© Copyright 2012 Community
Abstract: This is a philosophic proof, but is it a scientific proof? Science has drifted into philosophy, and it finds itself unable to stay as a pure activity as Popper demanded. And so Shollenberger`s proof can be seen as scientific in that all evidence must make sense within the unifying presence, and because science necessarily drifts into philosophy for big questions about what is beyond caricature (infinite). When science is limited to empiricism and existentialism, science can only test theories that permit predictions (that necessarily make a caricature of their subject). The caricature-giver is beyond Popper`s science. See: http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/26
Review of Duane Elgin's Book by Stephen P. Smith: The Living Universe: Where Are We? Who Are We? Where Are We Going?
Abstract: A close look at Elgin analysis shows that science has been unable to get beyond the three-fold archetype (receiving, sending, and middle-term), and it is this archetype that hints at Elgin`s conclusion. Elgin gives the false impression that most scientists will welcome his conclusion (or rediscovery). No, only some will have the level of maturity to find something significant in Elgin`s work. Many will accuse Elgin of being pseudo-scientific, but they are wrong. True, Elgin`s account is less about science as it is known traditionally, but his interpretation of the evidence is the correct one (in my view). Elgin presents a philosophical and spiritual treatment that recognizes the scientific evidence that is found beholding to the three-fold archetype. And this is not to say that all presented evidence is valid enough to give its support to Elgin`s thesis. For example, Elgin (page 103) mentions sting theory: "the particle nature of matter gives way to unimaginably small, vibrating loops of non-material strings." But string theory remains a wild speculation, and it adds little value to Elgin`s worthy insights. See: http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/27
Review of Amit Goswami's Book by Stephen P. Smith: God Is Not Dead: What Quantum Physics Tells Us about Our Origins and How We Should Live
Abstract: Goswami's book provides evidence for the reality of God, and he gives (page 34) an early outline: "In view of quantum physics, the vast data on life after death, and alternative subtle-body medicine, it is considerably more difficult to refute the ideas of downward causation and subtle bodies." Goswami is breaking new ground here. Nevertheless, the book could benefit with additional treatments of some classical philosophical arguments, and I mean to point to arguments that are beyond Thomas Aquinas. Hegel's "ontological proof of God" and Charles S. Peirce's "neglected argument for the reality of God" (as they are known) provide non-dual understandings that are agreeable to Goswami's monistic idealism, in my opinion. See: http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/28
Review of Antony Flew & Roy A. Varghese's Book by Stephen P. Smith : There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
Abstract: Antony Flew's "There is a God" deserves a careful read by both believer and non-believer. Flew sews together an evidential tapestry, mostly by pointing to the work of others like Albert Einstein, Paul Davies, Gerald Schroeder, John Barrow, Richard Cameron, David Berlinski, and several others. Overall, I am impressed with Flew's thinking. See: http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/29
Review of Bernard Haisch's Book by Stephen P. Smith: The God Theory: Universes, Zero-point Fields, and What's Behind It All
Abstract: Bernard Haisch's "The God Theory" is required reading for anyone interested in the religion versus science debate. Haisch (page xi) notes the modern-day dilemma: "you cannot get away from the preexistence of something, and whether that is an ensemble of physical laws generating infinite random universes or an infinite conscious intelligence is something present-day science cannot resolve, and indeed one view is not more rational than the other." But Haisch's God is very real. We are God's expressions, and we labor to bring God's experience to an otherwise meaningless world. See: http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/30
The Wall