In God We Doubt: Confessions of a Failed Atheist

by John Humphrys

Today’s agnostics are scorned by believers for their failure to find faith, as well as by atheists for being hopelessly wishy-washy and weak-minded. But John Humphrys is proud to count himself among the agnostic ranks. In this candid memoir he charts the history of his spiritual life, from his Christian childhood through the years in which he prayed every day of his life until his growing doubts finally began to overwhelm his faith. In 2006, he challenged the leaders of three of the world’s biggest religions to prove to him that God does exist, all to no avail. Enthusiastic and honest, this intriguing study shows that while doubt is not the easiest option, if is often the only possible one for the millions who can find no easy answers to the most profound questions.

Genres: Nonfiction, Religion, Philosophy, Biography, Theology, Atheism

322 pages, Hardcover

First published September 6, 2007

About the author

Desmond John Humphrys is a Welsh author, journalist and presenter of radio and television, who has won many national broadcasting awards. From 1981 to 1987 he was the main presenter for the Nine O'Clock News, the flagship BBC news television programme, and since 1987 he has been a presenter on the award-winning BBC Radio 4 programme, Today. He is also currently the host of the popular BBC Two television quiz show Mastermind.

John Humphrys has written several books, including Lost for Words, in which he criticizes what he sees as the widespread misuse of the English language, plus 'Devil's Advocate', 'Beyond Words', 'The Great Food Gamble' and 'In God We Doubt: Confessions Of A Failed Atheist'. Humphrys is an agnostic, but has a curiosity to test his agnosticism and challenge established religions to see if they can restore his childhood belief in God. In 2006, he presented a BBC Radio 4 programme, titled "Humphrys in Search of God" where he spoke to leading British authorities on Christianity, Judaism and Islam to try and restore his faith.

Humphrys is a columnist for the Daily Mail.

Reviews

[Paul Bryant · Rating 2 out of 5]

My friend Sid lives in Belper in Derbyshire and when I visit him we go walking in the Derbyshire countryside which is very pleasant and looks like this



(Sid would be an adornment to Goodreads, he specialises in French literature but has an acutely political turn of mind which I think we need round here; alas he’s a Luddite technophobe).

So anyway, we recently ended one of our walks in Cromford which has this bookshop





which is where I found a copy of Careless Love by Peter Guralnik, the 2nd part of his Elvis biography, and In God we Doubt by John Humphreys. I thought it was appropriate buying a books about Elvis and God at the same time. You could make a case for their careers being very similar - a brilliant start and then a whole long time where it was just the same old Vegas grind, nothing to see at all. In God’s case he did not have the excuse of Colonel Tom Parker. He was his own Colonel Parker. And of course we believed in Elvis to begin with, but came to doubt him in the end. He turned out to be a flabby metaphor for our rancid gone-to-seed dreams.

But enough of this blasphemy. The present book is built round a short radio series Humphreys in Search of God. JH is an annoying news presenter on the big political BBC morning radio show. He interviews the big names and makes them howl in pain or strangle themselves on their eel-like circumlocutions. The idea was that he grew up a Christian, lost his faith, and was now going to interview three leaders of the monotheistic religions to see if they could convince him of their version of the truth. Here are his victims – er, interviewees :

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams
Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks
“leading Muslim scholar” Tariq Ramadan

Given the above heavyweights it’s surprising – make that aggravating – how very lightweight this book is. I had to keep putting a large block of cheese on it to stop it floating up to the ceiling. In spite of regular mentions of the Nazis, earthquakes and psychopathic killers, the jaunty hail-fellow-well-met tone of the whole thing was enough to grate the large block of cheese mentioned earlier into very small particles.

HERE’S SOMETHING I DID LIKE

There’s a nice tale about Niels Bohr, Nobel prize winner for physics in 1922. A visitor is astonished to see a horseshoe nailed to the wall over the great man’s desk.

