We Are Not Saved

I was promised useful stories to assist me in a quest for justified belief. Instead I got a lesson in the limits of expertise. Unfortunately it was the author's expertise that was limited. 
Knowing Our Limits
By: Nathan Ballantyne
Published: 2019
344 Pages

Briefly, what is this book about?
Regulative epistemology as opposed to descriptive epistemology. Put more simply, this is about how to find truth, as opposed to how to define truth. Though because the author recommends having very high standards, you may come away from the book thinking that there is no truth. That is not Ballantyne's intent, but most of his guidance revolves around less confidence rather than more confidence.
There is some good stuff about tolerance, and the utility of doubt. And while I take issue with some of what he says on the subject of expertise, he covers the subject exhaustively and thought-provokingly.
What authorial biases should I be aware of?
Ballantyne isn't just interested in epistemology. He doesn't dabble in it. He is epistemology, or rather an epistemologist. Accordingly, even though it's apparent that he's trying really, really hard to not make the book overly academic, it's still pretty academic. For example:
If an undefeated defeater for believing p were included in the evidence I don't have, then I (probably) would have heard of it by now. But I have not heard of it and the "silence" gives me reason to think that the unpossessed defeater is probably defeated.
He's a big fan of the word defeater, and various constructions involving the word. In the course of a few pages he uses the term "defeater-defeater" seventeen times.
Who should read this book?
Epistemological collapse is the major crisis of our time, so on some level it's probably useful to read everything you can get your hands on. (Which was my big reason for reading it.) But, as much as I crap on Yudkowsky's Rationality: From AI to Zombies I'd probably read his chapters on Bayes' Theorem before reading this. 
I heard about the book on Jesse Singal's substack. He was much more bullish on it. So you might read that if you're interested or on the fence.
Specific thoughts: Lots of epistemic tools, Ballantyne really only covers one

The Westmark Trilogy by: Lloyd Alexander

RoadKill by: Dennis E. Taylor

Slicing Pie Handbook: Perfectly Fair Equity Splits for Bootstrapped Startups by: Mike Moyer

Fables for Young Wolves by: Thomas O. Bethlehem

Would you like some genetics in your politics?
The Origin of Politics: How Evolution and Ideology Shape the Fate of Nations – Social Disintegration, Birth Rates, and the Path to Extinction
By: Nicholas Wade
Published: 2025
256 Pages

Briefly, what is this book about?
Wade offers up an evolutionary psychology account of how to make politics actually function; how, when you try to disconnect politics and the exercise of power from core human nature, as shaped by evolution, things go off the rails. 
What authorial biases should I be aware of?
Nicholas Wade worked as a science writer for the NYT for 30 years. For the bulk of those years he was the science and health editor. He left the paper in 2012 and in 2014 he published A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History. The book argued that human evolution is ongoing and that it has been "recent, copious, and regional". The regional part got him "cancelled" or at least it attracted a lot of negative attention, since it implied that differing national outcomes might be partly genetic in nature rather than wholly the result of chance, culture, or colonization. 
Who should read this book?
If you're looking for a strong pushback against blank-slateism along with a defense of the traditional nation-state (and of tradition in general). Or if you're looking for another reason to worry about decreasing fertility. 
What does the book have to say about the future?
The aforementioned fertility decline looms large in his warnings about the future, but as I mentioned he also warns about any policy that tries to exercise power in ignorance of evolutionary drives. One of the major drives is tribalism and immigration directly conflicts with that instinct. All of this points to the potential for a demographically declining society with lots of disorder. 
Specific thoughts: Children are the ultimate civilizational scorecard

I feel like I should make some clever connection between this book and the discussion which raged about the Shroud of Turin, but nothing occurs to me.
A Case for Latter-day Christianity: Evidences for the Restoration of the New Testament's "Mere" Christian Church
By: Robert Starling
Published: 2019
360 Pages

Briefly, what is this book about?
A broad, and intensive defense of the theology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). With a special focus on tying that theology to the theology of the early Christian Church. As such it spends a lot of time examining differences between LDS theology and other Christian denominations (things like the Trinity, Grace, The Book of Mormon, etc.) and how those differences look in relation to actual scripture.
What authorial biases should I be aware of?
Starling has obviously been compiling stuff and working the "Mormons are Christians" beat for a long time. Which is to say he definitely has a dog in the fight. This gives the work a somewhat tendentious tinge. 
What about my biases?
I met Starling at a conference and he asked me to read his book. Outside of that meeting and a follow-up email he sent me there hasn't been any further interaction. So I wouldn't say we were close. I am however pretty close to the topic of "Latter-day Christianity", so that's a pretty big bias. 
Who should read this book?
Anyone who wants to see the comprehensive case for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints being the same Church Jesus Christ established in the 1st Century.  
Specific thoughts: Who is this book for?

In which I mostly talk about the Shroud of Turin. Murray only spends seven pages on the it, so my review is not comprehensive. Actually, never mind. That's what the top sections are for.
Taking Religion Seriously
By: Charles Murray
Published: 2025
152 Pages

Briefly, what is this book about?
Murray's journey from agnosticism to belief, a journey that is largely intellectual rather than spiritual. Because it was largely intellectual, it's also more explicable. This allows Murray to write a different sort of conversion story, one that's more amenable to being mapped out as a straightforward guide with sources and citations.
What authorial biases should I be aware of?
Murray has been a libertarian thinker for decades, though he's probably best known for The Bell Curve which he co-authored. So Murray is approaching things from a conservative/libertarian milieu. That said, it's a very balanced book. When he provides his sources for a particular idea he also includes sources that are critical of that idea.
Who should read this book?
I've read a lot of books that fall in this general area. Too many to list (consider The New Testament in Its World, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith and Believe just in the last six months) I would read Murray before reading any of them. It's clear, comprehensive, short, and meaty. Even if you're a raging atheist I would read this book because it's the quickest way to understand your opponents' best arguments.
Specific thoughts: The surprising strength of the Shroud of Turin