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

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

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

3.57 of 5 stars 3.57 · rating details · 721 ratings · 79 reviews

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 arg...more

Hardcover, 158 pages

Published December 26th 2007 by Hill and Wang

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

More…

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

Gödel, Escher, Bach by Douglas R. Hofstadter

Journey through Genius by William Dunham

Best Books About Mathematics

116th out of 132 books — 153 voters

God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens

Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris

What is Atheism About?

29th out of 40 books — 18 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 1,725)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Oct 03, 2009 D. Parker rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

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...more

7 likes · like · see review

Sep 26, 2008 Raja99 rated it 3 of 5 stars

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...more

6 likes · like · see review

Oct 01, 2012 Shelley rated it 1 of 5 stars

My 16 year old son read it and told me "don't read it!" as my sister had loaned it to me. Well, now I know why, because I didn't get it (and neither did he). I didn't understand the logic in it. What's the need for all these huge words throughout? Making it easier to read would have made it easier for the reader to understand his point of view. I am a believer of God and we are all sinners. What comes down to it: I hated this book and could hardly wait to finish it, made myself finish it.

Someone...more

1 like · like · see review

Feb 05, 2008 Adam rated it 3 of 5 stars 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. For those who want a summary of false claims of the supernatural, IRRELIGION is a nice primer for those of us within the U.S. minority that is, as Penny Edgall puts it, "the glaring exception to the rule of incr...more

5 likes · like · see review

Apr 28, 2011 Eric Hendrixson rated it 3 of 5 stars

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...more

5 likes · like · see review

Mar 18, 2010 Mateo rated it 4 of 5 stars

This is a nifty little (150 pages) book that takes the major arguments for the existence of God and dispatches them quickly and more or less painlessly, simply by examining the logic behind them. All of the hoary favorites are here (Argument from First Cause, Ontological Argument, etc.), plus some newer, less formal sources of belief, each presented in the form of a syllogism that Paulos examines and breaks down. For the most part, Paulos doesn't bother with marshaling facts and evidence against...more

2 likes · like · see review

Aug 08, 2012 Keith Swenson rated it 4 of 5 stars

I have been a long time fan of John Allen Paulos's Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences where he talks about the harm to society of a population that does not know how to do math. When I saw this book, couldn't help picking it up.

Gave it four stars because it is well written and important. He runs through the various arguments for the existence of God, and points out the fallacies in each. Very clear, very organized. And not too long. I listened to the audio version which las...more

1 like · like · see review

Nov 11, 2011 Nenia Campbell rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: x-2007s, reviewed

This is the first skeptical book about religion that I've read, which is kind of funny to me. I'm agnostic, but I've read more books about religion than atheism. It's kind of ironic, really. I've even read the Bible (or parts of it, anyway. The New Testament and most of Genesis). John Paulos is fairly verbal for a mathematician which was refreshing; so many math people I have met suck at explaining things for me and my fellow word-nerds. However, I did not find his arguments particularly convinc...more This is the first skeptical book about religion that I've read, which is kind of funny to me. I'm agnostic, but I've read more books about religion than atheism. It's kind of ironic, really. I've even read the Bible (or parts of it, anyway. The New Testament and most of Genesis). John Paulos is fairly verbal for a mathematician which was refreshing; so many math people I have met suck at explaining things for me and my fellow word-nerds. However, I did not find his arguments particularly convincing -- and I found his personality grating -- for reasons which will follow.

1. The ontological argument. Oh, God, how familiar am I with this argument. It basically states that God is the greatest possible being imaginable. Nothing is greater than God. Existing in the flesh is greater than existing in the mind. Therefore God, being the physical manifestation of all that is great, must exist. One of the biggest criticisms of this argument is that it is a priori and that anything could be substituted for God (unicorns, a wheel of cheese the size of the moon, Gerard Butler's sexy long-lost twin and my future soulmate -- ahem), and "proved" to exist. All of his proofs seemed to revolve around this argument, which is unfortunate because using it to prove that something does not exist is just as subject to fallibility (which, to his credit, I believe he pointed out).

