A new edition covering the latest scientific research on how the brain makes us believers or skepticsRecent 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.
Amazon.com Review: One hundred years ago social scientists predicted that belief in God would decrease by the year 2000. "In fact ... the opposite is has occurred," Shermer writes in his introduction. "Never in history have so many, and such a high percentage of the population, believed in God. Not only is God not dead as Nietzche proclaimed, but he has never been more alive."
Why do so many believe in the existence of something so inexplicable? That's exactly what Shermer answers in this comprehensive, intelligent, and highly readable discussion about the nature of faith. "People believe in God because the evidence of their senses tell them so," claims Shermer, who is the publisher of Skeptics magazine. Having been a believer and a student of the history of science, Shermer (now an agnostic) is more interested in knowing why and how people believe in God rather than trying to prove who's right or wrong. As a result, this book is not only even-handed and thorough, it is also destined to become a timeless contribution to spirituality as well as science. --Gail Hudson
Who guards the guardians? There is an old question, "And who guards the guardians?" Or, "And who watches the watchers?" Sometimes when I read Shermer's work I think of a paraphrase of this: "And who is skeptical of the skeptics?" Let me say forthwith that I am an atheist and a skeptical empiricist, and so am NOT writing this to defend some notion of religion or "debunk" any of Shermer's arguments made here about religion and religiosity. I agree with his stance on religion. In fact, on this note this book is quite good. Shermer makes his arguments in a lucid manner and has some fascinating points to make as well. My problem, rather, comes from Shermer's self-appointed role, and now celebrity, as arbiter of what does and does not count as "science," for much of what appears in his work hardly passes muster. Unfortunately, this book is itself full of questionable methodological practices. Namely, much in the book references correlational data that Shermer keeps discussing. Shermer happens to include this data in an Appendix, which is itself, I must add, a rare and commendable thing to do. The problem is that anyone with a modicum of knowledge regarding statistics will readily see that the data is worthless. Shermer discusses the "relationship" between this and that, such as the relationship between education and religiosity, or gender and religiosity, etc. I was shocked when I looked at the actual numbers. Sure, the "p values" are well below .05, and are therefore "statistically significant." What is alarming are the other numbers. Take for instance: r = .09, p < .0001, N = 2156. What's wrong with this "relationship?" Well for starters, there's no relationship! Why are there TWO THOUSAND people in the sample? Statistical significance is sensitive to sample size. With an N that big ANYTHING ON EARTH WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT. With that many subjects significance is guaranteed and therefore moot. The only question left is the size of the relationship, which is NOT assessed by r, but rather by r squared. The problem is that all of the correlations reported (guaranteed significance by the sheer size of the samples involved) are extraordinarily small, like .09, .1, etc. The effect size of such a correlation is effectively zero! In short, there is nothing to write about here!
Skepticism is Dominant I found it interesting that Shermer's dedication to the book stated "For examining God, religion, and myth as Spinoza would have it: not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn, but to understand." In spite of this, I failed to understand how Shermer hoped to remain neutral throughout his book when he only argued for the side of science. However, as the founding publisher of Skeptic magazine, you couldn't really expect less.
Regardless of Shermer's personal opinions, I found his book to be well written, well researched and enjoyable. He posed numerous fresh arguments in a world where the God v. Science battle constantly rages. Also, several of his arguments caused me to rethink my own beliefs and why I stand by them. While Shermer is clearly biased in favor of science, after reading his book I think that he desires to respect all types of people along with their individual beliefs. I enjoyed his writing and the many thoughts that it sparked in me.
A respectful critique of religion Shermer is a former born-again Christian, which is probably why he is more respectful of believers than, say, Richard Dawkins. I'm about half-way through this book, and I can say that it is probably the best book out there for any fence-sitting believers. He doesn't talk down to believers, he doesn't bitterly attack their belief system, and he doesn't try to be partisan. Instead, he gives a well-written, respectful critique of religion. I'd be willing to say that even Pat Robertson couldn't get offended by this book. Shermer's rhetoric is far too respectful and reasonable to draw lines between theists and atheists. He tries to unite both sides instead.
I once was blind.. This was one of the most fascinating books I have read, everyday I looked forward to it. I was most impressed with Shermer's mastery of multiple and diverse disciplines, my IQ must have gone up a few points from reading such a well written and elegant tome. Its comprehensive style reminded me of Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" because it opened my mind to things I never considered and made me think. I find it difficult to point out what I liked about the book because it has so much to offer however I was moved as Shermer touchingly explained how he has found meaning in a world without god. I too was a Christian once and have gone though the same existential and philosophical struggles. I felt an intellectual and emotion freedom as I read of his appreciation in the awe of the natural world and his coming to understand his place in it as a "homo sapiens" or "wise man". Such considerate expression gave me a new understanding of what it means to be a freethinker.
Fascinating Look at god Belief How We Believe is a nice read--very informative, often fascinating, and very timely. Written in a straightforward style somewhere between Dawkins and Sam Harris, How We Believe should be read right along with The God Delusion and Letter to a Christian Nation. Mr. Shermer publishes some very interesting information about the general characteristics of "believers" in the U.S. and who are those most likely to have no god belief. He does a nice job of succinctly describing messiah myths and the endemic nature of "end-times" thinking in cultures throughout the world.
There are a few small problems with this book, however. The first is its lack of cohesion. Is Mr. Shermer writing a general interest nonfiction book about god belief in the U.S. or is he addressing specific pet peeves that he's come across in his research? For example; in chapter 6, we are subjected to long quotations from Pope John Paul II and Shermer's feelings about these excerpts. I really didn't care much for this, and I didn't think it was that relevant to the book's theme. The second main problem is similar--Shermer finishes the book discussing contingency theory, and this is as good a way to end the book as any. Unfortunately, this segment is overlong and too focused on responding to Daniel Dennett's response to Stephen Jay Gould.
Mr. Shermer could have even left these ideas in his book, but he should have trimmed them down considerably. Keeping all this in mind, How We Believe is a vital and needed addition to the nontheist library. I highlighted (highlit?) many passages as very pertinent to our society's blanket acceptance of patently ridiculous mythology and the reasons behind its folly. Put this one high on your list!
Anything Goes Trivia
Megaton Man
Trevor
