Humprhey's book is easily the most eloquent, well researched, and thoughtful exploration of the human experience of spirituality that I have read. This text explores the psychology of religion in a way that sheds light on the phenomena while managing not to alienate those who believe.

A nice little primer on why humans continue to believe in the supernatural and various parapsychological powers and abilities. The focus of the book is primarily on logic -- refuting such beliefs through a systematic, logical approach to understanding the universe -- and does not focus much on specifics; it's a very short book and personally I would have liked more detail, but I guess that wasn't the author's approach, and he's pretty good at what he does focus on. My favorite part was something totally new to me -- how Jesus can be seen to figure into a long line of middle eastern magicians and charlatans, and how the concept that he was "preordained" as the Messiah could in fact have created the belief in him, and helped him in his supposed "miracles". This section in particular was quite compelling. A really solid book, and through the references and copious footnotes, I found a lot of other books dealing with similar issues or parts of the arguments to add to my list...

Some interesting points are made but much of this book is unfocused and difficult to follow. Humphrey relies heavily on quotations from writers/thinkers/scientists which do little to enhance his ideas or help the reader understand where he is going.

I am not sure who the audience for this book is. Someone who has already read things like "The God Delusion" or "God is Not Great" will see this as a step back. Someone who is entrenched in their faith will not be swayed by the arguments presented here. I guess a person who is beginning to feel stirrings of uncertainty in their faith and the paranormal could use it as a stepping stone on their way toward atheism.

A very good, though not exhaustive, look at miracles and other inexplicable phenomenon such as telepathy. Humphrey essentially denies supernatural cause of any kind. His primary arguments are
1) correlation is not causation (when I know what you are thinking it does not automatically follow that I used telepathy)
2) Being unable to identify a rational cause does not mean there is no rational cause.
Good arguments. He is, however, a bit disingenuous in his choice of examples, picking relatively mundane examples that can easily be debunked, while dodging the really big questions that plague science: the big bang, the anthropomorphic universe, life, consciousness, self-awareness, qualia...

I would point out that when a "scientist" speaks of our Universe being one of billions or trillions to explain its existence against improbable odds (Impossible odds, truly), he is reaching squarely into the realm of faith. When one says "I cannot see it or test it. It has no location or velocity. No physical existence whatsoever that I can possibly detect, but that is what caused our Universe." That is pure faith without a shred of scientific backing. Leaps of Faith indeed.