Scan barcode
dee9401's review against another edition
3.0
I read this in one sitting. It's easy going after you get used to his pacing and style of writing. I've read his Innumeracy book back in the early 90s and I think another one of his as well.
The topic is of definite interest to me as an atheist. However, I didn't find anything in the book that was new, though it might be good for someone who is beginning to question faith or religion. For those who've already made the leap, I think it's preaching to the choir, pun intended. I don't think his arguments would be persuasive to many of those in the believing population, a point he makes occasionally in the book. I think his writing will also likely help educated readers pat themselves on the back for knowing the philosophers, mathematicians and theories he casually drops into his text.
On a more useful note, though not necessarily for believers or non-believers, he shows that there really is no way to prove, or disprove, the existence of a god or gods. I'd say that our current language/thought system is incomplete to describe the system. It's like Gödel's incompleteness theorem. There are certain statements in a logical system that can be posited but not proven true.
What shines throughout the book is that he does indeed show that many explanations for the existence of god can be proven to be fallacious, often via simple logic or mathematics. So while there is no way to disprove god exists, the various "proofs" that have been put out there are wanting, sometimes severely. He touches on frame theory, noting how people will throw away facts that contradict their belief system, regardless of whether that fact is true or not (p. 54, 108). He decimates creationist and intelligent design approaches that suggest the world is so complex it needs a god, not realizing that they address complexity with an even more complex solution (p. 13).
He posits an interesting situation about the need for a god. "Imagine a serial child killer with his thirtieth victim tied before him. Prayers for the child are offered by many. If God is either unable or unwilling to stop the killer, what good is He? It seems that the usual response to this is that we don't understand His ways, but if this is true, once again you must ask why introduce Him in the first place? Is there such a shortage of things we don't understand that we need to manufacture another?" (p. 125) Well said.
He also calls out the politicization in America of religion and how the anti-science, anti-thinking positions have been incorporated into the platform of the Republican party. In a funny but telling example, he notes how many fundamentalist Christians ardently believe in the invisible hand of the market to organize complexity out of nothing, but scream violently against any support for Darwinian evolution (p. 20).
What I take away from this book is a confirmation of my following a form of Camus' philosophy of the absurd. I choose not to make a leap of faith nor commit suicide. I choose to make sense of the world by giving life meaning from within myself. I create my own meaning without flinching from a lack of meaning or a "leap of faith."
The topic is of definite interest to me as an atheist. However, I didn't find anything in the book that was new, though it might be good for someone who is beginning to question faith or religion. For those who've already made the leap, I think it's preaching to the choir, pun intended. I don't think his arguments would be persuasive to many of those in the believing population, a point he makes occasionally in the book. I think his writing will also likely help educated readers pat themselves on the back for knowing the philosophers, mathematicians and theories he casually drops into his text.
On a more useful note, though not necessarily for believers or non-believers, he shows that there really is no way to prove, or disprove, the existence of a god or gods. I'd say that our current language/thought system is incomplete to describe the system. It's like Gödel's incompleteness theorem. There are certain statements in a logical system that can be posited but not proven true.
What shines throughout the book is that he does indeed show that many explanations for the existence of god can be proven to be fallacious, often via simple logic or mathematics. So while there is no way to disprove god exists, the various "proofs" that have been put out there are wanting, sometimes severely. He touches on frame theory, noting how people will throw away facts that contradict their belief system, regardless of whether that fact is true or not (p. 54, 108). He decimates creationist and intelligent design approaches that suggest the world is so complex it needs a god, not realizing that they address complexity with an even more complex solution (p. 13).
He posits an interesting situation about the need for a god. "Imagine a serial child killer with his thirtieth victim tied before him. Prayers for the child are offered by many. If God is either unable or unwilling to stop the killer, what good is He? It seems that the usual response to this is that we don't understand His ways, but if this is true, once again you must ask why introduce Him in the first place? Is there such a shortage of things we don't understand that we need to manufacture another?" (p. 125) Well said.
He also calls out the politicization in America of religion and how the anti-science, anti-thinking positions have been incorporated into the platform of the Republican party. In a funny but telling example, he notes how many fundamentalist Christians ardently believe in the invisible hand of the market to organize complexity out of nothing, but scream violently against any support for Darwinian evolution (p. 20).
What I take away from this book is a confirmation of my following a form of Camus' philosophy of the absurd. I choose not to make a leap of faith nor commit suicide. I choose to make sense of the world by giving life meaning from within myself. I create my own meaning without flinching from a lack of meaning or a "leap of faith."
eccetera's review against another edition
3.0
Pessima la prefazione di Piergiorgio Odifreddi, la cui acredine viene poi per fortuna soppiantata dal garbo pungente di John Alles Paulos.
satyridae's review against another edition
4.0
It's me, over here in the choir robes. Nothing in this book I didn't already embrace, I mean. The geeky mathematical angle was a huge bonus. I found this audio book fun, funny and comforting. If you like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing you like. And I do.
More...