How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God
Want to Read
Rate this book
1 of 5 stars2 of 5 stars3 of 5 stars4 of 5 stars5 of 5 stars
How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God
by Michael Shermer
3.97 · Rating details · 3,497 ratings · 66 reviews
A new edition covering the latest scientific research on how the brain makes us believers or skeptics
Recent polls report that 96 percent of Americans believe in God, and 73 percent believe that angels regularly visit Earth. Why is this? Why, despite the rise of science, technology, and secular education, are people turning to religion in greater numbers than ever before? Why do people believe in God at all?
These provocative questions lie at the heart of How We Believe , an illuminating study of God, faith, and religion. Bestselling author Michael Shermer offers fresh and often startling insights into age-old questions, including how and why humans put their faith in a higher power, even in the face of scientific skepticism. Shermer has updated the book to explore the latest research and theories of psychiatrists, neuroscientists, epidemiologists, and philosophers, as well as the role of faith in our increasingly diverse modern world.
Whether believers or nonbelievers, we are all driven by the need to understand the universe and our place in it. How We Believe is a brilliant scientific tour of this ancient and mysterious desire. (less)
GET A COPY
KoboOnline Stores ▾Book Links ▾
Paperback, Second Edition, 368 pages
------------------
Write a review
Lee Harmon
Nov 21, 2011Lee Harmon rated it it was amazing
Michael Shermer is the founding publisher of Skeptic magazine, the director of the Skeptics Society, and host of the Skeptics Lecture Series. I don’t need to tell you what sort of direction this book is going to take. But even knowing what to expect, this was a fun book, well worth the read!
Shermer, noting that 96% of Americans believe in God and 73% believe that angels regular visit earth, asks one question: Why? Why do even 40% of scientists proclaim a belief in God? Why do more people believe in paranormal phenomena now than they did 100 years ago? Why do we believe at all, and why must we seek meaning in higher places? What is our fascination with ghosts and séances? Is belief in God genetically programmed? Some kind of “God module” in our brains?
Mankind is a pattern-seeking animal, whether this talent is used to see the Virgin Mary in patterns of light and shadow or to see meaning within the randomness of coincidental events. Mankind is also a storytelling animal. We love our stories, and our stories do more than describe our reality, they help create our realities. So, as we move from pattern-seeking to storytelling, we naturally journey on to mythmaking. Origin myths abound in various cultures. But the journey of humanity doesn’t end there. From mythmaking we jump ahead to morality, from morality to religion, from religion to God. Perhaps we are wired to believe; perhaps there’s a certain inevitability in the way the human experience has evolved.
Shermer presents a number of studies and interviews as he leads us on this journey. One of the most fascinating studies in Shermer’s book compared answers to two questions: “Why do you believe in God,” and “Why do you think other people believe in God?” The answers don’t jibe. Other people believe in God because they were raised that way, or because it brings them comfort to believe, or because people have a need to believe. But what do people answer as to why they believe? Well, because they’ve thought it through, of course; the universe is too orderly, or the experiences they’ve had could only come from God.
Shermer’s approach is scientific, yet controversial. The conclusions are his own; but I guarantee the book will make you think, and I guarantee you’ll enjoy the read. (less)
flag4 likes · Like · comment · see review
David Svihel
May 16, 2012David Svihel rated it it was ok
Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine, and director of the Skeptics society, has produced a work attempting to synthesize several academic fields including: anthropology, sociology, and biology to answer the question as to why humans hold to religious beliefs. Divided into two parts the book discusses I. God and Belief, and II. Religion and Science.
Part I begins with a chapter called “Do You Believe in God?” Shermer starts with his own story of conversion to the Christian faith and his subsequent loss of faith. He uses experience and scientific analysis to put forward the difficulty the question of God poses. He concludes by saying, God's existence or nonexistence cannot possibly be understood in human terms. What cannot be understood cannot be proved. What is unprovable is insoluble (15). What he means is that God is essentially irrelevant, because he cannot be known in any modernist scientific sense. However, he will later argue that the question of God is important from at least a sociological and anthropological standpoint.
