What do you think?
Rate this book
Disbelief: The Origins of Atheism in a Religious Species
Does God exist? This straightforward question has spawned endless debate, ranging from apologists’ supposed proofs of God’s existence to New Atheist manifestos declaring belief in God a harmful delusion. In Disbelief, Will M. Gervais, Phd., a global leader in the psychological study of atheism, shows that the ubiquity of religious belief and the peculiarities of atheism are connected pieces in the puzzle of human nature.
It’s undeniable that religion is a core tenet of human nature. It is also true that our overwhelmingly religious species is also as atheistic as it’s ever been. Yet, no scientific understanding of religion is complete without accounting for those who actively do not believe. In this refreshing and revelatory book, Gervais argues that religion is not an evolutionary puzzle so much as two evolutionary puzzles that can only be solved together. First is the Puzzle of the puzzle of how Homo sapiens – and Homo sapiens alone – came to be a religious species. Second is the Puzzle of how disbelief in gods can exist within our uniquely religious species. The result is a radically cohesive theory of both faith and atheism, showing how we became a uniquely religious species, and why many are now abandoning their belief.
Through a firsthand account of breakthroughs in the scientific study of atheism, including key findings from cognitive science, cultural evolution, and evolutionary psychology, Disbelief forces a rethinking of the prevailing theories of religion and reminds both believers and atheists of the shared psychologies that set them on their distinct religious trajectories. In casual prose and with compelling examples, Gervais explains how we became religious, why we’re leaving faith behind, and how we can get along with others across the religious divides we’ve culturally evolved.
It’s undeniable that religion is a core tenet of human nature. It is also true that our overwhelmingly religious species is also as atheistic as it’s ever been. Yet, no scientific understanding of religion is complete without accounting for those who actively do not believe. In this refreshing and revelatory book, Gervais argues that religion is not an evolutionary puzzle so much as two evolutionary puzzles that can only be solved together. First is the Puzzle of the puzzle of how Homo sapiens – and Homo sapiens alone – came to be a religious species. Second is the Puzzle of how disbelief in gods can exist within our uniquely religious species. The result is a radically cohesive theory of both faith and atheism, showing how we became a uniquely religious species, and why many are now abandoning their belief.
Through a firsthand account of breakthroughs in the scientific study of atheism, including key findings from cognitive science, cultural evolution, and evolutionary psychology, Disbelief forces a rethinking of the prevailing theories of religion and reminds both believers and atheists of the shared psychologies that set them on their distinct religious trajectories. In casual prose and with compelling examples, Gervais explains how we became religious, why we’re leaving faith behind, and how we can get along with others across the religious divides we’ve culturally evolved.
427 pages, Kindle Edition
Published July 30, 2024
16 people are currently reading
393 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
October 4, 2024
The title might as well be “How I’m better and more tolerant than new atheists, especially Dawkins”. At 61% I’m BEGGING you to get to the point. You talk in circles and I’ve yet to see any actual science. This isn’t STEM, this is cultural anthropology. At the end of the “puzzle of faith” I honestly didn’t feel that you had proven anything. Maybe it all comes together at the end, and there are some interesting things in here, but as far as the science of how our species evolved religion and thus atheism, this book is lacking.
EDIT:
I wanted to like this book, but right from the prologue I was inCREDulous at just how condescending this author is. We get it. You think new atheists are wrong and you have a particular dislike of Dawkins.
That aside, there is some good information in this book. I took lots of notes and will have to do further research.
Unfortunately, this book was overall boring. It took me two months to finish and the author never answered the question he posed - “First is the Puzzle of Faith: the puzzle of how Homo sapiens – and Homo sapiens alone – came to be a religious species”? Sure, he delves into GREAT depth (almost too much) on how religion persists, but not how it started in the first place, which was what I really wanted to read about.
A lot of what the author writes seems (to me) to be common sense and not at all ground breaking (sorry you spent over ten years to get there).
The author also tries to differentiate between different theories to convince the reader that the ones he’s researched explains religion and atheism the best, but the theories seem to be two sides of the same coin. It’s almost as if the author took a theory and just re-worded it.
His constant bashing of new atheism doesn’t fully take into account that in this highly religious world, most people have to fight against indoctrination to become atheist, often at the cost of losing loved ones, and in some cases risking their life. New atheists may have valid reasons for distrusting religion but the author only seemed to want to caution atheists about being too judgmental (pot, meet kettle).
I will probably try to find a secondhand copy of this book so I can write my notes in the margins, and see if having a physical copy makes it less boring.
EDIT:
I wanted to like this book, but right from the prologue I was inCREDulous at just how condescending this author is. We get it. You think new atheists are wrong and you have a particular dislike of Dawkins.
That aside, there is some good information in this book. I took lots of notes and will have to do further research.
Unfortunately, this book was overall boring. It took me two months to finish and the author never answered the question he posed - “First is the Puzzle of Faith: the puzzle of how Homo sapiens – and Homo sapiens alone – came to be a religious species”? Sure, he delves into GREAT depth (almost too much) on how religion persists, but not how it started in the first place, which was what I really wanted to read about.
