Rating: 
Summary: Outstanding!
Review: One of the finest and most comprehensive books I have ever read on our beliefs and why we believe the way we do. I truly have to give Michael Shermer the utmost respect for being so rational and not going out to bash, but to unearth reality. Michael Shermer is truly a person whom has well researched his information and made his study, research, and findings understandable by showing how we as human beings have become the way we are. At the same time, prepared his information in an understandable way that focuses on logical thinking, not mythical, which so many of us like to do so often. The bottom line, this book illustrates how we have created a very mystical world to help us better cope with life. Hey, Shermer does not feel it is bad to believe in a supreme being as it offers many people needed comfort, at the same time, he urges us to "Think for Yourself"-Cogita tute, which is absolutely one of the greatest messages within this book because it points out some serious errors humankind have made in their belief organisms, in turn, generating great pain and affliction that could have been circumvented through placing trust in themselves by using good old common sense and by thinking for themselves. Shermer does not ask you to take his word for it, he simply states, you shouldn't believe what I say or anyone else, "Think for yourself" and if it makes sense then, believe. This is a definite read!
Rating:
Summary: An impressive synthesis of a vast amount of material.
Review: As one goldfish said to the other, "if there is no god, who changes the water?", Michael Shermer gazes through the bowl at the possibilities and the distorting refractions caused by it and tries to get a clearer picture. I can't imagine a better summary of such a vast amount of material on such a universal subject. Why so many people have always believed in a divine being based on so little evidence other than the fact that we're constantly amazed by our own consciousness and the "orderly" world around us is his main interest. He discusses these issues so that almost anyone paying attention can understand all the facets of this multifaceted subject and how the arguments have played out down through the ages right up to the present day. I'm sure he must have left something out but after I put the book down I couldn't imagine what. He gives you all the basic imformation you could ever want and just leaves you with yourself to wonder and think and reach your own conclusions. I can assure you that your conclusions will be of a higher quality after having read this book than not. Enjoy.
Rating:
Summary: Great book!
Review: In the Preface, which is titled "The God Question. A MoralDilemma for Dr. Laura", he talks about how Skeptic magazine usedto get letters from people complaining that DL was on the editorialboard. He then talks about the fact that skeptics could care less about what a person's faith is, UNLESS that person begins telling others that their faith can be proven with facts, then the skeptic will challenge them to do so through rational arguments and empirical evidence. He gives a short synopsis of how DL came to be on the board (she was invited due to her outspokeness on the failed recovered-memory movement), and how she asked to be immediately removed after a Skeptic issue about "The God Question." Shermer called her to see what's up, and she basically said that anyone (past or present) who questions God is "arrogant." And after more discussion she told him there is only ONE God--the God of Abraham. From here he leaves her behind (with her own 'arrogance') and gets into what the book is about which he outlines as: "(1) Why people believe in God; (2) the relationship of science and religion, reason and faith; and (3) how the search for the sacred came into being and how it can thrive in and age of science." He notes at the end of the preface that skeptics use the stance that was so eloquently put by Spinoza: "I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them." Such a stark contrast to the dispassionate stance of DL.I suppose DL would throw Spinoza into her vague, catch-all conspiracy theory about 'liberals'. This also-faith of hers about 'agendas', 'conspiracies', 'indoctrinations', 'pseudo-religions', etc., are therefore demanded by the skeptical position to be proven rationally and empirically, because she is saying they are facts. She hasn't provided any credible evidence, and probably never will, i.e. she'll never put up nor will she shut up. Anyway, the rest of the book is for those who seek to understand, and it succeeds amazingly.
Rating:
Summary: Wow!
Review: What a great book. I read Michael Shermer's other book and thought that was great, but this is even better... Without attacking belief he simply shows us how we may "need" to believe. In light of the recent developments in certain US states prohibiting the teaching of Darwinian Evolution, this book should be read by all.
Rating:
Summary: An wonderful book about the psychology of belief
Review: Whether you are a believer or a non-believer this book is an excellent exploration of the mechanisms of belief. It is neither an attack on religion, nor a promotion for agnosticism. It's a study of our need for belief. In it he explains the creation of certain mythologies and why they keep reoccurring. It also reveals our perceptions of the nature of belief in others and what that says about ourselves. Highly recommended.
