Preface: I think I run in different circles than Mr. Gray so I don't really get all that upset by the hordes of pretentious humanist that seem to dog him. Which means I don't really have a dog in the hunt and in general I don't care what anybody else believes or disbelieves, but I do like the way Gray talks so it is still fun.

In The Beginning...

Gray asserts repeatedly that many or maybe most Atheists are working from the monotheistic stylebook. This seems especially appropriate for those strains of “humanism” that implies or directly says there is “progress” in civilization toward some “higher” goal. Basically anytime your worldview involves putting humans higher or more “evolved” you have adopted an outside measure of success and merely labeled it as humanist but it is basically monotheistic in all but name.

He thinks, I think, that Atheism could not exist as is does today without the rise of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, because in their current incarnations they are most creed based. And the modern Atheist movements are also creed based, so it is what you “believe” and not what you do.

Of course a dedicated non-believer will say his or her view doesn’t apply and he is misrepresenting things. I fall into the Gray camp and I hope it is because I see the logic of his arguments especially that people aren’t logical and are prone to self-deception. BUT it is more likely that I just like his curmudgeonly take down of self-righteous militant atheists. No so much because of their views as it is just irritating to hear pompous intellectuals who act like they know everything and everybody else is an idiot. (I may be protesting too much on that part)

Ambiguity, he suggested, is not a defect but part of the richness of language. Rather than signifying equivocation or confusion, ambiguous expressions allow us to describe a fluid and paradoxical world. - Location 165-166 about William Empson

This Empson guy seems interesting and Gray quotes him effectively to point out the difference between science and religion in a way that I have similarly thought about.

Religion is no more a primitive type of science than is art or poetry. Scientific inquiry answers a demand for explanation. The practice of religion expresses a need for meaning, which would remain unsatisfied even if everything could be explained. - Location 243-245

He relates how the theory of evolution was turned from an explanation to life in the chaos of existence into an inevitable unseen plan guided humans to higher and higher specialness. Until now those nut-jobs that want to upload consciousness to computer so cyborgs think they are achieving an ultimate success by conquering death through technology (one see such articles occasionally about Silicon Valley Titians with some plan to end death…ugghh!).

As Lewis wrote, ‘Man’s final conquest has proved to be the abolition of man.’ …Today the abolition of man is welcomed by thinkers calling themselves transhumanists. - Location 1196

I like this next bit, and I think it is important, but it also exposes wither a weakness in Gray’s writing or, sadly, a weakness in my reading comprehension. Because at the end of the book I had my list of cool highlights of cool insights, but I don’t really know how to tie them all together in some neat storyline. Well maybe a little but anyway…I am saying I don’t know exactly how this applies to Atheism but I think it is a truth that few will admit.

We all feel at this time the moral ambiguity of mechanical progress. It seems to multiply opportunity, but it destroys the possibility of simple, rural or independent life. It lavishes information, but it abolishes mastery except in trivial or mechanical proficiency. We learn many languages, but degrade our own. Our philosophy is highly critical and thinks itself enlightened, but is a Babel of mutually unintelligible artificial tongues. - Location 2284

Once again I have more quotes I wish would remember. Insights I will lose unless I re-read…but I end with these…

Contemporary atheism is a continuation of monotheism by other means. Hence the unending succession of God-surrogates, such as humanity and science, technology and the all-too-human visions of transhumanism…..Belief and unbelief are poses the mind adopts in the face of an unimaginable reality. A godless world is as mysterious as one suffused with divinity, and the difference between the two may be less than you think. - Location 2781

Atheism has bad PR. The "New Atheist," such as they are have taken up some much space in conversations about religion and atheism within recent years, unfortunately obscuring other perspectives. As someone really interested in the study of religion, this book appealed to me both in its topic and its organizational structure. Gray explores and teases out distinctions and understandings of atheism and introduced a lot of threads I've since sought to follow up on. In a way, the book left me wanting for more, but overall I was really pleased and appreciated Gray's insight. Definitely recommended.

Tremendous. Carefully detailed, well expressed description of 'styles' of atheism practiced by the unbelievers(!) over the centuries. Gray's signature erudition is evident throughout, showing perhaps its only weakness in what, I assume, is an intentionally simplistic view of Christian soteriology.

Gray outlines the intellectual advantage of his own brand of skepticism while taking to task the rather facile arguments of current 'popular' atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens.

Thoughtful, thought provoking, meaty.

I believe that it is important to understand where other people are coming from in terms of differing culture, beliefs, and worldview. It can help foster respectful dialogue rather than talking past each other or yelling at each other. To that end, I picked up this overview on atheism.

Just as no major religion is monolithic in its belief and practice, those who espouse atheism have a wide variety of arguments, beliefs, ethics, worldviews, etc. John Gray gives a guided tour of seven kinds of atheism, describing major proponents and beliefs of each category and pointing out its strengths and weaknesses. He strongly criticizes most versions, mostly alleging inconsistency via partial dependence on a monotheistic or even Christian worldview. He speaks favorably only of what he calls “Atheism without progress” (George Santayana & Joseph Conrad) and “The Atheism of Silence” (Arthur Schopenhauer & Benedict Spinoza).

Obviously, the seven categories are Gray’s own generalizations, but they were helpful in getting an overview of a huge topic. As far as persuasiveness, some of Gray’s argumentation is pretty shoddy. For example, he summarily dismisses certain topics touched on by some atheists philosophers (e.g. Nietzsche & Rand) as “silly” without any further explanation, and his main argument against Christianity is little more than “there are much more likely explanations of who Jesus was than the one offered by Christianity.” Overall, this was a helpful overview, and that is what the author stated as his primary goal, so I guess he was successful in spite of occasionally lackluster arguments.

I found this exploration of atheism really interesting and thought-provoking. I see from some other reviews that Gray’s ideas can be controversial and I’d have to give his conclusions a lot more thought and discussion before I could be sure how much I agree, or not, with him, but I certainly found the book absorbing reading. According to Gray, religion and atheism aren’t binary constructs, but that there are in fact many sorts of atheism, just as there are many types of religion. He narrows it down to seven; hence the title of the book, with reference to Empson’s Seven Types of Ambiguity. Gray posits the seven types of atheism as follows
Secular humanism
Scientific atheism
Political atheism
God-hating atheism
Atheism born of witnessing man’s inhumanity to man
Atheism without progress
Mystical atheism
He makes a case for the last two but spends much of the rest of the book attacking the other five. He explores the history of atheism and belief and enlivens the text with the occasional entertaining anecdote. Plus a few ad hominem attacks against the militant atheism of Dawkins et al. It’s an academic work but an accessible and readable one, and I very much enjoyed it.