desires and ideas within the span of 200 pages. Did no editor notice this? Cos to me it stuck out pretty clearly.
And that's where she lost me. What she was saying didn't sound so much like agnosticism so much as just an opinion on what kind of God she'd rather worship. Instead of asking the key existential questions, it seemed more like she was suggesting we stop worrying about it. Which I can TOTALLY get behind because as C.S. Lewis wrote, "The present is the time that touches eternity," so we should only focus on the next life to a certain extent. But to be honest, she sounded more like a theistic leaning atheist than a true agnostic.
1) This is not a manifesto. A manifesto must have some cohesive list of intentions or opinions, and while Hazleton definitely has some opinions, they're not particularly stream lined or serving any particular argument. Granted, the very thread of agnosticism is that you tend to see both sides of every argument.
2) She contradicts herself on a very important point. First, she refutes the idea of God having human like qualities because she states this is just human egoism. So, even just the usage of "He" in Scripture is erroneous and it would be closer to say "it," though even that is too close to humanizing an entity that is supposed to be so disparate from us as to be unknowable. Then, in her last chapter, she talks about how she prefers the idea of a God who makes mistakes, as opposed to a perfect God (which she said sounded boring.) However, is there anything more humanizing that we can do to a deity than to make them fallible? If God were fallible, he would be human. She negates her own desires and ideas within the span of 200 pages. Did no editor notice this? Cos to me it stuck out pretty clearly.
And that's where she lost me. What she was saying didn't sound so much like agnosticism so much as just an opinion on what kind of God she'd rather worship. Instead of asking the key existential questions, it seemed more like she was suggesting we stop worrying about it. Which I can TOTALLY get behind because as C.S. Lewis wrote, "The present is the time that touches eternity," so we should only focus on the next life to a certain extent. But to be honest, she sounded more like a theistic leaning atheist than a true agnostic.
May 22, 2016
Agnosticism as elaborated by Hazleton sounds like a damp pasteboard version of existentialism auto-tuned to pop psychology, incapable of carrying any weight. When she's not talking down to the reader, she'd like her to believe that she is offering a principled defense of indeterminacy as a means of preserving spiritual mystery, but the tone is so complacent that the whole thing winds up sounding like bourgeois apologetics. No thank-you.
This can only seem pedantic given the blogginess of her reasoning, but nevertheless: at one point, she describes a googol is 1 to the power of 10 or 1 followed by 100 zeros. A googol is 1 followed by 100 zeros, or 10 to the power of 100. 1 to the power of 10 equals exactly 1. Similarly, a googolplex is not 1 followed by a googol zeros, but a googol to the power of a googol. While it is true that that exceeds the number of atoms in the universe, it does not follow that one would need all those atoms to write out the number. A googolplex would be a 1 followed by 10,000 zeros, which would take about 3 - 8 1/2" x 11" pages in 12pt Times New Roman.
This can only seem pedantic given the blogginess of her reasoning, but nevertheless: at one point, she describes a googol is 1 to the power of 10 or 1 followed by 100 zeros. A googol is 1 followed by 100 zeros, or 10 to the power of 100. 1 to the power of 10 equals exactly 1. Similarly, a googolplex is not 1 followed by a googol zeros, but a googol to the power of a googol. While it is true that that exceeds the number of atoms in the universe, it does not follow that one would need all those atoms to write out the number. A googolplex would be a 1 followed by 10,000 zeros, which would take about 3 - 8 1/2" x 11" pages in 12pt Times New Roman.
April 15, 2016
Though I was questioning this book at first (I am growing a little tired of the predictable attacks on "The New Atheists"), this book quickly took a turn toward explaining agnosticism in a clear and profound way. If you thought agnostics were simply mediators between "believers" and "non-believers," think again (preferably while you are reading this book). Agnosticism has its own grounding and should be viewed as providing a unique and explicit response to life, the universe, and everything. Not to mention that you will run across insightful gems like this:
By resisting despair, then, I rationally choose to be irrational. I defy my own disbelief. And that, I believe, can be called an act of faith.
Thanks for your manifesto, Lesley Hazleton. It was, indeed, spirited.
By resisting despair, then, I rationally choose to be irrational. I defy my own disbelief. And that, I believe, can be called an act of faith.
Thanks for your manifesto, Lesley Hazleton. It was, indeed, spirited.
March 29, 2016
Lesley Hazelton's book serves as a very concise, easy to read introduction on agnosticism, which readers of all religious backgrounds will find educational and non-offensive. It will encourage you to delve deeper into more academic and detailed writings concerning agnosticism and even your own personal religious beliefs. I won this book in a Goodreads giveaway and am grateful for the opportunity to have read it.
July 29, 2017
A well intentioned book perhaps, but strewn with logical fallacies, hypocrisy, and most notably mischaracterizations used to support an argument. Any non believer who spent any amount of time digging into religions, counterapologetics, debates, etc. would be aware of them. No need to list all of them here. For all those who gives this book such high praise and admiration has not done their homework and actually contradicts what the author boasts as a commendable endeavor of open honest inquiry.
March 9, 2020
Bu kitaptan ne yazık ki beklediğimi alamadım. Teolog (dinler konusunda uzman) bir yazarın agnostik (bilinemezci) olarak agnostisizm (bilinemezcilik) hakkında daha çok bilgi ve deneyim paylaşacağını umardım.
Daha çok bir felsefe ya da deneme kitabı havasında idi. Başka kişilere ilginç gelecek konular içeriyor olabilir belki, ama ben ne yazık ki tavsiye edemiyorum.
Daha çok bir felsefe ya da deneme kitabı havasında idi. Başka kişilere ilginç gelecek konular içeriyor olabilir belki, ama ben ne yazık ki tavsiye edemiyorum.
April 12, 2016
Much to ponder here.
July 13, 2016
Bah! Fluff and little substance.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 126 reviews