I think Carrier is a first rate thinker. His knowledge of philosophy and history make his perspective somewhat unique and informative. I applaud the effort to bring his worldview into a single 300 page book. I wish more thinkers would follow his path. Carrier is a big believer in bringing philosophy down from the highly technical academic world to the masses so to speak. This is the main purpose of his book. It's good that he recognizes and promotes the idea that generally speaking individuals need a better understand of philosophy and as a result need to build a more complete and coherent personal world view. Even if it doesn't completely match what Carrier is offering in this book.

This was a relatively easy read for a philosophical paperback. Ideas were very well thought out and well presented in lay terminology. Gives a great case for any atheist, and a good thought-provoker for any deist.

Sense and Goodness Without God is an interesting read to a worldview which he describes as his own (Introduction) out of many different versions of Metaphysical Naturalism that could exist. He does a great job overall of presenting his views and reasons why he believes what he believes. He is mainly a philosopher/ historian who is very reasonable and somewhat spiritual and describes himself as a man of faith with a faith from evidence.. He clearly proclaims his passion for philosophy and his firm belief that philosophy is the key to all of human successes and problem solving techniques, which I agree with. He has a tendency of arguing quite a bit with J.P. Moreland on metaethics that does get quite annoying at times because he wastes some space on trying to hit J. P. Moreland instead of further developing his Metaphysical Naturalism defenses, especially his reasons for why we should not accept any of the theistic defenses such as free will as a coherent solution to the supposed problem of evil and the problem of good. He could have elaborated a little more on this. His Goal Theory is a basic idea that I definitely agree with and encourage but can only expect its failure since very few are committed to informing themselves of the facts and processing accordingly to make scrutinized, linear, pure, clear thinking. He also gives a quick lesson on what makes reliable and accurate history and methods for establishing the historicity of any historians from the past.

Perhaps it was due to the limited space he had to write, but in terms of his defense of science and the origins of the universe by multiverse theory he does not do a good job in convincing why there would be many universes coming from black holes and why there actually would be infinite universes. We haven't even gotten images form locations not so far from Pluto let alone another galaxy. His footnotes for the multiverse are helpful though. His defense of the scientific method is the same usual stuff that is found in some theistic and some atheistic literature. The only problem I see with this defense is that on p. 214-216 he makes it seem like all scientists do experiments and research in a fixed skeptic manner where all scientists begin with skepticism when in reality it usually is with a curious and neutral manner that is neither pessimistic or optimistic though it sometimes is optimistic. Sometimes science is treated as somehow special, in that it feels like only a few can reach the status of scientist. The scientific method has its origin in the philosophical methods of reasoning. So it is philosophy that is the basis of science and also of life in general too. Carrier argues in this book about philosophy and science as separate and not about the latter arising from the former. I am actually studying to be a Chemical Engineer and for the most part science is just thinking about relationships between stuff in nature. Anyone can be a scientist. And science is pretty basic and not impossible to do. It may be at times weird, but for the most part it's doable. It really is natural to be a scientist, as if we were made for that. If you can cook anything, then you would be guilty of doing a procedure for an organic chemical reaction(s). Science is really more relaxed and not so strict since we still have a lot to learn and new methods that may be easier to work with may yet be discovered. Also usually people who aren't a part of a field of science treat science as more out there than it really needs to be treated. Luckily Carrier mentions that sciences like zoology, psychology and anything that involves intelligent creatures or is organic is not as clear cut and concrete as the inorganic fields like chemistry or physics. An example of scientific fluctuations come from medical journals that have a lot of explaining to do for unusual patients and unusual behavior.

Carrier does an ok job of linking the mind or soul with the brain as inseparable, but does not mention that the mind has its control over the brain too. He argues that the mind works by chemical reactions in the brain with other stuff too. But in cases of depression, even with medication, the mind seems to override the chemical reactions and so someone can be under medication but still have a depressed mind set. I would agree that the mind and brain work together most of the time, but also the mind seems to be immune to chemical reactions in the brain. You can look at a Scientific American article on the mind-brain relationship through depression at [...]
If what Carrier says is true, then the depression that is caused by the mind would be eliminated in nearly all cases since if you prevent some reactions from occurring in your brain, that cause a depression sensation, then you would not be depressed or have sad thoughts since those thoughts would be chemically repressed. This does not occur as much as we want. So the mind does look like it is somehow separate from the brain and yet linked as well . This also explains what Carrier agues in p. 328-329 of people in coma are dormant persons not annihilated persons. Also as of yet neuroscientists have not been able to find the part or parts of the brain that constitute our Will to do anything. I have not heard of any findings yet thus I must deny a whole mind-brain link as not true unless evidence proves otherwise. Great attempt though.

