Rating: 
Summary: A very "reasonable" book.
Review: If you are a skeptic or your god is 'reason', then you will get great support from reading this book. I found parts of the book interesting, especially those that talk about the techniques used by fortune tellers (e.g. "cold reading", "warm reading", etc.). The book also discusses the standard arguments for the existence of God, as well as the typical counter arguments.However, I was disappointed that the author found it necessary to interject his own opinions regarding the existence of God, immortality, etc. Although Mr. Shermer claims to be an agnostic, I found his opinions to be closer to that of atheism. In fact, it is apparent to me that he chose the agnostic position more out of reason than out of a true sense of humility at what we don't or can't know. I found the book to be very biased due to the emphasis on 'reason' as the only way to valid knowledge. I found it interesting that Mr. Shermer and I have read some of the same authors, but have come to completly different conclusions regarding what they meant by the word 'God' (e.g. Harold Kusner, Paul Davies). It is clear that we have very different "world views" or mind sets. If you are a true agnostic, or are looking for any support or warrant for theistic beliefs, this is not the book for you.
Rating: 
Summary: Critique of "How We Believe"
Review: Don't let the title, "How We Believe" mislead you. A better title would be: "A skeptic's philosophical answer to recent proposals of Intelligent Design as the probable cause of life and our universe"! The modern search for origins is an essential search for truth, truth which can be verified by reason (mathematics), models of systematic logic (the sequential organization of DNA), and the astounding correlation of laws of the universe. To keep it simple (and it is not), consider the permutations of the possible combinations of the number of nucleotides in a single living cell, such as a bacteria. We are talking about 7 million DNA nucleotides. To get an idea of the startling numbers of permutations of these 7 million, consider the permutation of just the number 14. This would be: 14! = 14x13x12x11x10x9x8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1 = more than 87 billion combinations. Think of the possible combinations of not just 14, but of 7,000,000! This is for the chance of "self-organization" of the correct sequence of DNA nucleotides to form a functioning single cell. Would you like to try it on your PC? Don't bother, it's much too big...something like 10 to the 56th power! One chance out of 10 to the 56th power??? To get an idea of this comparison, imagine two scientists standing in front of Mt. Rushmore National Monument. One of them says, "What a wonderful likeness of our presidents!" The other says, "Isn't if amazing that these faces were carved out of the solid rock by the chance natural action of wind, rain, snow and lightning!" Foolish? Not really, since the actual chance for these faces to occur by natural forces are actually BETTER than the 1 to 10 to the 56th power chance of the correct sequence of DNA nucleotides to form a single cell. Proof of Intelligent Design? Most mathematicians would think so, but not a Skeptic Magazine editor! For those searching for the the truth of our origins, perhaps it would be better for them to study Stephen Hawking or Nobel Laureate, Steven Weinberg, rather than the caustic comment of Skeptic Magazine editor, Michael Shermer.
Rating: 
Summary: Note to the Greek below
Review: Please note that the title of the book is "How we Believe" and not "Why we believe" and this is probably why Shermer doesn't cover the notion that you believe because you think it to be true. It must be pointed out that there are some 1500 religious viewpoints in the world and they are all contradictory. It goes without saying that only one of them (if indeed any are) could be true and I fail to see, when every believer thinks his religion IS the truth, why Shermer should give preferential consideration to any one over the other. Either he treats all equally in which case it would be a very long book or he treats belief in itself as something worthy to be investigated. If he pulls arguments from 700 years ago to examine I would suggest that although theists have had millenia they haven't come up with many logical arguments and all the modern ones are essentially variants of the old and hackneyed cosmological, teleological and ontological arguments the which were refuted ages ago. Dress them up all you like but they're still logically flawed. Claims that Shermer is being unscientific don't hold water, if he glosses over Behe maybe it's because he's heard unlike some wishful-thinking theists, that Behe's arguments were in the process of becoming old hat whilst he was writing them and are evaporating like morning dew with the progress of our understanding. Never believe anyone who can claim that their faith is grounded in reason and science, they've kidded themselves and they're trying to kid you.
Rating:
Summary: Religion Lite -- a tour d'force in eyes-wide-shut denial.