2. Grouping agnostics and atheists together. Really, this bothers me a lot, because we are not the same. It's quite offensive to presume otherwise. There's an old joke that everybody hates the poor agnostics because religious people think they're atheists, and the atheists think they're wishy-washy. Personally, I believe that atheism shows just as much hubris as claiming to follow "the one true God" because in both cases, you are claiming that YOU know the ABSOLUTE. You either believe utterly and irrevocably that there IS NO GOD or you believe utterly and irrevocably that there IS A GOD. We really have no way of knowing (yet), and if there is a God, I do not believe that He would appreciate such arrogance on His part.

3. Using religion as a form of therapy or denial. This, I think, is where he really hits below the belt. If people prefer to believe that their departed loved ones are in a Better Place, why convince them otherwise? It seems cruel to do so. Granted, there are limits: like the horrible Jonestown issue, where people engaged in mass suicide to go to this better place; or the people who spend their whole lives without really "living" because they are living a literal, highly orthodox interpretation of the bible; or the people who actually kill themselves or others in the name of God. These behaviors are not adaptive, but as a coping strategy, I can see why religion is so comforting. To be honest, sometimes being an agnostic is quite lonely. I sometimes wish I had been reared in a religious environment, if only to believe that some benevolent eye was constantly keeping a lookout for me and my best interests.

4. His explanation of factorials confused me. He wrote out that the product of 5! was 4 x 5. Is that correct? I understand that he IS a math professor, but I was under the impression that five factorial was 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1. At first I wondered if it was shorthand, but generally 5! is written out as 5 x 4 x 3... if it's shorthand. He did it again several times saying that 3! was 3 x 2, and so on. It was very odd. I found it hard to take his arguments seriously, because if he's a math professor but doesn't understand factorials... Jeez.

5. His dream conversation with God. OMG. I wanted to punch him in the face after reading this segment. The arrogance! I hate it when authors do this, inserting their dreams as if it gives them some sort of credibility. I think Michael Moore did this once, which was totally unfortunate, as it made me dislike the book I was reading because after that, I just couldn't take him seriously. The hubris! The sheer hubris! I simply could not believe his arrogance. After all that talk about basing arguments on wispy premises, he had to go and do THIS. /credibility

To be fair, he did bring up many good points. Such as the fact that criticism of agnostics and atheists by the religious is tolerated much more than criticism of the religious by agnostics and atheists. Something else that shocked me was a survey at U of Minnesota, where roughly 43% said that they would be reluctant if their son/daughter wanted to marry an atheist. Agnostics were not included in the responses listed, so I can't help but wonder if they were grouped together or, as is sadly very common, ignored completely. Did I find his book enjoyable? Somewhat. It was a short, brisk read. I'm glad it wasn't any longer than it was. Would I recommend it to others? No. It will only piss off the religious, but I think it will piss off agnostics and atheists as well, because he doesn't really "condemn" religion at all. He just argues why their spokespeople suck at advertising it. The result is that he comes off as a flip-flopper that nobody agrees with... rather like us agnostics, ironically. Did he change my beliefs? Nope. Those are between me and the Great Unknown. :)(less)

2 likes · like · see review

Nov 08, 2012 Jim Razinha rated it 5 of 5 stars

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.

2 likes · like · see review

Dec 04, 2010 Martin Crim rated it 2 of 5 stars

Like a person with no ability to appreciate art writing about painting, Paulos writes about religion from the perspective of a strong, early intuitive feeling toward materialism. Paulos conflates the idea of explanation with the idea of meaning, thus missing the richness of life. Toward the middle of the book, Paulos acknowledges the metaphor of a person with perfect pitch trying to explain music to someone who is tone deaf, but he then pivots to an analogy of sightedness v. blindness, as if the...more

1 like · like · see review

Dec 10, 2011 Prospero rated it 2 of 5 stars Recommends it for: Atheists, secular humanists, agnostics.

