Believe: Why Everyone Should Be Religious

by Ross Douthat

An Instant New York Times Bestseller

"Truly a Mere Christianity for the 21st century"--World magazine

From the host of the Interesting Times podcast

Do you ever wish you had more faith? Here is a blueprint for thinking your way from doubt to belief.

As a columnist for the New York Times who writes often about spiritual topics for a skeptical audience, Ross Douthat understands that many of us want to have more faith than we do. Douthat argues that in light of what we know today it should be harder to not have faith than to have it.

With empathy, clarity, and rigor, Douthat

Why nonbelief requires ignoring what our reasoning faculties tell us about the worldHow modern scientific developments make a religious worldview more credible, not lessWhy it's entirely reasonable to believe in mystical and supernatural realitiesHow an open-minded religious quest should proceed amid the diversity of religious faithsHow Douthat's own Christianity is informed by his blueprint for belief 

With clear and straightforward arguments, Believe shows how religious belief makes sense of the order of the cosmos and our place within it, illuminates the mystery of consciousness, and explains the persistent reality of encounters with the supernatural. Highly relevant for our current moment, Believe offers a pathway for thinking your way from doubt into belief, from uncertainty about our place in the universe into a confidence that we are here for a reason.

Genres: Religion, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Christianity, Christian, Theology, Audiobook

240 pages, Kindle Edition

First published February 11, 2025

About the author

Ross Gregory Douthat is a conservative American author, blogger and New York Times columnist. He was a senior editor at The Atlantic and is author of Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class (Hyperion, 2005) and, with Reihan Salam, Grand New Party (Doubleday, 2008), which David Brooks called the "best single roadmap of where the Republican Party should and is likely to head." He is a film critic for National Review and has also contributed to The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard, the Claremont Review of Books, GQ, Slate, and other publications. In addition, he frequently appears on the video debate site Bloggingheads.tv. In April 2009, he became an online and op-ed columnist for The New York Times, replacing Bill Kristol as a conservative voice on the Times editorial page. Douthat is the youngest regular op-ed writer in the paper's history.

Reviews

[sophie · Rating 1 out of 5]

thank you to edelweiss for the free drc! However, this book is not what it claims to be; it is not empathetic, it is not rigorous, it is not open-minded, it is not empirical at any point, and to call it persuasive (or even to say it's engaging with the discourse in good faith) is laughable. This is a book designed to sell to Christians who want validation that their faith is the One True Faith, masquerading as a book to turn skeptics into believers (i.e. save their souls) using really solid arguments such as "a lot of people believe in god, so should you" and "getting close to the [Christian] truth is better than nothing."

I found it deeply frustrating every time Ross implied that Muslims are actually just seeing the Christian God disguised as their prophet, or implying that Aztecs are Satanists, or saying that maybe bad things happen because they don't look bad from God's perspective (specific example being used here was the Holocaust).

Less egregious, but still relevant: Ross completely misunderstands the nature of atheism and agnosticism, despite the infinite resources available to him. I understand him choosing to view materialism as a religion, but that doesn't actually make it true; the same way it's inherently untrue to describe atheism as a religion. I don't think the author made any effort to understand the "skeptics" this book is supposedly targeted at.

I don't really have the time or willpower to get into how bad this book fails at being empirical, but I can tell you this: Ross makes several claims without citations that are very easily disproven by reading a single peer-reviewed article. I'm thinking specifically of when he says DMT reduces brain function (it doesn't) and when he says "by some measures, reports of mystical experiences have increased" (that could be true! but also cite a source! what are the fucking measures!) and when he says all peace efforts are based in religion (CITE A SOURCE). He does cite the Bible a bunch though! And also his mother?? So that's cool!

This man also holds many beliefs I personally disagree with (he's pro-life, he thinks god cares if you watch porn, he built his career on the predictability of American imperialism and is a spineless bastard who thinks me and all my little friends are going to hell), but that's not the basis for this review. I read this with discerning eye and found it to be deeply unconvincing, insulting, and no better than the arguments peddled by any street preacher.

[Ronni Kurtz]

Feels difficult to review this book. I'll leave off stars for now since I seem to be of two minds here. At points, Douthat is helpful in parsing potential weaknesses in a gravitational modern pull towards agnosticism or atheism. At other points, there are severe weaknesses as the arguments are for religion "in general" which makes Douthat's erudition twisted and convoluted. I felt the book got weaker as it went on, I was expecting the opposite to happen given my excitement to hear a thinker I admire on a subject--like disenchantment--I so care about. In the end, still glad I worked through the book.