“Surely”, he asked Bohr, “you don’t believe that horseshoe will bring you good luck?”
“I believe no such thing, my friend. Not at all. I am scarcely likely to believe in such foolish nonsense. However, I am told that a horseshoe will bring you good luck whether you believe in it or not!”

Well – I got to say that I think that’s exactly how 90% of religion actually operates.

THE CHIEF RABBI’S REACTION

John explains the concept of the interview to the Chief Rabbi :

“It’s simple enough,” I said, “All you’ve got to do is convert me – turn me into a religious Jew.”
He put his hand on my arm, smiled rather sadly and said, “John, I wouldn’t dream of it. You’ve got enough problems already.”

LISTENER’S REACTIONS

They were especially critical of the Archbishop of Canterbury. They said he seemed so full of doubt that he’d have trouble persuading a two-year-old to eat his ice cream.

AN EXAMPLE OF THE ARCHBISHOP DEFENDING THE FAITH

In answer to the old chestnut about bad things happening to good people:

I’d say there’s hope… hope of healing. In God’s perspective, in God’s time, maybe within this world and maybe not. And part of the difficulty in living with faith is the knowledge which you’ve underlined so powerfully, that for some people in our time frame in this world there is not that kind of healing. And that’s not easy to face or to live with.

Hmmm…. Let’s give him a second chance:

What I’m trying to outline, and I know it’s not a simple thought, is that God set up the universe in such a way that when certain causes come together, certain circumstances come together, more is possible than those immediately involved imagine, as if there’s something that breaks through… because God has set up conditions in which, in this situation rather than that, it happens.

WHY DO BAD BOOKS HAPPEN TO GOOD REVIEWERS??

It’s one of the profoundest mysteries.

[Jay · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book makes the same mistake as other books which claim to critique atheism, it doesn't critique atheism! He only criticizes "militant" atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam SMITH(?). It's Sam Harris!! How could he mess that up?

It gets worse. He criticizes atheists because they supposedly only "attack" the crazy, militant believers while ignoring the majority who are decent and somewhat thoughtful. Then he proceeds to ONLY criticize "militant" atheists and ignore the majority of atheists who are decent themselves!!

His seven point description of atheism toward the end is borderline insulting. I don't know one atheist who has ever said "Trust me, I'm an atheist." On the contrary, almost every atheist I know wants an evidence based, rational society, NOT one based on faith and unsubstantiated trust.

As for the cliched charge of atheist arrogance, sure there are some arrogant atheists. But I can't think of a greater example of arrogance than to believe that the entire universe was created just for you and that you will have eternal bliss in heaven while the heretical unbelievers will all burn in hell.

[Simon Logan · Rating 2 out of 5]

A bit of a disappointment really, this is the sort of book which I think Dawkin's "God Delusion" put in its place, or at least should have done.

Humphrys explains that his book isn't meant to be like Dawkins', it isn't an attempt to talk people out of belief, but instead to ask why people believe in the first place and this is where I think it falls down. To me, you can't argue belief, you can't convince another to believe what you believe, or explain it fully to them, so to base a religious debate on them seems doomed to failure.

The only thing left, therefore, is reason, and this is what Dawkins did in The God Delusion. He recognised that reason, at least potentially, is shared whereas faith/belief is person and can't be argued. That, to me, was the power of his book. Humphrys, on the other hand, deliberately avoids this and falls back into the old ways of aethists being almost apologetic for their beliefs, or lack thereof.

In the end he actually seems to spend more time attacked Dawkins and his (in Humphreys own words) "militant aetheists" than anything else and so the book just comes out as nothing more than him expressing an opinion he doesn't even seem that willing to back up. He then spends a lot of time tying himself in knots about why we shouldn't "attack" people of faith and creating straw men aethist arguments that he can knock down and it comes off as confused, weak and pointless.

