Living Without God: New Directions for Atheists, Agnostics, Secularists, and the Undecided

by Ronald Aronson

Ronald Aronson has a to demonstrate that a life without religion can be coherent, moral, and committed. Optimistic and stirring, Living Without God is less interested in attacking religion than in developing a positive philosophy for atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, skeptics, and freethinkers. Aronson proposes contemporary answers to Immanuel Kant’s three great What can I know? What ought I to do? What can I hope? Grounded in the sense that we are deeply dependent and interconnected beings who are rooted in the universe, nature, history, society, and the global economy, Living Without God explores the experience and issues of 21st-century secularists, especially in America. Reflecting on such perplexing questions as why we are grateful for life’s gifts, who or what is responsible for inequalities, and how to live in the face of aging and dying, Living Without God is also refreshingly topical, touching on such subjects as contemporary terrorism, the war in Iraq, affirmative action, and the remarkable rise of Barack Obama.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Religion, Atheism, Spirituality

288 pages, Hardcover

First published September 1, 2008

Reviews

[Frrobins · Rating 1 out of 5]

I grew up in a nonreligious family in the 90s and devoured books by Carl Sagan, Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins as a teenager. The New Atheist movement caught me by surprise, and this was written in 2008 when it was still new and it felt exhilarating to suddenly have so many people agree with me after growing up and getting so much flack for not being religious. Lately I've felt that this New Atheist movement is very different from the atheism I grew up with a lament I have heard Richard Dawkins and some other figures of the movement in the 90s share. Some of the more old school skeptics have started to wonder if perhaps we didn't do such a great job of teaching people how to live without religion. History has yet to be written on that question, but reading this book in 2023 I must say it did not age well. The fact that it was very targeted to the events of the aughts rather than focusing on being timeless is one serious flaw of this book.

I work in mental health and am familiar with the components someone needs to live a healthy and productive life. This book was rather disconnected from psychology and more focused on macroscale political issues and philosophy than the microscale of how an individual person lives their life. I also feel that this book requires someone to have a Ph.D. in philosophy to fully understand. Aronson was fond was Camus and Sartre. I am familiar, a little, with Camus because my dad liked his works even though I've never read them, and I've also not read Sartre or the other 50 philosophers discussed in this book, and I would hedge a bet that most of the New Atheists haven't either. And Aronson did not have the gift of summarizing for people unfamiliar with a certain philosopher what their arguments were. He tended to assume that the reader knew.

Further, a lot of it came off as very idealistic and disconnected from the day to day of human experience. For example, the chapter on gratitude where Aronson wrestles with the question of who we're thanking in a very roundabout idealistic way. From a mental health perspective, gratitude is an important component, and we know how to practice gratitude in a way that improves our mental health and part of my journaling as an atheist is writing about things that I am grateful for. And it's rather easy to not thank god. I can thank the farmers who harvest my food, or the person who invented air conditioning, or the person who offered to help pick up my groceries when the bag ripped, or the teacher who went the extra mile for my child. Or sometimes that I got lucky and managed to avoid an accident on the highway. Twenty pages on who an atheist should thank if they aren't thanking god was tedious and irrelevant and not helpful.

All told there's nothing I really disagree with the author on in this book, I just did not find it pragmatic. Aronson focused a lot on the politics of 2008, but the vast majority of us do not have a lot of control over what our elected leaders do and, much as it sucks to admit that, are never going to have that control. There was not much about how to apply these principles on the scale that most of us are going to have day to day. And there was also just a lot about living a good life that Aronson did not touch on.

If you're a philosophy geek, this might be the book for you. Otherwise, skip.

[Aamir Ogna · Rating 4 out of 5]

First and foremost, this is NOT a book that goes on a mindless rant criticizing religion. The author accepts the fact that for the majority of the population, religion is an important part of their lives and that's perfectly ok. This book is not meant to convert someone religious into someone who's not.

With that aside, the book is a brilliant guide on how to live a life of morals and values without needing religion or God. It's an excellent read for the religious and the secularist/atheist alike. Each chapter deals with a specific aspect of life, like hope, responsibility, death etc and begins with the author's socio-political views about it. Then he goes on to explain how we can shape that aspect of our life without the intervention of any religion and still upholding morals and values that make up humanity.

My favorite chapters were on responsibility and death. The two things that religious people think are impossible to comprehend without religion. He brilliantly explains how we are responsible not only for ourselves, but the entire human community of the present and the future. Similarly, how death is a necessity of life and our fear of death is but natural is nicely put.

Overall, Living Without God is like a small, simple yet powerful guide to living a life that's responsible, fulfilling and free of any kind of superstition. Definitely recommended.

[Jim Cook · Rating 4 out of 5]

(Jim Cook’s review)
This was an enjoyable read. I found his approach to the issues related to secularism vs religion much less strident than other, more popular writers in this genre such as Dawkins and Hitchens.

Aronson’s book (published in 2008 when he was about 70) is more of a semi-autobiographical meditation on how an unbeliever such as he can find meaning and balance in his life and his relationships with others. He calls his approach “…an essay in twenty-first century secular philosophy.” He also claims that his essay is his personal response to the three great questions posed by Kant: What can I know? What can I believe? What can I hope?

