Product Description
A Lifelong Unbeliever Finds No Reason to Change His Mind
Are there any logical reasons to believe in God? Mathematician and bestselling author John Allen Paulos thinks not. In Irreligion he presents the case for his own worldview, organizing his book into twelve chapters that refute the twelve arguments most often put forward for believing in God’s existence. The latter arguments, Paulos relates in his characteristically lighthearted style, “range from what might be called golden oldies to those with a more contemporary beat. On the playlist are the firstcause argument, the argument from design, the ontological argument, arguments from faith and biblical codes, the argument from the anthropic principle, the moral universality argument, and others.” Interspersed among his twelve counterarguments are remarks on a variety of irreligious themes, ranging from the nature of miracles and creationist probability to cognitive illusions and prudential wagers. Special attention is paid to topics, arguments, and questions that spring from his incredulity “not only about religion but also about others’ credulity.” Despite the strong influence of his day job, Paulos says, there isn’t a single mathematical formula in the book.
|
|
 God is dead! Long live God! ( dalittrell )
God will exist as long as humans in their present form exist. God lives within the hearts and minds of humans. Whether God exists outside of our hearts and minds is what is at issue, and once again when the arguments are examined in some objective depth it becomes clear that, as Paulos puts it, they "just don't add up."
He formally presents a dozen arguments and finds them all wanting. He begins with the "first cause" argument, namely that everything must have a cause and that God is the first cause. This argument was refuted many centuries ago, mainly because it begs the question of what caused God? The obvious answer, God is the uncaused cause, or God caused himself, or God always existed, doesn't help since we could simply say the universe is uncaused, or that it always existed and leave a superfluous God out.
The second "classical" argument for the existence of God is the argument from design. This is the one creationists employ in their attempt to get around biological evolution. The world is too complex to have come about through the work of natural forces and/or it shows unmistakable signs of being designed. Therefore there has to be a designer and that designer is God. The problem with this argument is that what we think of as being "too complex" is more a statement about our lack of imagination than it is about anything else. The tendency for matter to self-organize along with the interplay of replication, mutation, and natural selection is more powerful in its ability to bring about complexity than our poor minds can imagine. Furthermore, the universe and its systems are not "designed." They evolve. The idea of a designer is an anthropomorphic notion alien to the way the universe works.
The third argument, which Paulos calls the argument from the anthropic principle, is basically a version of the argument from design. Here it is argued that the universe is just so perfectly fine-tuned for humans (or life) that it couldn't have come about by chance. Consequently there must be a fine-tuner and naturally that fine-tuner is God.
The fourth argument, the argument from being or ontology contends that God is the greatest and most perfect of all beings, and that one of the attributes of perfection is existence. Therefore God exists. I might say that an attribute of perfection is non-existence. Therefore God does not exist. The ontological argument is really a play on words and proves nothing. Or one could say, as Paulos reminds us, that the most perfect island (or most perfect anything) must exist since a necessary characteristic of perfection is existence.
Most of the other arguments are even less compelling than these hoary old deceivers. Take what Paulos calls the argument from coincidence:
"1. All these remarkable events happening at the same time can't be an accident.
2. There must be some reason for their coincidence.
3. That reason is God.
4. Therefore God exists."
Note that "1." is an unwarranted assumption, as is "2." "3." is an assertion which assumes that which is to be demonstrated. Paulos allows that this howler "is seldom made explicitly, but a number of common inane statements do more than hint at it." (p. 52)
What most of these arguments have in common is human incredulity. That is, what exists or has happened is just too, too much for us to accept without calling on some supernatural explanation, and that explanation is God. Therefore God exists as the explanation for everything we can't understand, which is an "argument" for God that Paulos doesn't consider specifically. It could even be said that as long as we are confronted with things we don't understand or events that are beyond our comprehension--that is, forever--God will necessarily exist as an explanation for these things and events. Therefore, you can't kill God. God is part of human nature. It could also be said that if God didn't exist, we'd have to invent Him. And it could be added that we did.
All in all this is a very readable introduction to a very slippery subject. Paulos is an engaging writer who knows how to entertain the reader. However, I was not quite so entertained here as I was with his A Mathematician Plays the Stock Market (2003) which I highly recommend. Probably I have been too much with the subject of arguments for and against God for too many years. For those of you interested in a more nuanced and deeper look at this subject you might want to read The Impossibility of God (2003) edited by Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier. Therein you will find that SOME Gods (that is, definitions of God) really are impossible in the same sense that there can't be an irresistible force and an immovable object, or a God that can do impossible things like squaring the circle.
