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.
Rating: 
Summary: Kudos for Shermer
Review: I have just been introduced to Shermer's work. I think he is a beaon for clear and critical thinking. We need more like him in this world ruled by religious bigotry and irrationalism.
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: 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: Really disappointing.
Review: I'm a great fan of Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things," so it's disheartening to have to review this book negatively. Sometimes the tone is . . . genuflectional? He does address truly novel ideas, citing Tooby & Cosmides and others, for evolutionary hypotheses for the universality of religious belief, but no unified view emerges in the book. Also, there is a completely superfluous chapter defending Stephen Gould, whom he declares as his "friend" at the beginning of the book, which reveals a probable bias: Gould hates adaptive/evolutionary points of view on social matters. No wonder Shermer drops the issue like a hot potato in this book.
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: 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: Somewhat Hard To Digest, Even For A Skeptic
Review: In this book, Shirmer shows an astonishing knowledge of skeptical books and writings over the ages, and of recent publications, too. In Appendix 2, he shows excellent knowledge of and use of mathematical statistical analysis as applied to the social sciences. I would highly reccomend reading Shermer's WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE WEIRD THINGS as a prequel to this book.
As a skeptic beforehand, I found parts of HOW WE BELIEVE to be rather hard to digest, and even tedious at times. Such is the case of the many pages on mythology, and how it developed in the human race, and how it developed into religion.
Sometimes, I guess that I have a taste for simple explanations of things. For example, how did ancient "prophets" and "wise men" receive the "word of God"? I would answer simply that they went out into the wilderness, fasted, and had hallucinations.
Shermer (a former Christian like me, who has become an agnostic), never says so directly, but he apparently believes that Jesus and Abraham were real historical characters. I think that the likelihood is high that they were fictious. In other words, and to use the word "myth" in a different sense than Shermer does, it is likely that Jesus was just as mythological as the other gods from Apollo to Zeus. The same is probably true about the other ancient religious leaders. As an example of how Shermer can be tedious about a topic, consider his several chapters in WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE WEIRD THINGS, where he confronts Holocaust disbelievers. I think that the simpler explanation of these people is words to the effect that "they have their heads buried in the sand". In HOW WE BELIEVE, I found Shermer's Chapter 10 on "Glorious Contingency" to be overdone and on shakey ground. I think that as a consequence of the nature of the physical universe, the forces restraining contingency are much stronger than Shermer does. Just how strong, I cannot know. Something that I do know is that one one planet, at least two (not just one) large-brained families of animals evolved. I think that dolphins are just as intelligent as humans, but they cannot have technology where they live. Overall, I give HOW WE BELIEVE three stars, but WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE WEIRD THINGS, five stars.
Rating:
Summary: One hell of a good book
Review: Simply marvelous. Absolutely engrossing. Written with a passion and perspicacity rarely seen even among thinkers of Shermer's caliber. In short, a damned fine read that everyone ought to peruse forthwith! :) ALSO RECOMMENDED: Shermer's WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE WEIRD THINGS.
Rating: 
Summary: Discredited ideas
Review: This brilliantly orchestrated journey into the depths of human emotion and science are a joy for the beleiver and the skeptic. Dr. Shermer examines every facet of the sociological and psychological impact of people and their belief systems. To the keen reader, this book asks hard-hitting and provocative questions as to the nature and depths of those ideals we hold to be truth. While at the same time dissecting pseudo-sciences and archaic models for belief and rationality for what they truly have become: Dying paradigms in a critical thinkers world!! Books such as this have special places in the hearts of those who hold truth to be the ultimate goal of scientists, secularists and religious scholars. A can't miss piece of philosophical examination into the mind of the human animal, and a joy from beginning to end!!
|
