I liked the first half of the book enormously, but my enthusiasm reduced a little as I read on. I ended up with some criticisms. On the whole, I think it is good, but it could have been a lot better.
The title of the book is a direct quotation from Lewis Carroll:
"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
One of my minor disappointments was that Wolpert doesn't draw enough attention to the perversity of this "six impossible things" comment. Carroll makes his White Queen proud of believing impossible things and that is a feature of many passionate believers. "Any fool," says the fundamentalist "can believe things that are possible, but it takes hard work and talent to believe the impossible."
In discussing human beliefs Wolpert makes too little of the fact that many systems of belief seem to praise and honour adherents who are passionate in their belief of impossible things. This applies most of all to political and religious systems.
The devotion to Big Brother expected of the citizens in 1984 is a marvellous example of this zealotry. We might assume that the man at the top is free of the delusion he requires of the junior ranks. And yet, in 1984, it seems possible that O'Brien really is a true believer at heart. The massive irony is that his job includes fabricating the lies that other citizens have to believe.
And it does not happen only in fiction. The Catholic Church, the Stalinist state, the world of advertising, spin and PR are all examples of situations in which zealous belief is sometimes valued, apparently, at the expense of sanity.
And another thing: earlier on the White Queen has said to Alice: "I wish I could manage to be glad! Only I never can remember the rule." And maybe that is a key thing for belief - beliefs make us glad.
(I am inordinately fond of Alice - perhaps Dodgson was too - and I feel many of the White Queen's words, though quite mad, have enormous depths.)
I wish Wolpert had put more effort into exploring the reasons for rationality being so vulnerable in human culture. Even more, I wanted to hear any ideas he had on reducing that vulnerability.
However, that's just a peeve. There was a lot I liked about the book. It brings together a lot of ideas, many based on research results and summarises them well. It describes the implications of a whole range of work, most of it recent. Many of the experiments are subtle and clever. The progress made in the twentieth century was huge on several fronts.
It is an honest and open book. He explains his own position - atheist Jewish scientist - and freely admits that some of his idea may be prejudiced by his personal biases and beliefs. To that extent, he is humble.
Many of the ideas he presents are ideas I can readily agree with. The general thrust of his thinking is, for me, both exciting and convincing.
It is easy to read and assimilate, despite the fact that the ideas come from a huge range of sources and disciplines. Also, some of the ideas are intrinsically difficult and complicated, yet he explains them carefully and fluently.
It is well worth reading, especially if your interests are wide. Perhaps it is a book for Alice in Wander Land, a book for those who wander, rather than just going where authority tells them. And not everyone who wanders is lost.