In this book, Shermer argues that humans form beliefs from genetic predispositions and social experiences. We then selectively filter data and experience to support those pre-existing beliefs. We see "patterns" of meaning in our experience, and we tend to project "agenticity" when causal factors are not known. I respect Shermer for admitting up front that he is subject to the same process, in which emotion trumps reason in matters of belief. So, I read with great interest how he attempts in this book to bring rationality to the study of our irrational brains.

I like books that have a wide bandwidth, and he supports his thesis with evidence from experimental psychology, neurobiology, history, physics, and evolutionary biology. His chapter on confirmations of belief explains and lists more logical fallacies that I have ever seen before. His chapter on "the believing neuron" adduces evidence that dopamine acting as a reinforcer in particular areas of the brain results in pleasure or motivation for confirming prexisting beliefs. His chapters on geographies of belief and cosmologies of belief are interesting forays into the history of exploration and on the history of research on nebulae to show that scientists fall prey to the same fallacies as others, but that science as a method does overcome biases of individual scientists.

His chapters on belief in God, belief in the afterlife, belief in paranormal phenomena, and belief in conspiracies applies logic and scientific research to those often fuzzy issues. My favorite chapter was on the politics of belief, in which he supports his thesis in social psychological and political science research that we form our political views early and hold them dearly, filtering data and events to support our political beliefs.

The book was fun to read, insightful, and influential personally. I have a new understanding of the role of dopamine in supporting belief. I have a new understanding of persons who have different political views from mine. I have more clarity on the testable vs the nontestable statements in theology, e.g. is prayer answered? I have more respect than ever for Galileo's contribution to overturning the centuries old Aristotle-Roman Catholic cosmology. Most importantly, I have more self-awareness of how my own brain formed beliefs and selectively supported those beliefs by filtering perceptions and employing biases and fallacies in the areas of theology, politics, and daily life.