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really quite an excellent book. Thoughtful, ecumenical, and a good deal more convincing than most of the philosophical defenses of religious belief that I've read. Well worth the quick read if you're on the fence about, well, about the most important question one can ask, no?

[Barry · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars (between good and very good)

I’m not sure how persuasive this will be for those who aren’t already persuaded. Douthat’s project here is to explain why belief in God and a spiritual realm makes sense, and should be seriously considered by those for whom such ideas may seem speculative, unnecessary, or silly. He’s a Catholic, but he isn’t arguing here for the truth of Christianity per se, but for openness to a religious viewpoint in general.

His best arguments are those that run along the lines of the Anthropic Principle, explaining how incredibly fine-tuned the universe must be for life to even become a possibility. The idea of every single one of a large list of fundamental physical constants being so precisely set by sheer chance alone is so astronomically unlikely as to be frankly absurd. Such a belief surely requires more faith than the belief in a creator God. The implications of this apparent fine-tuning of the universe has led some to propose the entirely speculative multiverse theory rather than reconsider their presuppositions. So much for Occam’s Razor. Or for the claim of only believing what can be scientifically demonstrated.

The next section discusses the mystery of consciousness and the human mind and why this still remains beyond our understanding. The curious fact that so much of the universe can actually be investigated and understood by our minds, and that somehow the universe behaves according to laws that can be described mathematically are further signs that that there may be a Great Mind underlying it all.

He then evaluates how our supposedly “disenchanted” modern world nevertheless remains enchanted to a significant degree for the vast majority despite strident predictions of its demise for the last two hundred years. He examines a few categories of experiences that are hard to explain if one remains committed to a purely materialistic or naturalistic philosophical viewpoint. These would include near death experiences, miracles, and other seemingly supernatural events.

Theists looking for a snarky smackdown of atheism a la David Bentley Hart should look elsewhere—Douthat is not your guy. He’s an opinion columnist for NYT and a great writer, striking an irenic tone that suggests he’s just trying to be helpful. He doesn’t insult those who see things differently than he does. Sometimes he may even get a little too mushy for my taste. He dutifully considers many reasonable objections and admits that his case cannot be considered airtight. But I think he at least demonstrates that it’s not unreasonable.

My go-to recommendations for Douthat’s intended audience remain Making Sense of God by Timothy Keller and Why God Makes Sense in a World That Doesn’t by Gavin Ortlund.

[Beauregard Bottomley · Rating 1 out of 5]

Belief is not a choice. Beliefs require reasons. Douthat fabricates justifications for absurdities and thinks the insistence of perhaps is sufficient reason to believe absurdities. No matter how hard I try, I can’t believe that fairies live in my shoes, I can’t prove they don’t and I live as if they aren’t real by not accepting superstitious nonsense.

‘Mere religion’ is a smokescreen to sugarcoat a turd. Belief without sufficient reasons is dangerous.

Ghosts, goblins, angels, demons, and devils don’t exist. Douthat wants to believe they can perhaps be true and suggest we suspend disbelief and act as if they could be real. He claims near-death-experiences happened and that means his favorite brand of superstition could be an accurate model for the world.

He wants you to choose your belief from his favorite buffet of superstitious nonsense and act as if they have meaning. He suggested not to read Duns Scotus or Thomas Aquinas and just thrust yourself into the current theological quagmire. I note that because I’ve read them and found them lacking in their reasoning and depended on nonsensical presuppositions.

Beliefs without justified reasoning led to a demon haunted world and the paradox of the demon haunted world is that the demons are in control. False fears arise when believing in a weird-view about the world.

I see Douthat’s quest for mere religion as a poorly reasoned special pleading for a return to spiritual irrelevancy while forgetting most reasonable people are ignoring his insistence of perhaps.

[Joe McCann · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ross Douthat fails to address the biggest issue driving people away from Christianity and Catholicism in particular. If you don’t tackle the widespread sexual abuse of children by clergy, how can you claim to provide moral guidance? Instead of dealing with this directly and honestly, Douthat prefers to keep his head in the sand and dodges the topic. An author like that does not deserve our attention.

[Tom Walsh · Rating 2 out of 5]

Very disappointing!

He wants to believe so you should too!

Science hasn’t figured Consciousness or The Universe’s Secrets out yet, so obviously they don’t exist. Believe!

People everywhere have had visions and miracles forever so there must be a god. Believe!

Suppose Theists are right and you’re gonna go to Hell. Believe!

