I thought it was pretty interesting. It's basically a primer of secular humanism. Epstein goes into the history of humanist thought, from Spinoza, Jefferson and Franklin on up to the present day.

He also makes a case for working with progressive religious people on social issues and charity work, etc. I've had some bad experiences with that personally, but I can see where it would be helpful for others. Certainly those who live on the US coasts, for example.

This book got my husband and me talking about possibly attending a meeting of our local humanist society. Maybe even with our daughter... ( )

I thought it was pretty interesting. It's basically a primer of secular humanism. Epstein goes into the history of humanist thought, from Spinoza, Jefferson and Franklin on up to the present day.

He also makes a case for working with progressive religious people on social issues and charity work, etc. I've had some bad experiences with that personally, but I can see where it would be helpful for others. Certainly those who live on the US coasts, for example.

This book got my husband and me talking about possibly attending a meeting of our local humanist society. Maybe even with our daughter... ( )

A good overview of moderate Humanism. That is a religiosly tolerant Humanism. Not in any way to be confused with the New Athiesm movement. Epstein is grounded and good but isn't quite old enough to be cranky. He throws out a few feights but basically allows dogmatic religious thinkers a leg to stand on. Maybe he'll get angrier as he ages. I liked some of the sections on the history, especially leading up to Existentialism. Way more could have been done to explore the consequences of Humanism. ( )

Religious people who've been brought up with the belief that all morality comes ultimately from God sometimes have difficulty with the idea that it's possible for atheists to be good people. Without a god to answer to, the argument goes, there's not much stop you from committing rape, murder, theft, or any other nasty act that might enter your head. And if you don't believe in a Higher Power, then clearly you've got nothing good to live for, and are unlikely to spend your time doing anything but wallowing in decadent hedonism.

It's all nonsense, of course. Atheists don't have any higher proportion of axe murderers than any other segment of the population, and I personally have never attended a single depraved orgy. No, most of us nonbelievers have our own moral compasses, and it is in fact entirely possible to base a moral philosophy on compassion and respect for one's fellow humans, and on the desire to make life as satisfying and meaningful as possible for ourselves and those around us, without reference to divine edicts

This, more or less, is Humanism, and it's the subject of this book. Author Greg Epstein, a Humanist chaplain at Harvard University, discusses such topics as Humanist ethics, the historical roots of Humanism, different ideas about what it means to live a meaningful life without a god, the potential for Humanism to play a community-building role in people's lives in the same way that religions organizations do, and the importance of Humanists participating in interfaith understanding and cooperation.

That last is especially worth taking note of. Epstein, unlike many of the so-called "New Atheist" authors, does not regard religion as an enemy. He has little liking for the more extreme and intolerant varieties of religion, but he regards liberal congregations of any faith as the natural allies of Humanists. He's also not interested in arguing the existence or non-existence of God or engaging in coldly logical debate, preferring to focus on the more human, emotional aspects of what it means to live a good life, and on defining Humanists in a positive way based on what they believe in, rather than what they don't.

I do have a few quibbles here and there. Most notably, I look a little askance at the sleight of hand it takes to get that "one billion" figure in the subtitle. Epstein starts off the book by coming very close to defining a "Humanist" as anyone who does not believe in a well-defined deity but who does possess a sense of morality, regardless of how they self-identify. But the set of Humanist principles he later describes, broad though they might be, are surely not subscribed to by all of the billion (or, more realistically, half-billion) people fitting that description, especially inasmuch as they also embody a liberal, progressive political philosophy. In fairness, Epstein never actually gives the impression that he thinks he's speaking for all non-theists everywhere. But I think a more careful exploration of his definitions would probably have been a good thing.

I do in general agree with those principles myself, however, and overall I do like Epstein's clearly heartfelt attitude, even if we may disagree on a few details. Some of his descriptions of the part a Humanist community can play in people's ordinary lives (e.g. wedding and funeral services) are honestly quite moving, and I say that as someone who is not particularly big on ritual and who always vaguely distrusts the word "community."

Still, I don't think there was all that much here that was really new or particularly revelatory for me, personally. But I think it may be a good starting place for people who have abandoned or are questioning the faith they were raised with and struggling with the question of what that means for their own moral lives. It also might be of interest for those looking for a softer, less confrontational alternative to atheist writers like Dawkins and Harris. ( )

Epstein, a Humanist chaplain at Harvard University, makes the convincing and quite reasonable case that the nonreligious are just as capable as the religious of leading ethical and moral lives. Epstein's thoughtful tone is a refreshing alternative to the obnoxious approaches taken by "New Atheist" authors Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. A favorite quote: "Most nonreligious people are not antireligious!" ( )