Skeptics and True Believers (Paperback)

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.

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.

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.