Wednesday, January 9, 2008 | Reason : Science of Religion | print version

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

by John Allen Paulos

UPDATE: (thanks to Ken Bromberg)
First chapter: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/books/chapters/1st-chapter-irreligion.html?scp=1&sq=paulos

Review from NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/books/review/Holt-t.html?scp=2&sq=paulos

This little book just arrived on December 26th, and I must have missed it in the Christmas shuffle.

See:
http://www.amazon.com/Irreligion-Mathematician-Explains-Arguments-Just/dp/0809059193/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199912875&sr=8-1

A Lifelong Unbeliever Finds No Reason to Change His Mind

Are there any logical reasons to believe in God? 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." Interspersed among his twelve counterarguments are remarks on a variety of irreligious themes, ranging from the nature of miracles and creationist probability to cognitive illusions and prudential wagers. Special attention is paid to topics, arguments, and questions that spring from his incredulity "not only about religion but also about others' credulity." Despite the strong influence of his day job, Paulos says, there isn't a single mathematical formula in the book.

"John Allen Paulos has done us all a great service. Irreligion is an elegant and timely response to the manifold ignorance that still goes by the name of 'faith' in the twenty-first century."
- Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation

"He's done it again. John Allen Paulos has written a charming book that takes you on a journey of flawless logic, with simple and clear examples drawn from math, science, and pop culture. At the end, Paulos has left you with plenty to think about, whether you are religious, irreligious, or anything inbetween."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist, American Museum of Natural History, and author of Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries

"For years John Allen Paulos has been our guide for reading newspapers, playing the stock market, and understanding what all those graphs and charts and formulas really mean. No one knows how to dissect an argument better than Paulos. Now he has turned his rapier wit to the grandest question of them all: Is there a God? Those who are religious skeptics will find in Paulos's analysis new ways of looking at both old and new arguments, and those who believe that God's existence can be proven through science, reason, and logic will have to answer to this mathematician's penetrating analysis."
- Michael Shermer, author of How We Believe, The Science of Good and Evil, and Why Darwin Matters

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Wednesday, January 9, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 162 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #109678 by Ducklike on January 9, 2008 at 1:28 pm

Intriguing!

Note to self - Stop in at Chapters this weekend.

Other Comments by Ducklike

2. Comment #109681 by selectedbynature on January 9, 2008 at 1:32 pm

Sounds like another one that's going to end up on my book shelf in the not too distant future! I would really like to see some less intellectually based books, that would get these points across to a wider audience thrown in to the mix as well though. Let's face it, the majority of people that need reaching aren't all university scholars!!

Other Comments by selectedbynature

3. Comment #109682 by mcadamsdj on January 9, 2008 at 1:35 pm

One of the 20 (!) books I bought with my Christmas money...can't wait to read it.

Other Comments by mcadamsdj

4. Comment #109688 by The_Stone on January 9, 2008 at 1:45 pm

No Equations? Such a pity.

Could it be that we are more afraid of math than gods?

Other Comments by The_Stone

5. Comment #109689 by bliktor on January 9, 2008 at 1:49 pm

When I saw mathematician I immediately thought of the movie 1984. Except insert the pope in place of the interrogator. 2 + 2 = 5

Other Comments by bliktor

6. Comment #109690 by paceetrate on January 9, 2008 at 1:51 pm

"Could it be that we are more afraid of math than gods?"

I know I am. o.O

Other Comments by paceetrate

7. Comment #109691 by Big City on January 9, 2008 at 1:52 pm

I don't really understand how the author being a mathematician figures into the argument. I think that it may actually hurt the debate, considering a lot of Christians view science as an excuse to dismiss a point of view. "Oh, the scientists think their logic makes them smarter than God, little do they know, we don't care about logic."

Other Comments by Big City

8. Comment #109694 by OsakaGuy on January 9, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Check out his talk from the Beyond Belief 2 conference:

http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief2/watch/paulos.php

It's about 30 minutes and he reads an excerpt from the book.

(The other talks there are very good too! Check out Peter Atkins for some hard core materialist awesomeness.)

Other Comments by OsakaGuy

9. Comment #109696 by The_Stone on January 9, 2008 at 2:03 pm

I agree. I personally much prefer a professional's perspective on the subject.

I would bet books about atheism and skepticism would find more credibility amongst the religious crowd if they were penned by admitted schmo's. Authors who would be considered "average people" who reached a personal epiphany about the non-existence of god(s), could fill an open niche for the atheist message.

Perhaps I'll try it, who knows, it might just pay for my college loans!

Other Comments by The_Stone

10. Comment #109697 by The_Stone on January 9, 2008 at 2:05 pm

he he he,
Yep, he even looks like a mathematician.

Other Comments by The_Stone

11. Comment #109698 by Gymnopedie on January 9, 2008 at 2:09 pm

I don't really care so much about an author having his or her credentials on the book cover or in the preview as long as it is relevant to the topic. When I saw the book at the book store yesterday, I assumed the approach he took had something to do with math, but in a 2 minute skim through, I found nothing of the sort. So it is the misleading aspect of it that I dislike, although I think that point is minimal.

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

12. Comment #109700 by D'Arcy on January 9, 2008 at 2:13 pm

No doubt this mathematician will be able to answer the biblical assertion that pi=3, whereas the rest of the world uses something like pi=3.14159....

Nifty footwork with the figures by some biblical apologists can explain why "pi=3" in the Bible also means "pi=3.14159..."

Other Comments by D'Arcy

13. Comment #109702 by epeeist on January 9, 2008 at 2:18 pm

Comment #109691 by Big City

I don't really understand how the author being a mathematician figures into the argument.

It shouldn't. However when people do bring it up then point out how many modern philosophers have been from the science/mathematics side of things. Russell, Frege, Brentano, Husserl, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Quine etc.

Other Comments by epeeist

14. Comment #109705 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 2:23 pm

I followed the mighty Quetz to an apologist site as part of a non-raiding party. The guy there mentioned a first cause argument. As of this time he's not furnished details of it, so I can't attempt to refute it.
The one I know of is easy to refute:
P1. Everything has a cause
P2. To avoid an infinite regress there must be a first cause.
C That first cause we call god.
Now the premises are wrong, if we accept the first premise then the second premise is an ad-hoc fallacy. That is, it makes a special case that just this once there is no first cause to avoid infinite regress. If we accept the second premise, we have rejected the first that everything has a cause. Why can't the universe be a first cause instead of something else?
Further, the 1st premise as I see it is really an inductive argument: Everything (that I know of) has a cause. If there exists anything that doesn't have a cause, this premise is wrong even without the contradiction of the second premise. There are things that don't have a cause. I believe an excited electron emitting a photon and going to a lower energy state is one such thing.
And finally even if we accept both premises for the sake of argument. The conclusion doesn't hold. It's a long way from some nebulous first cause, some force, to a providential god of the bible.
Thoughts? Or is my logic flawed?

Other Comments by BAEOZ

15. Comment #109706 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 2:29 pm

"Oh, the scientists think their logic makes them smarter than God, little do they know, we don't care about logic."

I don't know about christians, but I don't think mathematicians can be called scientists, though you need maths in science. To oversimplify: Maths is a formal system based on logic. Science is a method that tests empirical evidence against falsifiable explanations which have predictive power.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

16. Comment #109707 by Steve Zara on January 9, 2008 at 2:35 pm

Thoughts? Or is my logic flawed?

I have posted this before, so I'll try and be brief.

From the perspective of physics, the "first cause" argument seems like merely fun with words. Space and time can stretch beyond anything we can easily imagine, and Godel showed how much things can stretch by describing Universes in which you can travel in loops of time. First cause arguments are human attempts to discuss a human-scale understanding of time and causality, but reality is far stranger. Discussing the issue of the infinite regress could turn out to be like discussing the geography of a flat Earth.

That would be my approach: If they try and dazzle you with theological worldplay, hit back with brain-numbing physics.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

17. Comment #109708 by Quetzalcoatl on January 9, 2008 at 2:36 pm

BAEOZ-

I think your logic is correct.

To all:

Theists will often say that nobody created God, that he is eternal. My question is, is it reasonable to counter that by saying "why can't the Universe be eternal, and have always existed? An eternal Universe is a valid alternative to an eternal God".

Is this a valid response, or is there a flaw that I am overlooking (the hour is late, and I am very tired).

Cheers!

