Book Description
This is a book about ten great ideas.Each chapter is an attempt to savor one idea that has been discovered by several of the world's civilizations - to question it scientifically, and to extract from it the lessons that apply to our modern lives.

Jonathan Haidt skillfully combines two genres—philosophical wisdom and scientific research—delighting the reader with surprising insights. He explains, for example, why we have such difficulty controlling ourselves and sticking to our plans; why no achievement brings lasting happiness, yet a few changes in your life can have profound effects, and why even confirmed atheists experience spiritual elevation. In a stunning final chapter, Haidt addresses the grand question "How can I live a meaningful life?," offering an original answer that draws on the rich inspiration of both philosophy and science. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (56)

One to re-read, take notes on, and re-read again
A terrific and superbly written book - ranges over a huge amount of ground without ever becoming either dull or gimmicky, and the author's wisdom as well as erudition comes shining through.

The metaphor for mind that pervades the book is that of a rider on an elephant; the elephant is our animal brain, which evolution has perfected over the eons, while the rider is our relatively underdeveloped and uniquely human rational brain. The rider can look around and decide where she and the elephant ought to be going, but is too weak to force the elephant go somewhere it doesn't want to. Personal development, then, is not about intellectual understanding alone - it's about training the elephant through daily routine, coaxing and guiding your elephant to want the same things "you" do.

Haidt is a "positive psychologist" - meaning he is more interested in how to maximize mental health than minimize mental illness - and some of the most interesting parts of the book focus on concepts like Csikszentmihalyi's idea of"flow", and the phenomenon of "vital engagement" which develops when you find your work intrinsically interesting and worthwhile, and through it you become ever more closely connected to a community of like-minded people and a tradition of ways of doing things. Haidt points out the futility of seeking meaningfulness by either seeking only to change yourself or only to change your environment: "Vital engagement does not reside in the person or the environment; it exists in the relationship between the two."

One to re-read, take notes on, and re-read again. Highly recommended.

Want to know why everybody seems crazy except you?
In this delightful series of essays that marry ancient wisdom and up-to-the-minute social psychology Jonathan Haidt explains why people aren't who they pretend to be...why they can't control themselves...why they would rather fight than switch...why you can't please some people...why everybody has a better opinion of himself than everyone else does...why promoting self-esteem is dangerous...why you can't buy happiness...why most people shouldn't be trusted...and a hundred other conundrums that aren't puzzling at all once you read this book. It's all presented with the clarity of great teaching and the charm of masterful storytelling. You even learn some new ways to manipulate people if you're into that kind of thing.

Excellent exploration of the topic
The author approaches the subject of human happiness with an overview and synthesis of the great philosophical traditions and current neuropsychological research.Incredibly entertaining as well as deeply engaging.

Happiness - in the eye of the beholder?
I liked the Happiness Hypothesis yet I found it difficult to critique.Why?Well, it's probably not the type of book I usually read.In fact it sat on my coffee table for over a month before I got started.When I did, I found it fascinating.

Jonathan Haidt is a Professor of Psychology.I would love to be one of his Psych 101 students.He tells a good story with lots of examples and presents most, if not all, of the "breakthrough" research in social psychology over the last 50 years.What's interesting about the Happiness Hypothesis is that Haidt relates much of what he has researched to many of the early Greek and Roman philosophers, and early religious leaders such as Buddha.If you're not into philosophy, don't be put off by this as he also shows how we use (or potentially can use) many of these findings in our day to day living.

I was particularly taken by Haidt's account of how language (in people) developed and how it can affect our thinking.For example, if you want to know how to avoid pesky salespeople, then there are some very good hints on the language they use to get you in.

The Happiness Hypothesis is a story of discovery - a story of Haidt's discovery of what makes us happy or unhappy.As such, I think it should be a "must read" for anyone interested in the topic.Unfortunately, some readers, despite Haidt's passion for story telling and despite the interesting and often captivating content, will tire of it.The sentences and paragraphs are long.