[Mat Knight · Rating 2 out of 5]

Now, on to the book at hand. So far I am 80 pages in and not too impressed. The book seems to lack the depth, commitment and conviction "The God Delusion" permeated. To summarize the pages so far, the message seems to be "I don't know, I can't be bothered to make a hunch either way and I'm too lazy to really try to discover any real answers.". Maybe I'm not being fair, it is witty in areas and certainly well written in terms of eloquence. But somehow the entirety thus far seems to bland, to blase, for me to be captivated and enthralled as I was with Richard Dawkins work. I will finish it, and likely enjoy it to a mild degree, if only to help me in my personal quest of reading a book for Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theology before I completely make my mind up. I have "The God Delusion" for Atheism, "In God we Doubt" for Agnosticism, and for Theology I have been advised to try "Mere Christianity" by C.S Lewis (which thus far I haven't been able to find).

[Raman Chopra · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was not very impressed with the book. I have read some such books of the same genre, the author of this one is kinda the stereotypical atheist...

We know the usual atheistic questions that are common and that everyone trying to prove a point uses... What is the proof, is it repeatable, is there scientific evidence, can i quantify this and that...

I guess, when i started this book and saw that the author dealt with questions and interviews with holy people, preachers... It would be an interesting dialogue, an open minded conversations, trying to understand and see things like preachers do, understand and see their point of view. What the interviews turned out to be, were "I'm right, Ur wrong" kinda matches...

So an okay book, would not recommend it to a person trying to view both sides of the story...
I did learn some things from the interviews that were included in the book - more from the preachers than Mr. Humphrys.

[Sandra · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book perfectly distills my position as an agnostic. There are certain mental fences that require jumping to come to conclusions either as a person of faith or an atheist, and i don't feel like either side fully satisfies those jumps. The answer really is "I don't know". THis isn't really a book with a solid conclusion, but if there's anyone looking for a decent exploration and explanation of the agnostic stance, it's a good one to pick up.

[Osman · Rating 2 out of 5]

First the positives. This is an easy to read, engaging book. It is full of rambling digressions which, though beside the point, are nonetheless entertaining on a single read through. The author (a news anchor on BBC Radio 4s ‘Today’ program) comes across as likable, down to earth and a reasonable sort of straightforward type who is proud to describe himself as a ‘hack’; someone who has ‘been around the block more than once’.

The book tied in with a program (also on Radio 4), “Humphrys in search of God”, which ran in 2006. The conceit was Humphrys on a personal journey of spiritual discovery. In the book he tells us he is a lapsed believer, an agnostic who now cannot believe in the existence of God or any of the biblical myths. Strikingly however he would: “rather like to believe wholeheartedly in God” (pp133). This seems to illustrate a sad truism: someone religiously indoctrinated at a young age who has subsequently broken away can never quite shake the urge to go back. For here we have a discerning, intelligent, incisive man with a sceptical nature; someone who knows all the arguments run against theism and yet who still wishes he could believe. There is something melancholy in the spectacle of a hardened investigator who recognises all the cognitive biases that frail humanity is prone to and yet who still hankers for the delusion. Rationalists can only emphasize that Humphrys’ pronouncement at the end of the book: ‘it is in human nature to want to believe’ is not universally felt.

Humphrys is a that species of moderate who ‘believes in belief’ (as characterised by Dennett and Dawkins) and although this book is ostensibly a paean to Agnosticism it resembles in places nothing less than a vituperative and intemperate attack on the evils of ‘New Atheism’. It is odd that someone who is to all intents an atheist and has written a book dedicated to the middle ground of agnosticism should be so anti-atheist/ pro-theist and again I can only put this bias down to his early indoctrination.

