It's always a treat to read a writer who engages in what he purports to refute. One other review on this site gave Carroll's book five stars for, in part, "not too much depth." No argument there. Depth seems a prerequisite to skepticism. So Carroll's credibility regarding such matters as Carl Jung's contributions to psychology is, as revealed by both his tone and his thin and selective support, reveal a writer in way over his head.In all, the work (like the website), reads more like a set of fundamentalist sermons warning congregations against temptations of the flesh than a demonstration of intellectual rigor. Merely claiming to be skeptical doesn't make one so.Ironically, this is a good book for learning how to be a skeptic in the same way that a book by Rush Limbaugh is a good way to learn how to be a leftist.The two stars are for: 1) Some laughs; 2) An engaging list of topics; 3) Occasional lucidity.