“Is God Dead?” discusses whether philosophers like Nietzsche were correct in their pronouncement of the death of God. Shermer states that in our modern scientific age, we have begun to answer life’s ultimate questions, which before now were left only to religion. In spite of this scientific trend God is still alive and well in the minds of most people, because he has been the answer to life’s ultimate questions for so long. God is not dead, practically speaking, because he represents these ultimate concepts that have been with us for as long as we have existed (30).
“The Belief Engine,” the third chapter of the book discusses several evolutionary hypotheses attempting to explain how we come to believe things. Shermer states that because we are pattern-seeking animals, always trying to find connections between events and experiences even where there might not be one, we have developed what he calls a “belief engine.” The belief engine is used to explain how various evolutionary factors came together in the human mind to ascribe meaning to events and experiences, to put meaning to the patterns. He then develops several possible histories of how this engine developed. He concludes by saying that it is likely that the purpose of this engine is to deal with questions involving the unknown, pain and most specifically to find comfort in death; the problem for which we have no solution.
“Why People Believe in God,” the fourth chapter, is essentially a continuation of the previous chapter. Shermer gives examples of groups outside of organized religion that hold hope for the future; such as, trans-humanism and the broader category of humanism. He explains that all belief systems, no matter how rational, tend to organize themselves around meta-narratives to explain the hope toward which they are working. He concludes from this that there must be an inherent part of humans that is wired for belief in something or someone bigger than us. He puts for several other possibilities including: God as gap-filler in the brain, genetic predisposition, temporal lobe seizures, and God as meme (theoretical cultural “gene”). Shermer concludes with a general statement admitting that many varied factors play into belief in God, but seeing that many think their personal faith is logical, even though it is assumed to be a crutch for others.
The fact that the author devotes one chapter to all the major arguments for God that he is aware of is quite telling. He gives a brief overview of arguments such as the cosmological, ontological, and the moral argument and gives quite pithy paragraph length responses to each. He then goes on to various scientific arguments and quotes a few noted scientist to disagree with the arguments presented. His assumption of the validity of the scientific method and modernist epistemology throughout the chapter is telling. One gets the feeling that he does not desire to deal with any of the arguments at length, because in his mind they are simply doomed from the start due to a non-naturalistic starting point. From these assumptions he declares the disparity between science and religion.
The book’s second section begins with a chapter entitled, “In a Mirror Dimly, then Face to Face.” This is where Shermer moves from studying the basis for religious belief to attempting to understand the similarities and transcendent ideas all religions share, and their relation to science. In this chapter he puts forth three models used to relate religion to science. The first is called the conflicting worlds model, where science and religion are at war. The second model is called the same-worlds model, where science and religion agree when both are understood rightly. The third is called the separate-worlds model, where science and religion discuss two unrelated spheres of knowledge. Stephen J. Gould popularized this view through his concept of NOMA: non-overlapping magisteria. Shermer feels that this last model is the best for both science and religion, because it allows them both to answer the specific questions they deal with, without interfering with the other. He ends the chapter with a moving story about faith and passion he experienced while at a service of Ebenezer Baptist Church. He concludes that this experience shows that religion is useful, and doesn’t need to deal with questions of science.
Chapter seven, entitled “The Storytelling Animal,” attempts to explain the development of myths and various religious narratives. He quotes neuroscientist Michal Gazzaniga who claims that we are all storytellers, in the sense that we take the facts of our everyday experience and weave them into a narrative, from which we spin-doctor our self-image (143). Shermer then states that the two primary purposes of religion are to: create stories and myths that address our deepest questions, and the production of moral systems to provide social cohesion for the most social of all the social primates (143). He refers back to the concept of humans as pattern-seeking animals and argues that storytelling develops from this instinct. He then argues that stories generally developed into grander myths that attempt to explain reality. He argues that even cosmology and archaeology attempt to answer these ultimate questions, and create narrative forms for them. He points to the dragon as a common character in ancient mythologies and how the values of the culture shape the narrative and the dragons place within them (154). He then tries to close the gap between these stories, modern religion, and morality. He puts forth several theoretic options, concluding it is somehow related to language and the desire to help someone with the hope that they will return the favor. He concludes by saying God is the general framework that allows for religion.
