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

As a student of religious studies AND mathematics and having never heard of the author I picked this up as a fun and rather nerdy read. I have read all of the new atheist books as well as all of the new age apologists (D'Souza, Lewis, Craig, Collins, etc.) and a cursory glance at the back of this one made me feel as though it would be a light hearted fun rant through modern religion and mathematic principles.I was delighted to find the author is not only funny but brilliantly laconic, explaining how he sees most of the more common arguments seen today for the existence of a god or gods. For those who have taken multi variate, advanced calculus, advanced physics (anything where you are working with "proofs") you will immediately feel right at home. Paulus commonly begins by taking the reader through what he sees as the logical proof an apologist is submitting and then finds the cracks with turn-of-phrase which is as clever as it is humorous.There is one section where he has a "dreamy instant message conversation with God" that I don't particularly care for but I could see how someone could take some value from it.This book is not brilliance encapsulated as some may describe a Hitchens, Dennett, or Grayling. But instead it's someone explaining why he is not a theist, rather than why you should not be a theist.He ends the book with a slightly outdated argument, which I'm sure at the time looked as though it was going to be a bigger deal than it was (the "bright" movement), but I have re-read this book several times and have found the contents enlightening every time.I would suggest it to anyone. Cheers!

This is a wonderfully concise book, well presented, well shaded and well within reach of mathematically sad creatures such as myself. In fact it has more to do with the methodology of mathematics than actually doing the math. But what caught my attention amid some already familiar explanatory riffs is something I have yet to read very often within atheist texts and that is a simple statement of fact made by the author. As a child he had absolutely no feeling -- emotional or intellectual -- for the need of a god or religious doctrine. And I share that very specific mental state. My first response to organized religion at a very early age was always the same: the simple and clear and recurring thought that this just ain't so. As the years went by I made a point of reading broadly on faith and the lack thereof, arriving at a conscious rather than solely intuitive understanding of my perspective. "Irreligion" offers another dose of comprehension for seeing life as it is in favor of imbuing it with mysteries which are mysteries only because already known answers remain unacceptable to believers, or are merely aspects of human experience still waiting to be understood. As Mr. Paulos so eloquently writes, in setting aside the superstitions of the past few millennia we sacrifice or compromise none of the intrinsic value of our lives.

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.

From the author who used his doctorate in mathematics to examine commonly-held beliefs of investing and mathematical ignorance, comes John Allen Paulos' newest book, Irreligion. Irreligion is definitely politically incorrect and, I must confess, is one of the reasons I loved it. In this book, John Allen Paulos examines logical arguments on the existence of God. Naturally, the existence of God isn't a question that can be definitively answered, but Irreligion does a superb job of pointing out similarities between flawed logical reasoning and the arguments for God.Dr. Paulos isn't trying to convert the world to atheism. Rather, he is attempting to get us all to be critical thinkers instead of refusing to even consider an argument because it has negative stigma attached. Irreligion is a book that has a rare mix of being fun to read while pushing us to think about a profound subject, and one can't get into more profound territory than God.Still, I wonder, since religious people are generally happier, live longer, and heal more quickly, is it logical to question the logic of religion?

Not quite the "virtuoso performance" referred to in a quote on the dust cover, but a mix of incisive demolition of many common "there must be a God because..." arguments and contrived logic that doesn't quite do the job convincingly for others. It is a quick and thought provoking read though, and the simple logical approach that Paulos uses to analyse each argument for a deity is very powerful, clearly exposing where in the argument the leap of faith from the rational to the irrational occurs. This alone should cause many believers to gain a better understanding of why they believe, and to judge whether the foundation of their personal faith really stands up.

In this book John Allen Paulos,uses mathematical argument to show why belief in God is illogical and inconsistent with a rational perspective. His other books Innumeracy and A mathematician reads the newspaper,were forays into maths in society. The tendency is for people to dismiss mathematics,but maths is more than just counting,it is the propensity to think critically and analytically,which Prof Paulos demonstrates by showing what innumeracy can lead to. In most cases it is making mistakes about the world,or where writers have used maths unintelligently or wrongly.But in Irreligion,he uses this strategem to make pointed remarks about the one social mistake that many refuse to accept;belief in a deity that does not exist.Paulos himself does not actually go that far,since he says that proof cannot be incontrovertible of God's non-existence,he also makes the point that one cannot disprove unicorns or the flying spaghetti monster,which does not mean they have any real chance of existence. The book focuses on the myriad fallacious logical arguments theists use to make their case,and as with his other books suggests the faulty reasoning and logic behind belief in a deity. Sometimes straying into abstruse verbage,nevertheless Paulos is entertaining and to my mind,utilises maths for one of the reasons it ought to be used for,undermining silly notions that are based on lack of understanding and illogic.Irreligion is an excellent contribution to this process - another gem from a great writer.