The style of the prose is vernacular, conversational. He has a no-nonsense, everyman, persona which reads well enough if you are familiar with Humphreys and can hear his voice in your mind. Unfortunately his persona seems to delight in affecting an anti- intellectual stance. He compares his ‘real-world been-round-the-block’ character with: Professors who have ‘brains the size of Antarctica’ and who argue ‘ like a couple of small boys fighting who gets the biggest slice of the cake’. (pp61).
Again, on pp.44 he quotes favourably from Paul Davies the assertion that appealing to a Multiverse as an explanation for the complexity of our universe is scarcely better than appealing to a god. However he then quotes Tegmark’s reason for why the Multiverse is actually a far better theory than the god hypothesis (i.e. it is infinitely simpler). After Tegmark’s argument Humphrys says: ‘I haven’t the foggiest idea what it means but it’s impressive isn’t it’ Why would he quote Tegmark (appositely) if he doesn’t understand him? - In fact why doesn’t he understand what is a clearly stated rather straightforward argument?
It’s as though Humphrys has adopted a veneer of stupidity? Perhaps it is just a persona to appeal to the man in the street who might conceivably be reading this book? Perhaps it is only so he can justify drawing the fatuous conclusions that he does (there is no reason to favour the Multiverse). This is, I suppose, one way to ‘win’ an argument: first claim that you are too ignorant to understand any counter argument and then assume your readership can’t understand it either and therefore imply the argument has no value and is thereby rendered false.
This is the method of a true anti-intellectual demagogue, appealing to the mob by decrying sound arguments and inferring that the boffins who propound them aren’t living in the ‘real world’
It would be more charitable to believe that Humphreys actually is as dumb as he claims, but this won’t do. Notwithstanding that his reading matter in preparation for this book seems to consist entirely of children’s books by Phillip Pullman and JK Rowling or light material from Douglas Adams (and we might wish our intellectual discourse to be led by those with rather wider tastes) - this man is a incisive anchor from a well regarded news program. He is not a dunce; he can understand the arguments. However he avers that they: “can be safely ignored by those of us who get on with life in the real world” which in his case is either the rarefied atmosphere of an organic farm in rural Wales or an air-conditioned studio in central London.
However there are other embarrassing intellectual blunders which lend further credence to his cognitive short comings. For example on page 80 he comes upon Russell’s teapot (a thought experiment designed to show that the onus is on the believer to prove his gods and not upon the unbeliever to disprove them) Instead of focusing on the general point which the argument was designed to illustrate he can’t get beyond the teapot. He seems to think the argument can be dismissed because a religion based around a teapot wouldn’t have the same lasting appeal as one based on a God!

Russell’s Teapot is actually the definitive answer to all agnostic hand-wringing and if Humphrys understood its full import then he would have to get off the fence- for it fully illustrates how forlorn the agnostic stance is.
When, towards the end of the book in his concluding thoughts, Humphrys quotes with praise a piece by Rod Liddle (another journalist):

“The true scientific position, of course, is that there may be a God, or there may not be a God. Why can’t we leave it at that?”

...it seems like the reasonable plea of a rational agnostic. But it’s here the teapot is so devastating. The classic agnostic mistake is to imagine there is only one choice: between a (Christian) God and no (Christian) God and that the odds are near 50/50. The teapot illustration emphasizes that there are an infinite number of options ranging from competing established gods (Allah, Shiva, Poseidon etc) through to tooth-fairies, Flying Spaghetti monsters, leprechauns and pink unicorns to the orbiting teapot itself - none of which Humphrys, Liddle or anyone else would be remotely interested in being agnostic about.
Look: Can we prove there is no orbiting teapot: No!
Does this make it reasonable to assume there is an orbiting teapot: No!
Does it seem reasonable to be agnostic about an orbiting teapot: Not quite...
End of argument! [Thanks Sam Harris]
The same argument applies to any evidence free god you can think up.


Humphrys’ bluff gumption works best in the interviews with the 3 wise men; the representatives of three major religions. He states that he would like to be converted by these religious experts but goes into it knowing that he won’t as he is just too cynical and has seen too much of the evils of the world.
He pierces their pretentious waffle with simple questions exposing the woeful lack of content in their answers. ‘No it won’t do’ he cries and anyone who has previously heard Rowan Williams (the bearded last but one Archbishop of Canterbury) expostulate on matters esoteric will heartily agree. There is nothing which comes from the mouth of this wishy-washy moderate cleric that doesn’t have an air of condescending pseudo-intellectual, obscurantist bullshit. I have yet to hear him say any substantive thing about his religion that isn’t couched in caveats or dissembling opt-outs. Never once is he straightforward on the subject of religion.

