Rating: 
Summary: A little too simple
Review: As others have reported, the delivery was clear, witty, and very readable.The author did an admirable job of not overstating his case. For example, he considered and rejected the argument from design -- what he calls the "rose petal" argument, the notion that the elegance and intricacy of the known universe evinces a creator with a big-picture plan. He even goes so far as to supply a nice, light vignette to dispatch with this proof, despite his affinity for what it allegedly proves. No one can accuse this author of not being fair-minded. The problem comes down to GIGO: garbage-in, garbage out. Baylesian probability (as the author ably explains) gives a method to take a known probability, consider additional evidence, and arrive at a subsequent probability. The garbage-in here is the seven points of additional evidence by which the author adjusts the original 50-50 proposition that God either exists or doesn't. Needless to say, the quality of this superceding evidence, and the numerical values assigned to it, are critical to the outcome. Unwin does not go far enough in establishing that numbers can be assigned to the points of evidence he gives, much less that *his* numbers are the right ones. Without a method for converting vague, grand propositions to crisp probabilities, e.g., "it is x% more likely that the existence of evil would be apparent in a godless universe than in a godful universe", this is no more than question-begging. This can only be a nice mathematical way to bundle and organize the question of God's existence if there are nice mathematical inputs. Unwin assigns values and gives his reasons, but ultimately he's only provided a framework in which others will inevitably assign differing values -- with differing results. And thus we're back at square one. More work remains to be done before Baylesian probabilities can be truly said to illuminate the question of God's existence. I like the author's style, I admire the spirit of his attempt, I appreciate the clear lesson in probabilities, but I am not convinced.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting, at times funny, but too long winded
Review: Don't expect to find out about the ultimate truth in this book. It is a guide to do your own calculation as to what for you is the probablilty of God. The title should have been "A probability of God", not "The". I found it rather long winded and it could have been written as a book with a quarter of the number of pages it has now. There were for me some highlights in the book which helped me structure my own thoughts on the subject. As an unbeliever I didn't agree with the outcome and the maths allows you to make your own individual calculation. Hence a loyal churchgoer will calculate a much higher probability than an unbeliever. The last few chapters try to address that point by introducing Believe and Faith, but I found them superfluous.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting, at times funny, but too long winded
Review: Don't expect to find out about the ultimate truth in this book. It is a guide to do your own calculation as to what for you is the probablilty of God. The title should have been "A probability of God", not "The". I found it rather long winded and it could have been written as a book with a quarter of the number of pages it has now. There were for me some highlights in the book which helped me structure my own thoughts on the subject. As an unbeliever I didn't agree with the outcome and the maths allows you to make your own individual calculation. Hence a loyal churchgoer will calculate a much higher probability than an unbeliever. The last few chapters try to address that point by introducing Believe and Faith, but I found them superfluous.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting, at times funny, but too long winded
Review: Don't expect to find out about the ultimate truth in this book. It is a guide to do your own calculation as to what for you is the probablilty of God. The title should have been "A probability of God", not "The". I found it rather long winded and it could have been written as a book with a quarter of the number of pages it has now. There were for me some highlights in the book which helped me structure my own thoughts on the subject. As an unbeliever I didn't agree with the outcome and the maths allows you to make your own individual calculation. Hence a loyal churchgoer will calculate a much higher probability than an unbeliever. The last few chapters try to address that point by introducing Believe and Faith, but I found them superfluous.
Rating: 
Summary: Output is only as good as input
Review: First of all, the author's tone is sincere and playful, and his ruminations serve as good catalysts for thinking about society and religion. But in my opinion the book's practical value ends there, with 2 stars.
The mathematical arguments are solid, but they are only tools for converting assumptions into consequences. I will not be so presumptuous as to judge the assumptions (although the fact that I assign only 2 stars is indicative of my OPINION that the assumptions are subjective and questionable); that task is for you as the reader. Rather, my intent in this review is to encourage you to focus on the author's construction of the ASSUMPTIONS. The mathematical calculations that follow are easily verified as completely sound; please be careful not to artificially inflate the value of the assumptions because of the correctness and elegance of the math.
Unwin starts with 13 core assumptions. I won't be specific with them, because I believe the specifics deserve to be consumed in their appropriate context, in the book. But here they are in basic terms:
1. As a starting point (representing complete ignorance), the probability of the existence of God is X1.
2,3. The recognition of goodness has a relative Y2 amount of evidence and offers a relative Z2 amount of support for the existence of God.
4,5. The existence of moral evil "" Y3 "" Z3.
6,7. The existence of natural evil "" Y4 "" Z4.
8,9. Intra-natural miracles "" Y5 "" Z5.
10,11. Extra-natural miracles "" Y6 "" Z6.
12,13. Religious experiences "" Y7 "" Z7.
All of these X, Y, and Z variables are assigned numerical values by Unwin. Then the mathematical principle of Bayes' Theorem is applied (correctly) to calculate the CONDITIONAL probability that God exists given that ALL ASSUMPTIONS ARE EXACTLY TRUE. I won't ruin your or the author's fun and reveal the answer, but I'll at least mention that it's not precisely 0 or precisely 1.
So, my suggestion is to read this book ONLY if you are willing to approach it with caution and use it as food for thought. You will be sorely disappointed if you are seeking a weapon to defend your pre-existing opinions. Please be aware that the author's conclusions should be measured based primarily on the validity of his assumptions.
