Customer Reviews

Skeptics and True Believers

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Chet Raymo has always been one of my favorite authors. I read his "365 Starry Nights" with a fascination that I have had for few books. After reading Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" I was quite receptive to getting Raymo's take on the interface between science and religion in his book "Skeptics and True Believers." I was not disappointed. Raymo's thesis is that there needs to be a connection between religion and science that does not contradict solid scientific results and concepts. Raymo is clear in his writing and, among other things, rightly attacks the muddled postmodern concept that all ideas are equal. You cannot argue that Ptolemy's construct of epicycles is as good an idea as Copernicus' sun-centered system. This is utter nonsense. Science at its best does seek the closest approximation of "truth" at a given time and is also at its best a self-correcting system. Thus you cannot really have a conservative or liberal science. The Nazis tried to have an Aryan science and the Communists in the former Soviet Union tried to have a Socialist science, but they both failed miserably. This inability to be ultimately used for political purposes is one of the main strengths of science and what separates it from absolute belief systems.

Raymo also takes on strict reductionism, which is (as he points out) pretty close to a faith-, a faith that you can explain the universe in a final relatively simple theory of everything. Even Stephen Hawking has apparently given up on this idea (although he espoused it quite emphatically in his "A Brief History of Time.") The problem is the mind-boggling complexity of the universe and of the development and structure of life. Still, reductionism has served us well in the laboratory- it just does not take on the biggest problems easily. Perhaps one day we will know everything there is to know, but I think that we will be buried in mountains of data long before that day dawns.

I do partially disagree with Raymo on one point. While I think that he is absolutely correct that quantum physics cannot be used to "prove" the existence of God or of a spirit world, the chance effects of quantum theory could serve a basis for free will, as Roger Penrose suggests. I am not convinced that quantum events never affect events at larger scales, as Raymo thinks. However only time and more knowledge will settle that one. It may be, as Raymo says, that quantum events are swamped at larger scales. It may even be that at our level apparently indeterminate events become determinant if an infinite number of these events are summed. This is the "coin tossing" paradox- we cannot predict the outcome of a particular coin toss, but if you make a large number of tosses the ratio will be nearly 50-50 and if you made an infinite number the 50-50 ratio would be absolutely determined. However, I think that dispensing with free will completely (as some recent authors do, but Raymo does not) makes a mockery of science itself, as its practitioners than become automatons who are deluded into believing that they chose their views.

I will add one other quibble. Although I, as an agnostic, pretty much agree with Raymo, I still would hesitate to attack someone else's faith in a personal God. For one thing, while I would not depend on any ancient holy text as a source of truth, I am not going to tell a grieving parent that their child is not in a biblical heaven if that should give them comfort. Beside, I think that religious belief is to some extent probably a characteristic of the human species and may not easily be eliminated by all the science education we can provide. Why some believe or do not believe in a particular version of God is not easy to discover. However, I think it may be a result of the genetic makeup of humans interacting with their culture and apparent need for answers.

None the less, I agree with Raymo that it is important for scientists to explain the logic and evidence for their theories to the public. We just cannot expect everybody to immediately see scientific "truth" as THE truth, and modify their beliefs over night. Humans (including scientists sometimes) are really good at ignoring evidence against some cherished belief. We also need to avoid the trap of scientific hegemony over religion and the humanities in which science itself becomes god and other human endeavors, such as art, literature and music, are dismissed as "unscientific."

Read this book if you are at all interested in the subject of the relationship of science and religion. Even if you do not agree with Raymo, it will cause you to think about a very important subject that may well determine mans future survival.

The tone and 'shape' of the writing are deeply influenced by the author's job. To write the science column for Boston Globe, what i didn't know was he is also a college professor in physics and astronomy, his primary fields from which his examples are drawn. The writing's tone is: exuberent, visionary, pushy, colorful, short and choppy, all at once. It is meant to be rememberable, quick illustrations, pithy organizing principles repeated throughout the book, literally the best writing for newspapers, and maybe for college students. I suspect he is a very good prof, and well received by his students, his care, his devotion to science is obvious, deeply felt, and real.
"A vital religious faith has three components: a shared cosmology (a story of the universe and our place in it), spirituality (personal response to the mystery of the world), and liturgy (public expression of awe and gratitude, including rites of passage). the apparent antagonism of science and religion centers mostly on cosmological questions. What is the universe? Where did it come from? Where is it going? What is the human self? Where do we fit in? What is our fate?" p 2

This is his minor theme, repeated in different contexts, until the end where it becomes a major tying together motif. Quotable and useful organizing principle.

