Customer Reviews

The G.O.D. Experiments: How Science Is Discovering God In Everything, Including Us

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

I believe in God. I believe in Science. I do not believe in this book.

I very much appreciated Dr. Gary E. Schwartz's 2002 book, "The Afterlife Experiments." Schwartz's warm and sparkly personality came through. My reader's affection for him makes this review all the harder to write.

The first paragraph of "The G.O.D. Experiments" is a keeper. Schwartz asks, "Imagine that there had been no Abraham, no Moses, no Jesus . . ." would, in such a world, science come to describe something like God?

Unfortunately, the rest of the book does not live up to the depth and elegance of that first paragraph. Further, I fear that books like this do more to hurt scientific research into metaphysical phenomena than help it.

"The G.O.D. Experiments" reads more like a series of disjointed and mildly self-indulgent blog entries than a book. It proves no central point. The title is only tangentially reflective of the contents.

Disjointed: the book contains bar graphs recording a computer's attempts to choose random numbers, a poem by the author, an annotated bibliography of books, some he likes, some he doesn't, highly personal anecdotes, and the tale of a "Kabbalah corgi."

The book is also repetitive to the point of driving this reader to search for a projectile that might reach the author's home in Arizona. In an attempt to prove that the universe's order defies theories of random generation, Schwartz shook up the grains of sand in a sand painting. No matter how hard or how often he shook up those grains of sand, he reports, they never again reformed as a sand painting.

Needless to say, scientific proponents of an atheist worldview would heap scorn upon this experiment, insisting that it falsely represented their arguments for how order arises out of god-free nothingness. I'm not one of those people, and their protest is not mine. I just got profoundly irritated, as a reader, having to read Schwartz's multitudinous references to his shaking a sand painting.

Schwartz says his book is meant to be "popular," but he speaks casually of difficult material - the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, for example - in a way that would certainly lose readers without previous knowledge.

Schwartz reports that he used to be a secular agnostic. He recounts, with wide-eyed amazement, experiences that lead him to faith. The problem lies therein. In the same way that a powerfully psychic person, who had never studied the hard sciences, would probably not write a very good book about the hard sciences if he tried to do so after sticking his toe in the world of hard science, Dr. Schwartz, who built his career on academic science, and then stuck his toe into metaphysics, has not written a very good book about that.

There are people who have dealt with their own psychic abilities, their own contact with the dead, and their own religious faith all of their lives. They have a more mature appreciation of what these phenomena are.

Someone with a more mature appreciation of metaphysics would never write, as Schwartz does, in a way that feels both grandiose and innocent, in a few brief, sketchy pages, of revolutionizing education, medicine, and law, and "globally resolv[ing] our conflicts" merely because he, a Yale and Harvard affiliated professional scientist, has had an epiphany.

Um, Gary. News flash. Many of those unwashed of us who are not affiliated with Yale and Harvard have realized for a long time that God exists, that psychic abilities are real, and that synchronicity happens. And, funny thing. You know what? We still pull our pants on one leg at a time. And we have yet to revolutionize the legal system, or resolve global conflicts.

Too, like a tyro, Schwartz doesn't ask himself hard enough questions. In one anecdote, he reports praying for information, and a word popping into his head - "Sam" - that turns out to be the information he was seeking. In his attempt to interrogate this incident, Schwartz asks himself eleven questions. But he never asks this one: "How often have I prayed to receive a correct answer, and had a word pop into my had, and it was the *incorrect* word?" Someone long in the field of such research would ask that.

Self-identified "skeptics" have been unfair and unkind to Schwartz. That does not excuse, though, Schwartz's dismissal of them. Schwartz mentions Michael Shermer's "How We Believe," and identifies it as "incorrect," without clearly detailing how and why. He theorizes that people like Shermer do what they do for financial gain (268). Similarly, "skeptics" insist that psychics do what they do for money. This mutual mud slinging illuminates nothing, and degrades debate. Does anyone really believe that a young man interested only in money, and choosing a career, would chose skeptic *or* psychic ahead of, say, stock broker, or lawyer? Is it not possible that both Shermer and Schwartz are driven by beliefs they find genuinely worthy?

Finally, any book that, as "The G.O.D Experiments" does, introduces Wernher von Braun as a source of spiritual enlightenment and fails to mention von Braun's career as a Nazi and exploiter of slave labor . . . fails.

