Abstract

This article argues that the New Atheism of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett, while offering a necessary corrective to dogmatic excess and institutional corruption, commits a fundamental epistemological error by treating the question of God as a scientific hypothesis amenable to empirical falsification. This framing misapprehends religious belief, which operates not primarily as a propositional claim about an entity in the world but as a dimension of lived experience, communal practice, and ethical orientation. Drawing on Heidegger’s concept of thrownness, Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of embodiment, James’s pragmatic account of religious experience, Spinoza’s immanent reconceptualisation of the divine, and Levinas’s ethics of the face, the article advances a position termed post-atheism: an orientation that passes through atheism rather than retreating from it, affirming the enduring significance of faith communities and the sacred while insisting on rational accountability, religious pluralism, and the separation of faith from political power. Situated within scholarly debates concerning the secularisation thesis, post-secular theory, and the philosophy of religion, the argument engages with sociological evidence regarding the persistent social functions of religious communities. Post-atheism recognises both doubt and wonder as constitutive of a fully human engagement with existence, offering a philosophically grounded framework for navigating the impasse between militant secularism and resurgent fundamentalism.

Keywords: post-atheism, new atheism, phenomenology, religious experience, ethics of alterity, secularisation, post-secular theory

Introduction

The so-called New Atheism of the early twenty-first century, championed by figures such as Dawkins (2006) and Hitchens (2007), mounted a strident case against religion, characterising it as irrational superstition and a principal source of division and violence in human affairs. This movement, which coalesced around a cluster of bestselling polemics in the mid-2000s, achieved remarkable cultural penetration and contributed significantly to public discourse concerning the relationship between science, reason, and faith. While the critique rightly challenged dogmatic excess and institutional corruption, and while its insistence on the autonomy of moral reasoning represents a legitimate philosophical position, it suffered from what this article identifies as a profound epistemological blindness: a failure to account for the enduring, indeed constitutive, role that religious belief has played in shaping human civilisation, community, and the search for meaning.

The present article contends that what is needed now is not a return to uncritical faith, nor a persistence in reductive atheism, but rather a philosophically grounded posture that may be termed post-atheism. This orientation affirms the importance of faith and faith communities without capitulating to dogma, recognising that the concept of God is not static but evolving, moving with human understanding towards an ever more ethical and relational engagement with the world. The argument is situated within broader scholarly debates concerning the secularisation thesis (Berger, 1999; Bruce, 2002; Taylor, 2007), post-secular theory (Habermas, 2008; McLennan, 2010), and the phenomenology of religious experience (James, 1902/2002; Otto, 1917/1958; Steinbock, 2007). It draws on Heidegger’s concept of thrownness, Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of embodied experience, James’s account of religious experience, Spinoza’s reconceptualisation of the divine, Levinas’s ethics of the face, and insights from both classical and contemporary philosophical traditions.

The article proceeds in several stages. It first examines the arguments of the New Atheists with scholarly seriousness, identifying their genuine contributions before exposing the epistemological limitations of their approach. It then develops the theoretical resources for a post-atheist position through engagement with phenomenological, pragmatist, and ethical philosophical traditions. Empirical evidence from the sociology of religion is adduced to demonstrate the persistent social functions of faith communities. The article then considers the relationship between faith and political power, arguing for their institutional separation as a condition of genuine religious pluralism. Finally, a synthesis is offered in which post-atheism is articulated as a coherent philosophical orientation suited to the complexities of the contemporary world.

The New Atheism: Arguments and Contributions

Before charting a post-atheist path, it is necessary to engage with the arguments of the New Atheists with the scholarly seriousness they deserve, for they are not without force. The movement coalesced in the mid-2000s around a cluster of bestselling polemics, most prominently Dawkins’s The God Delusion (2006), Hitchens’s God Is Not Great (2007), Harris’s The End of Faith (2004), and Dennett’s Breaking the Spell (2006). As Amarasingam (2010) has documented, the movement achieved a cultural significance disproportionate to its philosophical originality, largely through rhetorical force and the strategic deployment of scientific authority. Their core contentions can be distilled into several interlocking claims.

First, the New Atheists contend that belief in God is a hypothesis like any other, and one for which there is insufficient evidence. Dawkins (2006) is explicit about this, treating the existence of God as a probability question and assigning it a vanishingly low likelihood. Hitchens (2007) offered a succinct formulation of this evidentialist demand, insisting that assertions made without evidence may be dismissed without it. Second, the New Atheists argue that religion is not merely false but actively harmful. Dawkins (2006) maintained that religion encourages people to treat unquestioning faith as a virtue, fostering intellectual complacency. Hitchens (2007) characterised organised religion as fundamentally hostile to free inquiry and contemptuous of women, arguing that it bears responsibility for considerable historical suffering. Third, the New Atheists contend that morality does not require religion. Harris (2004) extended this line of argument by asserting that religious moderates provide intellectual cover for extremists, rendering the very concept of faith dangerous regardless of the mildness with which it is held.

These arguments carry genuine weight, and their contributions should be acknowledged. The history of religious violence, from the Crusades to contemporary sectarian conflict, lends empirical credibility to the charge that faith can be weaponised (Cavanaugh, 2009). The suppression of scientific inquiry by religious authorities, from Galileo’s persecution to modern creationist interference in science education, supports the claim that dogmatic authority can obstruct knowledge (Numbers, 2009). The insistence that morality can be grounded independently of divine command is a legitimate and important philosophical position with roots stretching back to Plato’s Euthyphro (c. 380 BCE/1997), where Socrates demonstrated that the good cannot be defined simply as what the gods command. Furthermore, the New Atheists performed a valuable social function in creating discursive space for non-belief in societies where atheism remained stigmatised (Zuckerman, 2008).

Yet for all their rhetorical power, these arguments commit what this article identifies as a fundamental error: they mistake the pathology of religion for its essence, and in so doing, they close off dimensions of human experience and meaning that deserve sustained philosophical attention. As Cottingham (2005) has argued, the reduction of religion to a set of empirically testable propositions ignores the fact that religious life is fundamentally a matter of orientation, practice, and existential commitment rather than theoretical assent to a catalogue of factual claims. McGrath (2004), in a complementary analysis, has demonstrated that the New Atheist narrative of religion’s inevitable decline rests on historically questionable assumptions, arguing that the relationship between modernity and faith is far more complex and reciprocal than the standard secularisation narrative suggests.

