I attended the "Science and Religion" symposium held in Atlanta in 2001 and it was excellent. But this book is much more than a mere summary of the symposium. The book also includes many contributions by authors who did not attend, such as a chapter on Nonoverlapping Magisteria by the late Stephen Jay Gould and a chapter on Intelligent design by William A. Dembski.

At issue is whether religion and science have anything to say to each other and what happens when they tread on each other's turf. It has been argued that science has no business intruding into the realm of religion. But the nature of "science" is poorly understood by many people. It is not a body of knowledge, but rather a means of acquiring knowledge. Some religious claims cannot be be addressed by science because no means are available to investigate them. But on those issues where a means does exist, science has consistently forced religion to retreat and revise itself.

This book should be required reading by any school granting degrees in science, and it should be placed in every high school library.

Science and religion are NOT "Nonoverlapping Magisteria." Religion does make claims that science can neither rebut nor even investigate. But it also makes claims that can be and have been disproven. Either the transportation of a Catholic saint/goddess directly to the sky without passing GO and without collecting $... was a verifiable fact of history, or it did not happen. The dogma that a god played a role in the origin of the universe is religion, and as such is not subject to scientific investigation. The claim that the universe is less than ten thousand years old has nothing to do with religion. It is bad science.
But dogmatic religion is one thing. The belief that the universe was intelligently designed, but not necessarily by the god of religion, is something else. Arguments for Intelligent Design are presented by believers, and rebutted by scientists.
Why is belief in religion so much higher among the less educated, and so much lower among natural scientists? More than one author offers a credible answer.
Other books have considered the question of whether science and religion are compatible, but never so effectively. While "Science and Religion" will not cure incurables, it will give the pragmatically religious something to think about. Buy it or borrow it, but read it.

This aptly titled work carries an idea (all thy titles thou hast given away), and an implied challenge. In a period when a postmodern traffic jam of formerly modern millies and New Age bedouins and their high-priced gurus have changed the course of history in favor of more exciting Spenglerian fare, the gesture of invoking a renewed project, toward a new Enlightenment, represents a brave effort to go down fighting, or else simply stand and watch the frittering away of a significant heritage, suddenly defenseless against the triumph of new obscurantisms. But then the Enlightenment proposed would hope to bypass the splitting dialectic in the original project, well indicated in the original query of Kant. One need not agree with the actual proposals of this viewpoint then to see the cogency of the idea. Nor does a now defenseless rationalist need to feel put upon in an environment of pompously 'enlightened' New Age pied pipers, for the issue of the Enlightenment remains to haunt its wiseacres. And of course a dozen meanings certainly not intended by the author have already been three-card monte-ed onto the term, and the question of Kant. Like the sufi tale of the crows and the sweet pie, the very notion is almost stolen merchandise. One problem is, how would we initiate social change along these lines? Wasn't Marx a dabbler in this field? Seize the bull by the horns and start a social movement-no, the New Agers have filled the void.
More directly, I found the essays in this book to be a useful and ironic commentary on the past generation's confusion, and the amnesia about modernism its detractors need to repropose a new social conditioning. While I would find the skeptical humanism proposed not quite to my taste and too limited to withstand the predestigators now at work, and a bit underpowered in the flood of substitute sugars flooding the market, its basic gist confronts the postmodern entropies with quite a direct dialectical 'quo vadis'.

I loved his earlier book -in defence of secular humanism .this cotinuation of the same with greater clarity and flair . must read to better understand our life`predicament I wish Icould meet the proffesor and discuss with him .

Sidney Hook was an outstanding philosopher who tried to fashion a synthesis of Marxism and Dewey's pragmatism. But his most important work was as a defender of the values of a free society against totalitarian ideologies.