Here is a simplified Breakdown of the whole book (These are not chapter titles just stuff he discusses... Well some are Chapter titles) :
I. Introduction
Philosophy Awareness
His Autobiography

II. How We Know
Importance of philosophy
Logic and Meaning
Methods of Science, History, Reason, Experience

III. What There is
Worldview
Outline of Metaphysical Naturalism
Nature and Origin of Universe
Determinism vs. Freewill (Libertarian)
What Everything is Made of
Mind / Brain : Origins, Evolution, Functions
Meaning of Life
How We Got Here
Nature of Reason, Emotion

IV. What There Isn't
Paranormal
7 Reasons To Be An Atheist

V. Natural Morality
Secular Humanism vs. Christian Theism
Metaphysical Naturalistic Morality

VI. Beauty
How We Percieve Beauty in Art and Human Life

VII. Natural Politics
An Educated Man's Politics
Richard Carrier's Politics
Secular Humanist Heaven

VIII. Conclusion

Bravo for Richard Carrier. Good introduction to those who are new to atheism or are interested in seeing what other options exist or for those who wish to be informed of the diversity of human thought. I personally thought it was better than David Mill's Atheist Universe.

Carrier makes a comprehensive case for metaphysical naturalism by doing what few others do: state a position, explain how he himself arrived at the position, and why you should to. While there is some playful religion-bashing going on in certain chapters, he cites his sources and steers clear of the sophistry. While the book is touted as ready for mass consumption, it really is for college-educated readers who can deal with some dense ideas. He begins with a breakdown of his own mode of philosophy and methodology that may go right over the heads of those not familiar with philosophical concepts. But this is all necessary to really understand where Carrier is coming from; it is what justifies his position. You know when he's doing a good job when he makes statements that you don't necessarily agree with but, by defining his philosophy, methodology, logic, and reasoning, the case is airtight.

This book is by no means perfect; Carrier is a bit self-indulgent at times. But the framework of his big arguments and refutations are flawless. When I was thinking, "But wait! What about X? How do you account for that?", out of no where, Carrier provides the answer to the begged question. He has a knack for this that adds an aura of authenticity to the work.

If you are a theist who is fearful of the above, then this book is sinful and dangerous. If you are a theist who is interested in broadening your horizons and challenging predispositions, this book is a wonderful place to start.

I believe the basic thrust of the book is: (and I'm guessing a bit because I'm only about one third of the way through it)If it can't be proven with Mathematics (Geometry, specifically) or the Scientific Method (emphasis on Reductionism)then don't waste your time speculating, because whatever it is you are seeking to find probably doesn't exist, to include a deity as in a god or gods in any Universe including this particular (pun may have been intended) Universe. In addition, the human mind has a cerebral cortex which is unique among all other sentient life on the planet and maybe this "particular" Universe as well as others. This gives us our sense of "self" which no other species has (as far as science can tell). In turn, This give us the ability to deal with life outside the limitations of survival based instinctual instructions. We are animals wearing pants, but we can also decide on what style or color of pants to wear or not to wear them at all. Finally, the author would like humanity to be able to maximize it's critical thinking abilities and freedom of choice to discover a future where logic suppresses primitive superstition, fear and loathing. That's my impression so far.

This was an enjoyable and readable book. But many of the arguments were extremely superficial. Take Carrier's goal theory of morality. As with many atheistic defenses of objective morality, it starts by deeming something to be the greatest good. In this case it is happiness. But why happiness? Most atheist ethicists, including Peter Singer and the majority of utilitarians, would deem all of our desires to be the greatest good. That is the heart of the principle of the equal consideration of interests. Other reasonable choices include serving your fellow man, freedom, and equality.

It is wholly uncontroversial that if happiness is your greatest good, then you should live as such to maximize your personal happiness. But that falls well short of objectively binding moral duties. Carrier tries to shore this up by following Kant's lead and arguing that we must be moral to maximize our happiness. Furthermore, even if we tried to act immorally, we might get caught. And even if we didn't get caught, our consciences would convict us.

