This won't convince anyone not already convinced, but Paulos does apply a mathematical edge to the analysis. The most telling chapter was the last - Athiests, Agnostics, and "Brights". I agree with Paulos in that I am also not too fond of the name "Brights", but maybe it'll catch on. The statistics are disturbing in how others view atheists and non-believers. The stigma is still hard to overcome.
|Country:||United Arab Emirates|
|Published (Last):||14 September 2011|
|PDF File Size:||14.19 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.32 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Other editions. Enlarge cover. Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Details if other :. Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. Preview — Irreligion by John Allen Paulos. 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. Special attention is paid to topics, arguments, and questions that spring from his incredulity "not only about religion but also about others' credulity.
Get A Copy. Hardcover , pages. More Details Original Title. A Mathematician explains why the arguments for God just don't add up. Other Editions Friend Reviews. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about Irreligion , please sign up. Lists with This Book. Community Reviews. Showing Average rating 3. Rating details. More filters. Sort order. Oct 03, D. Written by a mathematician who went out of his way to refrain altogether from using formulas and equations and stick strictly to prose, this charming book is a humble refutation of a collection of the most common arguments in favor of the existence of god.
Paulos goes through these arguments one after the other, first documenting the form of the argument itself before discussing how the argument holds up. For people who are already avowed nonbelievers, this book is an invaluable resource to aid i Written by a mathematician who went out of his way to refrain altogether from using formulas and equations and stick strictly to prose, this charming book is a humble refutation of a collection of the most common arguments in favor of the existence of god.
For people who are already avowed nonbelievers, this book is an invaluable resource to aid in breaking down and analyzing the attempts of the religious to push belief, demonstrating with each page how weak the arguments in favor of god really are. For readers who do believe, this is a confirmation of what they already know - that belief is a personal matter and that for lack of clear evidence, there is no irrefutable argument for the existence of a supreme being.
Far from being an extremist about religion, Paulos' tone is that of a man who sees danger in the forceful side of religion and simply wishes to arm those who do not wish to be forced. His arguments are as sensible and thorough as one would expect those of a mathematician to be while remaining very approachable. I would recommend this book to anybody, particularly the nonreligious and religious moderates as well as anybody making a study of contemporary American religious culture.
View 1 comment. Apr 28, Eric Hendrixson rated it liked it. I've been through this one two and a half times and still haven't figured out for whom this book was written.
This book takes a few of the classic arguments for the existence of God and refutes them. He refutes them effectively but in the standard manner. Your average atheist or agnostic already knows these arguments. The average theist will be put off by the tone of the tome, which is a bit condescending. Some atheists will be put off by that too. What disappointed me about the book was actuall I've been through this one two and a half times and still haven't figured out for whom this book was written.
What disappointed me about the book was actually one of the ground rules Paulos set down for himself: to avoid using too much math. I know. If I'd read the first chapter before buying, I would have been less disappointed, but the title suggested that I would learn something, if not about religious argument, then about math. I ended up learning very little from this book, and I think the people who could learn from this book either will not read it or will dismiss it.
This is not really this book's fault, but I was hoping that a book by a mathematician would have less personality and would just state the argument and the rebuttal. Obviously, I was just not familiar with the author. So this is a tough one. The arguments are well laid out, but they are not new arguments. The humorous asides keep things interesting, but they make the author vulnerable to accusations of bias, which as Hitchens says of religion poisons everything.
They make the book too easy to dismiss, which is unfortunate, since his descriptions of the arguments and the rebuttals are sometimes especially useful. For some time, I've wished that someone would come out with a more objective, theist-friendly book on atheism. This is not that book. Sep 26, Raja99 rated it liked it Shelves: mcpl. Why I read this book: I saw a mention of it online, either on a website or Amazon. As an atheist married to a mathematics major, I was curious to see Paulos's take.
This was a good book for me to read on the airplane; it was mostly interesting, but not too challenging. As I get older, I find that noisy settings--like airplane cabins--make it hard for me to concentrate. The book is pleasantly and smoothly written; it deals with how none of the popular "mathematical" or "scientific" proofs of th Why I read this book: I saw a mention of it online, either on a website or Amazon.
The book is pleasantly and smoothly written; it deals with how none of the popular "mathematical" or "scientific" proofs of the existence of God really work from a mathematical or scientific standpoint. This wasn't exactly news to me. Ultimately I found the book disappointing.
I guess that as I get older I want more fire and brimstone in my rants against religion for instance, The God Delusion.
This seemed too mild; while the author makes his personal hardcore materialism plain and his descriptions of that were the part I most enjoyed , he won't go so far as to argue that the lack of compelling logical or scientific proof is a weakness of religion or religious belief. The other thing I enjoyed: Like the author, I find it ironic that religious conservatives tend to argue vehemently against any sort of central planning in their rich and diverse free markets but insist that our rich and diverse ecosystem must be the result of central planning aka "intelligent design".
I noticed this some years ago, but this book is the first time I've seen anyone else draw attention to it. Finished EDT Feb 01, Adam rated it liked it Recommends it for: fellow agnostics and those who love them.
If Dawkins or Dennett are a little too hardcore for you, Paulos might be the one to truly deflect the mainstream meme that has placed the poorly thought out label of 'fundamentalist atheism' on this movement. He's thorough in his debunking of 'God Exist' arguments without being arrogant. In the U. Even when the logic gets a little too text-book-y, Paulos returns with some nicely concise prose.
May 12, Dale rated it really liked it Shelves: favorites , nonfiction , philosophy. Paulos playfully takes on 12 alleged 'proofs' of the existence of a deity - proofs that range from the subtly fallacious to the downright silly. The thing I liked most about the book was that Paulos summarized most of the proofs in syllogistic form, to help expose the flaws in the proofs.
He cites an example from Woody Allen : All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, all men are Socrates. It has never seemed to me that the proofs of god's existence are very difficult to refute, but Paulos a Paulos playfully takes on 12 alleged 'proofs' of the existence of a deity - proofs that range from the subtly fallacious to the downright silly.
It has never seemed to me that the proofs of god's existence are very difficult to refute, but Paulos at least brings good humor to the task - humor without rancor or condescension. My question is : what would constitute a 'proof', or even evidence, of the existence of a deity. I think that it would be of the same nature as evidence for, say, dark matter. That is, there would need to be some phenomenon that is not accounted for by our physical theories, that in fact contradicts our physical theories, and that is explainable by the existence of a deity with well-defined properties.
Moreover, the deity explanation would have to be such that specific additional predictions could be formed from that explanation, and those predictions could be empirically tested. But there are two problems here: first, religious believers are unable to ascribe any well-defined properties to their deities. Most of their deities were invented by primitive people who imagined god as a kind of really big and powerful person.
So contemporary believers either stick with that story, or replace it with a sort of fuzzy 'god is everywhere as a kind of spirit' concept, which inherently has no explanatory value whatsoever. Second, a 'deity hypothesis' that actually predicts and explains natural phenomenon is no longer in the realm of the supernatural, and therefore does not refer to a deity at all.
Unless, of course, you want to think of natural laws as a deity.
Currently Reading: Elogio de la irreligion - John Allen Paulos.epub
Professor John Allen Paulos
Elogio de la Irreligion