Nonsense. No thanks! Two Stars.**

[Eric Williamson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Decently well-argued case for religious belief, and secondarily, spirituality, especially when it comes to physical and cosmic arguments for a capital-C Creator or Creators. However, the conservative nature of the author grates at places, particularly when he’s referring to the power of human love and attraction, but pointedly only references couples of different sexes.

Further, the thorniest arguments are only given a light touch—the problem of reconciling evil and suffering with an omnipotent and omniscient God, for example—though perhaps this is the author’s intent, and I’m just the the type of reader who would’ve preferred a deeper treatment to these issues, coupled with the author’s reasoning behind his own views.

The ending killed me—referring to himself and other religious believers as “awake,” implying others to be, naturally, asleep. A bit of cheek, perhaps, but off-putting nonetheless, especially when the tone of the remainder of the book is relatively welcoming to those who are (ostensibly) asleep.

[Matthew Aujla]

Recommend re-reading Mere Christianity instead

[Nicole Simovski · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’m still very much an atheist

[Seth Bollinger · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really enjoyed this read as I prep for a Veritas Forum event with Ross. I really like the commitment to religious pluralism. There’s an interesting tension of being a Christian and also appreciating other religious commitments. But ultimately I feel I land where Ross does in many ways - I have a personal conviction about what is true, but there are many ways other religions offer a lot of great ways to find meaning and purpose in life. Humility is a good starting point for these conversations.

[Abhi V · Rating 5 out of 5]

What's strange and spooky in him is this sense of the supernatural, of the weird lurking. He is serious when he asks us not to practice Satanism; there is something literary—in the sense of narrative—Gothic, in the idea that the world is strange, full of symbols and meaning that matter to us: that the appearance of meaningfulness of things in human categories (morality, portent, resonance &c.) are not superseded by scientific categories. Yes, the mental supervenes on the physical: but that's just a physical fact. The ultimate reason for the physical being that way—is us, or some being or mind that cares about us. (Which isn't so implausible: we do seem special compared to other things. Earth is flatly more interesting than Mars.) A reversion to putting primary emphasis on the manifest reality (as opposed to the world of laws and particles), of things in the terms they appear to us: it was made for us, it means something, it's drenched in intention.

I mean the spookiness literally: I read it alone at night and the way he hinted and intimated at (e.g) demons (about which this very smart man is very serious), it somehow got me to buy in to something that in sober daylight I once again find silly (actually this book occasioned one of the weirdest sober nights of my life, but besides this comment I will pass over it in silence). In that way, I enjoyed it almost like someone might enjoy a horror movie: it got me temporarily to really believe--not in the sense of making the a life-commitment to religious practice, but in a primitive, supernatural sense. (I remember when I was 16 thinking that although my views move around a lot, the one thing I could be confident that I would never become was socially conservative. Then, after I became socially conservative, I laughed at myself. To believe in the supernatural or paranormal would be that on steroids. "I may become religious, but I'll never believe in demons....")

The idea behind this: there is a superstitious form of life that trusts how things appear to it: a streak of light slanting from a cracked door into a dark room: a symbol of a secret world behind our world. But in the scientific mindset, there is no such meaning, or it's in the mind and real only in that way, but nonetheless emerging from particles that don't know or care about how it manifestly appears to us. And the spooky or freaky things can build on themselves because our brains see order, narrative, progression in things—even archetypical personalities. That kind of self-trust involves the restoration of the "projected" qualities that things have to us: morality, symbolism, narrative coherence, beauty. Those manifest features feel primitive to focus on because don't we know that they are just emergent from the real laws undearneath? They're the gravestones, not the corpses, and you can do whatever you like to the gravestone without affecting the corpse at all.

I want to say: In the hands of most people, regardless of if it's true, this kind of credulity could be disastrous; the social practice of cool reflection, of the expectation of justification, is important in living a good life and maintaing an effective community. I almost want to say it's a kind of elite religiosity that can indulge the supernatural (just in the same form as other conservative arguments against e.g. sexual liberation, where social norms against free love that protect everyone are probably unnecessary for people with a lot of agency and resources (to practice safe sex, to get abortions &c., who will inevitably form stable marriages: but when the culture is liberated, those less well off suffer). Isn't this kind of indulgence a disaster for ordinary crazy people? I've seen in my life people get taken in by ordinary scams; an intellectually weighty one that has all of the primitive cognitive faculties behind it seems even more sinister. (Even if it's not a scam, but true!?) The kind of no-nonsense English stiffness and rationalism I think can be quite functional and healthy for a lot of people, and society overall. The incredulous attitude might just be a functional adaptation which serves the purpose of being able to cancel what would otherwise be intense emotional reactions.

