As John Humphrys says, that’s ‘funny and profound in the same breath’. I wish the same could be said for In God We Doubt, a book that does the Today programme inquisitor we all so admire no favours at all.
Not long ago, Humphrys presented a radio series, Humphrys in Search of God, in which he interviewed a number of senior religious figures and invited them once and for all to persuade him, live on air, of the existence of the Almighty. Oddly enough, they failed. But the programme earned him the biggest post-bag of his career and so In God We Doubt — a book-length shrug of the shoulders — is his follow-up.
He begins with some musings about the Big Questions, enlivened by a personal sketch of his dutiful, church-going childhood. Then he makes the reasonable point that the Enlightenment has failed to kill off religious faith, and that the angry thunderings of Dawkins, Hitchens and Onfray don’t address the enduring human disposition to belief.



Comments
Necray
December 29th, 2008 5:37amNo matter how solid is the proof, you won't believe unless you want to believe. No use inviting theologians to convert you on air . The only person who can convert you is you yourself.
Report this comment
tim clark
October 3rd, 2007 5:23pmWhat an exceptionally good review! Many thanks. There are so many foggy arguments/preferences drifting around these huge questions that a book from a Famous Name that adds to the murk is no help at all. I wish I could have thought of the final comment about the difference between knowing what you like in art, and presuming to be an art gallery guide. Art galleries, and increasingly the arguments around God/no God, are both full of such people.
Report this comment
okok
October 1st, 2007 10:59amok
Report this comment
Peter Reeve
September 30th, 2007 5:58amThis is the most entertaining review I've read for a very long time. The bits about Titanic, and the three things with four bullet points -- can they really be true? I'm almost tempted to read the book to see if it's as hilariously bad as the review suggests. Almost.
Report this comment
JohnM
September 28th, 2007 10:04pmAt the end of the day, you can't prove Maths either. The best you can achieve is given certain Axioms, a given theory is true.
Report this comment
Mark Goodall
September 28th, 2007 3:33pmI have always felt Humphrys was a lightweight when dealing with light subjects, when things get heavy he hasn't a hope and this very funny and intelligent review confirms all of my opinions about him, which are he is nice ( while trying to be abrasive ) but dim.
Report this comment