For those of you who are always asking "Why?", this will be compelling and sometimes challenging, reading.For those who like to see the big picture or get to the core of the topic quickly, I'd still recommend it - just focus on those chapters of particular interest and certainly the "Conclusion On Balance".

It would have been good to have had a text like this when I did Psych 101.

Bob Selden, author of What To Do When You Become The Boss: How new managers become successful managers

Fresh ideas - thought provoking
As a busy working mom, it took me too long (months) to read this book, but every time I sat down with it, I was delighted by the author's fresh perspective on human nature and motivation. It's not all about happiness -- he tackles nothing less than the meaning of life. I'm no psychologist so many of the studies he references were new to me, and amazingly interesting (why do we never hear about these things?)But he pulls it all together into a very comprehensive picture.I'm going to have to read it again now that I see his big picture -- I suspect I'll see even more now that it's had time to simmer a bit.I'm making my husband and my best friend read it, because I so often find myself in conversations wanting to raise points made in the book, and I can't explain them nearly as well as he did.I recommend reading it faster if you can because the later chapters build on the earlier ones and I sometimes had to go back and reread to remember what he was talking about. It's also refreshing to find an admitted atheist who can still see value in religion.All in all, a remarkably objective, wide-ranging and fascinating book that I would highly recommend to any reader who likes books that offer new ideas and perspectives. ... Read more

Book Description
Throughout history, arguments for and against the existence of God have been largely confined to philosophy and theology. In the meantime, science has sat on the sidelines and quietly watched this game of words march up and down the field. Despite the fact that science has revolutionized every aspect of human life and greatly clarified our understanding of the world, somehow the notion has arisen that it has nothing to say about the possibility of a supreme being, which much of humanity worships as the source of all reality.Physicist Victor J. Stenger contends that, if God exists, some evidence for this existence should be detectable by scientific means, especially considering the central role that God is alleged to play in the operation of the universe and the lives of humans. Treating the traditional God concept, as conventionally presented in the Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions, like any other scientific hypothesis, Stenger examines all of the claims made for God's existence. He considers the latest Intelligent Design arguments as evidence of God's influence in biology. He looks at human behavior for evidence of immaterial souls and the possible effects of prayer.He discusses the findings of physics and astronomy in weighing the suggestions that the universe is the work of a creator and that humans are God's special creation. After evaluating all the scientific evidence, Stenger concludes that beyond a reasonable doubt the universe and life appear exactly as we might expect if there were no God. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (119)

God, the Living Being: How God Repeatedly Defeats Darwinists
This book is right, there is no such thing as right or wrong, science shows it, Darwinists said so.

What a dumb moronic book.

Look everyone science shows there is no such thing as right from wrong! Trust me! Buy my book! Lol!

P.S.

God isn't a hypothesis anymore then an animal is, he's a living being, dur.

Talk about stupid.

The best of recent atheist books, but you gotta know some science
This book was actually one of the best I've read in a while.I still don't think it would convince fundamentalists, but then, nothing would convince those people.I've read all of the other "neo-atheist" tracts, and, while interesting, none could easily convince even a person on the theistic fence.Both The God Delusion and God is Not Great have good information, but the language is so hyperbolic that I'm sure Dawkins and Hitchens could count their new proselytes on one hand.Breaking the Spell is just too high-brow for those without a degree in philosophy.Atheist Universe is a LOT better in tone, though it was written by an amateur, so he makes some mistakes about basic science (and even proposes a somewhat silly theory of eternally existing mass-energy).Stenger's book suffers neither from brash diction nor technical error.That he gets the science right is to be expected: He's a noted physicist and astronomer at the University of Hawaii (where they have the fancy Mauna Kea observatories), as well as adjunct professor of philosophy at UC Boulder.