This posthumous collection of essays contains Hook's reflections on a range of public policy questions, from an essay on euthanasia (which, while I do not agree with his conclusion, is a most moving account of his closeness to death) to a characteristically robust defence of the western enlightenment tradition against the educational obscurantists who would misunderstand it as 'eurocentric' and 'imperialist'. What shines through the book - especially in a gem of an essay in which he patiently explains to the pseudo-historian Howard Zinn why an imperfect liberal democracy has immeasurably great merits that are worth defending - is Hook's belief in the power of human reason applied to human affairs, tempered by his insistence on the necessity of constitutional government to protect us from the arbitrary power of totalitarian ideologies. A fine testament to a great man.

In this eloquent little book, Paul Kurtz expounds upon the three core values of secular humanism: courage, cognition, and caring. The section on cognition can be somewhat heavy going at points for non-philosophers (and frankly I disagree very much with the pragmatic emphasis) but most of the book reads like a sermon. This book offers inspiration without appeal to religion, and will challenge those who think atheists cannot have high standards of personal conduct and civic duty.

In Paul Kurtz's view, the new skepticism differs from earlier forms of skepticism because the new motivation is unbiased inquiry into what knowledge is reliable, not, as previously, primarily into raising doubt.

Professor Kurtz comprehensively explores every branch and cranney of how we can reliably know what is what. And does it so very throughly that this book could very well serve as a college or seminary text book on epistemology. He does not limit the inquiry to the standard religious conumdrums, but covers also the limits of science; political doctrines such as 'all men created equal'; and how bolsivick Markism with it's dictatorial impositions, differed from Karl Mark's democratic values and objectives, though both had the same outcome of yielding impoverishment and loss of freedom instead of prosperity.

College debate teams could benefit greatly by reading this book to find ammunition against dogmatic assertions. Churchmen seriously interested in questions about faith will find it useful without equal, so far as I know. As for rating The New Skepticism I give it a five star rank only because there is not a higher level in the scale since it deserves more stars.. It is top quality scholarship, believe it. Prof Kurtz anticipates every possible pro and every possible con. Saving a reader a lifetime of floundering on his own while searching for what knowledge is reliable.

The text is divided into four main sections. Part one reviws skepticism of the past starting with classical Greeks, through Renaissance and Reformatin, Descartes and Hume and continues with modern Pragmatism and post-modern critics.

Part two covers "Inquiry and Objectivity", finding that classical skepticism is no longer viable. " Beliefs should in principal be considered to be hypotheses, that is, they should not be taken as final or absolutely fixed or beyond revision or modification. Hypotheses should be viewed as working idas or proposals that need verification." " A theist saying that 'God exists' is makinfg a factual claim which by defination is non-factual in that God exceeds the category of observable fact." Failed systems include the 'big-bang theory, the teological arguement, and the question of whether or not there is evil.

Part three involves how people usually come to have their unreasonable beliefs. Most people are bred to a religion , not converted to a creed or doctrine. For most people, a belief does not have to be tru in order to be believed. There are so very many examples in history, including, flying saucers, that they constitute the very fabric of existence. Weare all trapped in our cultural heritage. What ought to be cannot be deducd from what is. But Prof. Kurtz finds that thought alone cannot and should not dominate everything. There is room for aescetic beauty and being inspired by ethical ideals. Life itself needs no justification beyond itself.

Part four shows why historical skepticism is profoundly mistaken to deny that values are amenable to cognitive criticism. or that standards of objectivity can be discovered.

Newly found scientific discoveries, 'an embarrassment of riches' are so voluminous that no single individual can review it or manage it. A new branch of academic study, Eupraxophy, is proposed. Specialists have so sub-divided subject matters that experts are often unable to communicate to other fields and sub-fields. What is needed is generalists working with other generalists to find common concepts and develop general systems theory that cut across fields and seem reliable. This is a valuable book to be kept handy as a reference.

Paul Kurtz edits Skeptical Odysseys, a vivid collection of personal accounts by the world's paranormal inquirers. This gathers the personal statements and views of the leading skeptics of the world, considering paranormal and spiritual claims and including a healthy dose of autobiography as well as reflections on paranormal research and theories. The list of distinguished contributors sets this apart from others.

