madisoncramer's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
funny
hopeful
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.5
This was a gorgeous and delightful book.
ben_smitty's review against another edition
5.0
Wow. Goldstein's 36 Arguments for the Existence of God is probably one of the nerdiest books I've ever read. Topics discussed (either fully or in passing) include Hasidism, transcendentalism, game theory, moral psychology, anthropology, probability theory, Orthodox Judaism, prime numbers, Hermetic Qabbalah, Platonism, mindfulness, and of course the existence of God (and much much more). References to authors, philosophers, mathematicians, scientists, poets, and religious figures add up to over a hundred. And they all fit into a perfect story about the tensions between familial ties and individual fulfillment in this mysterious world that we live in. I haven't even mentioned the Appendix, which contains 36 counter-arguments against the existence of God (which was like having a scoop of ice cream after a satisfying meal)
I was surprised by how much I loved the novel and its quirks. True, it is hard to put something like this together and expect a coherent story, but I was blown away by the clarity of Goldstein's prose. The main character, Cass Seltzer, is dubbed the "atheist with a soul" after his publication of The Varieties of Religious Illusion (a play on William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience), a book which contains 36 arguments against the existence of God in the Appendix (similar to the structure of the novel itself). He is a professor of Psychology, who specializes in Psychology of Religion. The novel deals with Seltzer's past romance and eventual divorce, his obsession with a mystic Jewish professor during his time as a graduate student, and his ties with Azarya, the Rabbi's son in Seltzer's own hometown, New Valden.
Surprisingly, Goldstein did not strawman religious people at all, and I thought she represented Christian arguments well in the debate between Cass Seltzer and Felix Fidley (a Christian professor of Economics). The entire novel was almost like a preface, saying "even though I don't believe in the existence of God, I will respect your stance on the mystery of the world and the beauty of religion"before proceeding to pull theistic arguments apart. While I was expecting a new atheist bash-fest novel about the stupidity of religion, similar to the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens, I realized that the real "atheist with a soul" is Goldstein herself.
I was surprised by how much I loved the novel and its quirks. True, it is hard to put something like this together and expect a coherent story, but I was blown away by the clarity of Goldstein's prose. The main character, Cass Seltzer, is dubbed the "atheist with a soul" after his publication of The Varieties of Religious Illusion (a play on William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience), a book which contains 36 arguments against the existence of God in the Appendix (similar to the structure of the novel itself). He is a professor of Psychology, who specializes in Psychology of Religion. The novel deals with Seltzer's past romance and eventual divorce, his obsession with a mystic Jewish professor during his time as a graduate student, and his ties with Azarya, the Rabbi's son in Seltzer's own hometown, New Valden.
Surprisingly, Goldstein did not strawman religious people at all, and I thought she represented Christian arguments well in the debate between Cass Seltzer and Felix Fidley (a Christian professor of Economics). The entire novel was almost like a preface, saying "even though I don't believe in the existence of God, I will respect your stance on the mystery of the world and the beauty of religion"before proceeding to pull theistic arguments apart. While I was expecting a new atheist bash-fest novel about the stupidity of religion, similar to the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens, I realized that the real "atheist with a soul" is Goldstein herself.
ourwingsareburning's review against another edition
4.0
An excellent piece of fiction and very intellectually stimulating. The novel falls more on the side of atheism but is quite generous and understanding to theism/belief. This book is definitely a worthwhile read. The main character, Cass, is endearing and easy to identify with. You'll probably want to root for him (in general) no matter what side of the atheism/theism debate you fall on.
lisagray68's review against another edition
1.0
I couldn't finish it, really couldn't even get very far. If I wanted to read philosophy, I'd take a philosophy class.
katymvt's review against another edition
2.0
I can't stand most of the characters in this book. Cass is someone who feels that he has to follow someone. Maybe this was a statement that if you don't beleive in God, you have to find someone to follow, but if so I don't know that they were clear about that. And he seems to make people into who he wants them to be instead of seeing them for who they really are.
His first object of worship is Elijah Jonas Klapper. I can't really figure out how he had any students at all, much less 12. If, due to your advisor, you are still working on your thesis 12 years later, it is long overdue to cut ties. I'm actually kind of amazed that Cass let go. Anyway, Klapper had too large an opinion of himself and thought that the whole world (with the exception of Great Britain) thougth he was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Who thinks that about themselves.
His next object of worship was Roz. Probably the most likeable of the bunch, but still not my type of character. She thinks she knows what is best for everythng and will not conceive of the fact that there are different types of people and different needs for them. Kind of odd coming from a social anthropologist or whatever she is.
Then we have Pascale. Basically a snob who thinks only of herself and yet Cass states that he thinks she is the kindest person he knows. What? Really?
And, Lucinda. The worst of them all. She's disrepectful, arrogant, and the worst kind of feminist who blames her failures on the fact that she is too capable of a woman and therefore intimidates men so they must keep her down.
Then there is the assertion of the book that religious people have no faith and just follow the rules of the religion. Certainly there are people like that and I would never try to argue otherwise. But, I would like to say that they are not the majority, or most certainly not the only, followers of God, or any other belief. IMO, religion and faith are two separate entities. Religion is man's structure. Faith is just that. Belief and relying on something bigger than yourself.
