Audio book. Completely disappointed. I was hoping for a critical review or explanation if how these books influenced morality or history. what it is instead is an attack on atheism (without god there is no morality, apparently). The author missed the blatant sarcasm evident to high schoolers when reading Machiavelli's The Prince, for one thing.
Didn't finish, not worth it for the blatant proselytising. ( )

Should be titled: 10 books I didn't understand. The only book the author likes is the bible. I regret giving the author the courtesy of finishing this book. ( )

I listened to this book rather than read it. I don’t recommend this, because it is sometimes difficult to know when Wiker is directly quoting his source and when he is interpreting it. I had to keep flipping back to the book he was discussing, when I had a copy, to check. Having read about it, I was unwilling to buy a copy, and since the coronavirus quarantine has made it presently impossible to borrow the physical book, listening was my only choice.

Benjamin Wiker is a conservative Roman Catholic ethicist with a Ph.D. in theological ethics from Vanderbilt University. He is also a member of the Discovery Institute (DI), which advocates Intelligent Design and rejects materialism.

The potential reader should consider whether or not they aren't interested in Wiker's agenda, i.e., arguing that an atheistic movement is ruining a better older world. He ignores other influences that don't fit. I actually don't like most of these books for various reasons, but there are certainly other candidates for being bad influences, and Wiker's chief criterion is that they do not agree with his religious outlook. There is nothing wrong with that per se, but if you are not trying to understand that outlook, or don't share it, it may be a waste of time to read this. If a person doesn't agree with the premises of an argument, they are unlikely to be persuaded by it.

In the interest of full disclosure I will say that I am an atheist, although Wiker does not seem to be using the word in the modern sense of someone who does not believe in god(s). Some of the authors don't of course, but Wiker seems to be using it in the older sense, i.e., meaning someone who does not agree with his religious beliefs, although he does admit Jews among the godly. He has probably offended or, in their eyes, mischaracterised, a lot of people, including people who do believe in god(s), but don’t believe in heaven or hell. He would also be including agnostics as atheists, which many of them would find very annoying. He has not said where he places other non-Christians, (or possibly non-Roman Catholic Christians?) who believe in heaven and hell, or alternatives like karma. This was probably wise.

I would like add, that, like many atheists, despite what many religious people would like to believe, I am not an atheist because of my rearing, or science or pernicious atheistic books. I simply became disillusioned with my religion and it's adherents. During the transition from believer, I read mainly religious works, talked with clergy, and attended religious classes. This is probably the reason why atheists are usually one of the three highest scoring groups on religious tests; the other two are Mormons and Jews. Even on tests focusing on the knowledge of Christianity, atheists as a group handily out score Christians as a group.

Wiker also greatly expands the category of atheist by leaning very heavily on what is commonly known as the "No True Scotsman fallacy." That is, all embarrassing members of a group he likes aren't really the members of the group, no matter what they claim. Embarrassing members of groups one doesn't like, no matter how long ago, taint everyone in the group. Groups one likes are judged on their highest ideals and greatest achievements, others on their worst behavior and ideas. Wiker not only argues, as so many have, that bad Christians aren't real Christians, but that they are in fact atheists. People who are shocked that I am an atheist would be even more shocked to learn that Wiker thinks they are, too. This makes it wryly amusing when Wiker discusses the intolerant Lenin deeming anyone who disagreed with him to be a capitalist, even if they considered themselves Marxists.

One of my problems with the book is that it seems to imply that there was some earlier time when all people led virtuous lives and things like tyranny and genocide didn't exist; not that he's alone in that fallacy. No-one engaged in casual sex or abandoned children, or pursued extravagant indulgences or vicious pleasures, The evils that Wiker is claiming are the fault of many of these books existed for millennia before any of them were written. I would agree that some of the books are repulsive, which certainly isn't a new revelation, and that people may point to them as an excuse for evil behavior, but they seem to have found excuses enough without these books. "God Wills It" has always been popular. The Age of Faith, of which people speak so wistfully, was also the Age of Burning Religious Dissidents at Stake.The leaders of Western Christianity also carried out the Northern Crusades against peoples who had continued their own religions; the Albigensian Crusade against Catharism in southern France; and the persecution of Jews and Anabaptists by Catholics and Protestants alike.

But of course, this is pretty common. In a thread I was reading on slavery, a Christian blamed the inclusion of slavery in the US Constitution (ratified June 21, 1788) on Charles Darwin (not born until February 12, 1809). Christians love to point to the Anglo-American Christians who fought for the abolition of slavery while ignoring that their 18th and 19th century opponents were mainly other Christians who pointed to the Bible to justify the practice (Ephesians 6:5 and Colossians 3:22 urge slaves to be obedient to their masters). In his book, Practicing Catholic, James Carroll made the preposterous claim that it was secularism that made slavery possible in the United States, despite the fact that most primarily Christian countries and colonies that practiced slavery at the time had state churches.

