Seven Types of Atheism
- Downloads：5670
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-11-30 09:54:15
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：John N. Gray
- ISBN：0141981105
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
SUNDAY TIMES BESTSELLER
WINNER OF THE CATHOLIC HERALD BOOK AWARD FOR RELIGION AND THEOLOGY
A NEW STATESMAN BOOK OF THE YEAR 2019
'Wonderful 。。。 one of the few books that I started to reread a couple of minutes after I'd finished it。' - Melvyn Bragg
A meditation on the importance of atheism in the modern world - and its inadequacies and contradictions - by one of Britain's leading philosophers
'When you explore older atheisms， you will find some of your firmest convictions - secular or religious - are highly questionable。 If this prospect disturbs you， what you are looking for may be freedom from thought。'
For a generation now， public debate has been corroded by a narrow derision of religion in the name of an often very vaguely understood 'science'。 John Gray's stimulating and extremely enjoyable new book describes the rich， complex world of the atheist tradition， a tradition which he sees as in many ways as rich as that of religion itself， as well as being deeply intertwined with what is so often crudely viewed as its 'opposite'。
The result is a book that sheds an extraordinary and varied light on what it is to be human and on the thinkers who have， at different times and places， battled to understand this issue。
WINNER OF THE CATHOLIC HERALD BOOK AWARD FOR RELIGION AND THEOLOGY
A NEW STATESMAN BOOK OF THE YEAR 2019
'Wonderful 。。。 one of the few books that I started to reread a couple of minutes after I'd finished it。' - Melvyn Bragg
A meditation on the importance of atheism in the modern world - and its inadequacies and contradictions - by one of Britain's leading philosophers
'When you explore older atheisms， you will find some of your firmest convictions - secular or religious - are highly questionable。 If this prospect disturbs you， what you are looking for may be freedom from thought。'
For a generation now， public debate has been corroded by a narrow derision of religion in the name of an often very vaguely understood 'science'。 John Gray's stimulating and extremely enjoyable new book describes the rich， complex world of the atheist tradition， a tradition which he sees as in many ways as rich as that of religion itself， as well as being deeply intertwined with what is so often crudely viewed as its 'opposite'。
The result is a book that sheds an extraordinary and varied light on what it is to be human and on the thinkers who have， at different times and places， battled to understand this issue。
Reviews
Navya
，
"A godless world is as mysterious as one suffused with divinity， and the difference between the two may be less than you think。"Gray takes a philosophical dive into seven kinds of atheisms （though more like， seven features of atheisms。 Not all necessary， and not all mutually exclusive）， by following some luminaries who exhibited those beliefs in their lives and works。 He is extremely critical of five of these， and somewhat okay with the other two。 On Gray's criticism: primarily that while many k "A godless world is as mysterious as one suffused with divinity， and the difference between the two may be less than you think。"Gray takes a philosophical dive into seven kinds of atheisms （though more like， seven features of atheisms。 Not all necessary， and not all mutually exclusive）， by following some luminaries who exhibited those beliefs in their lives and works。 He is extremely critical of five of these， and somewhat okay with the other two。 On Gray's criticism: primarily that while many kind of atheists do away with the idea of a creator-god， they are unable to completely reject or be indifferent to a Judeo-Christian way of thinking。 They simply replace "god" with an equally vague notion of "humanity"， "science" or some other such thing。 By doing so， they open atheist traditions to the same kind of illiberalism， evangelism and dogma that they criticize in religion。 I found this argument valuable。 It explained much of what had mystified me about the "new atheists"， and why secular movements often fall prey to the same shortcomings as organized religions。 What is the solution then？ Gray doesn't have a clear answer; he doesn't claim to either。 But judging by what he did admire， it seems to be to let some mysticism back into your life。 It doesn't have to be （and should not be） related to a creator-god， but， like， take joy in the plurality of the human experience。 Marvel at the mysteries of the world。 Wonder at the Cosmos。 Something。 Which leads me to a problem - Gray explores atheism exclusively through a Judeo-Christian lens。 A lot of this "good" atheism is actually just Buddhist or Hindu philosophy （briefly acknowledged as inspirations to the relevant philosophers as well）。 Which is understandable as Buddhism is technically an atheist religion and Hinduism also had materialist philosophy at some point， but is entirely unhelpful if you are an atheist who was raised in that worldview anyway。 I am used to this in discussions of atheism， but it stings a little more here because the author mentions the same problem in the introduction。。。and goes on to do the same thing。 Gray has done a very good analysis of atheism， but only a kind of it。 One that stems from Christianity， Enlightenment and all that entails。 I completely understand that it is complicated to do an analysis of an "eastern" atheism， and maybe it is not Gray's place to do one anyways， but the discussion does feel partial without it。 。。。more
John Pistelli
，