The next chapter, “God and the Ghost Dance,” deals with the development of the idea of messiah, or savior. He begins with a story about a time he answered questions on a radio show related to a UFO cult awaiting the destruction of society, and how this relates to the common hope of a messiah among oppressed peoples. He relates this UFO narrative to a myth developed among Native Americans in the 1800’s that predicted the coming of judgment on the white man and the restoration of their land. He concludes that similar stories throughout history show that history is cyclical and that it is common for oppressed peoples to create “messiah myths” to create hope for a better future.
The second to last chapter, “The Fire that Will Cleanse,” is a continuation of the previous chapter. It deals specifically with the common theme among societal myths of a glorious utopian future achieved either through progressive improvement or apocalyptic judgment of the wicked and vindication of the good. He gives examples of different Christian view of the millennium throughout history and their relation to Revelation 20:1-6. He also discusses several cult and pagan myths of a final rescue or judgment. He concludes that again the pattern-seeking and story-telling impulse merge together in the “millennium myth” to solve the problem of why bad things happen to good people, but these myths give us the hope that in the end good will triumph over evil (212).
The final chapter appears as almost a non-sequiter when compared to the rest of the book. One would expect to read a sort of broad summary and vague philosophical statement about the general helpfulness of myths and religious belief for human society, but that is not what is found. Instead, in a chapter entitled “Glorious Contingency” Shermer gives a summary of a theory of evolution that gives room for human choices to be undetermined, at least in an experiential sense. He encourages his audience by saying that it may be nothing but wishful thinking to desire one’s place in history to be contingently significant, but since we do not know, why not act as if it does (236)? With that he closes by saying that man is now free, when loosed from religion, to experience everything with the freedom his contingent place in the universe has given him (238).
This book attempted to cover a lot of ground in a very short space. Shermer’s writing was clear and concise. He was able to use analogies to explain complex ideas and used short stories to explain the significance of his research. Even with this in mind, the book seemed kind of cobbled together. Certain chapters flowed quite well in terms of hypotheses and research shown, but would then either end abruptly or obscurely. He obviously put a lot of effort into researching for this book, but I don’t feel he was ever able to adequately answer any of the questions he set out to answer. He was able to give statistics and hypotheses for different collections of data, but he seemed unaware that, as Van Til said, there is no such thing as an uninterpreted fact. It felt as though he believed simply presenting the data, and the saying “this is how we might explain this” was proving once and for all his interpretation of that information. This unstated belief on his part seemed most obvious when he discussed arguments for God, his understanding of the relation of science and religion, and his hypotheses in the chapter “The Storytelling Animal.”
His closing chapter, as summarized above, came as quite a surprise. If he had wanted readers to agree with his conclusion regarding the freedom inherent in being the product of random chance, he should have been developing it alongside his religious analysis throughout the entire book. This was also confusing considering his continual nods to the usefulness of religion. While this book had interesting information in parts, I did not find it helpful or persuasive. For a similar book in this same vein I would recommend Breaking the Spell by Daniel Dennet.