That aside, the book does make also makes me think, though, of how much my own atheistic naturalism is just the result of my experiences. He makes much of the things he observed as a child at Pentecostal services, among Yale New Haven secular types too: if I had seen that, what would I think? It's that I haven't had those experiences that make me an atheist (although one with fits and grasps towards religion). But this isn't at all for want of trying—I have longed for weirdness and it just doesn't fit. My most religious experience was perhaps anti-religious, humanistic, literary, and psychological: a kind of mysticism which insisted upon itself—as nothing more than a marvelous neurochemical accident.

He is very good at making things seem reasonable, and although he mentions it in passing, very good on the particular contingency and class-conformity that are the real grounds for many modern people's religiosity. The book is aimed at a general reader; it's short; it reminds me of Mere Christianity. What's interesting in both the pitch and the execution is that there is no reliance on technical philosophical argument (as I may have expected, and which I guess correctly diagnoses as a kind of anxious retreat), and also that he really just does believe what he is saying. (I almost wonder if the book is too reasonable, too accommodating....) He comes off well in promotional interviews; there is something in him which can metabolize the challenges posed....

Especially in regards to some of the arguments from design and religious experience, I want to say: Well clearly there is something odd, even if it's so radically inhuman and other that it has no point of connection with religious practice on this planet. (Oddly he mentioned in passing that some conservatism Islam sects that say that God is so alien and incomprehensible that he can't even be depicted, and which insists on rulebound, submissive piety: and I thought, yes, here is a religious order which appeals to my sensibilities, or one cluster of them.)

But even the freaky things that have happened to me in my life: I want to say that they're happening in my own mind: isn't it obvious? There was a recent book, Why An Afterlife Obviously Exists (or some such), that trades on the fact that everyone who has an NDE becomes convinced of its, if not reality, then hyperreality: its more-real-than-real quality. And aren't you well-represented by "everyone," statistically speaking? I think so. Douthat mentions this line of argument too, the countless people who've had these experiences and come away convinced, lost to the ordinary world. Perhaps it's special pleading to say: Well, I would too—just in the same way I would be crazy if I dropped too much acid or had a pipe blast through my brain. But that's the "outside view": from the inside, the changed me would find my stubbornness maddening. These perspectives, I think, though, are incommensurable: Either/Or. But then again, no: I feel quite comfortable with the fact that there is widespread, systematic epistemic failure in the world. The Nazis overran the most cultured country in the world; COVID hysteria overtook the world; the academy especially reliably miseducates students and services a class of corrupt priest-ideologues. And isn't the religious delusion the archetypical, most basic one? The reification of primitive, schizophrenic instincts that see agency, intention, and meaning everywhere—when it's provably not so?

Maybe it's offensive or consdescending that I can like this book without actually seriously having it move the needle at all. What is the real reason I refelxively don't take this seriously? (A part of me wants to say: That there is no God—at least not one that cares about the things humans care about, or intervenes with comprehensible intentions—is manifest from learning about the nature of the scientific world: It tracks how things seem, and this impression is shared by an enormous number of smart people. (But then, is credulous openness just psychologically disastrous and dysfunctional? Just like how the truth in other areas is anti-social?)) Not sure. And he recommends other, non-supernaturalist religious alternatives, but those don't really interest me and they aren't his primary concern, either.

There is a whole kind of relating that we're capable of: to an agent with wills and intentions, which are nonetheless inscrutable and more powerful than us. Animals are alien, but weaker than us or stronger in a way that we understand (brute strength). But they don't look at us simultaneously with curiosity (of our individual personality) and with knowing; only people know us. There is something freaky about beings that look at us, smile and play, or torment, but which we don't understand. We still have wonder and awe at vastness, and there are things unknown to us still, but the world isn't mysterious, hidden, secret, strange. How I wish it were still, how intoxciating, electrifying, also terrifying, it is to be temporarily thrown back into that way of thinking. (But don't I appreciate it as a kind of sociological permission? Because I can otherwise handle it, and like new ideas—play with them at no risk? I can't focus, so I can't get fully swept up in emotions or feelings: I am always safe, and so ideas can't hurt me.)