Love maths n hate religion so right up my street

John Allen Paulos is not alone in having been intrigued by "questions of existence and belief" since childhood, but few of us will have feigned belief in Santa Claus in order to protect our parents from our "knowledge of his nonexistence". Unsurprisingly, Paulos suspects he has "an inborn disposition to materialism" (the "matter and motion are the basis of all there is" and not the "I want more cars and houses" kind). Don't let this put you off if you think there must be more to the universe than atoms and energy. While his opening question - "Are there any logical reasons to believe in God?" - will make some wretch or reach for the remote, curious atheists and theists will find "Irreligion" irresistible.The book is organized into three parts: first come four classical arguments for God's existence, then four subjective arguments, and finally four "psycho-mathematical" arguments. It's worth emphasizing that these are arguments in the grown-up sense of offering reasons or evidence in support of a conclusion, and not simply statements of personal opinion. You're meant to take them seriously, to be prepared to change your mind if persuaded, and, if you disagree, to offer reasons why. Faith so often "wins" because it avoids the hard work of argument and plumps for wishful thinking to get to where it wants to go.Each argument is clearly laid out, premises and conclusions enumerated and simplified so we see exactly what's going on. (This admirable quality, the will to explain and not obfuscate, is more often found in scientists and novelists than in theologians or pedlars of new age quackery, who cater for and prey upon the ignorance of those who "are more impressed by fatuous blather that they don't understand than by simple observations that they do".) The first-cause argument begins with "1. Everything has a cause, or perhaps many causes." It goes on to assert "there has to be a first cause" and ends with "5. That first cause is God, who therefore exists." To see whether this argument - or any argument - is true involves examining the premises to see if they are reliable and then checking that the conclusion follows. The gaping hole here is the opening premise: "If everything has a cause, then God does, too, and there is no first cause." If an exception is being made and one thing is allowed not to have a cause, "it may as well be the physical world as God".There follow the arguments from design and the anthropic principle, and the ontological argument, then the subjective arguments from coincidence, from prophecy, from subjectivity itself, and from interventions, then the psycho-mathematical arguments, which explore complexity, cognition, universality, and Pascal's notorious wager. Unfortunately for religion, if true, some of these arguments have a wider utility and could support all kinds of hogwash. Fortunately for irreligion, Paulos shows how each fails to convince."How can an agnostic or atheist learn anything from someone who simply claims to know there is a God?" While acknowledging the fact that such "knowledge" is often strongly held and has a powerful effect on the person's life, the problem is that the "knowledge" possessed by different religious people and groups "is quite contradictory." It would be absurd to remind the reader of a novel "that writing about a character isn't sufficient to conjure up his or her existence." Holy books, whose taste for fiction is not widely enough recognized, ought to come with a health warning: "Statements or expressions can have a meaning yet lack a referent." The Christian knows as much about Jesus as I do about Hamlet, but only one of us is confused about reality.In discussing so-called Bible codes, Paulos makes one of the few claims I am sceptical of: "Once the discovery of seemingly prescient sequences of letters is brought to our attention, it is only natural for us to wonder about the probability of their occurrence." Natural for a professor of mathematics, perhaps, or, flatteringly, for a reader of his books, but not for the average buyer of a lottery ticket. That's surely part of the problem: it's not just that people can't work out probabilities, but that they're not even curious. One other dubious note is the glib credit paid to Jesus as a great moral leader "whose ideas constitute a good part of the bedrock of our culture". There is truth in this, of course, but it should not pass by unexamined. Does Paulos rate the obscene notion of hell and eternal punishment as a crowning achievement of the human spirit? Or perhaps he was thinking about the more palatable (ifunoriginal) sayings?A smile is never far away from the serious. Humpty Dumpty - that unwitting theologian and splendid role model for the religious - gets namechecked in the preface: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less." If God is defined "in a sufficiently nebulous way as beauty, love, mysterious complexity, or the ethereal taste of strawberry shortcake" then "most atheists become theists". Paulos prefers clarity and truth to these word games, and his book is an oasis of sense for anyone tired of "nonsense proffered in an earnest and profound manner"."Irreligion" will not lead you into a spiritual desert nor will it suck meaning from your life. It is a handy prompt for when we stand up for what we don't believe, and contains a message rarely heard above the din of competing faiths: "the world would benefit if more people of diverse backgrounds were to admit to being irreligious."

Not a bad book - nice and concise - but did not always explain how the maths. related to the truth or otherwise of various religions. Didn't rally help me draw any new conclusions.