ajsterkel's review
3.0
I think this is a case of “It’s not you, it’s me.”
Losing Faith in Faith is a collection of various atheist-themed essays and articles written by Dan Barker, a former fundamentalist Christian preacher. They range from personal essays, to letters, to Bible analysis, to examinations of governments, to secular wedding vows. There is a lot of stuff going on here.
I came across this book on a used book website, and it immediately caught my attention because I’ve been skeptical of religion for my entire life. I have no issues with people who practice religion (as long as they’re reasonable about it), but I’ve never found a religion that makes sense to me. That’s why the title of this book intrigued me. I wanted to know how Dan Barker changed his beliefs so radically.
Unfortunately, the book isn’t what I expected. The title and synopsis made me think it was a memoir. Only a few of the chapters are about the author’s life. The rest of it is a very repetitive critique of Christianity. The author makes the same points over and over in multiple essays. (Probably because the essays were published separately before they were collected for this book.) I agree with most of the author’s arguments, but I didn’t learn much from him. The condescending tone of the essays is a huge turn-off. If you’ve been a religious skeptic for as long as I have, then you probably already know almost everything the author talks about. And, you’ve probably heard these same critiques of Christianity phrased in ways that are much less insulting to Christians.
I do think this book would be helpful for “baby” atheists. When I was a kid/teenager, almost all of my friends were Christian, and I had to defend my lack of beliefs fairly often. One girl even told me that if I didn’t start going to church, I’d grow up to be a serial killer. (Spoiler alert: I haven’t killed anyone yet.) Back then, I would have appreciated the chapters that explain the difference between religion and morality. You can be a moral person without practicing a religion. Religion doesn’t make people moral.
I did learn a few things from this book. I like the examination of countries that don’t have a separation of church and state. The author explains how the lack of separation impacts (or doesn’t impact) the lives of people. I also learned the true meaning of “Xmas.” When I was a kid, someone told me that Pagans and atheists invented the word “Xmas” so they could celebrate Christmas without “Christ.” I accepted that explanation without questioning it. But, it’s wrong. The “X” in “Xmas” comes from a Greek symbol, which means “Christ.” Basically, “Xmas” means the exact same thing as “Christmas.”
Interesting, right?
So, I did learn some stuff from Losing Faith, but I wish the book had focused more on the author’s life. He’s a Native American, and his grandmother was their tribe’s historian. I would have been interested to hear how his family went from polytheistic, to fundamentalist Christian, to atheist. I think I would have learned more from that than from what’s actually in the book.
Losing Faith in Faith is a collection of various atheist-themed essays and articles written by Dan Barker, a former fundamentalist Christian preacher. They range from personal essays, to letters, to Bible analysis, to examinations of governments, to secular wedding vows. There is a lot of stuff going on here.
I came across this book on a used book website, and it immediately caught my attention because I’ve been skeptical of religion for my entire life. I have no issues with people who practice religion (as long as they’re reasonable about it), but I’ve never found a religion that makes sense to me. That’s why the title of this book intrigued me. I wanted to know how Dan Barker changed his beliefs so radically.
Unfortunately, the book isn’t what I expected. The title and synopsis made me think it was a memoir. Only a few of the chapters are about the author’s life. The rest of it is a very repetitive critique of Christianity. The author makes the same points over and over in multiple essays. (Probably because the essays were published separately before they were collected for this book.) I agree with most of the author’s arguments, but I didn’t learn much from him. The condescending tone of the essays is a huge turn-off. If you’ve been a religious skeptic for as long as I have, then you probably already know almost everything the author talks about. And, you’ve probably heard these same critiques of Christianity phrased in ways that are much less insulting to Christians.
I do think this book would be helpful for “baby” atheists. When I was a kid/teenager, almost all of my friends were Christian, and I had to defend my lack of beliefs fairly often. One girl even told me that if I didn’t start going to church, I’d grow up to be a serial killer. (Spoiler alert: I haven’t killed anyone yet.) Back then, I would have appreciated the chapters that explain the difference between religion and morality. You can be a moral person without practicing a religion. Religion doesn’t make people moral.
“I have something to say to the religionist who feels atheists never say anything positive: You are an intelligent human being. Your life is valuable for its own sake. You are not second-class in the universe, deriving meaning and purpose from some other mind. You are not inherently evil—you are inherently human, possessing the positive rational potential to help make this a world of morality, peace and joy. Trust yourself.” – Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist
I did learn a few things from this book. I like the examination of countries that don’t have a separation of church and state. The author explains how the lack of separation impacts (or doesn’t impact) the lives of people. I also learned the true meaning of “Xmas.” When I was a kid, someone told me that Pagans and atheists invented the word “Xmas” so they could celebrate Christmas without “Christ.” I accepted that explanation without questioning it. But, it’s wrong. The “X” in “Xmas” comes from a Greek symbol, which means “Christ.” Basically, “Xmas” means the exact same thing as “Christmas.”
Interesting, right?
So, I did learn some stuff from Losing Faith, but I wish the book had focused more on the author’s life. He’s a Native American, and his grandmother was their tribe’s historian. I would have been interested to hear how his family went from polytheistic, to fundamentalist Christian, to atheist. I think I would have learned more from that than from what’s actually in the book.
folini's review against another edition
4.0
This is a good book, full of data, examples, and ideas, even if I don't like the "preacher" style of Dan. He always talks like he has the only goal of converting you, no matter what. I would prefer a more soft and less confrontational approach.
Maybe this is what religious people need in order to reconsider their faith and believes.