His defense of Jesus and the Gospels in particular just seemed wrong to me; I wish it were true, but I can't escape the image of Jesus as just an idiot apocalyptic preacher who was also a kind of moral genius. I can't escape the idea of the early Christians as anticipating apocalypse and only later realizing it wasn't imminent and beginning to write their accounts; of the human-all-too-human political agendas of the different texts. I guess one of the great disappointments of my intellectual life has been in the overhyped character of Jesus.

I feel like his prose was worse than earlier books, maybe because it was more constrained by making an argument, or by concessionary rhetoic? But those didn't feel like why....

[Kelsey · Rating 3 out of 5]

Don’t misread the three stars; I liked the book well enough. I’m often harder on those I agree with more than I am on those I disagree with. And I do, for the most part, agree with Ross.

The first half of this book was hard for me, but more so because of my own baggage than anything the book had to offer. I’m sorry to admit that the scientific argument for God has never been of interest to me. I’ve read enough of these type of books to have heard more in depth versions of the overview arguments Ross gives here, so I didn’t find anything he offered particularly revolutionary. I was much more excited for the second half, where Ross examined the moral grounds for religion. Alas, I was slightly disappointed to discover an argument which attempted to tread the careful line of universalism. Specifically, Ross’s use of the Parable of the Talents to argue a diluted form of Omnism felt like a disservice to that passage and the message of Christianity as a whole.

Regardless, I think this book does have an important place in a world where agnosticism is the norm. The book serves as a compelling encouragement to start somewhere, anywhere, “for you do not know when the master of the house will come.”

[John David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ross achieves his goal—proving the reasonableness of religion with pieces of evidence that, when taken together, give a very compelling proof for the spiritual, the mystical, the divine. My favorite being the fact that our modern, materialist scientific machine keeps uncovering mysteries about the physical world which makes the reality of a divine Creator all the more likely. Ross highlights this irony well.

[Yan Castaldo · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’m not religious and this book didn’t make me religious but every bad review is literally from people not actually reading the book or interpreting everything in the least charitable ways possible and it reminded me why I stopped using this app. There are so many fair ways to criticize this book, “douthat is racist against aztecs” or whatever probably isn’t ur best line of attack LMAOOO

[Sharad Pandian · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are a few stupid arguments early in the book about the hard problem of consciousness and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics (being religious doesn't make either of them more tractable!), but if you get through that, it's a pretty solid book for people lingering on the threshold of faith.

Its biggest shortcoming for contentedly non-religious readers is probably that it doesn't really take seriously that non-religious people seem perfectly capable of rich inner lives and strong moral commitments (eg: there's a silly passing comment about how mere materialism wouldn't allow people to make strong moral judgements), but this book isn't really directed at that sort of reader, so I suppose it's forgivable.

[Dave Courtney · Rating 4 out of 5]

Listened to this on audio, which felt like a good format for the material.

What I loved most about the authors approach is that, given the subject (belief in God), the author makes the astute choice to distinguish between the two necessary facets of this discussion- arguments for Gods existence and arguments for a specific characteristic of God. Often in these sorts of discussions those things get conflated and thus muddled.

The concern here then, specifically relates to the larger question of belief itself. Or in other words, why is belief itself justified, logical and even perhaps good or necessary? The author strikes a refreshingly open and charitable tone on this front. This is not an argument to prove Gods existence. Rather, it’s an argument for why it’s proper to consider and explore such a question, and what that necessarily looks like.

Now sure, it’s likely some will critique his approach as wanting to have things both ways (certain convictions without appealing to certain knowledge for example). But, from my point of view, I think such critiques would likely miss the point. Part of the problem is the failure of modern approaches to embrace complex arguments and nuanced approach. We are addicted to our polarities, binaries and false equivalences. Thus, I find any author and book that is willing to push back against such tendencies to be confined by dogma to be helpful and welcome.

For example, take the simple thought process that suggests a question about belief can indeed begin anywhere and in response to any given concern or question. The truth is, the world is filled with endless religious expressions, each representing a potential intersection to any given struggle or concern. Which is to say, whatever is driving you in your own given context, you can find an expression that addresses that. Some might suggest this bypasses the essential problem that all religious expressions cannot be true. This is a contradictory position. But that would be placing an unnecessary burden on his basic point. Truth, if we accept it exists, always sits external to our vantage point. As such, it is interwoven into the more universal observations that we find interwoven into this diversity of expressions, and it also informs the emergence of such diverse interpretations and expressions. Meaning, if God exists we should expect to find such diversity, and equally so we should expect that diversity to exist in response to seeking Truth, not undermining the existence of Truth.

