Customer Reviews

God and the New Cosmology

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

 

 

With a background in science and having been trained in theology at Claremont, which is well-known for its contribution to process theology, M.A. Corey is well-qualified to discuss how recent scientific discoveries support a belief in the God of classical theism. Indeed, the case which Corey presents is very persuasive. Corey demonstrates how extremely unlikely the existence of human beings would be unless there is an intelligent designer of the universe who very carefully chose the precise conditions that were necessary for the evolution of intelligent life. In my opinion after reading Corey's book, it would take a great leap of faith NOT to believe in an intelligent Designer of the universe. The tremendous amount of evidence that Corey skillfully marshalls in support of his argument is very persuasive.If there is any weakness in this book, it might be Corey's tendency to overstate his case. He comes very close to saying that there is no other interpretation of the evidence that makes sense other than his theistic interpretation. This is not, however, the case. Many brilliant scientists, such as the late Carl Sagan, are aware of the evidence that Corey discusses, but are not persuaded that God exists. Corey could have been a little more sympathetic to the arguments of skeptics.Nonetheless, this is a fun book to read. And, while natural theology has been out of fashion since the time of David Hume, and only a few theologians (such as Wolfhart Pannenberg) have had the courage to address the relationshipof science and theology, M.A. Corey hasdemonstrated in his book that the concept of God the Creator is still relevant in the late 20th century.

A quick intro: Some books I read, find thought-provoking, and appreciate. I strongly disagree with them some of the time, strongly agree with them some of the time, most of the time a mixture of both. Some books I don't find all that thought-provoking at all. They tend to ignore potential objections and disregard interesting points. _God and the New Cosmology_ is like neither of these categories. It is a tour de force of laughable fallacy after laughable fallacy. I can scarcely read this book for more than 2 minutes without either (a) laughing out loud, or (b) yelling "Oh come on now!", or (c) widening my eyes and smacking my own head.

Since this is just an Amazon.Com review, I can't go into great detail, but I'll make a few general criticisms: (1) Corey assumes that the main problem nontheists have with natural theology is that the arguments are only probabilistic, not conclusive and deductive. Obviously this is too high of a standard to hold for empirical "proofs;" if there's enough evidence to make God's existence rather probable, then we have good reason to believe. But WHO has ever denied this? Corey wrongly attributes this viewpoint to Hume and Kant; this is an egregious philosophical insult. What seems like a full one-third of the book is Corey endlessly reiterating this obvious point.

(2) Corey never actually argues for the improbability of our universe or for the "special-ness" of our universe. These are the two primary points of contention in "fine-tuning" argument debates and Corey never seems to address them! He piles on "cosmic coincidence" after another, but never addresses the objection that there is no way to gauge the probabilities at play. Furthermore, Corey doesn't try to show why we should care about this particular coincidence -- it's certainly not obvious that this improbability should be more worthy of our curiosity than the run of a random number generator. Other proponents of this argument (John Leslie and Richard Swinburne, in particular) are known for their creative analogies in supporting this notion, but Corey doesn't even seem to realize that it is an issue. He just appeals to the Firing Squad Story, as if it were anything more than a refutation of the Weak Anthropic Principle (or the problem of old evidence).

(3) Corey makes ridiculous non sequiturs, basing his mootable inferences on the characters of skeptics. Two examples: "[O]ne would never expect non-thestic scientists... to openly mention God as a possible explanation for the cosmological evidence unless the data were so compelling that they almost had no choice in the matter. Indeed, judging from the many incredible things that these scientists have said about God's possible relationship to the cosmos, it is likely that deep down many of them actually believe in -- and are fascinated by -- the idea that God Himself may be behind the marvel of physical reality." p. 209

"[I]f a great skeptic like Hume goes so far as to say that the universe _may_ have arisen from something like design, the real truth is that it probably _did_ result from design." p. 280

First of all, the fact that these scientists address the idea of God just might be explained by (a) that they're dealing with the beginning of the universe, and (b) many people attribute extreme religious significance to this event. Second, Hume was not a "great skeptic" with respect to religion; as Hume scholar J.C.A. Gaskin describes it, Hume accepted an "attenuated deism." (_Hume's Philosophy of Religion_, pg. 7) Finally, where in the world does this inference come from? Hume was a skeptic; he thought the design argument had some merit to it, therefore, the design argument is sound and compelling? Examples of this kind of nonsense run throughout the book; you begin to think Corey is writing a psychological treatise on scientists and skeptics rather than supporting a philosophical argument.

(4) Corey begs the question by assuming that the order and complexity in the universe just cry out for an explanation. Here's how the design debate usually goes:

Theist: Look at all the order and complexity in the world! It just cries out for an explanation; and an intelligent designer -- God -- is probably the best explanation.

Atheist: Hmm...I just don't see it. Why is it so surprising that everything be ordered and complex? Certainly, we have no a priori reason to expect a simple universe rather than a complex one. And as far as I know, complex stuff happens all the time without someone designing it. You'll have to explain why I should find a complex world so curious.

And then it gets interesting and controversial. But Corey just leaves it at the first statement, assuming that the only objection anyone can make to his argument is that "it doesn't prove God's existence conclusively, beyond a shadow of a doubt, so I'm not convinced." But, as noted above, this is a stupid objection, and Corey is strawmanning to think that any skeptic worth her salt would make it.

(5) Corey is at his funniest when he tries to take on Hume (via Philo) in the chapter "The Case for Natural Theology." The points made, quite literally, look like that of a seven year old coming across Hume's _Dialogues_ for the first time. For example, the famous Anthropomorphism objection -- the one that if one uses the design proponent's logic consistently, you end up with a humanoid God -- is responded to as follows: "Just because the natural theologian can claim that _some_ similarities may exist between God and man, isn't to say that there is a _complete_ state of anthropomorphic concurrence between humans and their Creator." Well, obviously, it doesn't follow necessarily! The point is that, by the same analogical reasoning the design proponent uses, we can get conclusions which he does not accept. So the design proponent is either being inconsistent and arbitrary, or he knows a reason why we should the design inference and not the "nose, mouth, ears, etc." inference.

Corey also makes the error of reading Hume's suggestion that, when abstractly considering possible scenarios (or possible worlds), we have no reason for supposing any one to be more likely than the others, as the claim that "all possibilities which are not judged to be contradictory are equally probable." Corey then successfully refutes this feeble position, as if anyone actually thought it to be true.

There is much, much more hilarity to be had for the careful reader in this chapter.

(6) Corey's treatment of the problem of evil involves one paragraph of mentioning the free will theodicy and two paragraphs relating a Star Trek episode. Corey appears not to be aware of Mackie, McCloskey, Flew, Tooley, Rowe, Martin, Russell, Draper, Gale, Drange, et al.: the contemporary defenders of an argument from evil. Corey doesn't even say "a full treatment of this subject is beyond the scope of this book" or anything of the sort. He treats the evil objection as successfully dispatched.

I hope this walk through a few of the bigger problems with this book has given you a good idea of the quality of the ideas therein. Readers interested in the "fine-tuning" argument can find interesting discussion in John Leslie's _Universes_; _Physical Cosmology and Philosophy_ ed. John Leslie (especially the Richard Swinburne article); Robin le Poidevin's _Arguing for Atheism_; and Theodore Drange's _Nonbelief and Evil_ (the appendix on the argument). If you want a book-length evangelical tract that reads like a freshman philosophy student got drunk and just finished reading _The Anthropic Cosmological Principle_, pick up Corey's book.

Dear Dr. Corey,

I swear, you would make a great X-file episode. How is it humanly possible to not only "KNOW OF" every single position, on every single scientific topic ever cogitated by mankind, but to also posess and in-detpth "COMPREHENSION OF" every single position as well?? I marvel when I thumb throgh the bibliographies in the back of your books. You are the scientific equivalent of Bach. I remember reading one time, that it would take a highly skilled transcriptionist 80 years to simply HAND COPY, all the works of Bach..Let alone create them-all in a single lifetime!! Bach explained this phenomenon by stating "the music doesn't come FROM him, but rather THROUGH him. This is you to a "T". Cannot everybody see, that you are an anomoly, a super human? One of those figures that show up in history every few hundred years? God created you to both TEACH and INSPIRE.

Corey's book is a good example of bad science and even worse philosophy. Recent literature in physics and the philosophy of religion has given considerable attention to so called "fine-tuning" or anthropic arguments for God's existence. The basic idea is that the fundamental physical constants of our universe are one of a relatively small set of life permitting constants and that just about any small change thereof would make the existence of life as we know it impossible. Since it seems improbable that the constants would be what they are, the argument continues, we are justified in believing that some supernatural intelligence "fine-tuned" the universe for life. Some versions of the argument have some degree of force, but Corey states his case FAR more strongly than is justified. Further, when he deals with objections to his position--particularly those of David Hume--it becomes abundently clear that he has absolutely no interestest in fairness or bussiness writing about philosophy. This is definitely NOT the place to look for an objective, well argued account of what is an interesting topic.

When I first bought Corey's book, I was an agnostic. I wasn't sure if God existed or not. But then I had the good fortune of finding Corey's book through a series of happenstance means and the result is simply astonishing! He convinced me, in no' uncertain terms, that God actually exists and is responsible for creating the world. He did this by citing the latest scientific evidence for cosmic evolution. It really floored me. However, this result isn't all good. Why? Because now I have to find a church to join, and I don't know where to start. Oh well!

You'd think that with all his education and "expertise" he would have been a professor at a prestigious university, perhaps Harvard or Princeton. But no, never...at least not according to his CV. In fact he's done more work on why men cheat on this wifes/girlfriends than on religion. I love how one reviewer (probably Corey's mommy) wrote, "I marvel when I thumb throgh [sic] the bibliographies in the back of your books. You are the scientific equivalent of Bach." "the scientific equivalent of Bach?" are you kidding me? Wow, he has extensive bibliographies, that's amazing, if only his arguments and reasoning were as extensive and impressive. If Michael Corey were the "scientific equivalent of Bach" he'd be well respected in the scientific community, which I can find no evidence of. And, by the way, Christian freak scientists don't count, because they will defend Corey because he defends their silly faith. In summation, Michael Corey is a fat loser.