To one seeking a popular account of science and God, I recommend Lee Strobel's "Case for a Creator." For readers seeking more demanding material, there are books by John Polkinghorne and William Dembski. There is, of course, the Bible.

There are worse books you could read than "The G.O.D. Experiments." But I did expect more from the man who gave us "The Afterlife Experiments," a much better book.

Let me first say that I have no problem with the principal themes of this book: that there are extreme subtleties that operate in our lives; that the world is more than we can see; that a force -- whether one calls it god or anything else -- is operative in the world. i think there are many books that explore these profund ideas. But Dr. Schwartz's book was extremely disappointing in its execution of these ideas. By the end of the book I had the feeling that he had dictated this book and, because he needed the book to be certain length, gave the same name to different chapters that essentially covered the same material. I found Dean Radin's "Entangled Minds" a much more rigorous exploration of some of the subtleties that affect our lives. I have not read any of Dr. Schwartz's other books; but I have often noticed that, sometimes, an author has exhausted the limits of his/her explanation of a particular topic but still squeezes out a book from a much smaller pool of information. In the instance of this book, Dr. Schwartz should have exercised, perhaps, a bit more discipline and either not written this book or made it shorter. One final point: the name of this book is incredibly misleading. The "experiments" listed inside are highly non-rigourous thought experiments; I mean, so thin as to make me believe that Dr. Schwartz actually undercuts his arguments if those are the best positions he can muster.

I would like to say that my friend, Gary Schwartz, has written a travesty--a tongue-in-cheek parody of the sort of wish-fulfilling fantasy that hides under a patina of scientific terminology--but I can't. Gary was serious when he wrote: "Science no longer is taking God away; science is discovering God in every place it looks and bolstering our beliefs." Thus, the irony is that his book disproves its own thesis.

To support his contention, Gary refers to an experiment on precognitive dreams and the occurrence of sand paintings. The precognition experiment shows that Gary is a gifted experimentalist. But his interpretation of that experiment and the sand paintings in terms of what he terms the "G.O.D hypothesis" shows that he's not a theorist.

Theorists develop and analyze conceptual frameworks with intellectual discipline and rigorous logic. Both of these are absent from Gary's book. Instead, his conclusions rely on semantic tricks, logical fallacies, self-reference, and category mistakes. In an 23 page analysis I wrote for Gary, I pointed to many examples of these errors, but in this brief review, I'll indicate only a few representative examples that disprove his assertion that science is discovering God.

Semantic trickery includes the liberal use of wild words in argumentation. Because they are ambiguous, wild words serve the same purpose as wild cards, i.e., they can represent anything that suits a purpose in an argument. Gary prominently uses the wild words "consciousness," "mind," "intelligence," and "superintelligence." This is a critical mistake, because using words or other symbols that lack consistent meanings might be philosophy or sophistry, but it isn't science.

The key logical fallacy is the circular argument, in which a conclusion is included in a premise. Concerning the precognition experiment, he tacitly began with the premise that "an extraordinary invisible intelligence...played a fundamental role in the conduct of our lives," then "deduced" that a "superintelligent process" guided the events of the experiment.

Gary's sand painting argument depends on a flagrant category mistake. He implicitly places manmade objects (sand paintings and a Windows OS) and naturally occurring objects (the evolving universe and DNA molecules) in the same category. Thus, he doesn't distinguish the categories named "artificial" and "natural."

Though he apparently does not recognize it, this category mistake has fatal consequences for his main thesis. Here's his argument, reduced to its essentials: Because a sand painting is made by an intelligent artist, then--by analogy--the evolving universe and DNA must be made by an intelligent god. For this analogy to be valid, natural and artificial things must be in the same category with respect to their origins. If they are not, the analogy fails. But if they are arbitrarily assigned to the same category, then the argument is circular. Either way, relying on the sand painting analogy is decidedly unscientific.

Another logical fallacy, the false dilemma, is so important to Gary's argument that he used it as the title for Chapter 9: "Chance Versus Intelligent Design--Which Is It?" This question doesn't acknowledge the existence of other theories that explain life, consciousness, and evolution. In fact, there is at least one alternative explanation, the Theory of Enformed Systems. It's important to note that Gary is a co-author on several formal presentations of this theory, yet he doesn't mention it in the book.