The English thinker John Gray begins this 2018 book with an apparent paradox: "Contemporary atheism is a flight from a godless world。" The balance of the text will explain the startling claim， itself reprised from earlier Gray books like Straw Dogs and Black Mass。 Gray's longstanding thesis is here put into more systematic order， as implied by the numeric title borrowed from literary critic William Empson's Seven Types of Ambiguity。 According to Gray， contemporary atheists， whether they are New The English thinker John Gray begins this 2018 book with an apparent paradox: "Contemporary atheism is a flight from a godless world。" The balance of the text will explain the startling claim， itself reprised from earlier Gray books like Straw Dogs and Black Mass。 Gray's longstanding thesis is here put into more systematic order， as implied by the numeric title borrowed from literary critic William Empson's Seven Types of Ambiguity。 According to Gray， contemporary atheists， whether they are New Atheist liberals， Marxist progressives， or Ayn Rand acolyte libertarians， have swapped out one deity for another: "The progress of humanity has replaced belief in divine providence。" He aims to correct this error by expanding our idea of atheism。 "The notion that religions are creeds—lists of propositions or doctrines that everyone must accept or reject—emerged only with Christianity，" he argues， whereas both religion and atheism are better understood as a set of practices， active orientations toward the mystery of things， as they were before Christianity's advents by Jews， Greeks， Buddhists， and other groups。 He charges contemporary atheists with a kind of scientific vulgarity when they regard religious faith and practice as a mere error， a misjudgment about information， and reminds readers how much of science itself， especially so-called social science， is simply taken on faith and eventually disproved or discarded:Atheists who think of religions as erroneous theories mistake faith—trust in an unknown power—for belief。 But if there is a problem with belief， it is not confined to religion。 Much of what passes as scientific knowledge is as open to doubt as the miraculous events that feature in traditional faiths。 Wander among the shelves of the social sciences stacks in university libraries， and you find yourself in a mausoleum of dead theories。 These theories have not passed into the intellectual netherworld by being falsified。 Most are not even false; they are too nebulous to allow empirical testing。 Systems of ideas， such as Positivism and Marxism， that forecast the decline of religion have been confounded time and time again。 Yet these cod-scientific speculations linger on in a dim afterlife in the minds of many who have never heard of the ideas from which they sprang。Just as Gray attributes disavowed religious impetus to secular creeds， so he locates a pragmatic godlessness in a mixed company of mystics and materialists， including ostensible theists like Spinoza or Meister Eckhardt。 He begins surveying his seven atheisms with the New Atheists of the early 21st century， whose ideas he construes as the unserious and largely unwitting rebirth of the 19th-century Positivism expounded by Auguste Comte。 Writing with remarkable prescience just a few years before the pandemic， Gray foresees how this brand of atheism， with its faith in reason and material progress， leads by logic to the illiberal rule of a scientistic clerisy:The project of a scientific ethics is an inheritance from Comte， who believed that once ethics had become a science liberal values would be obsolete。 In a rational society， value-judgements would be left to scientific experts。 Atheist illiberalism of this kind is one of the strongest currents in modern thought。 The more hostile secular thinking is to Jewish and Christian religion， the less likely it is to be liberal。This is almost word-for-word the argument of today's philosophical lockdowners， like Benjamin Bratton。 Pursuant to this critique of naive liberals and those who "believe in science，" Gray moves on in his second chapter to secular humanists—John Stuart Mill and Bertrand Russell are his chief exhibits。 Their belief in the progress of humanity he regards as deriving from Christian eschatology， with its linear progress from the Fall of Man toward the Second Coming， the Final Conflict， and the Kingdom of Heaven。 He also sees a Neo-Platonist and Gnostic strain in progressivism。 He crisply narrates how Platonism， passing through Plotinus to Erigena to Böhme to Hegel to Marx， became a superficially secular quasi-gnostic ideology of progressive liberation wherein our goal as humanity is to complete and thereby to become the God who has withdrawn from the creation。 He finds this idea not only in Mill's liberalism， but also in aspects of Marxism， in Nietzsche's "incurably Christian" attempt to redeem humanity from nihilism， and in Ayn Rand's cult of individualism。 Of these options， he seems to find Nietzsche the least objectionable， since the tormented philosopher seemed at least to understand the stakes of God's inexistence， unlike Mill or today's atheists， who silently rely on monotheistic universalist ethics when they don't believe in God: "An atheist because he rejected liberal values， Nietzsche is the ghost at the liberal humanist feast。"In the third chapter， Gray discusses those who repose their faith in science， with a particular attention to the by-now well-known failings of Enlightenment thinkers， his chief examples being the racism of Kant and Hume and the anti-Semitism of Voltaire。 This might be the weakest chapter， a mere compilation of scarifying quotes from 18th-century philosophers that the average bien pensant college student could produce today， quotes that， while disturbing， don't irredeemably tarnish all the rest of these writers' ideas。 