Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up |  | Author: John Allen Paulos
Publisher: Hill and Wang
Category: Book
This item is no longer available
Rating:  55 reviews
Sales Rank: 70306
Media: Paperback
Edition: 1 Reprint
Pages: 176
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.4
Dimensions (in): 7.3 x 5 x 0.6
ISBN: 0809059185
Dewey Decimal Number: 212.1
EAN: 9780809059188
ASIN: 0809059185
Publication Date: June 9, 2009
| |
| Features:
| • | ISBN13: 9780809059188 | | • | Condition: New | | • | Notes: BUY WITH CONFIDENCE, Over one million books sold! 98% Positive feedback. Compare our books, prices and service to the competition. 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed |
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
| |
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Are there any logical reasons to believe in God? The 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. Interspersed among these counterarguments are remarks on a variety of irreligious themes, ranging from the nature of miracles and creationist probability to cognitive illusions and prudential wagers. Despite the strong influence of his day job, Paulos says, there isn’t a single mathematical formula in the book. John Allen Paulos is a professor of mathematics at Temple University. His books include the bestseller Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences, A Mathematician Plays the Stock Market, and A Mathematician Reads the Newspapers. 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. "The volume gets off to a bracing start, deftly dismantling creationist arguments that the astonishing complexity of life could have come about only through the efforts of a master designer, by succinctly showing how Darwin's theory of natural selection and free-market economics provide well-confirmed alternative explanations for the evolution of complex systems . . . Writing in clear, direct prose, Paulos shows how even everyday references to purpose and intention can be easily reformulated in scientific, nonpurposive terms."—Michiko Kakutani, The New York Times "The volume gets off to a bracing start, deftly dismantling creationist arguments that the astonishing complexity of life could have come about only through the efforts of a master designer, by succinctly showing how Darwin's theory of natural selection and free-market economics provide well-confirmed alternative explanations for the evolution of complex systems . . . Writing in clear, direct prose, Paulos shows how even everyday references to purpose and intention can be easily reformulated in scientific, nonpurposive terms."—Michiko Kakutani, The New York Times "Paulos wades through the classical arguments for the existence of God and systematically refutes them . . . It is readable and concise, with moments of great logical rigour and dry wit."—Amanda Gefter, New Scientist magazine
"Paulos deserves high praise for turning out a book that is brief, forthright, and amiable. While making the same basic points as, say Dawkins's The God Delusion, it avoids the often choleric tone of that work, keeping a light, conversational tone where Dawkins hurls flaming rhetorical fireballs of denunciation . . . The book is organized in a way that readers inclined to skepticism but who have never seriously studied the debate over the viability of theism will find convenient and quite useful in their private debates with friends, relatives, and even clergymen of various persuasions. Paulos lays out, seriatim, most of the classical philosophical arguments for the existence of a deity, and immediately refutes them as they arise. Thus we find the ontological argument, the argument from First Clause, the argument from design, the argument from the seeming existence of moral universals, and so forth, laid out one by one and just as soon demolished. It will be noted that these chapters are as brief as they are easygoing . . . Irreligion will, I'm confident, take a distinguished place in what one might call the canonical literature of the New Atheism, and I highly recommend it, especially to bright youngsters who will find its occasional use of mathematical ideas pleasant."—Norman Levitt, Skeptic
"John Allen Paulos has written a charming book that takes you on a sojourn of flawless logic, with simple and clear examples drawn from math, science, and pop culture. At journey's end, Paulos has left you with plenty to think about, whether you are religious, irreligious, or anything in between."—Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist, American Museum of Natural History and author of Death By Black Hole and Other Cosmic Quandaries
"For years John Allen Paulos has been our guide for reading newspapers, playing the stock market, and understanding what all those graphs and charts and formulas really mean. No one knows how to dissect an argument better than Paulos. Now he has turned his rapier wit to the grandest question of them all: is there a God? Those who are religious skeptics will find in Paulos's analysis new ways of looking at both old and new arguments, and those who believe that God's existence can be proven through science, reason, and logic will have to answer to this mathematician's penetrating analysis."—Michael Shermer, Publisher of Skeptic magazine, monthly columnist for Scientific American, and the author of How We Believe, The Science of Good and Evil, and Why Darwin Matters
"Using the methods of mathematics, reason and logic, Paulos wrestles religious belief systems to the ground and in the process proves he is as good a writer as he is a mathematician. The book is short, to the point and humorous, and God knows, this subject could use more humor."—Joan Konner, Dean Emerita of the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism and editor of The Atheist’s Bible
"Another virtuoso performance from a master in the use of mathematics to explore the conundrums and mysteries of everyday life."—Sylvia Nasar, author of A Beautiful Mind
"John Allen Paulos has done us all a great service. Irreligion is an elegant and timely response to the manifold ignorance that still goes by the name of 'faith' in the 21st century."—Sam Harris, author of the New York Times bestsellers, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation
“Add this impious brief to the growing stack of earnest text by atheists set on debunking the venerable notion of an omnipotent, omniscient Almighty . . . Reasoned, cool and concise.”—Kirkus Reviews
|
| Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 1-5 of 55
 Non-Proofs of God's Existence December 27, 2007
R. Hardy (Columbus, Mississippi USA)
205 out of 221 found this review helpful
For centuries, people who believe in the different gods that people have adopted have insisted that there are good logical reasons to believe in their particular gods. Logic and science can do nothing to disconfirm the existence of these gods, but at the same time, if an attempt at a logical proof of a god's existence is presented, then the proof can be logically examined to see if it holds water. John Allen Paulos has looked at the proofs and finds them leaky. Paulos is a mathematician who has previously told us how a mathematician plays the stock market or how a mathematician reads the newspaper. Now, in _Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up_, he goes for the big game. His book shows the results of his examination of the question that is the first sentence in his book: "Are there any logical reasons to believe in God?" His book is a review of the ways that religious people have demonstrated to their own satisfaction (but not to his) that the existence of God can be logically derived. He has written before on this sort of theme, but his book is an attempt to deal directly with the "inherent illogic to all of the arguments." Jonathan Swift said, "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into", and Paulos acknowledges this: "I have little problem with those who acknowledge the absence of good arguments for God, but simply maintain a nebulous but steadfast belief in `something more'".
Plenty of the arguments for God's existence here are well known; in fact, they are classics, and have been the subject of discussion and refutation for centuries. They may fortify the faith of those who already believe (although Paulos shows that they are untrustworthy fortifications), but again, already believing is the key. Right off the bat is the First Cause argument, presented in Paulos's summary:
1. Everything has a cause, or perhaps many causes.
2. Nothing is its own cause.
3. Causal chains can't go on forever.
4. So there has to be a first cause.
5. That first cause is God, who therefore exists.
It all seems convincing at first sight, and believers who wish to use this sort of thinking as evidence for their beliefs would be wise not to give it a second look. Paulos explains that a big problem is #1 above, which assumes too much. An alternative #1 is, "Either everything has a cause, or there's something that doesn't," and there isn't any way of getting around the truth of that. If everything has a cause, then God does, too, as does his cause and so on forever; and if there is something that doesn't have a cause, there is no reason that this something has to be elevated into the supernatural, for the physical world itself might be the thing that does not have a cause, and that's an end of the chain.
And so Paulos goes on, through this brisk little book which takes on one supposed proof after another: the Argument from Design, the Anthropic Principle, the Ontological Argument, Pascal's Wager, and more. Each of the chapters, most less then ten pages long, dispatches each would-be proof. Paulos has used more logic and less mathematics here; there are no equations in the book, for instance, although there are dips into pure mathematics when discussing such things as probabilities for Pascal's Wager. There is a good deal of humor and wonderfully clear writing. Nonbelievers are probably already familiar with the arguments for and against God's existence, but some of Paulos's counterarguments are novel and all are expressed in a pithy and easily memorable form. Believers ought to enjoy puzzling out the challenges here, and should have a renewed appreciation for the importance of faith, however lacking logical confirmation, as the foundation of their beliefs.
Concise and witty thoughts of an intelligent writer February 17, 2008
Miro (Atlanta, GA)
28 out of 30 found this review helpful
To appreciate this book, one must understand what readership it is aimed at. This appears to be the people on both sides of the divide between religious and nonreligious who are neither utterly convinced atheists (although those might enjoy the book as well), nor unquestioning believers. It is for readers who are intelligent and interested in the subject of God's existence or nonexistence, but do not have the time or inclination to immerse themselves in 536pp philosophical books. These people would be most interested in the thoughts of another intelligent person, a person who has spent some time exploring the major arguments, and is capable of presenting them and his conclusions in a clear and concise manner. It is then up to the reader to agree or disagree with the reasoning.
The book would not convince religious people whose minds are closed, even if they read it. It will not convince people who deny the role of reason in the question of God's existence. And it is not a polemic with ivory tower theologians.
This is a gentle book. Paulos does not bring up the horrific facts of the criminal history of religion that Dawkins, Hitchens and others have explored in recent books. He concentrates on a few common arguments for God's existence, and shows how an intelligent person would find them wanting.
How does anyone disprove Under-the-Bed-Monsters? January 30, 2008
Theodore A. Rushton (PHOENIX, Arizona United States)
27 out of 31 found this review helpful
Do monsters lurk under the bed?
Paulos is not one to convince a worried six-year-old that no Monsters lurk under the bed. Sure, he could logically and incisively prove Under-the-Bed-Monsters do not exist, as he exquisitely disproves a dozen different beliefs older people use to explain God. His logic, reasoning and explanations are impeccable - - but hollow. When anyone deals with Monsters, Ghosts, Angels or God, they are dealing with emotion rather than logic.
