Divinity of Doubt: The God Question

by Vincent Bugliosi, Mel Foster

Former prosecutor Vincent Buglioso approaches every question with the vigor of a much younger man. His research on the Kennedy assassination resulted in documentation of more than 2700 pages. His Divinity of Doubt is only a fraction as long (256 pages to be exact), but it does address "the God question" with the same level of commitment. Like his book on the O.J. Simpson case, Buglioso skewers both camps, heaping criticism equally on atheist promoters including Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris and hell-and-brimstone Old Testament fundamentalists. His call for a healthy agnosticism is certain to generate media attention.

Genres: Religion, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Audiobook, Atheism, History, Politics

Playaway

First published November 15, 2007

About the author

American attorney and author, best known for prosecuting Charles Manson and his followers for the murder of Sharon Tate and others.

In his books he claimed that O.J Simpson and Lee Harvey Oswald were guilty of the crimes they were accused of.

In his latest book he states that George W. Bush should be prosecuted for murder.

Bugliosi lived in Pasadena, CA.

Reviews

[Mike · Rating 2 out of 5]

Bugliosi is an agnostic, thinks agnosticism is intellectually and morally superior to both theism and atheism, and tries to argue as much in this book. I had high expectations that this would be an interesting and entertaining read, but it pretty much let me down. The first major flaw is his incredibly horrible lack of any understanding of the theory of evolution. He touches on evolution because he feels that atheists use it as a major point in their belief system, which is often partially true, and goes on to say the theory is full of holes and that makes the atheist argument weak. Well, he doesn't know the first thing about the theory. He actually thinks the theory of evolution says that man evolved from monkeys. He also thinks that if a new species evolves from an older species, the older species has to automatically cease to exist. So, how can I trust that he understands anything else that he talks about in the book? The other thing that turned me off was his style. He is a lawyer, a really good lawyer, but also kind of an asshole. A bad combination in terms of writing style. He is constantly denigrating the people he is arguing against. On its face, I don't have a problem with that. If someone is an idiot and says stupid things I think it is okay to call them a stupid idiot. But you damn well better understand the point they are trying to make first and why that point is wrong. He fails to do that in several of his arguments. Oh well, at least he put Charles Manson and a bunch of other murderers away for good. I'll still give him credit for that.

[David Mantik · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is an egocentric book, too often superficial, and way too often wrong or misleading. Like many narrowly-trained experts before him, Bugliosi mistakenly thinks that his brainpower will succeed outside his area of expertise. He is not trained in biology or physics or cosmology or theology or philosophy or, for that matter, in any specialty that makes him required reading on God’s existence. He even blunders in history, especially in the history of the early church. Inevitably, therefore, his recurrent idiosyncratic comments are only characteristic of the rank amateur. For these reasons, I cannot even recommend this as an introductory book—the novice reader would not emerge properly grounded. Nor can I recommend it to a moderately sophisticated reader, except possibly for its entertainment value (sometimes unintentional). Such a reader would learn little that was new or valuable. Instead I would strongly propose Why I Became an Atheist by John W. Loftus (an ex-minister). My adjectives about this book are at polar opposites of those about Bugliosi’s book. As we should now expect, though, Bugliosi does not cite this book either.

My full review is located at

http://www.assassinationscience.com/D...

David W. Mantik

[sara frances · Rating 3 out of 5]

first things first, i had to totally skip the chapter on evolution. i got about five pages in and it was just filled with so much ignorance and general jackassery that i couldn't stand it.

i did find the rest of the book enjoyable but i kept these things in mind:

firstly, Bugliosi clearly loves the sound of his own voice. some of this book kinda reads like him jacking himself off. if people like that annoy the hell outta you, stay clear!

and secondly, he is a lawyer and it shows. he puts a spin on lots of "facts" to strengthen his point and make other people look extra dumb. i wouldn't quote anything he said without doing my own fact checking first.

those things aside, he does raise some interesting questions and produced a pretty amusing book. more than anything, it was nice to read something from an agnostic perspective.

[Rachael Booth · Rating 1 out of 5]

As an atheist I was interested to see what Mr. Bugliosi had to say about the subject of God. However, I was taken aback by his take on atheists (they want to destroy religion - untrue) and his take on Charles Darwin and evolution. When he wrote in his book the silly anti-evolution diatribe of "if man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" I put the book down. I had no further interest in reading anything he had to say on the subject when he so obviously had so little knowledge on the subject. $20 wasted to buy this book. Mr. Bugliosi should stick to legal matters.

[Kate · Rating 1 out of 5]

This was possibly the most useless book I’ve ever come across. I went into it with high hopes, since the author claimed he was going to examine the “God question” without bias and from a purely rational point of view. He claimed that he is qualified to write such a book because he doesn’t tend to be influenced “by the trappings of reputation, hoopla, conventional wisdom, and so on.” He also leads us to believe that he will present the agnostic point of view—not just that we don’t know enough about the existence of God, but that this question is unanswerable. But then he fills the book with arguments based purely on emotional appeal—for example, apparently theists are not allowed to even propose that God is both benevolent and omnipotent, because Mr. Bugliosi feels that a rational discussion about suffering is just too mean. He also reveals an almost complete ignorance of the arguments on both sides. His claim that there is something shady about the theory of evolution is especially pathetic—apparently his pet cat was very clever, and he can’t possibly imagine how being such a quick learner could ever help the animal to survive, so it must be a gift from its creator. He also spends a chapter butchering the Big Bang theory, and then shamelessly admits that he doesn’t understand any of the explanations he read. Maybe he should have started with that, and said it ten times to himself in the mirror. Then he might not have made a complete fool of himself in print. And the worst part is that while he spends many chapters proving how little he knows about both science and theology, he never even attempts to show that God is unknowable—he just sort of gives up with a whimper in the last chapter. Well I guess he claimed that he’s capable of being rational, but he never stated that he in fact planned to actually use this talent while writing this book, so he gets off with one star on a technicality.

[Leftbanker · Rating 1 out of 5]

Spoiler Alert! There is no god.

Having read and thoroughly enjoyed other books by Vincent Bugliosi, I expected that this book would be a bit interesting. Bugliosi completely embarrasses himself with this book. It turns out that his arguments—especially those directed against atheists—were completely childish and uninteresting. Recently, I listened to a friend the position that agnosticism is somehow morally and intellectually superior to atheism (although they, too, didn’t seem to have the same ax to grind against believers as they did against atheists). To me, the difference between agnosticism and atheism is a completely meaningless distinction.

Bugliosi spends most of his book criticizing Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. His critiques of both are completely asinine and illogical. He adds nothing new to the argument about whether intelligent people should or should not believe in a god or follow a religion.

I wouldn’t spend a second of my time defending Christopher Hitchens, a man who has held so many opposing viewpoints that he must have been constantly dizzy before he croaked, but be careful when you target Richard Dawkins. Bugliosi calls Richard Dawkins superficial, shallow, and a host of other similar adjectives, yet he himself goes on to mouth some of the most incredibly puerile arguments against Dawkins.

Bugliosi says on more than one occasion in the book that “there is some evidence for evolution” as if there are but a few hints of this earth-shattering observation by Charles Darwin. He seems to rate evolution only a notch above creationism or intelligent design. Dawkins has already deconstructed every silly argument that Bugliosi presents in this unfortunate book.

I wasn’t the least interested in what he had to say about religion and believers. I have come to my own conclusions about religion starting from about the age of five. His arguments added nothing to my own arsenal of doubt and skepticism I have for anything religious. It’s all too silly for me to even ponder at this stage in my life.