Gray is on stronger ground when he traces how Darwin's successors turned his contingent theory of evolution into a strongly teleological belief in human improvement， a progressive goal whose chief sociopolitical manifestation was the popularity of eugenics in the early 20th century。In his fourth chapter he makes an argument his regular readers will find familiar: that major modern political ideologies—communism， fascism， and liberal imperialism—descend from Christian millenarianism and the Gnostic conviction that humanity must be saved from the evil world of nature。The name of the Nazi regime， the 'Third Reich'， comes from medieval apocalyptic myth。 The twelfth-century Christian theologian Joachim of Flora divided history into three ages， ending with a perfect society。 Taken up by the Anabaptists during the Reformation， the idea of a Third Reich surfaced again in the work of the inter-war 'revolutionary conservative' Moeller van den Bruck， who looked to the establishment of a millennium-long new German order in his book The Third Empire （1932）， which sold millions of copies。Gray again displays his prescience， writing years before the U。S。's chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan， when he mocks the liberal-imperialist pretension of the post-9/11 American foreign policy:Possessed by chimerical visions of universal human rights， western governments have toppled despotic regimes in Afghanistan， Iraq and Libya in order to promote a liberal way of life in societies that have never known it。 In doing so they destroyed the states through which the despots ruled， and left nothing durable in their place。 The result has been anarchy， followed by the rise of new and often worse kinds of tyranny。He turns his attention， in the fifth chapter， to misotheists， or "God-haters。" Dostoevsky's anguished Ivan Karamazov， who "turns back his ticket" to God when contemplating the pain of even a single child， is one example; the Marquis de Sade is another。 Gray diagnoses Sade's elaborate cosmology of nature-worship-through-sexual-torture as an inverted Christian theology:Sade was mistaken when he imagined he had left monotheism behind。 Instead he changed one unforgivable deity for another。 If he raged against the God of Christianity for creating a world abounding in evil， he railed with equal violence at the malevolent goddess of Nature that he had invented。 Only someone reared in Christian monotheism， and unable to shake it off， could have adopted such a stance。This is also my judgment， in general， of the Sade-Bataille axis of French extremity; as I wrote in my essay on Bataille's classic pornographic novel， The Story of the Eye， "Mechanically reversing the traditional pieties of the west like flipping a series of switches， the devotees of extremity have created a pious tradition of their own， carried on to a stultifying extent in the institutions of culture， particularly the art world and some wings of academe。" Gray concludes this chapter with a discussion of William Empson himself， author of Seven Types of Ambiguity。 Another of Empson's classic books， Milton's God， describes the Christian deity as a "Belsen commandant" and "astonishingly like Uncle Joe Stalin。" Gray observes that Empson， who lived for years in China and Japan， found in Buddhism the resolution of humanity's conflicting desires—the "life-negating" desire to withdraw， the "life-enhancing" need to enjoy—without ever apprehending the same complexity in Christianity itself。 Despite its sometimes vengeful-seeming God， Christianity conferred a divine dignity on human suffering that it had not enjoyed in the polytheistic Greco-Roman cosmos:Empson's genius was in recognizing the irreducible plurality of meaning and value in language and art。 He saw this plurality in the contradictory expressions of the Buddha。 He was too close to Christianity to see it there too。Here Gray offers respect to religions themselves—even progressive， teleological Christianity—that he doesn't pay to their ersatz descendants among modern secular ideologies。 Rather than posing as rational systems cleansed of metaphysics， traditional religions admit the irrational and answer the seemingly incorrigible human need to place our sorrows and pleasures in some greater cosmic context。Yet Gray ends his book with a look at "atheists without progress" and believers in "a silent God"—figures he admires for their ability to subsist in a cosmos without meaning。 He provides a fascinating portrait of George Santayana—a literary giant in his time， but little read today—and of the much more canonical Joseph Conrad， whose seafaring skepticism and stoicism he submits as an admirable ethic for the present:Conrad did not mourn the passing of a God through which human personality was projected throughout the universe。 It was the impersonality of the sea—'the perfect wisdom of its grace'， as he put it in what must surely have been an ironical theological allusion—that gave human beings their freedom。 The godless ocean gave Conrad's seamen all they needed， and Conrad everything he wanted。As in Straw Dogs， Gray again proffers the tonic of Schopenhauer's pessimism and even suggests that the philosopher's personal faults are almost admirable when juxtaposed with progressive moralism: "For anyone weary of self-admiring world-improvers， there is something refreshing in Schopenhauer's nastiness。" Neglecting the political， he doesn't here share the anecdote， detailed in Straw Dogs， about Schopenhauer offering his lorgnette as a gun sight for government soldiers shooting at the revolutionaries in 1848—a militarized aestheticism one imagines today's meme-happy social-media reactionaries admiring。