Customer Reviews

Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo Sapiens

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This book is a thought-provoking collection of essays exploring issues relating to science and theology. Or, in other words, life, the universe, and ... never mind. This book is probably not going to appeal to those with set, rigid, doctrinaire views on either science or religion. Nor is there an effort to convert you to anything, really. The essays are varied, interesting, and you can probably take a lot of different thoughts away from this book. I didn't take it as an attempt to prove that science can or should point to a god. Certainly, a number of the writers recognize that science does not (and cannot) rule out a god. That, in my opinion, is true agnosticism (as applied to both religion and science!). Just as some religions have properly abandoned views inconsistent with provable scientific facts (darn that Galileo!), scientists ought to be willing to discuss and acknowledge the limits of science. Perhaps some scientists critical of this book don't like the same skepticism and desire for proof that they would place on religion being applied to their own domain. Oh well. For those intimidated by any critic's intimations regarding their degrees, for the most part, the essays, while sophisticated, don't require a Ph.D. in physics. I enjoyed this book, it made me think, and that's not bad.

Unlike the other reviewer who missed the point of the book, the authors were only reflecting the views of the scientists questioned. There is no attempt to prove the existence of God. The book is well written, with high ranking scientists from several fields providing valuable insight into their beliefs.

"The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." Sir Arthur Eddington

"Then we shall be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." Stephen Hawking



The Questionnaire:
Although the idea of the book is not new and may have been motivated by the initiator faith, yet it presented scientists' unedited responses, which are uniquely stated, thoughtful, and revealing. It is said that the questions that deserve be asked are those which could not be answered.
Those metaphysical inquiries were about theological/natural sciences, the cosmological question on origins of the universe, life, and Homo sapiens, and their approach to these quizzes, and thought on the concept of God.

The Responses:
In his introduction which summarizes the spectrum of responses, Roy Varghese quotes Einstein, Plank, Heisenberg, and Hawking.
"Stranger than the strangest concepts and theories of science is the appearance of God on the intellectual horizon of twentieth century science,' deducts Varghese with reference to their statements. In 'A brief history of Time' Hawking declared, "We ought to know the mind of God', while Paul Davies is quoted to argue that, "the very fact that the universe is creative, and that the laws have permitted complex structures to emerge and develop to the point of consciousness- in other words, that the universe has organized its own self-awareness, is for me powerful evidence that there is 'something going on' behind it all."

Universe, Life and Deity:
In Paul Davis terminology, this is an inquiry in the mind of some very prominent scientists. It is a matter of great relevance to inquire how contemporary scientists visualize the relation between religion and science; the origin of the universe, life, and the existence of God. the 'Time Magazine' nominated the book as; "the year's most intriguing book about God was produced not by theologians but by 60 world-class scientists, 24 Nobel Prize-winners among them."

Eccles' conclusion:
according to sir John Eccles the origin of consciousness is relevant to the origin of Homo sapiens: "The only certainty we have is that we exist as unique self-conscious beings, each unique, never to be repeated. This I regard as outside the evolutionary process. the evolutionary process gives rise to my body and brain but, dualistically speaking, that is one side of the transaction...So that brain and body are in the evolutionary process but yet not fully explained in this way. But the conscious self is not in the Darwinian evolutionary process at all."

The Beginning of All Things: Science and Religion

As one reviewer stated, the reviewer who criticized this book on the basis of his antagonism to religious faith missed the point. I would go further and state that he showed the weakness of his own thinking process. True science is religious faith neutral. To conduct good scientific experiements, the question of God is left out of the process. This by no means implies that the scientist does not hold a personal opinion on the subject, either for or against. It merely means he or she suspends personal belief in the interest of conducting good experiments. Further, the number of people who hold to a certain position regarding faith, neither makes that faith valid nor makes it invalid. The professor's personal faith is atheism. That is a religious faith, every bit as much as is theism, creationism, or any other of the many isms of this world. This is very adequately demonstrated by his intollerant review. He takes an extreme position that is on the opposite side of the radical creationists, but is no more defensible then the radical creationists' views. He even goes so far as to suggest that the scientists (some of whom are Nobel Prize winners) who seem to think that a belief in God is not unreasonable, are not intelligent.

Now to the book itself. I find it very fascinating to look at the process of how many of the world's great scientific minds approach the questions addressed in this book. The people questioned take positions across the spectrum of belief/disbelief. The book includes a number of answers by those who do not believe in a god. I found the process and approach to be very well done, and to ask reasonable questions.

This book I think is worth reading no matter whether you believe in God or don't. The thinking process is never hurt by hearing opinions that differ from your own.

As someone who's interested both in Science and Religion, I have enjoyed this book tremenodously. It is a purley scientific and unbiased review of many leading scientist's views on the subject of God, the origin of life, and the origin of the universe.
24 of these scientists are Nobel Prize winners. I found it interesting that many of these reputable scientists, by their views, challenge the widely acceptable notion, that Creation is a religeous myth, and the Big Bang/Evolution is the only scientific answer...definetley worth reading.

The arguments given by Roy Varghese in his introduction that the "Principle of Explanation" requires understanding beyond the contingent facts of science are impressive, (what might be called the Principle of Sufficient Reason).

Forceful and cogent reasons for their belief in a divine entity are given by most of the scientists interviewed (including many who are Nobel prize winners). According to Mr. Varghese there was no pre- or post-selection by faith of the responses, and that seems reasonable looking at the variety of the responses including a few responses (particularly amongst the "non-hard" scientists interviewed) that were hostile to the idea of belief.

But most impressive is the concluding article by William R. Stoeger, cosmologist and former Astronomer for the Vatican Observatory. For example, talking about pair production (electron and positron from a gamma ray) he says "The positron and electron are not necessarily existing entities--they do not of their nature have to exist, THEY DO NOT EXPLAIN THEIR OWN EXISTENCE (emphasis added).In each case their existence depends on something else, in this case the photon from which they were created, along with the whole causal chain upon which the photon depends. It becomes clear that every physical entity or object is not necessary but only contingent. NO PHYSICAL ENTITY EXPLAINS ITSELF OR ITS OWN EXISTENCE (emphasis added)." Stoeger adds a comment by Steven Hawking (from "A Brief History of Time") that is more pertinent than the position taken in his latest book: "What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?..Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?" Stoeger argues forcefully that science does not explain itself, and that we need to look for something else to explain creation, not necessarily creation at a given point in time, but continuous creation and order.

It's clear that the current generation of physicists are, by and large, ignorant of philosophy and the limitations of science, unlike the pioneers of the early 20th century physics (Heisenberg, Wigner, Einstein, Schrodinger). That is sad.

It always amazes me how seemingly intelligent people can become so irrational when it comes to their religious beliefs. This feeble attempt to show how new theories in science point to a God is nothing new. Ontological and cosmological "proofs" for God have been around for a long time and this book offers nothing new. I have a PhD in physics and have met many other scientists and have shared thoughts on this subject. I must say the editors and sample scientists views are NOT representative of most. It seems obvious the editors picked those scientists who held similar views. Sure they chose a few token agnostics. The only way I could recommed this book is for a laugh and the simple wonder of how the comfort of religion can corrupt even a well disciplined scientific mind.