Status
Available
Call number
Collection
Publication
München Piper 2007
Description
Religion & Spirituality. Nonfiction. HTML: This hugely controversial work demonstrates convincingly how the world's three major monotheistic religions�??Christianity, Judaism, and Islam�??have attempted to suppress knowledge, science, pleasure, and desire, condemning nonbelievers often to death. Not since Nietzsche has a work so groundbreaking and explosive appeared, to question the role of the world's three major monotheistic religions. If Nietzsche proclaimed the death of God, Onfray starts from the premise that not only is God still very much alive but increasingly controlled by fundamentalists who pose a danger to the human race. Documenting the ravages from religious intolerance over the centuries, the author makes a strong case against the three religions for their obsession with purity and their contempt for reason and intelligence, individual freedom, desire and the human body, sexuality and pleasure, and for women in general. In their place, all three demand faith and belief, obedience and submission, extol the "next life" to the detriment of the here and now. Tightly argued, this is a work that is sure to stir debate on the role of religion in American society�??and polit… (more)
User reviews
LibraryThing member John
In Defense of Atheism is the sort of book that will anger religious believers who will accuse the author of prejudice and hatred of religion, while for non-believers (among whom I count myself) it will clarify and reinforce many things they already feel about the weaknesses and pernicious, negative
Onfray makes a distinction between what he calls Christian atheism that engages the god-denier who is just the flip side of the priestly coin, as opposed to atheistic atheism which is more than just the denial of God in calling for a new set of ideas to place morality and politics on a new base, one that is post-Christian. The book sets out to accomplish three objectives: deconstruction of the three monotheisms, deconstruction of Christianity, and deconstruction of theocracy. On the first point, despite perceived differences, Onfary sees a variety of shared fundamentals among the three monotheisms: a sequence of waves of hatred set in violet motion throughout history; hatred of intelligence in favour of submission and obedience; hatred of life coupled with a passionate and unshakable obsession with death; hatred of the here and now, consistently undervalued in favour of a beyond; hatred of the corruptible body while the soul is invested with all the higher qualities and virtues; and hatred of women, condemnation of liberated sexuality and sex for pleasure.
The list above and the following quote give a pretty good idea of the tone of the book:
"Christianity grew on the fertile soil of collective hysteria: a psychological term for the fears and volatile state of the masses. It rooted itself in fallacious principles; it put forward lies, fiction, and myths and the conferred on them the stamp of authenticity. The repetition of a sum of errors by the greatest number eventually becomes a corpus of truths that is sacrosanct. Questioning those truths could be dangerous for freethinkers—from the Christian bonfires of the day before yesterday to the Muslim fatwas of today."
Onfray does not concede that Jesus was a real figure (noting the almost complete lack of references except two or three written many years after Christ was supposed to have lived). For Onfray, Jesus was:
"...a concept. His whole reality resides in that definition. Certainly he existed, but not as a historical figure...He existed as a crystallization of the aspirations of his era and of the reverence for the miraculous common to the authors of antiquity, articulated in the performative register that creates by naming....The believers invented their creation, then made it the object of a cult: the very essence of willing self-deception."
Onfray consistently argues for the application of reason and intelligence in assessing the likelihood of events or even beliefs. He decries the violence sanctioned and even encouraged in the great texts of the Bible, the Torah, the Koran (he is especially hard on the latter), draws parallels between the Catholic church and totalitarian systems, including the close links between the Catholic church and the Nazis (which the church has still not recognized nor apologized for) and more recently the utterly shameful performance of the church in Rwanda, he details church support through the centuries for ethnocide, genocide, slavery, he deconstructs the contradictions in Bible, and other texts written sometimes centuries after the events with clear political agendas, and asks how these can be taken as the inerrant word of God (for greater detail on this see also Bart Ehrman: Misquoting Jesus).
How to move forward? This is more difficult. Onfray calls for the "injection of reason into human consciences", a move away from "religious secularism" under which adherents cherry-pick from religious books, beliefs, activities to construct a benevolent god or system. Onfray wants a "post-Christian secularism" that moves beyond relativism and defends the Enlightenment's values against magical propositions.
"For by decreeing the equality of all religions and of those who reject them, as today's regnant brand of secularism recommends, we condone relativism: equality of magical thinking and rational thought, of fable, myth, and reasoned argument, of thaumaturgic discourse and scientific thinking, of the Torah and Descarte's Discourse on Method, the New Testament and the Critique of Pure Reason, the Koran and the Genealogy of Morality. We declare Moses the equal of Descartes, Jesus of Kant, and Muhammad of Nietzsche."
The book could have done with some tighter editing as Onfray repeats himself in a few places, and once in awhile he slips into academic jargon that made me re-read a sentence two or three times to get at what he was saying. And, as I said at the beginning: this book will infuriate some and satisfy others, such as me.