Review: This book looks at religion from a mostly psychological stand-point, the unstated assumption being that is sufficient. It is acknowledged atheism is difficult to defend (to claim God doesn't exist requires knowledge of everything), so rhetorical salvation is sought by the author declaring himself agnostic. The book then continues on, implicitly assuming atheism without having to defend it. The book presents people's responses to polls on questions of religion. Seems irrelevant. Is there value in a poll on why people believe Newton's laws of gravity? An agnostic would study it to determine the truth. Only an anti-newtonian would take a poll to characterize people's persistent "wrong" thoughts. Again, the book is framed by a prejudice denied. It goes on to discuss human pattern recognition, myth-making and much Darwinian theory. Most everything but the kitchen-sink is presented as an explanation for why people believe in God, except for the possibility it is true. That possibility is excluded from consideration without comment. This is a bit of a problem, since the central claim of Christianity is that it provides a correct and sufficient understanding of reality. It is not a "special" kind of understanding, but presents the cognitive and informational facts which all historical, moral and physical understanding can be based. It is an evidence-based understanding of reality which demands that it be tested. The book does not do this. Christian apologetics (the analysis of the logic, evidence and historicity of Christianity) is mentioned once. The author reports he is aware of it and tries to "stay in touch" with it. However, the approach and statements made in the book indicate this cannot be. The book has problems defining terms and concepts. "Faith" is repeatedly used in ways that suggest "blind faith" is meant. This is not what educated Christians mean. Faith does not mean believing something known to be false, or ignoring evidence. It's the finite trying to understand the infinite. The "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a jury trial. Or when mathematician Kurt Godel began his Theorem of Incompleteness with a statement known to be true, then demonstrated it could not be proven so, establishing mathematics (even integer arithmetic) contains true statements that cannot be proven so. Faith must be grounded in evidence and reason. This fundamental misunderstanding of faith leads to an erroneous analysis of the Catholic Pope's 1996 statement on evolution (Chapter 6), although another problem there was selective quotation of the Pope's statement, which excluded Darwinian evolution. The books' reluctance to define certain words encourages separate ideas to be blurred into jumbled mess. The book defines religions a-priori as being myth-based. Makes me want to know how many myths the author has read and the criteria used to determine this. By the time one gets to the part where the author inserts his head in a strong magnetic field to cause temporal lobe disruption in his brain, inducing a floating sensation (like an out of body experience), it's only slightly surprising to read the conclusion that's probably NOT the cause of religious thinking in most people; perhaps just religious leaders. Whew! The book had a surreal chapter analyzing arguments for the existence of God. Five are yanked from the 13th century(!) That is they were phrased centuries before a branch of Christianity degenerated into atheism. There's been some activity in the area in the last 700 years. As it is, the books' counter-arguments depend on using a word in a different sense than the original argument (like "universe"), then claiming the argument has been refuted. Kid stuff. Whenever the idea of a reasoned, evidential basis for faith intrudes, the book immediately dismisses it because "religion is based on faith" (remember, the author means "blind faith" when he says faith). This reflexive, narrow focus is unscientific. The discussion of Behe's irreducible biological complexity strongly indicates has not read -- or at least retained -- the argument. He simply restates the Darwinian myth of eye development, using the same Victorian-era knowledge of biology Behe dismantled. Similarly with intelligent design studies. Instead of analyzing the implications of a statistical description of specified complexity, the author skips past, treating it as identical to 19th century science. It is clearly important to think there is nothing new happening -- or to at least make sure the flock thinks so for awhile longer. Still, the books' attempt to moderate is fascinating. As the book mentions, the author heads the the Skeptic Society. I often receive invitations to the Society lectures (mentioned in the book) at Caltech that quote Spinoza's "... ceaseless effort not to ridule, but to understand ...", then go to the lecture. It usually starts off with the author telling mocking jokes about religious figures for 20 minutes as the crowd of skeptics roar. Someone stands up and gives a talk about how Moses was a fictious pimp, before the floor is opened. Between the denunciations of religious people as ignorant forces of evil, a skeptical question or two is posed, like "You recommended an unusually low mandatory dose of psycho-active agents for children caught praying in school ... do you think that is wise"? Thus a conciliatory marketing tone in public books is a hoot. Skeptics continuing Spinozas's quest "not to ridicule but to understand" is reminiscent of OJ Simpson's on-going search for Nichole's real killer on the 16th green. For scholarship and sparkling, intelligent, eyes-wide-open thought on the reasoned basis for God and Christianity, see "Christian Apologetics" (Geisler), "Reasonable Faith" (Craig), "Scaling the Secular City" (Moreland), "Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom" (Morey), "Historical Reliability of the Gospels" (Blomberg).
Rating:
Summary: Nothing New...
Review: For someone who keeps abreast of all the Science/spirituality literature, this book was a synthesis of other people's words and works, and in itself neither says nor offers anything new...