Bottom line on all such philosophic adventures as far as I am concerned is this: you can't prove or disapprove supernatural things. Regardless, unlike Paulos, I am a deist, but as I like to say, the God I believe in is nothing like the usual ideas of God. In fact I guess I could say I believe in a God that represents what is beyond human understanding. Therefore I believe in a God about which nothing can be said.
|
 If you like logic and maths - maybe you will like this book ( suvrotica )
There is a whole lot that can be said on the topic of the neurological, psychological, and societal reasonings underpinning our faith in religion and god. Few of us are aware that the question whether there is a god, is a rather lofty logical and scientific question, and that surprisingly we have been conned to disbelieve the logical and scientific answers or the several twists that a non-answer provide. Paulos has to his credit several books where he has tried in his own ways to bring a little bit of mathematical background in the working of everyday life, and this book is in that direction.
I would say that he is still a bit hard to understand at times. Reading his books is a little like drinking a smoothie with small pieces of rocks in it. If you don't insist on chewing the rocks then you might drink to the dregs, but like most other, that choice isn't really for someone who picked up this book for trying to understand a complex question. I agree it is sometimes very hard to dumb down a complex argument, and thats why we are all encouraged to go to schools instead of madrasas, but even for the seasoned practitioner, it sometimes is hard to assimilate something that this book tries to address. Now I did mention that it is a smoothie for most parts - so you will still not feel totally at loss, but expect to spend a lot of time on chewing the small dense rocks.
I have seen a lot of people desperately try to explain the concept of relativity to lay people, and the recent flurry of books on quantum mechanics, goes to show that a lot of scientists and mathematicians are trying to educate the public by whatever means they have at their disposal. Its a little disconcerting that these books are not all well written and have the opposite effect of scaring people from exploring popular science avenues to explaining unpopular (hard) science. This book then should be treated as something that would require you the reader to spend a lot of time in really understanding what Paulos is trying to say.
This is also one of those books which probably unwittingly sells to the favorable audience. I know a lot of religious people have a knack for reading anything that hits the shelf, and if they are picking this book up, they better pick up some other books on science as well. You will need to spend a couple of matchsticks before you can find the torch that Paulos is trying to light your dark world with.
|
 the logician
Paulos is first rate. His humor and anecdotal style stands out - whether it be the stock market or religion, or Irreligion in this case, Paulos keeps me hooked. He is concise and precise as you might expect from a Math prof, but he really stands out for me as a logician, a rare quality in this world - a good read.
|
Fascinating but ultimately irrelevant
For over the past two thousand years, mathematical philosophy has sort of driven western philosophy generally.
By deliminating those things which could possibly be true, mathematics has informed us greatly about what therefore is.
It is with these observations in mind that I was particularly excited to read this book which is nothing less than a treatment of the twelve majors arguments that have been made over the past two thousand years for believing in the existence of God.
And interestingly enough, it's that very phrase "believing in the existence of God" which operates to befuddle the inquiry philosophically. That's because good mathematics, like good philosophy, informs us as to the demonstrable and the empirically provable.
However, by defination itself, faith in God is just that: an article of belief for those things which defy empirical proof.
Now having said that, this book still operates as an effective rebuke to the traditional proofs that have been made for the existence of God. For convenience sake, about half of them are left brain oriented and vary on the theme that a watch implies a watch maker. These fail because modern science has demonstrated that order can arise naturally from choas. And if the system is sufficiently large, the periodic patches of order can be extremely articulated. The other half of the arguments for the existence of God are right brained and vary on the idea that inspiration or mass inspiration provides "proof" of their existence. Here again, modern science has shown that the shimera of water on the sands, our brains sometimes confuse us to believe we see things that don't actually exist.
But contrary to the implicit assumption made by this book, a tour of the traditional arguments together with their rebuttals does not dispose of the God question. That's because science and good philosophy along with it are limited to the proveable and the demonstrable.
Perhaps the very eminent mathematician Kurt Godel said it best in his 1931 paper concerning the limitations of mathematical systems. This is paraphrasing to be sure, but Godel observed that all mathematical systems are like trees rising into the sky. Their branches and leaves may catch a lot of the sunlight of truth but there's still other sunlight...other truth...which falls outside their grasp.
In this way, perhaps the poet Henry David Thoreau said it even better in the closing the words of his masterpiece Walden: "Let the word go out to every Jon or Jonathan. There is more light to day.
The sun is but a morningstar!"
For one I believe. I may be wrong...the traditional arguments for faith almost certainly are. I may be right...but either way I'm neither right enough nor wrong enough to indulge in the temerity of instructing others in what they themselves should "believe" or conversely to be myself cowed in being told what to "believe."
|
One more voice of reason
I thoroughly enjoyed the audio-book version of Irreligion. Paulos does a fine job dismantling religious arguments while keeping it light and funny. The narrator is thoroughly delightful in his presentation; it sounded as if he was having a lot of fun delivering the text. Some of the material really needed visual cues, so unless you're paying very close attention, you can easily miss the point. While the book is unlikely to yank fundies from their beliefs, it certainly serves as another supporting pillar to the fact that we'd better make the most of this one life we have.
|
|
View Larger
Add to Cart 