To put atheists in the same category as believers is patently absurd. Is Bugliosi also agnostic about the existence of fairies? Why is it any different in the case of religion? Just because some people have devoted their lives to religion doesn’t make it any sillier to me than believing in leprechauns, or unicorns, or the Seattle Mariners winning the World Series. Just because we can’t explain everything about the cosmos doesn’t mean that the void leaves room for some sort of supreme being.

I had no interest in reading this entire book.

[Dewayne Stark · Rating 2 out of 5]

Two stars and I am being nice. Yes he is a yellow pad lawyer that still writes his book long hand and gives his writing to a secretary to type. Yes there are still people that do not use computers and I can't fault him for that. But since he seems to me out of touch with technology his writing can be quite funny at times. Page 68: After eating at George's Italian restaurant for several years and rarely ordering anything besides "spaghetti or mostaccioli" George remembers that Vincent once ate ravioli and enjoyed it. "The best technical minds have developed and refined computers, but no computer remotely comes close to answering a question as fast as George answered my question on ravioli"...At least to me, this is nothing short of mind-boggling." and George did it instantaneously, instantly (not a ten of a second, but instantly) on the screen of his mind.

I find this mind-boggling that Bugliosi find George out of the ordinary with his memory. Isn't that what restaurant owners and waiters/waitress do, remember customer's orders?

Page 70: "Yet in a nanosecond her name came up on the screen of my mind, something that happens to all of us daily." SAY WHAT ??? Synaptic timing is in the 1 to 4 mil second range. A nanosecond is 1/1,000,000,000 second. I am afraid lawyers are not to savy in the math department except for billing clients.

Other weakness I see is his comparison of radio and Television never getting any better. That animals are stuck and unchangeable in evolution.

[Adam · Rating 1 out of 5]

How does a book published in 2011 manage to read this out of touch?

Bugliosi sets out to firmly carve out a middle path between hardcore theists and atheists, but only attacks one at a time and only with arguments belonging to the other side. Aside from a few statements where Bugliosi lays out the logic of an agnostic stance (which I do agree with) this book seems more like several opposing essays mashed into one binding, one from an atheist, and one from a theist, and neither of them very well researched on the other.

He does not particularly tackle single topics from both sides, instead pursuing the low hanging fruit without much connecting organization.

My first foray into agnostic literature; I hoped for more. I think I'd do better off reading two books of polarized content.

[Joseph Schrock · Rating 4 out of 5]

I will begin this review with a frank declaration that I ENJOYED reading Vincent Bugliosi’s very frank (and brutal?) attacks on belief in a Creator God, acceptance of atheism, organized religion, and more. Does that mean that I even remotely agreed with most of the book? Emphatically NO! I did, however, value the rather eloquent and even elegant style of exposition by the author. Furthermore, I regard many of his unrelenting and unremitting attacks on traditional theism as having, in some cases, genuine legitimacy. By the reckoning of this reviewer, much of organized religion makes a mockery of the goodness, fairness, justice, and equity of the Creator. Organized religion is so prone to power-seeking, self-glorification, prejudice against those who believe differently, intolerance, and far too often excruciating narrow-mindedness that it is not difficult to see why many highly rational thinkers can respond with outright rejection and vehement ridicule. I will, however, insert the important caveat that I do not declare that ALL of organized religion is deserving of such an indictment. Some of it, though, definitely is.

Let me also point out that the author of the book being reviewed here is not entirely an intellectual lightweight. He received a law degree in 1964, and he had a career at the L.A. County District Attorney’s office. He successfully prosecuted 105 of 106 felony jury trials, including 21 murder convictions without a single loss. Although his writing in the current book is quite blunt, his style is very lively and engaging. It is not dull or boring reading.

Although Bugliosi does not condone atheism (he regards it as unjustifiably dogmatic – in light of our monumental ignorance), I find it a bit disconcerting that he would express an utterly irreverent spirit toward the very possibility of a Creator Who might hold him accountable. In the Preface to the book (on page XIV), I find these blunt remarks:

“I tell you these things because what follows is an almost unremitting, scathing indictment of God, organized religion, atheism, and theism. And many people, being sensitive of nature, are offended by highly critical discourse. If you are that type, I admire your civility, but this book may not be for you.”

As for myself, I do not find Bugliosi’s book threatening at all to my worldview – I repeatedly ask myself harder questions than any posed by Bugliosi’s book. I do think that he at least believes that he takes a genuinely honest and objective approach to the volatile topics he addresses throughout his book. However, I might point out that honesty and objectivity are extremely subtle and difficult concepts to effectively engage. Frankly, regarding one’s worldview (whether atheist, agnostic, devout theist, or nihilist), genuine objectivity is a mere pipedream. We are hopelessly influenced by our desires (including the desire to have RIGHT beliefs), experiences, hopes, and already established beliefs, along with our current worldview.

Bugliosi might take pride on being an unbiased and objective observer of reality, but the fact is that he is quite dogmatic in his claims that agnosticism is the ONLY intelligent and truly rational stance toward the “God question”. Let me quote Bugliosi on page 1:

“Although, in the vernacular, agnostics are those whose position is ‘I don’t know’ whether God exists, neither believing nor disbelieving in a deity, it is thought that the better definition of an agnostic is one who believes that the existence versus nonexistence of God is ‘unknowable’. Of course, if it’s unknowable, one can’t know.”

I disagree with Bugliosi there. I was, myself, an agnostic for over fifteen years. However, I was (thankfully) not favorably disposed toward the idea that one could not possibly know if there is a God. I took the more humble approach that I did not know, but that my lack of knowledge might be due to my lack of requisite experience or insight. I did not conclude that the question of whether there is a God is, inherently and hopelessly, UNKNOWABLE. I admitted my own ignorance, my own uncertainty, and I even asked myself repeatedly whether or not my agnostic stance was truly defensible. I declared that I was agnostic even about the validity of my own agnostic stance. That I would be inclined to describe as genuine honesty. To claim to KNOW that whether or not God exists is UNKNOWABLE is, I submit, unduly dogmatic. I now realize, in hindsight, that my “devout agnosticism” was due to ignorance and (possibly) significant pride and self-will.

From page 13: “What I am saying is that what I do know has convinced me that by and large the religious beliefs about God are a rich and intoxicating brew of myth, superstition, and nonsense.”

While I believe that assessment to be overly harsh, I do tend to, by and large, regard such an evaluation as reasonably valid. How can I, as now a devout theist, make such a concession to an agnostic? One reason is simply that the Divine is infinitely far above human comprehension, and given humanity’s overweening proneness to create God (or gods) in humanity’s own image, the magnitude of absurdities that can go in the name of religious convictions about God is too great to be easily enumerated.

Bugliosi makes it rather clear that he leans (somewhat – in what I regard as a biased manner) toward atheism as against theism. On page 39 he writes as follows:

“Before I return to a fuller discussion of my main adversary in this book, theism (the belief in a God who created and rules the universe), I want to discuss theism’s opposite, atheism, the belief in the nonexistence of God.”

The author of this “brutal” book is, however, not entirely kind toward atheism. He writes the following (page 41):

“Let’s look at the intellectual poverty and flabbiness of atheism by discussing the main books of these three most prominent purveyors of atheism today, starting with the inimitable Christopher Hitchens.”
In the last paragraph of the chapter on atheism, the following assessment is found on page 60:

“Before I leave atheism, let me ask this question: Who is more irrational, the theist or the atheist? Although I believe they are both irrational, the theist wins the most irrational honor. I say that because nearly all atheists at least reached their clearly untenable conclusion after some rigorous thought, whereas most theists, Pavlovian to the bitter end, reached theirs without exercising their mind at all, determined to elevate ignorance and vapidity to a virtue.”

