It seems that Michael Shermer has released a new book. Has anyone here read it? Good or bad? Here is how he describes it:

We can’t help believing. Our brains evolved to connect the dots of our world into meaningful patterns that explain why things happen. These meaningful patterns become beliefs. Once beliefs are formed the brain begins to look for and find confirmatory evidence in support of those beliefs, which adds an emotional boost of further confidence in the beliefs and thereby accelerates the process of reinforcing them, and round and round the process goes in a positive feedback loop of belief confirmation. Dr. Shermer outlines the numerous cognitive tools our brains engage to reinforce our beliefs as truths and to insure that we are always right.

Interlaced with his theory of belief, Dr. Shermer provides countless real-world examples of belief from all realms of life, and in the end he demonstrates why science is the best tool ever devised to determine whether or not a belief matches reality.

Haven't read this one, I've read 3 or 4 of his, I like him and his work. I thought this came out awhile back??

On June 9, 2011, the Center for Inquiry-New York City and NYC Skeptics hosted noted skeptic and bestselling author Michael Shermer for a talk about his new book, "The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies—How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths." The event was held at the Auditorium on Broadway. This is the full video, including both the talk and question-and-answer session.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqAwfv3HYGo[/youtube]

I haven't read this book yet, but am planning to do so (after I slog through the pile of 30 or 40 books on my bed table...and on the bed and piled on the floor and.....). I've read other books & articles by Dr. Shermer and have found them eminently comprehensible. He explains complicated concepts in plain, common-sense ways that average folks like me can understand. His body of work has greatly added to the armor of rational thinking necessary to fight the rising tide of kookiness which has spread like wildfire, especially since the advent of the internet.

I'm not too impressed with the content of the OP's quote of Michael Shermer. But I don't know him or have ever read something he wrote. That said,

From what I know belief is understood as the result of a subconscious irrational need for stress reduction - however small this need might be. The brain has a subconcious wishful "thinking" bias built-in to avoid stress (from fear)

example:
I ask you where your car is. You say "it's in the garage". I say "how do you know? ". You say: that's where I parked it. I say: "so you don't know, you just believe it's in the garage". You might say: "well, I have no reason to think otherwise"

While that last answer seems a reasonable justification, it is the product of the wishful thinking bias of the brain. To avoid stress the brain happily and uncritically makes that assumption, otherwise it will urge you to take a look in the garage. In fact, the brain often seems to prefer lying and cheating to itself, over checking something out. The brain seems to prefer to be lazy over being tired. Unless the situation indicates eminent danger (rationally: "physical damage" or, irrationally "damage to highly regarded ideas"). But this distinction I don't see Shermer make. Note that irrational percieved danger (to ideas) tend to result in ego defense mechanisms as Shermer implies with his positive feedback mechansisms

In short, the brain can believe anything as long as there's a need for stress reduction - and the justifications (either rational or not) follow from that. So far so good. However, describing this "stress reduction mechanism of the brain" as a "mechanism to create meaningful patterns" isn't exactly accurate. And claiming that once beliefs are established they always become positive feedback loops is missing an important distinction. Beliefs that are persistent develop, yes. But persistent beliefs develop because they're consciously and unconsciously tested. They're always "being tested", and only sometimes this testing qualifies as a "positive feedback mechanism" (the latter is often noticable in the case of defending religious belief)