Gray concludes with Spinoza's severe monism and expresses doubts I've always felt myself about the revered philosopher—Again and again in [Spinoza's] works， which were written in Latin， he enjoins the reader: Non ridere， non lugere， neque destestari， sed intelligere （Laugh not， weep not， be not angry， but understand）。 But it is not clear why anyone should immolate themselves on an altar built from metaphysical speculation。 Why renounce our humanity for the sake of an indifferent Deity？—before hailing Lev Shestov， a writer I've never read， influential on modernists like Bataille and Lawrence and now enjoying a comeback， for his conviction that religion "demands the impossible。" In the end， Gray dissolves the boundary between religion and atheism to make a more consequential division: between those dangerous believers—Platonists， Christians， Gnostics， Marxists， New Atheists， scientific positivists， liberals， etc。—who think they have access to the one universal truth and the one true path to progress， and a more chastened company of diversely humble negative theologians， nihilists， aesthetes， Pragmatists， Stoics， Taoists， and more， who accept the limits to human knowledge and the plurality of human values and simply try to live the best they can within these bounds。 Like his English contemporary， the celebrated Kazuo Ishiguro， he is conservative in the deepest sense。 An aphoristic essayist reminiscent of Cioran or Borges， a collector or connoisseur of the telling quotation and the crystalline anecdote， he doesn't believe in any universal ethic， he scorns the idea of human progress， and he takes interest in life primarily as an aesthetic phenomenon。 His aestheticism—his impeccable taste—guide him well when he dismisses the vulgarity of scientific positivism， facile political progressivism， or the techno-utopian fantasies of those who expect the Singularity。 When he praises Christianity for its impossible demands and sublime absurdities， however， he shows his awareness that folly can be beautiful too。 The chastened nihilism he shares with Conrad and Ishiguro may simply be the natural exhaustion that settles in old men's bones at the twilight of empire。 。。。more
Steven
，
I probably shouldn't fault this book for being what it is。 The problem with a review from me here is that I've been 30 years in， in thinking about this issue from an academic//philosophical set of perspectives。 So， what this book does is offer up what is strangely concise yet wide-ranging at the same time， set of observations on historical "permutations" let's call them， of Atheism。 Just because I've spent a long time sort of jogging around in the same area， there weren't many new insights for m I probably shouldn't fault this book for being what it is。 The problem with a review from me here is that I've been 30 years in， in thinking about this issue from an academic//philosophical set of perspectives。 So， what this book does is offer up what is strangely concise yet wide-ranging at the same time， set of observations on historical "permutations" let's call them， of Atheism。 Just because I've spent a long time sort of jogging around in the same area， there weren't many new insights for me， and instead I was rather annoyed at the non-focused range of it。 Which is odd， because in effect it's like I'm criticizing my own usual response/agenda。 I felt like I was reading my own lecture notes at times。 I'm thinking that perhaps if I'd read this twenty years ago I might have been quite delighted with it。 But right now， when I'm looking around for a simplistic took that I can hand over to people as a way to "think" about the issues of Atheism， this book would never do that trick。 Instead of， say， defining negative theology， Gray walks us through Spinoza for a bit， and discusses why that is a kind of example of negative theology。 Part of me wants to say， that's delightful， and it jibes with all I already know about Spinoza。 But then the other part of me then thinks。。。 pah， I can't really hand this over to anyone， say， a student， or friend， to tell them about negative theology， particular given that in fact the book is filled with 15 other different kinds of things/thinkers along those many different lines/versions of Atheism。 I wonder if this weird review of mine is some sort of self-criticism。 。。。more
G
，
A reminder of why I wasn't a philosophy minor， though readable nonetheless。 A reminder of why I wasn't a philosophy minor， though readable nonetheless。 。。。more
Greg
，
My brain hurts。
yvan vcc
，
La capacidad de Gray de pensar críticamente sobre cuestiones dadas por hecho en Occidente es de reconocerse。
Glenn
，
Typically stimulating stuff from Gray。 A trifle repetitive in its insistence （not unfounded） that Atheism is just another variety of monotheism。 But lively， cogent， informative， provocative。 And kind of depressing — such concentrated thinking about mortality and consciousness kind of made my brain explode。 Being old and having lost two family members over the summer was likely a contributing factor to my discomfort。
Doug Newdick
，
I don't agree with everything John Gray writes - not even close - and at times I feel frustrated by what he says， but I still find him always thought-provoking。 He challenges some of my implicit assumptions and beliefs which is why I rate his books so highly and keep coming back to him。 I find compelling his argument that many "atheistic" ideologies smuggle in religious （specifically mono-theistic） assumptions and beliefs: just swapping out belief in some other thing （such as humanity） for God o I don't agree with everything John Gray writes - not even close - and at times I feel frustrated by what he says， but I still find him always thought-provoking。 He challenges some of my implicit assumptions and beliefs which is why I rate his books so highly and keep coming back to him。 I find compelling his argument that many "atheistic" ideologies smuggle in religious （specifically mono-theistic） assumptions and beliefs: just swapping out belief in some other thing （such as humanity） for God or heaven。 Other authors （Alain De Botton and Julian Baggini to name but two） have also argued persuasively that many atheists （especially the so-called "New Atheists"） paint a crude， caricatured， picture of theism。 So one can see this book as an argument for a more thoroughgoing atheism， one that ditches all vestiges of monotheistic ideology while at the same time being more sympathetic to theism。 Not a bad place to be。 。。。more
