http://www.newscientist.com/special/god, or there's still time to actually buy a copy!
There are interesting articles declaring that we are all born with a "God-shaped space just waiting to be filled by religion" and that religious societies tend to last longer than secular ones because of the paranoia generated by the belief that we are constantly under surveillance by a supreme and potentially wrathful being who can even monitor our thoughts and punish us accordingly, which helps to keep us behaving like model citizens and also allows us to place more trust in strangers who engage in our popular rituals. This, apparently, allowed us to create complex civilizations rather than remain hunter-gatherers.
What I did find a little disappointing was a seemingly promising article declaring God to be a "testable hypothesis"(pp 46-47). "At last!" I thought, "This will be a balanced, scientific account which will begin to settle some of the polarised disputes between the Dawkins camp and the inhabitants of LaLa land by presenting a third and overarching hypothesis that will set science and religion in a broader context and thereby cut through some of the prejudice inherent in both."
Sadly, the article was written by a self-confessed atheist who set about "scientifically" disproving some of the peripheral nonsense generated by organised religions; arguing that - from the lack of evidence that, for example, prayers heal people, or that God has directly spoken to anyone, or that the universe is fine-tuned for human life, or that we have souls, etc. - "we can conclude that the universe and life look exactly as they would be expected to look if there were no God." Well duh.
It also looks exactly as it would be expected to look if it were a continually arising holographic simulation generated by a self-aware quantum computer, and in which human brains are devices capable of collapsing wave functions within an infinite sea of probabilities in order to generate co-created versions of percieived reality, but sadly none of the implications of relativity, quantum physics, or holographic theory got a mention.
Having resigned myself to the inevitability of the baby being flung out with the bath water yet again, I had to agree with the author's final statement that: "Blind faith is no way to run a world," and was therefore surprised by his apparent faith in modern cosmology which "Suggests an eternal 'multiverse' in which many other universes come and go," and which of course we have less chance of proving or disproving than the existence of the hypothetical almighty!