Or in simple terms- all seeking needs a starting point and a process. The subsequent observation would then be, if we simply play the agnostic game of disqualifying all such starting points until they represent certain Truth, we will never be able to truly seek or grow in knowledge. This equally applies to the religious person whom appeals to dogma as a way of making all such religious seeking matters of heresy.

There is an additional component of this however, which is the willingness to formulate and hold convictions. As already stated, too often a fear or resistance to belief is the very thing that prevents us from exploring or growing in it. It misses out on what it means to be a rational creature, and reduces knowledge to something that it is not- scientific information. In truth, there is plenty of justification for belief and plenty of verifiable evidence in support of differing convictions. Shutting down that conversation is the quickest way to becoming irrational in our exploration of such things.

But, as the book repeatedly reaffirms in each chapter, even those matters run ahead of the true concern- why belief? Why explore it in the first place? Part of that answer is because it is inherent to the world we observe and experience. Which is to say, the first step is seeing that belief is not antithetical to the rational creature, it is a fundamental part of such a creature. Even if we don’t call it God, the author does a nice job of showing how the questions and concerns and squired information are very much functioning in parallel ways to the concerns of religious exploration. Belief is both common and necessary to human function.

The author makes a note at the outset that of course he is writing about this subject as one with particular convictions, as would be the case for anyone. That will inevitably filter in along the way, and is part of what any aware discussion must navigate. That should not however prevent discussions from happening. I will say, certain points on this front are more obvious than others, and it’s typically the obvious points that feel the least compelling, precisely because they are easiest points to counter from the vantage point of my own particular convictions. But this again is part of the exercise. If I was writing the same book with the same fundamental observations that apply to every conviction, those more overt and obvious convictions that I allow to filter through will be the easiest ones for others to critique. That’s part of the process. This book represents a starting point, an invitation into dialogue and good process. Any process worth exploring should lead into further articulation of those particular convictions. But that should not undermine or undercut the foundation for the discussions. Discussions about the particular nature of God should never middle and be conflated with more generalized arguments for belief in God. Rather they should always be in conversation as part of a singular process.

Which of course desires humility and openness. Necessary traits to a good rational process. I think this book stands as a great example of how that works and what that looks like.

[karim Jebari · Rating 3 out of 5]

The arguments could be better, and the author displays the typical signs of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning.

however, it's really fascinating to delve into the mind of a person who actually believes in demons and spirits.

[Bradley Fayonsky]

Douthat’s aim is to make “mere religion” more appealing is an interesting one. No doubt that this book makes the idea of “seeking” more accessible. Sure to find resistance from what is left of new atheism, this book finds inspiration whatever this wave of renewed interest in the West for religious grounding is.

I do want to share my thoughts as a (Protestant) Christian. The entire book Douthat leaves it vague about whether he intends this book to be “pre-evangelism,” where he desires all readers to end up in Christianity, regardless of what path gets them there. Whether or not he’s doing that (I’m not sure if he even knows), there are some really brilliant encouragements here for the reader to start seeking and allow belief to be developed over time. Unfortunately, Douthat overcommits his appeal to “seek” and walks into near-universalism where “you tried” is salvific. It may be generally better for society (and even for Christianity) if more people are religious, but it is deceptive to present the call of Christ to be the call to any religion of choice, as long as you are “genuine.” Maybe Douthat is correctly presenting the Roman Catholic view? Either way, I find it hardly biblical.

It’s an enjoyable read. I wouldn’t be afraid to recommend it to an agnostic or atheistic friend, I think they would enjoy it too, given they are open minded. What an interesting moment we are living in!

[Kirk Metzger · Rating 3 out of 5]

I appreciate Douthat, and I think this book could prove fruitful in some conversations with friends of mine that I hope will be Christians soon. However, I am a little perplexed by the idea of committing to *any* religion in order to find the one true religion. Then again, many stories have risen about Muslims having dreams of Jesus and coming to the Christian faith, yet I struggle with the idea of seeking out Islam in hopes that they may come to believe in Jesus as Lord.

All that said, I think the book is worth a read/listen, as I definitely have some takeaways to discuss with friends.

[Sean · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hard to get into at first probably because Mere Christianity. I persevered as I’m reading it with a friend. Glad I did. Eventually caught the flow and enjoyed it.

[Brad Peters · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was optimistic about this book because Ross is a GREAT writer with a very intelligent mind - brilliant even - and I've enjoyed a couple of his other books and columns in the NYT.

