Customer Reviews

No Sense of Obligation: Science and Religion in an Impersonal Universe

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

 

 

An engaging, well written book on science, religion, and pseudoscience. Young, a physicist, explains why he thinks the universe is an impersonal place, not presided over by any God or other spiritual force, and puts all of this in the context of skepticism and the paranormal. There are similar books out there, but No Sense Of Obligation distinguishes itself in two ways particularly. One is that it is amazingly easy to read, given the complexity of some of the topics he addresses. Young is totally lacking in academic pomposity, and knows how use personal anecdotes as well as scientific references to keep his narrative flowing. Second, Young is careful to explain how even without theological beliefs, he considers himself Jewish and strongly religious in a profound sense. Overall, this is a thought-provoking book which will appeal to every skeptic.

In this book, Matt Young has done an excellent job analyzing the merits of religious faith and presenting a skeptics (I use the word "skeptic" in a positive sense) view of the world. Using logic and evidence, he examines the credibility of the Bible and religion in general showing their numerous weaknesses. The reader will find that his conclusions are all based on solid analyses backed by established data which is, of course, the way science should work. I found his book to be one of the most enjoyable that I've read in quite a while, even better than Michael Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things" and other articles in the Skeptical Inquirer. Due to lack of specific knowledge and interest, I didn't follow all the details regarding the Bible's history in the book but I truly enjoyed Matt's philosophical approach to life (at least as expressed in the book). Matt's style of writing make this book extremely easy & interesting to read and I felt that he clearly answered any questions that would arise in the reader's mind as the book is read.

In summary: great book!

There are lots of books in the world about science, and lots of books about religion. There are even lots of books about science and religion. But there are just a handful of books on science and religion that are written with intellectual honesty, knowledge, and style. Matt's book is in this elite group.

Many popular books on science and religion are written by theists convinced from the start that their god exists, and determined to find some trace of him/her/it in scientific knowledge. Typically the author is a mystic or theologian, but occasionally they might even be a converted physicist or astronomer. It's not uncommon for such authors to exhibit a poor sense of what science is, or how it works, and too often their books are filled with abysmal reasoning and grossly misrepresented scientific evidence.

Matt's book is refreshing precisely because he is the antithesis of the popular garbage. He is both a competent scientist as well as impeccably honest with the evidence and the conclusions they lead to.

This is a relatively long book (308 pages, if you include the appendix - which I recommend) but it's relatively easy to read, very enjoyable, and quite engaging. I finished reading it in a week (I read over half of it on the airplane, while traveling to/from Hawaii).

Matt's thesis is that the scientific evidence speaks to the unlikelihood of a purposeful, caring, and intelligent creator of the universe. He's an atheist, though he specifically disavows the term because he considers it too dogmatic and disrespectful of religion (page 253). Though atheistic in fact, I think Matt's obvious devotion to high ideals in secular Judaism will give him a sense of credibility with even the most devout theists. At the same time, however, his theistic accommodations are likely to aggravate atheists (such as myself) who feel theism deserves no more respect than any other idea, and wince at the right-wing caricature (false, by the way) that atheism is dogmatic.

This book covers a lot of ground. Matt begins by introducing the reader to the scientific method and the scientific concept of a verifiable reality. His method is to teach by giving examples, rather than rot lecture. Along the way he elucidates the errors in anecdotal evidence and illustrates the key character of scientific theories - they are testable, falsifiable in principle, but not falsified by the evidence.

Matt doesn't reserve his magnifying glass for the theologian alone. Also singed under the glare of his relentless logic are some of the intellectual elite. He has harsh words for superstition and sloppy thinking wherever it's found, from the irreproducible experiments of cold fusion to the crackpots at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center who teach the medical "treatment" called Therapeutic Touch. From the Homeopath to those who search for number sequences in Biblical verse, Matt illustrates in each example the case of human superstition gone amok.

