Neither Bob Garfield nor Gene Weingarten seem to realize that the interesting topic raised by the article and the book is “Philosophy for Children”: not atheism and not religion.

The idea of a six year old nihilist ranting to a confuse puppy provides a great launch pad for endless humor for adults. But does the book present well for the digestion of children any of the key issues of our civilization? In the space of “Philosophy for Children”, Mr. Weingarten has some extraordinary competition.

Jam tomorrow and jam yesterday, but never jam today.
--Lewis Carroll "Through the Looking Glass"

Interesting. What is the target audience age range? I'm an atheist who has already indoctrinated his kids into atheism, and I specifically use the word indoctrinated as opposed to "undoctrinated" as I think the latter is meant for reversing indoctrination. Though everyone is ultimately free to decide what they believe, I respect a every parent's right to indoctrinate their own kids into their own beliefs and values.

I took a preemptive approach using polytheistic mythology to expose my kids to the evolution of religion. Once they understand why more primitive people developed their polytheistic beliefs everything else fell into place pretty easily the way I wanted. I started this between 4 and 7 years old. Hence my question about the target age of the book.

FWIW, as an atheist I totally agree with al from Idaho that "Me and Dog" should necessarily be removed from the shelves of government sponsored institutions.

I am a Mormon and I regularly teach religion to my own kids, so I may well represent everything that troubles Mr. Weingarten about the world. To be fair, I do continually remind my kids that my own views and beliefs are fallible, and that they should seek to find their own answers to questions of religion. But, also to be fair, I'm not exactly trying to rigorously balance every doctrine of religion with an atheist counter point, because I do, in fact, believe in God.
I appreciate the book, because I think it's a good way to begin a discussion about an atheist point of view with kids. The question will, and I think should, at least be considered at some point.
MY question is about how this book, and atheism in general, fits into the supposedly opposing worlds of religiosity and secularism. I read recently of a California school board that has taken all books that were written from a religious perspective out of their school (the specific one in question was "The Hiding Place"). I get it that there's a conscientious effort to be completely neutral as a government sponsored institution, and in order to never disrespect, misrepresent or show bias towards any person's belief they've endeavored to remove belief from the school. So, would "Me and Dog" necessarily be removed from the shelves? I would argue that the answer is yes. My comment is already really long, so if anyone wants to tell me why they think I'm wrong, that's cool. I'll hopefully have an answer.

Terrific segment. I will post this in my LA-based Meetup group, Deep Thinkers. And Gene, if you happen to read this, I would love to have you be a featured guest whenever you're on the West coast. We just hit 800 members, and we're both fun and passionate.

Either way, I will get your book and keep it on my shelf in the outside chance one of my religious relatives come visit.

Rev, I don't disagree with anything you say. I may be an atheist, but I am not anti-religion. And I hope this book doesn't suggest that the simplistic views of the dog represent religion as it is usually observed. But I do think it represents religion as it is unfortunately too often observed -- in a way that is exclusionary, prescriptive, and, well, superstitious. If your views were universal, I'm not sure I'd see the need for this book at all. Thanks so much for weighing in.

I am a Christian pastor, but make no mistake--I actually agree with much of the "relentless drumming" to which Mr. Weingarten objects. I believe each child, including those who undergo "religious" education, must at some point be entirely free to decide what they believe, and to distinguish their own thinking and experience from the options laid out for them by parents and teachers. I do find fault with his characterization of faith. The picture he paints certainly reflects an aspect of reality, but his brush is too broad. Not every person who believes in God thinks that when good things happen, God is being nice, or that God angrily punishes us for misbehavior. This is an infantile understanding of faith, to which I and countless millions of people of faith object, and which we work to elevate. We understand that both good and bad happen "just because," or perhaps just because we are being human, and that God is present through all with a mysterious power to transform events by bringing "grace" through even our disasters. Mr. Weingarten, you absolutely deserve to be free from childish propaganda, and to promote your own understanding, but I feel you do not do many of us justice. On the other hand, your depiction of immature faith is so charming and accurate that I think I will use it in a sermon to illustrate what Christian faith is NOT meant to be.