What do you think?
Rate this book
Illusion of Certainty: How the Flawed Beliefs of Religion Harm Our Culture
In this examination of religion's influence on society, an anthropologist critiques fundamentalism and all mindsets based on rigid cultural certainties. The author argues that the future can only be safeguarded by a global humanistic outlook that recognizes and respects differing cultural perspectives and endorses the use of critical reason and empiricism. Houk coins the term "culturalism" to describe dogmatic viewpoints governed by culture-specific values and preconceived notions. Culturalism gives rise not only to fundamentalism in religion but also stereotypes about race, gender, and sexual orientation.Turning specifically to Christian fundamentalism, the author analyzes the many weaknesses of what he calls a faith-based epistemology, particularly as such thinking is displayed in young-earth creationism, the reliance on revelation and subjective experiences as a source of religious knowledge, and the reverence accorded the Bible despite its obvious flaws. As he points out, the problem with such cultural knowledge generally is that it is non-falsifiable and ultimately has no lasting value in contrast to the data-based and falsifiable knowledge produced by science, which continues to prove its worth as a reliable source of accurate information.Concluding that there is no future to the fundamentalist mindset in a diverse world where religion often exacerbates conflicts, he makes a strong case for reason and mutual tolerance.
- GenresPsychology
381 pages, Paperback
Published December 5, 2017
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
February 27, 2019
I saw this book on the shelf at our local bookstore and on flicking through it, thought it might be an interesting take on religious counter apologetics and it provided some of that, as well as some other refutations of religious thought and dogma. One of my favorite quotes comes from Russell: "The problem with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" which plays into the title of this book. I am of the belief that whilst the human condition craves certainty, I am unconvinced that we can ever be completely certain of anything. This leads us to the issue of hard solipsism which I can't see how to get past, but we are stuck with reason and logic as we have to operate in the reality that we apparently all share, and these things have proven their reliability for centuries.
I am unconvinced by faith based epistemologies. I am doubly unconvinced by presuppositionalists whose goal is to attack the circular reasoning of using reason to argue against religious thinking when they are forced to use that too, and because of their epistemology, simply say that they have had a revelation and cannot be wrong, and that reason needs a god to exist. There is so much wrong with this approach but here is probably not the place.
This book sets out arguments that are familiar to those who spend a lot of time thinking about these issues but it is written in a way that is very easy to read and avoids, for the most part, the danger of deep diving into esoteric philosophical arguments. Sometimes I found that the style was so conversational that I had to re-read certain passages as I wasn't sure if Houk was explaining something from the skeptical point of view, or explaining the thinking from the theist voice. This is a minor point, I was probably not paying enough attention.
The discussion of theodicy was well covered and seems to me, along with the Euthyphro dilemma, to be very damaging to the standard view of the Judeo-Christian God and require the most amazing mental gymnastics to construct an apologetic for them.
Interesting subjects for discussion and I like the way that Houk makes this potentially very dense topic approachable. I do wonder at whom this book is aimed I must say. I find the study of religion to be fascinating, and whilst this book majors on Christianity, there are certainly many asides to Islam as well. Issues that are worthy of continued discussion and this book is useful in that regard, although probably not for those looking for a very in depth philosophical examination of these issues, which is not its intent. We can, of course, all go to Hume, Kant, Kierkegaard et al for that.
I am unconvinced by faith based epistemologies. I am doubly unconvinced by presuppositionalists whose goal is to attack the circular reasoning of using reason to argue against religious thinking when they are forced to use that too, and because of their epistemology, simply say that they have had a revelation and cannot be wrong, and that reason needs a god to exist. There is so much wrong with this approach but here is probably not the place.
This book sets out arguments that are familiar to those who spend a lot of time thinking about these issues but it is written in a way that is very easy to read and avoids, for the most part, the danger of deep diving into esoteric philosophical arguments. Sometimes I found that the style was so conversational that I had to re-read certain passages as I wasn't sure if Houk was explaining something from the skeptical point of view, or explaining the thinking from the theist voice. This is a minor point, I was probably not paying enough attention.