The Epistemological Failure of New Atheism

The most fundamental limitation of the New Atheist programme is not one of rhetoric or historical interpretation but of epistemology. The entire project is built upon the assumption that the question of God is a scientific hypothesis: a proposition about an entity whose existence should, in principle, be verifiable or falsifiable through the methods of empirical investigation. Dawkins (2006) treats the existence of God as a probability question, assigning it a very low likelihood and proceeding as though the matter were thereby settled. Harris (2004) insists that religious claims should be subjected to the same evidentiary standards as claims in the natural sciences. But this approach, for all its apparent rigour, fundamentally misconstrues the nature of the question it seeks to address.

The proposition that God does or does not exist, framed as a claim about the objective presence of a supernatural entity in the empirical world, is, it may be suggested, a largely redundant one. It is the wrong question, asked in the wrong register, and it is therefore unsurprising that the answers it generates prove unsatisfying to both sides. The New Atheists demand the kind of evidence that the natural sciences provide: replicable, measurable, falsifiable. When such evidence is not forthcoming, they declare the case closed. But this is analogous to demanding that a poem justify itself through chemical analysis of its ink, or that a musical composition prove its worth by submitting to spectrographic analysis of its sound waves. The method, however rigorous in its proper domain, is simply incommensurate with the phenomenon under investigation.

What the New Atheists fail to grasp, or refuse to acknowledge, is that for the vast majority of religious believers across history, God is not primarily an object of theoretical knowledge but a dimension of lived experience, communal practice, and ethical orientation. God emerges, as it were, not in the laboratory but in the lament of a psalm, in the silence of a Quaker meeting, in the moral solidarity of a community gathered around its suffering members, in the transformative experience of prayer or meditation, and in the existential confrontation with finitude and mortality. As Armstrong (2009) has argued, the premodern religious traditions largely understood this: theology was not a set of propositions to be proved but a form of practice, closer to an art than a science, aimed not at describing a distant being but at cultivating a way of being in the world.

This insight reveals a profound closedness at the heart of the New Atheist project. By insisting that the only legitimate form of knowledge is scientific knowledge, and that any claim which cannot be adjudicated by scientific method is therefore meaningless, the New Atheists adopt a positivism that mainstream philosophy of science has long abandoned. As Kuhn (1962) demonstrated in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, even scientific knowledge is shaped by paradigms, communal agreements, and interpretive frameworks that are not themselves scientifically derived. The allied assumption that science will eventually explain everything reflects not a sober assessment of scientific progress but a form of scientism, a quasi-religious faith in science’s omnicompetence that goes well beyond what science itself warrants (Stenmark, 2001). As Stenmark (2001, p. 3) has argued, scientism constitutes “an exaggerated confidence in the ability of science to answer all meaningful questions,” a confidence that is itself not scientifically grounded but ideological in character.

Plantinga (2000) has advanced a complementary epistemological challenge from within the analytic tradition, arguing that belief in God can be what he terms “properly basic”: a foundational belief that does not require evidential support from more basic propositions, just as belief in the reality of the external world or in other minds does not require such support. While the post-atheist position developed here does not endorse the full apparatus of Plantinga’s reformed epistemology, his argument usefully demonstrates that the New Atheist demand for scientific evidence rests on contested epistemological assumptions rather than on universally accepted norms of rational inquiry.

There are dimensions of human existence, including the meaning of suffering, the nature of moral obligation, the experience of beauty, and the encounter with death, that science can describe and correlate but cannot, by its own methods, interpret or resolve. These are precisely the dimensions in which religious thought and practice operate, and their persistence is not a sign of intellectual failure but of the genuine limits of the scientific enterprise. Midgley (2002) made a complementary point when she observed that the tendency to treat science as the sole path to truth represents a form of intellectual imperialism that distorts both science and the domains it claims to subsume. Post-atheism recognises these limits without thereby rejecting science; it seeks, rather, a more honest and more capacious account of what it means to know and to understand.

The Problem of Contempt: New Atheism and Faith Communities

Beyond its epistemological limitations, the New Atheist movement adopted a rhetorical posture that is itself philosophically and ethically problematic: a pervasive tone of mockery, condescension, and contempt towards those who hold religious beliefs. Dawkins (2006) compared religious belief to a virus of the mind, a mental parasite that replicates itself through indoctrination and cultural transmission. Hitchens (2007) described religion as originating in the fearful infancy of our species. Harris (2004) suggested that certain beliefs are so dangerous that the very act of tolerating them in others constitutes a form of moral negligence. The cumulative effect of this rhetoric is not reasoned persuasion but ridicule, a dismissal of the deepest convictions held by the majority of the world’s population as symptoms of intellectual failure or psychological immaturity.

This contempt is not merely uncharitable; it is intellectually inadequate and empirically unfounded. To mock the faith of a Sikh community that operates a langar, feeding thousands of strangers daily without distinction of caste, creed, or wealth, is to be wilfully blind to the ethical power of religious practice. To deride the prayers of a grandmother kneeling in a village church is to substitute caricature for understanding, ignoring the way her faith sustains her through grief, gives structure to her days, and connects her to a community of mutual care stretching across generations. To dismiss the rigorous philosophical traditions of Islamic theology, Hindu Vedanta, or Jewish Talmudic scholarship as mere superstition is to display a striking ignorance of intellectual history. As Eagleton (2009) observed in his critique of Dawkins and Hitchens, the God that the New Atheists so confidently reject is often a crude straw figure that serious theologians would also find unrecognisable: a bearded patriarch on a cloud rather than the ground of being explored by centuries of sophisticated thought.