" These two postures represent a fault line in our culture, and attitudinal chasm more profound than differences of politics or religious affiliation.

We are Skeptics or True Believers."
This is his major theme, obviously the book's title, he however, despite my initial misgivings does not align: religion=true believers, science=skeptics, he is much more subtle and as a result more convincing than this simple pairing would have been. For even science has its share of True Believers, although they are not as numerous as the 47% of the American population that are young earth creationists, the point of an entire chapter, seven.

His best illustration is the story of a ball of yarn, a student had used different lengths and different colors to represent the major geological eras. 450feet long=4.5 billion years of Earth history, and a single sheet of paper thickness is 10,000 years, the proposed young earth creationist time line. pg122-126 where he ends with:"I sensed a frisson of fear in my audience. I felt it myself. The universe of the geological eons is terrifying, like the space of the galaxies. Our lives are like a drop of dye in the sea, infinitely diluted. No wonder so many of us deny the evidence of our senses and turn to True Belief, opting for the security blanket, the thumb, the parent's embrace."

This is another of his excellent take home motifs, the need for knowledge versus the need for security. Or as i phrase it: security or significance, adventure or safety, travel or stay at home. Two major personality types we see the consequences of all around us, everyday. In online discussions i have become convinced the major problem with YEC is the fear of slipping down the slope to unbelief and skepticism. His points exactly, so again he is good, 'cause he thinks the same thought as i do.

The last few chapters are the author's heartfelt understanding as he moves from some simple distinctions to a new religion built with science on the awe that we must feel when looking at the Hubble pictures of a universe with 50 billion stars. The mystery of DNA, an arm's length in each microscopic cell; becomes the mystery of who we are, and where we are going, if only we shed the security of the old anthropomorphic faith, as did he. His motifs ought to be incorporated into many readers systems of thought, their conciseness and applicability are reason enough to read this book. Without necessarily rejecting revealed religion as the author does. A good book, has earned a careful reading.

Chet Raymo grew up Catholic, as did I. Through his life of studying science, he valued the scientific search for Truth. That brought him, as many scientists, to face the apparent dichotomy between science and religion.

Raymo interestingly takes that "science vs. religion" apart, and reconstructs it as "Skeptics vs. True Believers", and in doing so, examines the human aspect of the conflict as well as the more ubiquitous aspects. The whole creation vs. evolution argument has gotten worn out, and it's replacement, "intelligent design" vs. evolution has gotten equally abused. Raymo makes his case briefly (thankfully), and goes on to face *why* people seem to have the need to be either Skeptical (doubtful despite evidence) or True Believers (faithful in spite of contrary evidence).

Raymo came to what I call a "full basket" moment with his Catholicism -- either he had to buy the full basket, accept and believe it all, or he could believe none of it. For other people, readily acknowledged by Raymo, the full basket moment is not an all-or-nothing. For some of us, it is, instead, a turning point. This is why I mention "those in between" in the title of this review.

For those of us who cringe at the negative connotations of the "Skeptic" title, and cringe equally at the naivete implied in "True Believers"; for those of us who don't buy the full basket of the beliefs of our church and religion, but still find great value in that religion -- this is a valid place to be. Raymo does not ignore that, and that is specifically the human aspect of the dichotomy that mixes the black and white to live in the gray area. Perhaps "avoids" rather than "mixes".

A Raymo very eloquently discusses, humanity is the only earthly life that is brutally, painfully aware of its mortality. Religion is the primary psychological force dealing with (or avoiding?) that mortality, promising life after death, through death, through reincarnation. Religion is a home for morality instruction, for rituals, for change-of-life ceremonies and celebrations. Religion has a tribal aspect, a belonging that is much needed by the human psyche, which no amount of skepticism, science, or knowledge of facts can replace.

While the title and much of the book is set up to explore the dichotomy, pinning one side *against* the other, it does just as much, perhaps unintentionally or perhaps not, blending the two sides together into a place where one can be comfortable with both. This book might be written as Raymo's attempt to find that place for himself.