Oolalaa
，
15/20
Bill
，
Αν και στα περισσότερα που υποστηρίζει ο Gray είναι σωστός， δεν έχει βασικές αναφορές ονομάτων και βιβλιογραφίας στο βιβλίο του με αποτέλεσμα να μην μπορεί να θεωρηθεί από κάθε άποψη έγκυρο， τεκμηριωμένο και αντικειμενικό。。。 Στα μεγάλα συν του βιβλίου είναι οι επιθέσεις στον Πλατωνισμό και στον Παύλο。
Andrew Howdle
，
Gray's book alludes to Empson's famous work Seven Types of Ambiguity and like Empson （who has a bit part in the Gray show） Gray writes with ambiguity。 I had hoped to learn something about atheism 。 Instead， I encountered a meandering exposition of God knows what。 Are there really seven types of atheism？ Or were these invented to produce a catchy title？ Gray relies on a real mix of high and low sources， chucking in novels as examples of atheistic thought。 This allows him to sneer at "fastidious p Gray's book alludes to Empson's famous work Seven Types of Ambiguity and like Empson （who has a bit part in the Gray show） Gray writes with ambiguity。 I had hoped to learn something about atheism 。 Instead， I encountered a meandering exposition of God knows what。 Are there really seven types of atheism？ Or were these invented to produce a catchy title？ Gray relies on a real mix of high and low sources， chucking in novels as examples of atheistic thought。 This allows him to sneer at "fastidious philosophers" and masquerade as a philosopher for Everyman and Everywoman。 Again and again the same statement is made: though atheism gets rid of God it is itself created by theistic tradition。 Gray revels in ambivalent terms。 Rather than speak of proselytising atheists， such as Dawkins， for whom he has nothing but contempt， Gray substitutes the phrase "evangelical atheists" -- thus linking atheism provocatively to a world of angels and gospel writers。 By the end of the book， Gray has demolished most of Enlightened thought to leave 。。。 The book carries a recommendation by Eagleton -- "impressively erudite" -- two words， in fact， from a long review in The Guardian in which Eagleton demolishes Gray's book for putting faith in some "vague， inexplicable enigma。" A critical ambiguity？ Or just a simple plain old lie？ 。。。more
Gavin Brand
，
This was the most honest assessment of atheism that I’ve come across by an atheist。 Gray is relentless in his critiques of various atheistic manifestations and his brutal intellectual integrity make his arguments convincing。 He is also a wonderful storyteller who seems to have an anecdote for every point he makes。 The personal stories he includes of the atheists he talks about made the book really interesting and fun to read。
Alexis K。
，
Whether a comprehensive depiction or not of Atheism over the years， John Gray's Seven Types of Atheism is essential reading for the questions it makes readers ask。 It blows open the idea that three is one "Atheism" and this philosophy is the next stage in religious thought。 Spanning centuries and covering countless philosophers， John Gray shows there is a rich tradition of Atheism throughout the eras and their attempts to tackle the spiritual longing of humanity have had countless pros and cons。 Whether a comprehensive depiction or not of Atheism over the years， John Gray's Seven Types of Atheism is essential reading for the questions it makes readers ask。 It blows open the idea that three is one "Atheism" and this philosophy is the next stage in religious thought。 Spanning centuries and covering countless philosophers， John Gray shows there is a rich tradition of Atheism throughout the eras and their attempts to tackle the spiritual longing of humanity have had countless pros and cons。 This condensation of a lost history outside of university programs brushes away any conceit that abandoning "religion" will lead to less suffering and misery for humanity。 The ideal "Atheism"， a bloodless and calming presence inspiring humanity forward， gives way to the historical record: a complicated series of events that are soaked not only in the blood of doubters but also the folly of its faithful。Knowing that a perfect and ideal Atheism can never be obtained in practice by its adherents on this Earth， Gray asks the fundamental question: how should we then live？ If Atheism， as is defined in the streets， does not naturally make people "better" than those following an invisible sky god， how should those wishing to seek their own enlightenment proceed？ He gives no answer to this except to say: as you wish and feeling superior over others who have chosen a different way is childish and surly。 However， if you must fight with his conclusions， I think John Gray would approve。 After all， determining how we should live and proceed in this world is important。 It's a thought process we should engage in， and to that end， he might wish everyone to do it （even if out of spite）。 。。。more
·miκε
，
Excellent short book from British atheist thinker John Gray。He shows that atheism is not monolithic。The "new" atheists of recent history receive a mere glancing notice from him， which he seems to feel is about as much as they deserve （their ideas being actually quite old， rather than new: a warmed-over version of an older form of secular-scientific arrogance called positivism）。 He regrets Sam Harris' apparent innocence regarding the history of ideas （which is a Gray specialty）。 The types of athe Excellent short book from British atheist thinker John Gray。He shows that atheism is not monolithic。The "new" atheists of recent history receive a mere glancing notice from him， which he seems to feel is about as much as they deserve （their ideas being actually quite old， rather than new: a warmed-over version of an older form of secular-scientific arrogance called positivism）。 He regrets Sam Harris' apparent innocence regarding the history of ideas （which is a Gray specialty）。 The types of atheism he outlines are generally ones that don't resonate with him except for the final two sections （Conrad， as well as Schopenhauer）。 His tone in this book seems much more mature in this book （for me）， compared to 'Straw Dogs，' which seemed to get carried away with a tone that seemed （at times） too pessimistically nihilistic。 Unlike the superficial smugness of the not-so-"new" atheists， Gray is a deep thinker （like Thomas Nagel）， and for anyone who finds Dawkins， Harris， Pinker or Harari too smug in their attitudes or certainties （or their blinders as to the dark side of the utopian "Enlightenment" legacy）， Gray is an enjoyable alternative。 This is a rare kind of book for me， in that I've returned to re-read sections of many times。 。。。more
Kamarad Volksjäger
，
Dili çok bilmiş ve tepeden bakar bir halde olmasına rağmen， bizim 'içeriden' defaatle söylediklerimizi derleyip toparlamış。 Okunabilir， okunmalıdır。 Dili çok bilmiş ve tepeden bakar bir halde olmasına rağmen， bizim 'içeriden' defaatle söylediklerimizi derleyip toparlamış。 Okunabilir， okunmalıdır。 。。。more
Ramojus
，
The book is no joke。 Serious interpretation of philosophy and history， related with mainly Christianity。 However the books leaves an impression， purposely or without the purpose created by author， that all atheist thinkers were very unhappy and struggling persons。 Some of them even really bad。
Cole
，
（received an ARC from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review。） Atheism has bad PR。 The "New Atheist，" such as they are have taken up some much space in conversations about religion and atheism within recent years， unfortunately obscuring other perspectives。 As someone really interested in the study of religion， this book appealed to me both in its topic and its organizational structure。 Gray explores and teases out distinctions and understandings of atheism and introduced a lot of threads I' （received an ARC from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review。） Atheism has bad PR。 The "New Atheist，" such as they are have taken up some much space in conversations about religion and atheism within recent years， unfortunately obscuring other perspectives。 As someone really interested in the study of religion， this book appealed to me both in its topic and its organizational structure。 Gray explores and teases out distinctions and understandings of atheism and introduced a lot of threads I've since sought to follow up on。 In a way， the book left me wanting for more， but overall I was really pleased and appreciated Gray's insight。 Definitely recommended。 。。。more
Ayan Dutta
，
Short book ， must read for anyone looking to understand the past and present 。 For those ， who think ， this is a book on atheism， you need to read more Gray 。。。he has packaged all his political and philosophical thoughts into this one 。
José Luis Morones
，
Es una lectura corta pero pesada。。。 muchos datos personales que me parecen no aportan nada al tema y sentí que el objetivo trata de perdonar a la religión que de verdad exponer el ateísmo。
Karenna
，
Book was well written and thoroughly chalk full of research。 I did not intend to learn about the origins of atheism but rather to delve deeper into the different schools of thought （like agnostic vs atheist）。 The writings lacked the real world today implications and honestly quite a bit of it went over my head。
David Diaz
，
A very good synopsis of the history of major figures in atheism and the types of atheism they espoused。
Socrate
，
Ateismul contemporan este o fugă dintr-o lume lipsită de Dumnezeu。 Viața fără nici o putere care să asigure ordinea sau un fel de dreptate supremă este o perspectivă înspăimântătoare și pentru mulți o perspectivă intolerabilă。 În absența unei astfel de puteri， evenimentele umane ar putea fi în cele din urmă haotice și nu s-ar putea spune nicio poveste care să satisfacă nevoia de sens。 Luptându-se să scape de această viziune， ateii au căutat surogatele Dumnezeului pe care l-au aruncat deoparte。 P Ateismul contemporan este o fugă dintr-o lume lipsită de Dumnezeu。 Viața fără nici o putere care să asigure ordinea sau un fel de dreptate supremă este o perspectivă înspăimântătoare și pentru mulți o perspectivă intolerabilă。 În absența unei astfel de puteri， evenimentele umane ar putea fi în cele din urmă haotice și nu s-ar putea spune nicio poveste care să satisfacă nevoia de sens。 Luptându-se să scape de această viziune， ateii au căutat surogatele Dumnezeului pe care l-au aruncat deoparte。 Progresul umanității a înlocuit credința înProvidența divină。 Dar această credință în umanitate are sens numai dacă continuă moduri de gândire care au fost moștenite din monoteism。 Ideea că specia umană realizează obiective comune de-a lungul istoriei este un avatar secular al unei idei religioase de răscumpărare。Ateismul nu a fost întotdeauna așa。 Împreună cu mulți care au căutat o Zeitate surogat care să umple gaura lăsată de Dumnezeu care a plecat， au existat unii care au ieșit din monoteism cu totul și au găsit libertate și împlinire。 Nu căutau semnificație cosmică， se mulțumeau cu lumea așa cum o găseau。 。。。more
