10 of 16 people found the following review helpful
Enjoyable and informative - but some key arguments seem very weak,
This review is from: A Universe From Nothing (Paperback)
As a non-physicist I would say the book is enjoyable and on the level of scientific observation, probably quite robust (for example demonstrating that something can come from ‘empty’ space.) He also demonstrates integrity in presenting certain key components of his argument as possibilities not established facts. But where he falls down, in my opinion quite spectacularly, is:
1) He fails to demonstrate how something could come from ABSOLUTE NOTHING
2) He seems not to understand that the Christian belief is precisely that, on the material level, something DID come from nothing - however that nothing might be defined!
3) On one hand he discredits all forms of knowledge except that obtained by science, but on the other he ventures into the realm of philosophy in order to discredit the need for divine intervention in First Cause, without scientifically proving any non-theistic explanation for First Cause.
4) He fails to acknowledge that theistic creationists would not necessarily in any way deny the reality of the mechanics that he’s describing. Christianity, for example, would celebrate the discovery of such mechanics, and regard that as equivalent to discovering the ways of God.
5) He assumes that the only reason to believe in a god would be if that god was ‘necessary’ to explain human questions. Such a god would be ‘made in our image’ and would indeed be a bit closer to redundancy in the light of Krauss’ arguments. But Krauss’ assumption here is utterly contradictory to the Christian conception of God - who is believed to exist in His own right and not merely to satisfy humanity’s desire for answers.
6) His early claim that theologians are experts at Nothing, while quite witty, falls rather flat when by the end of the book he’s actually said Nothing that empirically demonstrates that they are wrong.
In summary, the book is interesting and perhaps valuable inasmuch as Krauss sticks to his field of empirical scientific observation and explanation. But the wild claim by Dawkins at the end, that this is effectively the death blow to Christianity in the cosmological field (as Origin of Species supposedly was in the field of natural biology) would be almost laughable if it wasn’t such a pitiful misrepresentation.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-3 of 3 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 28 Mar 2014 07:33:33 GMT
Mr. Alan Rhodes says:
Posted on 29 Mar 2014 12:34:29 GMT
Mr. Richard J. Pask says:
An exceptionally well thought out and fair-minded review Mr Bellingham. You clearly have no problem with believing in God and being scientific too. This reflects my personal view. I fully respect those who take an alternate view, but have a problem when people attempt to equate being scientific with being an atheist.
In reply to an earlier post on 30 Mar 2014 08:08:59 BDT
Mr. Alan Rhodes says:
‹ Previous 1 Next ›