In God We Doubt: Confessions of a Failed Atheist

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 (1/1 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

Best get those splinters looked at... (6/8 people found this helpful)

It's badly written and badly researched...so bad, in fact, that I quite enjoyed reading it.

After a couple of hundred pages it all comes down to this...Rod Liddle is my mate, he's clever and witty and he thinks its OK to believe in god if you want.
Cheers JH
By the way, any chance you can get your buddy to write a book expanding upon why?

ps Can you explain why almost every atheist you quote or refer to (at least in the latter part of the book) is 'militant'.
Is it a term applied to those atheists with a strong conviction that there is no god?

I'm interested, because I wonder why you don't also refer to believers with a strong conviction there is a god in the same way? Afterall the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury have fairly forthright views on the subject and I don't see you referring to either as 'militant' Christians.

So where's the doubt? (12/13 people found this helpful)

This is a puzzling, and unsatisfying, book. It is a spin-off from a Radio 4 series 'Humphrys in Search of God', in which he interviewed senior representatives of the three Abrahamic faiths - Rowan Williams, Tariq Ramadan and Jonathan Sacks - about the nature of, and reasons to believe in, God - specifically, a god who serves simultaneously as creator, judge and guardian. After introducing himself as a `genuine agnostic', he considers the issues under seven headings.

The first five are In the Beginning, which establishes the reasons for his own scepticism from childhood on; Battle Lines, which records the grounds of the debate and some major protagonists - Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath, William Lane Craig and Lewis Wolpert - and quotes some spectacularly meaningless theobabble from Keith Ward. The State of the Nation reports the results of a YouGov poll which he commissioned in the wake of the series, which seemed to indicate significant divergence between professed beliefs and practice; extracts from The Interviews, bringing out particularly the problems of suffering, evil and injustice, and the self-contradictions inherent in the three traditions; and Letters, extracts from his post bag following the broadcasts - by far the biggest he has ever had on any programme.

Throughout all these sections - three-quarters of the book - he maintains an impeccably sceptical stance, and I found myself wondering, Where's the wiggle room? What space is left for `and yet'?

Finally, in Conscience, we find out. And it comes in the form of a hybrid between what Dawkins has characterised as `the argument from personal incredulity', more usually encountered in support of Intelligent Design, and a simple yuk factor. Having earlier pointed out the patent absurdity of the assertion that there is no morality without God, he has this to say:
"Kindness, altruism, generosity, empathy and pity are the noblest of human virtues. To reduce them to a "strong urge" and to put lust into the same category is to suggest that we can no more help ourselves feeling pity that we can help ourselves feeling sexual desire. Follow this thinking to its logical conclusion and you reduce human beings to the level of a marauding, oversexed chimpanzee."
How often did Darwin himself, almost a century and a half ago, hear the same critique?

The meat of his argument here is about the roots of altruism, particularly when carried to heroic lengths - he cites Lisa Potts, seriously injured when she stood between her class of nursery-school children and a machete-wielding recipient of `community care', and Irena Sendlerova, who over an extended period smuggled thousands of Jewish children to safety from the Warsaw ghetto. Although such actions are very rare, compared with instances of standing by and acquiescing in clear breaches of received morality, he infers from them the presence of a `divine spark' - without however being very clear about its nature or distribution.

He has read The Selfish Gene, but clearly not understood it very well, because he says, of such conflicts between moral duty and self-preservation, `By any Darwinian measure the stronger is bound to be self-preservation.' And a little further on, `We cannot describe their actions in Darwinian terms.' I hope he means, `There is as yet no explanation for such phenomena that is agreed between evolutionary and cognitive scientists,' because otherwise he hasn't understood the nature of science any too well, either.

Finally, in Something .... Or Nothing, he calls on atheists to stop being so nasty about believers. Not all believers, he says, are obviously stupid, and not all religious belief leads to bad behaviour (although earlier on he has expressed significant reservations about the benevolence of the Sharia provisions about amputation and stoning). And, after all, it serves as a great source of consolation to millions of people.

OK, John, so you believe in belief. It's pretty hard not to. And you believe that its outcomes are not always as malign as some people make out. But what on earth has that got to do with whether or not it's true? Where does the `doubt' come from?

A believer pretending to be agnostic (5/5 people found this helpful)

This book is well-written in that it is well laid out, easy to read and flows nicely. It's not too heavy.
However the language used to describe people on each side of the argument (theist and atheist) is entirely lop-sided. Early on atheists are referred to as 'militant' and personally attacked for their views. Prominent atheists are made out to be evil-doers out to cause harm to those poor people who take comfort from religion. Humphrys fails to attack their argument and this is the main downfall of the book.

Theists are portrayed as possibly misguided but ultimately decent people.
I think this was inevitable having invited 3 religious leaders into his studio but no atheist. I think he wants to believe but can't logically accept it. Someone pulling him the other way was always going to get the door slammed in their face.

So this book is not about religion and atheism and who's got the best argument. It's about John Humphyrs and his personal journey towards religion. He's almost there - just one bridge to go - he just can't bring himself to cross it. Better do it soon John; there's a militia of spear throwing atheists chasing you.

In God We Doubt: Confessions of a Failed Atheist

John Humphrys

Reader Reviews:

Decisions, decisions, decisions (1/1 people found this helpful)

Agree to Disagree (1/1 people found this helpful)

Best get those splinters looked at... (6/8 people found this helpful)

So where's the doubt? (12/13 people found this helpful)

A believer pretending to be agnostic (5/5 people found this helpful)

Similar Products

Categories