Book Review: The Australian Book of Atheism
The Australian Book of Atheism, edited by Warren Bonett.
Publisher: Scribe.
The answer isn’t self-evident; ‘what need is there for a book on atheism with a distinct Australian perspective?’
With this question in mind I made my purchase via the editor’s bookstore, Embiggen Books. Not because I was sure of an answer, but precisely because I wasn’t, the purchase was mandated.
With the various Otherings; the specter of the ‘New Atheist’ monolith; the fearful Easter sermons and the often boilerplate News Limited response, there’s clearly utility in compiling an anthology of varied atheist views, even down under in laid-back Australia.
But why Australian atheists? Being Australian doesn’t make you any more or less of an atheist, and vice versa.
This post has been moved here…
(Photo Source: Warren Bonett).
Trackbacks
- Book Review: The Australian Book of Atheism « Thinkers' Podium | ReviewTica
- Tweets that mention Book Review: The Australian Book of Atheism « Thinkers' Podium -- Topsy.com
- The New Apologists and Bad Philosophy | Tangled Up in Blue Guy
- The Dinner Party Shaman | It's About Time
Comments are closed.
Thanks, Bruce, for a thorough and intelligent assessment of the book. I’d like to speak to the ‘criticism’ about the lack of an Aboriginal perspective.
In the very early stages of planning, Warren and I discussed the need to have at least one – and preferably more – indigenous contributions. I came up with a number of possibilities (mainly academics & jurists) and also asked a friend, an Aboriginal elder, to put the word out. Later, Warren pursued some leads of his own. We did find some indigenous atheists but none who were prepared to write for the book.
In the introduction, Warren notes his sorrow that we weren’t able to present an indigenous perspective in the book.
When it became apparent that, despite exhaustive efforts to find an indigenous author, it just wasn’t going to happen (this time at least) Warren asked me to edit my chapter to expand on how being dubbed ‘atheists’ prevented Aborigines from testifying in court (pp. 15-16). While there wasn’t much room in my chapter to detail political achievements, two I was delighted to include were Whitlam’s Aboriginal Land Rights bill and the return of land to the Gurindji people.
Of course, these brief mentions still leave a large hole in the book, but I wish to say to anyone who is concerned about this that the indigenous perspective was very much on our minds from inception and throughout the production of the book. If we had been able to find indigenous input, you can be assured it would have been included.
Nevertheless, the indigenous ‘absence’ in the book, in some ways, speaks louder than words. Only Aborigines are required to show a ‘spiritual’ connection in order to lay claim to land which was never purchased from their people nor handed over by treaty. Can you imagine anyone else going to court over a piece of land that had been in their family for generations that had been occupied by strangers, but then having to prove a ‘spiritual connection’ in order to have their rights restored? While, as we found, there are many Aborigines who do not believe in the Christian god and no longer adhere to the spiritual beliefs of their ancestors, they rightly fear that to go public with this may a) cause offence to their people and their elders and b) unfairly prejudice land rights claims.
Perhaps there will be a ‘Book 2′ once Embiggen Books is re-established in Melbourne. I hope so. And both Warren and I hope that, by then, we will find some indigenous atheist voices. We are certainly still looking.
Chrys Stevenson
Part of the reason I’m not damning the book for it, although I suspected more along the lines that you divulge (i.e. in addition to what is mentioned in the book).
Though if I got privileged information of such a nature by asking, it wouldn’t be so much of a book review, so I kept myself from quizzing you peeps about these details and tried to stick with what I knew from the book while attempting not to jump to conclusions.
I gather we’re all in sympathy about the issue.