Paul Kurtz is the founder of Prometheus Books, the premier publishing house for humanist, freethought, and rationalist publishing. In Skepticism And Humanism: The New Paradigm, Kurtz addresses the fundamental issues of how scientific naturalism, rational thought, and secular humanism contribute to the new global civilization that is emerging today with all its painful adjustments, changes, and challenges. A very strongly recommended acquisition for personal, academic, and community library freethought reading lists and humanist philosophy collections, Skepticism And Humanism comprises 31 chapters devoted to core considerations ranging from "Antiscience Paradigms" to "The Evolution of Contemporary Humanism". Also highly recommended is Toward A New Enlightenment: The Philosophy Of Paul Kurtz.

Obviously favors skepticism, but nonetheless is considerate and thorough. Includes both contemporary and historical essays, articles and papers divided into the following sections: Historical Overviews, The Argument from Fraud, Parapsychologists Reply, Parapsychology: Science or Pseudo-Science, Some Methodological and Theoretical Issues, and Further Critiques. Contributor's include Ray Hyman, C.E.M. Hansel, Martin Gardner, James Randi, James Alcock, John Beloff, Susan Blackmore, E.J. Dingwall, Trevor H. Hall, Antony Flew and more. Should be on anyone's shelf who has an interest in parapsychology or the paranormal.

The late Dr. Asimov's clear wit and wisdom is taken to bear here on fools and the future. He begins by excoriating "Religious Radicals," in harsh liberal prose that seems rather outdated today. (For instance, there is a chapter called "The Reagan Doctrine" that pokes fun at tactics Ronald Reagan used in battling the Soviet empire.) Other chapters are also dated, including several chapters on environmental predictions that are informed by distinctly Malthusian notions of supply shortages. (To wit, "And in the mad scramble for food on your part and on the part of billions of others, the people of eath will further damage the world they live in and will begin to fight each other over scraps.") Still, Asimov writes lucidly on science in a number of historical and opinion pieces, which are carefully reasoned. Five essays at the book's end give perspective to the late thinker's personal life, and a number of inserted memorials (new to this edition) from other prominent scientists and science fiction authors really round out a book that shows Asimov's incomparable breadth of interest. The "Roving Mind" of the title is Asimov's own intellect; any thoughtful reader will find his own mind broadened for having read it.

Isaac Asimov was probably the best person ever to write science fiction. He was also one of the best people to ever write science fact. His death in 1992 was a great loss to the world.

This book provides a good look into how Isaac Asimov thought about various issues. With all the problems in the world, the views of Asimov might help to make the world a bit more logical place if we pay attention to him.

Nations represent the uniqueness of thier people. Should all people of this world conform to one way of life?
also, consider the economic consequences

I am confused by some of the reviews. Many seem to think that their not agreeing with a philosophy is grounds to say that you should not read this book. I find that rather upsetting. I would not say that the Bible is a bad book just because I don't believe in god. Unfortunatly, now that I have said this, the same type of people who wrote the reviews I speak of will give me bad ratings because they do not agree with what I say, not based on the content of my review.
The bottom line is, if you are interested in learning more about Humanism, whether to defend or attack it, this is the book for you, it gives a good summary of the Humanist view of things, in a short and to the point pamphlet. But when you are reading, please remember, just because you do not agree with me is no reason to insult my character, and it is same with this book.

This is a small but thought provoking book that deserves wider attention than it will undoubtedly get.

Humanist Manifesto is a summary of a humanist based ethical system that could be used to guide our actions in putting our species into a more peaceful and just course of action. Kurtz' organizes the principle clearly and they are compelling. Little argument is marshalled, wisely leaving the reader to figure out how it could be implemented, both in his own life and that of society as a whole. Yes, it is idealistic and envisions worldwide institutions to support improvements, but the vision is so clear and simple that the reader can actually believe that much maligned scientific naturalism could be the basis for a compelling ethical system.

Excellent for humanists who may need to be reminded that their chosen life view is a powerful tool for changing the world for the better, as well as for those who do not share that world view and need an introduction to a positive ethical framework.

Highly recommended!