If you're interested in learning how to better interpret assertions (like Unwin's calculated probability of God) in an objective way without being swayed by subjective or emotional persuasion, then I recommend the following books:
Damned Lies and Statistics: Untangling Numbers from the Media, Politicians, and Activists (by Joel Best, 2001); Trust Us, We're Experts!: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future (by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, 2000); and an oldie but goodie, How to Lie with Statistics (by Darrell Huff, 1954).
Rating: 
Summary: A train leaves Chicago traveling....
Review: From Bayes to Pascal this book was a flashback to high school math class for me. No, both were not dull and tedious, both were enlightening and fun. My high school teacher would manage to make to dullest problems interesting with his ample use of examples involving ferrets and wombats. Have you ever had a test where you needed to calculate the size and angles of a three sided ferret pen? Weird works for high school students. Dr. Unwin is wise enough to not simply plug in numbers and produce an answer. He escorts the reader through basic and complex concepts as he explains methods of calculating probability. Even if you know the basics of Las Vegas you will learn a thing or two from this book. Not to diminish the question of God, but the knowledge and process provided lends themselves to other pursuits. If only this text was published sooner, someone could have calculated the probability of WMDs in Iraq.
Rating:
Summary: Not all criticisms valid
Review: I am not especially excited about this book, but I would like to warn readers that not all criticisms of it is valid. For example, a previous reviewer writes, "Yet according to Biblical mythology, God created Adam and Eve WITHOUT the knowledge of good and evil. So if the biblical God is to remain viable, the probability that a god would create man with the ability to recognize good and evil must be some number less than 100%." However, this reflects a misunderstanding of the biblical text. The Bible does not say that Adam and Even never knew about good and evil until they ate of the fruit. The reviewer, understandably not being familiar with Scripture, misunderstands the biblical expressions in that passage. At the least, God gave them several moral commands immediately after creating them. Also, Romans 1 and 2 say that God has implanted into every person an innate knowledge about himself and his moral requirements. Therefore, the biblical position is that man does know good from evil in the sense that the reviewer denied. As to what the passage from Genesis means, please consult a commentary. Whether you are an atheist or a theist, instead of this book, I would recommend the books on apologetics by Vincent Cheung of Reformation Ministries International. He is one of the better philosophers around today. Search the web for his name and/or the name of the organization, and you will fine him. All his works are free for download.
Rating: 
Summary: The power of uncertainty
Review: I first came across this book as a reference from the PBS series The Question of God. What really pleased me about the book is that is not in the least dogmatic. To accept uncertainties instead of trying to argue that they don't exist is very unusual for a book in the God genre. Although Unwin actually calculates a probability for God's existence, my opinion is that this is not the main achievement of the book. What's interesting is that just by introducing the idea of probabilities, it gives him a nice way of balancing the evidence in the face of uncertainty. Also, his ideas about the nature of faith versus probabilities are very interesting. The book just comes at the God question from a whole different direction.
Besides all that, the book gives a nice, simple introduction to probabilities and Bayesian philosophy, and it's surprisingly humorous throughout. I recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: God for Governor!!!
Review: I have now added all of the ammunition I need to my arsenal of theological retorts and arguments, guaranteed to support the full spectrum of devil's advocacy when the taboo topic of yore once again finds its way into my Saturday night. "God" say what? Did I say devil's advocacy? After reading the Probability of God, maybe I should concede that I might only be making an attempt to be playfully difficult. Not only is this book interesting, well written, and funny; it gives a very creative perspective on the age old question "Should I ride the Sunday morning pine with some wine and crackers, or sleep off this hangover?" Whether you're into Adam Smith, Douglas Adams, John Adams, Adam Ant or Adam and Eve, you will enjoy the interesting approach to addressing God and probability.
Rating: 
Summary: Confuse-a-Cat , Bait and Switch Nonsense
Review: I must admit that I did not bother to finish this book. Why? Because in the early chapters, the author blithely dismisses two existing powerful arguments for God, to wit, 1) The overwhelming evidence of order in the universe, as opposed to chaos. And, 2) The big problem (for Darwinian evolution) of how one element of a complex set phenomena (such as the human eye) can evolve BEFORE all the other elements needed for the eyeball to work has evolved independently. For me, these are powerful arguments, which need substantial refutation before dismissal. Yet Unwin breezily dismisses the first with some currently fashionable PBS-style babble about parallel universes. Not that I don't have an open mind about parallel universes, it is just that I'd like a bit of PROOF, you know, like, isn't that what REAL SCIENCE is all about? On the question of the set phenomena refutation of evolution, Unwin airily offers a one sentence that all that has been disproved. Really? By whom? When? Where? Inquiring minds want to know. So Unwin comes across like one of those fad-diet books that dump the other fad diet books in the first chapter, followed by ample assurances that THIS book really does deliver the goods! Unwin is a witty writer, but at some point, wit serves to obfuscate rather than inform I might actually agree with some of his ideas on faith, and already have a firm grasp on the role of probability, but I am amply fed by more serious writers, and have little time to waste running out the intellectual ground balls. Unwin should do well with the New Age airhead types who like a little confuse-a-cat with their brie and Chablis. Note: The phrase "confuse-a-cat" refers to a Monty Python skit of the same name.
| 