Mateusz Janiszewski
，
Napisana bardzo lekkostrawnym językiem， czyta się szybciutko。Zabrakło co najmniej jednego typu （egzystencjalnego - powiedzmy， że z Cioranem， Beckettem oraz Camusem）， dwa ostatnie były przedstawione dosyć skrótowo i ze zbyt małą dawką krytyki， natomiast typ 1 i 3 silnie się na siebie nakładają - wyróżnienie nowoateistów jako osobnej grupy można oprzeć chyba tylko na aspekcie chronologicznym。Jak na tego pisarza dosyć pogodna pozycja， polecam！
B
，
John Gray is a genius in his way to address questions around the meaning of life without overburdening himself or the reader。 While "Feline Philosophy" starts with the metaphor of "life as a cat"， "Seven Types of Atheism" silently assumes that it's not about religion as otherwise you wouldn't ask that question （culturally a valid take in a secular age） - and introduces seven philosophical approaches to answer the question。 The book is too short to give a final answer on any of these approaches， John Gray is a genius in his way to address questions around the meaning of life without overburdening himself or the reader。 While "Feline Philosophy" starts with the metaphor of "life as a cat"， "Seven Types of Atheism" silently assumes that it's not about religion as otherwise you wouldn't ask that question （culturally a valid take in a secular age） - and introduces seven philosophical approaches to answer the question。 The book is too short to give a final answer on any of these approaches， but it draws a nice map， highlighting core influences in their connection。 Especially his approach to understand modern humanism as a philosophical/religious project that is much closer to Judeo-Christian ideas than one would think is fascinating。 For me， this makes "Seven Types。。。" a nice introduction to his other works。 。。。more
Piers Horner
，
At last， an account of atheism that is frank， rigorous and well thought through without taking sides。 The book doesn't seek to 'take down' atheism， but challenges it to face up to its limitations and weaknesses in a grown-up way， and perhaps to grow as a result。 A breath of fresh air in a world where dismissive， pseudo-intellectual snobbery and intolerance to other world views is sadly all too common。 At last， an account of atheism that is frank， rigorous and well thought through without taking sides。 The book doesn't seek to 'take down' atheism， but challenges it to face up to its limitations and weaknesses in a grown-up way， and perhaps to grow as a result。 A breath of fresh air in a world where dismissive， pseudo-intellectual snobbery and intolerance to other world views is sadly all too common。 。。。more
Dylan
，
While it is true that Gray occasionally does not make the effort to lay out each of his claims rigorously， relying at times on the general historical context and inferred outcomes in order to get to his main overarching points， there is no denying that Gray's writing is a breath of fresh air in a cultural and intellectual landscape populated by fandoms， fanaticisms， and other forms of ideological narrow-mindedness。 Here， as with Beckett within literature， is a voice that seems to stand uniquely While it is true that Gray occasionally does not make the effort to lay out each of his claims rigorously， relying at times on the general historical context and inferred outcomes in order to get to his main overarching points， there is no denying that Gray's writing is a breath of fresh air in a cultural and intellectual landscape populated by fandoms， fanaticisms， and other forms of ideological narrow-mindedness。 Here， as with Beckett within literature， is a voice that seems to stand uniquely （almost "purely"） above what is often just a matter of varying degrees of human bias。 Gray manages largely， or at least often， to transcend the "isms" and arguments which seem so consistently incapable of reaching a true independence of thought。 Gray's democratic， sweeping criticism is a cathartic sight to behold for anyone who has managed to， like Gray， learn to hold nothing sacred。 Gray is happy to apply the same intolerance for fallacious thinking to any and all traditions， whether they are those he is sympathetic to or those he is not。 Criticism of the left from within the left is becoming ever rarer， and Gray happily resists the absurd adage to "not say anything at all" if one cannot say something nice， as well as the equally absurd belief that one should not knock something that is on the right track。 There is nothing unadulteratedly great in Gray's eyes， and his criticism of humanism， Dawkinsesque "spiritual" atheisms， and simplistic admirations and vilifications is ironically one thing that is worthy of praise。 。。。more
Tom
，
An incredibly interesting commentary of the history of atheism， and some of the colourful characters who have played their part in it。 Gray， however， appears to believe everyone to be a bit stupid whether they believe in something divine or not。
Theodoros Vassiliadis
，
