The Age of Atheists: How We Have Sought to Live Since the Death of God

A history AND a prognosis. Watson is excellent at highlighting, contextualizing, and delineating people and ideas. Highly recommend. Get it.

Peter Watson has authored several very good books, including the brilliant "German Genius' and the impressive 'Ideas'. Both of those efforts combine a remarkable breadth of knowledge with a nuanced sense of history and an appreciation for the complexity of life and thought. In 'The Age of Atheists' he delivers the breadth of knowledge, but sheds the nuance and objective sensibility. While it is a good survey of the Post-Enlightenment search for meaning in what is, for many, a life without an orthodox God, he appears to reveal a staunch anti-religious bias (which is the significant flaw of this book). In doing so he undermines any appearance of objectivity and forfeits any claim upon thoughtful consideration of the human condition and what exactly atheism is an alternative to. Early in this book he offers up a reading of Charles Taylor's 'A Secular Age' and this reading is itself seriously flawed, claiming that Taylor posits, "… a fulfilled life - can be achieved only via religion" (p. 6, a footnote directs us to pages 20 and 44 of 'A Secular Age' where that sentiment can't be found). A fairer reading of Taylor might conclude that Taylor writes that for religious-minded souls the ultimate "fullness" of life is achieved through transcendence and is made possible by their relationship with God, while for non-believers the ultimate "fullness" is achieved entirely within an earthly existence. Contrary to Watson's claim, Taylor does not insist "fullness" is only achievable through religion, but rather that supernatural transcendence, or rising above our corporal lives, is. Watson's attitude toward Taylor is fully revealed by following up his convoluted (and intentionally comic) reading of Taylor with a sarcastic dismissal, "Phew" (p. 6). Watson's dismissal of Taylor reflects his dismissal of all religions, which is made obvious by various comments:- "What are we to make of this state of affairs, in which atheism has the better case …" over religion with its "manifest horrors and absurdities" (p. 11). Well, it may be possible to make a good case for atheism, but Watson never makes it (and if I'm not mistaken, "manifest horrors" have been committed by atheists, too) and instead assumes the conclusion is a priori. Any consideration of religion must admit to "horrors" performed in its name, but one would also think of the many benefits mankind has reaped from persons inspired by their religion.In Watson's own 'German Genius' he writes admiringly of Dietrich Bonhoeffer who, along with about 2,000 Lutheran pastors, organized an alternative church to the Nazi's state church and then he went on to actively participate in resistance efforts (GG, p. 680). He also provides a short account of Albert Schweitzer's life, where his religion inspired him to become a missionary and conducting his life in such a way that he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (GG, p. 681). The list could go on and on from other sources … see Adam Hochschild's 'Bury the Chains' about religion's influence upon the abolition movement or see Martin Gilbert's 'The Righteous' for examples of moral behavior by religious persons during the Holocaust (or Peter Grose's 'A Good Place to Hide" for that matter) … et cetera, et cetera.- "… the absurd, tragic and horrific dimensions of recent religious history" (p. 21). It's fair to assume that Watson is referring to terrorism initiated by radical Islamist terrorists, which is "horrific" but not representative of the vast majority of Muslims who peacefully practice their religion. Can all religious persons be condemned for the acts of a few? One expects more than a Donald Trump view of the world from Watson.- And speaking of the absurd, Watson quotes Dewey, "… moral progress as a matter of increasing sensitivity, increasing responsibility to the needs of a larger and larger variety of people and things." To which Watson appends an apparently personal declarative sentence, "Doing away with religious groupings helps this" (p. 65). So, apparently, diversity is a legitimate goal, as long as it doesn't include anyone who identifies with an organized religion. Really? This antagonistic attitude toward religion goes on and on. You may ask, "What did you expect from a book titled "The Age of Atheists'?" Well, from Peter Watson I expected more, in fact I expected, in his own words, "… an extensive survey of the work of those talented people - artists, novelists" et al, "who have embraced atheism, the death of God, and have sought other ways to live, who have discovered or fashioned other forms of meaning in the world" (p. 22). He has delivered on that intention, but he has wrapped it in a cloak of polemic rhetoric void of any appreciation for the multitude of people who derive "fullness" and meaning in their lives through religion (and who do not commit acts of "horror" in the name of their faith). There is no nuance, no appreciation for the complexity and the dilemmas of modern life. One would think that any full appreciation and consideration of atheism would require a thoughtful consideration of its alternative, not quick dismissal. In weighing religion Watson limits religion to its frailties, and doesn't place any of its benefits on the scales. Watson appears so smug of his point of view that he writes, "The overall intellectual trajectory of the long twentieth century, of modernism and postmodernism, has been to reinforce the argument that there is not - there cannot be - any privileged viewpoint from which to look out upon the world" (p. 535), an ironic comment in that he is privileging his own viewpoint over that of others (because, one suspects, he considers his viewpoint to be so obviously "right" with history). It is Watson who sounds "overbearing" to me (see p. 535 for reference). Returning to Taylor, he writes, "We live in a condition where we cannot help but be aware that there are a number of different construals, views which intelligent, reasonably undeluded people, of good will, can and do disagree on" (SA, p. 11). Taylor concedes that those with a different worldview to his can find "fullness". Watson's apparently closed mind betrays no such good will, and serves to highlight the difference between intelligence and wisdom. Self-righteousness is unpleasant in both religious fundamentalists as well as militant atheists, and human empathy is unlikely to flourish under either of those extremes.Perhaps an ideal to aspire to is to hold a viewpoint (maybe even a faith), without succumbing to self-righteousness, and holding to an orthodoxy without succumbing to intolerance. On those terms Taylor succeeds and Watson is left wanting. If you're an unabashed rooter for Watson's home team, you might assign five stars. If you are looking for more, four stars may be generous.

