How to Think About God: A Guide for the 20th-Century Pagan

I like the logic and thought processes presented. I believe this excellent book would have been even better had the author used only one third the words. Superfluous words and winding verbal machinations made reading tedious.

I read this book to try to understand why theists believed in God (a logic that completely escaped me). This book moved me from atheist to agnostic because its very good criticisms of the atheist philosophy. If you read this book honestly, you'll find that many of the criticisms that true atheists have toward Christianity are hypocritical. If you are irritated by the arrogance of theists saying they "know the truth," you'll start to recognize you are doing the same thing. That was the key to shifting me to agnostic. At the time, the second half of the book (essentially pro-theistic where the first half was essentially anti-atheistic) didn't impress me at all.

Dr. Adler (RIP) makes improtant and complex ideas accessible to the likes of common people as me (I'm 2/3 through my 3rd read). This examination of the existance of God does not require adherence to any religious dogma. It makes a case for the existance of God beyond a reasonable doubt or at least the preponderance of the evidence. While it makes the case for the exictance of a "clock maker." It does not make any claims about his/her moral goodness. For that you need to sign on to belief in a religious doctrine. I hope others enjoy this work as much as I have.

Excellent book, as is anything penned by this author. How rare voices like his are in this day... Excellent service, product better than described. Vey pleased with all aspects of this transaction.

Adler offers a cosmological argument for the existence of God. His argument is as follows:"1. The existence of an effect requiring the concurrent existence and action of an efficient cause implies the existence and action of that cause.2 The cosmos as a whole exists.3. The existence of the cosmos is radically contingent...it...does need an efficient cause...to preserve it in being and prevent it from being replaced by nothingness.4. If the cosmos needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence to prevent its annihilation, then that cause must be a supernatural being...God"He further contends that, of his four premises, only #3, the radical contingency of the cosmos (RCC), is controversial. He attempts to support this premise by stating the following:“That which cannot be otherwise also cannot not exist, and conversely, what necessarily exists cannot be otherwise than it is. The truth that is the thin thread on which the cosmological argument hangs runs parallel to the truth just stated. Whatever can be otherwise than it is can also simply not be at all. A cosmos which can be otherwise is one that also can not be; and conversely, a cosmos that is capable of not existing at all is one that can be otherwise than it now is.” (p. 144, emphasis original)However, this sub-argument for Adler's most controversial premise is not valid. Take the following:A=”The cosmos cannot be other than it is”B=”The cosmos cannot not exist”-A=Not A=“It is not the case that the cosmos cannot be other than it is” = “It is the case that the cosmos can be other than it is.”-B=Not B=“It is not the case that the cosmos cannot not exist.” = “It is possible for the cosmos to not exist (i.e, it is not metaphysically necessary that it exist).”Adler says: “That which cannot be otherwise also cannot not exist. ”This translates to: “If A, then B.” Let’s call this “Conditional X”Then Adler says: “A cosmos which can be otherwise is one that also can not be (that is, does not have to be).” This translates to: If -A, then -B.” Let’s call this “Conditional Y”“Conditional Y” is the inverse of “Conditional X.” Formal logic dictates that if Conditional X is true, it does not necessarily follow that its inverse (Conditional Y) is also true. It may be true, it may be false, but the inverse of Conditional X (i.e., Conditional Y) is not simply true in virtue of being its inverse. The fact that the cosmos can be different than it is, whether in some superficial or some fundamental way, does not in itself demonstrate that it is possible for the cosmos to not exist. Hence, Adler’s argument rests on the unsubstantiated assertion that it is possible for the universe to not exist. It is quite ironic that he spends the better part of the book arguing that classical forms of the cosmological argument must be avoided because they are question-begging only to finally deliver an argument that is just as question-begging in its own right.The book as a whole is incredibly verbose and belabored (even at only 175 pages). He uses paragraphs to say what could be said in sentences and pages to say what could be said in paragraphs, frequently re-stating a point over 2-3 consecutive sentences. The entire argument could be laid out in one moderate sized chapter with no loss of information. Perhaps this is Adler's way of making doubly sure that no one is left behind in tracking his argument, but it may be that his goal is quite different: to gradually lull us into the false sense that Adler's logic could not be question-begging--because Adler so clearly and frequently insists on the need to to avoid this sin of reasoning--when, in fact, it is.

I am so happy to have found this book.

It was lots of fun reading. But must clarify that it is not a simple book to read. What made me love it? Well, motivated me to read more on the subject of the proof of God by rational thought.

excellent

Adler wrote this book for non-Christinas (in fact he wrote it for anyone who is not Christian, Jewish or Muslim) demonstrating how and why a belief in God is both logical and rational. It is well written and clearly argued.