All the philosophers and theologians are going to have find something else to debate, because the question of whether or not "God" exists has finally been answered. With math! Glorious math! Is there nothing it can't do? First it helped us find the length of the hypoteneuse, and now this! Good luck finding another job, folks. What's that? You're thinking of going into print journalism. Wow, I'm afraid I have some more bad news . . .

Actually, I'm just teasing. Your jobs are at least as secure as anyone else's, and probably much more so than anyone who works for a newspaper. In spite of the subtitle, this thoughtful book makes no such grandiose claims to present "a simple calculation that proves the ultimate truth." I'm quite certain the publishers tacked that on to sell more books. Claiming to provide the ultimate answers to grand celestial questions is a great marketing ploy to sell lots of books to a gullible audience. Witness the phenomenal sales of the Bible and Koran, neither of which, incidentally, are nearly as genuinely thought-provoking as this, but which have much better PR machines behind them.

This book did not provoke the slightest change in my own philosophical perspective concerning the existence of a hypothetical omnipotent entity out there. Far more interesting to me was the discussion of Bayesian analysis, and an introduction to the idea that probability can be a far more complex idea than we assume it to be.

Ultimately, I think that Dr. Unwin earnestly wants to believe in the existence of God, but his rigorous scientific thinking does not allow him to do so without framing what he wants to believe in a context of mathematical formalism. The majority of people in the world are theists and would, if asked, ascribe a 100% probability to the existence of God. A small minority are atheists and would ascribe a 0% probability, or would instead ascribe a 100% probability to the existence of a flying spaghetti monster, but only to piss off the theists. They don't really believe that they have been touched by His noodly appendage.

Another minority would describe themselves as agnostics, implying a probability of God by their calculations somewhere between 0% and 100%. But very few of them could be more specific than that. Personally, I find the entire question of "whether or not God exists" to be silly and meaningless, but I have to give Unwin some credit for at least trying to apply some mathematics to his faith and his doubt, quantifying it, so that theology, digital for dozens of centuries, has finally gone analog.

He concludes with a 95% probability of the existence of God, applying Bayesian analysis to his own admittedly subjective beliefs. I don't agree with him, and the beautiful thing is that I'm sure he'd be 100% okay with that. I neither believe nor disbelieve in the flying spaghetti monster either, but I am 100% confident that it is at least as probable that it exists as any other hypothetical deity. May marinara be upon Him.