Show More
effects of religion. Onfray makes a distinction between what he calls Christian atheism that engages the god-denier who is just the flip side of the priestly coin, as opposed to atheistic atheism which is more than just the denial of God in calling for a new set of ideas to place morality and politics on a new base, one that is post-Christian. The book sets out to accomplish three objectives: deconstruction of the three monotheisms, deconstruction of Christianity, and deconstruction of theocracy. On the first point, despite perceived differences, Onfary sees a variety of shared fundamentals among the three monotheisms: a sequence of waves of hatred set in violet motion throughout history; hatred of intelligence in favour of submission and obedience; hatred of life coupled with a passionate and unshakable obsession with death; hatred of the here and now, consistently undervalued in favour of a beyond; hatred of the corruptible body while the soul is invested with all the higher qualities and virtues; and hatred of women, condemnation of liberated sexuality and sex for pleasure.
The list above and the following quote give a pretty good idea of the tone of the book:
"Christianity grew on the fertile soil of collective hysteria: a psychological term for the fears and volatile state of the masses. It rooted itself in fallacious principles; it put forward lies, fiction, and myths and the conferred on them the stamp of authenticity. The repetition of a sum of errors by the greatest number eventually becomes a corpus of truths that is sacrosanct. Questioning those truths could be dangerous for freethinkers—from the Christian bonfires of the day before yesterday to the Muslim fatwas of today."
Onfray does not concede that Jesus was a real figure (noting the almost complete lack of references except two or three written many years after Christ was supposed to have lived). For Onfray, Jesus was:
"...a concept. His whole reality resides in that definition. Certainly he existed, but not as a historical figure...He existed as a crystallization of the aspirations of his era and of the reverence for the miraculous common to the authors of antiquity, articulated in the performative register that creates by naming....The believers invented their creation, then made it the object of a cult: the very essence of willing self-deception."
Onfray consistently argues for the application of reason and intelligence in assessing the likelihood of events or even beliefs. He decries the violence sanctioned and even encouraged in the great texts of the Bible, the Torah, the Koran (he is especially hard on the latter), draws parallels between the Catholic church and totalitarian systems, including the close links between the Catholic church and the Nazis (which the church has still not recognized nor apologized for) and more recently the utterly shameful performance of the church in Rwanda, he details church support through the centuries for ethnocide, genocide, slavery, he deconstructs the contradictions in Bible, and other texts written sometimes centuries after the events with clear political agendas, and asks how these can be taken as the inerrant word of God (for greater detail on this see also Bart Ehrman: Misquoting Jesus).
How to move forward? This is more difficult. Onfray calls for the "injection of reason into human consciences", a move away from "religious secularism" under which adherents cherry-pick from religious books, beliefs, activities to construct a benevolent god or system. Onfray wants a "post-Christian secularism" that moves beyond relativism and defends the Enlightenment's values against magical propositions.
"For by decreeing the equality of all religions and of those who reject them, as today's regnant brand of secularism recommends, we condone relativism: equality of magical thinking and rational thought, of fable, myth, and reasoned argument, of thaumaturgic discourse and scientific thinking, of the Torah and Descarte's Discourse on Method, the New Testament and the Critique of Pure Reason, the Koran and the Genealogy of Morality. We declare Moses the equal of Descartes, Jesus of Kant, and Muhammad of Nietzsche."
The book could have done with some tighter editing as Onfray repeats himself in a few places, and once in awhile he slips into academic jargon that made me re-read a sentence two or three times to get at what he was saying. And, as I said at the beginning: this book will infuriate some and satisfy others, such as me.
Show Less
LibraryThing member amandrake
This is a good medium-depth overview for the intelligent person whose philosophical background is spotty (for example, me). It doesn't go into great detail but does go beyond the historical.
As an unbeliever myself, I find much of his argument easy to grasp, though on several occasions I disagreed
I can't speak for Catholics, but I certainly know some Christians who very much believe in such things. But, again, the point isn't crucial.
There are a few places where my disagreement is more pertinent. Onfray writes "...by decreeing the equality of all religions and of those who reject them, as today's regnant brand of secularism recommends, we condone relativism: equality of magical thinking and rational thought, of fable, myth and reasoned argument... we declare Moses the equal of Descartes, Jesus of Kant, and Muhammad of Nietzsche." This is not my experience or my understanding of secularism, but perhaps I'm out of touch with the regnant brand of secularism. ("regnant" = currently having the greatest influence; dominant. I had to look it up.) I would say that a secularist wouldn't argue for the equality of these forms of belief - ie, irrational religion and rational thought are the same - but would instead argue for the equality of the persons who believe or do not believe. Therefore I could argue for the superiority of using logical thought processes, but not for the superiority of the persons who use them.
I think the translation may be slightly less exact than in could be, or perhaps it's exact to the point of losing the spirit of the words. A few times I felt that the sense of a phrase got lost in the grammar.
Even if the book weren't itself worth reading (which it is) it is certainly worth it for the citations and descriptive bibliography. My copy is full of notes for books to look up and/or add to my Powell's wishlist. He doesn't come close to covering most aspects in depth, but he does point you in the right direction.