An essay of value。JG adopts an epicurean stance and discourses seven paradigms of declared atheism ， that reasoned on the issue in a just mode。There is high interconnectivity among them despite the time span and the ground each one affirmed it （ class or culture）。Author reaches to terms that atheists and their counterparts are actually screwed to the same human condition ， to the same material process， thus their cognitive analogies make the macro and the micro field of natural laws something of An essay of value。JG adopts an epicurean stance and discourses seven paradigms of declared atheism ， that reasoned on the issue in a just mode。There is high interconnectivity among them despite the time span and the ground each one affirmed it （ class or culture）。Author reaches to terms that atheists and their counterparts are actually screwed to the same human condition ， to the same material process， thus their cognitive analogies make the macro and the micro field of natural laws something of a ling process to reckon 。But though technologically we capture new understandings， in the psychical level ， the homo duplex state and the incognito of the things role is further elusive。In his view whether atheistic ， Hegelian or apophatic ， we can't create a body of solid theory ， rather than assumptions that are either comforting or in certain occasions despairing 。。。more
Natasha Hurley-Walker
，
Short and readable history of atheism， from Gray's usual pessmistic and droll perspective。 I certainly agreed with him that secular humanism simply replaces God with humans-as-gods， and there could hardly be a worse choice of species to worship。 I also agreed that any conception of a single system of living that would apply to all humans necessarily implies the existence of a divine law-giver。 I agreed that there is no "humanity"， only a bunch of humans， and that history has no direction -- to b Short and readable history of atheism， from Gray's usual pessmistic and droll perspective。 I certainly agreed with him that secular humanism simply replaces God with humans-as-gods， and there could hardly be a worse choice of species to worship。 I also agreed that any conception of a single system of living that would apply to all humans necessarily implies the existence of a divine law-giver。 I agreed that there is no "humanity"， only a bunch of humans， and that history has no direction -- to believe otherwise is simply to reclothe the Christian narrative of the Second Coming in the fabric of technology and science。 You only have to look at the extinction of the dodo， the genocide of indigenous peoples， or the thermal content of the oceans to see that science and technology makes an even more terrible god。 It is absolutely a statement of faith to say that you believe in the arc of human progress， and it's one that I completely disagree with。 I also really had no idea how racist the Enlightenment was。 We should be taught this stuff in schools！Where I couldn't really make headway was in the chapters I was most interested in -- those of atheism without progress。 Gray described Spinoza's atheism as needing God and the universe to be one and the same。 But I don't really understand why you need God in the picture， in that case。 What's wrong with the universe simply as it is？ It seems like there was no room in the book for an idea of atheism that there is no good， and no evil， and no need to reconcile these concepts with the universe -- because they are just things we made up to make sense of our simian social interactions。 It's obvious that there can be no perfect ethical system， because our ideas of justice and fairness are contradictory -- just look at the trolley problem。 But there's no need for an ethical system; there's no need for good， or evil， or anything else。 Just accept that you are a human， and these are constructs we build for ourselves to make sense of the world。 Nothing actually matters; there's no final ledger， judgement， or reincarnation。 You die， your pattern of nerves firing dissipates， and your atoms get repurposed。 Why is there no chapter on that？ Santanyana's philosphy came close， but it seemed somehow ineffectual and flimsy。 He chose not to read others' work， not to engage in relationships， and I suppose something of that choice of complete withdrawal rang hollow to me。 Wouldn't the world be a dull place if we all avoided all suffering？ What I would have loved to see was an environmental atheism -- an Utilitarianism for all species。 An understanding that if the biosphere is snuffed， so are we， and so therefore every life of every creature does have some incalculable value。 Of course， life is pain， so perhaps without good and evil to guide you one way or another， it would be better to launch all the nukes now and put everything out of its misery。 I guess this is why we need philosophy :DThe other thing I found annoying was Gray's own slant on our inability to understand the Universe。 I absolutely agree that we can only see through our senses， and they are dim and easily confused。 But the scientific method and mathematics do allow us to create a consensual reality that makes testable predictions。 And speaking as an astrophysicist， we can look any direction in the Universe， up to 13。6 billion years back in time， and those laws apply everywhere we look。 Gray claims:"But the order that appears to prevail in our corner of the universe may be local and ephermeral， emerging randomly and then melting away。 The very idea that we live in a law-governed cosmos may not be much more than a fading legacy of faith in a divine law-giver。"Well， I'm sorry， but that is quite ridiculous。 It is far more complex for the Unvierse to appear at all times and places governed by the laws of physics， and think that those could suddenly change at any moment， than to assume that they will not。 I suppose that if I have a philosophy， Ockham's Razor must be one of its tenets。 。。。more
Yuni Amir
，
What a hard book to finish！ "A fully rational human being understands everything happens as it has to happen" What a hard book to finish！ "A fully rational human being understands everything happens as it has to happen" 。。。more
Reference
google book https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=Seven Types of Atheism
hathitrust digital library https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?q1=Seven Types of Atheism&field1=ocr&a=srchls&ft=ft&lmt=ft