God does not compute...or at least the belief in a divine power does not logically withstand scrutiny according to Paulos, who systematically refutes all the extant arguments for the supernatural from his perspective as Professor of Mathematics at Temple University. This is a subject Paulos has written on before in various columns so readers of his will find all of this to be familiar ground.

Are his analyses as eloquent as those of Hitchens, or as provocative as Dawkins? Not hardly. He's a numbe...more

1 like · like · see review

Mar 26, 2013 Drew rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy, science

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 arg...more 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."
(less)

like · see review

Nov 18, 2010 Yupa rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

for fans only

Librettino che riordina e riesamina le varie prove logiche che nei secoli hanno tentato di "dimostrare" l'esistenza di dio. Limitandosi quasi unicamente al dio dei monoteismi trascendenti, ovvero a quello cristiano.
La lettura è veloce, lo stile è garbato e ironico, non senza qualche osservazione puntuta che magari potrebbe un po' infastidire il credente.
Ma probabilmente non molti credenti leggeranno questo libro che, come tanti altri del genere, verrà aperto soprattutto da chi già l...more for fans only

Librettino che riordina e riesamina le varie prove logiche che nei secoli hanno tentato di "dimostrare" l'esistenza di dio. Limitandosi quasi unicamente al dio dei monoteismi trascendenti, ovvero a quello cristiano.
La lettura è veloce, lo stile è garbato e ironico, non senza qualche osservazione puntuta che magari potrebbe un po' infastidire il credente.
Ma probabilmente non molti credenti leggeranno questo libro che, come tanti altri del genere, verrà aperto soprattutto da chi già la pensa come l'autore; il quale, del resto, dice chiaramente e con umiltà e onestà che non ha alcuna intenzione di convincere nessuno o dimostrare alcunché, ma semplicemente di esporre le ragioni per cui, lui, personalmente, non crede in dio.
Emblematico il passaggio: "...la verità è che non voglio farmi troppe beffe dei bisogni emotivi, che riguardino l'amore oppure Dio. Semplicemente, io non sento alcun bisogno di credere"; nonché: "È davvero ripugnante che un ateo o un agnostico attacchino aggressivamente e sul piano personale la fede degli altri, magari bollandola come un cumulo di sciocchezze per imbecilli. Chi si comporta così è giustamente accusato di essere arrogante e prepotente".
Difetto del libro è la sua ambizione divulgativa non del tutto riuscita. Trattando in maniera assai concisa argomenti logici e filosofici, con varî excursi nella matematica, il volumetto rischia d'essere troppo semplice se non semplicistico (assai discutibile, ad esempio, porre sullo stesso piano creazionismo e intelligent design) per lo specialista; e al contempo ancora troppo tecnico per il profano.

Ma la più grossa pecca è l'introduzione scritta da Odiffredi.
Quattro paginette in cui, trascurando il consiglio dell'autore di non "attaccare aggressivamente e sul piano personale la fede degli altri bollandola come cumulo di sciocchezze", Odiffredi parte in quarta affermando, non si sa con quanta ironia, che i credenti renderebbero "questo mondo molto peggiore con la loro presenza", e ammonendoci poi che "sarebbe un eccesso di stima [sia mai!] nei confronti dei credenti pensare che dietro alle motivazioni della loro fede ci siano sempre argomenti sofisticati", tracciando, caso mai ci fossero dubbî, un 'illuminante' parallelo coi media che "prosperano speculando sul fatto che la gente è molto più impressionata dalle sciocchezze che non capisce, che dalle cose serie che potrebbe capire".
Eh, per fortuna che c'è Odiffredi, che a quanto pare sa, lui, quali siano le cose serie e quelle idiote, il vero e il falso, il giusto e lo sbagliato; inutile che ci dica da che parte sta lui... non certo da quella dell'errore.
E quindi conclude citando Voltaire: "chi crede ad assurdità, finisce per commettere atrocità".
Non conosco il contesto originale della frase, ma credo si potrebbe fare un bel discorso sul significato che 'assurdo' e 'ovvio' vanno ad assumere relativamente al contesto sociale e culturale, e che è soprattutto qui che si gioca la produzione di atrocità, le quali, non a caso, sono state somministrate da regimi politici atei e clericali, scientifici e teocratici in egual misura.
Mio caro Odiffredi, ti rivelerò dunque un segreto: le atrocità non vengono attuate automaticamente da chi non fa di scienza, logica e matematica la misura del Mondo (le quali, tra l'altro, sono strumenti descrittivi, e non prescrittivi); le atrocità le realizza o avalla chi è convinto inflessibilmente di avere la Verità nella sua testa o i modi corretti per ottenerla, e quindi la sacra missione di combattere le Tenebre... e questo indipendentemente che la 'Verità' sia quella del testo sacro o degli attuali risultati della scienza, e che le 'Tenebre' siano quelle di Satana e del peccato o dell'oscurantismo religioso.(less)