As an unbeliever myself, I find much of his argument easy to grasp, though on several occasions I disagreed
Show More
completely; mostly, however, they weren't points that were crucial to his thesis. For example, he where he states "The existence of hell, paradise, and purgatory, with their associated geography and their own logic? The existence of a limbo in which the souls of infants dead before baptism stagnate?No one still subscribes to such twaddle, even (and especially) those many Catholics who fervently attend Sunday Mass."I can't speak for Catholics, but I certainly know some Christians who very much believe in such things. But, again, the point isn't crucial.
There are a few places where my disagreement is more pertinent. Onfray writes "...by decreeing the equality of all religions and of those who reject them, as today's regnant brand of secularism recommends, we condone relativism: equality of magical thinking and rational thought, of fable, myth and reasoned argument... we declare Moses the equal of Descartes, Jesus of Kant, and Muhammad of Nietzsche." This is not my experience or my understanding of secularism, but perhaps I'm out of touch with the regnant brand of secularism. ("regnant" = currently having the greatest influence; dominant. I had to look it up.) I would say that a secularist wouldn't argue for the equality of these forms of belief - ie, irrational religion and rational thought are the same - but would instead argue for the equality of the persons who believe or do not believe. Therefore I could argue for the superiority of using logical thought processes, but not for the superiority of the persons who use them.
I think the translation may be slightly less exact than in could be, or perhaps it's exact to the point of losing the spirit of the words. A few times I felt that the sense of a phrase got lost in the grammar.
Even if the book weren't itself worth reading (which it is) it is certainly worth it for the citations and descriptive bibliography. My copy is full of notes for books to look up and/or add to my Powell's wishlist. He doesn't come close to covering most aspects in depth, but he does point you in the right direction.
Show Less
LibraryThing member ParadigmTree
The book explores atheism and the "big three" religions from a philosophical perspective. The case for atheism is mostly built up by examining the negative aspects of religion. The author makes a compelling case against the irrationality of religion, and harm that has been caused in the name of
Show More
God. I enjoyed the writing style, especially Onfray's ability to distill complexities into clear and succinct points. However some of the vocabulary and concepts referenced would not make it the most accessible book to a reader generally unfamiliar with philosophy. I also think that Onfray could have provided more detail on post-christian secularism and atheism itself, and not just focus on how undesirable religion is. Show Less
LibraryThing member KayDekker
The combination of clearly-argued reason and passion against what the author sees as at best the folly and at worst the wickedness of the principal monotheistic systems makes this a compelling read. It didn't "convert" me from agnosticism to atheism, but I cannot fault the justice and severity of
Show More
Onfray's arguments. I only wish that my French were good enough for me not to have to rely on a translation. Show Less
LibraryThing member cdogzilla
Informed and fun, with the occasional lapse into that irritating (peculiarly French?) po-mo lit-crit mumbo-jumbo, but definitely worth reading.
Now I want to learn more about Christovao Ferreira and Jean Meslier.
Now I want to learn more about Christovao Ferreira and Jean Meslier.
LibraryThing member knightlight777
This is the type of book I "believe" one has to read several times to absorb the vast array of ideas expressed. Obviously "true believers" of the garden variety religions will not touch this small tome. Of course if they are looking for material to fuel their fires of righteous indignation they
Many of the ideas supporting the arguments of those who don't quite get the draw of mainstream religions appeal are of course here. Onfray goes even further in pointing a finger at the atheists, a belief system in its own right, who use the same shared religious persecution principles. There is something for everyone here in the arguments especially the devoted non-believers.
Show More
will have come to the right place.Many of the ideas supporting the arguments of those who don't quite get the draw of mainstream religions appeal are of course here. Onfray goes even further in pointing a finger at the atheists, a belief system in its own right, who use the same shared religious persecution principles. There is something for everyone here in the arguments especially the devoted non-believers.
Show Less
LibraryThing member elimatta
On a second reading after a few years, I have revised my opinion. I think I can see its weaknesses now, There are some factual assertions which are simply false. Among some examples, he states that no Christian or Muslim thinkers condemn the violence and misogyny so evident in the churches and
He then seeks to base a new epistemology on Bentham's utilitarianism with its very obvious weakness of oppression of the minority for the benefit of the majority, the greatest number.
I enjoyed the first reding. Not so much the second.
Show More
mosques. That's simply false: has he never heard of Christian pacifists? I'm persuaded by atheism/agnosticism, but this falsity really weakens the book, making its opponents into straw people. Also, a second reading shows how wedded he is to Foucault, not surprising in a French thinker. Knowledge is inextricably linked to power, says Foucault, and Christian power in the west pollutes all medical and other knowledge. Assertion, assertion. Is there no room for independent knowledge? How else did the Enlightenment emerge?He then seeks to base a new epistemology on Bentham's utilitarianism with its very obvious weakness of oppression of the minority for the benefit of the majority, the greatest number.
I enjoyed the first reding. Not so much the second.
Show Less
Subjects
Language
Original language
French
Original publication date
2005 (original French)
2007 (English translation)
ISBN
9783492249492