What do you think?
Rate this book
The God Confusion: Why Nobody Knows the Answer to the Ultimate Question
What is God? Does he exist? Can we know?
The God Confusion offers a down-to-earth beginner's guide for anyone interested in these questions. It does not evangelize for God and religion or, indeed, for atheism, secularism and science. Instead, it explores in a witty yet objective and balanced way the idea of God and the strengths and weaknesses of the standard arguments for his existence. Gary Cox shows that the philosophical reasoning at the heart of these arguments is logically incapable of moving beyond speculation to any kind of proof. The only credible philosophical position is therefore agnosticism. The God Confusion defends science generally and the theory of evolution in particular. It argues that if religion is not to appear increasingly outdated and ridiculous in the eyes of free-thinking, educated people, it must accommodate science and accept that science has replaced the old God of the gaps as an explanation of natural phenomena.
Concluding that God may or may not exist, on the grounds that science, philosophy and theology are inherently incapable of proving or disproving his existence, The God Confusion acknowledges that religious faith based on a deliberate commitment to live as though there is a moral God is a coherent notion and a worthwhile, even prudent enterprise. At the same time, it rejects the idea of inner certainty as mere wishful thinking, arguing that it is not a coherent basis for belief and is simply bad faith.
The God Confusion offers a down-to-earth beginner's guide for anyone interested in these questions. It does not evangelize for God and religion or, indeed, for atheism, secularism and science. Instead, it explores in a witty yet objective and balanced way the idea of God and the strengths and weaknesses of the standard arguments for his existence. Gary Cox shows that the philosophical reasoning at the heart of these arguments is logically incapable of moving beyond speculation to any kind of proof. The only credible philosophical position is therefore agnosticism. The God Confusion defends science generally and the theory of evolution in particular. It argues that if religion is not to appear increasingly outdated and ridiculous in the eyes of free-thinking, educated people, it must accommodate science and accept that science has replaced the old God of the gaps as an explanation of natural phenomena.
Concluding that God may or may not exist, on the grounds that science, philosophy and theology are inherently incapable of proving or disproving his existence, The God Confusion acknowledges that religious faith based on a deliberate commitment to live as though there is a moral God is a coherent notion and a worthwhile, even prudent enterprise. At the same time, it rejects the idea of inner certainty as mere wishful thinking, arguing that it is not a coherent basis for belief and is simply bad faith.
- GenresPhilosophy
216 pages, Paperback
First published September 12, 2013
6 people are currently reading
50 people want to read
About the author
Gary Cox
55 books40 followersGary Cox is a British philosopher and biographer and the author of several books on Jean-Paul Sartre, existentialism, general philosophy, ethics and philosophy of sport.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
December 28, 2018
Anyone considering reading this book would be far better off reading the works Cox has cited, such as Brian Davies' Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion.
December 10, 2017
I should start by saying i'm a big fan of Gary Cox. I think I've read all of his many books on Jean Paul Satre. He has a knack for making complex philosophical arguments down to earth and understandable. So, if you want a straightforward low-down on all the arguments for the existence of God, this is definitely the book.
However, like many of the reviewers on Amazon, I do disagree with Cox on his definition of atheism. In the book he defines atheism as the dogmatic belief that God definitely does not exist. I don't think that is the way that most atheists would define it. In fact Dawkins himself, who is probably the bestknown atheist in the world today, would agree that you cannot positively disprove the existence of God.
Cox is at great pains to emphasis that there are no arguments that positively prove - or disprove - the existence of God. His view is therefore that agnosticism is the only tenable philosophical stance. While he may be right in a strictly logical sense, that does not include all the empirical evidence in the world around us. Simply put, the universe shows no evidence for God, or at least for any kind of intervening personal God, like the one described in the bible. In fact the univere looks pretty much as you would have expected if there was no God. And to me, you just can't leave this out of the argument.
As Dawkins himself pointed out, just because you can't disprove a proposition, that doesn't mean that the chance of it being true is 50/50. In his example, he has a theory that there is a chocolate teapot orbiting Alpha Centauri. You can't prove beyond all doubt that that isn't true. It could be true. But is it likely? Of course not. It's 99.999% unlikely. And the same argument applies to God. And this is how most atheists think of the argument. Isaac Asimov: "I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time". It's a shame that Gary doesn't acknowledge or discuss this rather important angle.
However, like many of the reviewers on Amazon, I do disagree with Cox on his definition of atheism. In the book he defines atheism as the dogmatic belief that God definitely does not exist. I don't think that is the way that most atheists would define it. In fact Dawkins himself, who is probably the bestknown atheist in the world today, would agree that you cannot positively disprove the existence of God.
Cox is at great pains to emphasis that there are no arguments that positively prove - or disprove - the existence of God. His view is therefore that agnosticism is the only tenable philosophical stance. While he may be right in a strictly logical sense, that does not include all the empirical evidence in the world around us. Simply put, the universe shows no evidence for God, or at least for any kind of intervening personal God, like the one described in the bible. In fact the univere looks pretty much as you would have expected if there was no God. And to me, you just can't leave this out of the argument.
As Dawkins himself pointed out, just because you can't disprove a proposition, that doesn't mean that the chance of it being true is 50/50. In his example, he has a theory that there is a chocolate teapot orbiting Alpha Centauri. You can't prove beyond all doubt that that isn't true. It could be true. But is it likely? Of course not. It's 99.999% unlikely. And the same argument applies to God. And this is how most atheists think of the argument. Isaac Asimov: "I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time". It's a shame that Gary doesn't acknowledge or discuss this rather important angle.
November 18, 2018
Excellent exploration of the "proofs" for God's (or gods') existence or non-existence
July 1, 2024
A much better book than "Letter To A Christian Nation." Cox takes a step-by-step logical approach to atheism, as opposed to the buckshot scatter-gun blast that you get from The New Atheists. I like these books, and recommend them to all people of faith: think of this book as white-hat hacking. You'll have a better faith by honestly hearing an opposing voice.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews