Shermer's discussion of morality in this book is a continuation of that he started in How We Believe, though that book was less dry and more complete. Still, he bravely tackles morality with an approach not unlike Nietsche's (one must drop the crutch of religion and take responsibility for their own morals) only less angry and more scientific (hence the dryness). Shermer does do a fair job of trying to explain the beauty of individual moral responsibility, but the book concerns mainly the historical or 'evolutionary' explaination of morals, in that they serve a societal function. (A good companion book to this would be Sagan's Shadows Of Forgotten Ancestors.)
Shermer's lens seems greatly shaped by Darwin. That may be because one of his books between How We Believe and this on was In Darwin's Shadow (about Alfred Wallace), or perhaps Darwin's science is pretty solid stuff. At any rate, to apply a scientific approach to morality is to try and replace thousands of years of mythology which did the job until recently. Can morality be explained without religious ties? That's the interesting part of it.

I was going to give this book 4 stars because of the slight disappointment I had with Shermer's writing style, but the topic is so vast and this book gives one of the best discussions of it I've seen in a long time. So it's a Fiver!

A collection of 4 well-constructed and interesting essays about mythology and its relevance today.
Leeming moves beyond the mire of fundamentalism-bashing (a fun pastime nonetheless), and tries to frame mythic symbols as they may be evolving and expressing themselves in the modern world.
As a quick overview of mythology, this little book satisfies even the scholar, and as a delving into the rich study of myth this book satisfies even more.

The strongest and most interesting part of Leeming's method is the dialogue he creates between 'believers' of different myths.
For that alone makes this book great.

One may not agree with Moore's bull-in-a-china-shop style, but his points and questions about the Bush administration are fascinating, and for two reasons: 1) they are things that are unanswered, and 2) why doesn't anybody else in the news media ask these things or follow these stories? These are things that everyone asks themselves when listening to speeches by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, etc., because something just doesn't make sense, and these people seem to be consciously trying to confuse things even more.

Moore can't be brushed off. He provides facts, figures, and cites. And while the book is mildy humorous in its writing, it will disturb any American who believes in all the ideals that make us great.

Moore doesn't provide much in the way of answers, but his book sure opens the can of worms and throws away the lid. Read the book and start asking questions.

A good lesson I've learned (forgive me, I'm slow) is to check facts before believing sensationalism. I've enjoyed 'expose' books about the left and the right (I refuse to label myself as either because I think, like most americans probably do, that there are good points on both sides). But an error I've made is to believe what is written for the most part, because I actually had faith that publishers do fact-checking before printing something. Now, I understand that anecdotes usually are unprovable, but quoted facts and figures are.

So, when someone like Al Franken goes to the trouble to check facts and figures and finds that recent bestselling authors (and/or their ghostwriters) mis-quote, lie, and do other slimely things in print, I am ashamed for the publishing world.

Not that publishers and the media are saints, but I actually had some faith that they tried to be truthful. And when a fact is found to be false, they admit it. But my faith is shattered.

The American way blesses those like Al Franken who expose this stuff. Plus, he does it with a razor sharp wit. It is no wonder that this little guy is causing so much anger amongst the right wing group. They can't blow off being proven as liars. He should now write a book exposing the lies of the left's sensationalists.

Having devoured Campbell's work in the nineties, I'd almost given up on his unpublished essays and lectures ever seeing the light of day. Then came Thou Art That and now Myths Of Light. These books are just perfect echoes of Campbell's comparative conclusions, only more concise. After a lifetime of work, his lectures honed his thoughts into great clarity. These two books are actually great introductions to Campbell's thoughts and work. They touch here and there on historical evidence, but mainly stay in the line of clarifying what occident and orient mythology entails.
If you've been waiting a long time to read more Campbell, you'll have bought these books already. And if you haven't, you'll be very surpised.

Since it is impossible to separate Nietzsche's life from his philosophy, Safranski doesn't even try.
This is the best book on Nietzsche and his philosophy I've ever read.
Why? Because instead of trying to explain N's complicated philosophical ideas all by themselves (which invariably leads to many footnotes about N's life to try and clarify them), Safranski explains the evolution of N's philosophy along with his life. You cannot help but understand it in this way.

Lately I've been interested in the polemics of media. And others have been too, judging by the recent deluge of books on the matter.
I read Blinded By The Right and then Bias, both enjoyable reads but lacking something important--facts and figures. Those books were mainly anecdotal autobiographies with a few little axes to burn.

Then, Alterman comes along with facts to back up his stuff. A superior effort, by far!
The main problem with media polemics is the stare-in-your-eyes bluffing that the facts given are true, and when proof is requested all sorts of defensive mechanisms are thrown out: name calling, subject changing, fact spinning, martyrism, etc.
Alterman, though not entirely unbiased, does a better job with proving his point than anyone out there.

This book is exactly for those who are searching mystical routes and who are tired of the thousands of 'new-age' prophets/gurus/charlatans/seminars/retreats/etc. which never quite pan-out in providing satisfying answers or lasting usefulness.
Horgan investigates, intelligently, the most advanced theories of mysticism and talks with several very interesting people whose names you've heard (or even have read their work), but you're probably not familiar with exactly what they've done or are doing in mystical research.
To be sure, this book doesn't provide definite answers (otherwise it'd be the most important book in history), but it does point in the right direction and deflates many overblown theories to get to the common factors of mystical experiences. Essentially, you realize after reading this book that your common sense about mysticism is correct.

For those who've been searching through books, essays, talks, drugs, and the like for satori (enlightenment), this book does it all for you in one good sitting. It's a book you've been wishing someone would write.

Interesting read of Wallace, co-founder of the theory of evolution.
This book details Wallace's relationship with Darwin, his own evolutionary theory which 'evolved' toward spirituality, and his place in the science of the Victorian age. It attempts to clear many misconceptions about Wallace and delves heavily into what he actually wrote (he was very prolific).
The book is also interesting for Shermer's 'skeptical' take on writing a biography.

I agree with most of what Goldberg says, although some things are anecdotal or purposefully 'uncited' to protect people (I assume he means to protect those still working for CBS who want to speak but are afraid of repercussions, which is quite silly in the face of what he wants this book to do). It's a quick read, and an enjoyable balance to 'liberal' expose's like last years Blinded By The Right, even though that dealt with politics and Bias deals with news media.
I didn't like the constant use of exclamation points and italics throughout the book. It felt like Goldberg was shouting too much, and that makes things suspicious when one does that. I also kept wondering why this book focused so much on Dan Rather. Goldberg wholly admits that "The Dan" had him fired for speaking out, but it's petty to slam "The Dan" out of sour grapes.
Also, the constant attempt to 'label' everyone either liberal or conservative gets a little old. I'm sure there are quite a number of one-dimensional people in the news media who can be labeled as such, but I'm not sold that it's a majority and there's some pervasive clear-cut agenda by them.
Nonetheless, the 'liberal' slant to the newsmedia is obvious to anyone with a tv and it's interesting to see that someone from the 'inside', a journalist, is not allowed to report facts of industry self-investigation.