During the interviews they investigate all the classic conundrums that are unnecessarily thrown up as a consequence of a belief in gods. So we get: The Problem of Evil; Why doesn’t prayer work; How can we account for freewill with an interventionist god etc. All of these pseudo-problems dissolve when you dispense with the god hypothesis. The Jew, Muslim and Christian give their deeply inadequate, evasive answers, each harping on the theme of ‘God’s Mystery’. At least the Jew is forthright. For true vacuity dressed up in the most revolting supercilious condescension you need only listen to Dr Willliams. If you spend time (that you will never get back) analysing his caveats, disclaimers, and flummery for the elusive meaning you’ll find there is literally no content.

Humphrys devotes a whole chapter to conscience and it soon becomes clear why.

“The notion of conscience seems to me to be central in the debate about the existence of God.” (pp242) “...is it God that tells us what is right and wrong?” (pp243)

“As for me, it is difficult to understand the existence of conscience without accepting the existence of something beyond ourselves.” (pp243)

“If there is no God, why should we be good?” (pp257)

This is the one area he believes science cannot explain and therefore has to be explained by reference to a god. He takes a cursory look at some non-theological explanations from evolution against this stance but in the end his ‘gut-feeling’ is that it can’t be done. This strikes one as a most desperate straw clutching exercise.

His real agenda against the NA soon becomes apparent with a whole slew of bad arguments encompassing straw men, laughable logic and downright calumny aimed in a manner so inept and embarrassing you almost want to turn your eyes away- after all this is (as the back cover proclaims) - a national treasure speaking up. Humphreys early on in the book owns up to making some embarrassing gaffs on air in the early days of his broadcasting career- happily for him these are lost to the ether; how much worse the howlers set down here to stand as a monument to his blundering foray into the world of ideas.

He ends the section on the Multiverse by claiming that this cosmological theory has no explanatory value beyond the god hypothesis and therefore those who ‘believe’ in it do so on ‘faith’. “It’s beginning to sound a bit like religion isn’t it” he says. In other words, for all their brains, the boffins are just like the naive believers in a sky-daddy, with no reason or evidence- scientific theory is just another religion. In another passage we discover that Dawkins admiration for Darwin is “perilously close to worship” (pp254). On the other hand scientists would strip away all the mystery and enigma of life because they look for “prosaic and provable explanations” (pp255). But aren’t the real mysteries of life and the universe preferable to those proposed by iron-age man in a gimcrack book of myths cobbled together centuries ago?

His main beef with the ‘New Atheists’ seems to be not with intellectual argument (all the evidence is on their side he readily concedes) but that they will never persuade anyone out of theism because believers do not come to god through argument but by processes: ‘intuitive, instinctive, emotional, visceral’ (pp66) which is: ‘a lot more to do with hearts than minds’ (pp67). Sam Harris has often been challenge on this and has countered that he is in receipt of thousands of letters that testify to the power of argument in changing their minds.

But Humphrys as a ‘believer in belief thinks that people need their faith: it helps them face life and death with hope. The average person needs religion essentially because they are unintelligent, uninformed, gullible or weak. Several passages in the book accuse the ‘New Atheists’ of thinking that believers are stupid (a straw man by the way; to my knowledge no ‘New Atheist’ has ever claimed this) but let’s be clear who is actually branding the lowly believers as intellectual children. The New Atheists simply advocate speaking the truth about these matters; Humphreys and his ilk think this is a bad idea.