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

18. Comment #109710 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Thanks Steve. I was actually just wondering if it worked logically. I think the first cause fails in simple Aristotelean logic. Let alone in the "real" world.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

19. Comment #109711 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 2:40 pm

Quetz, oh mighty one, that's why it's an ad-hoc fallacy. If the first premise is everything has a cause. Then for this premise to be valid, everything has a cause. To then put up your hand and say, everything, except the thing (ad hoc - to the thing) that I favor has a cause, you've committed a fallacy of logic. So if your favorite thing doesn't need a cause, then why does anything need a cause? You've just contradicted the first premise with the fallacy.......

Other Comments by BAEOZ

20. Comment #109712 by Steve Zara on January 9, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Thanks Steve. I was actually just wondering if it worked logically. I think the first cause fails in simple Aristotelean logic. Let alone in the "real" world.

I think you are probably safe in logical terms.

But I have an analogy you may find interesting, and even useful. At one time a similiar kind of 'infinite recursion' matter was being discussed in biology, as some people ("Spermists") believed that babies developed from miniature bodies contained within the head of a sperm - the egg was just an "incubator". The problem then was... where did the generation after that come from? Were there an infinite regression of people within people?

Of course, increased biological knowledge showed that this argument was absurd.

When such "recursion" arguments are brought up, it is pretty sure this is a sign that something is being discussed from a position of ignorance about what is really going on in scientific terms.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

21. Comment #109714 by Steve Zara on January 9, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Is this a valid response, or is there a flaw that I am overlooking (the hour is late, and I am very tired).

Theists get around this by claiming that God was necessary because things can't just "be", they have to be "willed" into existence, and so you need a big Mind to create things, and it is able to sort of bootstrap itself into existence, or is eternal, or something.

They have always got some meaningless drivel to hand.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

22. Comment #109716 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Thanks again Steve. You should be bottled. You're a great resource. Was your example the "hommunculi"? Which is essentially where the catholic church got it's arguments about the soul entering upon conception. I recall that because at conception the human already had human form, just a lot smaller, it would already have a soul and thus you couldn't kill it........

Other Comments by BAEOZ

23. Comment #109717 by epeeist on January 9, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Comment #109705 by BAEOZ

P1. Everything has a cause
P2. To avoid an infinite regress there must be a first cause.
C That first cause we call god.

We have been through this on another thread with the argument from complexity. Let's take them one at a time.

P1 - is false. We know that things like virtual particles are created and annihilated all the time. Thus the best you can say is that some things have a clause, so you change the quantifier. You can ignore the problem of existential import since we aren't too worried if nothing has a cause. You could also take modalities into account, do things necessarily have to have a cause or only possibly?

P2 - is, as you say ad hoc. The case of infinite regress is actually simpler than the case where you stop the series at a particular point since one doesn't need additional explanation as to why one should stop at there. In the interest of parsimony we should use this rather than the truncated series.

C - is equivocation. Just because there is a first cause to the universe does not mean to say that this cause is (as they seem to use the jargon on atheism sucks) a 3-O being.

And you are right, they haven't established why there should be an external cause to the universe. The net energy of the universe is extremely close to zero so there is no particular reason why it needs a cause.

And they haven't established why one shouldn't have more than one term. If there is a god then why not a meta-god, and a meta-meta-god?

Other Comments by epeeist

24. Comment #109718 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 2:50 pm

Theists get around this by claiming that God was necessary because things can't just "be", they have to be "willed" into existence

That's just an argument from ignorance. I can't imagine anything just being, so nothing can just be. Sort that inductive step I was refering to earlier. Everything in my knowlege/understanding has a cause, thus everything has a cause.......

Other Comments by BAEOZ

25. Comment #109720 by Steve Zara on January 9, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Was your example the "hommunculi"?

Yes.

That's just an argument from ignorance.

Indeed. I was illustrating how easy it is to mimic the kind of weird thinking and odd use of language.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

26. Comment #109721 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Thanks Steve and Epeeist. Can I get all your knowledge implanted into my brain. Actually, it probably couldn't handle the dataset. Sorry to have brought up something discussed on another thread.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

27. Comment #109722 by Quetzalcoatl on January 9, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Thanks for the comments everyone. Off to bed.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

28. Comment #109724 by epeeist on January 9, 2008 at 2:59 pm

Addendum: If the theists come back and say that god causes virtual particles to be created then I think the counter argument is that if you have a god that controls the cosmos to this granular a level then human free will must go out of the window.

Dualism doesn't get you out of this, since god is micro-controlling the physical environment your mind will be incapable of making your body do anything that subverts this control.

Other Comments by epeeist

29. Comment #109725 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 2:59 pm

Quetz. Why does a deity need sleep? It doesn't make sense. My faith is being tested. Why do you test me oh Quetz? Have I not drunk the holy drink? Have I not praised you?

Epeeist or Steve. Have either of you read Roger Penrose's road to reality? I just started reading a bit this morning and found his discussion of platonic forms a bit puzzling. Seems his definition of existence is a bit different from mine. Anyway, what are your thoughts on the book?

Other Comments by BAEOZ

30. Comment #109726 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 3:01 pm

If the theists come back and say that god causes virtual particles to be created then I think the counter argument is that if you have a god that controls the cosmos to this granular a level then human free will must go out of the window.

Cool. I could imagine a theist saying god causes an electron to release a photon and go to a lower energy state. As you say, if god's micromanaging the universe to this level, then everything we are just carrying out our programming.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

31. Comment #109728 by Steve Zara on January 9, 2008 at 3:02 pm

Epeeist or Steve. Have either of you read Roger Penrose's road to reality? I just started reading a bit this morning and found his discussion of platonic forms a bit puzzling. Seems his definition of existence is a bit different from mine. Anyway, what are your thoughts on the book?

I keep making a start. My problem is that I read a lot in bed, and the book is so heavy it strains my arms, so I resort to something slimmer....

I do have to say that although very skeptical about his views on consciousness, I really like his idea about gravity as the trigger for the collapse of the wave function, and unlike most interpretations of QM, it is testable.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

32. Comment #109729 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 3:03 pm

My problem is that I read a lot in bed, and the book is so heavy it strains my arms, so I resort to something slimmer....

I try reading in bed, but often fall asleep before I get far. Damn stimulus-response conditioning.....

Other Comments by BAEOZ

33. Comment #109730 by Big City on January 9, 2008 at 3:05 pm

Quetzalcoatl,
I think you're point is consistent with what Baeoz said. "...if your favorite thing doesn't need a cause, then why does anything need a cause?" is a pretty good way to put it. You're pretty much using their logic to show them that their argument doesn't make sense (namely, Baeoz's first premise).

Other Comments by Big City

34. Comment #109731 by Steve Zara on January 9, 2008 at 3:05 pm

As you say, if god's micromanaging the universe to this level, then everything we are just carrying out our programming.

And to add to epeeist's point. It would be very odd for a God to trigger the creation of virtual particles in precisely the places and times to create randomness; the very pattern you would expect if there was no intelligence behind it at all.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

35. Comment #109732 by Big City on January 9, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Stone,
That's hilarious, I have had that exact thought on the "admitted schmo" book, unfortunately, I still have to pay student loans in the meantime!

Other Comments by Big City

36. Comment #109733 by steveroot on January 9, 2008 at 3:17 pm

Well, I don't know math from a hole in the ground! ;-)

This one goes on my "to read" list.
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

37. Comment #109734 by Cartomancer on January 9, 2008 at 3:18 pm

I think we have something of a glut of anti-religious books by scientists, mathematicians, philosophers and their ilk at the moment. As a medieval historian myself I want to see more from the humanities end of the spectrum - Hitchens is probably the only major author who springs to mind here.

When I finally finish my doctorate (if the world hasn't fallen into dangerous theocratic oblivion by then, and given how slowly the damned thing is going that is highly likely) I might try my hand at such a work, pointing out how ninety-nine per cent of theists' arguments rest on premises drawn straight from ancient or medieval world views that they themselves do not lend credence in any other sphere of life but religion. The first cause argument is a very good example.

But looking at the history of it, medieval historians are perhaps the first critics of religious thinking in that we pointed out all the nasty things done during the crusades, inquisition, etc. Nobody takes us seriously anyway, so why should theists be any different. Generally they just gabble "Hitler! Stalin! Pol Pot!" like children with wounded pride, and play on the unspoken assumption that modern historians are to be taken seriously whereas medievalists are not. Anyway, how dare an atheist study a very religious period of history! (I was once asked by a fellow medievalist how I can study theological ideas without believing in the Christian god. I replied by asking how she can study Aristotelian ideas withot believing in Aristotelian physics).

