In God We Doubt: Confessions of a Failed Atheist

After reading George H Smiths Atheism: The Case against God, I must agree that there is no such thing as an agnostic. Humphrys definitely falls on the theist side of belief but seems unable to get this clear to himself.
I can definitely see his point of view that some atheists are going for the jugular and so upset the people at the edges of the debate; but to be honest these people aren't exactly going to be picking up the God Delusion if they are happy in their own.
I would reccomend this book because it is a nice light read but I wouldn't hold it up as a real case for agnosticism because that isn't truly a solid argument. The agnostic (in general) has a definite leaning but not the willingness to accept the actual thing they believe, whether it be theism or atheism.

As an atheist (which I'm proud to be), I found this book interesting due to seeing someone trying to justify sitting on the fence because he didn't want to actually come out with the fact that he believes in some sort of god. He did a lot of skirting around it and his conclusion was that he didn't want to be an atheist due to their over aggression in recent years. However his blatant theism is clear throughout so I don't know why he continued to claim to be agnostic.

John Humphys in doubt? Surely not! (0/0 people found this helpful)

John is very fair in his assessment of arguments against a god. Having presented such clear and decisive evidence, how can he still be agnostic? A great read for agnostics and non-believers.

The take-home message? Live and let live (2/4 people found this helpful)

It's quite difficult to write a review about this book because the whole thing can be condensed into four words (see the title of this review). When it boils down to it it's just a little bit of a liberal manifesto (no surprise that its genesis was at the BBC) preaching respect and tolerance and defending people's right to their opinion, however silly. (And some of the views expressed within these pages ARE silly.) Which isn't really a bad thing; it's just an insipid thing. If it were a colour this book would be beige. In fact it IS beige. I'm just wondering why it has a picture of the British order of chivalry -- the Order of the Garter -- on its cover. Never mind. God works in mysterious ways.

First things first. This book starts badly. (It rallies a little in the middle, then crashes and burns at the end, but more about that later.) The preface (or "challenge" or, allegedly, "disclaimer") should be used by the author to set out his stall. Tell us why he wrote the book and what he aims to achieve. Humphrys (I always want to spell it Humphries), however, seems to dive straight in at the deep end with a veritable phantasmagoria of disjointed and random thoughts on the subject. There's even a silly mistake (probably the editor's fault) on page two (two!?) where Humphrys claims to have called the opening chapter the "disclaimer" rather than preface or foreword when in fact he did no such thing. It's actually called the "challenge". Sure it's a silly oversight, but it just put me off right at the start.

As the book progresses Humphrys becomes more and more anti-atheist and more and more sympathetic to the beleaguered believers (whom I suspect he feels sorry for). And he makes all the common mistakes along the way. Such as equating a theist's 'belief' to a scientist's 'belief' in his reason. Which is just a petty semantic coincidence that arises because the word 'belief' has more than one meaning, but one which believers and those who "believe in belief" never fail to employ. Humphrys steadies himself on this crutch on a number of occasions. Such as when he calls atheists "devout sceptics" -- another semantic conjuring trick that looks pretty but doesn't have a leg to stand on.

But perhaps I'm being too harsh. Humphrys is an interesting person. He tells some nice stories (but he does seem to have a huge chip on his shoulder about reality-television stars, whom he suddenly attacks out of the blue on a number [more than two] of occasions) and comes across as a likeable and friendly person. But why doesn't he interview an atheist? Ah, you might say, this is because he is searching for God. OK, so why single out atheists throughout the book (especially the antichrist Dawkins) for so much venom? Why not give them a chance to defend themselves? Who knows, if they're so wrong they may have even inadvertently pushed you closer to God? And why fixate on "militant" atheists while all the while warning people of the dangers of paying too much attention to fundamentalist believers?

To conclude, this is a very personal spiritual journey which is unlikely to offend anybody but nor is it likely to convert anybody. The message is one of religious toleration. Some might call it limp, a cop-out, insipid or lame. It is probably all of those, but there is some humour and plenty of warmth from the author. Also this is a short book. The characters are large and well spaced and the margins are generous. So it shouldn't detain you for long.

PS: And there was no need to insult Irena Sendlerova. She says that the term "hero" when applied to her irritates her greatly. So a few lines down the page he calls her a hero. Either he's accusing her of false modesty (i.e. insulting her) or he's insulting her.

Decisions, decisions, decisions (2/5 people found this helpful)

Well, if you've grown tired of reading books by religious writers who think they have all the answers figured out, or books by militant atheists who think they have all the answers figured out, at last here is a book by someone who can't make up his mind one way or the other - but still believes that he has all the answers figured out. After presenting a very lucid argument in favor of atheism, Humphrys then presents a very emotional argument in favor of religion. Then he drifts off into gross sentimentality - dredging up the kind of childhood reminiscences that make your own children cringe when you retell them the twentieth time. Humphry's talent is that he makes you think you have heard his stories twenty times already, even though you haven't. My suggestion - give this book a pass, save your money, and use it to buy a book by either McGrath or Dawkins.

Agree to Disagree (3/4 people found this helpful)

I enjoyed this book immensely. It's grounded in a journalist's unwillingness to accept anything at face value and probably represents the way many people look at God and religion. It's not the way I look at it. My beliefs may be considered fundamentalist in some aspects and Humphrys clearly shows how odd they look to outsiders. He also understands that people like myself are happy with them, just as agnostics, atheists and people who do not believe in Christianity, are happy with theirs. He also understands that "militant" is the correct term to apply to those who are incapable of accepting that disagreement on the nature of reality does not imply superstition or stupidity. "Militant" is a particularly apt term as it correctly identifies the political ideology underlying the approach of Richard Dawkins who admits an inability to understand how anyone can believe in God and appears too willing to assume that there was a religious basis for 9/11 rather than a political one dressed in religious language. Tolerance is the foundation of a free and democratic society and books like "In God We Doubt" represent the essence of free speech. As a believer it gave me a greater understanding of why people disbelieve and, to some extent, why they do believe. Thankfully, in a debate which is unlikely to be resolved, it departs from the militant opinion that there are two opinions - theirs and the wrong one. Humphreys wrote as a journalist but his contribution to the debate about the existence of otherwise of God is far more valuable philosophically than those who proclaim to be oases of clear thought in a world blinded by its own unwillingness to accept intellectual totalitarianism

In God We Doubt: Confessions of a Failed Atheist

John Humphrys

Reader Reviews:

He's a theist (0/1 people found this helpful)

John Humphys in doubt? Surely not! (0/0 people found this helpful)

The take-home message? Live and let live (2/4 people found this helpful)

Decisions, decisions, decisions (2/5 people found this helpful)

Agree to Disagree (3/4 people found this helpful)

Similar Products

Categories