Customer Reviews

The Ghost in the Universe: God in Light of Modern Science

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Is there a God? Taner Edis has the answer to the big question, and he is qualified to submit an answer, given the amount of thinking he has done on it. A physicist, he has for years run the cerebral and entertaining e-mail Skeptic Discussion List...which is devoted to the discussion (read 'debunking') of such topics as astrology, psychic powers, creation 'science,' miracles, and more. So you can probably guess where he stands: There are thousands of gods you don't believe in, and chances are he believes in even fewer than you. In _The Ghost in the Universe: God in the Light of Modern Science_ (Prometheus Books), his first book, he tells why he thinks that a naturalistic view, based on science, is a better explanation for what we experience in the world than any reach for spiritual answers. It is clear, wide-ranging, and intelligent, and it brings in topics from philosophy and science explained at a level accessible to readers with no expertise in those fields. It perhaps will swing no one from the spiritual camp, but those who wish to stay within it with intellectual vigor will do well to examine the arguments here.

Edis starts with philosophical proofs of God: 'A perfect being must exist, since if it did not, it would not be perfect. Having made God pop into existence by sheer force of logic, we now break out the champagne.' They carry little weight, even among believers, who are more likely to favor stories of a God who created and maintains the universe. Even the argument that there has to be a first cause God is a strong one that withers under quantum physics. We are used, in day to day life, to examining causes and effects, but we are guilty of looking only in our own scale of neighborhood. In the quantum world, things happen without being caused, and the Big Bang was a quantum event; the chain back to the first cause is broken. Of course Evolution is covered, in only a chapter, which shows that Edis's book is about much more. Edis shows how the physics of the universe has a random foundation, and randomness can be harnessed to ratchet up to increasing complexities. No designer, intelligent or otherwise, is needed. He critiques the scriptures, including the Quran, as human creations. He shows that psychological and neurological evidence indicates that our brains are engaged in examining an unmagical world, and spirits, souls, or direct contact with some ultimate reality are all equally unlikely. He sees no transcendent moral reality, no good and evil 'out there'; morals instead are a product of our genes and our social, collective effort to live together and incorporate conflicting interests.

Believers should be grateful that they have such a gentle critic. It could only be a fundamentalist of insecure faith who would accuse Edis of trashing religion. In fact, in intelligent opposition, Edis has shown a great deal of respect for the religious view. He also reveals himself to be a fan of the stories religions tell, because they can explain a good deal about ourselves. Most will think that this will be giving the stories too little credit, but as he repeatedly says in acknowledging how little certainty we have, it is good enough. His book is certainly good enough to benefit believers and nonbelievers alike.

I have an interesting perspective on Taner Edis. As a fourth-year biology undergraduate at Truman State University (where Edis teaches), I have heard him speak twice. The first time was a short speech to a small group of Freethinkers about the subjects covered in his book. The second time was an afternoon Science Hall lecture on design in the universe. In that lecture, he identified the two elements of "design": chance and necessity. Purpose was not one of them, which may have been one of the many things that upset a fellow science professor (a rather belligerent old Creationist) to the point that he referred to Edis as "the Inquisition." I assure you, the label is unwarranted. I have never run into a more intelligent, unbiased "skeptic" in my life ...

Edis's book synthesizes a lot of material from history, theology, philosophy, and science. He deftly addresses not only Christianity, but also Judaism and Islam. The material is very in-depth, though, requiring some sort of elementary understand of the aforementioned subjects prior to reading the book.

In stark contrast to Christian apologists, Edis takes a rather passive approach to God and other theological matters, free from insults and judgements. He never identifies himself as an atheist - only as a skeptic. And it becomes clear to the reader at several points in the book that Edis has a profound and legitimate interest in the concept of God - far from the idea, perpetuated by many Christians, that non-Christians are just out to get Jesus. Edis has a quiet respect for some elements of religion, and a quiet disgust for some of the fundamentalist interpretations of reality.

Because Edis's book is so full of all kinds of information, there is little I want to say about the arguments presented against God. It's not like that, really. I mean, the book has a lot of value, in a lot of different areas. Edis merely shows the reader that the arguments FOR God are lacking quite a bit - especially evidence and coherence! He does not attack God or believers, though.

A very fulfilling read for anyone with a little background or a little interest in these subjects.

This is the best book on science and religion that I've read in a long time. Most others I've read were either too obviously stuck in a certain philosophical point of view, were too hostile to religion, or defended religion by too much unconvincing "it might be"s. Edis leaves no doubt that he thinks modern science makes all supernatural beliefs untenable, but does so without hostility to religion. I especially liked how he explained the attractive aspects of religious ideas before going on to show that his naturalistic approach does a better job. I was also impressed by his discussing Islam and the New Age as much as Christian ideas, and the fact that he emphasized modern, liberal defenses of God and religion rather than bashing obviously absurd fundamentalist beliefs.

This book is a rare achievement, a dispassionate examination of the religious impulse and its validity. With clear and careful reasoning, Taner Edis holds religion up to the light of our knowledge and rationality and finds it wanting. At the same time, he refuses to write a polemic against faith; he shows understanding and compassion toward the religious urge, a quality that makes his statement on behalf of science and reason all the more compelling.