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: Who Cares if it Offends Somebody? It is a great book.
Review: The only people it would offend are the people who believe wierd things. Seriously, though, Michael Shermer is an asset to the world. It's is time we let go of mythology an embraced reality. A wonderful first book for anyone who hasn't yet got their feet wet in the Skeptic waters. It contains my favorite picture: inside Noah's ark..the Stagosauras in the next pen kills me.
Was the above reviewer worried about offending the holocost deniers? That's like being scared of offending the Klan. Galton had a point.
Rating:
Summary: Good but slow at times
Review: I really enjoy reading Dr Schermer's books but found this particular one to be a bit slow at times, almost to the point of speed reading just to get through to the next chapter.
It is very well researched however.
Rating: 
Summary: Appealingly written if too scattered an argument
Review: Having grown up only a few miles from Shermer, I found his references to local landmarks, institutions, and locales drew me into his reflections more easily. A dangerous tendency by me, but I found his insistence upon non-theists apart from atheists, and agnostics apart from believers, to be a helpful breakdown of more realistic and flexible categories within which many of us think about the presence or the absence of a deity or force. He makes his arguments clearer by crediting his friends, teachers, opponents, and fellow scholars, and this adds to the humility and credibility of his message. However, I found the chapters uneven in strength, and the book could have been 150 pages and lost a hundred pages of padded--if admittedly interesting--supplemental material.
Lacking a stronger editor, therefore, Shermer relates his anecdotes, findings, and research in an accessible manner, avoiding for the most part technical and academic jargon, but his chapters do skip about like different lectures or set-pieces that often feel disconnected from the whole, as with his contingency/necessity explanations, his musings on Ghost Dances and related messianic myths, and his rather sudden incorporation of the Belief Engine into his thesis. The uneveness grows as the book progresses, and weakens the power of his opening arguments.
I question his claim (xiii) that "Never in history have so many, and such a high percentage of the population, believed in God."
Shermer does not footnote this assertion, and while many billions do of course believe in a monotheistic deity today, he cites no worldwide figures to support his claim that this is a higher percentage of the world's peoples than ever before. Yes, perhaps many today had ancestors who were pantheists or animists, but again he does not offer statistics to back up "such a high percentage" as that he proposes.
Likewise, his surveys concentrate on educated (a bias he admits--they tend to return more complicated surveys!) Americans (a bias he in passing acknowledges in nodding only once in passing to lower levels of belief in the rest of the First World). This clouds his findings about levels of faith among scientists and the greater U.S. population alone--which has statistically higher levels of belief than the rest of the industrialized world. Leaving out the rest of the planet, developed and less-so, his findings appear limited and open to debate.
On pg. 121, in his otherwise sensible attack on Michael Drosnin's work of psuedo-scholarship "The Bible Code," Shermer cites Drosnin's claim "that all Bibles in the original Hebrew language that now exist are the same letter for letter." Shermer goes on to prove this is nonsense, but I think he may be taking out of context Drosnin's context, which may be referring rather to the Torah scrolls which are hand-copied letter for letter by scribes--admittedly a different context.
On pg. 123, Shermer sums up his argument well: "Why do you need science to prove God? You do not. These scientific proofs of God are not only an insult to science; to those who are deeply religious they are an insult to God." Also, on pg. 141, he quotes Edward O. Wilson's "reality check" for skeptics, which those on Amazon trapped in the imbroglio of trying to use reason to prove or disprove faith should remember: "Their crisply logical salvos, endorsed by whole arrogances of Nobel laureates, pass like steel-jacketed bullets through fog."
Shermer spends much of the remaining hundred pages off on tangents that intrigue but do not add substantially to the basic argument he has already made: keep the two areas of fides et ratio apart, for neither can convince the other. He does get in some good points taking apart the pros and cons of the current Pope's proclamations on the these two approaches to human inquiry. Shermer, unlike the Pope, insists that we leave each realm up to its adherents. He ends his book in a moving testimony to the sense that a skeptic can carry of the numinous, a fitting resolution to the open-ended embrace this book seeks.
|