I will concede, to try to be fair and honest, that I suspect that there is very considerable truth in the castigation of most people’s religious faith as Pavlovian. My childhood, adolescent, and early adult religious faith might have been little better than Pavlovian, but after having become greatly enamored of and enthralled in skeptical questioning of everything (including questioning the validity of my questioning) for over fifteen years, I encountered a reality Whose Power informed, corrected, directed, empowered, and transformed my life over the succeeding two-plus decades. Although I do not join any organized religion, my spiritual faith is so firmly rooted in direct inspiration, thinking, reasoning, questioning and receiving of sufficient answers to my questioning that I now have a spiritual faith (a worldview) that is anything but reflexive or Pavlovian. It is well-grounded and analyzed with self-critiques and self-probing. Of course, that would not be convincing to someone else. He/she would, in order to know as I know, have to encounter the Divine DIRECTLY. Bugliosi would, likely, get a hearty laugh from reading such a declaration. Experience can speak loudly, and it can prove persuasive – regardless of how much the skeptics might declare “Illusion! DELUSION!”

Near the end of his book, Bugliosi makes the following rather dogmatic assertion in favor of his agnosticism (page 258):

“Because God and the meaning of our existence seem to be unknowable and impenetrable mysteries, I will go so far as to say that agnosticism is the ONLY intelligent, STRONG [I use caps where the author uses italics] position one can take on the question of God’s existence.”

By my reckoning, Vincent Bugliosi’s book on doubt concerning God is one that deserves to be read by people of ALL persuasions: atheists, agnostics, and believers. Not even one page was dull reading.

[Esma · Rating 2 out of 5]

✧･ﾟ: *✧･ﾟ:*2 stars*:･ﾟ✧*:･ﾟ✧

This is the saltiest book I have ever read in my life. The author bombards the reader with many sarcastic rhetorical questions, boasts about his excellent command of the English language, and maligns the mental stability of over half the world's population. As a matter of fact, this was terribly fun to read.

Although there are actually many arguments it made that I agreed with, this book is not the most "powerful indictment" against God. If anything, it's a powerful indictment against the bitterness and arrogance that many athiests or agnostics hold against religion. This book, actually, is a perfect example of the grudge that nonbelievers sometimes bear, which they have typically built from false presumptions about religion and a severe lack of optimism.

Additionally, this book was very helpful in giving me a summary of the arguments that are usually used against religion: questions about the fairness of eternal damnation, reason for the existence of evil, whether there is even a point of talking about God when our logic is not the same as God's i.e. I also liked how it waded into intelligent design and the cosmological arguments, evolution, and controversial Bible contradictions. Overall, there was much to learn and lots to laughingly shake my head about.

[Stacy Turner · Rating 1 out of 5]

Someone avoided some very basic definitions and premises to spew a narrative that is on the logic level of a Ken Ham or Ray Apple. Hard to finish as he is trying so hard to change the definitions 1984 newspeak style to make his position easier to defend. As an owner of an Oxford Dictionary, I of course must reject his premise, and point out why it is wrong and why it makes this book difficult to read without going on a seven, perhaps eight state shooting spree.

Utilizing the logically false idea misconception that agnosticism is somehow a more “reasonable” stance or a 3rd position while atheism is more “dogmatic,” ultimately indistinguishable from theism except in the details. This is not a frustrating argument because it misrepresents or misunderstands everything involved and is Theology/Philosophy 101 stuff, and he should be embarrassed to attempt this veteran debate with incorrect data.

Do you believe in a god/gods? This answers whether you are a theist or atheist.

Do you know if a god/gods exist? This will determine if you are gnostic or agnostic. Little g gnostic.

Please not these are two entirely different questions.

Captain America is an agnostic theist. He has met and works closely with two gods he refuses to classify as gods and believes in a third which he has not met.

Hulk has met and beat the shit out of two gods, whom he also works with but does not believe in gods due to their puny nature. Hulk is a gnostic atheist.

Iron Man is the employer of two gods, he writes checks to them, and conducts employee reviews on these gods. Yet he is a agnostic atheist. He believes they are just too technologically advanced and most to stupid to grasp the truth and the gods to lazy to have a short defintion to replace the Supernatural god label to explain the source of their seeming divinity/Infernal powers and he also doesnt believe in gods.

Deadpool has met has sex with and/or killed many gods. Thus he gives little credence to the title and is by definition a god of sorts having married a incarnation of immortality, Death. His insanity and ability to talk to us in this universe has made it possible to believe in just about anything. Deadpool both believes in gods and knows gods exist. Although I doubt sexual excitement or homicidal offerings to be any sort of worship the gods may be expecting. Deadpool is a gnostic theist (poly).

The author therefore engages in a frustrating Equivocation and weasel wording fallacy the entire book where the virtue of his version of agnosticism answers both questions somehow, even though one is about knowing, the other about faith or belief. He is solidly a characatured virtue signaling intellectually dishonest philosopher preaching from upon a very, very tall horse trotting upon the debate fence as the typical confused but vehement stereotype of the "seem reasonable to everyone" guy by avoiding the questions by choosing to use a false premise that their is a third position and avoiding the question of belief or faith. The author answers with confidence two questions he intentionally straw mans into one, which answers neither.

You will learn nothing but the limits of your own patience by reading this vehement cluster of a virtue gong.

If you ever meet someone who aggressively identifies as a agnostic shouting both sides are wrong, these are the behaviors and false premises you as a theist or atheist will be clobbered with.

Along with the bucketful of freshmen philosophy of "you can't really know anything 100%". True enough, but not a useful answer, so I take statistical outcomes and Vegas odds because the fence is an uncomfortable chair from which to teach anything of value. Unless you are teaching about fences, I reckon.

[Joe Pratt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Rating this book was so difficult. I didn’t know whether to give it one star or five. To my creedal Christian friends (Protestants, Catholics, and anyone else who believes in the Christian creeds), I wouldn’t recommend the book. At best, it’ll offend, at worst it will tear down faith. For most other believers in God, you probably won’t get much positive out of this book either.

However, the reason I ultimately gave it a five star is because it, ironically, increased my faith in God. Me - the guy who has struggled with doubts and has been trying to overcome them for years. And this book, which, according to the jacket will leave “theists reeling” as it “scarily shakes the very foundations of Christianity.”

Here’s the thing, nothing Bugliosi (who I began referring to as Vince in my notes in the book) says to denounce God is anything I haven’t considered before - why doesn’t God answer prayers; how could a loving God damn his own children to hell for eternity for not believing in Him; why would He create us in the first place, knowing many of us would end up in hell; and what’s so great about a heaven where we sit and praise a being like that.

The thing is, those questions have led me to deeply believe that the only religion that makes sense is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. But we’ll get there in a second.

Vince’s main argument (and he brings it up in every chapter, multiple times) is if God is all-powerful and all-good, why would He send us to Earth, make us suffer so much, and then damn us to hell for more suffering. An all powerful God who can do anything (meaning He can save us all if He wants or create a paradise that isn’t broken because two people chose to eat a forbidden fruit) is problematic because his immense power makes him culpable for all pain and suffering in eternity (not only can He stop it but doesn’t,He is the one who created it all the way it is in the first place).

The thing is, as God revealed himself to Joseph Smith and began restoring truths about Himself that had been lost for millennia, He taught us that He isn’t all powerful. That might even come as a shock, even to some of my Latter Day Saint friends, because we don’t really talk about that but it’s true. God follows the laws of the universe, indeed His intelligence and awareness of these laws are what gives Him His power, but they don’t enable Him to just do whatever He wants.

Still, He is powerful enough to save everyone. None of his children are damned to eternal suffering for all eternity. If you want to have a theological and scriptural discussion about that, let’s do it but for the purpose of this review I’ll just say, He doesn’t.

Since this was Vince’s main vehicle for dissent, and I have already long since moved on from being worried about those incongruities, the book was far from faith shaking for me.