Matt's next target is what most people would call popular religion. It's that large, loosely conglomerated assortment of anecdotal miracles, signs, and wishful thinking. But he doesn't stop with the common man's religion. Just as flawed are the arguments of the philosophers, as Matt illustrates while he dismantles the Ontological Argument, the Argument from First Cause, the Argument from Contingency, the Argument from Design, the Argument from Evolution, the Anthropic Principle, and the Argument from Mathematical Physics.

One of the best lessons in this book is that critical thinking isn't just what people should do on Monday through Saturday (or Sunday through Friday), and set aside for religious devotions. Though not always so, most religions have teachings that are directly testable by scientific methods, including the pervasive idea that there is some sort of all-knowing god who created the universe and thinks highly of humanity.

Matt also includes material that, while interesting, is a bit off track from his principle thesis. As a strict determinist he argues there must be hidden variables in Quantum Mechanics. His arguments in favor of hidden variables are somewhat strained and there is some important background information missing. I think most physicists would disagree about hidden variables, but it's neither here nor there as far as religion and superstition are concerned.

Matt describes himself as a strict determinist, and QM without hidden variables obviously causes problems for his philosophy. As a strict determinist he doesn't believe that people (or any other species) have "free will." However, his discussions about free will fail to define exactly what it is, or how to test for its existence. Lacking a good definition and a scientific test, speculation about the existence or non-existence of some nebulous thing called "free will" is little more than idle philosophy. On the other hand, Matt's overall conclusion that the human mind is a consequence of the physical brain, nothing more and nothing less, is on pretty solid ground

His final chapter sews it all together with a discussion about how he practices religious rituals and customs as a matter of heritage and (I suspect) as a way to find inner peace and meditation. I especially enjoyed this last chapter because Matt shows how to be introspective, sincere, and religious in form without encumbering one's self with all the unnecessary superstitious trappings that so often hitch along for the ride.

If you like to think, and to challenge yourself, and if you read only one book this year, you really owe it to yourself to read Matt's book.

As president of IRAS (The Institute on Religion in an Age of Science) I am frequently frustrated with the treatment given by science/religion authors of the various physics concepts and experiments that are supposed to have relevance to the science/religion dialogue. This book makes more sense of them than any I have read, and it does so in language accessible to any non-specialist reader. Young is a physicist at the Colorado School of Mines, but he writes like an Communications Major - clearly. It is a great combination, and a great read.

I may be a little premature with this review, as I've only just reached the part of the book discussing the argument from mathematical physics, but I can already say that this book is exceeding my expectations.

One thing that has really irked me is that I can't really discuss the history of the Bible with Christians, such as my parents, because I really know nothing about its history! This excellent work by Matt Young includes not only some history and logical speculation by Bible scholars, but also the usual gamut of pro-atheism arguments (though not exactly the same as the typical arguments). Matt gives theism more credit than I think is due, for instance: not saying much about the comparison of Jesus to other mythological beings like Mithras, or to the relationship between the religions associated with those beings and the heavens (i.e. the sky/space). He also immediately dismisses an atheist philosopher by saying that God could be redefined. I think this treatment is undue, but he DOES make unique points about the theistic ideas that he does discuss. I guess one could say that taking on only the atheistic philosopher's thoughts would result in a quick game over for theists, while taking on the theistic philosopher's thoughts makes for a more interesting and lengthier ride.

I have never considered myself a good writer of anything but school papers, so I can't possibly give this book the credit it deserves (well, its author, anyway). To anyone reading this who is tired with the usual atheistic arguments, this book is a must-have!

"No Sense of Obligation" by Matt Young

Author Matt Young would have us apply the Scientific Method to all questions, and to disassociate ourselves from the idea of a God.

