Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't… (2007)

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. ( )

Paulos makes some points I have not read elsewhere. And it was worth reading for those. But such points are few. The book is a bit light and I feel that others (such as Dawkins and Hitchens) have done a more thorough job addressing this subject. ( )

Paulos offers a cogent and accessible compilation of the logical and mathematical arguments against God — a pedagogical skill that he excels at in his other books. However, as such, most of this book will be nothing new to the well versed atheist crowd, particularly those who have already dipped into the likes of Dawkins and Grayling and Dennett. What it might do for them is provide more tools for expressing their position.

Other reviewers have pointed out certain errors, which I am reasonably forgiving about, as such things are inevitable in any non-fiction work. However, one thing that has been highlighted is the arrogant “conversation with God” chapter which, while quite possibly a perfectly factual account of a real reverie, drastically spoils the mood of the book, and might well repel the curious agnostics amongst us. I think this is really a shame, and a quite unnecessary one too, and it is what brings this book down from a 3 to a 2.

The rest of the book is largely neutral, and presented in a way that shouldn’t come across as too offensive to the religious reader. Paulos does gloss over the more humanitarian contributions of religion, sticking to the factual and the logical, which leaves his argument (as a whole) a little vulnerable. But I suppose the latter angle is the raison d’être of this work, and Paulo’s strength, and the rest is best left to other writers. ( )

Meh.

Using mathematical logical to argue against the belief in God(s). Treading old ground with a more rigorously logical approach. Could have been far better if it went further, but for the arguments presented, it does a good job. ( )

Sounds like it should be better than it is. The arguments are sound, but somehow it just isn't compelling reading. ( )