A lot of what the author writes seems (to me) to be common sense and not at all ground breaking (sorry you spent over ten years to get there).
The author also tries to differentiate between different theories to convince the reader that the ones he’s researched explains religion and atheism the best, but the theories seem to be two sides of the same coin. It’s almost as if the author took a theory and just re-worded it.
His constant bashing of new atheism doesn’t fully take into account that in this highly religious world, most people have to fight against indoctrination to become atheist, often at the cost of losing loved ones, and in some cases risking their life. New atheists may have valid reasons for distrusting religion but the author only seemed to want to caution atheists about being too judgmental (pot, meet kettle).
I will probably try to find a secondhand copy of this book so I can write my notes in the margins, and see if having a physical copy makes it less boring.
May 18, 2024
A well-researched and informative account of how and why atheism occurs.
To understand atheism, we must first understand religion. The book informs us that there are essentially four factors which promote and explain religiousness. They are summed up as ‘imagine, motivate, learn and maintain’ (Chp.11). What that means is that people need certain cognitive powers of imagination (which are found more in women, than men, and that may be why more women are religious than men). People need to be motivated by a degree of hardship. They need to learn religion by seeing displays of behaviour which make it seem credible. And they need to maintain that belief when confronted by challenges.
Atheism occurs when those four factors are reduced, or absent. Lack of motivation is a particularly interesting factor which is at work in countries like Denmark and Sweden. Life is so stable in those countries that there is not the hardship to ‘motivate’ religious commitment. That means that in those kinds of contexts there is also a lack of ‘credibility enhancing displays’ of religious behaviour, and so there is no incentive to maintain a belief in theism. Instead, people tend to drift into atheism through a kind of apathy towards religion.
That may seem an initially controversial view, as it flies in the face of the New Atheism polemic, which essentially argues that atheism is the product of superior reasoning. That New Atheism view is examined and dismissed, as simply lacking evidence. There is a certain irony in the fact that some of the polemical atheists who make the loudest calls for rationality, are actually not being rational enough in their own commitments to evidence.
Across the 427 pages of this book, there is a wealth of detail and significant referencing of sources and evidence bases. With a commendable honesty the author is clear about where he has personally changed his mind on issues, and he also flags up conclusions which rest on less secure research or evidence.
Although I enjoyed the overall thrust of the book, I wished in places that the editing had been a little tighter. There were digressions to describe the Natural History Museum (Chp 1) and St Bartholomew’s Church (Chp 15). And it wasn’t clear how some of the notes were relevant when they described the working of elementary schools (18%) or the author’s difficulties in coming up with ideas when he is sitting in his office (55%).
Overall, this is an interesting book which provides an excellent summary of research and leading theories about the developments of religion and atheism. The level of detail means that it is a book to be savoured, rather than skimmed quickly. But inveterate skimmers will be pleased to find that there is a helpful summary of key ideas at the end of each chapter.
(These are honest comments based on a digital advanced review version of the text).
To understand atheism, we must first understand religion. The book informs us that there are essentially four factors which promote and explain religiousness. They are summed up as ‘imagine, motivate, learn and maintain’ (Chp.11). What that means is that people need certain cognitive powers of imagination (which are found more in women, than men, and that may be why more women are religious than men). People need to be motivated by a degree of hardship. They need to learn religion by seeing displays of behaviour which make it seem credible. And they need to maintain that belief when confronted by challenges.
Atheism occurs when those four factors are reduced, or absent. Lack of motivation is a particularly interesting factor which is at work in countries like Denmark and Sweden. Life is so stable in those countries that there is not the hardship to ‘motivate’ religious commitment. That means that in those kinds of contexts there is also a lack of ‘credibility enhancing displays’ of religious behaviour, and so there is no incentive to maintain a belief in theism. Instead, people tend to drift into atheism through a kind of apathy towards religion.
That may seem an initially controversial view, as it flies in the face of the New Atheism polemic, which essentially argues that atheism is the product of superior reasoning. That New Atheism view is examined and dismissed, as simply lacking evidence. There is a certain irony in the fact that some of the polemical atheists who make the loudest calls for rationality, are actually not being rational enough in their own commitments to evidence.
Across the 427 pages of this book, there is a wealth of detail and significant referencing of sources and evidence bases. With a commendable honesty the author is clear about where he has personally changed his mind on issues, and he also flags up conclusions which rest on less secure research or evidence.
Although I enjoyed the overall thrust of the book, I wished in places that the editing had been a little tighter. There were digressions to describe the Natural History Museum (Chp 1) and St Bartholomew’s Church (Chp 15). And it wasn’t clear how some of the notes were relevant when they described the working of elementary schools (18%) or the author’s difficulties in coming up with ideas when he is sitting in his office (55%).
Overall, this is an interesting book which provides an excellent summary of research and leading theories about the developments of religion and atheism. The level of detail means that it is a book to be savoured, rather than skimmed quickly. But inveterate skimmers will be pleased to find that there is a helpful summary of key ideas at the end of each chapter.