Rating:
Summary: Digging the We'uns
Review: When hosting the announcement of the draft map of the human genome, US President Bill Clinton casually discarded over 500 years of human endeavour. Ignoring that since Copernicus the role of divinities in the cosmic picture has become irrelevant, Clinton dragged his god into the ceremony. The past half millenia has revealed a wealth of information from galactic spectra to the operating details of life itself. But the work was done by people, not some ghost. Mark Twain railed at [g]od coming in to claim the credit' after human research effort produced cures for yellow fever and other ills. Clinton must have made the spirit of Twain gyrate furiously when he credited [g]od with creation, and by default, as the cause of the structure of DNA. With so much knowledge of a god's irrelevance confronting him, why did Clinton fall into the trap of giving credit to The Sprite? Michael Shermer has made a significant effort to detail the background thinking [or lack of it] that sustains the concept of The Sprite so firmly in the American psyche. How does the idea of a divine creator persist when the logic supporting it weakens with every forward stride of knowledge? Why do so many Americans, supposedly the most literate nation on earth, retain such adherence to superstition? Who are the believers and why do they believe? Half a century ago, Robert Nathan wrote a delightful social satire, DIGGING THE WEANS. Archeologists from a future Africa crossed the seas to learn about the extinct people known as the US. In particular, they sought answers to why the US seemed so different from other people. One wonders what Nathan might think today. Since his time 'globalization' has become a smokescreen term for Americanization. How these new imperialists think is a compelling issue. Shermer's book has provided insight to one facet of that thinking. It's of particular meaning to those of us living elsewhere. If there's a serious flaw in this book, it's a failure to make some valid comparisons with other people and their faiths. Still, Shermer tries valiantly to fulfill the mandate he's given himself. How Americans believe is depicted by numerous quantitative studies. How many PhDs, bank managers or trash collectors, burdened with fears of the afterlife [or lack thereof] cling to the image of The Sprite? Shermer can't truly extract which of these is hopeful of something better on The Other Side, or simply fleeing an envisioned post-perish punishment. We can't blame him for this, since the faithful probably can't express, either. Shermer's attempts to provide insight into WHY so many Americans are so persistent in their piety fall rather flat. The studies quoted seemed rather simplistic, but the question can only be, do you believe in The Sprite, or not. The discussions about agnosticism, non-theist or theist are engaging, but don't address the difficult question: why does the nation with the most Nobel winners remain the most superstitious? Perhaps Shermer would have done better to simply beg off attempting the question as too difficult. At least in only 290 pages. Yet, the question arises repeatedly. It titles the fourth chapter and an appendix and is the theme of Chapter 5. He uses it as a subtopic and for table headings, but we never find out why such a powerful people need to escape reality for the elusive solace of neo-Christianity. The cure for yellow fever [and smallpox and polio] came from science workers, not faith[ful] healers. Twain wanted priority recognition for those researchers and instead watched the credit go to [g]od. With such a high proportion of Americans expressing faith, it's inevitable that even scientists will find themselves in different camps. In one of the strangest sections in this book, Shermer launches an assault on Daniel C. Dennett's critique of Steven J. Gould. Gould, co-author of the 'punctuated equilibria' mechanism of evolution, is particularly deft at disclosing Gould's mental gymnastics in expressing his ideas. In this context, Gould sells Shermer on eschewing the term 'random' in favour of 'contingency' in describing evolution's process. Dennett, following Richard Dawkins, rightly sees Gould introducing 'skyhooks' in his attempts to modify Darwin's theme of natural selection. Shermer is clearly unhappy at this tarnishing of his hero, firmly chastising Dennett at 'protesting overmuch'. Why does Shermer take off on Dennett so strongly? Is it merely because Gould forwarded his last book? Shermer awards Gould too much credit for giving 'contingency' a deep philosophical meaning in contrast to 'random', a quirky and apparently less definable term. Gould rises in his own defence of contingency, wrapping the evidence in the term 'sequence' in his definition of evolution's modus operandi. This seems to give 'contingency' a respectability lacking in 'random'. The presentation is convoluted and the evidence misleading, however. Random necessarily avoids sequence; otherwise it's no longer random. Nor is contingency sequential - unless, as in this case, evolution makes it so. Saying Dennett 'doth protest overmuch', Shermer ignores the stature of Gould as America's best-known science writer. If Gould gets it wrong, the impact will be widespread. And he got it wrong.
Rating: 
Summary: Not getting there
Review: If you're looking for a well-written book, which will give you a basic understanding of religion and faith in our time, you'll get what you need by reading this one. Shermer unveils for the reader the mechanics of the belief engine of the human mind, and he fairly describes the role of belief in the post-modern society. However, he is using the works of other scholars who addressed this issue, too extensively. This relates to one of the basic flaws of the work, as it lacks a coherent theory which should lead the reader towards the expected answer to the riddle which seems to be the cause for writing the book: the victory of religion over rationalism in the twenty-first century. While Shermer's tendency to focus on himself and account numerous incidents from his personal experience as the head of Skeptic Society, may be part for his writing style, it gives the reader a taste of a newspaper article rather than of a scholastic work. For myself, as a person who believes that religion is a dangerous social structure, I was disappointed not to come out of the reading process with a comprehensive understanding as to what is wrong with human society.
