felt. He is critical of psychologising New Age “spirituality” and asserts the importance of retaining the religious traditions: despite the fact that organised religions tend to become violent, we are better to stick with them rather than abandon them and start again. Religion is an expression of violence, but not the cause, and Churches and tradition are “the repository of a wisdom that any one life could not hope to sift and accumulate”. This is true not only of the Abrahamic traditions but also the great traditions of the East.

On the other hand, the author also consistently eschews scientistic reductionism. He rejects the conflict reading of the science-­religion relationship and prefers a complementarity approach. Nirvana and ­spiritual experience cannot simply be reduced to their neuro-physiological substrate. Atheist construals of Darwinism are overplayed, and our culture is misdirected in its desire to want to explain every aspect of being human (including religiosity) in terms of Darwinian theory.

But notwithstanding his sympathy for some forms of religion, Vernon occupies an agnostic position. The sacred does not disappear with the disappearance of traditional religion: there is still great art and human relationships, and the universe itself is sacred. Prayer doesn’t change God’s will, but can be a form of self-exploration similar to mindfulness meditation. Materialism is a scientific “myth” and it should not be supposed that the view of reality which science has is truer than that of a religious tradition, but rather there should be dialogue.

In his treatment of Confucianism, Vernon shows himself favourable to the “Gaia” hypothesis and he discusses animism sympathetically, apparently treating it as merely different from science rather than in competition with it. He supposes that there can be a natural foundation for morality. He takes the concept of Original Sin seriously, however, and considers the merits of some of its secular equivalents. At times he seems (despite his Humean sympathies) to point vaguely towards a notion of objective good, at least in the case of art and moral heroism, although he also vacillates, saying that it may be harder to be good without God.

Vernon’s search for an agnostic middle position is very similar in God: all that matters. Once again he defends analogical talk about God, justifying the former against accusations that it is a form of “theological bullshit”. He tends to agree with philosopher John Cottingham that suffering may possibly be “uncomfortably defended” within a theistic perspective if it is construed as a result of ­necessary constraints on God’s creative action. His more settled position seems, however, to be that reflecting on it enables us to deepen our understanding of what it is to be human, which may “offer dignity, if not release”.

He also has a semi-sympathetic consideration of Don Cupitt’s anti-realist treatment of God as a secular moral ideal, but has his (agnostic) reservations: it may in turn offer unwarranted consolation in dogmatically putting our sceptical worries to rest prematurely. There is a sympathetic treatment of Taoist teachings on non-assertive action, and Taoism’s non-anthropomorphic approach (although he might have devoted more space to the comparison with Abrahamic views about stewardship of nature).

He offers an interesting survey of secular “eschatological” views, touching on the ­“singularity” theory that in the near future a huge computer with God-like intelligence will come into being. He also has a nice account of game-theory-influenced ideas about moral progress (about which he is doubtful): for instance, Martin Seligman’s hope that through the effects of win-win, human evolution will result in greater and greater goodness, producing if not God then “perhaps … a point when all is good”. In the appendix to the book, Vernon has a useful section on relevant books, films, websites and even places to visit.

Sometimes Vernon’s arguments can feel a bit brisk, and it is natural that in such concise but also wide-ranging treatments the author cannot do everything. These two books are, however, very accessible and readable (the tone is conversational), and Vernon has an admirable flair for illustrating his points through references to contemporary popular culture: he can see a popular British TV series as evidence of the God-shaped hole, trace an implicit spirituality in Philip Pullman’s New Statesman articles, and make astute philosophical points about, for instance, the use of the word “spiritual” in the Body Shop’s Body Care Manual. Vernon’s books do as they say – they take religious traditions and practice seriously, confront the central issues that ­matter most to humans, and nurture searchers, enquirers and the curious in their questioning and contemplation.