I give it five stars. Whether Raymo has found that place of balance for himself or not, his exploration of the topic is well written, interestingly prepared, and very thought provoking.

When I first picked this book up, I was exhilerated. As time went by and I read a few references to it, I feared silly examinations like those who claim that Einstein was a mystic. Raymo didn't let me down.

The book begins with an examination of what science finds. This goes way beyond romaticized mysticism. I mean, seeing an apparition? That's up there with "seeing" a UFO, or firewalking, or any number of silly New Age claims. But that the DNA in EACH CELL of your body, if stretched, is as long as your arm, now THAT'S phenomenal. Sure the language that scientists use is often dry and not exactly Tolstoyesque. But that's because of the scientific method, verifiable or refutable, etc., something not conducive to poetry. Fortunatly someone like Chet Raymo can describe some of those findings in terms palatable to you and me, the nonscientists.

There were points in the book I found entertaining. For example Raymo, an astronomer, is in awe at the deep-field photography made possible by the Hubble telescope. Some who've read his column say they look at these photos and "see Jesus." Dare I suggest that those who see Jesus miss the point of the cosmological phenomena witnessed because of the space telescope. (Further, I think Jesus would laugh at their claim!)

Raymo was raised and educated a Catholic. He speaks gleefully of the claims of Catholic educators--as do most of us who are products of that experience. But he uses the experience, again, to show that what one can see and experience in a scientific way is more awe-inspiring than anything Catholic theology has taught us! He points out something that could be disheartening to one in a Catholic--or any--mindset who denies much of what has been discovered: We humans are, after all, just specks of dust on another speck of dust, the earth. Consciousness may not be what the religions have made it out to be. Raymo in that sense reminds me of Stephen Jay Gould, paleantologist, who reminds us that we humans are not superior, but our position in the scheme of things is a product of chance, not necessarily divine--or extraterrestrial--intervention.

The only "reservation" I have of the book is its seeming rejection of all religions. I may be unusual among skeptics in that I am also religious, a practicing Catholic (though of a small "intentional" community, not a parish into which I wouldn't comfortably fit.) I see that religion and science comfortably coexist, are just different perspectives. Indeed, I see problems arising when the two attempt to overlap. Most of today's New Age foolishness is a mixture of pseudo-science with pseudo-religion, The "unconscious," "alternative" health practices--making use of ancient religious mythology from when faith was all one had! And there are many, many more. They're all ornamented with elaborate, pseudo-scientific jargon and formulae, without the scientific method. That doesn't make religion bad, but makes its misapplication (and, one might add, the near deification of many of its theoriticians!) and application of lots of stupid fads questionable at best, and harmful when applied in lieu of something effective.

Anyway, if you have questions as most of us do I recommend the book. I don't find it "irreverent" as some do, just a tad one sided. Maybe the one side is one we'll need to get through much of what we here these days, even from some of the Catholic hierarchy.

This book is not a rigorous philosophical treatise, but to be fair, I don't think it's meant to be. Raymo is trying to reach a broad audience, and is writing in a popular, anecdotal style.

What I like about his writing is precisely that he makes it personal, human, connected to ordinary life. When he writes about his own struggles to reconcile faith with facts and reason, those of us who have gone through or are in the midst of such struggles find a point of connection, of empathy. Unlike the writings of some other agnostics, atheists, and other questioners of traditional religion, in Raymo's writing skepticism comes across, not as a condescension from on high, but as a fundamentally human process, a necessary part of growing and maturing. I can relate to such wrestlings of mind and soul a lot better than I can to someone who seems to have always "known better" and can't understand just what a struggle it is for some of us to dare to question, to doubt, to see.

Perhaps the most imporant thing I have gleaned from Raymo's nonfiction writings is that the sense of wonder, of awe, does not have to be buttressed by literal belief in religious myths. Here is where I think he does fill a need in the ranks of skeptics: Much of what I've read is SO rigorously logical and dry that one would think to be a skeptic about traditional religion means to strip life of all sense of wonder and celebration. In contrast, Raymo excels in conveying a strong sense of wonder and celebration, especially when he discusses what seems to be his greatest love, astronomy and the cosmos.

