Scan barcode
nixpov's review against another edition
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.0
It was sad, but not surprising, to read that none of the Christians met Dan where he was at. No engaged with his reasons for transitioning from faith to reason. While a few were tolerant and fewer were empathetic, most were in total opposition to Dan for walking away from the faith.
rodhilton's review against another edition
3.0
Godless has the potential to be more interesting book than a lot of the other "New Atheist" books, because it's written by someone who was once very religious and lost his faith. Beyond that, the author, Dan Barker, actually used to be an evangelical preacher.
While Barker's unique perspective informs a great deal of the more interesting aspects of the book, Godless is still deeply flawed. The main problem with it is that it lacks focus - Barker seemed to decide he was only going to write one book, so he put two or three books worth of material in a single book. To make matters worse, it's not particularly well-organized, and the book comes off as something of a mess - a random collection of thoughts.
Each individual chapter is extremely well-written, but where those chapters connect to each other and where the book is going remains largely a mystery while reading. There also seems to be a great deal of padding - the book could have been shortened without losing any of the content. Ultimately, the book is in need of a good editor.
There are a lot of interesting thoughts and arguments in the book. Lots of points I'd never before considered, lots of angles about religion and The Bible that were new to me, so it wasn't just a retread of the same old anti-apologetics. Because of this, I'd say the book is very much worth a read, but expect to do a lot of skimming - I often wound up skipping entire sections after getting the gist of what they were about.
While Barker's unique perspective informs a great deal of the more interesting aspects of the book, Godless is still deeply flawed. The main problem with it is that it lacks focus - Barker seemed to decide he was only going to write one book, so he put two or three books worth of material in a single book. To make matters worse, it's not particularly well-organized, and the book comes off as something of a mess - a random collection of thoughts.
Each individual chapter is extremely well-written, but where those chapters connect to each other and where the book is going remains largely a mystery while reading. There also seems to be a great deal of padding - the book could have been shortened without losing any of the content. Ultimately, the book is in need of a good editor.
There are a lot of interesting thoughts and arguments in the book. Lots of points I'd never before considered, lots of angles about religion and The Bible that were new to me, so it wasn't just a retread of the same old anti-apologetics. Because of this, I'd say the book is very much worth a read, but expect to do a lot of skimming - I often wound up skipping entire sections after getting the gist of what they were about.
shu_long's review against another edition
3.0
Some chapters were five stars and felt like they should be in a different book. I would, however, recommend this to others. Just for me, certain sections dragged on. I'd already read Jesus, Interrupted by Bart Erkman, so I think it was a bit repetitive for me. That said, the first section was very relatable on a personal level and the book was worth the time just for that, the personal story section.
kevin_shepherd's review against another edition
5.0
“Dan knows deeply what it is like to be a wingnut, a faith-head, a fully paid-up nut job, an all singing, all glossolaling religious fruit bat . . . The socially unacceptable habit of thinking led him directly to realize that his entire life so far had been a time-wasting delusion.” -Richard Dawkins, 2008
I purchased Godless roughly six years ago and for six years it sat on my bookshelf gathering dust. The subtitle, How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists, intrigued me enough to buy the book but not quite enough to actually read the book. Being an ex-southern baptist myself I knew firsthand that the bar for becoming an “evangelical preacher” was set pretty low. Barker may have finally reasoned his way out of the quagmire of superfluous dogma, but that was no guarantee that he could hold the attention of an enlightened, secular audience. My expectations, at least in the beginning, were not high.
“I have decided that the evidences for Christianity are not solid evidences. The bible is an unreliable document, and it is a very uninspiring document. My heart cannot accept what my mind rejects.” -Dan Barker, 1984
Godless is essentially two separate books. The first is an autobiography. Mr Barker recounts his “calling” to become a minister (at age 15) and his subsequent adventures and misadventures in Jesus Land. Somewhere around age 30 the unanswered questions started to arise—Dan calls it his “intellectual itch” that needed scratching—and by the time he was 34 he had admitted to himself that he was a secular, freethinking atheist.
“I did not lose my faith—I gave it up purposely.”
After the intensely personal autobiography comes the second book of Godless, the philosophical treatise on the fallacies and flaws of religious belief—specifically (but not exclusively) Christian belief.
There is an exaltation of reason and a debasement of superstition here quite unlike anything I’ve encountered before. Whereas thinkers like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are adept at dismantling theology from the outside-in, Barker does it from the inside-out. It is a perspective that emanates from familiarity and it speaks to the courage of an individual who chose honesty over hypocrisy even when he had everything to lose.
All 5 stars.
I purchased Godless roughly six years ago and for six years it sat on my bookshelf gathering dust. The subtitle, How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists, intrigued me enough to buy the book but not quite enough to actually read the book. Being an ex-southern baptist myself I knew firsthand that the bar for becoming an “evangelical preacher” was set pretty low. Barker may have finally reasoned his way out of the quagmire of superfluous dogma, but that was no guarantee that he could hold the attention of an enlightened, secular audience. My expectations, at least in the beginning, were not high.
