What do you think?
Rate this book
God Is a Question, Not an Answer: Finding Common Ground in Our Uncertainty
Uncertainty is the essence of the human condition, and nothing is more uncertain than God. Yet passions run hot when it comes to God, both among believers and non-believers.
God is a Question, Not an Answer aims to unsettle readers on both sides of the issue. William Irwin argues that because belief occurs along a continuum of doubt and we can never reach full certainty, believers and non-believers can find common ground in uncertainty. Beginning with the questions of what we mean when we talk about God and faith, Irwin shows that from a philosophical perspective, the tendency to doubt is a virtue, and from a religious perspective there is no faith without doubt. Rather than avoid uncertainty as an uncomfortable state of emotional despair, we should embrace it as an ennobling part of the human condition.
We do not have to agree about the existence of God, but we do need to practice intellectual humility and learn to see doubt as a gift. By engaging in civil discourse we can see those who disagree with us as not only fully human but capable of teaching us something.
God is a Question, Not an Answer aims to unsettle readers on both sides of the issue. William Irwin argues that because belief occurs along a continuum of doubt and we can never reach full certainty, believers and non-believers can find common ground in uncertainty. Beginning with the questions of what we mean when we talk about God and faith, Irwin shows that from a philosophical perspective, the tendency to doubt is a virtue, and from a religious perspective there is no faith without doubt. Rather than avoid uncertainty as an uncomfortable state of emotional despair, we should embrace it as an ennobling part of the human condition.
We do not have to agree about the existence of God, but we do need to practice intellectual humility and learn to see doubt as a gift. By engaging in civil discourse we can see those who disagree with us as not only fully human but capable of teaching us something.
159 pages, Kindle Edition
Published December 3, 2018
5 people are currently reading
58 people want to read
About the author
William Irwin
125 books125 followersWilliam Irwin is Professor of Philosophy at King's College in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania and is best known for originating the "philosophy and popular culture" book genre with Seinfeld and Philosophy: A Book about Everything and Nothing (1999) and The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer (2001).
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
April 9, 2019
I'll never not appreciate a plea for less dogmatism, a celebration of uncertainty—especially when it comes to religious territory.
July 5, 2019
William Irwin’s book is an enjoyable read. The few theists and atheists who feel content with or even enjoy their doubt will find much validation. Irwin, himself an atheist and ex-Catholic, has the refreshing ability to explain the diverse understandings of God and religious belief that will leave Christians feeling well represented. Unfortunately I doubt this book will be as meaningful to most theists and atheists, who in my experience tend to hold an extensive amount of certainty (or at least claim to). So although the message of the book is probably the most important for this 2nd group of people, it seems to be mostly written with the former group in mind as an audience. I hope I’m mistaken. Irwin gives a honest plea for humility in our belief and disbelief that can better allow us to find common ground in our uncertainty.
July 10, 2019
This was an enjoyable, quirky, humorous, and poignant book. Before I discuss the content, I will say at the outset that Irwin’s view toward tolerance between theists and non-believers is an admirable one.
Moving on to the book itself: There were a couple instances where logical leaps seemed quite nebulous indeed and inconsistencies glaring (for example, arguing that it is completely uncalled for to question ones disbelief in ghosts, but that there are merits for doubting atheism, considering Nick Bostrom’s well-known computer simulation theory, and not being settled in the nature of reality. The argument didn’t make sense to me at all. If some things we cannot see could exist, why not others?)
At any rate, as a dedicated Absurdist, I found this text interesting as an intellectual exercise in contradictions of humanity’s innate yearning to know the answers to fundamental existential questions and our simultaneous inability to ever truly “know” much beyond the empirical. I loved the quotes included by Niels Bohr and Richard Feynman, two physicists I admire greatly as thinkers and whose reflections on the supernatural are always witty/pointed while remaining playful. I appreciated the discussion of the merits of atheistic prayer, as well as the chapter that approaches having civil discussions on the metaphysical and other topics people approach with religiosity (as in the case of polemical politics or dogmatic atheism). I agree with Irwin that it is important to know the opposing view better than ones own. On a human level, I find his call for tolerance, being willing to change our minds, and to “live and let live” refreshing. Philosophically, however, I found the chapter on discourse quite incomplete from an ethical standpoint. I would have appreciated reading how the author regarded displaying tolerance toward intolerance in everyday conversation, though nothing in his book suggests he would condone it.
Irwin calls himself an “honest atheist,” a term I found interesting and which means he admits he cannot speak with certainty on anything metaphysical; thus honesty insists that doubts remain. I also found him an Absurdist atheist in many ways, and was surprised he did not quote Camus when Absurdist concepts came so often to the fore. Lots of Sartre, which also works for me, but this book was very Camusian and seemed to be begging for him to weigh in. Nonetheless, it was a fun read overall!
Moving on to the book itself: There were a couple instances where logical leaps seemed quite nebulous indeed and inconsistencies glaring (for example, arguing that it is completely uncalled for to question ones disbelief in ghosts, but that there are merits for doubting atheism, considering Nick Bostrom’s well-known computer simulation theory, and not being settled in the nature of reality. The argument didn’t make sense to me at all. If some things we cannot see could exist, why not others?)
At any rate, as a dedicated Absurdist, I found this text interesting as an intellectual exercise in contradictions of humanity’s innate yearning to know the answers to fundamental existential questions and our simultaneous inability to ever truly “know” much beyond the empirical. I loved the quotes included by Niels Bohr and Richard Feynman, two physicists I admire greatly as thinkers and whose reflections on the supernatural are always witty/pointed while remaining playful. I appreciated the discussion of the merits of atheistic prayer, as well as the chapter that approaches having civil discussions on the metaphysical and other topics people approach with religiosity (as in the case of polemical politics or dogmatic atheism). I agree with Irwin that it is important to know the opposing view better than ones own. On a human level, I find his call for tolerance, being willing to change our minds, and to “live and let live” refreshing. Philosophically, however, I found the chapter on discourse quite incomplete from an ethical standpoint. I would have appreciated reading how the author regarded displaying tolerance toward intolerance in everyday conversation, though nothing in his book suggests he would condone it.
Irwin calls himself an “honest atheist,” a term I found interesting and which means he admits he cannot speak with certainty on anything metaphysical; thus honesty insists that doubts remain. I also found him an Absurdist atheist in many ways, and was surprised he did not quote Camus when Absurdist concepts came so often to the fore. Lots of Sartre, which also works for me, but this book was very Camusian and seemed to be begging for him to weigh in. Nonetheless, it was a fun read overall!
December 24, 2018
When I started reading this it had a lot of promise, but I kept feeling shortchanged. For instance, in the chapter on faith, there were a lot of good metaphors to describe faith but as far as I could tell never a definitive, clear definition of it. The same happened with the chapter on civil discourse. While there were a lot of helpful pieces, they never seemed to be assembled into a coherent whole.
The same is true of the promise of the title. I thought it meant that the author had some ideas about how to find common ground but I really didn't see much about that in the book, except perhaps in the chapter on civil discourse.
So while I enjoyed reading the book, I was also consistently disappointed, hence three stars instead of four.
The same is true of the promise of the title. I thought it meant that the author had some ideas about how to find common ground but I really didn't see much about that in the book, except perhaps in the chapter on civil discourse.
So while I enjoyed reading the book, I was also consistently disappointed, hence three stars instead of four.
July 2, 2019
I wanted to like this book because I like anything that questions religion. He uses the term "honest atheist" frequently and denies that it means agnostic, but to me, that is the exact definition that he describes. After the first chapter, the book began to read like a textbook which I was not a fan of either.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews