Product Description

Suppose there is no God. This supposition implies that human life is meaningless, that there are no moral obligations and hence people can do whatever they want, and that the notions of virtue and vice, right and wrong, and good and evil have no place in the universe. Erik J. Wielenberg believes this view to be utterly erroneous and, in this thought-provoking book, he explains the reasons why. He argues that, even if God does not exist, human life can still have meaning, humans do have moral obligations, and human virtue is still possible. Wielenberg offers readers a cognent explanation of the ethical implications of naturalism--a view that denies the existence of the supernatural in human life. In his view virtue exists in a godless universe but it is significantly different from virtue in a Christian universe, and he develops naturalistic accounts of humility, charity, and hope. The overarching theme of Virtue and Value in a Godless Universe is what ethics might look like without God. Erik Wielenberg takes readers on an extraordinary tour of some of the central landmarks of this under-explored territory.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #803285 in Books
• Published on: 2005-02-07
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 202 pages

Review
"Wielenberg presents an analytical pholosopher's argument, beautifully restrained and precise." Bookforum

About the Author
Erik J. Wielenberg is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at DePaw University. He has written articles in such journals as Religious Studies, Faith and Philosophy, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, Synthese, and Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy. He has given lectures at a variety of professional conferences, including meetings of the American Philosophical Association and the Society of Christian Philosophers.

Customer Reviews

Good exploration of a moral nontheistic universe
Religious believers are understandably annoyed by patronizing nontheists who ask, "How can anyone intelligent believe in God?" Likewise, nonbelievers get thoroughly tired of hearing that "if you don't believe in God, you must live in a meaningless universe" and "in a world without God, there's no distinction between good and evil". Erik Wielenberg's book could be called "secular apologetics" in the sense that he takes direct aim at those two statements, in both their simplistic form and as elaborated by profound religious thinkers like Dostoevsky and C. S. Lewis.

Wielenberg doesn't argue against the existence of God. His procedure instead is to ask what would follow *if* God did not exist. The inquiry in the first half of the book is rigorously logical. He establishes the possibility for meaning in a godless universe largely by appeal to universal human experience; the demonstration that morality does not require an omnipotent creator or commander relies on syllogistic demonstrations of the self-contradictions that ensue from making God the source of all moral judgements.

The last couple of chapters move away from defensive argumentation to exploration of the positive underpinnings of moral life available to nonbelievers. A naturalistic worldview, Wielenberg believes, is as amenable to valuing the traditional virtues of humility, charity, and bravery as a theistic one. "Naturalist and theist alike should acknowledge that one of the greatest challenges we face is the dark heart within ourselves", he concludes, and we are all on the same side in the "ethical revolution" required to confront it.

Although the primary audience for this book is academic philosophers (it's a first book by an assistant professor, ergo part of a tenure case), it's entirely accessible to an educated general reader; in fact one hears the speaking voice of an engaging classroom lecturer behind the prose.

I suspect I'm not the only agnostic, atheist, or deist who has lately been prodded out of "apatheism" (Jonathan Rauch's term for not caring strongly about one's religous beliefs) into earnest reconsideration of his or her fundamental values by debate and discussion about the Terry Schiavo case, the death of the Pope and the direction of world Christianity, and whether the United States is grounded on secular principles or is a "Christian nation". For anyone doing such rethinking--or for believers serious about understanding what nonbelief may entail--this book is a good starting place.

Dare I call it--inspiring?
This is a gem of a book. Rigorous but not rigid, brief but not incomplete, well-argued but not shrill or dismissive. Rather than constructing straw men to attack, Prof. Wielenberg respectfully quotes and exposits some of the most interesting ideas of Christian apologists such as C.S. Lewis, Plantenga, and Craig, then demonstrates with clear prose, accessible formal logic, and examples from literature how those ideas are or could be mistaken. In place of the theistic view, he constructs a cogent case that a godless life can be moral and meaningful--and not in some second-class, grudging way, but in a way that could bring real joy and satisfaction. This book is not perfect, but it's probably "best in class." As useful as some of the more strictly academic books have been to me, I have long wished there was a more popular treatment of morality and meaning from an atheist perspective, and of the current crop of such books, this is the best I've encountered. It is the hallmark of a useful book that it is quoteable--which this book is. Highly recommended.

Naturalistic Ethics
In Dostoevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov" one of the characters offers the famous observation that "if God does not exist, all things are possible." One of the goals of Erik Wielenberg's study "Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe" (2005) is to rebut this claim. Professor Wielenberg is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at DePauw University.

Professor Wielenberg tries to do two things: first he wants to rebut claims that, without a supernatural basis, life has no meaning or purpose and that notions of right and wrong, good and bad, are untenable. The opponents he tries to rebut are for the most part contemporary Christian philosophers and theologians. Second, Professor Wielenberg tries to develop a basis and a content for a naturalistic ethics.

Professor Wielenberg adopts an analytical approach. Appropriate allusions to philosophers such as Bertrand Russell, Plato, Aristotle, and Hume,to writers such as Conrad, and to modern movies and video games help enliven his text. I was reminded at various places of Spinoza and the Buddha in reading Wielenberg's study, and his work would benefit by explicit consideration of these great figures.

In successive chapters, Professor Wielenberg tries to argue that human life may have an internal meaning based on intrinsically good activities (such as falling in love, study, helping others, creativity, or -- an activity dear to my heart -- playing the piano) even if it doesn't have theological, supernatural meaning -- such as conforming one's life to a divine plan. Similarly, he argues that a theological warrant is not required for ethical behavior or to answer Plato's question "why be good". Interestingly, he argues that the answer to that question "because it is good" or "because it is the right thing to do" requires no further justification -- just as the statement "I am doing x because it is in my interest" reuires, in its proper context, no further justification. Professor Wielenberg proceeds to develop some naturalistic standards for behavior drawing largely on the work of another contemporary philosopher, John Kekes. Kekes and Wielenberg identify three basic features of the human condition: contingency, the indifference of the order of nature to human effort, and the presence of destructiveness in human motivation" that are basic to the development of a human ethics. Professor Wielenberg recommends meditation, among other things, and increased attention to the teachings of science as useful to the development of a naturalistic ethics.

Professor Wielenberg doesn't fully develop what he understands by "naturalism" and I think this detracts from his study. His concept of naturalism excludes God, Cartesian immaterial souls, and miracles. But his concept is broader than mere bodies interacting in space under scientific, physical laws. He relies, as is apparent from my above short discussion, on an ontology broad enough to include intrinsic meaning and intrinsic goodness. I happen to agree, but I think he needs to show how and why he rejects a naturalism based upon scientism. Professor Wielenberg's naturalism, in other words, is so broad that it does some of the work otherwise done by religion (and for all his criticism of it, Professor Wielenberg seems to me deeply influenced by religion) and he needs to explain how. That is why I find Spinoza a relevant figure in his analysis. Spinoza to me is the naturalistic philosopher par excellence, but he packs a great deal of content into his naturalism that more hard-headed thinkers will, perhaps, resist and reject. Similarly, it would be interesting to know what Professor Wielenberg makes of a non-theistic religion such as Buddhism. I find his account close to Buddhism on many points, different from it on others.

Professor Wielenberg has written a challenging book that helped rekindle my love of thought and of the philosophic life.

Robin Friedman