This book by Mr. Alper is a wonderful tale of a personal spiritual journey written by an intelligent, honest person. But, although I agree with the conclusion that no gods exist if we can only have knowledge of "things as we perceive them," I do not agree with Kantian metaphysics (i.e., subjectivism).
Alper argues that because human reason is not adequate to provide us with objective knowledge of reality, a god or gods probably does not exist (this is a summary, his writing is much more eloquent). Again, I agree that no gods exist, but not because humans are incapable of answering that question, but because we are (in other words, I adhere to Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology).
Alper's argument is well written, and is an important contirbution to religious and atheistic literature. But his conclusions are based on bad metaphysics. I also think his conclusion could be turned around: If objective knowledge is not possible for humans, yet we have a bend toward some kind of vague "spirituality," then doesn't that constitute 'prima facie' evidence that a spiritual realm exists?
Of course, Alper would be correct in saying that that means no religion is capable of "Truth," but on a "subjectivist" view, neither is Alper. This book is great as a description of a personal journey, that is why it got 4 stars. But for an argument for atheism, or even a discussion of the limits of human knowledge and religion, turn to "Atheism: the case against God," or "Objectivism: the philosophy of Ayn Rand."