What leads Humphrys to accuse the New Atheists of branding believers as stupid? Is it because he conflates ‘delusion’ with ‘stupidity’? I don’t know if any NA has ever labelled the faithful as ‘stupid’- I’m fairly sure, at least in the published work, that they haven’t. However Richard Dawkins (at least) is well known for calling them deluded. There is a big difference between the two concepts- a difference which it seems Humphrys has not considered. A genius may be deluded (momentarily or chronically); he might have taken a psychoactive substance for example, or he might have been amused and astonished by a conjuror, or he might have misremembered what someone had said a few years back. Delusion is to just unknowingly get something wrong and think it right. For a believer this might be wishful thinking; self-denial; an unwillingness to follow reason and logic- there are many paths to delusion. Stupidity is perhaps the least of them.

Much is directed against the New Atheists. They are guilty of intemperate, unacceptable argument (pp301) In this regard Christopher Hitchens is described as worse than the Taliban (pp. 11), a pretty substantial claim in a book which later (pp246) describes the Taliban practice of stoning to death adulterers buried up to their necks on football pitches.
And yet has he even read the ‘New Atheist’ books? One wonders that he can misname Sam Harris as ‘Sam Smith’ not once but 6 times (I’m reviewing a first edition library book, this mistake has perhaps been discovered and changed in reprints).

Humphrys enjoys making sweeping pat statements that sum up his position to his satisfaction and are designed to convince us that he is a reasonable man who has dispassionately looked at the evidence. Take for example this on page 322: “It is too easy to blame the evils of the world on a belief in God.” This is of course another straw man: no New Atheist writer has said anything as general as this; but more to the point, it’s hard to see a statement like this as anything other than disingenuous when placed next to: “It is only relatively recently that we have been able to question the existence of God and live to argue another day.” (pp.59) and that is only in the Western world!

In a masterpiece of clumsy misrepresentation, forthright lies and straw-man construction (pp302) he attempts to sum up the position of the New Atheists as he sees it. In fairness he does recognise that his 7 point breakdown as an ‘over-simplification’ but assures us that it’s ok to do this because: ‘it’s what [New Atheists] do to believers all the time’.
He then pushes over his ranks of straw-men. For example Atheists believe that all religious people are naive or stupid- but they’re not: TA DA! A point for him!

Someone else who he quotes respectfully is Giles Fraser (pp305) a spokesman who ‘atheists find difficult to deal with’. Well, yes. The reason being that he seems to be of the Karen Armstrong school which holds that Religion has no propositional content. In other words Christ wasn’t born of a virgin, didn’t do miracles and most importantly was not resurrected. The reason that atheists find this difficult to deal with is that it is not religion at all; certainly not Christianity. Fraser might follow a philosophy propounded by Christ or some such thing- but if he doesn’t believe in His divinity what is there to argue about? No atheist would have an issue with someone who admires the benign humanistic philosophy of a fellow human.

So- fun to read, easy to dismiss. Light-weight in argument- a book for those who don’t want to think too deeply about the possible doubts they have concerning their superstitious beliefs.

[Theo Kokonas · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's a decent book. John Humphrys is a great author and the central principle of his book appears to be that atheists disregard the general faith that most people have of there being a higher power, just because. Because it helps them, or because it's been seeded from a young age, or because of a deliberately coping mechanism, whatever. This doesn't really work for me personally but the book was a good read nonetheless.

[Jamad · Rating 2 out of 5]

An interesting read. Not as shouty as he is on the Today programme. A few things rankled:
- his premise that atheists don’t question, only doubters question. I disagree, as an avowed atheist, I do question but my question is why people believe,
- Sam Smith? Have you been drinking too much beer Mr H, you mean Sam Harris. How can such a glaring error escape the editors?

[Edie P]

And excellent read from an anti-theist approach.
Mr Humphrys wrote engagingly, from experience and in a calming manner against the backdrop of the subject mater of the book.
The book challenged me, redirected me to look into book mentioned matters, and i have read this book twice now.
I am also holding onto it to give to the appropriate person.

[Martha Willis · Rating 5 out of 5]

god doesnt exist. i think.