Is the revelation of Deep Space, courtesy of the Hubble Telescope, enough to sustain us? Can we find hope and meaning if this visible, measurable universe is all there is? Why not? To be part of the ongoing Dance, of the Great Life that is the Universe -- a great symphony is, after all, composed of phrases of four bars, eight bars, little pieces that alone hardly seem significant. They play, they pass. But together, they comprise a great symphony.

Those are my words. But I think that's what Raymo is striving to convey in his book. There's wonder enough to be found in this life, this world, if only we will open our eyes and have the courage to see it as it is.

In Chet Raymo's open-eyed assessment, a gaping rift exists between man's way of knowing/navigating the universe (via rigorous application of Ockham's Razor and the scientific method) and what we choose to believe about our ultimate destiny/place in it. While we remain coolly aloof toward the fruits of skepticism-driven science - pharmaceuticals, particle colliders, superconductors, computers, and CAT scanners, to name a few - we passionately embrace a host of logically unsupportable beliefs in angels, prayer, ghosts, horoscopes, and UFO abductions. Throughout this book the reader will find examples which testify to the guardian role of skepticism in maintaining the objectivity of contemporary science. Where skepticism "diminishes" man's importance in the grand cosmic scheme - and, to be truthful, puts his position in honest perspective, religion restores man to his central (and, therefore, more comforting) place in the cosmos - hence the appeal of religious belief.

Raymo builds a compelling case here for adopting what he labels the "new story", an alternative belief system that discards antiquated myths and conceptions of human immortality in favor of one informed by the now-substantial body of scientific evidence yet infused with a profound sense of the universe's deep mystery. He concludes the book beautifully with a recapitulation of his position and a worthy discussion of Martin Buber's "I-Thou" relation as it applies to his vision of addressing the mystery to be found in a godless universe.

I read this book immediately after finishing E.O. Wilson's "Consilience", which I consider a milestone achievement in the philosophy of science, and found that both books resonated harmoniously with each other.

The Kirkus review of Raymo's elegant tome misses the mark. As a degreed church musician who is also an ordained minister, I comprehend Raymo's longing for a liturgical celebration of life's mysteries based in our knowledge of the natural laws of the universe. Most church services are based on anti-scientific theologies that leave a thinking person little integration between her everyday world and that of the Sunday service. The Kirkus reviewer is quick to disparage Raymo as a deist! Strictly-speaking, a deist still sees a God who is anthropormorphic, one who sets the universe in motion and then sits back dispassionately to watch from a distance. Raymo's Creator would be a part of the on-going , continuing flow of what we call life, more in keeping with Meister Eckhart's God with whom we are co-creators. We expand our physical knowledge, our mental understanding, and our consciousness by sinking into ourselves, becoming all we can be through bending with life, ! becoming " more" alive. Few writers embrace the so-called scientific worlds and religious worlds as well as Raymo. The Kirkus reviewer only serves to further the Cartesian split, not to heal it.

"Skeptics and True Believers," it seems to me, does what other books of this ilk do - tantalize the reader by a provocative cover only to ultimately disappoint with lack of content. The book is many things; a bridge between science and religion it is not.

Raymo's book is written in a very gentle tone, but he seems to ultimately reveal himself as a True Believer in Scientism, and asks us to throw over our traditional beliefs in favor of bowing to the cold God of Material Empiricism. Perhaps at one time this sort of writing was thought to be a rather sizzling indictment against religion, but I found myself actually rolling my eyes at times.

My primary complaint is that he commits a fatally serious but very common intellectual error. He very naturally affirms material reality. Science must be empirical, public, repeatable, predictable, etc. It is of course this careful circumscription of science that gives it its greatness, and within the bounds of material reality science has great power. The problem is that he, like other "scientificists" (those who appear to "elevate" science to religious status) let their hubris take over by concluding that anything that won't fit inside of the criteria of scientific research isn't real at all. But this is circular reasoning: scientists admit only material reality, since that alone is empirically observable. But spirits are immaterial, so they won't be observable in the lab. Ergo, spirits are not real! But of course Raymo has "proof": very few scientists believe in matter/spirit duality any more! This is an argument from authority or popularity, but is not necessarily logical. What seems intellectually hypocritical is that Raymo dismisses exactly that sort of argumentation when it is used by others. Why is it so difficult for certain scientists to see that material primacy, spiritual primacy, or material/spiritual duality are not conclusions coming from any laboratory, but are instead rather premises - in fact, are indeed basic intellectual foundational first principles?

