Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

I enjoyed reading this. It lays out several mathematical arguments against the existence of a deity. Some of them seem easy for others to brush off or argue against. Some are mildly compelling at best. At times the book reads like it was written by the stereotypical angry/internet atheist. The points that I feel land for me, and some of the others are clear and concise in their language.

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.

As a veteran of this genre, I can, in the most unequivocal terms, declare John Allen Paulos' irreligion to be a handy, persuasive and informative little book, indeed. Although concise in scope, irreligion briefly explores and thus fittingly refutes the foremost and, quite frankly, the hackneyed and puerile arguments which stand in support of God's existence. Paulos' comportment is reminiscent of the late, great Carl Sagan's gentle skepticism, and irreligion is surprisingly easy to read and appropriately interspersed with the author's witticisms. I understand that many of the book's critics desired more exposition, yet what more can truly be said? These weathered arguments have been examined and re-examined for millennia, yet not one has proven itself to stand the test of logical scrutiny. The simple fact remains that because God truly isn't an explanation for anything, these arguments do little more than appeal to mystery. And it is because of this little book's brevity and its easily understood prose that will make it the likely book for the open-minded believer or the "fence post walker." Having said that, this nascent atheism mentioned by other reviewers isn't a religion or even some spiritual movement, it's rather what I hope proves itself to be the catalyst for a mass change in our thinking. As such, irreligion will surely play its role in this unlikely endeavor.

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.

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.

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 On