Of course, Gary isn't alone in depending on the false dilemma. This fallacy is the common way of characterizing the ongoing conflict between proponents of teaching intelligent design in public schools as an alternative to the theory of evolution. Perhaps he hopes that his book will help the religious advocates of ID to claim scientific reasoning as the basis of their faith. I hope he doesn't, but whether or not he does, I don't expect his logical fallacies and other mistakes to deter those who rely on faith, not science, to convince themselves of the "truth."

I give this book three stars because I'm ambivalent about recommending it. On one hand, it lacks value because it repudiates the point Gary tried to make-that science can lead us to "G.O.D." or any other portrayal of God. But on the other hand, as an excellent example of faulty theorizing, it can be educational to students of science and other thinkers.

The title and subtitle are false and misleading. The "experiments" and the "science" are not scientific. The experiences and anecdotes could not be published in refereed professional journals. The scientific community would not accept the claimed results. If only the author had been honest and presented the material as an interesting approach to understanding reality, rather than as an accepted scientific reality, my rating would be higher.

As something to take up my time and make me think for at least a little bit, this book is excellent. As something that is supposed to provide further evidence for the idea of God ("G.O.D."), this book is terrible.

I'm a person who's LOOKING for a reason to beleive in God, and Dr. Schwartz certainly cannot help me out.

His writing style is simplistic and to the point (almost too much so), and there is nothing unclear. I applaud him for this, because most books on the same topic most certainly suffer from a terrible affliction of lack of clarity. Whoever says that this book is a tough read is a moron; it's laid out too simply for anything to be missed. The toughest part of the the reading is the bit about the random number selection experiment Dr. Schwartz performs, and even that is well-written and simple. He's almost as good as Sam Greene is at explaining quantum physics and relativity to the layman.

But, his analogies are poor. For instance, the logic is out of order: He says, correctly, that there was a point in time where almost everyone believed the earth was flat, only to be proven wrong; ditto for a geocentric universe; he then uses this "flow of thought" to say that "most people" think that there is no Creator, no "G.O.D.", and they are about to be proven wrong. This against the flow of logic, and a poor generalization about the world if anything. He also chooses to use a analogy similar to the 747-out-of-a-junkyard analogy to evolutionary theory, an analogy proven illogical and wrong time and time again by people on both sides of the religious debate. (His analogy has to do with sand paintings, but it is identical nonetheless to the 747 analogy.)

Dr. Schwartz also exhibits as poor of a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory as I've ever seen in my life. He claims to have read Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker", a book which he quotes out of context and makes wrong conclusions about based on these out-of-context quotations. He completely misses the role of chance in evolutionary theory, made VERY evident by the mere 6 or 7 moronic sentences he devotes to the topic.

His understanding of data anlaysis for the random number experiment was also poor. I won't go into details; just know that he's plotting the wrong thing, and that randomness begets order. I know how to analyze data---he does not/

Again, this book as a book for another viewpoint and clear writing style is good. But, this book as a book meant to be taken seriously as a counterargument to atheism is terrible. I'm looking for a reason to believe in God, and Dr. Schwartz gave me nothing out of this besides a loss of $15.

One sure way to start a fiery debate or a street-brawl argument is to mention God and science in the same sentence. Schwartz approaches this wicked combination of concepts with cunning and philsophic agility. He has chosen the perfect co-writer in William Simon. Simon brings to the table his uncanny ability for flushing out difficult stories with a rare visceral penache. Those looking for a definitive pat answer to THE QUESTION will have to look elsewhere. However, Schwartz and Simon present the means to examine this age-old conundrum through a new prism. Their success allows us to, once-again, have the freedom to scratch our collective heads for another millenneum or so.

This is one of the few books I have read where I feel I was cheated out of the purchase price. I have been looking for more information to explain the links between the scientific world and the spiritual world. This book was not it.

The first chapter on a person who can see the future was fascinating. The rest was an extremely poor excuse at science, accompanied by the author's continuing reminders of what a great scientist he is. The remainder of the book made me question the validity of the initial chapter.

For anyone looking for a good scientific explanation of religion, I would recommend "Breaking the Spell, Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" by Danile Dennett. It contains real science.

