Nice little book urging doubt and moderation and condemning fanaticism and cynicism. Used a lot of examples from the history of religion which was a bit off-putting for me but it was ok. ( )

Mostly, I agree with the premise of this book, that is the desirability of moderate views in a liberal democracy, but I don't find it particularly well argued. I think that it is a little densely written for the general audience that it appears to be intended for. I also didn't find arguments that I wanted to remember to use with people who disagree with me, or what I thought were particularly incisive statements, or indeed much help in deciding where to compromise and where to stand firm.

Since I have given it only two stars, the reader has no doubt guessed that there were a number of point that I took issue with. Let me preface two example with an explanation of their terminology: "The situation we have called "plurality" is more commonly called "pluralism." We eschew this term because the suffix "ism" suggests an ideology rather than (as we intend here) an empirically available social reality."

"[T]his rationalist worldview, which he labeled 'positivism.' [...] It's still manifest in the natural sciences, albeit in the new cloak of geneticism. The 'god' of this rationalism nowadays is 'the selfish gene,' which is a late-modern specimen of predestination. Like its Calvinist predecessor, it destroys the idea of freedom of the will and morally good works." What on earth are they talking about? I have this horrible feeling that Berger and Zijderveld may have the mistaken idea that the 'selfish gene' is a gene that causes selfishness in its possessors -- a complete misunderstanding. I would agree that it was probably not the best metaphor that Dawkins could have used, but that's not at all what it means, as the authors should know if they are going to discuss it. It has been a number of years since I read Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, which built on George C. Williams' Adaptation and Natural Selection, so I don't remember every tangential remark that Dawkins may have made (as he has conceded), but the book primarily dealt with the issue of how natural selection works, and on what level. The book is not arguing that all behavior, particularly human behavior, is ruled by genes, and I don't believe it dealt with the issue of free will and moral conduct, except to argue for an explanation of the value of altruism in evolution. (See Wikipedia for more information.) Nature versus Nurture in culture-bearing species is still a heated question in scientific circles. Is the use of 'geneticism' suppose to indicate that the belief that living creatures (and viruses) have genes is a ideology?

Then there is Berger's and Zijderveld's discussion of atheism. I myself am an atheist. "The agnostic isn't an atheist. The latter, very much of an adherent of an often fanatic '-ism,' is a self-defined unbeliever who sets out to fight and attack any kind of religious belief and institution. Ecrasez l'infâme! Politically, atheists defend a strict separation of church (mosque, temple, synagogue) and state, but many of them would prefer to eliminate by force all traces of personal institutional religion." My goodness, we seem to be classed with Nazis and Communists. And while all Communists may be atheists, all atheists are not communists. I find this rather unfair, for while some atheists may have done awful things, or be fanatical, the same may be said of many of the religious, but the authors don't seem inclined to tar all of them with the same brush. It also seems inappropriate in a book supposedly lauding moderation and tolerance. Many religious people also support separation of church and state, especially if they don't think that their religion would become the state religion if the two merged.

I don't actually think that the authors know a great deal about atheists. If they did, they would know that many atheists resent being lumped together into an '-ism' (in the authors' sense) or any other group based on the single characteristic of not having any dealings with god(s). The term 'atheist' can be parsed more than one way. Many people, especially non-atheists, take it as 'athe + ist', that is, some one who does not believe in a god. Others parse it as 'a + theist,' that is, one who does not have a system of beliefs about god(s). It has been argued that agnostics, whom Berger and Zijdeveld find so virtuously full of doubt, would be atheists under this definition, since they do not have a system of beliefs, but I wouldn't use it that way since I believe it would upset agnostics who wish to make it perfectly clear that they have nothing to do with those nasty atheists.

There are many nuances of atheity (?) to try and use the authors' terminology. There are even atheists who go to church. Strong atheism asserts that there are no gods, but there are atheists who simply don't want anything to do with "whatever gods may be." A friend of mine, a devoted churchman, believes in Paul Tillich's formulation that god is not a being, but Being itself. I will freely admit that I cannot prove that he's wrong, but I find the concept so uninteresting that I don't care whether or not there is such a deity (nor would I expect he/she/it/they to care about me.) I might therefore be classed as an agnostic atheist in that I do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know for certain whether any deities exist or not. ( )

A sociological and philosophical analysis of doubt which, the authors argue, is necessary in the face of modern plurality. Doubt is necessary in order to avoid the other two reactions to plurality, relativism and fundamentalism. ( )