(These are honest comments based on a digital advanced review version of the text).
September 28, 2024
This is an entertaining and thought provoking summary of recent science on how atheism works. Basically a more entertaining and scientifically literate alternative to books like The God Delusion.
If you're interested in atheism but don't want it to be Dawkins-style anti-religious polemic, and want a book that actually engages with science, this is for you.
As a bonus, the book also gives an accessible tour of other topics like cultural evolution, cognitive science of religion, and evolution in general. It also highlights current developments in the social sciences more broadly, and ably tackles themes of scientific integrity and the sometimes messy scientific process. Gervis openly acknowledges how he's changed his own mind on the topic, in his words: "Over the years, I followed the science as it emerged. In doing so, I moved further and further away from the NEw Atheists. I stopped judging religions, and starting asking scientific questions about them, and then listening to the answers."
If you're interested in atheism but don't want it to be Dawkins-style anti-religious polemic, and want a book that actually engages with science, this is for you.
As a bonus, the book also gives an accessible tour of other topics like cultural evolution, cognitive science of religion, and evolution in general. It also highlights current developments in the social sciences more broadly, and ably tackles themes of scientific integrity and the sometimes messy scientific process. Gervis openly acknowledges how he's changed his own mind on the topic, in his words: "Over the years, I followed the science as it emerged. In doing so, I moved further and further away from the NEw Atheists. I stopped judging religions, and starting asking scientific questions about them, and then listening to the answers."
June 24, 2025
Disbelief is a strong attempt to explain how atheism originates and why it seems to be on the rise in some parts of the world. The book is broken into two main parts: the puzzle of faith and the puzzle of atheism, with two short chapters wrapping it all up and making (some rather insane) predictions of the future.
In part one, he examines various theories about why we are a religious species and rejects them one by one before introducing and explaining his version of dual inheritance theory(DIT). This theory claims that religious belief is the product of both our genetic and cultural inheritance. Generally, we are genetically predisposed to try to create order and explanations for the world around us (even for things that might seem unexplainable) and our beliefs are also the product of our cultural milieu. This is why someone in India is more likely to be Hindu, someone in Kuwait is likely to be Muslim, someone from Kentucky is likely wearing a MAGA hat, and someone in LA is likely throwing rocks at Police cars as I type (mid June, 2025).
In part two, Gervais turns that gaze from belief to disbelief. If this is why people tend to be religious, then why disbelief? What makes some people become atheists? Again, using the DIT, on the cognitive side, Gervais says that some people are genetically predisposed to be more trusting and others to be more skeptical. On the cultural side, Gervais mentions CREDs (credibility signalling). Basically, people tend to believe the culturally dominant belief when they: 1. See others acting in support of those beliefs, 2. see others make sacrifices on behalf of those beliefs, and 3. see behavior that aligns with those beliefs. So in other words, Gervais claims that atheism is actually the default position for people who are more cognitively reflective, socially secure, and have lower exposure to practising believers.
As the proverb says, "A witness sounds reasonable only until he reaches the point of cross-examination." The book makes sense... as long as you don't really think about it. I've got a hundred and one arguments against this garbage (give or take, I haven't actually counted them all out) but here are just a few from various disciplines:
History
Gervais describes atheism arising organically when a society becomes more affluent. This might explain Europe (not really, but let's pretend), but it certainly doesn't come close to explaining the largest concentrations of atheism in the last century. The former USSR, China, and North Korea have all had a top-down imposition of atheism. You've got two choices: become an atheist or enjoy an all-expense-paid vacation to this gulag in Siberia for a couple of decades. And actually, in China, we are seeing the reverse play out. As social standards have been rising, so has the number of both Christians and Buddhists.
Evolution
Gervais is placing an overemphasis on the neutrality of evolutionary development. He claims that atheism is actually the default position when there aren't enough CREDs to prop up any particular religious belief. But most evo devos (of which I am not one) would say that religious credulity is the default position, and to be atheist requires a cognitive override of this position.
Epistemology
Gervais completely sidesteps probably the single most important question that should be addressed in a book titled Disbelief. Is the belief true? Both atheists and believers should have strong opinions on this point. Whether a person believes in a god or in the nonexistence of gods, the most important question to be addressed is whether this belief is rational, justified, and true.
Sociology
The author is both strongly shaped by and speaking towards a very particular worldview and much of what he says bears little relevance or applicability to anyone outside of that social setting. He has a WEIRD worldview: White, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic. Everything laid out in this book is dependent on this culturally contingent and not globally universal.
Morality
Some would say that Gervais is removing agency from the equation. Nobody truly chooses to be an atheist or a believer, but rather they are stuck with what they are based on their genetic predisposition and their cultural placement. This might be true, but it is also true that he is removing the consequences of the choice. There is no moral value in converting or deconverting since they are both merely "outputs" of cognitive/cultural inputs. Although he shows a clear bias towards atheism, his framework requires one assume no moral difference between believing and atheism. Instead of authenticy, conviction, and sacrifice, our beliefs are merely psychological inevitabilities.
