Rating: 
Summary: Claims we cannot use reason and science to prove God exist
Review: Shermer stresses that his research, and that of others, has found that the "number-one reason people give for why they believe in God is a variation on the classic cosmological or design argument: The good design, natural beauty, perfection, and complexity of the world or universe compels us to think that it could not have come about without an intelligent designer" (p. xiv). He then states that he is opposed to believers using "science and reason to prove God's existence" (p.xiii). Why he is opposed he does not say. My concern is who says that one should not "use science and reason to prove God's existence?" Is this akin to the 'law' that says only naturalism can be used in science, and that intelligent design is off limits? Who makes up these rules? I have heard this over and over from scientists (mostly evolutionists). Doesn't this rule put limits on science? I was taught in my Ph.D. program in a natural science discipline that science is a search for the truth and no field is off limits including religion. Shermer's subtitle is "The Search for God in an Age of Science" when it should be "Why we cannot Search for God in an Age of Science because the Science Elite have decided that we cannot." Sounds like science has become a religion.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting and well-written, but don't expect too much
Review: I have the same feelings about this book as I do for Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things." I enjoyed reading both books but felt they were lacking in substance. This book, however, is guiltier of that offense than the former one. In "Why We Believe" Shermer does a good job of conveying his opinion on god and religion and he does present facts and logical argument to bolster his case. Basically, Shermer considers himself to be an agnostic. However, the agnostic position is an easy one to support. As an agnostic, you are saying that you either don't have enough information to take a position and/or you really don't care either way. One of Shermer's main conclusions seems to be that questions such as, "Is there a god?" can never be answered with any certainty. Once that position has been taken, it seems pointless to continue the text. Given the title of the book, I expected this book to contain more information on why humans seem to have an innate need to believe in god, afterlives, and the supernatural. Shermer does propose his concept of a "belief engine" in which this topic is addressed to a certain extent. Maybe my expectations were too high, but I felt that this topic, which I assumed would be the central thesis of the book, was covered rather briefly. My other main criticism for this book, and his other one, is that the author tends to include chapters that are somewhat off the topic. In this book, for example, Shermer discuss the millennium and all of the hype, paranoia and misguided information about it. This is an interesting and timely topic (given that the book was published in 1999) but it is a departure from the central topic of the book, Although I do have these misgivings about the book, I did enjoy it. Shermer has a nice writing style and it is an enjoyable read. I did like the way that he weaves his own personal experiences and beliefs throughout the book. I thought that the book could have included more "substance" but I did learn some things. I have no regrets about purchasing, and spending the time to read, the book. If this is a topic that interests you, I think that you will enjoy this book, but keep your expectations low.
Rating: 
Summary: Dissapointing and Dogmatic
Review: I liked Shermer's previous book because, though I disagreed with it, it nonetheless honestly presented an interesting viewpoint with a minimum or errors. So I was understandibly sad when I got done with this one. 1. The main theme of this book is not "How We Believe" (a subject which is barely brouched), but "Shermer is a great guy." We hear about how his friends think he is too accomodating to religionists, etc. 2. For a skeptic, Shermer happily ignores the rules of logic and critical thinking. This begins right away, when he says the Shroud of Turin should not be considered 2,000 years old unless there is great proof of this. Fine. But then Shermer claims that it should be believed that it is 16th century until proven otherwise. He can't have it both ways. 3. He advises the use of ad hominum attacks on religionists. Ask them if they would be good without god, he advises. If they answer yes, they have proven god irrelevent. If they answer no, they show that have a bad character, and so the religionists lose no matter what the answer. For a good apologetic of skepticism, "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan is a much more interesting, more honest, and better written book.
Rating: 
Summary: Quite Balanced & Brilliant
Review: This is an extraordinarlity brilliant book. It achieves the one major thing that I think a book like this must achieve: it is thought-provoking. If people on both sides of the believer vs. athiest, science vs. religion would give this book a chance, eyes would be opened. Of course, what are the chances of that? I am a scientist and a Christian. I am a teacher of math and physics with a firm faith in God. I am comfortable with who I am. How did that come about? I can see my own path but it is interesting to read about some of the sociological and psychological paths of faith-development. I also like Shermer's stress on the difference between the techniques of science and processes of faith--something which I often comment on myself. Why do theologians (and, more often, pseudo-theologians) feel the need to apply scientific rigor to matter of faith? Conversely, why do scientists attempt to assert scientific "certainty" on things that lie outside the realm of the measureable which is the heart of science. These fields certainly have things to offer each other but they are different and require different techniques. Shermer covers a lot of important ground in what is a relatively brief book. As a summary of the state of the secular vs. religious conflict alone it is a valuable book. He also does not equivocate about his own beliefs but still manages to give a fair hearing to both sides, pointing out where each side tends to step over the line into the ridiculous. Of course, this is Shermer's quest and one he handles well. It's people like him who make the rest of us shore up our arguments and stay intellectually honest. Read this book and agree or disagree with Shermer but don't just close your mind to it because he (or anyone) thinks differently than you.