But it was clear from the beginning that Ross - a devout Roman Catholic - was not going to make an apologetic for Christianity, or Catholicsm precisely, but rather, his was an argument to those outside the realms of religious faith to "come on board!" He aims at an audience of the skeptical and the atheistic and his argument is essentially that "religion -- all of them -- is good for people."

Typical of Douthat, there are some keen observations in the book and his writing and mastery of the English language is impressive.

While I would agree that religion in general could foster good qualities in people and society, I assumed that Douthatt would eventually get around to why Christianity is superior. But he really doesn't. He treats all religions equally and it isn't until the last chapter when he lays out why he's Roman Catholic and why he thinks Christianity holds more water than the other options available.

I wasn't exactly holding my breath but I did wonder what Ross would do with the very exclusive claims of Christ. Jesus claimed to be God, that He alone was the Way, the Truth and the Life and that "no one" gets to heaven except through Him. The founder of the "religion" of Christianity said it plainly: All other religions fall short and lead to hell. Certainly a practicing and fervant Catholic would have to end there, right?

He doesn't though. After nuanced yet unapologetic praise for religions of every stripe, he concludes with his belief that any religion will ultimately be given a pass by God into the hereafter. Therefore the athiest is advised to embrace whatever religion he or she wants; Douthat argues it will be sufficient for him or her to not only please God but will make their present condition in life more pleasing as well. This is the religion of universalism penned by a Catholic.

But if Jesus of Nazareth was right, that He alone is the way to God and that, in fact, He was God; a fact verified by His resurrection, then He had the authority to make such a claim. If this is true, then Douthat’s urging people to choose any decent or serious religion is the equivalent of exhorting folks on the Titanic to climb to a higher deck as the ship goes down. Better to find a life boat.

If your religion isn't the Truth, then on what basis can you make an argument for why anyone should be religious? Isn’t it just your opinion or a religion of your own design? Douthat makes it clear that any religion will do for all religions ultimately get us to God. If so, what part of his professed Christianity is he proclaiming? Seems to be a religion less of Christ and more of Ross.

[Elan Kluger · Rating 3 out of 5]

There is little new in it and I had to put it down. It is a fine work for getting someone out of pure materialism–but then what? The demands of a popular press book seem too much. He had to write for people of all religions, and therefore limits his own passionate intensity in his own faith. The book is not objectionably wrong, but neither is it demandingly correct.

[Joe James · Rating 2 out of 5]

Honestly…not very good. Giving it 2 stars because I know a lot of people will give it 5 stars, but it’s really unconvincing as an “objective” case for religious observance. He sneaks in wayyyy too many obvious Christian assumptions and overstates his knowledge of world religions.

[Carolyn]

Ross Douthat's "Believe" reads as a gentle invitation extended to a secular world to be more curious about the potential that there is a supernatural dimension to the universe and to consider, with humility, that thousands of years of religious wisdom and tradition should not be written off because we think them outdated or irrelevant to 21st century life.

Remarkably, for a work that could loosely be categorized as apologetics, Douthat is not trying to convince the reader of the truth of one particular religion or trying to persuade the reader that his religion, Catholicism, is best. Rather, one pictures him pleading with his secular colleagues in the professional media class to give some kind of religion, any kind, a try.

I expect the section on empirical evidence for the existence of supernatural realms may not be especially convincing to someone already inclined to disbelief. But more interesting to me was Douthat's view that all religions are grasping toward the same truth, interpreting the same God-given signs (the complex physical laws of nature, the mystery of consciousness and "supernatural" experiences that happen to everyday people), and each may offer some approximation of the truth about the world and human beings' role to play. This is a wonderfully humane response to the common question of why should I believe [my religion] is right and everyone else is wrong? Douthat says we don't have to accept that paradigm. Following a religion in good faith, as a genuine seeker, will get you somewhere closer to a true conception of God, the cosmos and yourself, he believes. Especially if you assume, as Douthat does, that God is benevolent and not malignant, and is not trying to deceive us.

This is a surprisingly generous apologetics for any and all forms of religious practice, plus a lot more UFOs than I was expecting. I don't know that the book "works," as in, that the book would persuade an otherwise secular person to take up whatever major world religion strikes their fancy. But I think Douthat makes some smart points (for the already believing person) about having intellectual humility about our own religious beliefs, leaning on traditional religion and received wisdom of people who came before us, and valuing religious truths of faiths we don't practice. I expect this book will make a lot of people mad, and for that I say good for you, Ross.