Philosophy
The entire concept of DIT is actually one of circular reasoning. In order to understand why some people become atheists, we must a priori assume that God does not exist. The entire worldview in which the theory is built assumes philisophical materialism and therefore cannot adequately or fairly asses whether belief or its lack is reasonable and true. DIT is built on three faulty premises: 1. It treats both religious belief and disbelief as products of evolved cognitive mechanisms and cultural transmission, not as possible responses to a metaphysical reality. 2. It explains belief in God as a byproduct of evolution and cultural reinforcement and rules out the possibility that belief in God is grounded in actual divine encounter or truth. 3. Most importantly, it implicitly assumes that there is no God to reveal Himself, no metaphysical or ontological referent for belief, and no transcendent source of meaning.
And now I need to cut myself off. I have so much I would like to say. But I am supposed to be doing a review, not writing a book of my own.
In part one, he examines various theories about why we are a religious species and rejects them one by one before introducing and explaining his version of dual inheritance theory(DIT). This theory claims that religious belief is the product of both our genetic and cultural inheritance. Generally, we are genetically predisposed to try to create order and explanations for the world around us (even for things that might seem unexplainable) and our beliefs are also the product of our cultural milieu. This is why someone in India is more likely to be Hindu, someone in Kuwait is likely to be Muslim, someone from Kentucky is likely wearing a MAGA hat, and someone in LA is likely throwing rocks at Police cars as I type (mid June, 2025).
In part two, Gervais turns that gaze from belief to disbelief. If this is why people tend to be religious, then why disbelief? What makes some people become atheists? Again, using the DIT, on the cognitive side, Gervais says that some people are genetically predisposed to be more trusting and others to be more skeptical. On the cultural side, Gervais mentions CREDs (credibility signalling). Basically, people tend to believe the culturally dominant belief when they: 1. See others acting in support of those beliefs, 2. see others make sacrifices on behalf of those beliefs, and 3. see behavior that aligns with those beliefs. So in other words, Gervais claims that atheism is actually the default position for people who are more cognitively reflective, socially secure, and have lower exposure to practising believers.
As the proverb says, "A witness sounds reasonable only until he reaches the point of cross-examination." The book makes sense... as long as you don't really think about it. I've got a hundred and one arguments against this garbage (give or take, I haven't actually counted them all out) but here are just a few from various disciplines:
History
Gervais describes atheism arising organically when a society becomes more affluent. This might explain Europe (not really, but let's pretend), but it certainly doesn't come close to explaining the largest concentrations of atheism in the last century. The former USSR, China, and North Korea have all had a top-down imposition of atheism. You've got two choices: become an atheist or enjoy an all-expense-paid vacation to this gulag in Siberia for a couple of decades. And actually, in China, we are seeing the reverse play out. As social standards have been rising, so has the number of both Christians and Buddhists.
Evolution
Gervais is placing an overemphasis on the neutrality of evolutionary development. He claims that atheism is actually the default position when there aren't enough CREDs to prop up any particular religious belief. But most evo devos (of which I am not one) would say that religious credulity is the default position, and to be atheist requires a cognitive override of this position.
Epistemology
Gervais completely sidesteps probably the single most important question that should be addressed in a book titled Disbelief. Is the belief true? Both atheists and believers should have strong opinions on this point. Whether a person believes in a god or in the nonexistence of gods, the most important question to be addressed is whether this belief is rational, justified, and true.
Sociology
The author is both strongly shaped by and speaking towards a very particular worldview and much of what he says bears little relevance or applicability to anyone outside of that social setting. He has a WEIRD worldview: White, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic. Everything laid out in this book is dependent on this culturally contingent and not globally universal.
Morality
Some would say that Gervais is removing agency from the equation. Nobody truly chooses to be an atheist or a believer, but rather they are stuck with what they are based on their genetic predisposition and their cultural placement. This might be true, but it is also true that he is removing the consequences of the choice. There is no moral value in converting or deconverting since they are both merely "outputs" of cognitive/cultural inputs. Although he shows a clear bias towards atheism, his framework requires one assume no moral difference between believing and atheism. Instead of authenticy, conviction, and sacrifice, our beliefs are merely psychological inevitabilities.
Philosophy
The entire concept of DIT is actually one of circular reasoning. In order to understand why some people become atheists, we must a priori assume that God does not exist. The entire worldview in which the theory is built assumes philisophical materialism and therefore cannot adequately or fairly asses whether belief or its lack is reasonable and true. DIT is built on three faulty premises: 1. It treats both religious belief and disbelief as products of evolved cognitive mechanisms and cultural transmission, not as possible responses to a metaphysical reality. 2. It explains belief in God as a byproduct of evolution and cultural reinforcement and rules out the possibility that belief in God is grounded in actual divine encounter or truth. 3. Most importantly, it implicitly assumes that there is no God to reveal Himself, no metaphysical or ontological referent for belief, and no transcendent source of meaning.