(less)
flag2 likes · Like · see review
Scott Lerch
Feb 09, 2007Scott Lerch rated it really liked it
Recommends it for: Anyone
Shelves: scientificworldview
This book does a great job at explaining the origins of religion and how it was a necessary by product of evolution. After reading this is hard to deny that religion and the concept of God is not explainable through natural processes. Then given the choice between an understandable natural phenomena and a mysterious supernatural phenomena, why should anyone choose religion over science unless for comfort? Because of this book I changed my religious label to nontheist meaning I don’t believe reason can lead to a belief or disbelief in God. This is subtly different than atheist (depending on how it’s defined) in that it’s not that I completely reject the possibility of God, it’s just that I don’t believe in God. It is also different than agnosticism because that generally has the connotation of being undecided which I am not. Another plus of nontheism is that it doesn’t (yet) have the nasty connotation of being amoral like atheism. In the end this book just made me wish everyone would analyze their own religious beliefs and labels as thoroughly as Michael Shermer. (less)
flag2 likes · Like · comment · see review
Noreen
Nov 18, 2011Noreen rated it liked it
Shelves: freethinking-critical-thinking, science
I found this book rather boring, maybe because I don't need to be convinced by the arguments he makes. I had already read some excellent books on the subject by Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. Even as a child, I was called "negative" and "critical" perhaps because I saw through people's self-delusions. However as a speaker, Dr. Shermer is excellent -- funny, relevant, concise.
I saw him give a talk at a university a couple of months ago. The event was listed in a Meetup group of which I am a member, and prior to it, another member revealed himself in a comment to the Meetup event page to be a nine eleven "truther." (The Meetup group is for atheists, who are usually skeptics as well.)
Some members of the group disputed the truther, and their posts weren't all nice. I feel partly responsible for starting the argument: I misunderstood the truther's post to say he thought SHERMER is a conspiracy theorist. After four readings of his poorly written post, in which he had linked to the "Rethink 9-11" website, I realized that HE was the conspiracy theorist, but by then I had opened a can of worms.
I kept thinking about what I would LIKE to post, but will not, because even though the truther left that Meetup group, he is still a member of another atheist Meetup group I am in and he would see it. So I will post my draft messages here instead.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY TO THE MEETUP GROUP AND/OR THE TRUTHER
Dear ACSJ: I apologize for using the term "crank" in my message. This forum was the last place I expected to encounter a conspiracy theorist, so forgive me for making what could be conceived as a personal attack. Just in case there are other people in the meetup group that I may have offended, I want to apologize to the alien abductees, JFK conspiracy theorists, Sasquatch believers, crop-circlers, moon landing hoaxers, tooth-fairyists, etc. Let me know if I've missed anyone. (That's a joke; just check RationalWiki for a list of weird beliefs.)
Dear Terry, my deepest apologies for calling you a crank. Believing that the events on September 11, 2001 were engineered by the Bush administration is totally understandable! It's just as believable as an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent god who created the universe, yet cares about each of us personally and listens to our prayers! May I suggest that while you are rejecting one indefensible belief yet harboring another one that you are f***ng crazy? There are meetup groups for people such as you, but I think a doctor could help you more.
Dear Brian, I understand that part of ACSJ's mission is diplomacy toward, if not tolerance of, those with extreme religious viewpoints, perhaps in the hope that they can be won to the rational side. Does this diplomacy extend, however, to people who hold other indefensible and extreme beliefs as well, such as conspiracy theories? Religions have been enjoying special status and sanctity for centuries, but what reason do we have for treating the beliefs of cranks with respect? Yes, we should respect the person, but I see no reason to tolerate someone who sows seeds of discord by posting a message to the group to further his own personal beliefs that have nothing to do with atheism (except I think most atheists are by nature skeptics as well -- why would one reject one set of delusions while clinging to another?). I feel like ACSJ is an island of sanity in an insane world, and it just got violated by this Terry.
Skeptics Society video "You Can't Handle the Truther" http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=Nf3Blm... (less)
flag1 like · Like · see review
S.P.
Jan 27, 2013S.P. rated it liked it
Shelves: science
The thing I like about Michael Shermer is he holds a very precise view of the world - if you make a claim (about anything) then be prepared to prove it, with scientific evidence.
The survey of American's beliefs is fascinating (though frankly scary), the reasoning and conclusions as to how we believe odd things convincing, and the breadth of the research that has gone into this volume fairly impressive. The problem is I found the book cast a little wide to be able to be able focus on properly.