“I have decided that the evidences for Christianity are not solid evidences. The bible is an unreliable document, and it is a very uninspiring document. My heart cannot accept what my mind rejects.” -Dan Barker, 1984
Godless is essentially two separate books. The first is an autobiography. Mr Barker recounts his “calling” to become a minister (at age 15) and his subsequent adventures and misadventures in Jesus Land. Somewhere around age 30 the unanswered questions started to arise—Dan calls it his “intellectual itch” that needed scratching—and by the time he was 34 he had admitted to himself that he was a secular, freethinking atheist.
“I did not lose my faith—I gave it up purposely.”
After the intensely personal autobiography comes the second book of Godless, the philosophical treatise on the fallacies and flaws of religious belief—specifically (but not exclusively) Christian belief.
There is an exaltation of reason and a debasement of superstition here quite unlike anything I’ve encountered before. Whereas thinkers like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are adept at dismantling theology from the outside-in, Barker does it from the inside-out. It is a perspective that emanates from familiarity and it speaks to the courage of an individual who chose honesty over hypocrisy even when he had everything to lose.
All 5 stars.
amarj33t_5ingh's review against another edition
informative
reflective
3.0
I picked this up for what I assumed was its originality of argument against Christianity. But other than Barker's own life-story, a majority of the content is uplifted from Richard Dawkins. An unpleasant surprise and a tiresome read.
remlezar's review against another edition
4.0
A well told, fascinating story of an evangelical preacher turned atheist. Barker begins by detailing his journey in the first half of the book, followed with the philosophical problems of the existence of god, and finishes with his critiques of Christianity.
The critiques and arguments he presents in the book are well stated, clear, and thought provoking. This is a great alternative to books such as "The God Delusion," especially for those who prefer a tad less venom in their reasonings for a godless cosmos. Barker's nearly life long devotion to hardcore Christianity puts him in the perfect position to carefully sit next to those struggling with their faith and say, "Hey, it's okay not to believe. Frankly, that stuff doesn't make a whole lot of sense anyway, when you think about it." It's less heavy handed than Dawkins (who, don't get me wrong, I love), much much less so than Hitchens, and more accessible than Dennett. I have a hard time imagining a more understanding, friendly introduction to the world of atheism/agnosticism/nontheism.
For me personally, I breezed through the autobiographical portion of "Godless" and slowed down after that. As previously noted, his arguments and critiques are eloquently written and easy to understand. It's just that I've heard them all before.
If you don't know a lot about atheism but are curious, read this book cover to cover. Unless you decide to get overzealous, you don't need to read much else on the subject. He does that good of a job covering the subject.
If you're already an atheist looking for something new to read on the subject, you will likely love the first part of this book and appreciate the review of the reasons not to believe at the end.
Either way, great book.
The critiques and arguments he presents in the book are well stated, clear, and thought provoking. This is a great alternative to books such as "The God Delusion," especially for those who prefer a tad less venom in their reasonings for a godless cosmos. Barker's nearly life long devotion to hardcore Christianity puts him in the perfect position to carefully sit next to those struggling with their faith and say, "Hey, it's okay not to believe. Frankly, that stuff doesn't make a whole lot of sense anyway, when you think about it." It's less heavy handed than Dawkins (who, don't get me wrong, I love), much much less so than Hitchens, and more accessible than Dennett. I have a hard time imagining a more understanding, friendly introduction to the world of atheism/agnosticism/nontheism.
For me personally, I breezed through the autobiographical portion of "Godless" and slowed down after that. As previously noted, his arguments and critiques are eloquently written and easy to understand. It's just that I've heard them all before.
If you don't know a lot about atheism but are curious, read this book cover to cover. Unless you decide to get overzealous, you don't need to read much else on the subject. He does that good of a job covering the subject.
If you're already an atheist looking for something new to read on the subject, you will likely love the first part of this book and appreciate the review of the reasons not to believe at the end.
Either way, great book.
banandrew's review against another edition
1.0
Awful. Complete drivel. Do not read. I have no idea why this is so popular.
For being the president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Dan Barker is an incredibly poor writer. I hope, for everyone's sake, he is a better orator.
This book chronicles, as the title implies, the transition of an evangelical minister from fundamentalist Christianity to outspoken atheism. As he tells it in this book, the story went like this:
1) Was raised fundamentalist Christian. Father was a pastor. Did mission trips in high school, became a pastor very young, went around preaching and evangelizing and never questioning anything.
2) Learned that some Christians thought parts of the bible were figurative. Used this as inspiration to learn about what other people might think that is different than what he spent thirty years thinking. Turns out there are a lot of other things besides fundamentalist Christianity.