And now I need to cut myself off. I have so much I would like to say. But I am supposed to be doing a review, not writing a book of my own.
January 25, 2025
Exactly what I want out of a science writer. Every claim is backed with evidence, studies are described well, and the author remains humble and open about the strength of evidence.
January 2, 2026
This book comes across as an eg0-pumping exercise by the author who can’t get enough of referencing himself and his co-author friends at every paragraph. His constant attacks on the New Atheist movement are tiresome and unwarranted, and his disdain for Dawkins in particular is distracting and somewhat insulting. One gets the impression the author either suffered an unfortunate personal run-in with Dawkins, or, more likely, merely seeks to make a name for himself.
The book is in desperate need of severe editing. The author takes 383 pages to produce discourse that in the end is jumbled and contradictory, and contributes little new knowledge to how and why people believe in (and then don’t believe in) religion. E.g., he immediately dismisses Dawkins’ musing that religion is transmitted from parents to children (because children tend to trust what their parents teach them as a matter of survival), but by page 310 he writes that “when people believe in gods, they tend to believe in only the gods of their surrounding culture”, “belief in any given god takes cultural work”, and that atheism can result when children grow up in mixed-faith families and don’t receive consistent signals. Well, yeah. None of this actually contradicts what Dawkins said and meant. One gets the whiff of straw-man arguments throughout this book.
To finish, a particularly nasty quote from p. 369, which showcases the puzzling triggering effect that the earlier atheists have on this author. Speaking of these New Atheists, he opines:
“[t]hey sought to undermine religion by arguing against it, by advocating on behalf of science. ...Using science as a wedge against religion probably did more to pry believers away from science than to undermine religion. Had they put their influence behind efforts to ameliorate global poverty, to produce equitable human development worldwide, they may have put a more measurable dent in global religious faith than that produced by all their books, debates, podcasts, and social media proclamations. And if their efforts didn’t directly undermine religion, at least they would’ve helped people along the way.”
There is something so utterly bizarre about this statement that it almost defies comprehension. Now, Hitchens, Harris, et al, are being lambasted for educating people instead of donating their salary to Habitat for Humanity apparently. It is precisely by educating people and raising science literacy that we help prevent theocracies from rearing their ugly heads and causing great damage to those higher-standard living conditions that the author concludes is a big part of what leads to secularism. Their efforts were far from wasted --unlike, I would say, those that went into producing this book.
To paraphrase a famous American political quote, my overall impression of this book and its author is, “You’re no Richard Dawkins”.
The book is in desperate need of severe editing. The author takes 383 pages to produce discourse that in the end is jumbled and contradictory, and contributes little new knowledge to how and why people believe in (and then don’t believe in) religion. E.g., he immediately dismisses Dawkins’ musing that religion is transmitted from parents to children (because children tend to trust what their parents teach them as a matter of survival), but by page 310 he writes that “when people believe in gods, they tend to believe in only the gods of their surrounding culture”, “belief in any given god takes cultural work”, and that atheism can result when children grow up in mixed-faith families and don’t receive consistent signals. Well, yeah. None of this actually contradicts what Dawkins said and meant. One gets the whiff of straw-man arguments throughout this book.
To finish, a particularly nasty quote from p. 369, which showcases the puzzling triggering effect that the earlier atheists have on this author. Speaking of these New Atheists, he opines:
“[t]hey sought to undermine religion by arguing against it, by advocating on behalf of science. ...Using science as a wedge against religion probably did more to pry believers away from science than to undermine religion. Had they put their influence behind efforts to ameliorate global poverty, to produce equitable human development worldwide, they may have put a more measurable dent in global religious faith than that produced by all their books, debates, podcasts, and social media proclamations. And if their efforts didn’t directly undermine religion, at least they would’ve helped people along the way.”
There is something so utterly bizarre about this statement that it almost defies comprehension. Now, Hitchens, Harris, et al, are being lambasted for educating people instead of donating their salary to Habitat for Humanity apparently. It is precisely by educating people and raising science literacy that we help prevent theocracies from rearing their ugly heads and causing great damage to those higher-standard living conditions that the author concludes is a big part of what leads to secularism. Their efforts were far from wasted --unlike, I would say, those that went into producing this book.
To paraphrase a famous American political quote, my overall impression of this book and its author is, “You’re no Richard Dawkins”.
July 23, 2024
👏👏👏
Riveting, insightful, and skeptical. Atheists and theists alike will turn their heads at this one.