To summarise however, Shermer believes (with supporting evidence!) that man's belief in God is due to his pattern recognising brain and it's ability to correctly and incorrectly attribute things as true or not true. In our primitive past, correctly identifying a true pattern as true resulted in longer life whereas incorrectly identifying a true pattern as false resulted in shorter life. Since incorrectly identifying a false pattern as true rarely results in death, there is an evolutionary bias to correctly identify true patterns, but no bias against incorrectly identifying false patterns. Thus there is way in for superstition and Gods. This is the same logic that predicts that pigeons will stand on one leg to obtain food from a dispenser if this has in the past resulted in food being dispensed (really they do - pigeons are as superstitious as people!).
Anyone committed to their God or Religion is unlikely to chime with Shermer's view (although Shermer is at pains to explain he is not anti-God), however as review of the current state of the God vs Science 'debate' as of about 10 years ago, it is not bad. (less)
flag1 like · Like · comment · see review
Daniel Gonçalves
Jan 06, 2016Daniel Gonçalves rated it really liked it
Imagination is a powerful tool. Over millennia, it helped the human being survive the most calamitous scenarios, such was our will to succeed as a dominant species. As a result, gods were concocted. Religions were edified. Myths were invented, and successfully propagated.
The 21st century brought hope. Civilization is now able to use its cognitive powers to discover new ways of explaining reality. Science seems to be the definitive answer to ignorance. But how are people using this privileges?
In “How We Believe”, skeptic Michael Shermer promises to explore an entirely different realm of knowledge: the study of secular, highly developed societies like the United States of America, and how medieval conceptions of the world continue to spread amidst the population. To accomplish this, Shermer shows the reader numerous studies and a considerable amount of statistical data. People continue to go to church. 90 % of individuals still believe in God.
With wit and ingenuity, Michael Shermer tries to dissect Humanity, and Its rich history. A brilliant attempt to find satisfying answers.
(less)
flag1 like · Like · comment · see review
Kolbi
Apr 25, 2018Kolbi rated it liked it
A great book detailing why people believe what they do. This book went over several different standpoints on God and religion for example, Agnosticism, Atheism, and obviously Christianity. One of my favorite discussions in the book is, in an age of science are religious people becoming scarce or are they on the rise. The quick answer would be that people believe in God more than they used to, but I would highly suggest that you read the polls and studies done they are very fascinating. I really enjoyed the book I just wish certain topics would have been discussed in more depth. (less)
flag1 like · Like · comment · see review
Tamara
Jun 12, 2007Tamara rated it liked it
Shelves: allaboutreligion, 2007
A little too technical at times, but interesting. Shermer doesn't totally dump on believers, having been a born-again Christian at one point. He now is skeptical of religion, but allows that many others might not be. Not so much looking at how religion rose, but just an overall view of how/why people today believe. (less)
flag1 like · Like · comment · see review
J.
Jul 04, 2020J. rated it it was ok · review of another edition
Shelves: books-i-once-owned
I found this book to be incredibly frustrating multiple times through the book. As background, Shermer and I have similar backgrounds in fairly literalist christianity but have moved into more skeptical stances as adults. He is, of course, a fairly devout skeptic, while I am a fideist similar to the types he discusses in the book. (Note that anyone who discussed with me would call me a theist, but I'm NOT a theist according to the definition he gives near the end of the book, one of many little frustrations throughout.) So let me be up front and say that I agree with the VAST majority of conclusions he draws in the book,and this would be, in many ways, very similar to the book I would write on the topic.