Sociological evidence further undermines the New Atheist posture of contempt. Putnam and Campbell (2010), in their extensive study of religion in American public life, found that religious communities remain among the most powerful generators of social capital in modern democracies, fostering volunteerism, charitable giving, neighbourhood trust, and civic participation at rates that secular organisations have struggled to match. Norris and Inglehart (2011), drawing on World Values Survey data from dozens of countries, demonstrated that while secularisation correlates with existential security in wealthy nations, religious vitality persists in contexts of economic insecurity and social disruption, suggesting that faith communities serve important psychosocial functions that cannot be dismissed as mere cognitive error. Durkheim (1912/1995) recognised over a century ago that the social function of religion, its capacity to bind individuals into a moral community through shared symbols and rituals, is at least as significant as any metaphysical claims it may make. More recently, Haidt (2012) has drawn on evolutionary psychology and moral foundations theory to argue that religious rituals and communal practices serve adaptive functions in promoting group cohesion and cooperation. To treat all of this with derision is not to advance the cause of reason; it is to impoverish it.

Post-atheism, by contrast, approaches faith and faith communities with what Ricoeur (1970) termed a “second naivety”: a willingness to take religious symbols and practices seriously again after having passed through the crucible of critical suspicion. This does not mean accepting every truth claim uncritically. It means recognising that the human need for belonging, ritual, and shared moral orientation is not a deficiency to be cured but a constitutive feature of social and existential life.

Thrownness and the Imperative of Meaning

Heidegger’s (1927/1962) concept of Geworfenheit, or thrownness, offers a powerful, if perhaps unexpected, starting point for understanding why religion persists and why its dismissal is philosophically premature. It is important to acknowledge that Heidegger was not a theologian or a religious thinker in any conventional sense. His philosophical project was resolutely secular in its orientation, concerned with the question of Being rather than the question of God, and his personal relationship to Christianity was at best ambivalent and at times openly critical (Caputo, 1993). Yet it is precisely because Heidegger was not writing from within a faith tradition that his insights carry particular weight in the present context.

For Heidegger, human beings do not choose the circumstances of their existence; they find themselves already thrown into a world replete with histories, languages, cultural forms, and questions they did not author. Dasein, Heidegger’s term for the being that each of us is, must make sense of this given situation, oriented always towards its own finitude. As Heidegger (1927/1962, p. 174) put it, “Dasein has always already been thrown into its there” and must take up its facticity as its own. Religion, in this light, is not merely an archaic institution but one of humanity’s most sustained attempts to respond to the condition of thrownness: to wrest meaning from the sheer facticity of being here, now, mortal, and questioning.

Consider, for instance, a child born into a small coastal village in southern Italy, raised within the rhythms of Catholic feast days, processions for the patron saint, and the quiet gravity of a grandmother’s rosary. That child did not choose these forms of life; they were the given texture of the world into which she was thrown. To dismiss this inheritance as mere superstition is to misunderstand its existential weight. Those rituals and beliefs formed a horizon of intelligibility, a way of making sense of suffering, joy, birth, and death that preceded and exceeded any individual act of rational assent. The ardent atheist, in dismissing religion wholesale, overlooks this existential ground.

Communities of faith have offered what Taylor (2007) describes as a “social imaginary”: a shared horizon of meaning that binds individuals into collective life, providing rituals of passage, mourning, celebration, and ethical accountability. Taylor’s account of the emergence of secularity as a condition in which belief is one option among others, rather than the default framework of understanding, is instructive here. For Taylor (2007, p. 3), the shift to secularity does not constitute the straightforward triumph of reason over superstition but rather a transformation in “the conditions of belief,” a change in the background against which all experience, religious and secular alike, is interpreted. The Sabbath meal in Jewish homes, the call to prayer echoing across a city at dawn, the gathering of a Quaker meeting in shared silence: each of these is an enactment of communal meaning that cannot simply be replicated by secular substitutes.

To strip these forms of communal meaning away without offering an adequate replacement is not liberation; it is, as Dreyfus and Kelly (2011) suggest, an invitation to nihilism. The empirical evidence supports this concern. Research on social isolation and meaninglessness in contemporary secular societies has revealed alarming trends. Holt-Lunstad et al. (2015), in a meta-analytic review of 70 studies involving over 3.4 million participants, found that social isolation and loneliness are associated with significantly increased mortality risk, comparable to well-established risk factors such as smoking. Frankl’s (1946/2006) existential analysis, developed through the extremity of the Nazi concentration camps, offered testimony to the centrality of meaning in human survival and flourishing. One need only observe the epidemic of loneliness and meaninglessness in contemporary secular societies to recognise that the retreat of organised religion has left a void that consumerism and digital distraction have signally failed to fill.

Phenomenology and the Primacy of Religious Experience

If Heidegger alerts us to the existential ground of religious meaning, Merleau-Ponty (1945/2012) draws attention to the centrality of lived, embodied experience. Like Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty was not a religious philosopher. He worked within the tradition of phenomenology as a rigorously secular inquirer, and his writings on perception, embodiment, and intersubjectivity make no appeal to divine revelation or theological authority (Landes, 2013). Yet his insistence that the body is not a mere object but the very medium through which we encounter the world opens a philosophical space in which religious experience can be taken seriously on its own terms: not as a set of propositions to be verified but as a mode of bodily, perceptual engagement with reality.

For Merleau-Ponty (1945/2012, p. lxxxiv), “the world is not what I think, but what I live through.” Perception is not a passive reception of data but an active, bodily engagement with a world already rich with meaning, affect, and intentionality. This insight has profound implications for understanding religious experience, which the New Atheists too readily reduce to neurological misfiring or psychological weakness. If embodied perception is our primary mode of access to reality, then the phenomenological investigation of religious experience cannot be dismissed in advance on the grounds that it fails to meet standards drawn from a different domain of inquiry.

It is here that James’s (1902/2002) landmark work, The Varieties of Religious Experience, becomes indispensable. James documented with care and intellectual generosity a vast range of religious experiences, from mystical states to conversions, from what he termed the “sick soul” to the “healthy minded.” His central argument was that these experiences, whatever their ultimate metaphysical status, are real as experiences and transformative in their effects. James (1902/2002, p. 31) insisted that the investigation of religion should focus on the concrete experiences of individuals rather than on institutional doctrines, arguing that “the essence of religious experiences, the thing by which we finally must judge them, must be that element or quality in them which we can meet nowhere else.” The experience of the Quaker Fox, who described being seized by an inner light so powerful that it restructured his understanding of self and world, exemplifies this transformative quality. To dismiss such transformation as mere delusion is to fail the empirical test that James, himself a pragmatist, insisted upon: we must attend to the fruits of experience, not merely its roots.

More recent scholarship has continued to develop this pragmatist phenomenological approach. Steinbock (2007), in his study of phenomenology and mysticism, has argued for a rigorous phenomenological method capable of attending to religious experience without either reducing it to its neurological substrates or inflating it into metaphysical proof. McNamara (2009), drawing on neuroscience and the psychology of religion, has demonstrated that religious and spiritual experiences are associated with measurable changes in neural functioning and psychological wellbeing, without this neurological correlation entailing that such experiences are reducible to brain activity. Hood et al. (2009), in their comprehensive review of the psychology of religion, have similarly argued that mystical and religious experiences constitute a robust empirical phenomenon that requires explanation rather than dismissal. These findings suggest that religious experience constitutes a genuine domain of human experience that warrants philosophical attention rather than reflexive scepticism.

Otto’s (1917/1958) concept of the numinous deepens this analysis further. Otto argued that at the heart of religious experience lies an encounter with the mysterium tremendum et fascinans: a reality that is at once terrifying and overwhelmingly attractive, wholly other yet intimately near. The awe experienced by a pilgrim entering Chartres Cathedral, or by a contemplative sitting in meditation as the boundaries of self momentarily dissolve, exemplifies this numinous encounter. Otto (1917/1958, p. 12) insisted that this experience “cannot be strictly defined” but only “be discussed” through analogy and evocation, for it constitutes a sui generis dimension of human consciousness irreducible to moral feeling or rational theology. Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology supports this project by insisting that experience cannot be explained away by reducing it to its physiological substrates. The lived body is our mode of access to the world (Merleau-Ponty, 1945/2012), and religious experience deserves the same phenomenological attention that is accorded to aesthetic perception or moral intuition.

The Ethical Face: Levinas and the Sacred in Alterity

Perhaps no twentieth-century philosopher has done more to illuminate the ethical heart of the religious impulse than Levinas. For Levinas (1969), ethics is not a branch of philosophy but its very ground. In the encounter with the face of the other, the subject is confronted with an infinite demand, a call to responsibility that precedes freedom and exceeds comprehension. The face of the other, vulnerable and exposed, issues a command that Levinas understands as fundamentally ethical. As Levinas (1969, p. 199) wrote, the face of the other “is what cannot become a content, which your thought would embrace; it is the uncontainable, it leads you beyond.” This encounter is, in a profound sense, the site where the divine manifests: not as a theological abstraction but as an ethical summons.

This Levinasian insight is central to the post-atheist position advanced here. To recognise what may be termed the “godness” of each person, to employ a deliberately provocative formulation, is to affirm that there is something sacred, something that commands respect and resists reduction, in every human being. This is not a metaphysical claim about the existence of a supreme being; it is an ethical claim about the irreducible worth of the other. Levinas (1998) makes this explicit when he argues that responsibility for the other is the very structure of subjectivity itself: the subject is, before it is anything else, a being called to respond.

Consider the practical force of this idea. When a community gathers around a grieving family, when strangers offer shelter to refugees, when a teacher sees not a problem student but a person in pain, these are moments when the godness of the other is recognised in action. The civil rights movement in the United States provides a powerful collective example: King’s (1963) insistence on the sacred dignity of every person was not incidental to his activism but its very source, drawing explicitly on the theological conviction that each human being is made in the image of God. Research in moral psychology has provided empirical support for the connection between experiences of the sacred and prosocial behaviour. Pargament (2007), in a comprehensive review of the psychology of religion and coping, found that individuals who perceive a sacred quality in human relationships and life events demonstrate higher levels of compassion, altruism, and resilience. Post-atheism takes such moments and such evidence seriously, understanding them as the living core of what faith traditions, at their best, have always tried to cultivate.

Levinas’s thought also reinforces the epistemological reorientation advanced above. If God is not an object to be detected by scientific instruments but a name for the ethical infinity encountered in the face of another person, then the New Atheist demand for empirical proof is not merely unanswered but unanswerable, because it is addressed to a phenomenon of the wrong kind entirely. God, in the Levinasian register, is not a thing in the world but the ethical charge that the world, through its others, places upon us. This formulation resonates with the work of other contemporary philosophers of religion who have sought to move beyond the sterile debate between theism and atheism. Kearney (2001, p. 5) has argued for a “God who may be,” a divine possibility that “resists the absolutism of both dogmatic theism and militant atheism” by remaining open to surprise and ethical demand.

Spinoza, Historical Perspectives, and the Rational Accountability of Faith

The philosophical engagement with questions of the divine long predates modern atheism, and it is instructive to recall these older traditions. Plato (c. 380 BCE/1997), in the Republic and the Timaeus, articulated a vision of the Good that transcended the material world, an ultimate principle that gave order and intelligibility to all things. Aristotle’s (c. 350 BCE/1984) concept of the Unmoved Mover offered a philosophical account of the divine inseparable from rational inquiry. In the Eastern traditions, the Upanishadic concept of Brahman as the ground of all being and the Buddhist insistence on the interconnectedness of all phenomena represent parallel attempts to articulate a vision of ultimate reality through disciplined contemplation and philosophical rigour.

In the medieval period, Aquinas (1265/1948) undertook perhaps the most ambitious synthesis of faith and reason in Western history, arguing that theological truths and philosophical truths could not ultimately contradict one another. Augustine’s (397/1998) Confessions demonstrated that the search for God could be simultaneously a rigorous intellectual journey and a deeply personal reckoning with desire, memory, and moral failure. Augustine’s restlessness, his sense that the heart remains unsatisfied until it finds its proper orientation, resonates across the centuries as a phenomenological testimony to the human need for something beyond the immediate.

It is Spinoza, however, who offers perhaps the most radical and generative reconceptualisation of the divine for post-atheist thought. Writing in the seventeenth century, Spinoza (1677/2002) scandalised both the religious and philosophical establishments by identifying God with Nature itself: Deus sive Natura, God or Nature. For Spinoza, God was not a personal being who intervened in human affairs but the infinite, self-causing substance of which all things are modes or expressions. This was not atheism, though Spinoza was denounced as an atheist and excommunicated from the Amsterdam synagogue for his views. It was, rather, a profound reimagining of what divinity might mean: not a transcendent lawgiver but the immanent order and creative power of existence itself (Nadler, 1999). As Spinoza (1677/2002, p. 278) argued in the Ethics, the highest good is “the knowledge of the union that the mind has with the whole of Nature,” a formulation that locates the sacred not beyond the world but within it.

Spinoza’s vision anticipates much of what post-atheism seeks to articulate. It retains a sense of the sacred, indeed intensifies it, by locating the divine in the intricate beauty of natural law, in the capacity of the human mind to understand, and in the ethical life that flows from such understanding. This is a spirituality fully compatible with reason, one that the New Atheists, in their haste to demolish the God of popular theism, have largely ignored. Spinoza’s God is not the God that Dawkins rejects, and the failure to recognise this distinction reveals once again the narrowness of the New Atheist lens. Kant (1781/1998) later demonstrated that pure reason could neither prove nor disprove God’s existence, while arguing that practical reason demanded a moral framework in which concepts like God functioned regulatively, orienting ethical life without requiring metaphysical certainty.

This rationalist inheritance is precisely where post-atheism parts company with both dogmatic religion and dogmatic atheism. Faith, if it is to be intellectually honest, must submit itself to rational scrutiny, not to destroy itself but to purify itself of superstition, manipulation, and cruelty. Religious institutions that demand unquestioning obedience, suppress dissent, and silence inquiry are rightly criticised. The history of religious excess, from the Inquisition’s persecution of heretics to contemporary theocratic regimes that curtail human freedoms, demonstrates that unchecked faith can become a mechanism of domination rather than liberation (Juergensmeyer, 2017). Post-atheism acknowledges this danger without concluding that the entire enterprise of faith is thereby discredited.

The Creative and Cultural Fruits of Faith

One of the most striking, yet frequently overlooked, arguments for the enduring significance of faith traditions is the extraordinary creativity they have inspired. This is not merely an aesthetic observation but a point of philosophical substance. The relationship between religious belief and artistic creation suggests that faith traditions function not only as systems of belief but as generative matrices of meaning that stimulate cultural production of the highest order (Begbie, 2000; Brown, 2004). The great cathedrals of Europe, from Chartres to the Sagrada Familia, represent not merely feats of engineering but acts of collective imagination: entire communities labouring across generations to give material form to their sense of the sacred. Bach composed his cantatas and passions as explicit acts of devotion, and yet these works transcend their liturgical origins to speak to listeners across confessional boundaries with a beauty that touches something universal in the human spirit.

Rumi, writing within the Sufi tradition of Islam, produced verses of such luminous intensity that they remain among the most widely read poetry in the world eight centuries later (Barks, 1995). The intricate geometric patterns of Islamic art, born from a theological conviction that the infinite could be intimated through mathematical beauty, continue to astonish with their elegance and depth. Hindu temple sculpture at Khajuraho and Ellora, Tibetan Buddhist mandalas painstakingly constructed and then ritually destroyed, the illuminated manuscripts of Celtic Christianity, the spirituals born from the suffering of enslaved African Americans and carried into the freedom songs of the civil rights movement: these are not incidental by-products of faith. They are expressions of a creative energy that arises precisely at the intersection of human longing and the intimation of transcendence. To reduce all of this to the residue of a cognitive error, as the New Atheists are inclined to do, is to impoverish our understanding of both art and humanity.

Brown (2004) has argued persuasively that religious traditions have served as the primary incubators of artistic imagination throughout most of human history, not because artists were constrained by religious patronage but because the encounter with transcendence provides an inexhaustible wellspring of creative energy. This observation is not merely historical. Contemporary research in the psychology of creativity has found positive associations between spirituality, openness to experience, and creative achievement (Kaufman, 2020), suggesting that the relationship between religious sensibility and creative flourishing is not reducible to historical contingency.

Agency and the Personal Search for Meaning

A further dimension that post-atheism affirms is the importance of individual agency in the search for meaning. Kierkegaard (1843/1983) argued that authentic faith could never be a matter of social conformity or inherited habit; it required a personal leap, a willed commitment made in the full awareness of uncertainty and risk. As Kierkegaard (1843/1983, p. 49) wrote, “the movement of faith must continually be made by virtue of the absurd,” emphasising that genuine faith involves a confrontation with uncertainty that no external authority can resolve on the individual’s behalf. Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac, in Kierkegaard’s reading, was not an act of obedience to a rule but a solitary confrontation with the absolute, a moment in which the individual stood before God without the comfort of universal ethical principles.

This existentialist insistence on personal responsibility resonates powerfully with the contemporary landscape in which many individuals are actively constructing their own spiritual paths rather than inheriting them wholesale from institutional religion. Heelas and Woodhead (2005), in their sociological study of religion and spirituality in a British town, documented what they termed a “subjective turn” in contemporary spiritual life: a movement away from external authorities and towards personal experience and inner exploration as the primary sources of spiritual meaning. Wuthnow (1998) identified a parallel trend in the United States, distinguishing between a “dwelling” spirituality rooted in stable institutional structures and a “seeking” spirituality characterised by individual exploration, eclecticism, and movement between traditions.

Frankl’s (1946/2006) account of meaning making in the extremity of the Nazi concentration camps offers perhaps the most compelling modern testimony to the centrality of personal agency in the search for meaning. Frankl observed that those prisoners who maintained a sense of purpose, whether through faith, love, or creative vision, were more likely to endure than those who succumbed to despair. Meaning, Frankl concluded, is not given; it must be found, and each person bears the responsibility of finding it. Post-atheism honours this insight by refusing to prescribe a single path to the sacred. Whether one finds transcendence in a cathedral, a mosque, a meditation hall, a forest, or a poem, the authenticity of the search is what matters.

