Amicus Dei

In Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why The Arguments For God Just Don’t Add Up, John Allen Paulos performs a great favor for Christians: he knocks the props from under the classic arguments for the existence of God. You might think that evaluation strange coming from a Baptist pastor, but let me explain.

This short 158-page book takes on a task far beyond its diminutive size. Paulos begins the book by asking:

Are there any logical reasons to believe in God?

Dr. Paulos, professor of mathematics at Temple University, brings wit and reason to bear in developing his argument. Paulos tackles 12 logical arguments for the existence of God by organizing them into three categories — classical, subjective, and psycho-mathematical. All this is not as daunting as it seems because the book is written with a charming skepticism that is not off-putting or arrogant. Paulos is not on a rant, but a good-natured ramble through the here-to-fore sacred cows of Christian apologetics. He even takes on C. S. Lewis’ “liar-lunatic-Lord” argument and disassembles it. (p. 94). And that’s only the beginning.

In the classical arguments for the existence of God, Paulos lists four:

1. The argument from first cause.
2. The argument from design.
3. The argument from anthropic principle.
4. The ontological argument.

Here’s an example of Paulos’ reasoning about the argument from “first cause:”

Of someone who asserts that God is the uncaused first cause (and then preens as if he’s really explained something), we should thus inquire, “Why cannot the physical world itself be taken to be the first uncaused first cause?”

Good point, and that is the kind of point Paulos makes repeatedly. To the teleological argument — that a design points to a designer — Paulos says,

“Oddly, the fact that we and all life have evolved from simpler forms by natural selection disturbs fundamentalists who are completely unfazed by the biblical claim that we come from dirt.”

Another good point.

I won’t take time to go through each argument for God and demonstrate how Paulos reasons it inadequate because I think by now you get the picture. Actually, Paulos concludes the book by saying that the world would be a better place if more would “acknowledge at least their own private doubts about God. While not a panacea, candidly recognizing the absence of any good logical arguments for God’s existence, giving up on divine allies and advocates as well as taskmasters and tormentors, and prizing a humane, reasonable, and brave outlook just might help move this world a bit closer to a heaven on earth.” (p. 148-9). Which, as he says, is what we all want — heaven on earth.

Why do I think Paulos has done Christians a favor? Because in my experience, Christian apologetics is usually “preaching to the choir.” Apologists cite the arguments for God (“if there is a design, there must be a designer” for example), and the Christian audience applauds, “Well, that settles that! No reasonable person could deny that!” End of discussion. We have proven God exists.

But, maybe not to everybody, and this is where Paulos helps us. Dr. Paulos, with his good-humored skepticism, isn’t buying our arguments. He pokes holes in them. Lots of holes. Logical reasoned holes. Holes that leave us saying, “Oh, yeah, I hadn’t thought of it that way.” Because Christian apologetics only works if it works on non-Christians. Christians don’t need it. Dr. Paulos shows us that non-believers are thinkers, too; and we followers of Christ need to know what they are thinking.

But, Paulos also wants some respect from Christians (and all other religions) for people who don’t believe as we do. Paulos writes regularly in several publications about his opinions, and receives regular retorts from Christians. These Christian responses, he says, “generally range from vituperative to venomous with most clustering around the latter.” (p. 21) Again, our behavior often negates our message.

The author also raises an interesting question — “I’ve often wondered why adherents of a particular religion and its associated figures and narratives claim to be incapable of understanding atheists and agnostics.” Paulos points out that “their religion teaches them to deny figures, even the God(s), of other faiths and traditions….Atheists and agnostics simply do them one better, extending this denial one God further to make it universal.” (p. 80) Another good point, and I had never thought of it that way myself. (See what I mean.)

But, the book isn’t just deconstruction. Paulos gives us a glimpse into his own belief system — and he does have one — by telling us that as a child his “qualitative calculations had proved to me that there were too many expectant kids around the world for Mr. Claus to even come close to making his Christmas Eve rounds in time, even if he didn’t stop for the occasional hot chocolate.” Fortunately, he kept these calculations to himself to spare his younger brother the logical conclusion, that no, Virginia, there is not a Santa Claus. So, if he is a skeptic, he is at least a compassionate skeptic. It’s this analytic thinking that Paulos brings to the question about the existence of God.

If you get the impression that the book is all serious philosophical meanderings, it’s not. Paulos is often playful, humorous, witty, and charming. There is a delightful chapter in which Paulos instant messages God, with some very theological dialogue. (p. 116-121). So, even atheistic mathematicians are theologians sometimes. If the book has a weakness, it is that all Christians seem to get painted with the same brush of ignorance, intolerance, and anti-intellectualism. Clearly, that is not the case and Paulos could have made this distinction, but if he does I missed it.

But, the heart of the book, maybe even the reason for the book, is the last chapter, “Atheists, Agnostics, and ‘Brights’.” In it, Paulos argues for a more prominent place for those who do not believe. He says, “…atheists are seen by many Americans (especially conservative Christians) as alien…” and are not accorded the tolerance of other groups in our society. Paulos seems to be saying to the Christian community, “We atheists are thinkers, too, and we want your respect. We can take on your best arguments and counter with our own. We want some space of our own on the social spectrum, too.” But, he avers, that regardless of their place in society “what won’t disappear is their determination to quietly think for themselves and not be cowed by the ignorant and overbearing religiosity of so many earnestly humorless people.” (p. 148)

I would add an “Amen” to Paulos’ conclusion because atheists are not the only ones who have a desire to think for themselves and not be cowed by ignorance and overbearing religiosity of any kind.

In the end, this book becomes not so much a theological debate, but a sociological call for room in our culture for all viewpoints, religious or not. As I said, Paulos does Christians a big favor. With the continued decline of the influence of religion on culture, a post-Christendom society, and a pluralistic world, those of us who believe might one day also be asking for the same reasonable consideration.

(Thanks to Hill and Wang for providing a review copy to me. Thanks to Dr. John Allen Paulos for his kind email, challenging me to read his work for myself. I have invited Dr. Paulos to respond to this review, if he wishes to. I’ll let you know his response.) – Amicus Dei