A physicist tackles the ultimate question: is there any reason to believe in any type of god? Bringing together and harmonizing insights in the fields of philosophy, biology, physics, the brain sciences, history, human morality, and scripture revelation, the author argues that what is becoming more obvious as we advance in these realms of knowledge is that there is no evidence whatsoever that there is a superior being presiding over the universe. His argument is clear and well presented. The distinct advantage that this book has over others that attempt to address this same question is that it evaluates it from so many divergent perspectives. Not all of this material is easy reading, but it is all insightful and though provoking.

Although there continue to be scientists, philosophers, and historians that believe in some sort of transcendent being, the details of these disciplines are revealing that if there is a god, he is certainly not the God humans have come to assume: law-giving, personal, imminent, and omni-benevolent. One of the boldest assertions herein is the admission of the fact that evolutionary biology has taught us that the universe is indifferent, disinterested, and amoral. While liberal Christians and believing scientists struggle to reconcile evolution with divine revelation, the stark truth is that the idea of a personal, caring God is completely incompatible with the indifference and randomness of evolution. Quantum physics has taught us that the reality that we are accustomed to where every effect has a cause that precedes it is not the reality in the sub-microscopic world. In that world events happen without a cause, particles and anti-particles randomly pop into existence from a seething energy field before quickly annihilating one another. The ultimate beginning of the point-particle universe prior to the Big Bang had no cause, it just was. This is very illuminating material. After all, which is more likely: a seething energy field behaving randomly that 14B years ago inflated the universe we find ourselves in or an eternal, loving, personal, and intelligent Being? Everything in our universe and world goes from simple to complex, not the other way around. The author admits that this is not for the faint of heart. He acknowledges that this awareness will be viewed by some as liberating, by others as terribly lonely; either way the universe doesn't care.

This is great reading, challenging, insightful, thought provoking. If you're a believer prepare to have your world-view upset.

I don't know if a layman, one unfamilar with the material presented, would understand all that is written. Regardless, it is the best overview of subjects related to science and atheism that I have read to date. It is clear, succinct, and presents powerful arguments.

Taner Edis presents a reasoned and detailed explanation for his point of view. If one shares his assumption that empirical reasoning can be applied to this question, then Mr. Edis provides more than ample support and enables the reader to draw conclusions based on that assumption.
It is troubling to read in another review statements about this book that simply are not true. The most obvious of these concern the Book of Daniel.
Edis gives his reasons for considering the Book of Daniel to be after the fact prophesy, and most modern historians and non-fundamentalist Biblical scholars agree with those reasons. Daniel was written in Hebrew (Chap. 1 and part of 2), then in Aramaic (the rest of 2 - 7), a language used until after the time of Jesus, then again in Hebrew (7 - 12), and in two (at least) literary styles. The first section ascribes to Daniel various legendary exploits of another, earlier area hero as adapted and modified by Jews who knew of Persian and Hellenic culture, perhaps writing in the third century BCE.
The prophesies belong to the latter section which was written long afterward, after the major prophesies had occurred but before the Maccabean revolution, which is not mentioned though it was of greater import than many of the prophesies that are given. Increasing inaccuracies in the prophesies for events after ~167 BCE make that the likely time of writing or final editing.
Only the first five books of the Septuagint Greek version belong to the early period of its translation. The rest, including Daniel, was done by later translators, and this means that the Book of Daniel is consistent with the above approximate date. Daniel is considered by everyone to be the most recent of the Old Testament books.
It may be that the prototype(s) for Daniel made true prophesies, but this cannot be proved from historic, linguistic, or stylistic elements in the book itself, all of which point to a later period. The use of evidence rather than faith or belief is a crucial point of Mr. Edis' book.

Edis does a very good job of presenting a skeptical view of personal deities, revelation, the nature of mind, souls, immortality, revelation-based morality, etc in the light of modern science. I enjoyed his exposition greatly; this book is no rant, but simply a calmly reasoned overview. Edis brings balance to the topic, as in:
"Skeptic though I am, I do not live by reality alone. Our Gods do not belong in our explanations, perhaps not even in our hopes, but they should be at home, I think, in our stories and songs. ... Maybe myth is but a deeper truth. ... After all, human hopes and desires are an incoherent mess, so to consistently speak to us, a myth must be able to generate many different, contradicting levels of meaning. ... Our myths are false, and they are sometimes dangerously paranoid. Yet I respond to these stories not despite, but partly because of their falsehood."
A very enjoyable read, with a number of intriguing ideas.

This is not a book for the beginning or learning Atheist. Edis' book requires a minimum understanding of philosophy, theological arguments, and general sciences. Edis, a professor of physics, writes for the advanced Atheist or theist at a collegiate level. Edis' writing is eloquent and articulate and he strives to cover every angle of his arguments. Edis attempts to help the theist define a plausible god and then systematically goes through all the different types of theological arguments in an attempt to see if that idea of god is plausible. In the end, Edis shows that the idea of god is not plausible under scientific, philosophical, ideological, or logical reasoning. God falls in the realm of faith in the long run. The beginner will find this book very hard to follow and will ultimately leave the book frustrated. For the advanced Atheist, this is a great read that causes you to think about these traditional and non-traditional theistic arguments in a new light.

Since I come from a Mormon background, I have many friends and family members who are devoted Mormons. These people don't understand why a sensible person like me could be an atheist. The arguments I hear from them are precisely the ones addressed in this book. Now I have the ammunition to stand my own ground!