From an advance review copy for which I thank the publisher.
This is a very short book, and frankly after reading it, I wasn't sure exactly what it was trying to do, but for me it failed if judged by what the book description declares is its aim.
The premise is supposedly that "it is simply impossible to determine, with any degree of confidence, as to whether there is a transcendent, creative being which is responsible for the existence of the universe. The conclusion that inevitably flows from this realization is that agnosticism is the most intellectually honest position to espouse" but the author seems like he's on a crusade to debunk the theistic arguments (which frankly isn't a difficult thing to do) without paying any attention to the atheistic ones, and so he fails to establish the very premise that he claims is the only rational position.
To the best of my knowledge, the atheist position doesn't declare there are no gods, but instead declares that there's no convincing evidence for any gods. As Richard Dawkins and others have put it, most people have no belief in most gods. Atheists just believe in fewer gods than do believers. But if the author's aim is to establish that agnosticism is the only intellectually honest position, then he doesn't make that case here. A quick glance at the chapter headers is enough to make that argument:
- What is Agnosticism?
- What is Religious Faith?
- Common Objections to the Bible
- The Random Cruelty of Life: Murderous Dictators
- The Random Cruelty of Life: 20th Century Disasters
- The Random Cruelty of Life: The Deadliest Natural Disasters
- The Random Cruelty of Life: Mass Shootings
You rather get the idea from this that the book is largely US-centric and targets almost exclusively the Christian faith - otherwise why have a chapter devoted to the Bible, but none devoted to the Koran, or the Vedas, or the Tri-piṭaka and so on? So while you can argue (if you like!) that it addresses the Christian faith, it fails to make any case at all for agnosticism with regard to other faiths. The assumption, also, is that the creator god we’re supposed to be agnostic about, is a loving one, and seeks - from the abundance of chapters on the topic - to dispel this notion by having almost half the book devoted to the random cruelty of life, but what if this creator god merely sets things in motion and doesn't have any interest in beneficence or otherwise? The book fails to engage that.
The book also completely fails to address the scientific perspective, with regard, for example, to how the universe came to be and the fact that there may be multiple universes. It fails to address the four billion years of life on the planet which existed nearly all of that time without any living thing (at least on Earth!) wondering if there were any gods. What was that all about, if there's supposed to be a benign creator? It also fails to address any of the philosophical arguments for or against gods.
The last couple of chapters are "Assorted Quotes and Humorous tidbits" and "Quotes from Yours Truly: More Humorous tidbits" neither of which make any argument for anything and seemed more like filler. Quoting someone saying something about a god isn't evidence for or against any position, and listing celebrities who are agnostics makes no more of an argument for agnosticism than does listing holocaust deniers make an argument that there was no holocaust.
I didn't get the point of this approach at all, and especially not the employment of so much space which fails to take on the premise of the book in any meaningful or useful way, and neither do I see the point of those last two frivolous chapters when the point of the book still has not been made. For me the book had no real focus or thrust; it seemed half-hearted and rambling, and I cannot commend it as a worthy read.