That is an untenable position. Is Carrier really arguing that the risks versus rewards have never justified committing a crime? What about for people that are powerful enough to committ their crimes legally? Or consider the idea that our consciences convicts us. Suppose we lose 10 happiness units for committing a crime of a certain degree. Then would Carrier really claim that no such crime has yielded enough reward to produce 11 happiness units? Consider the wealthy slave owning class of the American south before the Civil War. Carrier might argue that the slave owners would be happier if they freed the slaves. This an extremely naive view of human nature. All the countless injustices and oppressions throughout history are made absurd because the oppressors would actually have been better off had they not done it!

Slavery leads into another problem that the goal theory is inadequate to cope with: the division of humans into those that are "like us" and those that are the "other." When you label people as "other" their lives become worth less. A truly objective form of morality should require that everyone is treated the same (see the Christian doctrine to love our neighbor as ourselves, and even to love our enemies). But there is nothing stopping a holder of the goal theory of morality to deem some people as others and then treat them poorly. Carrier himself provides an excellent example of this. One of his "others" is humans who are not self-conscious. So he would grant a higher ethical status to Koko the Chimpanzee than he would to a newborn infant (page 330).

This leads into another example of how the goal theory falls short of objective morality. Carrier holds that people who are self-concious have a full share of moral worth. Those that are not self-conscious, such as infants and most animals, have limited (or no) moral worth. But the goal theory of morality can not provide an objective defense of this division. So it is powerless when someone really believes that people with low IQ's have less moral worth. It is powerless when people really believe that people of other ethnic groups have less moral worth.

In conclusion, Carrier vastly overreaches with the goal theory of morality. I think his theory contains a kernel of truth: many of our immoral actions do make us unhappy in the long run. But it is not nearly comprehensive enough to provide a justification for objective ethics. Carrier should aspire the honesty of other atheist ethicists. For example, the atheist ethicist Peter Singer concedes on page 335 of Practical Ethics that "ethically indefensible behavior is not always irrational."

This is already a long review and I've only barely touched upon the basics of Carrier's moral theory. Rather than discuss Carrier's arguments against the existence of God, my invitation to atheists is to check out some of the excellent debates between Christians and atheists about the existence of God. I would recommend God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist (Point/Counterpoint Series (Oxford, England).) because the atheist reviewers recommend it. Having said that, I personally thought it was a poor showing by atheists and would instead recommend Does God Exist: The Craig-Flew Debate based largely on the contributions of Martin and Parsons and Craig's response).

Like many people, I grew up in a nominally religious household and never really questioned my beliefs until a few years ago. After starting a family, I made the decision to figure out once and for all what I really believed. After many hours of study and thought, I finally ran into Richard Carrier's book. It basically answered all of my nagging questions about the ultimate questions. If you're one of those people that has grown tired of enduring the cognitive dissonance required by traditional faith, I highly recommend this book. It articulates ideas that you may not have the vocabulary or background to express. It also has great references for further reading. Overall, when it comes to understanding what life is about, it has given me some much needed peace.

Mr. Carrier's book is more diatribe and less facts. He waffles his way through his book in an attempt present an alternative interpretation of life known as "naturalism." This book is merely a poorly written excuse to leave God. I recommended for intellectual midgets.

Thank you Richard Carrier, thank you, thank you!
This helps me a lot.
I am a physicist who is now back at his roots doing philosophy as the most
important thing in life TO LIVE a good life and to be able to defend myself
(without the wish-wash of cultural relativism) against unreasonable positions
of people that always gave me an unpleasant feeling when I encountered them.

Rainer

Mr. Carrier's book is more diatribe and less facts. He waffles his way through his book in an attempt present an alternative interpretation of life known as "naturalism." This book is merely a poorly written excuse to leave God. I recommended for intellectual midgets.

Amazing book! Very well thought out arguements covering an impressively extensive expanse of subject matter. However, as stated by another reviewer the book's cover is pathetically amateurish and I too place the book face down as I have had friends and relatives alike laugh, yes actually laugh out loud, at my "space-man book". Seriously Richard, next edition, new cover.

Amazing book! Very well thought out arguements covering an impressively extensive expanse of subject matter. However, as stated by another reviewer the book's cover is pathetically amateurish and I too place the book face down as I have had friends and relatives alike laugh, yes actually laugh out loud, at my "space-man book". Seriously Richard, next edition, new cover.

This book puts together a great series of philisophical ideas. Carrier finally has added the science that we know today and married it to the metaphysics that humans can use for everyday life. I loved this book. I came to many of these conclusions on my own but Carrier ideas tied a lot of athiestic/septical agnostic together for the first time. This book is fresh and more complete than most systems of philosphy I have seen. This is a great leap forward for philosphy of beauty in nature and understanding fo the world. I was overwelmed in how much this book lived up to its title