I like the idea of conducting experiments to prove there is a God...scientists should do more of it...but this book unfortuneatly proves nothing of the sort. My heavens! (no pun intended), what does sandpaintings, computers, buildings or anything else man made have to do proving this theory? We already know humans can create this stuff, and that it takes a little more than putting all the components together in a shoebox and shaking them up. As brilliant as we are none of these things come close to what God has created. Oceans, the universe, humans..and their minds. So sandpaintings can't be made by chance, they need human help and humans are G.O.D. (guiding, organizing, designing) beings. Tell me something I didn't know! Frankly Gary, you lost me here.
On a positive note...why I gave the two stars..I did like the experiments on the first six pages. I think it encourages us to use our sixth sense and I also agree with the part about talking with the universe...or God and asking for what you need. Holy Bible 101. I suggest you try some new experiments. This time EMBRACE chance. Even COMPOUND CHANCE!

I'm just a layman, but I can't believe this guy is a PHd.

Throughout this book, the only validity the author can throw at any of his "experiments" is to use his various previously held job positions as justifications of the academic weight he is applying to a particular section. But the experiments do not stand on their own.

Science fundamentally aims to answer how - not why. We postulate a "why" after concluding multiple experiments (and in this vernacular, many of those experiments might be life experiences). It seemed to me then that the first instances in the book aimed @ analyzing the psychic dreamer - Schwartz was asking the wrong question - i.e. it should not have been about "Who" is @ the end of the rainbow, but it should have been about "how" did that occur? Answering that might get us closer to speculating on a who or a why. The fact that the dreamscaping analysis lead Schwartz to G.O.D. is also interesting (self-fulfilled prophecy?). Why didn't it lead to quantum analysis? Why didn't it lead to specualtion of a space-time rupture? Why didn't it lead to E.V.I.L. (make up an acronym)? Why didn't it lead to androids from the future leaving us messages to change the course of our humanity?? i.e. why is one more probable than the other? AND as Schwartz says in the 2nd chapter - if experiments are valid only by repetition - why wasn't the dreamscaping experiments repeated & validated?

Re: the Sand Paintings - since Schwartz does presume a G.O.D. in this - why wouldn't the fact that walking on the sand so many times and not seeing a sand painting randomly occur not invalidate his G.O.D. theory?

Why would a computer program creating a bell curve around 50 in a range from 1 to a 100 not point @ M.A.N.? And as a scientist, how can Schwartz randomly mix "mean", "mode", "median" for "average" to suit his argument? You can't have a mean of "0" or "100" since those are the ends of the range - but you can have a mode of "0" or "100".

Throughout the book, Schwartz appears as a man who's lets his past catch up with him - and in his desire to make sense of it all, he ends up trivializing GOD (what do you think God was doing while the experiments were ongoing? --> "Alright Gary, I'll go back in the box until you're ready to conclude" or perhaps S/He was in New York playing chess int he park! and Science (why would any "scientist" try to squeeze a multi-dimensioned Entity through a 2 or 3 dimensional set of "experiments").
And that's a travesty.

The publisher should be ashamed of releasing this to the public. But perhaps it's not about G.O.D. or S.C.I.E.N.C.E - perhaps it's more about $.$.

While this book was not quite what I expected, as I was anticipating a work more along the lines of "The Intention Experiment," it never-the-less posits some good, sound, fundamentally logical progression. "The G.O.D. Experiments," could probably be most aptly described as the mental machinations of a deeply insightful mind. Dr. Schwartz is a highly educated and highly intelligent academician, and he lets you know it, quite often in fact. Sometimes I thought this work was a Dr. Gary Schwartz advertisement, but I found his prose to be flowing, his ideas clear and edifying, and his argument persuasive and rational. At first blush, the good doctor's theory regarding sand paintings via randomness may seem somewhat facile, yet when one stops to consider that this argument works from the super micro to the macro to the super macro a point of the highest perspicacity has been revealed; the whole of creation is replete with design! My first response to materialist theory is: All this incredibly divergent order and complexity is an accident, you're kidding right??

A sharp, interesting and variegated read that is not nearly as empirical as one might suspect given the title; yet containing an argument the holds volumes of water. 3 on the board with a real 3 ½ stars from me today.