Tillich’s (1952) concept of God as “the ground of being” rather than a being among beings is instructive here, echoing in its own Protestant idiom Spinoza’s earlier identification of God with the fundamental structure of reality. God, reconceived in this way, is not an object to be proved or disproved but the depth dimension of existence itself, accessible to anyone willing to ask what Tillich (1952, p. 8) called “the question of ultimate concern.” The convergence of Tillich’s existentialist theology, Kierkegaard’s emphasis on personal commitment, and the empirical findings of contemporary sociology of religion suggests that the individual search for meaning remains a vital dimension of human experience that post-atheism seeks to honour and protect.

Faith, Politics, and the Plural Society

If post-atheism affirms the importance of personal and communal faith, it also insists on a crucial distinction: the separation of faith from political power and governmental authority. This is not a concession to secularism understood as the erasure of religion from public life; it is, rather, a condition for the flourishing of genuine religious pluralism. When any single faith tradition captures the machinery of the state, the result is invariably the suppression of other traditions, the coercion of conscience, and the corruption of the faith itself. The theocratic governance of contemporary Iran, the entanglement of Orthodox Christianity with nationalist politics in Russia, and the instrumentalisation of Hindu identity by political movements in India all illustrate the dangers that arise when the boundary between faith and political power is dissolved (Juergensmeyer, 2017). In each case, religion ceases to be a freely chosen orientation towards the sacred and becomes instead a tool of social control, deployed to enforce conformity and silence dissent.

Rawls (1993) argued that a just society requires what he termed “public reason”: a shared framework of deliberation in which citizens justify their political claims in terms accessible to all, regardless of their particular religious or philosophical commitments. This does not mean that religiously motivated citizens must abandon their convictions upon entering the public square. It means, rather, that political arguments must ultimately be translatable into terms that do not presuppose the truth of any specific revelation. Habermas (2006), in his well-known dialogue with then-Cardinal Ratzinger, refined this position by acknowledging that secular reason has much to learn from religious traditions, particularly regarding questions of human dignity, solidarity, and the limits of instrumental rationality, while maintaining that the institutional separation of church and state remains essential for democratic governance. As Habermas (2006, p. 10) put it, “philosophy must be ready to learn from theology, not because of theological reasons but because of philosophical ones.” Asad (2003) has further complicated this picture by demonstrating that the very category of “the secular” is not a neutral or universal condition but is itself the product of particular historical and political formations, suggesting that the relationship between religion and public life cannot be settled by simple appeals to a pre-given secular norm.

Post-atheism embraces the separation of faith from political power not reluctantly but enthusiastically, understanding it as the very condition under which genuine faith can flourish. A faith that must be enforced by law is no faith at all; it is ideology wearing a religious mask. Conversely, a society that respects the autonomy of faith communities, allowing them to worship, teach, and organise according to their own convictions while ensuring that no single tradition dominates the public sphere, creates the conditions for what Eck (2001) has called a religiously plural world in which the encounter between traditions becomes a source of mutual enrichment rather than conflict. In multicultural societies such as Australia, where Indigenous spiritual traditions, Christian denominations, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism, and secular worldviews coexist in a shared civic space, this principle is not merely theoretical but urgently practical (Bouma, 2006). Post-atheism supports the robust presence of faith in public life while insisting that no faith should hold a monopoly on political power or civic belonging.

The Devolution of Atheism and the Turn to Post-Secular Spirituality

It is worth observing that atheism itself has not remained static. In practice, the fierce certainties of the New Atheism have softened, in many cases, into a quieter agnosticism or, more tellingly, into a practical indifference that simply ignores the question of transcendence altogether. This is not intellectual progress; it is, this article suggests, an impoverishment. To live entirely in the immediate, to inhabit only the moment without ever raising one’s gaze towards what lies beyond, towards what philosophers have variously called the transcendent, the numinous, or simply the question of meaning, is to truncate the full range of human experience and inquiry. The very scientism critiqued above contributes to this narrowing: if the only real questions are those that science can answer, then the deepest human questions, those of meaning, purpose, and moral orientation, are quietly set aside as unanswerable and therefore unimportant. As Nussbaum (2012) has argued, a truly liberal society requires not the elimination of religious sensibility but the cultivation of mutual respect and understanding across traditions, including between the religious and the secular.

Simultaneously, there has been a notable movement away from mainstream institutional religions towards alternative traditions, contemplative practices, Indigenous spiritualities, Buddhist mindfulness, and various syncretic forms of seeking. The popularity of meditation retreats, the growing Western engagement with Sufi poetry and Zen practice, and the resurgence of interest in Indigenous Australian spirituality and its profound connection to Country all suggest that the human impulse towards the sacred has not disappeared; it has simply found the existing institutional containers inadequate. This trend has been documented extensively by scholars of contemporary religion. Roof (1999) identified a generational shift towards spiritual seeking among American Baby Boomers, while more recent research by Mercadante (2014) has examined the growing population of “spiritual but not religious” individuals who reject institutional affiliation while maintaining commitments to transcendence, practice, and ethical orientation.

Kearney (2010) captures this movement in his concept of “anatheism”: a returning to God after the death of God, not naively but with the wisdom earned through doubt. Kearney (2010, p. 3) describes anatheism as “a movement, not a state,” involving “a return to the sacred after a leave-taking from the sacred.” Post-atheism shares this sensibility: it passes through atheism rather than retreating from it, arriving at a chastened but genuine openness to the sacred. The concept also resonates with the broader post-secular turn in social theory, in which thinkers such as Habermas (2008), Taylor (2007), and McLennan (2010) have argued that the confident secularist assumption that modernity would inevitably lead to the disappearance of religion has been empirically falsified and requires philosophical reconsideration. Joas (2014) has developed a parallel argument, contending that faith in the contemporary world is best understood not as an atavistic survival but as an “option”: a genuine and rationally defensible possibility that individuals may embrace with full awareness of its contingency and its alternatives.