1 like · like · see review

May 23, 2009 Dale rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: nonfiction, favorites

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...more

3 likes · like · see review

Feb 05, 2008 David rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: philosophy-religion

This small, breezy book covers many of the main arguments for god. Most of the refutations aren't original, but Paulos doesn't claim they are - he just thinks it'd be useful to have them all in one place. Fair enough. He's generally pretty careful, as you'd expect a mathematician to be, but he does at one point make the extremely silly mistake of assuming perfect mixing of human populations when calculating descendents.

In any case, his subject matter doesn't interest me a great deal. Yes, all th...more

1 like · like · see review

Dec 05, 2009 James rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: culture-and-politics, general-science-math-technology, spirituality-and-or-religion, death-dying-killing-bereavement, history, humor, mythology, psychology

Another excellent book from the author of 'Innumeracy' - this time he takes on about all the arguments for the existence of God, at least in any of the forms envisioned by mainstream religions.
Some other authors writing on this topic have taken tones ranging from urgent to strident. I believe there's a place for their outlooks, because as they note, a large share of the human suffering in the world is rooted in religion. However, Paulos' take is much gentler, more accepting of believers though n...more

1 like · like · see review

Mar 28, 2011 Bretbenesh rated it 4 of 5 stars

A good summary of why arguments for the existence of God cannot be convincing. This is mostly what you have heard before (although he provides better summaries of the arguments than you usually see), and he has a couple of interesting perspectives on the arguments.

Not very groundbreaking, but he adds enough new ideas to make it interesting. I was vacillating between giving this three or four stars, and I decided on four because it was gripped me enough to keep turning the pages.

like · see review

Jul 11, 2010 Jerrod rated it 4 of 5 stars Recommends it for: doubters, skeptics, agnostics, theists, deists, and those of an open mind

Shelves: my-library, philosophy-of-religion

Over all a good read. I don't know if I would put it up as something for a philosopher per se to read. But, anyone interested in a mathematical glean on the proofs for god could benefit from this book.
It is a short engaging work. Which I think would be only slightly offensive to any theist reading it, though I can't imagine any theist picking it up unless they were already beyond them self in such a way as to not get offended.

1 like · like · see review

May 06, 2011 Zach Elkins rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: atheism, philosophy, religion

The mathmetician's twist on trying to explain away faith is often a bit too thick. With the use of tons of mathematical terminology the average reader will be left with not a whole lot to hold on too. At times the reader may feel confused or alienated due to the lack of understanding.

Though there are some chapters that are more universal, overall there are not any new ideas offered, and seems like a rehashing of an argument against God, just saying that God is more improbable than the slow evolu...more

like · see review

Dec 08, 2009 Nikolay rated it 3 of 5 stars

Много интересни, логични и забавни контра-аргументи за всеки аргумент на вярващите. За съжаление няма как такава книга да промени статуквото. Нито може да помогне на един не-вярващ да разубеди един вярващ.

like · see review

Feb 24, 2008 Axie rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: advisory07-08

At first I saw this book and thought to myself "Ok, another skeptical book that tries to dispprove God. How lovely!" I felt that because it used mathematical concepts, it would be easy to follow...but how wrong I was.