[S.P. · Rating 2 out of 5]

John Humphreys says he is agnostic, once Christian, then Atheist, now looking for a reason to believe in God again. This book is the story of his journey.

It is an frustrating book. Humphreys is almost as rabid about 'Militant Atheists' as the militant atheists are about God, making the sometimes reasonable assertions seem to have ulterior motive.

He has a point about the manner in which people like Dawkins attack religious belief, but then he should at least understand what they have actually said, try to understand (even rudimentary understanding would be good) the science he comments on, and maybe even get the names right (It's Sam HARRIS, not Smith!) before launching into a polemic against them.

The interviews with the prominent monotheistic representatives were entirely devoid of content - not Humphreys fault - speciousness being their stock in trade (though I confess it is hard not to like the Chief Rabbi). The letters from listeners more touching and the comfort of a religious conviction cannot be denied, though at times belief in God and following a particular religion do seem to get confused in Humphreys mind.

Ultimately Humpheys does not conclude with a clear statement of his beliefs - the journey, for him anyway, lead nowhere, except maybe with a vague idea that belief in God/Religion is somehow a bit of a comfort blanket - again bashing atheists while missing their point (which is, in a nutshell, "Just because you believe in something it doesn't make it true".)

It didn't really help.

[Adih Respati · Rating 2 out of 5]

John Humphys offers a promising premise in his In God We Doubt: His implicit claims is that to be an atheist is to follow Dawkins' footstep: to think that atheists are both intellectually and morally superior. He disagrees on both points, especially the latter. He points out how Dawkinian atheism goes to far by ridiculing believers. And because he does not share the same sentiment, he calls himself a failed atheist.

As a reporter, Humphrys makes his case well. This should come to no surprise; he ran Humphry's In Search for God --a talkshow on BBC Radio 4. However, Humphry's arguments are weak at best. None of Humphrys's arguments are scientific, just common sense. His final argument toward Dawkins is nothing more than "why not" --which would be the very cop-out point Dawkins trumps.


That leaves Humphry's final view of religion: It brings peace to some people (majority, even), so why not leave them alone. In the end, In God We Doubt is no more than a writing of a nice man.

PS:
He refers to Sam Harris --author of End of Faith-- as Sam Smith. Either he makes a silly mistakes, or Harris sometimes does go by another name.

[Michał Murawski · Rating 1 out of 5]

Zbyt dużo nudnych rozważań, bez argumentów, bez dyskusji, bez próby porównania różnych podejść. Raczej opowieść w stylu "mi to się wydaje, jestem autorytetem". Można rzucić okiem, aby spojrzeć na opinię autora na niektóre aspekty, ale trudno oczekiwać fajerwerków.

[Clare · Rating 4 out of 5]

Humphrys recounts his journey producing a show for the BBC on his search for faith. His interviews with leading lights of the Christian, Muslim and Jewish faith are intriguing - I particularly enjoyed Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. The section on the arguments against belief (on the side of atheism) is not special - too much rehashing of familiar material - but he really comes into his own when presenting the opposite side of the coin, the aspects of humanity that make us (him) think that there just might be a God.

[Liz]

I really disliked John Humphrys when he first began to work on the Today programme (a long time ago!), but I have to admit to now having a great deal of respect for him. I just want to hear his side of the argument regarding the existence of God.

Having read the book, I feel he wrote it with compassion and great understanding. Perhaps a little long-winded in places, but I could not argue with some of the questions he posed about the existence of a benevolent God, I have to admit.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

An honest account of a man's spiritual journey (to use that slightly cheesey phrase). I liked it because unlike the atheist books (esp. Dawkin's 'God Delusion'), Humphrys isn't angry or unfair to others. I also liked it because unlike believers, Humphrys doesn't fill the gaps with complicated theology but accepts gaps for what they are.