Since I'm not writing my own book, I'll use Chapter 1 on Machiavelli's The Prince as an example. If I were reviewing that book, I would have a number of criticisms, but that's not the point here. It seems to me that Machiavelli is reporting what he sees. He is desperate for someone to unite Italy and not only resolve its internal conflicts, but keep out the invading French and Spanish. Wiker notes some of the horrors through which Machiavelli was living, but I don't think he really takes it to heart with his flippant comment that Machiavelli looked evil in the eye and winked. Wiker's main point seems to be to argue that this book reflects atheism. He doesn't offer any evidence that Machiavelli saw himself as an atheist, but if Wiker doesn't like him, that's what he must be. I can only suppose that atheism was extremely widespread in Italy, and indeed in all of Europe, at the time, especially among the upper classes, because most leaders, including the princes of the church, behaved as Machiavelli describes. Cesare Borgia's career was backed by his father, Pope Alexander VI ( a better candidate for looking evil in the eye and winking), and ended when Pope Julius II, named in honor of Julius Caesar, who was known as "The Warrior Pope" or "The Fearsome Pope," double-crossed him. Wiker condemns Machiavelli for not trusting that virtue will triumph, but notably fails to offer any examples of successful leaders of unquestionable virtue. I point out that Cicero, whom Wiker quotes in arguing the importance of virtuous leaders, committed judicial murder when he couldn't figure out a legal method of getting rid of opponents after the Cataline conspiracy.

Wiker also mentions Plato's Republic in arguing against Machiavelli and for virtuous government. What does Wiker, who in later chapters opposes eugenics and promiscuity make of Socrates' argument that the government should practice selective breeding, on the same principles as domestic animals, including that the offspring of the inferior, or any deformed infant, should be disposed of? How about the fact that members of a particular class mated at will, with a few restrictions, and no effort was made to avoid brother/sister matings? Children were raised by nursemaids, not families, with new mothers going in turn to nurse whatever infants were hungry during their time on duty. Not only did women not stay home rearing their children, but except for reproductive functions, men and women did the same work according to their individual abilities and inclinations.

In reading the chapters on eugenics, and Wiker's horror of preventing mentally deficient people from breeding, I don't favor any extensive eugenics program; we have neither the knowledge or the wisdom, and managing genetic inheritance is much trickier than most people realize. I thought about a group who frequently comes to the library where I work. They are teenagers and adults who, for various resaons, have a mental age of about 6- or 8-years old. Does Wiker think that they should be encouraged to marry and have children? Does that happen at Catholic-run institutions?

I wasn't going to lengthen this by discussing any other chapters, until I got to Hitler's Mein Kampf. Wiker draws lines of influence between this, Darwin and Sanger, but not to the 1,500-year-old church sanctioned anti-Semitism. Of course, as Huck Finn says of the Widow Douglas's hypocrisy, "of course that were all right, because she done it herself." I think that probably had a great deal to do with Hitler's selection of Jews as a scapegoat. Wiker attributes this to his hostility to capitalists and communists, but Jews weren't the only people in these two categories. I also think it probably made it easier to persuade other Germans to accept his accusations. A cruise ship full of Jews fleeing Germany tried to find sanctuary in the Americas. No country in these Christian dominated, but not Nazi societies would accept them and they were forced to return to Germany. According to James Carroll, in his book Constantine's Sword : the Church and Jews, the Roman Catholic Church's official policy was that Jews should survive but not thrive. As he remarks, the Church cannot escape it's responsibility, knowing that their teachings on the perfidious, Christ-killing Jews routinely resulted in violence.

Wiker offers interesting and occasionally witty or incisive some insights about these works, but nothing particularly new or insightful. Another point of unintended humor comes when he charges the Margaret Mead, Alfred Kinsey, and Betty Friedan were massaging their data to justify their own life-decisions -- clearly so is Wiker. He seems rather smug, although this could be at least partially an artifact of the reader. There are plenty of books on the history of Western ideas that are more thoughtful, truthful, and less tendentious. ( )

While I agree with a few of the author's book choices, some of the books he choose as corrupting forces seemed to be reflections of their time period rather than written with the intent to corrupt the world around them as Wiker asserts. A few interesting facts were presented here and there, but mostly it was a warning against atheist authors. Not sure what I thought this would be about, but this definitely didn't meet my "expectations". ( )

To be short: Benjamin Wiker has no clue what he's writing about.

It is hard to take seriously someone who pedantically goes out of his way to state that Descartes wrote his "Meditation on First Philosophy" in French rather than Latin, when, in fact, anyone with half a brain could have checked that Descartes, of course, wrote it in Latin—it was another six years before a French translation was published.

It is also hard to take seriously a fool who does not list major religious works at the top of the list of books that caused harm in the world.

If you're a rightwing religious nut, this book will be right up your alley. ( )