Comprehensive in scope and ambitious in its aim, I will use this thoughtful book as much for its rich sources as its argument. Watson overturns all stones, even those I reckoned added little to the discussion, in this compendium overview. Man Searching for Meaning would be as descriptive a title as his, even though it would not indicate the two giant sticks he rubs together throughout: religion and secularism.I enjoyed re-reading about thinkers I know and being introduced to those I didn't or knew only by name. It's as if Watson wrote a long series of wikipedia articles about various philosophers, scientists, artists, and theologians - and then wove the articles into a narrative about the search for meaning. It is a buffet that one cannot sample in one sitting. Prepare to have your appetite sated many times.A condensed version of the arc of his argument would be terrific, even if hard to develop. As I read I could imagine nearly any religious or secular person pausing at certain points and exclaiming, "see there - I am right!" Which is one of the things I appreciate about the book.Watson starts with Nietzsche's exclamatory about the death of god. He ends with proposing god is simply an early, and perhaps best retired, method of finding meaning in life. The absence of god doesn't end the search for meaning (nihilism) but stirs our sense of wonder, thinking, improved investigatory tools, and our shared humanity to continue to improve our search. We gain more than we lose in improving our means of understanding. Searching is as profound as finding.

This is a brilliant, erudite book. I am in awe of the knowledge and level of research displayed, like firework on the fourth of July, in this book. Here laid out in readable and entertaining form is a history of thought since Nietzsche rocked the world. It's difficult stuff, way above my abilities to fully understand, but it was a great ride, like sitting on the shoulders of a giant getting a tour of the world and what it means to be human in the 21st century. It's all here, it seems to me, and worthy of repeat readings.

I read Peter Watson’s “The Modern Mind,” “Ideas: From Fire to Freud” and “The Great Divide” and found each of these three books enthralling. They are fantastic meta-narratives of a broad period of time, and in these works Watson displays a masterful ability to pull together information from across varied disciplines. Given my admiration of Watson’s earlier works, I was quite disappointed in “Age of Atheists” and ultimately unable to finish reading the book. “Age of Atheists” does not manage to form a narrative or develop any coherent theory. It reads more like a collection of essays – on George Bernard Shaw, Chekhov, Yeats, Rilke and others – than a well-structured book. There may be some parts worth skimming, but as a whole I found the book disappointing.

A captivating story of contest, failure, and success, The Age of Atheists sweeps up William James and the pragmatists; Sigmund Freud and psychoanalysis; Pablo Picasso, James Joyce, and Albert Camus; the poets of World War One and the novelists of World War Two; scientists, from Albert Einstein to Stephen Hawking; and the rise of the new Atheists—Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. This is a story of courage, of the thousands of individuals who, sometimes at great risk, devoted tremendous creative energies to devising ways to fill a godless world with self-reliance, invention, hope, wit, and enthusiasm. Watson explains how atheism has evolved and reveals that the greatest works of art and literature, of science and philosophy of the last century can be traced to the rise of secularism.

A good read from Mr. Watson.

I enjoyed this book. It is a superb summary of 20th century thought about God and godlessness, and the implications this holds for our view of ourselves, and how our behaviour can be grounded if there is no god to ground them in.It shows how many people, across the world, and in many different fields- art, novels, philosophy, religion, theology, architecture, came to respond to Nietzsche's bold declaration that "God is dead, and we have killed him." It is a tremendous synthesis of many themes and currents of thinking, many of which are still active today.It explains well the consequences of the death of "grand narratives" (although this view is itself something of a grand narrative...) and how people have learned to become more proximate and limited in their thinking. There's something to be said for this- it's an Aristotelian pragmatism- some reasonably justifiable action needs to be made now- as opposed to the often rather idealised Platonic forms of abstract ideas such as Justice, Health, Morality etc. Such ideas are fascinating, but get more elusive the more you try to define them completely and competently. God can be seen as the biggest Platonic form of them all- and in the twentieth century such large ideas came to be seen as untrustworthy, and indefinable. The logical positivists in Austria went as far as to say nothing meaningful could be said about God.This book explains a lot about our current age and how we have arrived at where we are. It's a great book for history, and reflection, and also recognition of current limits to our thoughts and ideas.It shows clearly that where we are now is not a complete intellectual ending, but this book is a good review of progress to date. It's written fairly and accurately, and without imposing any one viewpoint on the ideas it discusses. It's more like a map of relationships between ideas than an argument towards a particular outcome. It's a better book for using this writing strategy.This book can be recommended to all those of us- whether theistic or atheistic- who want to understand where our current ideas have come from, and are willing to reflect on why we choose the particular ones we hold.

A very good read - a summary of the problems following the death of God. But grossly over-optimistic about the future.

Although the books title would seem to suggest just a trace of nihilism this would be a mistake. The whole theme of the book is more along the lines of "Life after God". Maybe, as has been said, if we do not believe in God we will believe in anything, yet this implied suggestion of superficiality in such 'non believers" is swept away by Peter Watson's fine guidance. What many have found instead of "God" is a life of genuine affirmation. Throughout I felt intimations of certain "eastern" thought-forms that further illuminated the entire text and would have supported and amplified much found there. "Chop wood, carry water" etc etc ! Irrespective of this, this is a fine book. And for Christians, yes indeed, as Meister Eckhart has said, pray God to free me from God. He shall die that we might live.A very positive book and well worth reading slowly. And rereading.