Generally, I liked the book, I thought it was extremely interesting, and the thought process behind the author was truly logical and unique- wonderful qualities to have in any novel. But I did feel that it was a little beyond my level of reading. Still, I'm glad that I got through...more

like · see review

Jan 11, 2010 Saeed rated it 3 of 5 stars

Easier to read than most books of this genre, at times the author does wander off a bit with difficult references. However, for the most part, this concise text evaluates and debunks (not always successfully) most of the arguments for the existence of God. A good read that is more approachable than you would expect.

1 like · like · see review

Nov 21, 2010 Emma rated it 3 of 5 stars Recommends it for: a newbie to pro-atheism books.

Shelves: non-fiction, science

A less than original but concise and approachable summary of rebuttals to arguments for the existence of god. Read my full review at my book review blog, Em and Emm Expound on Exposition.

1 like · like · see review

Apr 17, 2010 Melody rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: heard

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.

1 like · like · see review

Apr 26, 2010 Preeti rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: atheism

I really enjoyed this book. It introduced me to some interesting arguments that I hadn't heard previously. I really liked Paulos' random humor sprinkled throughout as well.

There were some concepts that I felt were beyond my understanding but I don't think that detracted from the reading overall.

I think this was a great intro book to read for the beginning atheist (is there such a thing?) or an agnostic. Now onto more in-depth books! Perhaps Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins?

1 like · like · see review

Jul 30, 2011 Joel Sassone added it

Short and sweet, like a Beatles song. If a Beatles song were to describe the logical fallacies underlying belief in a god, that is. The author is a mathematician, but no math is involved in this book, just logic.

1 like · like · see review

Jul 20, 2010 Charles Lindsey rated it 2 of 5 stars

Unworthy of this brilliant man. Warmed-over, watered-down newspaper columns. Lazy, unresearched, unwitty, un-incisive, flat. Snark diluted as extravagantly as any homeopathic muck. Give him a do-over.

like · see review

Jan 01, 2010 Shawn Patrick rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: atheism

Good, short book, but it didn't really cover any new ground or re-cover ground in a new way. Nothing new here for people already decently well-read in the genre.

1 like · like · see review

Jun 02, 2009 Kathleen rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: math-science, non-fiction, read-in-2009, philosophy

The subtitle for this book is fairly descriptive. Paulos does not attempt to prove that there is no god, or that belief is somehow wrong, he simply uses logic to disprove most of the common arguments that God exists. It is a good book and well worth perusing whichever side of the great theological divide you camp on. For one thing, it is never bad to consider deeply consider the logic of your arguments. For another, it is always good to consider the logic of the arguments of someone you might di...more

like · see review

Apr 30, 2012 Mike de la Flor rated it 4 of 5 stars

This is a fun take on debunking the arguments for the existence of God from a mathematician's point of view. This a short book and a fairly easy read.

1 like · like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 57 58 next »

Religion

43 users

Religion > Atheism

35 users

Science

28 users

Philosophy

26 users

Science > Mathematics

10 users

History

4 users

Philosophy > Skepticism

3 users

Reference

2 users

See top shelves...

Readers also enjoyed similar books

Books by John Allen Paulos

Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences

Once Upon A Number: The Hidden Mathematical Logic Of Stories

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About Irreligion: A Mat...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

title link	preview: Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up
avg rating	preview: Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up Goodreads rating: 3.57 (721 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1873944.Irreligion?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1316635760l/1873944.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1873944.Irreligion?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up by John Allen Paulos[/url]

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

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (12)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

Books by John Allen Paulos

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About Irreligion: A Mat...

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

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topicDiscuss This Book

combineOther Editions (12)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

Books by John Allen Paulos

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About Irreligion: A Mat...

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (12)