[Paul Sand · Rating 5 out of 5]

True story: I got this book from the Portsmouth (NH) Public Library. But only after failing to find it in the "New Non-Fiction" area, but noticing that it had been placed on the "New Fiction" table. I assume that was due to some jerkwad Portsmouth atheist thinking he was clever.

But for the rest of us, this is a really excellent book. The author, Ross Douthat, is not some Bible-thumping yokel, but a columnist for the New York Times (and movie reviewer for National Review). He can, and does, speak the language of urban sophisticates. Although, thank God (or whoever), I'm not one of those.

Douthat's argument for "believing" is laid out carefully in stages. In the early going, he makes some powerful points that indicate a universe, planet, environment, and nature that screams "not an accident". If the fundamental physics of reality were just slightly different, there could be no elements, no galaxies, no biology, … And even if you accept that dice-throw, there are further unlikely happenstances: the complex interactions between life and environment involving convoluted biochemical pathways to keep things moving and procreating.

And don't get me started on free will, consciousness, and the moral sense most of us have.

And we are supposed to believe that all this sorta fell together by sheer chance and accident? Brother, pull the other one.

After that, Douthat starts moving up the mountain of faith. He notes the prevalence of seeming inexplicable occurrences of the mystic and supernatural. He argues against exploring the spiritual on your own; that would be like trying to conduct particle physics research from scratch. Instead, be like Newton, and "stand on the shoulders of giants", taking the accumulated wisdom of millennia as a given.

And finally, he recounts his own path, from childhood Episcopalianism to his mainstream Roman Catholic faith today.

All in all, a fine read. I'm not going back to the pews myself this Sunday morning, but I look at the folks who do with considerable extra respect.

[Gideon Yutzy · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book seems to hold a constant tension between, in the author's words, "irenic optimism and the intensity of the gospels." I found Douthat characteristically deep and original - a reminder why I always lap up his NYT columns - although in this book he takes on a bit more of a stern, lecturing tone than he usually does.

In some ways the tension is appropriate. On one hand, he was trying to set the bar so low that anyone at all interested in any kind of religious belief is encouraged to follow through - a realistic approach given our society's religious apathy. On the other hand, he did not want to come across as wishy washy or say we should choose a formless or toothless religion.

I thought this tension was best summed up in his roadmap analogy: even if it is true that any of the major religions could get you to your goal, you must find one and stick to it if you expect to arrive.

I also appreciated his comments about how most people adopt the religion of their parents. This is no bad thing. Irreligious people and atheists also usually adopt the worldview up there parents. Douthat's consistent emphasis that God manifests Godself in all religions helped me come to peace with this phenomenon of most of us "choosing" our parental religion.

[Lauren Ketchum · Rating 3 out of 5]

Douthat’s empirical argument for religion is more accessible than other epistemologically-dense apologies. The first few chapters point to evidence of order and design in the universe and challenge atheistic or agnostic arguments for secularism. As the book progressed, I became increasingly concerned that he was moving into spiritual perennialism, arguing that any approach to divinity gets you “close enough” to truth. However, the final chapter did help to clarify his argument that Christianity is fundamentally distinct from other religions and ultimately True. I still don’t know if I would go so far as to agree with the main message of this book, that is it better to seek religion generally, trusting “that God’s providence will ultimately reward all sorts of efforts and enfold all manner of sincere beliefs.” Sincerity won’t gain you salvation unless it trusts in the finished work of Christ.

[Lizzie]

It is difficult to properly rate/review this book. To start, I deeply admire the premise and appreciate the formulaic argument. I’m interested by other people’s religiosity as I continue to explore my own — I too agree with the premise that religion can be a force for good. That said, I would’ve certainly taken a different approach to my own version of this book and do think that is deeply informed by my own path (nothing new here about our identity informing how we tell a story). Douthat spoke down to the reader at times and it didn’t sit right with me while other parts were so heady I couldn’t quite follow. I would have honestly liked to see his last chapter come first as a case study that set up his framing so people know what they’re getting (and what world view it comes from).

[Dallin Kohler · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars. I imagine my reading of this was similar to a strongly religious person reading Dawkins' 'The God Delusion'. A lot of times Douthat would draw very different conclusions from the same set of premises than I would.

From a critical perspective, I think the book's biggest shortcoming is his argument is very general, that 'religion' is good so just go join the one that speaks to you; that finding some truth is better than none. You would think someone devout would have at least slightly strong convictions that their own religious choice was the right one. Sure, he makes his specific argument for Catholicism at the end, but I came away not feeling convinced that he feels it in his heart.