Aronson is well-positioned to make this kind of argument. He completed his Ph.D dissertation in 1968 at Brandeis under the supervision of Herbert Marcuse and is well-known as a scholar of the philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre. Aronson taught in the “history of ideas” field for many years at Wayne State university in Michgan.

But, unfortunately, the book promises more than it actually delivers and it ends with a chapter on a rather vague and idealistic notion he labels “social hope”

Regardless, if you are interested in reading a sincere, thoughtful book about how best to lead a good and meaningful life (whether you are religious or not) Aronson’s book would likely find a suitable spot on your bookshelf.

[Jakub Ferencik · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ronald Aronson, the University of Michigan Professor, sets out to redirect the New Atheist movement in this volume by focusing on positive aspects of the secular life, rather than simply disagreeing with Religious metaphysical claims.

Aronson focuses on Gratitude, Hope, the Individual & Responsibility, and Dying Without God. I wouldn't fully blame Aronson for coming across as vague and uninspiring. I have yet to read a chapter on Gratitude without feeling less grateful than I was before. Thus, as I was reading this book I, for the most part, felt unimpressed.

I would recommend the second half of A. C. Grayling's book: "The God Argument" (one that I have also reviewed) over this volume. Also, the essay, "Famine, Affluence, & Morality" by Peter Singer is more helpful to put life into perspective.

It was refreshing, however, to read about Camus' "absurdity" and Sartre's "freedom" in more depth. Aronson also wrote about their friendship in another book - one that I look forward to reading.

All in all, this book did not give me what I hoped for. I'm sure that it'll intrigue Newcomers to the secular life, though.

[Charles · Rating 3 out of 5]

3,5

[Jane Susswein · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thisis part of an email I sent the author. Turns out we were both in the Boston area at the same time, and I may have taught a class he moght have attended at Brandeis!

I must admit I am an ardent Kaplanian, and would love to have seen some discussion of the types of communities that are best for realizing all the values you so beautifully articulate. I have often spoken about the kavanah of gratitude and awe - not gratitude towards anyone, but simply the attitude- that are read in the morning prayers. Not sure the League of Women Voters, or the comraderie of a political campaign are lasting enough communities to effect meaningful change and at the same time meet the needs of being in a community that meets individual needs -e.g. for a shiva, celebration of a birth, wedding, etc. At Bnai Keshet, we have been involved in a Saul Olitsky type of community-based congregational organizing, which has brought us together with a Baptist Church and others, trying to find areas of communal concern to work with. It has been a very powerful experience.

[Bri · Rating 2 out of 5]

He seems to have done his research and is very solid in his truths and beliefs and for that I applaud him, but it doesn’t warrant the condescension towards those that are not as science minded or as eager to accept what he does. In his opinion it is ignorance and/or a lack of intelligence for anyone who accepts creationism and biblical truths over evolution and science. (Despite many aspects of science actually reinforcing creationism) But the fact is, facts change. And some of the facts discussed are theories. I appreciate in this the research and information provisions however as a Christian I felt my beliefs scoffed at and simplified. I understand this is not a book for religion, I guess I wasn’t expecting such an argument against it though. This went beyond discussing living without God to discuss reasons why anyone of any intelligence will rebuke religion and live in morality without meaning.

[L'Eterno Assente]

In questo saggio non si discute del problema dell’esistenza di Dio. Infatti la soluzione è sottintesa: Dio non esiste. Altri problemi rimangono però aperti. Che senso può avere la vita umana? In particolare, che senso può avere la mia vita? Merita di essere vissuta? Qual è la mia responsabilità verso gli altri e il mondo? Come posso essere libero? Come posso affrontare la morte? Che cosa posso sperare, e perché? Inutile negarlo: proprio perché Dio non c’è queste domande sono ineludibili e meritano una risposta. Tanto più degna proprio perché umana, non divina. Quella di Aronson è una proposta molto ispirata dall’esistenzialismo sartriano, non sempre è convincente, ma senza dubbio è meritevole di una riflessione. Purtroppo il saggio è molto legato quasi solo alla realtà statunitense.

[Jeff · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are many secular books available about why people don't believe in gods; this is one of the few that talks about what atheists do believe, and even better, what kind of difference such beliefs can make in the way we live as authentic human beings. At the very least, this book makes you think about what life is about and how to live it to the fullest without the delusion of belief in the supernatural. I am reading it again because our weekly intentional community, Reasonable Living, has chosen it as it's next book of study. It is a good choice.

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent book to recommend to anyone who tells you that without God our lives are meaningless or "everything is permitted." Aronson shows that a life lived here in the real world, now, not in anticipation of some life after we die or reward in a hereafter, can be a focused, happy, grateful, meaningful, and hopeful one. We need a lot more books on this subject!

[Bakari · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author focuses more on his political views and experiences than he does for making a case for "living without god." I respect his political views, for they mirror many of my own, but I was looking for him to delve more into what it means to live with god and who build a society without god.

[Fernando · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great work, it's like an "ok, there is no god, now what?", I like the idea of focusing more in "What do I can do to be a better person or to behave morally better?" than in the "Religion is not good" argument.

[Shawn Steketee · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good book for the new atheist or the agnostic.It helps you to get beyond just unbelief and look at what else it may mean to be an atheist.

[Suzy · Rating 3 out of 5]

I agreed with all of the directives and commentary.

[Mazhar]

I want to read again