In the latest issue of the Secular Student Alliance’s eMpirical, there’s a debate on Greg Epstein‘s book Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe:
Sharon Moss, president of the Humanist Community of Central Ohio, is a fan of Epstein’s message:
If our message is going to reach beyond just white men — to get the majority of nontheists off the couch and into our movement — we need to get our faces out of the philosophy books from time to time. We can take cues from other movements and embrace both our firebrands and our diplomats. It takes all kinds — and different points of entry — to make a movement. Good Without God is a push to get us there.
Frank Bellamy, president of the Secular Student Alliance at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, thinks the book does more harm than good:
… what makes Good Without God offensive to me is that unlike the “new atheists” (as he calls them), who do not claim to represent all secular people, Epstein has the arrogance to claim he speaks for you, me, and everyone else who does not believe in a god (see the subtitle). He clearly does not. I agree with PZ Myers, who said, “just as we can be good without god, we can also be good without rituals, good without sacraments, [and] good without priests and chaplains.”
Where do you stand on the book and its premise?