An Evolving Concept of the Divine

Central to the post-atheist vision is the recognition that the concept of God is not fixed but evolving. This is not a claim about God’s ontological status but about how human communities understand and relate to the divine across historical time. Armstrong (2009) has traced this evolution across millennia, from tribal deities of war and territory to the more universal ethical monotheism of the prophetic traditions, and onwards to the apophatic theologies that insist God exceeds all human categories. This historical trajectory suggests that the concept of God is not a static proposition to be accepted or rejected but a dynamic horizon of meaning that develops in dialogue with changing human understanding.

Caputo (2006) has articulated this with particular force, arguing for what he terms a “weak theology” in which God is not an omnipotent sovereign but an event, a call, an invitation towards justice, compassion, and transformation. For Caputo (2006, p. 13), “the name of God is the name of an event, something astir in that name.” Buber’s (1923/1970) distinction between I-Thou and I-It relations offers a complementary perspective: the divine is encountered not as an object of knowledge but in the quality of relation itself, in those moments when one meets another being with one’s whole self rather than treating them as a means to an end. Spinoza’s Deus sive Natura can be understood as an earlier station on this same trajectory, a moment when the concept of God was radically enlarged to encompass the whole of reality, freeing it from anthropomorphic projection while preserving its capacity to inspire wonder, ethical commitment, and intellectual humility.

The God of post-atheism, then, is not the God of metaphysical proof or institutional authority; it is the God that emerges within community, within experience, within the texture of a life lived with openness and moral seriousness. It is the God intimated in the ethical encounter with the face of the other, in the creative act that reaches towards beauty, in the shared rituals that bind communities across generations, and in those liminal moments of experience that James so carefully documented. In Levinas’s terms, it is the God glimpsed in the face of the other: the God who is not a concept to be grasped but a responsibility to be lived. This is a God that no amount of scientific evidence can either prove or disprove, because it is not that kind of proposition. It is, rather, a way of naming the depth, the seriousness, and the irreducible mystery of human existence.

Conclusion

This article has sought to develop a philosophically grounded position, termed post-atheism, that moves beyond the impasse between militant secularism and uncritical faith. The argument has proceeded through several interconnected stages. First, it has engaged with the New Atheist critique of religion, acknowledging its genuine contributions while identifying its fundamental epistemological limitation: the treatment of God as a scientific hypothesis amenable to empirical falsification. Second, it has drawn on phenomenological, pragmatist, and ethical philosophical traditions to demonstrate that religious belief operates not primarily as a propositional claim but as a dimension of lived experience, communal practice, and ethical orientation. Third, it has adduced empirical evidence from the sociology of religion, psychology of religion, and public health research to demonstrate the persistent and significant social functions of faith communities. Fourth, it has argued for the separation of faith from political power as a condition for genuine religious pluralism and democratic governance.

Post-atheism, as articulated here, is neither a compromise nor a fence-sitting position. It is a philosophically grounded orientation that takes seriously the existential condition of thrownness, the irreducibility of lived experience, the transformative reality of religious encounter, the ethical imperative revealed in the face of the other, and the rational demand for intellectual honesty. It draws on thinkers who were not themselves religious adherents, including Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, and in important respects Spinoza, precisely because their secular vantage points lend philosophical credibility to claims about the enduring significance of the sacred. It recognises that faith communities continue to offer something vital: a sense of belonging, purpose, and ethical orientation, while insisting that these communities must remain open, self-critical, and accountable.

The article has rejected the contempt with which the New Atheists have treated the deepest convictions of the majority of the world’s population, not because those convictions are beyond question, but because mockery is no substitute for understanding, and because the scientific lens through which the New Atheists view religion is too narrow to apprehend what religion actually is and does. It has celebrated the extraordinary creativity that faith has inspired across cultures and centuries, and it has affirmed the agency of each person to pursue their own path towards meaning. It has insisted that the separation of faith from political power is not the enemy of religion but its protector, the condition under which genuine belief can flourish in a plural and democratic society.

Several directions for further inquiry suggest themselves. Empirical research is needed on the extent to which post-atheist orientations are emerging among populations that identify as neither traditionally religious nor conventionally atheist. Comparative philosophical work could explore the resonances between the post-atheist position developed here and analogous movements in non-Western philosophical and spiritual traditions, including Indigenous Australian ontologies of Country and belonging (Rose, 1996), Buddhist concepts of dependent origination, and Hindu philosophical traditions of non-dualism. The relationship between post-atheism and the growing body of work on post-secular ethics and politics (Habermas, 2008; Joas, 2014; Taylor, 2007) also warrants sustained attention.

In a world that often oscillates between fanaticism and indifference, post-atheism offers a third path: one that honours the depth of human seeking without surrendering the hard-won insights of reason and critique. It is, in the end, an invitation to take both doubt and wonder seriously, and to live in the fertile, if sometimes uncomfortable, space between them. As this article has sought to demonstrate, the resources for such a position are richly available in the philosophical, sociological, and experiential traditions upon which it draws. The task that remains is to cultivate and inhabit this orientation with the intellectual honesty and moral seriousness it demands.

References

Amarasingam, A. (Ed.). (2010). Religion and the new atheism: A critical appraisal. Brill.

Aquinas, T. (1948). Summa theologica (Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Trans.). Benziger Bros. (Original work published 1265–1274)

Aristotle. (1984). The complete works of Aristotle: The revised Oxford translation (J. Barnes, Ed.). Princeton University Press. (Original works published c. 350 BCE)

Armstrong, K. (2009). The case for God: What religion really means. Bodley Head.

Asad, T. (2003). Formations of the secular: Christianity, Islam, modernity. Stanford University Press.

Augustine. (1998). Confessions (H. Chadwick, Trans.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 397 CE)

Barks, C. (Trans.). (1995). The essential Rumi. HarperSanFrancisco.

Begbie, J. S. (2000). Theology, music and time. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511487774

Berger, P. L. (Ed.). (1999). The desecularization of the world: Resurgent religion and world politics. Eerdmans.

Bouma, G. D. (2006). Australian soul: Religion and spirituality in the twenty-first century. Cambridge University Press.

Brown, F. B. (2004). Good taste, bad taste, and Christian taste: Aesthetics in religious life. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0195158962.001.0001

Bruce, S. (2002). God is dead: Secularization in the West. Blackwell.

