Customer Reviews

The Improbability of God

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

With "The Improbability of God," editors Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier have created a new anthology that----along with their previous collection, "The Impossibility of God"----is a worthwhile addition to the library of anyone seriously interested in the subject matter.

These volumes aren't typical summer reading fare and aren't likely to find their way into the bag of anyone headed to the beach for an afternoon of sun and fun. However, they are well organized and include contributions from a distinguished group of authors. And though some of the discussion requires a bit of heavy lifting from the reader, the clarity of the presentation makes it accessible and useful to the novice as well as the academic.

Any who take an interest in the various iterations of the god hypothesis, especially the "God" of conventional theism, will find these anthologies rewarding.

I highly recommend them.

This is, indeed, an excellent collection of papers each of which presents
some interesting arguments against the claim that God existense is highly
probable.

Many of these papers are papers that have been published in philosophical
journals, such as Philo, Nous, American Philosophical Quarterly, and
others, and they are not one's everyday casual reading. They are,
nevertheless, accesible to non-philosophers too.

I found the "The evidential Arguments from Evil" (by W.Rowe, in Part 4)
and the "Indirect Inductive Argument from Evil" (by M.Martin, in Part 4)
the most interesting, but the rest are good too. For example, many
scientific-minded readers would appreciate, and enjoy, the series of
5 papers by Q. Smith in Part 1 on Bing-Bang Cosmology, and how Hawking's
Theories could be used to preclude the existence of a creator of the
universe. Quite useful is also the "Reply to Plantiga" (by W. Rowe, in
Part 4), since Plantiga is one of the biggest proponets of theism today.

This anthology is a small treasure for serious atheists (debaters,
writers, etc), not only because of the quality of the arguments
presented in the papers, but also for the practical reason that those
arguments are all collected in one book which makes their access easier
and faster.

Congrats to the authors, great work.


Michael Aristidou
Assist. Professor, Mathematics
Renton, WA

If you're not well-versed in or familiar with the jargon of philosophy, logic, and probability theory, there are several essays you'll probably want to shun: much of Smith in the cosmological section; Ikeda and Jefferys, and Salmon in the teleological section; Smith again in the problem of evil section; maybe Schellenberg in the nonbelief section. These bring the more advanced atheological arguments in the volume. Other's don't seem very strong or complex, but disappointment in that might only reflect preference for sophistication over simplicity because the first can create the illusion of superiority. Perhaps less decorated arguments for atheism are preferable for their perspicuity, e.g., those by Rowe, Sinnot-Armstrong, Stenger, or Drange, and sometimes Martin. The appendix by the 18th-century Paul Thiry d'Holbach was actually very touching as well, vicariously expressing the quest of atheistic hearts everywhere. *The Improbability of God* is at least worth a read.

One thing did puzzle me though. Everitt, 'The Argument from Scale', makes a surprising claim (p. 124): that his argument 'does not even claim that theism is probably false.' Very odd indeed in a book committed to this very thing!

I received this book promptly and in excellent condition. It is well organized and provides me with great insight into other people's perspective. I find this book a wonderful addition to my library.