Rating:
Summary: Answers to Question
Review: This is an excellent book detailing Christianity and arguments thereof regarding God, creation, miracles, etc. You'll either like this book (because you've always been having these doubts and this book voices those doubts and makes you aware of them) or hate it (and thus give a very low rating) because you're probably a Christian... This is a must read for anyone seriously interested on the matter of God and Christianity.
Rating:
Summary: How We Believe: How to Think
Review: Michael writes persuasively. He is clear and concise. I liked this book very much and it should be on your bookshelf too. Kevin Hogan, ...
Rating:
Summary: cover is definitely misleading
Review: This book was great. I read some of the other views which were alot less kind and did point out errors, but I really loved reading this selection nonetheless. Though I can't say that my beliefs mirror the authors, I felt that he is someone who thinks very similar to me, he is a true agnostic. He's honest and not bitter towards religion, and interested in "sacred science." The term that is probably best, that he uses, is nontheist rather than atheist. On debating (a)theism he has many good points made and refutations, such as that we could not even comprehend God (assuming that He existed) It goes back to using the analogy of explaining the 3rd dimension to 'Flatland.' Theres lots of debunking, he criticizes the most commonly used arguments for theism. (Ouch--some of the same ones I used to use..we all have our pasts) He shows the statistics derived from surveys on Why people believe in God, etc. which makes for some interesting material. And it goes to show that "God is dead" is a very false statement. Religiosity is on the rise in recent times. A couple of his debunking arguments did though make me reconsider some things that I used to agree with to some extent; however its not like he 100% renders them utterly useless...most of the arguments I would never use any way, the others may still remain as subtle evidence, but of course far from 'proof.' So as most books discuss WHY people believe, he surprisingly finds away to discuss HOW we believe, and our belief engines. There is alot of evolutionary perspective to this too, as well as anthropological, and the motifs that appear from us 'story-telling, pattern-seeking animals.' The chapter "The Fire that will Cleanse" is tantamount to a condensed version of Richard Abanes's book "End Time Visions." (I couldn't believe for a second I found a book that talked about Leland Jensen [leader of the Baha'i Under Provisions of the Covenant] ) With all this he basically looks at the theology we humans created in our history here on earth, and I take it he infers that history will repeat itself. I recommend this to basically anyone, definitely the philosophically inclined and especially those debaters on (a)theism.
Rating:
Summary: Wonderful and Thought Provoking
Review: I have spent the last few weeks reading several books that reassess mankind's attitudes toward religion in the light of current scientific and psychological thinking. There are several wonderful recent additions to this area: Ebert's Are Souls Real? and Kaminer's Sleeping With Extra-Terrestrials are very good, but this book is the most consistently thought provoking. Shermer examines why we believe in God on a number of levels, practically, cosmologically, philosophically and logically. At every level, I found new insights. This is a book that will give you lots to think about and will send you to the bookstore to follow up on his ideas. Well worth reading twice.
Rating:
Summary: An excellent read
Review: Very well written. It's humorous and poingnant. Very inciteful and informative. Shermer's best yet (that I've read).