Maybe this is what religious people need in order to reconsider their faith and believes.
jmanchester0's review against another edition
1.0
I realize this book is about 20 years old, but I'm getting tired of all these "books" that everyone seems to be printing that are merely collections of reprints of previously published essays or articles or blog posts. Especially when you think you're going to get something a bit more cohesive - something fresh and new.
Especially when they are a collection of poorly written articles and essays.
Maybe "poorly written" is too strong. But it's very pedantic, and at the same time comes across as not extremely intelligent. These don't really sound like his arguments - more like he's parroting someone else. But it sounds like he's making them his arguments - like he came up with them. You know when you read something, and you can tell the author thinks that he is awfully clever, but he's really not? That's what this whole book feels like. Or like when a child writes a story. It's cute, but if she wrote it as an adult, it would be really missing something.
He presents a lot of straw men in the form of actual arguments from believers - I call them straw men because many thinking Christians reject them. Many of his arguments seem to be a response to fundamentalists who want to argue him into believing in God. Which I would tend to disagree with, too.
What Parker is really arguing against is a fundamentalist faith. He spent five years coming out of that and ended up an atheist. I've spent the last 20 years coming out of that, have the same issues that Parker does, but I have reached different conclusions. When he talks about what Christianity is, it really seems like he's talking about the fundamental Christianity he grew up on. And that's what he's taken to task. I guess I just don't see that the arguments that he is making necessitate a complete rejection of God. I guess, while I agree with many of his arguments, I do not concur on the conclusion he reaches based on those arguments.
I guess in many ways, I have lost faith in faith, too. This has led me to a more deistic approach to theology. I see the evidence around me, and assume there must be a God. So all of his discussion about what made him an atheist has changed me too. But it's just made me an un-fundamentalist Christian.
He states, "Christianity is responsible for fostering patriarchy and slavery..." True, unfortunately. But its because people don't listen to the words of Jesus. But I completely disagree with the next sentence of the book in which he states, "A true Christian cannot be a feminist." This is simply false. I believe a Christian will naturally be a feminist by listening to the words of Jesus. Why more Christians aren't, I can't explain. And that's a problem, I agree. But I know too many Christian feminists to support that statement. Maybe Barker has never met one.
The thing that's really annoying about this book, though, and what caused me to rate it so low, is he's so patronizing. I was less put off by P. Z. Myers. But Barker seems to be saying to Christians, "I used to be stupid like you, but now I'm a freethinker." I guess he's lost his gift of evangelizing. I kept hearing, "you're so dumb, and I'm so smart" through the whole book. His whole approach - his whole attitude - is very offputting. He's basically traded one set of fundamentalist beliefs for another. He was a hardcore Bible banger, now he's hardcore anti-Bible. With the exact same smug, I-have-it-all-figured-out attitude. It'd be offputting whether he was talking about Jesus, or about there being no Jesus.
And his songs?!? Good grief. Maybe he should have kept the evangelizing part of his old life and left the songwriting part. It's just hard to wrap my brain around atheist hymns.
Especially when they are a collection of poorly written articles and essays.
Maybe "poorly written" is too strong. But it's very pedantic, and at the same time comes across as not extremely intelligent. These don't really sound like his arguments - more like he's parroting someone else. But it sounds like he's making them his arguments - like he came up with them. You know when you read something, and you can tell the author thinks that he is awfully clever, but he's really not? That's what this whole book feels like. Or like when a child writes a story. It's cute, but if she wrote it as an adult, it would be really missing something.
He presents a lot of straw men in the form of actual arguments from believers - I call them straw men because many thinking Christians reject them. Many of his arguments seem to be a response to fundamentalists who want to argue him into believing in God. Which I would tend to disagree with, too.
What Parker is really arguing against is a fundamentalist faith. He spent five years coming out of that and ended up an atheist. I've spent the last 20 years coming out of that, have the same issues that Parker does, but I have reached different conclusions. When he talks about what Christianity is, it really seems like he's talking about the fundamental Christianity he grew up on. And that's what he's taken to task. I guess I just don't see that the arguments that he is making necessitate a complete rejection of God. I guess, while I agree with many of his arguments, I do not concur on the conclusion he reaches based on those arguments.
I guess in many ways, I have lost faith in faith, too. This has led me to a more deistic approach to theology. I see the evidence around me, and assume there must be a God. So all of his discussion about what made him an atheist has changed me too. But it's just made me an un-fundamentalist Christian.
He states, "Christianity is responsible for fostering patriarchy and slavery..." True, unfortunately. But its because people don't listen to the words of Jesus. But I completely disagree with the next sentence of the book in which he states, "A true Christian cannot be a feminist." This is simply false. I believe a Christian will naturally be a feminist by listening to the words of Jesus. Why more Christians aren't, I can't explain. And that's a problem, I agree. But I know too many Christian feminists to support that statement. Maybe Barker has never met one.
The thing that's really annoying about this book, though, and what caused me to rate it so low, is he's so patronizing. I was less put off by P. Z. Myers. But Barker seems to be saying to Christians, "I used to be stupid like you, but now I'm a freethinker." I guess he's lost his gift of evangelizing. I kept hearing, "you're so dumb, and I'm so smart" through the whole book. His whole approach - his whole attitude - is very offputting. He's basically traded one set of fundamentalist beliefs for another. He was a hardcore Bible banger, now he's hardcore anti-Bible. With the exact same smug, I-have-it-all-figured-out attitude. It'd be offputting whether he was talking about Jesus, or about there being no Jesus.
And his songs?!? Good grief. Maybe he should have kept the evangelizing part of his old life and left the songwriting part. It's just hard to wrap my brain around atheist hymns.
More...