On the other hand, he brought up a lot of great arguments against atheism, helping me realize a disbelief in God is more illogical than I’d ever really considered. (If you’re confused about how he could argue against God and against atheism, the thing is he is agnostic. He feels both a belief and a disbelief in God are illogical, that the only rational thing to do is admit you can’t know either way and just focus on living the best life you can).

Vince makes some really great points about God not revealing Himself more clearly. I admit that I don’t know everything about God, but that I can envision a world, indeed scripture and modern revelation suggest to me this is probably the case, where life is less about finding God (I believe we already were with Him in the life before, why would we need to find Him again?) and more about discovering if we want to live the kind of life He lives. We already chose Him before this life (again, if you want to talk about this, let’s do it) so the purpose of this life is to discover if He really is what we want. That only by Him not getting directly in our face can we truly make this decision and grow to be like Him.

That said, I’m still thinking on all that, so thanks for bringing it up, Vince.

For the most part, Vince gives very strong logical reasoning against the typical Christian concept of God. But several times he embarrassed himself (and me who really started viewing him as a friend, even a brother or at least a kindred spirit) by making the weakest of arguments. Here are just two examples, but there were many more I could give.

1. “Right off the top it has to be pointed out that the fantastical notion that God had his son, Jesus, die for our sins is, on its own and without the need for any assault on it by nonbelievers, demonstrably false…To die means to cease to exist forever. But wasn’t Jesus, per Christianity, up and about after three days?….So what definition of death not presently in the English dictionary can Christianity come up with to justify its saying that Jesus died for our sins?” (pg. 117).
Oh, Vinny. How shallow a deep mind can be. What dictionary? How about the Miriam-Webster online dictionary which gives, as the first definition of several for the word “die,” “to pass from physical life.” Jesus did that. Be better, Vince.

2. “C. S. Lewis said that ‘I cannot love my neighbor as myself till I learn to love God.’ So according to Lewis, someone cannot be kind and considerate to his fellow man unless he first learns to love God. Without first doing that, he’s going to treat his fellow man terribly” (pg. 226).
Do you believe your own argument? Either you’re not as smart as I’d hoped Brother Vinny or the lawyer in you is coming out and your twisting words to prove a point. One can love their neighbor, one can be honorable and kind and treat his fellow man soooo good without loving them as himself. I’m not saying I agree with Lewis here (I’d have to think more about it, but, admittedly, I’d be inclined to trust Lewis’s intelligence over my own), but your resorting to changing the meaning of someone’s words to make them look naive, and that is what kids do in a debate they know they’ve lost.

Like I said, these are just a few examples of many where Vince resorts to weak argumentation to prove illogical points. However, for the most part and for his biggest claims, I thought Vince did a great job at defending his position (or rather prosecuting theism and atheism’s positions - he’s a prosecuting attorney, after all).

Above all, this book made me think. Think about what I believe and why I believe it. I loved the question implied when he said about why people believe in God, “If [we] are truthful with [ourselves], is it because [we] need there to be a God to give purpose to [our] lives and mitigate [our] fear of death” (pg. 255). Heck of a question! It really helps me make sure my motivations are whole. Where is my heart, why do I want to know God? Thanks for the chance for introspection!

Yet while Vinny defended himself well, I can’t agree with all his conclusions. “We are all at sea here [in trying to answer the God question], clearly dealing with an impenetrable mystery, a mystery that likely will never be solved. And before it is, I think the only intelligent position to take is that of agnosticism” (pg. 95).

What? In other words, the only intelligent position is to not seek for an answer? I reject that. I’d say the only intelligent thing is to strive with everything we’ve got to find an answer, because if He is there, nothing else matters, and if He is not there, nothing matters. Either way, seeking Him is actually the only intelligent position.

Vinny, if there is a God, I want to know Him, and I will search for the truth of Him, to use your words, “forever and ever and ever and ever.” If He isn’t real, I guess I won’t find Him. But it won’t hurt me one bit to try. Along the way, I will find comfort in my weakness and strength to be a better person. I know that because I’ve experienced that. Above all, it’s increased my hope.

What I loved about this book is it confirmed by belief that “doubt is divine.” And while I don’t agree with his excoriation of faith immediately after, I whole-heartedly agree that doubt “impels a search for the truth. It opens the door of knowledge” (pg. 258). My doubts have pushed and pushed and pushed me to seek answers and find truth. And you know what, I have found truth! Not all truth (obviously), but more than enough to convince me the only rational thing is to continue down the path I’m on. For that, I thank God for my doubts!

(P.S. if Vince Bugliosi were to ever see this review, I would hope he’d reach out to me and that we could go get a donut or something and chat. About God, sure, but also just about life. I think we’d be friends. Just saying.)

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bugliosi tackles his most difficult topic yet, sure to face the ire of many, when he argues against the existence of God and all that is Christianity. Taking a highly legalistic and academic approach, he presents strong arguments, providing proofs at every turn, to turn Christianity on its head and dismiss the rational belief in its tenets, as well as the possibility of God's being. Giving credence to the silliness of both theism and atheism, Bugliosi argues that nothing makes sense, even if Christians are spoon-fed a set of beliefs and do not question anything. Using direct biblical passages, Bugliosi shows how the Old and New Testaments are filled with directions and parables that contradict one another. He posits that no rational being could, after stepping back and taking an analytical look at the Christian God and the religion associated with it, uphold any of its pillars. Filled with humourous asides, Bugliosi's book is a must-read for anyone who holds an open mind and can except the possibility of something other than the force-fed drivel Christian churches and the larger religious foundation had brought about for two millennia.

Bugliosi uses his books less as soap boxes to inculcate others and more to point out a perspective that has not previously come to light. Bugliosi makes it clear in his introduction that he would not write a book in which he could bring a new and yet to be addressed set of arguments to the discussion. He does not cut down God or Christianity in a scathing or mean-hearted way, but, through academic and legal foundations, pokes holes into the arguments that are laid out in the every day tenets of the religion. Taking time to highlight the downfall of Catholicism and its inherent hypocrisy, Bugliosi ensures the reader sees just how duplicitous the Vatican tends to be as the longest-standing face of Christianity and the one that professes to be the only 'true' message delivery system. A open-minded reader cannot get enough of these arguments, as they serve only to enrich and strengthen the overall argument without tossing mud or stones.

Addressing some of the key stumbling blocks that Christianity tries to hide: improper translation of religious texts, uselessness of God and Heaven, inability to present sound arguments for what goes on in the world, and the hypocrisy of organised religion (based on the teachings of Jesus), Bugliosi weaves arguments that connect seamlessly to the repeated stumblings of Christianity. His great discussions create more than a few 'aha' moments and strongly solidifies the agnostic set of beliefs. Numerous times throughout the text, he reiterates that he is not on any sort of bullying tactic, but simply defending against the inculcated wrongs that Christianity passes off and a refusal to address the contradictions. Call the text a refutation of 2000 years of incorrect messaging that needs reassessing.

Kudos are not powerful enough, Mr. Bugliosi. I finish each of your books and want more, to open my mind to new and interesting topics. I cannot recommend this book enough, as its entertainment and academic value are second to none.

[Zach]

"You know, the atheists, who not only believe but know there is no God are just as silly as those who seem to have no doubt that there is." p. 4

"One doesn't have to beg a good being to be good, one only has to ask a bad being to be good. No? Since the devil is the bad guy, isn't he the one we should be begging for mercy?" p. 6

"If anyone was ever in the corner of a murderer it was God with Simpson." p. 8

"If a man partakes of a cup of liuid froma large barrel and it tastes to him like a certain, distinct beverage, can he not with confidence say taht tthe rest of the barrel is teh same beverage? Or should he really believe that deeper in the barrel the flavor might change dramatically? What I am saying is taht what I do oknw has convinced me that by and large the religious beleifs about God are a rich and intoxicating brew of myth, superstition, and nonsense." p. 13

"This does not mean that God is not responsible for the harmony and order of the universe. It only means that since there is no past human experience to rely on, Christians are not rationally entitled to assert, with the great confidence they do, that the harmony and design of the universe prove that a supernatural being, God, is behind it all." p. 24. Sounds very Humian.