Few people understand disbelief as well as Gervais, a truly radical thinker in any circle. Down with the subtle pseudoscience of the New Atheists ... even heavyweights like Dawkins ...! Finally, someone who calls them on their BS and can back it up with rigorous, peer-reviewed research. I can only imagine how high Dawkins's brows will raise if he deigns to read this text ... putting aside my schadenfreudean glee, this is an excellent and easy-to-understand text on the science of disbelief that I do believe anyone can grasp. Of course, this is coming from a self-identifying agnostic atheist who's already thunk a bunch on this particular people puzzle. I really appreciate how atheism is framed: "a human quirk demanding serious scientific explanation." I appreciated even more the author's ability to criticize his own work and admit to academic failure ("small samples, unvalidated methods, flashy and counterintuitive findings: a recipe for irreproducible science" ... this one published in Science itself, as I recall). The tear-down of modern atheist philosophy on religion hand-in-hand with clearly reasoned and described empirical research ... mwah. After recent events in my own discipline, I took heart that I'm not alone in bemoaning the childish antics of certain professionals. At the same time, this work and Gervais's down-to-earth prose left me feeling hope.
I'm not without my confusions and criticisms. I do feel that Gervais was out of depth when it came to social identity theory. Group categorization is as much about the categories we define and place ourselves /without/ as within. Revisiting the theory and especially subtheories with this perspective could be enlightening for understanding atheism and disbelief. I'm also surprised that he wasn't wise to another very obvious problem with the "mindblind atheism" label: it's ableist (as well as inaccurate). I also felt like some details were glossed over (even in the many footnotes).
But this is quibbling. I highly recommend this book to anyone. After all, belief and its lack are fundamentally human modes of being. We're the only species on the planet, as far as we know, that has religion ... as well as people who decline belief. As Gervais summarizes, "cultural learning is a better predictor of atheism than is rational sophistication, science knowledge, or any other cognitive proclivity we've tried." To have faith or be faithless? Well, "we've evolved cultures that naturally sustain either," so I guess it's another kind of lottery by circumstance.
Thank you to NetGalley and Globe Pequot | Prometheus for the advance copy.
Riveting, insightful, and skeptical. Atheists and theists alike will turn their heads at this one.
Few people understand disbelief as well as Gervais, a truly radical thinker in any circle. Down with the subtle pseudoscience of the New Atheists ... even heavyweights like Dawkins ...! Finally, someone who calls them on their BS and can back it up with rigorous, peer-reviewed research. I can only imagine how high Dawkins's brows will raise if he deigns to read this text ... putting aside my schadenfreudean glee, this is an excellent and easy-to-understand text on the science of disbelief that I do believe anyone can grasp. Of course, this is coming from a self-identifying agnostic atheist who's already thunk a bunch on this particular people puzzle. I really appreciate how atheism is framed: "a human quirk demanding serious scientific explanation." I appreciated even more the author's ability to criticize his own work and admit to academic failure ("small samples, unvalidated methods, flashy and counterintuitive findings: a recipe for irreproducible science" ... this one published in Science itself, as I recall). The tear-down of modern atheist philosophy on religion hand-in-hand with clearly reasoned and described empirical research ... mwah. After recent events in my own discipline, I took heart that I'm not alone in bemoaning the childish antics of certain professionals. At the same time, this work and Gervais's down-to-earth prose left me feeling hope.
I'm not without my confusions and criticisms. I do feel that Gervais was out of depth when it came to social identity theory. Group categorization is as much about the categories we define and place ourselves /without/ as within. Revisiting the theory and especially subtheories with this perspective could be enlightening for understanding atheism and disbelief. I'm also surprised that he wasn't wise to another very obvious problem with the "mindblind atheism" label: it's ableist (as well as inaccurate). I also felt like some details were glossed over (even in the many footnotes).
But this is quibbling. I highly recommend this book to anyone. After all, belief and its lack are fundamentally human modes of being. We're the only species on the planet, as far as we know, that has religion ... as well as people who decline belief. As Gervais summarizes, "cultural learning is a better predictor of atheism than is rational sophistication, science knowledge, or any other cognitive proclivity we've tried." To have faith or be faithless? Well, "we've evolved cultures that naturally sustain either," so I guess it's another kind of lottery by circumstance.
Thank you to NetGalley and Globe Pequot | Prometheus for the advance copy.
August 7, 2025
The author was a "Christmas and Easter" sort of Christian who ambled over the line to becoming a mild atheist. The result is a book that is relatively neutral, yet still left me with some of the most mixed feelings I've had in recent memory.
My impression was jerked all over the place while reading: sometimes I would read something and be skeptical about it, only to have the author then state the evidence against that position, but other times I'd be equally skeptical and the author would embrace the position wholeheartedly. There's some really interesting stuff (lots of good surveys, and his method of using the conjunction fallacy was fascinating to me) but there are also long sections that are repetitive and/or circle around a fairly obvious point.
The author dismisses Dawkins saying that children inherit religion from their parents, then (after many pages) comes around to an explanation that people inherit religion from their culture. He knows some readers will be skeptical of this, because it's the very first objection he dedicates a section to refuting, but I don't buy the argument. Even if Dawkins did claim children were mindless sponges (I'm not going to go check), I still feel like this is a strawman for what just about anyone believes. There's absolutely a place for rephrasing common sense in a more rigorous way, but it shouldn't be done after so much sneering about how the common sense is wrong.
