Mitchell Stephens

A look at the history of freethought and the implications of atheism for liberty and freedom. The author does only a marginal job of supporting his thesis, but to his credit, he also addresses those that appear to be in violation of his thesis - Stalin, Mao, etc. Some of the problems with the book include the superficial treatment of the settling of America - the common theme of coming here for religious freedom while failing to note that the freedom they wanted was the freedom to force others to believe their way. Also, he devotes an entire chapter to Ernestine Rose, while her contemporary, Robert Ingersoll, who filled more halls with more people and left behind a larger legacy, was relegated to three paragraphs that seemed almost like an afterthought. Plus the standard rendition of the Scopes trial (a win for evolution) was followed by the statement that evolution was quietly put into science textbooks; you don't have to read too many authoritative works on this trial to discover that it was in fact the opposite. For a beginning introduction, however, this was a good work, and the author writes well. If what you want is solid support for his basic premise, he needs to go deeper.… (mais)

This is an interesting and calmly written book on Atheism’s development. Stephens tries to document about how its ideas, when not tolerated, were still able to be expressed. ‘Religion’ is the enemy of Atheism since although capable of good effects ‘often’ keep ancient, narrow minded precepts and prejudices alive well past their time. Stephens says that his argument is that atheism has helped to form our view of the world (p. 12). Our view, according to Stephen, is a modern world where the basic human compulsion to question is based in disbelief. He sees disbelief as capable of being positive and joyful which is how secular humanism used to be defined. He says that even during the Middle Ages there was a certain amount of folk disbelief which existed at the margins of society.
There are problems with Stephens’ methodology. He juxtaposes science with the act of believing which is a modern phenomenon which arose with Luther and the reformers but was hinted at earlier by the Latin Averroists with their doctrine of double truth. This false opposition is not the Roman Catholic position, since science is not opposed to faith (theology) but a different science with the same source (God) leading to the same objective goal (truth).
Stephens uses a deconstructive approach in the book towards religion. Atheism is the element in Life that undermines Religion’s attempts to erase out anything contrary to religion’s aims. This is the structure he uses but this parallel doesn't fit naturally. Nietzsche in The Birth of Tragedy opposes rationality with irrationality. Here Stephens places atheism in the irrationality place holder even as he holds for atheism being more rational than religious belief. Things are switched, but it’s his book. In one of the more humorous chapters Stephens says that the French reign of terror wasn’t caused by atheism but was a political movement which had more similarities to religious fanaticism. That was good for a snicker.
Stephens does not mention a document which the Roman Catholic church published in 1965 and is the only one of its kind in the world by a major religious body. In Gaudium et spes, Vatican II looked at atheism explicitly (atheistic existentialism) and how people of faith relate to atheists. Together Catholic and atheists “…should help to establish right order in this world where all live together. This certainly cannot be done without a dialogue that is sincere and prudent.”
The argument that atheism helps form our modern worldview is a low bar to set. To say that questioning itself is a lower form of ‘atheism’ is not too convincing. I found this book worthwhile and helped me to see where this historian saw atheism in the larger scheme of modern thought.
A worthwhile book if you have time to read it unhurried. It is not without flaws but this author is someone willing to have a conversation about faith and knowledge in the modern world. Palgrave has produced another beautifully constructed book. End notes, Index.… (mais)

Rating: 4 of 5

Stephens mentioned in the Acknowledgments that Imagine There's No Heaven was a decade-long process, which, within the first chapter, was immediately apparent. (40+ pages in the Notes along with multiple footnotes.) It took me a few chapters to adjust to his narrative style: He'd start off with a more modern "character" or "star" of disbelief / atheism then jump back a couple decades or a few hundred years or a thousand years to someone else, who possibly influenced the person he had previously started discussing before jumping back in time.

Stephens also presented two sides of an argument - sometimes within a few sentences of one another - so that I had to pay close attention if I wanted to discern his personal take on a particular argument from his sharing one side's perspective or simply asking questions for readers to ponder.

For the most part, Stephens managed to report history rather than sprinkle "truths" in among personal commentary. In other words, his personal beliefs did not overcome or overshadow the facts. Since I was unfamiliar with the history of disbelief, and many of its lesser known "stars", I found this book a thought-provoking, albeit dense, introduction.

Not recommended to readers in the mood for something light - there's way too much information, jumping around in time, and open-ended questions for this to be mainstream entertainment. Nor would I recommend it to anyone who's already performed their own extensive research in the subject and its history - those individuals would probably find this book too basic and/or redundant.… (mais)

A dense study of the history of atheism. It covers what seems like every person, both real and fictional, who uttered a pro-secular idea.
For his thoroughness in research, the author must be commended. For the reader who wants this much research on the subject, it's a must. I'd say it's not for the casual reader or someone looking for an entertaining read though. It took me a really long time to finish because the author's style of bouncing around through history wasn't my favorite. He'd begin discussing an interesting person and two paragraphs later be back to discussing the Ancient Greeks.… (mais)