Many sections of this book are strong, particularly when he focuses on understanding how and why we believe. His explanations of man as storyteller and myth-maker, and his research into why people believe and disbelieve in god(s) are interesting and thought-provoking. But there's weird sections, too, and I will illustrate with the one I found most disturbing:
In chapter 5, he discusses arguments for God's existence. Again, I want to be extremely up front: I don't believe that it is possible to have any logical or scientific proof of god's existence. I believe that any such proofs could only be personal and existential, essentially non-transferrable. So I agree with his rejection of the validity of those proofs. But. Through this section, I repeatedly felt like he was trying to convince me not to believe the arguments. His quick, snappy argument / counterargument format gives a strong impression that theistic arguments (which, remember, have been being debated for thousands of years now) are simultaneously lacking any subtlety or persuasive power and obviously false for all to see. But neither of those can possibly be true. First, there are incredibly refined versions of these arguments which, while not convincing to me, are impressive and majestic and logically reasonable. Similarly, doesn't the fact that so many people buy into these arguments tell us something about the arguments themselves? Certainly they aren't as easily falsifiable as Shermer seems to imply. This whole section seems to take believers as opponents to be dissuaded (rather than his stated goal of understanding belief itself) and doesn't even do them the service of treating them with respect of giving them strong versions of their own positions. And who is the target audience of this section, anyway? Are there a bunch of religious theists who are only religious because of scientific arguments going to be reading this book? This whole chapter leaves me befuddled, as if this were a section from another book, shoe-horned into this book.
So that's one particularly frustrating example, but there are a few others scattered throughout. (For instance, I'm not a theist, according to this book!) To reiterate: there's definitely some good stuff in here, but for a book supposedly trying to understand belief and believers, and which--to its strong credit--often goes out of its way to understand and commiserate, it also seems occasionally dismissive and belittling of them. (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
Celia Sánchez
Nov 05, 2020Celia Sánchez rated it really liked it · review of another edition
Shelves: science, atheism
"In her left hand are riches and honor
Her ways are ways of pleasantness,
and all her paths are peace;
She is a tree of life to those who lay hold of her;
those who hold her fast are called happy .
(Proverbs :3:13 -18)
.
The Hubble Telescope Deep feild photograph revelas as never before the rich density of galaxies in our neck of the universe,is as grand a statement about the sacred as any medieval cathedral.How vast is the cosmos.How contingent is our place.Yet out of this apparent insignificance emerges a glorious contingency -the recognition that we did not have to be , but here we are ...
(Michel shermer)
Finding meaning in a contingent Universe ---
-Shermer in this book brilliantly explores our propensity to be story telling animals ....He describes evolutionary forces that might affect group selection and community identity. This book taught me a great deal about the origins of religious thought, as well as how people think in general,well-researched book on religion and belief ....5 stars for the topic ..contingency and necessity .. shermer quotes Daniel dennets Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life and Stepeh J goulds Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History ..when talking about role played by contingent events in Human Origins ...
enlightening .... (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
Lori
Jul 17, 2019Lori rated it it was amazing
Shermer illustrates that our "belief machine", our mechanism for understanding the world, arose from our need to believe _something_ in that believing true things and disbelieving false things increases our chances of survival. Unfortunately, that same mechanism easily picks up and believes false things and disbelieves true things, especially where those mistakes don't cost us too much. At the same time, he helpfully illustrates the features of worldwide cults and religions that are shared with Christianity, gently illustrating both the universality of our hopes made manifest in beliefs, and also the truly mundane nature of the Christian tradition. Well written and respectful of belief, while still advocating an evidence-based reality and mindset (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
Peter
Oct 25, 2019Peter rated it really liked it · review of another edition
Shermer is very sharp! I'm not sure why, but I kept hearing some of these sentences in Carl Sagan's voice. Drawing on a wide variety of sources, he illustrates why the scientific method is the best way to learn about ourselves, our world, and the universe. Not a believer in any traditional way, he treats believers with respect, and I prefer that approach to, for example, Richard Dawkins' in-your-face confrontational stance. I've had discussions with both believers and non-believers and find that the non-confrontational approach promotes discussion while militant atheism does not. (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
===
Top reviews from the United States
Jeremy M. Harris
4.0 out of 5 stars Being is believing - but can you choose wisely?
