It is interesting to compare this book with Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion.

This is the anti-God book Dawkins would have written had he not been so consumed with hatred of religion. The tolerant and understanding style is very different from Dawkins'. Wolpert knows that religious belief is irrational but thinks that the motivation for all sorts of irrational ideas, not just religion, is that we have evolved to develop causative theories which make sense of our lives and provide solace. Unlike Dawkins, he doesn't think that religious belief is a "meme" which corrupts our thought processes whilst providing us with no selection benefits. In fact, although Wolpert doesn't say this, you get the feeling that he thinks the idea of memes is nonsense.

My only criticism of the book is that it should have been longer. He doesn't do more than touch upon some topics which could have been elaborated. He is clearly writing for a scientifically literate readership, but these aren't the people who most need this book.

Also, I don't believe anyone will be able to read it without examining some of their most deeply-cherished ideas, so perhaps he could have have given us more specific instructions about how to analyse our own false beliefs. Another book?

What would have been very nice as an article-length treatment is just too ponderous to read as a book. Very slow going - lengthy set-up for a too-small payoff. Pass on this one.

In the vein of similarly inspired books, I'd suggest starting with either the Dawkins or Sam Harris. This one can enhance your views but is not as cogently or persuasively argued.

I bought this book because I was interested in the sub-title. It would seem to me there must be an evolutionary basis for belief, otherwise there would be no belief. Which I have noticed lately is a Darwinist tendency, to attribute everything that animals(or plants) do to evolutionary tendencies. Which is correct, in my opinion, but makes it hard to discuss with religious people as we disagree at the very basis of our discussion. I am continually astounded at how many people I know actually believe the world is 6000 years old in the face of overwhelming evidence that belief is incorrect. Which helps to explain Bush as president. But, I digress.

What separates Science from Religion is that Science is based on data that can be tested to be proven true or false. Science constantly questions itself and encourages others to attempt to prove it wrong. Good science anyway. Religion does just the opposite-discourages questioning or testing and encourages acceptance of authority as proof. This book, while I tend to believe what it is saying, does not attempt to prove any of its assertions. Where are the end-notes quoting studies proving his points? This book reminds me of Religion as it expects us to believe statements made with no basis for the statements stated. Which, seems to me, to invalidate the argument and do more harm than good to the thesis.

But I could be missing something.

If the author made the assertions to encourage research and investigation, then I sort of get it. But I think research and investigation should come before the book, not after it.

All that being said, it introduced to me some ideas I had not considered before and was worth the price of admission.

The reasonable, well referenced, responsible arguments the book presents are quite persuasive: the fantasies, airy and obsessive, that plague the human mind originate as natural products of the brain's operation. They get built into the beliefs, rules and norms of societies in the same way more practical rules, laws and knowledge do. The author tries to do a comprehensive study and succeeds fairly well. Personally I found his style a little dry. Good reference though.