"It turns out that the book is primarily not even about God but, as the subtitle of his book declares, about how Religion Poisons Everything. Hitchens apparently believes that by slaying the dragon of organized religion, an unworthy opponent, he is therefore slaying God, an obvious non sequitur." p. 43......... I might have to reread this book but I'm pretty sure Bugliosi is putting words into Hitch's mouth. He never said there is definitely no god because of all the evil religion has done. All he said was that he is rather an Anti-theist than an atheist anyway.

Talking about Sam Harris: " In other words, I've destroyed religion, and therefore I've destroyed God. But does Harris actually believe that there can be no God without religion? Indeed, that there can be no belief in a creator, a supreme being, without one being, concomitantly, a member of some organized religion or religious faith? How can anyone believe this? Yet this, apparently, is what at least Harris and his colleague Hitchens believe." p. 48. OK this is an outright lie, at least for Hitchens' sake who I know a lot more about than Harris. Hitchens absolutely believed one could believe in god without religion, i.e. his favorite president (and mine) Thomas Jefferson was of this ilk. Again, just because other people call him an atheist does not mean Hitchens says there is no god and attacks religion, Hitchens calls himself more of an anti-theist and attacks religion and says he thinks there really is no good reason to believe in god.

"When I hear theists and atheist pontificating on how they know God does or does not exist, I can only smile at the irrationality and yes, vanity of the notion." p. 48. I'll give you that I've heard theists say that, and some atheists, but not the ones he is attacking here (Hitchens, Dawkins). Dawkins gave himself a 6.9 on a 0-7 scale where 0 is knowing there is a god and 7 is knowing there is no god. Again, he is presuming that these New-Age atheists are claiming they know god doesn't exist and I'm almost certain (see what I did there?) they have not.

On the multiple universe theory as it applies to the anthropomorphic principle in Dawkins' view - "The most acclaimed atheist of today has the effrontery to present a pure fantasy of his (and a virtually impossible one at that, unless one wants to run the zeros of improbability to the end of hundreds of pages) as actual evidence that there's no God, and he does it, I assume, without even blushing." p. 56. OK clearly this guy has never heard of the multi-verse theory, calling it pure fantasy... theoretical physicists have been kicking that idea around for a while now in earnest.

"Concomitantly, the struggle for life caused the organisms to mutate, to change, to adapt to their demanding environment, the changes making them more complex." p. 62. As he states earlier, he clearly has no idea how evolution works... the struggle for life does not cause mutations.

"In other words, his theory has been accepted as fact by most scientists on how man evolved, and they therefore reject the notion that God created man." p. 62. NOT TRUE, they can still say that God overlooked evolution.

"I can say that viscerally I find it difficult to conceptualize the notion of bacteria evolving into Mozart, or, for that matter, any human. At a much more elementary level, I find it difficult to conceive of how evolution enables any life form, such as a bacteria, not only to improve life itself and become more capable of surviving, but actually allows it to change into a completely different species, many of such transmutations having had to take place for a bacteria to evolve into a human being." p. 63. READ A BOOK ABOUT EVOLUTION THEN I'm running out of characters for this review so I'll just leave it at that.

"[D]oesn't the very word "evolution" by definition, mean that the previous life form no longer exists? That it has evolved or mutated into a new or higher form? If so, since monkeys still exist, does that mean, perforce, that we did not evolve from them?" p. 64. NO SHIT SHERLOCK, again, read a book on evolution, we didn't evolve from monkeys, we have a common ancestor with them. This guy is starting to annoy me.

'What does it say about humanity that the one thing people think is important enough to talk about is not that, aside from Noah and his family, God murdered the entire human race, but "I wonder if they'll ever find Noah's ark?"" p. 144.

"To pause for a moment, unless God is part homoseual, which I have yet to hear anyone suggest, since the bible says that "God created man in his own image" (Genesis 1:27), how could it come to pass that there are homosexuals in the world?" p. 146. This is actually really funny.

"Can you imagine that? Thirty grown men with all types of doctorate degrees, wearing suits and ties and boarding planes with their briefcases to fly to Rome and sit around a conference table and actually conduct a serious discussion about limbo. It's mind-boggling." p. 173

"The point I am making goes beyond prayers. When people, saying grace before a bountiful Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner, thank God for giving them the wonderful food on their plate, don't they realize they are necessarily saying that God decided not to give millions of starving people around the world no food at all to eat?" p. 212

"Indeed, isn't the need for laws throughout the land an implied admission that God and religion are only marginally effective in deterring bad and immoral human conduct?" p. 230

"Isn't it comforting for people to know that their very firmly held religious beliefs have nothing to do with the quality and merit of the beliefs, and everything to do with geography?" p.231

"If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, faith is the first refuge of an idle or apprehensive mind, and though it may perhaps be mentally and emotionally nutritious, it is not intellectually sustainable." p. 254. Last bit is a really well-made phrase.

OVERALL IMPRESSION: As much as he tries to promote agnosticism, he is really an anti-theist. Which is good, because that's what I am too. My cousin bought me this book after seeing I was reading a book by Hitchens called "The Portable Atheist," and, although he actually never said this so I hope I am not misreading his intentions, wanted me to expand my horizons and get out of my little atheist corner. I am perhaps putting this in a much more condescending way than it should be, because that was definitely not his intention at all. As I greatly respect his intelligence, so I figured this thoughtful gift would be well worth my time. It was, but for a different reason than he or I thought it would be. Like I said, this was supposed to be a book that engenders agnosticism, and it kinda does get that accomplished. However, he spends much more time bashing religion than anything else in this book (always a fun thing to do if done right). His arguments against atheism are much less prominent and forceful. He merely attacks 'gnostic' atheists, those who say that there is absolutely no way there is a god. I am not under this flag; in the strictest sense, although most people only see 3 exhaustive options in atheist, theist, and agnostic, I consider myself and 'agnostic atheist,' in that I don't believe there is a god (atheist) but cannot say that there is no god (hence agnostic). So when Bugliosi says: "You know, the atheists, who not only believe but know there is no God are just as silly as those who seem to have no doubt that there is," I agree with him, but I really have not come across too many of these types of atheists who say that there absolutely is no god. To be sure, there are some like this there, but the 'new age' atheists that he attacks, Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris, are not of this stripe. I guess I cannot say this for sure of Harris, as I am only a tiny bit familiar with his position (a few youtube videos here and there, I haven't read anything by him yet). Ironically, as much as he tries to put down Hitchens for his book "God is Not Great." this book actually reminded a lot of GiNG. It was replete with some very interesting and keen attacks on the absurdities and atrocities of organized religion, mostly christianity and especially the catholic church. Very well picked and deserving targets, in my opinion. What is a little different about this book than GiNG is that this focuses more on the absurdities and a little bit about the atrocities, while GiNG focuses more on the atrocities and a little bit about the absurdities, although, needless to say, they go hand-in-hand and reciprocate each other. So, besides the bit about evolution and straw man attacks on virtually non-existent intransigent atheism, this was a pretty informative and entertaining book. Also, this seemed to be a pretty quick 270 pages, which is probably a product of the 2-guys-just-sitting-around-talking-casually writing style and interesting subject matter. I'm only giving it 4 stars, however because of the "If we evolved from monkeys, then why are they still here?" boneheaded fuck up.