His first object of worship is Elijah Jonas Klapper. I can't really figure out how he had any students at all, much less 12. If, due to your advisor, you are still working on your thesis 12 years later, it is long overdue to cut ties. I'm actually kind of amazed that Cass let go. Anyway, Klapper had too large an opinion of himself and thought that the whole world (with the exception of Great Britain) thougth he was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Who thinks that about themselves.
His next object of worship was Roz. Probably the most likeable of the bunch, but still not my type of character. She thinks she knows what is best for everythng and will not conceive of the fact that there are different types of people and different needs for them. Kind of odd coming from a social anthropologist or whatever she is.
Then we have Pascale. Basically a snob who thinks only of herself and yet Cass states that he thinks she is the kindest person he knows. What? Really?
And, Lucinda. The worst of them all. She's disrepectful, arrogant, and the worst kind of feminist who blames her failures on the fact that she is too capable of a woman and therefore intimidates men so they must keep her down.
Then there is the assertion of the book that religious people have no faith and just follow the rules of the religion. Certainly there are people like that and I would never try to argue otherwise. But, I would like to say that they are not the majority, or most certainly not the only, followers of God, or any other belief. IMO, religion and faith are two separate entities. Religion is man's structure. Faith is just that. Belief and relying on something bigger than yourself.
ricreyes's review against another edition
4.0
I really enjoyed this book. Some readers will find the author a little pedantic, brandishing her Princeton philosophy PhD (ok, I find her a little pedantic, but I like it), but her writing style is intelligently fun and playful. The book held plenty of surprises for me, too, which is refreshing and rare. Ideologically, I like where the author went, which I felt respected all sides of the God debate. Well, mostly.
lauren_salsa's review against another edition
2.0
This is a book that shows promise, but not polish. A better editor, a few more rounds of revision, and maybe this would have been so much better. I honestly just stopped reading—and not a few pages in, but maybe one hundred pages from the end. I really just wanted to move on to something else.
I get it. This is supposed to be a “smart book” written for “smart people” who like “smart writing.” There are moments of wit and I enjoyed the skewing of pseudo-philosophy as well as the silly competition of academic intellectuals. (At least I think the book was making fun of it all, right? If not, this is a seriously pretentious book.) The premise was, again, promising: an atheist professor finds himself dealing with unexpected author stardom after writing a book about faith. But the book just wanders around, getting distracted by sections about a Hasidic Jewish sect and an adorable little prodigy and a crazy professor with a cultish following of PhD students. I finally got fed up and put the book down for good.
I think ultimately the biggest problem is that it doesn't quite succeed as a novel (sorry, "work of fiction") or a philosophical text. And would I have read this book differently if I had known about the author’s laundry list of degrees and prestigious awards (including the MacArthur)? Maybe. But it says a lot that the prose alone wasn’t enough to convince me to buy into the arguments.
I get it. This is supposed to be a “smart book” written for “smart people” who like “smart writing.” There are moments of wit and I enjoyed the skewing of pseudo-philosophy as well as the silly competition of academic intellectuals. (At least I think the book was making fun of it all, right? If not, this is a seriously pretentious book.) The premise was, again, promising: an atheist professor finds himself dealing with unexpected author stardom after writing a book about faith. But the book just wanders around, getting distracted by sections about a Hasidic Jewish sect and an adorable little prodigy and a crazy professor with a cultish following of PhD students. I finally got fed up and put the book down for good.
I think ultimately the biggest problem is that it doesn't quite succeed as a novel (sorry, "work of fiction") or a philosophical text. And would I have read this book differently if I had known about the author’s laundry list of degrees and prestigious awards (including the MacArthur)? Maybe. But it says a lot that the prose alone wasn’t enough to convince me to buy into the arguments.
slerner310's review against another edition
5.0
How can I resist any book that includes the following sentence in its first page: "It's a tiresome proposition, having to take up the work of the Enlightenment all over again, but it's happened on your watch."? It would be easy to pick this book apart. I can argue that it's plot points are a little too pat, that there is a quality of post-modern cleverness that can be annoying, that the narrative structure is a bit disjoint, that I'm not sure about the philosophy/choice that underlays the conclusion. In the end, these points didn't matter. I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It completely engaged me from beginning to end, both intellectually and emotionally. At times, I laughed out loud, the characters were very real (and recognizable) to me and one of the characters genuinely touched me. Loved the characters and the takes on academia, fame, intellectualism, self-scrutiny, Judaism and the ambivalence which Jews feel about it - all things which I care a lot about. This book reminds me why I so adore Mazel and The Mind Body Problem and confirms to me that Rebecca Goldstein writes from a place and world view that I feel very close to. I feel like her pretensions and preoccupations are mine as well. I am curious what anyone who doesn't know much about Judaism makes of this book. I would love to discuss this book with people from diverse backgrounds.
leafilippi's review against another edition
2.0
Reading 36 Argument was the first time that I felt Maureen Corrigan steered me wrong. The story was at times engrossing. At others it felt clumsy, pulled down by language and overweighted by echoes between the different time periods addressed in different chapters. Or maybe I am not just an interested enough agnostic to find the philosophical set pieces as captivating they were clearly meant to be.