What did Einstein say about using science in this manner? Einstein said this:


{{{ "Our time is distinguished by wonderful achievements in the fields of scientific understanding and the technical application of those insights. Who would not be cheered by this? But let us not forget that knowledge and skills alone cannot lead humanity to a happy and dignified life. Humanity has every reason to place the proclaimers of high moral standards and values above the discoverers of objective truth. What humanity owes to personalities like BUDDHA, MOSES, and JESUS ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the enquiring and constructive mind. What these blessed men have given us we must guard and try to keep alive with all our strength if humanity is not to lose its dignity, the security of its existence, and its joy of living."}}}--------
---ALBERT EINSTEIN Statement dated September 1937, in "Albert Einstein: The Human Side" published
(1981) p.70, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton
University Press ISBN 0691023689

However, Matt Young contradicts Einstein's view. Perhaps Matt Young is smarter than Albert Einstein...do you think?

Have other notable scientists felt that the practice of scientific method requires complete disassociation from faith in a God, or is author Matt Young correct by inferring that science and faith are anti-thetical?

It is not only in regard to Einstein that Matt Young commits the error of Parsimony [chopping the arguments short]. Einstein was inspired by the FIELD EQUATIONS of James Clerk Maxwell who in turn drew upon Michael Faraday for inspiration. Maxwell was a man of faith, and easily separated his scientific work from his religious values. Maxwell regarded Michael Faraday as a hero, and it was Maxwell who converted Faraday's speculations about the nature of LIGHT and the transmission of FORCE into meaningful mathematical equations. Faraday was a deeply religious man; but Michael Faraday is known for his pioneering experiments in electricity and magnetism. Consider this quote from a recently published biography of Michael Faraday.


"Faraday subjected himself to constant self-examination and correction. Only his belief in God rested solely on unquestionable faith. Although devout, he kept a strict separation between his religious practice and the methods of science. In fact, to reveal nature's design through scientific study, in his opinion, only affirmed the glory of God. Religion provided motivation, not method, in Faraday's work." -from the Preface, p. xii,
"THE ELECTRIC LIFE of MICHAEL FARADAY" by Alan Hirshfeld, Copyright 2006


So what is driving Matt Young to suggest that we must excoriate faith in God? His presupposition is flawed. Neither Einstein nor Faraday, nor Jocelyn Bell Burnell were hindered in their scientific acheivements by faith in God. Yet, Matt Young is insisting that faith in God be eliminated, and worse, suggesting that science and religion are anti-thetical. On the contrary, the evidence shows science & religion to be parallel, yet unconnected. They may share a common boundary in the context of philosophy. The great discoveries in science often come from scientists with a faith in God, and it simply isn't true that "better" scientists are those who have rationally disassociated themselves from ideas of a God, to obtain more streamlined rational faculties. That is a reductionism unsupported by facts.

Jocelyn Bell Burnell, Professor of Physics, discovered the first four PULSARS with an 81.5 Megahertz radio telescope she helped build. A life-long Quaker, Burnell has this to say about the coexistence of science and religion:

"I find very little connection between my professional work as an astronomer and my religious life. ...I don't see great connectivity between science and spiritual life." -Jocelyn Bell Burnell

If Matt Young's assertions that a scientifically minded person should exclude faith in a God, it would follow that such superior thinking would produce a more effective scientist; but such is not the case. Some of the greatest discoveries come from scientists inspired by faith in a God to perform their life's work.

From the outset, Matt Young, though published, must have his book placed on the periphery of science. No major theories are attributed to Matt Young, and his remarks fall outside the realm of science. Moreover, a reader might justifiably question why a scientist is writing about theological matters? I'll venture a guess, make of it what you will. Science lends itself to a certain degree of higher status in society, that of a scholar of sorts. One might even be able to convert a large volume of mysterious and wordy writing into some suggestion that one is a HIGH PRIEST of a mystical belief system, a kind of high technical fundamentalism.

It is precisely the lack of logic for claims that makes Young's book unscientific, but it becomes in the end, an endorsement for something like SCIENTIFC FUNDAMENTALISM, a counter-BELIEF system that stands in diametric opposition with religious fundamentalism. Nor is Matt Young intellectually honest. I do believe him to be sincere, so I am not offering a round condemnation, but the facts must be stated bluntly, and not driven only by feeling, such as seems the case so often when books like this appear. His work is sincere, I am sure, but narrowly selective, as I intend to show. I'm a generic theist, myself, having no particular religious affiliation.

Young sets out with the purpose of demonstrating that there is no scientific support for the idea of a God. Young deserves a certain credit for the scope of his arguments. He challenges numerous affirmations for the existence of God; but the arguments are weak, indulgent refutations of STRAW MAN FALLACIES. All religious arguments are not good arguments. This includes fundamentalism. Refuting a weak argument, does not constitute a proof, by any standard.

***The SUBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for GOD****


As Aldous Huxley pointed out in his "Perennial Philosophy" the evidence we find for God falls in the category of SUBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. --- Here, allow me to show you plainly, where Huxley writes on the "Perrennial Philosophy" and its subjective nature in his INTRODUCTION to a Vedanta Society edition of the Baghavad Gita:

"The second doctrine of the Perennial Philosophy--that it is possible to know the Divine Ground by a DIRECT INTUITION higher than discursive reasoning--is to be found in all the great religions of the world." --Aldous Huxley

This is why one cannot simply dismiss SUBJECTIVE EVIDENCE outright. That is a form of intellectual dishonesty.

C. G. JUNG, noted scholar, pioneer in psychiatry, and author of "The Undiscovered Self" & "Man and His Symbols" also supports the idea of the validity of subjective experience of God. Moreover, C.G. JUNG wrote of the dangers of the narrow view of the "statistical" man of science, and explicitly stated the role of religious values in the fulfillment of human expression. Matt Young does not take on these issues, preferring to address easy targets, such as those religious who in their naivete, advocate the Bible as a Scientific document and so forth. It's a very pedestrian effort from Matt Young. This is OCCAM's RAZOR to the extreme.

Young does address Subjective Evidence, but only superficially. This is where Matt Young's book borders upon the absurd. If existence for God could be proven on an individual basis through personal experience, that is where a valid contradictory argument should go. Therefore, in spite of Young's 300-odd pages of rationalizations, he conveniently dismisses this foundation for evidence of God outright, which is an exercise in the logical expediency of OCCAM's RAZOR, because all major religions affirm the necessity of an inward and personal experience, a SUBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for God.

Allow me to show this plainly, lest the reader feel that I am engaging in rhetorical argument. On page 25 Young gives only 17 lines to the question of SUBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. He offers these trivialities for examples of our subjective experience:

"I love you." & "I like that painting." & "I have a headache."

With our inward feelings having no more validity than these silly examples, denial of all notions of a Divine Being or the power and depth of the potential of the SUBCONSCIOUS MIND are conveniently shoved aside.

Young's logics remind me so much of Charles Dickens' character, THOMAS GRADGRIND in "Hard Times" ["Just the facts, Sir!"] Young pleads for the case of "external reality" and would have us be robots in our application of the Scientific Method to all human problems. In fact, it is worth noting that Charles Dickens was a close friend of Michael Faraday, and it seems that the Dickens' THOMAS GRADGRIND foreshadowed the kind of "Scroogy" and mechanistic drudgery of thought that is the province of some who gloat on their status in "science" but who must be relegated to a cloying "wannabe" status where great discoveries are concerned.

If it is claimed by the religious, that:

THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU.

Then it follows RATIONALLY, by the Law of NON-CONTRADICTION, that the Kingdom of God, and therefore God himself, cannot be identified outside of you. It is Subjective, rather than Objective.

It doesn't really take some kind of rocket scientist to make sense here.