This is a delightful book for those who already know God is false. But it doesn't address the central issue: Why are so many Americans, and especially engineers and technology workers, so committed to God-cults? Why are so many Americans "crusaders" for God, just as so many Moslems are "jihadists" for Allah? In Iran today, there is a separation of mosque and state with each having separate leaders. In America today, a prime requirement to be president is an absolute faith in a close personal relationship with God.
Richard Hofstadter said Puritan resistance to old religious and civil hierarchies in England launched a fervent opposition to all book learning in America. This founding principle of the United States led to the War of Independence, but it has also produced a trend to self-chosen religion instead of what the state imposes. Today's mega-churches, extreme fundamentalism and televangelists are part of a rich American heritage; a direct product of Salem witch hunts, frenzied tent revivals, the fanaticism of radio evangelism and unrestrained freedom itself.
Disproving God is similar to disproving Monsters. If the emotional origins are understood, a parent can comfort such fears. It is the emotional approach to religion which explains why Americans, after rejecting the dictates of an Established Church, are so suscepticle to the dictates of any church - - the more independent in its belief the better - - provided it is of their own rebellious choosing. Paulos attempts to use logic to explain such emotion; religion uses emotion to create its own logic.
Although this is a wonderfully logical rebuttal of current fads about God and fully deserving of its many five-star rankings, a skeptical reader is left with a suspicion that Paulos couldn't calm the fears of a six-year-old who believes monsters do lurk under the bed.
The logic of Paulos is impeccable; BUT, Under-the-Bed-Monsters don't listen to logic. Nor do Crusaders, Jihadists, or many Americans.
A funny and coherent book about logic and belief March 4, 2008
Phil Straus (Philadelphia, PA USA)
9 out of 10 found this review helpful
I enjoyed this book a lot. Its humor and light touch carried me though the book in just one train trip.
Paulos covers most of the major reasons people claim that God exists. Each chapter begins with the chain of thoughts that would lead someone though a particular argument. Paulos then shows how the argument fails to meet basic logical reasoning. The chapters are filled with examples, extensions of the supposed logic of the argument, and jokes demonstrating similar leaps out of logic.
This book will not convince a believer to not believe, but it might show a believer that those beliefs are beliefs, not logical conclusions. The book is a handy sourcebook for recognizing fallacies in arguments supposedly based on evidence and logic.
It's a fun read, and very different from Dawkins' The God Delusion. Dawkins is very angry about what havoc, destruction, and division religion has caused. The Paulos book is not an angry book. It's not about history, politics, or effects of religious beliefs. It's about logic and belief. In this time of growing religiosity in America and elsewhere, understanding the difference between conclusions based on belief and conclusions based evidence and logic is critical. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up by John Paulos helps with that understanding and does so with humor. Not a bad combination.
Meditation on the human condition March 3, 2008
Marlow in Asia (Bangkok, Thailand)
6 out of 6 found this review helpful
Irreligion is that rare book bringing to the forefront traditional explanations and arguments in favour of a superior being and exploring their extreme improbability. Some authors have approached the subject with the equivalent of "shock and awe" to eliminate the explanations and arguments advanced to support a God-based belief system. John Paulos is more the highly trained special forces sniper who patiently draws out his target before squeezing the trigger. It doesn't matter where the old argument may be hiding - in mystic explanations, holy books, miracles, or subjective claims for a personal God. Professor Paulos picks them off with a single round that includes wit, logic, and scientific method. The results are as shattering as any .50Cal round. He brings in reinforcements including David Hume, Bertrand Russell, Albert Einstein, and H.L. Mencken to further demolish divine explanations.
While Professor Paulos is a mathematics professor, no reader need fear that the math in Irreligion will be difficult. There is indeed very little formal math in the book. Part of the compelling appeal of this book comes from the examples that math and a razor sharp wit, when combined, provide devastating and lasting impact on the subject of religion. Professor Paulos asks what a miracle means, and answers the question in this fashion: "If a miracle is simply a very unlikely event, then miracles occur every day. Just ask any lottery winner or bridge player. Any particular bridge hand of thirteen cards dealt to you and proclaim them to be a miracle, or, worse, say that the hand's very improbability was evidence that you were not really dealt it."
The speculative physics that underscore religion are exposed for their transparent absurdity. Irreligion draws the distinction between science, which lives and dies by the sword edge of the falsifiable, and religion, which is based on tautology, a circular argument that never dies so long as the head of faith never catches the tail of belief. These are two very different mindsets, approaches, and explanations. There is no middle ground to reconcile the two ways of asking questions about life, death and the universe. In this remarkable book, John Paulos had drawn a line in the sand between outlandish religious positions that defy the laws of physics, reason and probability, and the scientific community, which recoils from "theological sleight of hand, a pulling of God out of a top hat."
Showing reviews 1-5 of 55
|
|
|
