Sidney Hook's forceful defense of philosophical naturalism in "The Quest for Being" reveals both the strengths and limitations of mid-20th century secular rationalism. While Hook characterizes the contemporary religious revival as "a new failure of nerve" and intellectual panic, his ten-point naturalist framework contains significant weaknesses when scrutinized from religious and philosophical perspectives. Through systematic analysis of Hook's arguments - particularly his claims that religious experience lacks cognitive validity and that God's existence is logically equivalent to mythical entities like leprechauns - this investigation exposes unsubstantiated empirical assumptions about religious motivations, an oversimplified understanding of mystical experience, and problematic applications of verification theory. Hook contends that religious dogmas are logically inconsistent, infinitely malleable to practical needs, and inferior to scientific methodology as a path to knowledge. However, his sharp demarcation between scientific and religious methodology becomes blurred under careful scrutiny, particularly regarding high-level theoretical hypotheses in both domains. While Hook presents a clear articulation of naturalist philosophy, his categorical dismissal of religious knowledge and ontological reality reflects philosophical presuppositions rather than empirically demonstrable truths, leaving the fundamental divide between naturalist and religious worldviews unresolved through purely logical argumentation.