SevenTypes of Atheism by John Gray

[SusanDoris]

A friend, who reads the New York (I think) Times Literary Supplement every week, has just rung to tell me about a new book called, 'Seven Types of Atheism' by John Gray. Only about 170 pages and from what she was telling me it sounds very interesting. I've e-mailed Waterstones in Lymington to ask them to order a copy for me, but I wonder - has anyone here read it? Any opinions?
It will not be available in audio or braille yet, but I know my reader will enjoy reading it as I shall enjoy listening.

[BeRational]

A friend, who reads the New York (I think) Times Literary Supplement every week, has just rung to tell me about a new book called, 'Seven Types of Atheism' by John Gray. Only about 170 pages and from what she was telling me it sounds very interesting. I've e-mailed Waterstones in Lymington to ask them to order a copy for me, but I wonder - has anyone here read it? Any opinions?
It will not be available in audio or braille yet, but I know my reader will enjoy reading it as I shall enjoy listening.

I am not sure how there can me more than one type.

Someone who does not believe in a supernatural god.

[Nearly Sane]

Posted this last year about it. At that stage I hadn't read it. Having now done so I agree with a lot of the review that it is a partial approach from Gray but as he is really a polemicist that isn't that surprising. As with most of Gray's work, it is well written but in my opinion badly thought out as the conclusion leads the work rather than the other way round.


http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15481.msg728652#msg728652


I don't really understand BeRational's idea that there can't have different types of Atheism as it is perfectly possible to be an atheist and have other attributes, e.g. being a humanist, and I am not a humanist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gray is very critical about new atheism, four horsemanism, Pinkerism….whatever you want to call that community of strident public atheists who write forewords and afterwords of each others books and I should imagine he would receive short shrift from a forum that has it's roots there.

[Nearly Sane]

Gray is very critical about new atheism, four horsemanism, Pinkerism….whatever you want to call that community of strident public atheists who write forewords and afterwords of each others books and I should imagine he would receive short shrift from a forum that has it's roots there.

The forum has its roots in the BBC forum. That is it.

[SusanDoris]

NS
thank you for reply, and for link to last year's post. I'm sorry the author does not remain detached and impartial but as it is only a short book, I hope there is enough objective content too!

[Nearly Sane]

NS
thank you for reply, and for link to last year's post. I'm sorry the author does not remain detached and impartial but as it is only a short book, I hope there is enough objective content too!

I wouldn't read Gray for objectivity. He is still worth reading. Same with Dawkins if you exclude the purely scientific books.

[BeRational]

Posted this last year about it. At that stage I hadn't read it. Having now done so I agree with a lot of the review that it is a partial approach from Gray but as he is really a polemicist that isn't that surprising. As with most of Gray's work, it is well written but in my opinion badly thought out as the conclusion leads the work rather than the other way round.


http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15481.msg728652#msg728652


I don't really understand BeRational's idea that there can't have different types of Atheism as it is perfectly possible to be an atheist and have other attributes, e.g. being a humanist, and I am not a humanist.

True, but the other attributes are nothing to do with atheism.

If you are an atheist the only thing we know about you is that you do not believe in a god.
It tells you nothing about any other beliefs or interests.