Buber, M. (1970). I and Thou (W. Kaufmann, Trans.). Charles Scribner’s Sons. (Original work published 1923)

Caputo, J. D. (1993). Demythologizing Heidegger. Indiana University Press.

Caputo, J. D. (2006). The weakness of God: A theology of the event. Indiana University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt2005szp

Cavanaugh, W. T. (2009). The myth of religious violence: Secular ideology and the roots of modern conflict. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195385045.001.0001

Cottingham, J. (2005). The spiritual dimension: Religion, philosophy and human value. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511487590

Dawkins, R. (2006). The God delusion. Bantam Press.

Dennett, D. C. (2006). Breaking the spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon. Viking.

Dreyfus, H. L., & Kelly, S. D. (2011). All things shining: Reading the Western classics to find meaning in a secular age. Free Press.

Durkheim, E. (1995). The elementary forms of religious life (K. E. Fields, Trans.). Free Press. (Original work published 1912)

Eagleton, T. (2009). Reason, faith, and revolution: Reflections on the God debate. Yale University Press.

Eck, D. L. (2001). A new religious America: How a “Christian country” has become the world’s most religiously diverse nation. HarperSanFrancisco.

Frankl, V. E. (2006). Man’s search for meaning. Beacon Press. (Original work published 1946)

Habermas, J. (2006). Religion in the public sphere. European Journal of Philosophy, 14(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0378.2006.00241.x

Habermas, J. (2008). Between naturalism and religion: Philosophical essays (C. Cronin, Trans.). Polity Press.

Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Vintage.

Harris, S. (2004). The end of faith: Religion, terror, and the future of reason. W. W. Norton.

Heelas, P., & Woodhead, L. (2005). The spiritual revolution: Why religion is giving way to spirituality. Blackwell.

Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). Blackwell. (Original work published 1927)

Hitchens, C. (2007). God is not great: How religion poisons everything. Twelve.

Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: A meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614568352

Hood, R. W., Jr., Hill, P. C., & Spilka, B. (2009). The psychology of religion: An empirical approach (4th ed.). Guilford Press.

James, W. (2002). The varieties of religious experience: A study in human nature. Routledge. (Original work published 1902). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203398470

Joas, H. (2014). Faith as an option: Possible futures for Christianity (A. Skinner, Trans.). Stanford University Press.

Juergensmeyer, M. (2017). Terror in the mind of God: The global rise of religious violence (4th ed.). University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520965508

Kant, I. (1998). Critique of pure reason (P. Guyer & A. W. Wood, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1781). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804649

Kaufman, S. B. (2020). Self-actualizing people in the 21st century: Integration with contemporary theory and research on personality and well-being. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 63(1), 87–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167818809187

Kearney, R. (2001). The God who may be: A hermeneutics of religion. Indiana University Press.

Kearney, R. (2010). Anatheism: Returning to God after God. Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/kear14964

Kierkegaard, S. (1983). Fear and trembling (H. V. Hong & E. H. Hong, Trans.). Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1843). https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400847006

King, M. L., Jr. (1963). Letter from Birmingham jail. In Why we can’t wait (pp. 77–100). Harper & Row.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.

Landes, D. A. (2013). Merleau-Ponty and the paradoxes of expression. Bloomsbury. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472548962

Levinas, E. (1969). Totality and infinity: An essay on exteriority (A. Lingis, Trans.). Duquesne University Press.

Levinas, E. (1998). Otherwise than being, or, beyond essence (A. Lingis, Trans.). Duquesne University Press.

McGrath, A. (2004). The twilight of atheism: The rise and fall of disbelief in the modern world. Doubleday.

McLennan, G. (2010). The postsecular turn. Theory, Culture & Society, 27(4), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276410372239

McNamara, P. (2009). The neuroscience of religious experience. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605529

Mercadante, L. A. (2014). Belief without borders: Inside the minds of the spiritual but not religious. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199931002.001.0001

Merleau-Ponty, M. (2012). Phenomenology of perception (D. A. Landes, Trans.). Routledge. (Original work published 1945). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203720714

Midgley, M. (2002). Science and poetry. Routledge.

Nadler, S. (1999). Spinoza: A life. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815713

Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2011). Sacred and secular: Religion and politics worldwide (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511894862

Numbers, R. L. (Ed.). (2009). Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion. Harvard University Press.

Nussbaum, M. C. (2012). The new religious intolerance: Overcoming the politics of fear in an anxious age. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674065918

Otto, R. (1958). The idea of the holy (J. W. Harvey, Trans., 2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1917)

Pargament, K. I. (2007). Spiritually integrated psychotherapy: Understanding and addressing the sacred. Guilford Press.

Plantinga, A. (2000). Warranted Christian belief. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0195131932.001.0001

Plato. (1997). Complete works (J. M. Cooper, Ed.). Hackett. (Original works published c. 380 BCE)

Putnam, R. D., & Campbell, D. E. (2010). American grace: How religion divides and unites us. Simon & Schuster.

Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/rawl92038

Ricoeur, P. (1970). Freud and philosophy: An essay on interpretation (D. Savage, Trans.). Yale University Press.

Roof, W. C. (1999). Spiritual marketplace: Baby boomers and the remaking of American religion. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400823055

Rose, D. B. (1996). Nourishing terrains: Australian Aboriginal views of landscape and wilderness. Australian Heritage Commission.

Spinoza, B. (2002). Ethics. In M. L. Morgan (Ed.), Spinoza: Complete works (S. Shirley, Trans., pp. 213–382). Hackett. (Original work published 1677)

Steinbock, A. J. (2007). Phenomenology and mysticism: The verticality of religious experience. Indiana University Press.

Stenmark, M. (2001). Scientism: Science, ethics and religion. Ashgate.

Taylor, C. (2007). A secular age. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674044548

Tillich, P. (1952). The courage to be. Yale University Press.

Wuthnow, R. (1998). After heaven: Spirituality in America since the 1950s. University of California Press.

Zuckerman, P. (2008). Society without God: What the least religious nations can tell us about contentment. New York University Press.