"Finally!" I thought when I heard about this book. Popular-level physics books commonly drench themselves in the "gee whiz" factors of science communication, talking about multiple universes and dimensions and time travel, and the end result being a lot of sparkle with little substance (think Michio Kaku, whose writings are a guilty pleasure of mine). That's all well and good, but sometimes what's needed most is to debunk popular misconceptions of science. Scores of anti-creationist books have been published, but so far as I know, Stenger's book "Quantum Gods" is the ONLY book-length critique of the abuse of quantum physics.
Stenger has 40 years of experience in particle physics research, so he's imminently qualified to take on quantum mysticists like Deepak Chopra and mystically-minded "physicists" like Amit Goswami and Fritjof Capra. Though it works well on its own, it's natural to think of this book as a sequel to his previous book, "God: The Failed Hypothesis". While that book took on the interventionist god of the Abrahamic religions, "Quantum Gods" targets the remainder: Hindus and Buddhists who think quantum physics will reconcile science and (their) religion, assorted New Agers, and namby-pamby "somethingists" (people who think there's "something out there", and are "spiritual but not religious"). Shimmied in awkwardly at the end are sophisticated Christian theologians who are aware of the pitfalls of the classic arguments for the Christian God and think the indeterminacy of quantum theory gives God a way to meddle in the physical world without being detected (*yawn*, the book could have done without that chapter).
Yet "Quantum Gods" has many saving graces. Stenger's interpretation of the laws of physics, potentially mind-blowing for me, is that impartiality or "point-of-view invariance" is the source of the major laws of physics, such as the law of conservation of energy. He also had the chutzpah to challenge the "wavicle" nature of photons, saying that in reality, photons are particles, not waves, and the wave-like properties they seem to have under some circumstances are the result of predictable statistical patterns of streams of particles.
Given everything I read in this book, I still find an educated layman's logical argument against quantum idealism more effective and direct: if it is true that "the mind creates reality", than the scientific method would have been fruitless from the beginning. It is part of Chopra and Goswami's narrative that deterministic science became arrogant and was overthrown by quantum mechanics, a la Kuhn's "paradigm shift". Yet the scientific method rests on replicability and peer review. If the mind creates reality, then scientific rivals would always get different results testing the same phenomenon, no matter how well their controls are. Quantum mechanics itself has been extremely well-verified from competing groups of physicists worldwide, so ironically, if quantum idealism were true, quantum mechanics could not be.
In the end, Stenger's book is a needed defense of reductionism, determinism, materialism, and the piercing insight of the scientific frame of mind.