Comment

Comment by Susan Michelle on November 26, 2009 at 7:55am

Agreed on the misuse of quantum theory a la 'What the Bleep do we Know." This guy is a little more sophisticated than that and thus far hasn't invoked the uncertainty principle or quantum mechanics explicitly. His contention is that we can't predict the emergent property of a complex system based on looking at its underlying components. As I said, there is an argument to be made there, at least given our current state of knowledge. Tempurature of a gas is a case in point: Temperature is an emergent property that you can't discern from studying one particle. But my point is: So what? You can't determine a lot of things by looking at one component. That doesn't mean it can never be known and it certainly doesn't mean we should couch it in mystical language. I think he wants to say that the emergent creative property of the particles of the entire uni- or multi-verse is "god". Well, screw that. If the universe had an emergent creative propertty then the laws of thermodynamics would be out the window.

Comment by Nelson on November 25, 2009 at 12:33pm

so true Dave! a casual glance in the new age spirituality section in any bookstore will provide evidence enough of that; all the titles are Quantum This and Quantum That. gimme a break! Deepak Chopra is the worst of them all!

Comment by Dave G on November 25, 2009 at 12:13pm

The concept's certainly not original with this author. Throwing 'quantum effects' in to provide some fuzziness that god (spirits, the will of the cosmic all, etc) can be stuffed into is distressingly common and intellectually bankrupt.

Comment by Nelson on November 25, 2009 at 12:00pm

@Susan: based on your description of the book (i haven't read it myself) i think you're spot on. it sounds as if the author is misusing the uncertainty principle as i understand it and making a huge unwarranted leap to "...therefore god exists." furthermore, it seems to me that even if the connection was justifiable it would only ever provide scant evidence of a deistic god- what would be the point really?

Comment by Susan Michelle on November 25, 2009 at 6:16am

I'm sorry I don't remember the author's name offhand. I think it's Kaufmann or Kauffman?

Comment by Susan Michelle on November 25, 2009 at 6:16am

Has anyone read a book called Reinventing the Sacred? I've just started reading it so I'm trying to withold judgement but I can't help but feel slightly annoyed. The author's contention is that particle physics (reductionism) is insufficient for explaining emergent phenomena (complexity theory). OK...there is arguably a point to be made there. What I object to is his insistence that emergent properties are unpredictable and therefore unknowable and hence we should call the phenomena "god". wtf??? I think he's being intellectually lazy and pandering to the widest possible audience by suggesting that we can all agree on this definition of god. Ummm...no.

Comment by Nelson on November 24, 2009 at 10:51pm

no doubt, Shubin's book is fantastic.

Comment by Reggie on November 24, 2009 at 10:47pm

Shubin's Your Inner Fish is a great book, too! I second that recommendation.

Comment by Don't label my essence! (Jared) on November 24, 2009 at 7:25pm

Though it isn't exactly a book on Atheism, I highly recommend "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin. It's a short (a bit less than 220 pages), humorous, and fantastically enlightening explanation of evolution and how we know what we do about it. Shubin touches on range of subjects including paleontology, developmental biology, and embryology; all the while keeping things accessible and entertaining for any level of reader. If you'd like to start learning a little bit about Evolutionary Biology then this is a great place to start.

Comment by Reggie on November 22, 2009 at 9:18pm

Demon Haunted World is one of my all time favorites! It was the third in a trio of books I read back to back to back that changed my life and my views of the world.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• …
• 13
• Next ›
• Page