The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality

By Andre Comte-Sponville.

I'm on page 62 of this little book so far. Written for the lay-reader (ie, non-professional philosopher), Comte-Sponville's work is a contemplative and personal examination of atheism, morals, and history as it regards the building of ethics. Unlike many now-popular works on atheism, it does not exhort a complete abandonment of Judeao-Christian traditions as far as a code of living goes, rather he posits that we are best served by building on these materials- the teachings, he avers, are valid with or without God. I am inclined to agree with many of his ideas so far, though not totally with his interpretation of political history (into which he does not go deeply, so it is almost a non-issue. At least at this point).

A run-down of the contents (and questions):

I. Can We Do Without Religion?

II. Does God Exist?

III. Can There Be an Atheist Sprituality?

Conclusion: Love and Truth.


So far he has taken both nihilism and post-modernism to task -citing the rejection by post-modernists of the ideals of the Enlightenment, to wit- the denial of knowledge and humanity by its insistence that it is impossible to know truth, or that there even is such a thing as truth. While not proclaiming that there is One Big Truth, Comte-Sponville decries the idea which follows so often in that line that since we can not find it, it is not worth looking for. Nihilism and Post-Modernism are, it seems, linked in their common denial of history and their lack of will to affect the future. (After all, if there is no way to know the past, what business do we have trying to do anything in the future?)

Interestingly, he delineates two kinds of Barbarism-

There are two types of barbarism, however, which it is important not to conflate: The first, irreligious, is merely generalized or triumphant nihilism; the second, fanaticized, attempts to impose its faith on others through use of force. Nihilism leads to the former and leaves the field open to the latter.

The dangers of these barbarisms are clear- in the case of the first, there is an unrootedness, a committment only to the whims of the holder, and a denial of ideal or ideologies, an abandonment of culture and cummunity in toto. Indeed, the very idea of culture is antithetical to nihilism.

I think of a number of people in the "atheist world" who do not appeal to reason in favour of atheism, but spend their time in the excoriation of religions, and people who have faith in any form, without regard to whom they are alienating, or why, and with the idea only of shouting down any questions or challenges (Hitchens, particularly of late, as well as many angry forum participants). There is often to be found the expression that religion and faith need to be utterly abandoned, that they have contributed nothing to human thought or history (I know, but what is history, anyway- yes, yes.).

In the case of the latter- we see it in many ways:

They know everything there is to know about Truth and Goodness. Of what use is science to them? Of what use democracy? Everything worth knowing is in the Book. One need only believe and obey. Between Darwin and Genesis, human rights and Sharia, the rights of peoples and the Torah, they have taken sides once and for all.

Examples greet us on the front pages of the papers every day.