Reviewed in the United States on June 5, 2000
Verified Purchase
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.
Read less
16 people found this helpful
Helpful
Report abuse
Joel
5.0 out of 5 stars Why We Cannot Know God
Reviewed in the United States on May 16, 2000
Verified Purchase
As in his Why People Believe Weird Things, Michael Shermer makes it clear that people who believe in God are not stupid. He breaks important ground by making a home for two types who have been lately rejected by the mainstreams of Skepticism and Religion: those who believe in God even though they know that they cannot prove God's existence empirically; and those who simply refuse to answer the question.
Shermer makes an excellent case for an alternative form of Skepticism with this book, based on the premise that if there is a God, He/She/It is of such a character as to be beyond human knowing. God, Shermer reminds us, is supposed to be omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (present everywhere), and omni-potent (all-powerful). We human beings are none of these things: so how can any of us claim to be certain of this other beings existence or nonexistence?
It is a premise which will make those who want empircal proof for their beliefs unhappy: neither the Creationist or the Atheist will be satisfied with Shermer's formula. Yet, I think, that thinking people of spirit and nonspirit will appreciate Shermer's liberating observations. He is consciously trying to create a world-view about religion for the coming millenium and, I dare say, his is the most realistic and sensible that I have seen so far.
From this beginning, Shermer goes on to discuss the human creation of religion, an artifact which is separate from the question of whether or not God exists. Shermer contends that we humans are, by the grace of natural selection, pattern-seeking animals. Religion is an attempt by us to make sense of the chaos and the uncertainty which is always there. He concludes his discussion by establishing his view as an independent theory of religion, offering it to religious scholars and others who are seeking a common-sense position about the way we believe.
The concluding section, about the theory of Evolution and its relationship to issues of modern faith, has been cited by some as superfluous and out of keeping with the rest of the book. I contend, however, that it is a logical conclusion to Shermer's epistemology given that nowhere has the conflict between the Godless and the God-inspired been so evident as it has been in this debate. Shermer pulls evolution and Science as a whole out of the political void created by this conflict and sets it where it rightly belongs: as an objective, well-grounded explanation of the fossil evidence which does not tell us a thing about whether or not God exists. This question, Shermer believes, cannot be answered by we mere humans. We are best served by realizing our limitations, he concludes, and accepting empirical Truth as limited to what we can find out with our own senses.
It was appropriate that this book appeared in the first month of the year 2000. It is a book to guide epistemological debate in the next millenium.
Read less
43 people found this helpful
Helpful
Report abuse
See all reviews
Top reviews from other countries
Translate all reviews to English
Retired Engineer
5.0 out of 5 stars Five Stars
Reviewed in Canada on November 24, 2014
Verified Purchase
Excellent
Report abuse
k84
5.0 out of 5 stars なぜ人は信じるか?
Reviewed in Japan on December 6, 2015
Verified Purchase
著者は10代のある日、クリスチャンとして洗礼を受け直す決心をした。その時、コヨーテが鳴いて、ルシフェルが獲物を1人失ったことを嘆いた。と、その時は思った。よく考えると、良いなと思っていた少女に気に入られたかったのが入信の動機の1つにあったし、コヨーテのよく鳴く地域に住んでいた。
神学部に進んだ著者は、なぜ全知全能で全く善の神がいるなら、世の中に悪いことがあるのかという問題にぶつかり、無信心者になり、その後、神がいるのかいないのかは人間にはわからないという不可知論者になった。そしてこの本を書き、初版が出たあと、なぜ「神はいない」と布教（?）しないのかと友人に非難された。
ほ乳類は進化の過程で、仮説を立ててそれを補強するという行動様式を確立し、生き延びてきた。それと、神を信じること、科学を信じることの関係を丁寧に考えていく。また、「神の存在を証明する」という主張の有名なものに挑む。
神を信じる人にも読みやすそうな本。
Report abuse
Translate review to English
See all reviews