3) (Two pages after #2) Is now a devout atheist.
4) Writes letters to all of his friends, family, pastors he has known, and is mildly surprised to get a negative reaction!
Unfortunately, this seems to lead Barker to the notion that most people are Christians because they just haven't bothered to think about the possibility that it's not true, and that they would move on to beome atheists if someone would just tell them.
Barker spends a chapter writing about the public debates he holds with prominent Christians or other pastors, and is more than happy to tear apart their arguments by taking concepts to illogical extremes and by pointing and laughing at (admittedly, ridiculous) statements they make. He makes a point about falsifiability, claiming that his atheism is falsifiable but laughing at theists for not accepting alternative evidence:
At one point, Barker tries to argue that the concept of omniscience is self-inconsistent, since knowing everything includes the fact that you know everything, which includes the fact that you know the fact that you know everything, [...]. He describes this as infinite recursion, explaining: "An omniscient being blows the stack. It cannot function." (If he's going to bring computers into it, he might discover that this problem is easily solved with self-pointers.)
He then goes on to argue that the concept of god as outside time is senseless: "There is no way to be 'outside' of time, as if there were an edge or border to it. [...] Time is a dimension, not a thing." Barker would do well to pick up Edwin Abbott's "Flatland", for a very simple explanation of how one can exist outside of space and time.
His explanations for "Why I Am an Atheist" and his critiques of the Bible are pretty entirely paraphrased from Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason". Go read those instead.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for criticizing fundamentalist Christianity. But if you're going to do that, do it correctly and professionally---don't stoop to logical fallacies and making fun of what they say.
For being the president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Dan Barker is an incredibly poor writer. I hope, for everyone's sake, he is a better orator.
This book chronicles, as the title implies, the transition of an evangelical minister from fundamentalist Christianity to outspoken atheism. As he tells it in this book, the story went like this:
1) Was raised fundamentalist Christian. Father was a pastor. Did mission trips in high school, became a pastor very young, went around preaching and evangelizing and never questioning anything.
2) Learned that some Christians thought parts of the bible were figurative. Used this as inspiration to learn about what other people might think that is different than what he spent thirty years thinking. Turns out there are a lot of other things besides fundamentalist Christianity.
3) (Two pages after #2) Is now a devout atheist.
4) Writes letters to all of his friends, family, pastors he has known, and is mildly surprised to get a negative reaction!
Unfortunately, this seems to lead Barker to the notion that most people are Christians because they just haven't bothered to think about the possibility that it's not true, and that they would move on to beome atheists if someone would just tell them.
Barker spends a chapter writing about the public debates he holds with prominent Christians or other pastors, and is more than happy to tear apart their arguments by taking concepts to illogical extremes and by pointing and laughing at (admittedly, ridiculous) statements they make. He makes a point about falsifiability, claiming that his atheism is falsifiable but laughing at theists for not accepting alternative evidence:
If you were to tell me that God predicted to you that next March 14 at 2:27 a.m. a meteorite composed of 82 percent iron, 13 percent nickel and 3 percent iridium, approaching from the southwest and hitting the Earth at an angle of 82 degrees, would strike your house (not mine, of course), penetrating the building, punching a hole through your Navajo rug upstairs and the arm of the couch downstairs, ending up 17.4 inches below the basement floor and weighing 13.5 ounces, and if that happened as predicted, I would take that as serious evidence that atheism is falsified. If Jesus would materialize in front of a debate audience, captured on videotape, and if he were to tell us exactly where to dig in Israel to find the ark of the covenant containing the original stone tablets given to Moses—well, you get the idea. Atheism is exquisitely vulnerable to disproof. Theism is not.
At one point, Barker tries to argue that the concept of omniscience is self-inconsistent, since knowing everything includes the fact that you know everything, which includes the fact that you know the fact that you know everything, [...]. He describes this as infinite recursion, explaining: "An omniscient being blows the stack. It cannot function." (If he's going to bring computers into it, he might discover that this problem is easily solved with self-pointers.)
He then goes on to argue that the concept of god as outside time is senseless: "There is no way to be 'outside' of time, as if there were an edge or border to it. [...] Time is a dimension, not a thing." Barker would do well to pick up Edwin Abbott's "Flatland", for a very simple explanation of how one can exist outside of space and time.
His explanations for "Why I Am an Atheist" and his critiques of the Bible are pretty entirely paraphrased from Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason". Go read those instead.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for criticizing fundamentalist Christianity. But if you're going to do that, do it correctly and professionally---don't stoop to logical fallacies and making fun of what they say.
thehappybooker's review against another edition
3.0
His references to the names and music of the evangelical world of the 70s felt as if we were sitting side by side on a couch, looking at an old scrapbook of shared memories. It's worth a gander if you're from that era and want to see a very different life trajectory than most preachers take.
louiepotterbook's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
reflective
sad
medium-paced
5.0