The discussion of theodicy was well covered and seems to me, along with the Euthyphro dilemma, to be very damaging to the standard view of the Judeo-Christian God and require the most amazing mental gymnastics to construct an apologetic for them.
Interesting subjects for discussion and I like the way that Houk makes this potentially very dense topic approachable. I do wonder at whom this book is aimed I must say. I find the study of religion to be fascinating, and whilst this book majors on Christianity, there are certainly many asides to Islam as well. Issues that are worthy of continued discussion and this book is useful in that regard, although probably not for those looking for a very in depth philosophical examination of these issues, which is not its intent. We can, of course, all go to Hume, Kant, Kierkegaard et al for that.
July 1, 2018
This book is well-researched. I highlighted quite a few passages. I agree with most of what Houk writes, but I have two main criticisms:
The subtitle is "How the Flawed Beliefs of Religion Harm Our Culture", but the majority of this book is focused on fundamentalist Christianity. In and of itself, this focus isn't wrong, but be prepared for it.
The chances that a fundamentalist Christian will 1) read this and 2) be convinced their beliefs are faulty, aren't likely. Young Earth Creationism is ridiculous--we all know this, except for the Young Earthers themselves. So I wonder, why spend the time and effort to reason, for example, that the biblical narrative of Noah & the ark could not have literally happened? Additionally, I'm relatively newly deconverted from evangelical Christianity, but even I am already familiar with the examples of misogyny, homophobia, condoning of slavery in the Bible.
My other issue involves the age-old tension between religious faith and science. Some of his points give me the impression that Houk might not be fun at parties. Perhaps this isn't a fair criticism (and I didn't highlight any of these passages, so I can't give a specific example). Houk (like many of his ilk) implies that knowing the science of something negates the awe of such a thing. I may understand the biological mechanism that causes a human throat to produce sounds, but that doesn't stop me from appreciating the beauty of a song. Just because we now know the Earth revolves around the Sun doesn't make a sunset less wondrous--at least not for me. Scientific processes do not, in any way whatsoever, discredit a Creator--again, at least not for me.
To be fair, he's not trying to disprove a creative intelligence. In the end, he compliments agnosticism. I sincerely admire that he spent the hours and hours researching and writing a comprehensive and understandable argument against religious (Christian) fundamentalism, but even he would say he's probably writing to those who already agree--so I'm left wondering, Why was this written?
The subtitle is "How the Flawed Beliefs of Religion Harm Our Culture", but the majority of this book is focused on fundamentalist Christianity. In and of itself, this focus isn't wrong, but be prepared for it.
The chances that a fundamentalist Christian will 1) read this and 2) be convinced their beliefs are faulty, aren't likely. Young Earth Creationism is ridiculous--we all know this, except for the Young Earthers themselves. So I wonder, why spend the time and effort to reason, for example, that the biblical narrative of Noah & the ark could not have literally happened? Additionally, I'm relatively newly deconverted from evangelical Christianity, but even I am already familiar with the examples of misogyny, homophobia, condoning of slavery in the Bible.
My other issue involves the age-old tension between religious faith and science. Some of his points give me the impression that Houk might not be fun at parties. Perhaps this isn't a fair criticism (and I didn't highlight any of these passages, so I can't give a specific example). Houk (like many of his ilk) implies that knowing the science of something negates the awe of such a thing. I may understand the biological mechanism that causes a human throat to produce sounds, but that doesn't stop me from appreciating the beauty of a song. Just because we now know the Earth revolves around the Sun doesn't make a sunset less wondrous--at least not for me. Scientific processes do not, in any way whatsoever, discredit a Creator--again, at least not for me.
To be fair, he's not trying to disprove a creative intelligence. In the end, he compliments agnosticism. I sincerely admire that he spent the hours and hours researching and writing a comprehensive and understandable argument against religious (Christian) fundamentalism, but even he would say he's probably writing to those who already agree--so I'm left wondering, Why was this written?