I'm no particular fan or defender of Richard Dawkins, but it really is unreasonable how much this book is focused on him (by my count The God Delusion is referenced in 11 different non-citation places, and "Dawkins" occurs 112 times).
Overall, I'm not sure the author's life experience positions him to understand many believers or unbelievers. He seems to think many of his ideas would be unobjectionable to believers (doubtful to me), but I feel he also misrepresents atheists by focusing solely on formal religion.
My impression was jerked all over the place while reading: sometimes I would read something and be skeptical about it, only to have the author then state the evidence against that position, but other times I'd be equally skeptical and the author would embrace the position wholeheartedly. There's some really interesting stuff (lots of good surveys, and his method of using the conjunction fallacy was fascinating to me) but there are also long sections that are repetitive and/or circle around a fairly obvious point.
The author dismisses Dawkins saying that children inherit religion from their parents, then (after many pages) comes around to an explanation that people inherit religion from their culture. He knows some readers will be skeptical of this, because it's the very first objection he dedicates a section to refuting, but I don't buy the argument. Even if Dawkins did claim children were mindless sponges (I'm not going to go check), I still feel like this is a strawman for what just about anyone believes. There's absolutely a place for rephrasing common sense in a more rigorous way, but it shouldn't be done after so much sneering about how the common sense is wrong.
I'm no particular fan or defender of Richard Dawkins, but it really is unreasonable how much this book is focused on him (by my count The God Delusion is referenced in 11 different non-citation places, and "Dawkins" occurs 112 times).
Overall, I'm not sure the author's life experience positions him to understand many believers or unbelievers. He seems to think many of his ideas would be unobjectionable to believers (doubtful to me), but I feel he also misrepresents atheists by focusing solely on formal religion.
January 13, 2026
This book is a great example of wasted time and the author is an even better example of a wasted education. I did not finish the book. I could not get past his dismissal of the idea that children are gullible. He reasons that the ability to discern truth from fiction is built into us for survival, so that couldn't be it....
Has this man never been near children in his life? Santa Claus?? Hello?? When my sons were young, I had to console an extremely distressed and tearful younger son and calmly explain that his elder brother had NOT actually stolen his blood with with a plastic sword and he was going to be fine...
Not to mention plenty of grown adults are suckers too. Has he never heard of online scams? Conspiracy theories? Pyramid schemes? Ponzi schemes? Jim Bakker?
He also has little to no knowledge of the evolution of birds which he uses as an example of how scientific knowledge develops over time.
There is absolutely no science in the author's approach, it is a product of a preconceived idea supported by no real research or factual evidence. The author clearly knows plenty of facts about religion and how it's practiced around the world, he has traveled, he is worldly, but... When it came time to building his argument, he completely mistook his opinions for facts.
For all his education, smart friends and access to information, the author chose to develop his thesis in a vacuum in the dark. Did he consult child development researchers? Did he review what is known about bird evolution before he wrote about it? No, he simply shot from the hip and completely missed. He seems to have surrounded himself with like-minded people and never actually challenged any of his own beliefs.
Are there valid points later on in the book? Maybe? But what is the point if the foundation is so poorly constructed it will hold nothing?
Has this man never been near children in his life? Santa Claus?? Hello?? When my sons were young, I had to console an extremely distressed and tearful younger son and calmly explain that his elder brother had NOT actually stolen his blood with with a plastic sword and he was going to be fine...
Not to mention plenty of grown adults are suckers too. Has he never heard of online scams? Conspiracy theories? Pyramid schemes? Ponzi schemes? Jim Bakker?
He also has little to no knowledge of the evolution of birds which he uses as an example of how scientific knowledge develops over time.
There is absolutely no science in the author's approach, it is a product of a preconceived idea supported by no real research or factual evidence. The author clearly knows plenty of facts about religion and how it's practiced around the world, he has traveled, he is worldly, but... When it came time to building his argument, he completely mistook his opinions for facts.
For all his education, smart friends and access to information, the author chose to develop his thesis in a vacuum in the dark. Did he consult child development researchers? Did he review what is known about bird evolution before he wrote about it? No, he simply shot from the hip and completely missed. He seems to have surrounded himself with like-minded people and never actually challenged any of his own beliefs.
Are there valid points later on in the book? Maybe? But what is the point if the foundation is so poorly constructed it will hold nothing?
August 1, 2024
You can also see this review, along with others I have written, at my blog, Mr. Book's Book Reviews.
Thank you, Prometheus, for providing this book for review consideration in exchange for an honest review. All opinions are my own.
Mr. Book just finished Disbelief: The Origins Of Atheism In A Religious Species, by Will M. Gervais.
I was interested in this book after listening to the author on Seth Andrews’s Thinking Atheist podcast. Unfortunately, the author did a much better job on the podcast than he did in the book. This book was often difficult to follow and makes me think it was intended just for an academic audience.
There are so much good books on this topic and I was expecting another one. I am also a very big fan of Prometheus publishers. I have a lot of books published by them and almost all of them were excellent. I am always excited to see that a book on atheism was from that publisher. So I feel bad about the fact that the first book that I am reviewing from them for this site has to be the very rare exception.