Precisely that which is promised on the cover, to show or at least point to connections between science and religion, is exactly what Raymo fails to do. In fact, that chasm is left gaping all the wider, it seems to me, because the cover suggests that that will be the main theme of his book. He says that one can live ethically without recourse to God or any bowing to a realm of spirits. In the entire book the affirmation of a practical morality independent of traditional religion is stated in one brief paragraph. What is wanting is any support for this affirmation.

The hapless reader is therefore left to square an unsupported assurance of the possibility of a Godless morality with the statement that our only purpose in life is to pass on our genes. (Raymo probably wouldn't agree that his morality is Godless, but to most of us it will certainly come across that way.) But just how is one to practically go about this? For example: As a means of passing on genes, it would strike me and many traditionalists as morally repulsive to use the technique of rape or incest. But I simply cannot see how such a conclusion can be derived from empirical data. This is the age-old philosophical problem of deriving an "ought" statement from an "is" statement. Now most of us can get on with life; we need not exert ourselves for years to conclude these things, since most religions have made this easy for us: "Thou shalt not." This is an example of the sort of everyday black-and-white assurances traditional religion provides that Raymo so seemingly gently, but still vehemently, derides in his book.

Richard Dawkins, in "The God Delusion," another book of this genre, even concludes from his own (presumably highly moral) brand of atheism, that perhaps the State should take from religious parents their children, since any religion is so patently untrue. (He tosses this out as if he's testing the waters of social acceptability.) He doesn't say how he arrives at this conclusion, but one is left to presume that it somehow flows out of his materialistic thinking.

Is it any wonder that so many people prefer the relative comfort of an empirically false but ultimately more human and livable cosmology?

So Raymo fails miserably to bridge any sort of epistemological gap between science and religion. Unfortunately, it seems to me he widens the rift instead. The book is worth reading only because it can attune the reader to the intellectual tides of today that produce this kind of thinking. He is certainly in concert with Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, and probably others of that ilk, and in my experience is much easier to read.

The link is awe and admiration of creation and a reverence for all life from the micro to the macro. Although brought up in Catholicism, Raymo was later schooled in science (physics and astronomy) and has been attempting to rectify the rifts between religion and science ever since. This he does just about as good or better than anyone. In "Skeptics and True Believers", one will find close parallels to the writing of environmentalist Thomas Berry, biologist E.O. Wilson, et al.

Raymo's writing style is lyrical, poetic, anecdotal, scholarly and very insightful- most of all, compelling. One will find this book full of great citations with his own thoughts thrown in, such as: ["Put on your jumping shoes," cried the fourteenth-century mystic Meister Eckhart, "which are intellect and love." Religion without science is idolatrous. Science without religion might be even more dangerous: amoral power without constraint, without wisdom, without love.] Indeed! And Raymo's take on reductionism: "No theory conceived by the human mind will ever be final. The universe is vast, marvelous, and deep beyond our knowing; its horizons will always recede before our advance. All dreams of finality are (probably) futile."

Although skeptical of the efficacy of some of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's conclusions in the "Phenomenon of Man", he concurs with him with: [He insisted that the surest way to know God is through his creation, and the truest knowledge of creation is that provided by contemporary science. "Less and less do I see any difference now between research and adoration."]. And with that, keep in mind that Teilhard was a French Benedictine Monk and paleontologist /geologist who often ran afoul of the church for his thoughts, so he left his works to a friend in the U.S. to be published posthumously.

Although I read this great work of Raymo's almost 2 years ago, I was inspired to write this review after reading his latest book, "Climbing Brandon" which is a continuation of his efforts to balance religion and science and he wrote that book while residing at his second home on Ireland's Dingle Peninsula near the foot of Mt. Brandon. It is a beautiful piece of work and makes a fine sequel to "Skeptics".

I enjoyed this book very much. I heard myself saying again and again "yes, yes, yes... that's how it is!". Chet presents a philosophy in a straightforward and logical way. No longer is atheism a 4-letter word equivalent in meaning to immorality. Chet talks about having your eyes wide open in this world and (from personal experience) allows the reader to lose years of guilt for not conforming to the religious majority. After reading this book, I fully intend to look more into humanist philosophies and organizations.