September 26, 2018
Generally an easy read and the arguments presented are relatively easy to understand. I call this a counter apologetic book addressed mainly to the fundamentalist views. But some of what the author covers extends well beyond that group to religious beliefs in general - not just the christian perspective. Examples include the coverage of the various arguments for the existence of god and the problem of evil which are applicable to any theistic religion.
Part 2 of the book focus mainly on the fundamentalist group and the young earth creationist views. Part 3 deals with means of revelation and applies to all groups. Part 4 is focused on the scriptures and applies to all of Christianity. Part 5 deals with some of the arguments for the existence of god and is applicable to any theistic viewpoint. The take on what the author says and his focus will depend on how the reader views the Bible and how literally the reader takes the book.
Each section of the book can be read independently, so interested readers can skip what is not of interest to them.
Part 2 of the book focus mainly on the fundamentalist group and the young earth creationist views. Part 3 deals with means of revelation and applies to all groups. Part 4 is focused on the scriptures and applies to all of Christianity. Part 5 deals with some of the arguments for the existence of god and is applicable to any theistic viewpoint. The take on what the author says and his focus will depend on how the reader views the Bible and how literally the reader takes the book.
Each section of the book can be read independently, so interested readers can skip what is not of interest to them.
February 21, 2018
I had to give this book 5 stars because of all the research and factual information that went into creating it. I’m starting to question some of the points that Dr. Houk brought up like Noah’s Ark and the dinosaurs. There were many time when I agreed with his arguments and certain times that I couldn’t. Overall reading this makes me look at life in all different angles.
April 17, 2018
Tremendous
Absolutely brilliant crystallization of perhaps the greatest problem facing mankind. Fundamentalists probably will not read this, but maybe it can sway folks in the gray area, and have a positive impact on them and their children.
Absolutely brilliant crystallization of perhaps the greatest problem facing mankind. Fundamentalists probably will not read this, but maybe it can sway folks in the gray area, and have a positive impact on them and their children.
April 13, 2026
This book scratched an itch. It’s like going to a bar with a good friend, but knowing very well you’re in for a night of arguments and ramblings from a very well versed person.
The biggest problem with this is I’m unsure of who the audience is. The evangelical fundamentalists (who the author takes prime issue with) will not read it. Their arguments are dissected and disproven rationally, which, as the author concedes, is antithetical to how the fundamentalist mind even conceives of their own ideas, which are based on faith. Because of this, I find some of the arguments pointing out the ludicrous nature of the biblical myths unhelpful and lacking new ideas. On the other hand, the atheists or agnostics who read this will not necessarily be provided with any new tools or ideas. But at times, the way the author states a point is a home run, something that you can keep in your pocket for later.
What I did appreciate was the author’s depiction of a “post-cultural” society. He argues, boldly and almost uncomfortably, that distinctions of culture lead to fundamentalism and the “illusion of certainty”. That to be bigger and more objective we must move beyond these distinctions.
Definitely worth a read, but it’s mostly just to provide your own arguments against fundamentalism with a little more meat.
The biggest problem with this is I’m unsure of who the audience is. The evangelical fundamentalists (who the author takes prime issue with) will not read it. Their arguments are dissected and disproven rationally, which, as the author concedes, is antithetical to how the fundamentalist mind even conceives of their own ideas, which are based on faith. Because of this, I find some of the arguments pointing out the ludicrous nature of the biblical myths unhelpful and lacking new ideas. On the other hand, the atheists or agnostics who read this will not necessarily be provided with any new tools or ideas. But at times, the way the author states a point is a home run, something that you can keep in your pocket for later.
What I did appreciate was the author’s depiction of a “post-cultural” society. He argues, boldly and almost uncomfortably, that distinctions of culture lead to fundamentalism and the “illusion of certainty”. That to be bigger and more objective we must move beyond these distinctions.
Definitely worth a read, but it’s mostly just to provide your own arguments against fundamentalism with a little more meat.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews