What do you think?
Rate this book
Logic and Theism: Arguments for and against Beliefs in God
This book includes arguments for and against belief in God. The arguments for the belief are analyzed in the first six chapters and include ontological arguments from Anselm through Gödel; the cosmological arguments of Aquinas and Leibniz; and arguments from evidence for design and miracles. The next two chapters consider arguments against belief. The last chapter examines Pascalian arguments for and against belief in God. This book is a valuable resource for philosophers of religion and theologians and interests logicians and mathematicians as well.
674 pages, Hardcover
First published November 10, 2003
16 people are currently reading
419 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
September 6, 2025
This book analyzes numerous arguments for theism using formal logic, and in most cases concludes they fail to justify their conclusion. In addition, it reviews several arguments against the existence of God, iteratively revising them given possible objections. It concludes with an analysis of several Pascalian wagers.
While I think this is a fantastic analysis of natural theology, I do not consider it very accessible. It's very dense, and it seems to assume familiarity with the arguments presented as well as with associated key figures. Granted, I can't imagine anyone coming across this book without already being immersed in the subject.
Despite this, this book is still well worth reading. I've read a good handful of books on the philosophy of religion, and I still encountered new and novel lines of argument and rebuttal.
While I think this is a fantastic analysis of natural theology, I do not consider it very accessible. It's very dense, and it seems to assume familiarity with the arguments presented as well as with associated key figures. Granted, I can't imagine anyone coming across this book without already being immersed in the subject.
Despite this, this book is still well worth reading. I've read a good handful of books on the philosophy of religion, and I still encountered new and novel lines of argument and rebuttal.
June 8, 2016
A large, impressive, and difficult book.
Sobel analyzes the concept of God (worthy of worship but not necessarily; he has nothing but bad things to say about descriptions of God as necessary or as essentially whatever) various arguments for the existence of God (those defending some sort of perfect-being theology, e.g., ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments in their various permutations), two key attributes of the standard depiction of God (omniscience and omnipotence), major arguments against the existence of God (including a noteworthy attempt to rehabilitate the logical problem of evil), and various forms of Pascalian wagers (which to him don't necessarily construe God as a perfect being). Each chapter is followed by pertinent appendices, which typically give more detail on the chapter's argument or focus more on response to a particular interlocutor, often using extensive symbolic logic and Bayesian probability (a fair amount of which was and will remain above my pay-grade). The body of each chapter is significantly more accessible than the appendices, but I want to be clear that even these "more accessible" parts are densely argued and unforgiving to the philosophically uninitiated. That said, Sobel can also be funny.
Recommended for those with good training in philosophy and formal logic.
Sobel analyzes the concept of God (worthy of worship but not necessarily; he has nothing but bad things to say about descriptions of God as necessary or as essentially whatever) various arguments for the existence of God (those defending some sort of perfect-being theology, e.g., ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments in their various permutations), two key attributes of the standard depiction of God (omniscience and omnipotence), major arguments against the existence of God (including a noteworthy attempt to rehabilitate the logical problem of evil), and various forms of Pascalian wagers (which to him don't necessarily construe God as a perfect being). Each chapter is followed by pertinent appendices, which typically give more detail on the chapter's argument or focus more on response to a particular interlocutor, often using extensive symbolic logic and Bayesian probability (a fair amount of which was and will remain above my pay-grade). The body of each chapter is significantly more accessible than the appendices, but I want to be clear that even these "more accessible" parts are densely argued and unforgiving to the philosophically uninitiated. That said, Sobel can also be funny.
Recommended for those with good training in philosophy and formal logic.
May 18, 2025
Le meilleur livre de philosophie de la religion que j'ai pu lire.
Le sommet de l'athéisme philosophique.
Excellent livre, je me conteterai juste de citer quelques légers défauts, puisqu'en dehors de ceux-ci, le livre se rapproche de la perfection.
Le style de Sobell est assez lourd. Il charge énormément ses arguments en concepts, c'est des fois très peu utiles (par exemple c'est ce qu'il fait dans son objection du fait brut).
De plus, son objection du fait brut (qui est en réalité plutôt un dilemme : ou bien on accepte le fait brut, ou bien on accepte un modal collapse) a déjà été adressée avec succès par saint Thomas d'Aquin dans la Summa contra gentiles.
Enfin, il défend le paradoxe de l'omnipotence, argument qui est très mauvais.
En dehors de ça, le livre est génial. Clarté des démonstrations, formalisations, arguments aiguisés, tout y est.
Le sommet de l'athéisme philosophique.
Excellent livre, je me conteterai juste de citer quelques légers défauts, puisqu'en dehors de ceux-ci, le livre se rapproche de la perfection.
Le style de Sobell est assez lourd. Il charge énormément ses arguments en concepts, c'est des fois très peu utiles (par exemple c'est ce qu'il fait dans son objection du fait brut).
De plus, son objection du fait brut (qui est en réalité plutôt un dilemme : ou bien on accepte le fait brut, ou bien on accepte un modal collapse) a déjà été adressée avec succès par saint Thomas d'Aquin dans la Summa contra gentiles.
Enfin, il défend le paradoxe de l'omnipotence, argument qui est très mauvais.
En dehors de ça, le livre est génial. Clarté des démonstrations, formalisations, arguments aiguisés, tout y est.
August 25, 2024
This is one of the best books I've ever read.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews