Boyer presents evidence from many specialized disciplines including anthropology, cognitive science, linguistics, and evolutionary biology to support the idea that a naturalistic explanation of religion is possible.
Do I have to explain this one? I hate explaining the good ones… The human mind is predisposed toward seeing things that aren’t there — smiley faces in the sand, castles in the clouds, a “horsehead” nebula. If you see a cross in that photo, your mind is playing a trick on you.
It feels like a mystery book. I suppose there is mystery in religion, but a cross obviously relates to Christianity. The idea of a cityscape makes this title seem too much like a novel. It is pleasant to behold. Everything else is bit lost on me conceptually. Nice composition though.
I don’t think there is ‘anything else’ to lose. Its a cross in the cityscape. Finding religion inside the bounds of civilization. The ambiguity of faith in the fog. This cover hits the nail on the head (pun intended)
“Its a cross in the cityscape. Finding religion inside the bounds of civilization. The ambiguity of faith in the fog.”
I think these are all a designers way of seeing things—not a mass market way of seeing it. The book comes off as a dark novel. All those points are great but with a title like “RELIGION EXPLAINED”, that is not arrived at with this idea. I also think it is rather pigeon holed to use the CROSS as a universal symbol of religion. It looks like a Christian novel: “Finding Christ in Dark Time” would seem like a more appropriate title for this.
This does not take away from the graphic genius of this piece, but it’s worth stating in terms of considering a cover more than a pretty image—and rather something that does justice to the books subject.
I looked at God as an entity in the fog long before I became a designer… I don’t think this, of all the other covers we’ve posted here, is a very tough conceptual leap at a..
synopsis:
Do I have to explain this one? I hate explaining the good ones… The human mind is predisposed toward seeing things that aren’t there — smiley faces in the sand, castles in the clouds, a “horsehead” nebula. If you see a cross in that photo, your mind is playing a trick on you.
— Eric Jacobsen, 2008-03-24 13:08:00
(the cover from the previous post is basically the same trick)
— Eric J, 2008-03-23 11:20:00
Non-designer sez, “That’s a really lovely piece.”
— Lizzy, 2008-03-23 11:53:00
Is the cover photo looking up or down? Ithink it’s looking up. And who took it anyway?
— terry bigham, 2008-03-23 13:16:00
The wonderful, mysterious photo seems a bit at odds with the didactic title. Still though, I love this cover.
There’s a clip of Pascal Boyer from Jonathan Miller’s Brief History of Disbelief over at onegoodmove.org. Click the link below to check it out.
— link, 2008-03-23 13:24:00
the above link was cut off.
here it is again:
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2005/11/reexamining_rel.html
— PF, 2008-03-23 13:27:00
simple, powerful, wonderful
— Josh, 2008-03-24 00:34:00
Mysterious, beautiful, and direct.
— Blake, 2008-03-24 05:39:00
Oh no, my mind is playing a trick on me! :(
But yes, very lovely cover.
— Suzie, 2008-03-24 05:55:00
perfect! Is it one color?
— David Drummond, 2008-03-24 08:10:00
perfect! Is it one color?
— David Drummond, 2008-03-24 08:10:00
It feels like a mystery book. I suppose there is mystery in religion, but a cross obviously relates to Christianity. The idea of a cityscape makes this title seem too much like a novel. It is pleasant to behold. Everything else is bit lost on me conceptually. Nice composition though.
— Ian Shimkoviak, 2008-03-24 08:57:00
David: yes, it’s greyscale
— Eric J, 2008-03-24 10:03:00
I don’t think there is ‘anything else’ to lose. Its a cross in the cityscape. Finding religion inside the bounds of civilization. The ambiguity of faith in the fog. This cover hits the nail on the head (pun intended)
— Chris Papasadero / Fwis, 2008-03-24 10:05:00
The shape of an intersection is a cross. I’m not sure how that’s my mind playing tricks on me. The shape IS there.
— Isaac, 2008-03-24 12:36:00
Wicked!
— Luke Tonge, 2008-03-24 13:47:00
too bad Basic didn’t credit the designer.
— Jonathan, 2008-03-24 17:41:00
ugh, I’m sorry… not sure what happened to that, and I threw away my notes… watch this space
— Eric J, 2008-03-24 22:33:00
I like the text. The picture is rather a reach. I would like to see it in person though… I’m a sucker for B&W.
— C-Dog, 2008-03-25 01:03:00
“Its a cross in the cityscape. Finding religion inside the bounds of civilization. The ambiguity of faith in the fog.”
I think these are all a designers way of seeing things—not a mass market way of seeing it. The book comes off as a dark novel. All those points are great but with a title like “RELIGION EXPLAINED”, that is not arrived at with this idea. I also think it is rather pigeon holed to use the CROSS as a universal symbol of religion. It looks like a Christian novel: “Finding Christ in Dark Time” would seem like a more appropriate title for this.
This does not take away from the graphic genius of this piece, but it’s worth stating in terms of considering a cover more than a pretty image—and rather something that does justice to the books subject.
— Ian Shimkoviak, 2008-03-25 10:16:00
You’re right, Ian, the cross isn’t a universal symbol for religion.
What about this?:
http://cdn.overstock.com/images/products/L10281325aa.jpg
— PF, 2008-03-25 12:08:00
That would do it for me…
I was thinking an opium poppy…
— Ian Shimkoviak, 2008-03-26 08:21:00
I looked at God as an entity in the fog long before I became a designer… I don’t think this, of all the other covers we’ve posted here, is a very tough conceptual leap at a..
— Chris Papasadero / Fwis, 2008-04-11 12:51:00