I give this book a C. Goodreads requires grades on a 1-5 star system. In my personal conversion system, a C equates to 2 stars. (A or A+: 5 stars, B+: 4 stars, B: 3 stars, C: 2 stars, D or F: 1 star).
This review has been posted at Goodreads and my blog, Mr. Book’s Book Reviews
Mr. Book originally finished reading this on August 1, 2024.
Thank you, Prometheus, for providing this book for review consideration in exchange for an honest review. All opinions are my own.
Mr. Book just finished Disbelief: The Origins Of Atheism In A Religious Species, by Will M. Gervais.
I was interested in this book after listening to the author on Seth Andrews’s Thinking Atheist podcast. Unfortunately, the author did a much better job on the podcast than he did in the book. This book was often difficult to follow and makes me think it was intended just for an academic audience.
There are so much good books on this topic and I was expecting another one. I am also a very big fan of Prometheus publishers. I have a lot of books published by them and almost all of them were excellent. I am always excited to see that a book on atheism was from that publisher. So I feel bad about the fact that the first book that I am reviewing from them for this site has to be the very rare exception.
I give this book a C. Goodreads requires grades on a 1-5 star system. In my personal conversion system, a C equates to 2 stars. (A or A+: 5 stars, B+: 4 stars, B: 3 stars, C: 2 stars, D or F: 1 star).
This review has been posted at Goodreads and my blog, Mr. Book’s Book Reviews
Mr. Book originally finished reading this on August 1, 2024.
October 2, 2024
I read the first half of the book excited to get to what Gervais kept promising: an explanation of the origins of atheism. When I finally got there, I realized that Gervais does not understand that religiously affiliated people can be atheists and, that non-religiously affiliated people are not necessarily atheists. At that point I almost stopped reading the book, but ended up skimming the second half. Gervais's thesis is that when people are rich and comfortable they slow down their religious observances, which leads to future generations open to atheism. People whose lives are more difficult cling more to religion and pass that on to their children. Gervais skips over that many people who have lived through horrors become atheists.
June 10, 2024
Fascinatingly, this book was about belief and disbelief studied in a scientific context. I found the tone very conversational and Dr. Gervais demonstrates a good sense of humour. His personal journey was also very interesting and I found the footnotes were definitely worth reading. Although not the point of the book, the book also did a great job of talking about how science works, with some information on study design and reproducibility, all written at a very basic level. Thank you to Netgalley and Prometheus for the advance reader copy.
September 22, 2024
Dr. Will Gervais expertly presents the data and insights gained on our religious/atheistic species from a social science perspective. Through the lens of cultural evolution, he brings us one step closer to a better understanding of our nature and does so with wit and good humour. People interested in the scientific study of religion should not ignore this book!
November 27, 2025
Not a great read. Very big claims are made with little scientific evidence. Some of the graphical evidence provided in the book doesn't seem as clear to me as it does to Gervais, although admittedly I am not a scientist.
I'm not exactly sure what cultural evolutionary psychology, but, as presented in this book, it seems mostly based on conjecture and oddly crafted studies.
I'm not exactly sure what cultural evolutionary psychology, but, as presented in this book, it seems mostly based on conjecture and oddly crafted studies.
September 28, 2024
CREDs is love. CREDs is life
December 14, 2025
Mixed feelings on this book. The presentation lets down the content.
In some respects it combines the worst of pop-science with uninteresting personal details with the dense prose of niche academic books.
The subject is interesting though and the book is very well researched and the author has clearly thought through the arguments and links his theories to evidence.
The sections explaining the secularisation of Europe, the role of CREDs in sustaining religion, the compatibility of agnosticism and athiesm and the roles of groups in evolution were all interesting.
Given its importance to his theory I was surprised the book glossed over how religions actually begin. How does a new religion convince followers it is credible?
Some of the big questions either are not answered or rely on weaker evidence like the morality and rationality sections.
The book suffers from repetition. No matter how many times he attacks the Dawkins gullibility hypothesis it does not make Dawkins main point weaker or his own very similar cultural hypothesis stronger.
My copy also has no index unfortunately.
In some respects it combines the worst of pop-science with uninteresting personal details with the dense prose of niche academic books.
The subject is interesting though and the book is very well researched and the author has clearly thought through the arguments and links his theories to evidence.
The sections explaining the secularisation of Europe, the role of CREDs in sustaining religion, the compatibility of agnosticism and athiesm and the roles of groups in evolution were all interesting.
Given its importance to his theory I was surprised the book glossed over how religions actually begin. How does a new religion convince followers it is credible?
Some of the big questions either are not answered or rely on weaker evidence like the morality and rationality sections.
The book suffers from repetition. No matter how many times he attacks the Dawkins gullibility hypothesis it does not make Dawkins main point weaker or his own very similar cultural hypothesis stronger.
My copy also has no index unfortunately.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews