How We Believe, 2nd Edition: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.