"No Sense of Obligation" becomes in the end, merely a matter of personal resentments against the idea of a God, and the arguments for this matter will please only those persons who cannot give critical examination to an idea, who become an irrational crowd of cheerleaders, claiming applications of science, yet functioning in a "mass-minded" fashion, as demagogues. Worse still, is that "No Sense of Obligation" becomes a form of propaganda disguised as scientific literature.

Somehow, it never occurs to metaphysical materialists like Young, that the ancient Greeks which gave us our science of PHYSICS etc, also endorsed METAPHYSICS, inclusive of powerful ideas of PSYCHE and LOGOS.

We may ask ourselves why does someone operate with such a narrow-minded view? Perhaps we can find the answer in the old adage:

THERE IS NONE SO BLIND AS HE THAT WILL NOT SEE.

The darker implication of Young's reasoning however, is that his arguments lend themselves to destroying individual religious freedoms, guaranteed under the First Amendment. Young does not seem to realize the value of religion in life, and the American experience in particular.

What I'm getting at here is that by dismissing all MORAL teaching based upon GOD as unscientific, we end up with a view of Man-as-SUPERMAN, without accountability for his own actions. The spark of such ideas were kindled in Germany in 1933.

Cruelty, violence, selfishness, dishonesty; all of these negative human characteristics, and worse, all find a nesting place when writers like Matt Young endorse a kind of SCIENTIFIC ABSOLUTISM, lending itself to nihilism. For, when the idea of God is dispensed with, it is a logical corrollary that all notions of morality and accountability are eliminated.

Young does not carry the scope of his arguments this far forward. Indeed, he writes as though he were obliviious of the greater implications of his remarks. I'm sure he is a good and sincere man; but let me add clarification. Matt Young is in Colorado where I live. He's not more than 20 miles away at the School of Mines. I live within several miles of Columbine High School where Dylan and Klebold massacred students a few years back. Niether youth had a God in his life. Of what use is the scientific method in dealing with this kind of a human problem, an unrestrained and undisciplined libido?

When Matt Young writes about GOD, he evidences not only prejudice, but a flawed view of life. Are we to believe that God, or the idea of God, is the source of all evil? If not, why must Matt Young tidy up our thoughts and remove all notions of a Deity? In the end, this inference must be considered. What such a line of reasoning does accomplish, is relieve the individual of any sense of accountability and responsibility for his life.

In the end, this image emerges in the title, where like some petulant child, it is suggested that the author has...

"No Sense of Obligation"

... as though the disavowal of all social responsibility and pridefulness of self made one socically useful. Perhaps useful enough to pound sand down a post-hole I think.


LIFE however, is not a "scientific activity". Science has a limited scope. For the ordinary human being, living in a world that alternates between small joys and pain, war only breifly interrupted by peace, and quiet comforts that only highlight that much of the world lacks basic amenities, mankind requires the TRANSCENDENT. It is in our literature, our art, and our LOVE. None of these are scientific endeavours.

Many years ago, a young priest, concerned about my attitudes, said to me:

"THERE IS NOT JUST ONE WAY TO BE."

I puzzled over these words for years, and gradually I came to understand what it takes to accept the world as it is, and all the people as they are. It requires a TRANSCENDENT idea. Call it love, call it freedom, ...in the end, the generic idea is termed "God".

Here's the real KICKER though; if you carry Matt Young's logic to its ultimate conclusion, you would be forced to claim that SCIENCE, is like religion, merely an alternative BELIEF system, with its selling points prominently displayed in modern technology. Indeed, science under Matt Young becomes a competing form of Theology, and strangely enough, reduced to a fundamentalism, a HIGH-TECH FUNDAMENTALISM. Which is not surprising, because in summary, Matt Young writes as a mere demogogue, that no credible scientist will endorse. --Bruce Bain

How many more books by atheists do we need? They all convey the same thing. Science is ultimately a dead end but yet non believers cling to it as if it were the final word. Atheism is for the spiritually challenged and one would think for a class of people that "seem" to possess intelligence(and secular wisdom) that they would see beyond the canvas and comprehend the big picture.