[Alan Hughes · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an interesting book, well written with a journalistic, east to read style. He tries hard to look at both atheist and theist arguments and eventually finds them both wanting as they seem to neglect the importance of conscience and soul. He finishes promoting an old-fashioned humanist position, which stressed the importance of man, before this was usurped by more recent acerbic antitheism

[Stu Broom · Rating 4 out of 5]

I hadn't read anything by Humphrys before, couldn't put this book down. Humphrys asks the tough questions that religious believers find difficult to answer but at the same time explains why atheism leaves him unsatisfied.

This is a wonderfuly written book.

[Annie · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed reading this, however he does speak from a christian perspective and I did feel that consideration of hinduism and buddhism spiritualism would have provided a more complete treatment of the subject.

[Jill · Rating 1 out of 5]

Not impressed with this book. It has a promising start but I feel he wrote this without trying to offend theists. He asks for atheists to be open minded and kind to theists then attacks Dawkins and other 'militant atheists'. Poor read.

[Eduardo Teixeira · Rating 3 out of 5]

the book I needed to read most in 2009. helped me a lot to clarify a few things going on in my head

[Rona · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed it. The ending left me with a lot of questions rather than answers, however the book really made me think.

[Mark Burns · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book... stunningly well placed at the direct centre of the God-debate... is also very clearly and simply written making it a thoroughly enjoyable read

[Peter · Rating 3 out of 5]

pleasant chatty style,modes not doubt quite enough IMHO

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

Honest, humble, open and surprisingly moving.

[Rob Brown · Rating 4 out of 5]

Clever. The interview structure suited the author well. I came away feeling that he made loads of good points against theism and just took a personal dislike of the atheist. Perhaps my biases though.

[Claire O'Brien · Rating 4 out of 5]

Such a fascinating book.

[Rachel Johnson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Refreshingly honest analysis. Some unnecessary blind spots but on the whole helpful and wide ranging.

[Chris Naylor · Rating 5 out of 5]

No-one can know whether God exists. This simple fact is the basis of this terrific book. God by definition occupies some reality beyond our universe, and since we have no access to such a reality, we can't know whether it, and God, exist. Of course there are people who claim to have personal experience of God - I've met a few of these myself, and Humphrys quotes extensively from such people in this book - but viewed from the outside, their experiences always seem capable of some other explanation.

After having some fun at the expense of young earth creationists (who, let's face it, richly deserve it), he leaves behind the question of whether God exists, as being insoluble, and goes on to ask a question which is almost as interesting, and which we do stand some chance of answering: why, given that both theism and atheism are fundamentally irrational, is the world full of theists and atheists?

The obvious answer is that people aren't as rational as they might be. True, but that's obviously not the whole story. We still need to know what positive reasons there are for people deciding either that they believe in God or they don't. Humphrys takes us on an entertaining and sometimes moving tour of various people's experiences and views, and concludes, perhaps unsurprisingly, that theists believe in God not because it is rational to do so, but simply because they find it comforting. He omits to say that atheists disbelieve in God for similar reasons, but I think it must be true. Why do atheists cling so fiercely to a position which is intellectually untenable? Presumably because they find unjustified certainty more comforting than justified doubt. Most human beings, I'm afraid, do not feel comfortable admitting that there are questions that no human being can answer. This is especially true of scientists, whose occupation demands a 'can-solve' attitude. Theists and atheists are theists and atheists because a half-baked answer can seem better than no answer at all.

Along the way, Humphrys considers traditional questions that exercise theists and atheists, such as 'Why is there something rather than nothing?', and the problem of evil. He comes to no very clear conclusions about these questions, but that is hardly surprising, since no-one else has ever managed to give satisfactory answers to them. Indeed, the intractability of such questions is one of the strongest reasons for being agnostic. 

Altogether this is an excellent book, and a much more worthwhile read than any book promoting theism or atheism. I don't imagine it will convert many theists or atheists, but that's not the fault of the book: it's because most of these people have had their minds fried by exposure to half-baked or wrong ideas at an early age.