[Riley Haas · Rating 3 out of 5]

"It's hard to know what to say about this book: I agree - most of the time - with Bugliosi's position on this subject. But, as with his Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, this comes off as an unorganized rant that is made all the worse because he constantly claims other people - in this book, philosophers no less - are incapable of reasoning like he is, and then he makes ridiculous, irrational arguments, sometimes of the exact kind he is criticizing. And this experience is maddening for an agnostic like me so I can't understand what it would be like for a died-in-the-wool Christian or an atheist fundamentalist, the people he is supposedly trying to convert. The more I read of Bugliosi, the more I find he should stick to true crime. This is certainly a vast improvement on the Bush mess, but it's still far from an ideal argument for the agnostic point of view, and that makes me a sad panda.
Probably the biggest problem is the way the book is organized: into 19 arbitrarily organized chapters and two "bookends." In chapter 3 - I think - Bugliosi proves, in one of the many ways possible, that the Christian God does not exist. Great. I agree. But then he spends the vast majority of the rest of the book harping on the problems with Christian belief! I mean, why??? He already demonstrated the Christian God does not exist. Either leave out the rest, or move everything around: the 'Christian God does not exist' should be at the end, if he is going to include all the other, unnecessary stuff about absurdities of the Bible and the rites of the religion.
And, in addition to the organization problems, there are three chapters that just don't cut the mustard.
First, his chapter on atheist fundamentalism just reeks of personal attacks. I am no fan of Dawkins or of Hitchens, but Bugliosi seems to have misinterpreted the purposes of their books. (Maybe he hasn't, I haven't read them.) But that's not really my problem: Bugliosi spends a chapter attacking them and Harris, but mentions Bertrand Russell once. If Bugliosi is going to take on an atheist, maybe he should take on Russell instead, after all Russell has thoroughly discussed the philosophical arguments for the existence of god to an extent than dwarfs the combined discussion by Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. (In fact, it is my understanding that none of these three "fundamentalists" even discuss those arguments that Russell destroys.) So that's a pretty major cherry picking issue.
Second, his chapter on evolution is lazy and frankly pathetic. Bugliosi does this "I'm just a humble trial lawyer" shtick which is infuriating because we know he is a smart man. He claims to have read far more on evolution than I, but then fails to understand it at even the most basic level. He seems to not want to understand it though, as he questions Darwin on evolution, apparently willing to ignore 150 years of evolutionary biology he supposedly read about before he wrote the book. Whatever questions he thinks he has - about the "gaps" in the record, for example - would no doubt be better answered by a modern text - such as Darwin's Ghost - and not by Darwin himself.
Here are two really terrible examples of Bugliosi's inductive reasoning run amok:
First, Bugliosi cherry picks moments from his life where he remembers people having incredible memories and claims that evolution has no explanation for this - that there must be something more. He of course fails to mention the millions of times in each of our lives where we can't find what we've supposedly lost or remember what we were going to say. (He actually does sort of address this issue, in a completely different section of the book, discussing a different issue, as some kind of attempt at finding god, which makes the cherry picking all the more absurd.) There is no argument here: sometimes people have amazing recall of certain things and sometimes I can't find my glasses that I took off my face 25 seconds ago.
Second, Bugliosi claims that human beings have not seen the evolution in pets that we have seen in ourselves during recorded history - that recorded history demonstrates this. But this is beyond ridiculous: humans now live longer lives and dominate the globe like we never have before, because we have focused ourselves on doing so. Is this a natural evolution? Hardly. We can do things that pets cannot in this regard. So I am bigger and healthier than my ancestors but am I fundamentally a different species??? Further, Bugliosi ignores selective breeding, which of course demonstrates how evolution sometimes stops working when human beings involve themselves in it: in many ways its the opposite of what would be caused by nature, because how would purebreds survive without people and modern veterinary care?
The third chapter that is hugely problematic is his chapter on the first cause argument. Russell has demonstrated the problems with this argument, and Bugliosi does not take him on. Instead, Bugliosi seems to be saying that it is not fair to claim we do not know what caused the universe unless we call this unknown thing god. At least I think that is what he arguing, as he is very confused about it, attacking atheists for their arguments about the logical problems with the first cause while remaining seemingly completely, willfully ignorant of the science on the matter. On one page Bugliosi literally attacks the scientific perspective for not being sure about what caused the universe and on the next page basically names this unsureness, which he is suddenly defending, "god." (If that's what god is, we have problems: most people are not deists.)
The bookends are also highly problematic - based completely on inductive reasoning - but I won't bother with them, as they clearly are meant more as extended footnotes.
Fortunately for us readers, Bugliosi's concluding chapter is pretty much faultless and I found that after reading it, I disliked the rest of the book a lot less than I did while reading the above three chapters.
So to sum up I would say that this isn't about convince anyone who isn't already an agnostic to be an agnostic, which is unfortunate, but that it does contain excellent discussions of the inherent absurdities of religion, and an excellent argument in favour of morality outside of religion. So those things, I think, outweigh the many, many problems in the early going."

[Todd Martin · Rating 1 out of 5]

Divinity of Doubt: The God Question is a laughably bad book. You have to hand it to Vincent Bugliosi (an attorney known for his prosecution of Charles Manson) though, he's not afraid to put his breathtaking ignorance right out there in the open for all to see. Part of the problem seems to stem from his boastful assertions that he doesn’t own or know how to use a computer. It’s a shame; the Google could have saved him from some deeply embarrassing moments.

Anyway, let’s jump right in and address the core of his argument, which is that because it’s neither possible to prove nor dis-prove God’s existence, that the only intellectually honest position to take on the question is agnosticism. He purportedly comes to this conclusion through a critical review of the best arguments for theism and atheism, finding each of them lacking in turn.

This line of argumentation fails to pass even a cursory examination. A rational mind-set requires one to be open to new evidence (just not so open that one’s brain falls out). Thus no atheist of whom I’m aware (including Richard Dawkins) claims to “know” that God does not exist. Instead, they attribute a probability to his existence that is commensurate with the evidence (a value that is, of course, vanishingly small … in fact we have the same evidence for God as exists for Zeus, garden fairies, bigfoot, Vishnu, Xenu and an extra dimension of the universe that contains socks missing from the clothes dryer). Atheists live their lives as if no God exists, because it’s the only rational conclusion that can be drawn given the complete lack of evidence.

Bertrand Russell elucidated this point more than half a century ago:
“I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.”



Bugliosi’s arguments are so bad on this point that I doubt he even believes them himself. Though he claims over and over that he’s an extremely rational person who uses evidence and his legal background to inform his world-view, it is, in fact, deeply irrational to adopt a middle position (maybe it’s true, maybe it’s not, I just don’t know) for truth claims for which absolute certainty is impossible. Is it reasonable to be agnostic when it comes to a claim that I have an invisible dragon named Clarence living in my garage (who’s also a werewolf, but can’t be killed by silver bullets)? You may also be interested to know that this same dragon also likes to play backgammon on Thursday evenings (except, of course on nights when the moon is full). Since this claim is impossible to refute, Bugiosi must be agnostic as to its veracity (if he intends in any way to be intellectually consistent). If that's the case, I’d be hard pressed to imagine a more irrational mindset.

Though not central to his core premise, I’d be remiss if I failed to address his views regarding evolution, which are so mind-numbingly ill-informed it’s mystifying as to why he’d ever choose to commit them to paper. Here are three examples:

1. He has a hard time believing in evolution because he can’t imagine how a single celled life form could evolve into a human being (or more generally how evolution leads to complexity). Not only is this an archetypal example of the logical fallacy known as the argument from incredulity, it also provides a glimpse into Bugliosi’s astounding paucity of imagination. A quick search for “origins of biological complexity” will return more than 30 million results in case you want to investigate for your self why it's known to have occurred.

2. He asserts that evolution can’t be true because there are no transitional fossils. Really? Hasn’t everyone with a modicum of scientific literacy been made aware of Archaeopteryx or Tiktaalik by now? If that isn’t sufficient there are hundreds of other transitional fossils listed here.

3. Finally (as if that weren’t enough) Bugliosi, actually says (and I’m not making this up) “If humans evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?” <> double face palm <> Answer: We didn’t, monkeys and humans evolved from a common ancestor. Also, humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys (he didn't even get that part right).

All this is to say that the book is bad … really … it’s just terrible. In fact I didn't finish it for fear I'd be dumber at the end than when I started. I’m not sure what’s worse, the abysmal writing, the poorly researched content or the smug self-satisfied assurance with which the material is presented. Let’s call it a tie.

[Beverly · Rating 1 out of 5]

In my opinion Bugliosi ranks as one of the best true crime writers we have, but I cannot say the same about his venture into the genre of religion. Unfortunately I can only recommend this particular book as kindling for your fire. I’m not sure why Bugliosi thought he had something fresh to say in this book that has not been said before. There is nothing new under the sun in this one.
Indeed, it shows a good deal of ignorance on Bugliosi’s part in the areas of philosophy, science, history, theology, and scripture. The man really should invest in a computer and get hooked up to the internet so he could do a little research on some of the things he put in this book. Several of his errors are glaringly obvious. For instance he thinks there are 15 more books in the Protestant Old Testament than there are in the Hebrew Old Testament. Actually the Hebrew Old Testament is the same as the Protestant Old Testament, it is just ordered differently.
In his discussion on Islam he says Aisha was Muhammad’s first wife. Actually Khadijah was Muhammad’s first wife and she was his only wife as long as she lived. She played a key role in the rise of Islam. Aisha was the child bride of Muhammad, bethrothed to him at the age of 6 and married to him by the age of 9 or 10. She was the daughter of Abu Bakr, a close friend of Muhammad’s. And if Bugliosi is confused on why there is trouble between the Arabs and the Jews, he really doesn’t know much about the history of Islam.
This book is mostly an attack on Christianity with a few swipes at atheists and evolutionists thrown in. Bugliosi thinks that the only sane view concerning God is the agnostic view and if you hold anything other than that you are stupid and/or ignorant and could not possibly have reached your conclusion using reason and logic (these are all his words, not mine).
He completely misrepresents the Catholic Church which is rich in 2000 years of history and theology. The Catholic worldview is that Christ established a church that is led by the Holy Spirit and preserved by this same Holy Spirit from falling into error in matters of doctrine. That means the Church can have bad Popes (which she has had), but no Pope who will teach doctrinal error (which they haven’t as far as I’ve been able to discern). The Catholic Church is the one who gave us the Bible, the one who determined it was inspired by God. We would have no other way of knowing, in my opinion.
The attack on Pope Pius XII has been refuted with many very good factual arguments; many were testimony from Jews who expressed gratitude to Pope Pius XII for all he did during the war. Apparently Bugliosi hasn’t read them. The Chief Rabbi of Rome during the Nazi occupation and persecution of the Jews, Israel Zolli, became a Catholic in 1945. Why would he have done that if Pope Pius XII was a friend of Hitler? Answer: he wouldn’t have since he was in a position to see first hand what was happening. If Pope Pius XII had spoken out, Hitler would have killed even more Jews. There is ample evidence that is what Hitler did when people spoke against him.
Bugliosi thinks that the only rule we should live by is the golden rule, treat others as you yourself would like to be treated. He fells to follow that advice in this book. Instead of saying charitably, “Although I don’t hold that belief, I can understand how you might hold it”, he responds instead with “Some people would believe that pigs can fly!” All I can do is repeat a statement made by St. Thomas Aquinas when he was talking about his fellow Dominicans, “I would rather believe that pigs can fly than that Bugliosi could lie”.
Skip this book, there is much better stuff out there.

[George · Rating 5 out of 5]

CAN I GET AN AMEN.

“How can such numbing, staggering stupidity continue without end?”—page 197

Vincent Bugliosi’s rant entitled ‘Divinity of Doubt: The God Question,’ is a pretty remarkable book. After reading just the first sixty pages or so, though, that’s nothing at all like what I was thinking. Instead, I felt compelled to draft a rather scathing review, headed: LAWYERLY TWADDLE, ante up a one-star rating, and postulate that, “Were I in the jury box while he made these arguments verbally, mine would be the first face to glaze over in incomprehension.” I should know better than judge too early.

After I’d put that draft away, slept on it awhile and continued on (and I’m very glad that I did continue on) the reading just kept getting better and better. Then it dawned on me. During those first sixty pages, or so, it had been my team’s ox that was being gored. Once the horns turned and it was the other team’s ox getting gored, both the writing and logic improved substantially.

I’m still biased against agnosticism, as the first refuge of those slackers who want to have their cake and eat it too, but I guess can accept that it might be a valid option as a, less than sterling, second place choice.

Recommendation: If there was a Robert G. Ingersoll Award for Excellence in Free Thinking, (and why isn’t there such an award?) Bugliosi’s magnum opus would get my enthusiastic support for first place.

“If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities.” [Voltaire]—page 202

Adobe Digital Edition [ePub] from http://overdrive.colapublib.org/, 326 pages

[Sylvonna · Rating 3 out of 5]

My rating for this book is a very weak 3 stars...only because I DO like a lot of what he had to say and found myself agreeing with the author on a lot of different points; there were a few ideas he expressed that were long held beliefs of mine that I had a hard time expressing and I found it exciting to read about them and identify them through this book.

Now, that is about the only positive thing I can say. You can tell that this book is written by a lawyer; I appreciate the logic used and it does make the author's point of view entirely clear, but I have to agree with the other reviewers that it comes off as obnoxiously egocentric, often to the point of making me want to disagree with him even though I agree with what he was trying to say.

This was not as enjoyable as I thought it would be; I really wanted something more relatable or even eye-opening but just found this very dry.

[Riccardo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Vincent Bugliosi, the attorney that prosecuted Charles Manson, details here the major differences between the believers, agnostics, and athiests. He cites all the inconsistencies contained in the bible and dispels the notion that God is a caring and kind God. His ability to hold up to believers, Christians in particular, their hypocricies of what they choose to believe based on their own personal beliefs; another words: they pick and choose passages in the bible in order to suit their own selfish ends. In the end, he admits that he doesn't know if God exsits because there is no evidence. Certainly, he does a fine job explaining that the bible was written by man and as we all know, man is flawed.

[John Martindale · Rating 3 out of 5]

I expected the book to be more on agnosticism, but the Divinity of Doubt was mostly a polemic against Christianity, it also contained a brief section where he expressed his doubts concerning evolution which guaranteed his target audience would hate the whole book. It definitely was a mixed bag; sometimes it seems he did his research, so to accurately represent what he would then ridicule; pointing out absurdities and bad logic within mainstream Christian doctrines. Other times, especially when touching on the moral arguments for God, he failed spectacularly in a Richard Dawkinish fashion. Speaking of Dawkins, he parrots Dawkins stipulative definition of faith, which pays absolutely no mind to how religious people use and understand the word; as relational trust that is grounded on evidence. In his look and interpretation of the history of religious violence, verses that in atheistic regimes, and the ill effect of Christianity on culture, it seemed he lost all sense of balance and reasonableness. Sometimes he seemed inconsistent and rather muddle in reasoning, but it was this that gave the book had a personal feel. I almost felt like I was sitting down with him, hearing his rant, expressing what seems so irrational and morally repugnant about Christianity, while also touching upon doubts concerning evolution and certain things which suggest to him that maybe there is a God.
Quite often I found myself nodding my head in agreement, as he expressed his exasperation over many Christian beliefs. It was interesting that the majority of doctrines he poured scorn upon, are ones that I, as a Christian have rejected, (and often on biblical grounds); things like eternal conscious torment in hell, penal substitutionary atonement, inheriting Adams guilt, God's exhaustive and fixed knowledge of everything that will happen, the Protestants denigration of good works, simplistic notions of omnipotence, the damnation of people simply because the accident of where and when they were born, and the accuracy of many of the Old Testament's portraits of the divine as a violent and unstable warrior god.
I think what touched a nerve, causing another little faith crisis in me, was his writing on the absolute absurdity and lunacy of prayer, it was troubling just how much it resonated with me and voiced what I've thought and felt. Indeed it seems no matter how pious and full of faith are those who pray, no matter how many pray, no matter how fervently they persist, still the likelihood of prying open the clinched fist of the one who acts like the indifferent and unjust judge, is like winning the lottery. I have the wrong personality for it all and marvel those who just keep at it. Truly, because of all the promises in scripture, and the biblical writers raising our expectations to obscene heights, the impotence of prayer has to be among the great evidence against either the existence of God, the goodness and truthfulness of God, or evidence for the biblical authors misrepresenting an aloof and absentee God, who maintains a strict hands off policy. Indeed one of the most problematic things for me to grapple with, is how it sometime seems God does answer prayers, which then makes him seem all the more culpable and arbitrary the 99% of the time that he doesn't. This all intertwines in my mind with the problem of evil, and how if any earthly father acted towards his children with the indifference that the heavenly Father does his towards his own children—allowing every harm and evil to befall though able to prevent it, he'd be locked up and likely despised.
So yeah, this book, ended up being the impetus to yet another revaluation, adjusting even further, moving another step away from the orthodox understanding of God. Today I was thinking about how I've hoped God would be a sufficient cause in my life and how in this I've been regularly disappointed,. It does seem for me God is necessary cause though, though not sufficient, indeed part of the equation, there is something about belief in Him that moves me to change my thinking, to try to be more human, instead of letting the animal in me gain complete dominance. I know it is a fact that perspective, and how we think can transform our life. So possibly, indirectly, God, whether he does or does not exist, 0 can continue to be a positive force in my life, motivating me to consider my highest good, not just for my present self, but future self and motivating me to love and be good to others.
The other thought was if I can fully embrace the concept of Christ as the head, and we are the body, and thus strip away any expectation of his doing anything overt, like offering supernatural strength, physical healing or intervening in world events, then I might be able to again embrace the belief God's love. This love can simply be that warm welcome, like a hug, a deep acceptance and belonging. It dawned on me, I can feel this from some friends, and I don't expect them to be able to meet certain needs or bring world peace, but this doesn't negate how their smile and welcome is life giving to my soul. Through meditation I have experienced the acceptance and warm embrace of Love from God, which is life giving, brightening my countenance and bring joy to life . I haven't been able to enjoy this for a long time, because of the disappointment that came from misguided expectations. Yes, expectations that are there because of the New Testament. I guess I am forced to differ and disagree with the likes of Peter and Paul, and sometimes even Jesus. Ironically, I must do this so I can stay on board and remain a Christian.

[Barry Sargent · Rating 1 out of 5]

Horribly researched, if researched at all. The author doesn't seem familiar/knowledgeable with several areas he argues in his book (I mean really - "if we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?" How can this author criticize evolution when this statement alone shows he doesn't even understand the subject?). The logical fallacies abound in his arguments, of which he spends a great deal of time lambasting others for their use of logical fallacies. His good points are few and far between.

[Edwin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really thought provoking-- Bugliosi oversimplifies a lot of things (a bizarre, almost juvenile discussion of the demerits of evolution as a theory meanders on midway through the book) and is a bit hyperbolic ((he gleefully denounces the Judeo Christian God every chance he gets (he better watch out for that lightning)), but he displays some astute thinking and more than a touch of wit.

[Jennifer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quite harsh at times but asks good questions!

[Anthony · Rating 1 out of 5]

Just a bad book. The author does not have a deep enough understanding of the vocabulary needed to talk about atheists, agnostics, and theists. Furthermore, his broad generalizations are insulting.

[Jason Baer · Rating 1 out of 5]

Didn't finish it, I didn't agree with the ideas exactly and found it tedious to read.

[Israel Dryer · Rating 1 out of 5]

The author was so pompous I couldn't bring myself to finish. He tries to come across as an expert in everything, but instead comes across as an ass.

[Karen Benedetto · Rating 1 out of 5]

What agnostic bullshit. Ego-driven drivel. Who cares what Bugliosi thinks about anything, really?
A waste of anyone's time.

[Todd McDonough · Rating 3 out of 5]

REVIEW FROM AN AGNOSTIC: I can't say I've ever written a book review before, but this book without a doubt deserves one. Throughout the course of the book I was teetering between two stars and three stars, but what pulled it over to three stars was it's entertainment value because in that sense it is a fun book.

Pros: Entertainment value, a few interesting points to look into: (virgin birth, immortality of the soul, unknown author of the Torah, Jesus suffering from delusions of grandeur, social darwinism, and murphy's law). This list, although not comprehensive, is what I believed the most interesting points he brought up throughout the book and made the book worth reading.

Cons: The one thing I greatly disliked about this book was his highly emotional arguments. For most of the book he rambles about how immoral the Christian God, and although he may be correct he came off very unintelligent because instead of presenting facts in a mature manner it sounded like he was just a kid whining on a school playground about how unfair everything is. Another con about the book is you can tell although he knows a few interesting things about religion this is definitely not his area of expertise. Some of the areas that he covered including: The problem of evil, the teological argument, the born-again doctrine, Religiosity/dysfunction comparison, he got blatantky inncorrect. I wish he would have fact checked himself in many areas because I was embarrased for him with some of his arguments. Lastly the worst part was his arrogance, almost like he believed he was 100% correct in everything he said about Christianity and atheism. Sorry Vincent but you were wrong on a lot.

Overall though, it was a very fun book and it did gave me a lot to look into. I must mention I am agnostic and although I disagreed with a lot of his arguments I do agree with his conclusion.

[Bob Lundquist · Rating 3 out of 5]

Discussion of the existence of God has been a pastime since at least the Enlightenment and possibly before. This was probably encouraged by not only the Enlightenment, but its close friend, the development of the scientific method. Once it seemed that humans did not need a god, usually of the Christian variety, to explain the mysterious, the floodgates were opened to speculation about God’s demise. And it all boils down to opinion or faith.

Bugliosi puts forth his thoughts on the matter in a legalistic fashion. Namely, as in a trial, if there is no physical evidence or common sense to back up the claim of God’s existence, then there is no good reason to believe in God. As such, he puts forth many arguments about the issue that have been put forth before. Being a lawyer, his writing tends to be convoluted and yet to the point. He makes clear he is agnostic and is willing to consider God’s existence but argues that all the usual proofs of it are faulty or not supported by any documentation such as the Bible which is not consistent in its portrayal of God. He recognizes that all the wonders of our physical life cannot be fully explained by the scientific method and that there must be something that is like God, but not the Christian god. That god is too contradictory, cruel. or self-absorbed to be considered as having existence. On the other hand, he also castigates atheists of bad argumentation. However, whatever is claimed, an agnostic is effectively the same as an atheist since one cannot tell by their behavior the difference between the two. In either case, agnosticism and atheism, their arguments are shallow. unconvincing, and too smarmy. Stuart Chase said it best, “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.”