Rating:
Summary: Being is believing - but can you choose wisely?
Review: In the preface to "How We Believe," Michael Shermer thanks his family for raising him in an atmosphere free of pressure regarding either religious or secular beliefs. I feel the same gratitude toward my family, and greatly enjoy the game of truth-hunting without having to drag along the millstones that childhood indoctrination can attach. Shermer's book covers a lot of ground, ranging from general philosophical commentary on belief systems, to Cargo and Messiah Cults, to the author's personal intellectual journey and conclusions. Along the way (Chapter 4) we are shown interesting results from a study, co-designed by the author, in which selected groups of individuals were asked to explain and interpret their own religious views. Shermer is able to deduce some fascinating, revealing, and occasionally amusing generalizations from the survey data. In terms of creative content the book's most important contribution is Chapter 10, "Glorious Contingency." Here Shermer expands on a theme credited to S.J. Gould, the central idea being that the evolutionary chain leading to H. Sapiens (us) was contingency-intensive, and therefore probably irreproducible if a repeat trial could somehow be arranged. Gould attributes the irreproducibility not primarily to true randomness or asteroid-type disasters, but rather to overwhelming practical uncertainties rooted in the sensitivity of final outcomes to initial conditions and early events in lengthy, complex processes. As the author points out, recent trends in Chaos Theory lend support to such a conclusion. After addressing some criticisms of Gould (primarily from Daniel Dennett), Shermer introduces his own concept, Contingent-Necessity, which is generalized to cover not just biological evolution, but any historical sequence or process. He proposes a shifting balance (bifurcation) between contingency and necessity that could clarify the nature and genesis of events ranging from punctuated equilibria in evolution to the great social upheavals in human history. A common complaint about Shermer's books is that he tends to ramble; that is, every chapter is not centered on the book's title subject. True enough, but I don't see a serious problem if the material is at least related to the book's main theme. One Amazon reviewer saw no satisfactorily-explained connection between religion and the above-described Chapter 10. It seems to me that in the chapter's last section ("Finding Meaning in a Contingent Universe"), the connection becomes clear enough: To evaluate intelligently any religion's view of how and when we got here, one requires more than passing familiarity with what science, with its built-in BS detectors, can tell us about the very same subject. On the critical side, I have to agree with the reviewer who found Shermer's reference to science as "a type of myth" quite annoying. The problem isn't so much the statement itself as the author's assumption that no supporting explanation was necessary.
Rating: 
Summary: Required Reading for any Sentient Being
Review: If you combine this book with Richard Dawkin's "Unweaving the Rainbow" then you have armed yourself with more knowledge than the vast army of idealogues will ever have amongst themselves combined. There are things in this book which will annoy both fundamentalist dogmatists and militant athesists alike. But this is the book's great strength-- that it deals with the subject of Religion with compassion and sensitivity (which annoys atheists) and that it sets firm limits upon which Religion should not be allowed to tread will annoy the fundies. Normally I would only give this book four stars instead of five, since it is more about WHAT weird things people believe rather than WHY. But anything that annoys fundies rates an extra star in my book.
Rating:
Summary: a bunch of bright ideas
Review: As usual, Shermer covers of hodgepodge of related topics in this work as has been his style in previous writings. The subject matter is, in a word--nebulous. God, religion, belief, politically incorrect topics in an age where variety of ideas about these topics abounds. Basically, Shermer puts forth the thesis of an evolutionarily evolved human pattern-seeking system which compels us to find meaning in the endless static. This conceptualization is broad enough to explain the basics of religious though, as well as our ability to be taken advantage of by frauds masquerading as scientists--a subject that Shermer, the high priest of skepticism, is quite familiar with. In the end, the book as a whole is an intriguing read, however it could have been improved with better editing. The middle chapters contain loosely tied together concepts and often get off-topic. However, Shermer makes up for this by writing a brilliant summary (and defense) of Stephen Jay Gould's writings on science and religion in the last chapter. Shermer believes that the question for God in insoluble and therefore sees nothing wrong with religion and belief in the numinous. However, as a skeptic, Shermer, in other writings, espouses the basic tenet that one should believe the simplest scientific explanation for a given phenomenon. From a purely scientific viewpoint, God is unnecessary and therefore a superfluous concept. However, Shermer's willingness to allow for an "expection to the rule" in this instance may be viewed as slightly hypocritical. Nevertheless, while logically inconsistent, I thing Shermer comes to the right conclusion.
| 