A "new atheist" book by a theologian, now that's what I'm looking forward to.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

38. Comment #109737 by Ducklike on January 9, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Hi BAEOZ,

Quetz. Why does a deity need sleep? It doesn't make sense. My faith is being tested. Why do you test me oh Quetz? Have I not drunk the holy drink? Have I not praised you?

It seems your god said "bed" not "sleep". Perhaps he's conducting some other godlike activity that can be done in a bed besides sleep. Hey, apparently Zeus was fond of it too.

;)

Other Comments by Ducklike

39. Comment #109738 by Diacanu on January 9, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Ugh, economics, now math.

We need another funny one.

...*sigh*...Bill Hicks is dead, it's going to have to be me, isn't it?

What a burdon.

Dammit.

First being the chosen one in the transhuman war, now this.
The weight just keeps getting heavier.

Other Comments by Diacanu

40. Comment #109739 by emmet on January 9, 2008 at 3:36 pm

BAEOZ,

The "argument" is plainly circular, not to mention vacuous and stupid.

The problem is that "everything" really means "everything except God": God is implicitly presupposed to exist and excluded from "everything".

Put another way, one can use the conclusion of the argument (God exists) to deny the foundational assumption: if *everything* has a cause, then God has a cause, unless God is not part of "everything" (the implicit presupposition). If God is not part of "everything", then in what sense can he/she/it be held to exist?

TBH, for the sake of your own sanity, I'd avoid getting involved in an argument so manifestly sophomoric and masturbatory, unless you enjoy playing whack-a-moron.

Other Comments by emmet

41. Comment #109740 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 3:37 pm

It seems your god said "bed" not "sleep". Perhaps he's conducting some other godlike activity that can be done in a bed besides sleep. Hey, apparently Zeus was fond of it too.

How dare you profane the sacred acts of Quetz! Heretic! He is not like the pagan gods. I need a tea after that.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

42. Comment #109741 by ianmkz on January 9, 2008 at 3:40 pm

So do we in practice favour infinite regress or a prime mover in god-free timespace?

Other Comments by ianmkz

43. Comment #109742 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 3:44 pm

So do we in practice favour infinite regress or a prime mover in god-free timespace?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I thought we'd already demonstrated that both were false. At the very least unnecessary to explain the universe.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

44. Comment #109743 by Steve Zara on January 9, 2008 at 3:47 pm

I favour neither. I think the question is mistaken.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

45. Comment #109744 by ianmkz on January 9, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Well I favour the prime mover, all praise to the singularity.

Other Comments by ianmkz

46. Comment #109745 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 3:50 pm

A black hole is the prime mover? OK.....

Other Comments by BAEOZ

47. Comment #109746 by Ducklike on January 9, 2008 at 3:51 pm

How dare you profane the sacred acts of Quetz! Heretic! He is not like the pagan gods. I need a tea after that.

Oops, sorry. I guess you don't want to hear about the Teddy Bear then either.

Other Comments by Ducklike

48. Comment #109748 by bliktor on January 9, 2008 at 3:52 pm

BAEOZ -P1. Everything has a cause
P2. To avoid an infinite regress there must
be a first cause.
C That first cause we call god.

This is just another form of the Kalam cosmological argument that goes back to the eight century.

1. Everything that exists has a cause
2. The universe exists
c. Therefore the universe has a cause

Theists such as William Lane Craig have tried to use this argument to prove God's existence stating that since the universe has a cause, it must be a creator since there's no other possible cause for a universe to come into existence. The problem here is granting that the universe had a cause, it does not logically follow that the cause was a creator. I can think of other possibilities such as quantum seas or multi-verse generators that cause Big Bangs. Just because you cannot show what causes something does not mean that it's alright to just start invoking deities to explain it.

Other Comments by bliktor

49. Comment #109749 by Diacanu on January 9, 2008 at 3:52 pm

Okay, so how should my funny atheist book go?

Straight ahead bitching like Hitchens, but in my style?

Or, a parody of the flea books?

Other Comments by Diacanu

50. Comment #109750 by BAEOZ on January 9, 2008 at 3:54 pm