Rating:
Summary: Nothing new here
Review: This is a pretty weak book which attempts to delve into some of the deepest philosophical issues of all time. Shermer promises to study them "objectively." The whole rest of the book, Shermer resorts to his background in psychology and simply sets out to psychoanalyze theists for having the beliefs that they do. Now, if Shermer & friends wish to play this game, fine. HOWEVER, they do not have the right to so much as wince if the theists come back & attempt to psychoanalyze them for the beliefs which they have. Shermer almost invites this on pages 236-237: "I am often asked by believers why I abandoned Christianity and how I found meaning in the apparently meaningless universe presented by science. The implication is that the scientific worldview is an existentially depressing one. Without God, I am bluntly told, what's the point? If this is all there is, there is no use. To the contrary. For me, quite the opposite is true. The conjuncture of losing my religion, finding science, and discovering glorious contingency was remarkably empowering and liberating. It gave me a sense of joy and freedom...." Hmmmmmmmm.........sounds to me like Shermer needs to be psychoanalyzed, eh? I mean, he can't have it both ways. Either way, the thesis is un-falsifiable & either way nothing can be proved. To me, it is just one big waste of time. The book is also filled with countless errors. For example, on page 170 Shermer writes that "God and religion are inseparable." Oh, really? And what of Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism? All three are categorized as religions, yet none of them have any references to God or gods. Are we all supposed to amend the denotation of our vocabulary just to accommodate Shermer? On page 17 Shermer writes that "It was barely more than a century ago that the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche penned the words for which he has become so famous [i.e.: God is dead] in a book considered by philosophers to be his greatest work, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra." That is complete rubbish. By the time "Also Sprach Zarathustra" came out, the whole death-of-God paradigm was old news. Nietzsche is not famous for the passage Shermer alludes to in "Zarathustra." It was, rather, section 125 of "The Gay Science" (allegory of the madman) in which Nietzsche announces the Death of God. The passage in "Zarathustra" is nothing more than a rehashing of the premise. Any first year philosophy student could tell you that. Is it too much to ask of a skeptic like Shermer that he get his facts straight? The weakest part of the book is Shermer's token treatment of the traditional arguments of God. In his counterargument to St. Thomas Aquinas' "First Cause" argument, Shermer writes: "God must be within the universe or is the universe. In either case, God would himself need to be caused..." (p. 92). Say again? Why does an omnipotent God need to be "in the universe" or "be the universe"? Because Shermer says so? Here Shermer advertises his complete ignorance of the writings of St. Augustine & so many other theologians. Shermer seems to think that if he can't comprehend something, then it must not be true. Now, whether one buys the First Cause argument is another matter, but it would be prudent to at least understand the argument prior to rejecting it. Shermer goes on to say that "Perhaps, as cosmologist Alan Guth suggests....it [the universe] just sprang into existence out of a quantum vacuum, uncaused." (P. 92) Now, Guth is a professor of theoretical physics at MIT & is most certainly a smart guy. However, Shermer sounds as though all of the skeptics and atheists of the world should merely uncritically accept Guth's answer and move on. If this is the definition of a "Free thinker" (as Shermer likes to call himself), then I feel sorry for all free thinkers. What gets me about this nonchalant introduction of the topic of quantum mechanics is this: skeptics and atheists have for years complained (rightfully) about fundamentalist Christian websites which attempt to answer the deepest, most puzzling questions with a few sentences of Sunday School rhetoric. However, here we have Shermer trying to answer these same questions with the atheist's counterpart to Sunday School rhetoric. Shermer would like to lead the reader to believe that the atheists always have the final say on everything, and that is complete nonsense. The criticisms of Guth's universe-as-a-free-lunch paradigm are legion. If Shermer did not notice this, then he must not know anything at all about QM (which, considering his remarkable ignorance, would not surprise me in the least). [For further reading both pro and con of "vacuum genesis" read "Atheism, Theism And Big Bang Cosmology" by William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith]. Martin Heidegger once said that the question of why there is something rather than nothing is "the darkest question of all." Nowadays, even with all the advancements in physics over the course of the 20th century, that statement remains true. He also tries to water down the Anthropic Principle and, like so many atheists, misunderstands its implications. In fact, Shermer writes "...if recent cosmological models pan out it would appear that there are a near infinite number of bubble universes all with slightly different laws of nature." (P. 229) Oh, really? And how, might I ask, does Shermer think these theories might "pan out"? Just like the "God" hypothesis, these wonderful universes are all unfalisifiable and cannot be proven true. [For further reading on this issue, see John Leslie "Universes" and Timothy Ferris "Science And Genesis" (an essay from "Cosmic Beginnings And Human Ends)." The German Philosopher Arthur Schopenhaur once said of Georg Friedrich von Hegel that his ideas were "three quarters nonsense and one quarter crazy notions." I could say the same for Shermer & this book. If you would like to delve into the big questions of science and / or religion, then by all means read Carl Sagan, Stephen J. Gould, Stehpen Hawking, John Polkinghorne, Bertrand Russell, Phillip Kitcher, Ian Barbour, Del Ratzsche, John Leslie, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Franz Kafka and Albert Camus (among others). Don't waste your time with this book.
|