Most atheist books focus on solely philosophical or historical arguments against the existence of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. Stenger focuses on science arguments.He chastises the Gouldian "non-overlapping magisteria" attitude scientists use to keep hands off religion.He correctly notes that the Christian concept of God contains testable and potentially falsifiable attributes: the existence of a soul, the efficacy of prayer, the possibility of miracles, human/deity intercommunication, a heavenly source of human morality, and a slew of other things.As you might guess, after running through the evidence, he concludes that there is no scientific evidence a soul exists, no evidence prayer works, no scientifically documented events that cannot be explained through the natural laws, no evidence of human/deity communication, and the existence of morality can be entirely explained by gene-culture evolution.He does go through some historical and philosophical arguments, which give the book a well-rounded feel.

Stenger is also careful to note that he IS NOT disproving the existence of all conceivable gods, just the Judeo-Christian-Islamic conception of God, as traditionally envisaged.So, you sophisticated theists, pantheists, and deists out there need not worry.

While Stenger does a great job distilling modern physics into digestible language, I confess that the only reason I understood what he was talking about was because I'm sort of a science junkie.I highly recommend this book for more science-minded folks who are unsure about the whole God thing.

complicated but still enjoyable
it was not as fun to read as richard dawkins' "the god delusion", but the author wrote of many powerful points and it was still a good read.

Entertaining but probably superfluous
I have been an atheist from the age of six, so my Weltanschauung should reasonably have taken shape by now. Nevertheless, I like to learn about the opinion of others on this subject, especially when it is the opinion of an American, as in the US atheism seems to be more an issue than in my country, the Netherlands.
Contrary to common belief, however, atheism is not common practice in the Netherlands. Most people here who do not believe in God, do believe in `something', a growing movement that is by some people called `ietsisme', litterally `somethingism'.

Victor J. Stenger is a real atheist, a rare species in the US. In his book he `shows' that, scientifically spoken, God cannot exist. Although his arguments are obvious to me, these will not be convincing to believers, not even to creationists. To religious people, arguments about whether or not God exists do not matter. Religious people simply believe. From this viewpoint, this book is probably superfluous.

However, it was fun reading it.

Rob van der Staaij

A great Book for Mindless People
This book and its arguments are quite simple minded. If you do not want to believe in God, you never will. There can be no scientific proof of God's nonexistence, simply because God, as defined in the Bible, is not physical or material, He is spiritual and infinite. Science is the observation of material phenomena in this universe, and then applying our reason and logic to understand and control them. By definition, God cannot exist as part of this universe, cannot be composed of matter, and cannot even exist in time.

Trying to prove that God does not exist by using scientific evidence is about as scientific as trying to prove God exists by using scientific evidence!

The best that science can do is prove that there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove the existence ofGod.Therefore, using the evidence of science, one can only be an agnostic, not an atheist!

Further, since there is not enough scientific evidence to prove there is not a God, a true atheist would have to rely on "faith" to truly believe there is no God.This "faith" is the same thing that atheists ridicule in believers of God.Therefore, atheists seem to be quite hypocritical.

I don't claim to be an expert on the subject matter, but I do know enough about science and religion to say:

If you are looking to find out about science, don't look in the Bible. If you are looking to find out about theology or the spiritual world, don't look in a science book; and above all, don't waste your time or money reading books from authors who claim they can give you answers about theology by using science (and visa versa).

To get a better view on how science and religion should interact, try reading, & more importantly understanding, Einstein's article on Religion and Science published in the New York Times Magazine on 11/9/1930, or read his address at Princeton Theological Seminary on May 19, 1939.
... Read more

Book Description
Traditionally, the human soul is regarded as a nonphysical concept that can only be examined by psychiatrists and theologists. In his new book, The Astonishing Hypothesis, Nobel Laureate Francis Crick boldly straddles the line between science and spirituality by examining the soul from the standpoint of a modern scientist, basing the soul's existence and function on an in-depth examination of how the human brain "sees."

... Read more

Customer Reviews (24)

A Great Mind at Work
What do you do with your life if you are absolutely brilliant?As Crick says in his earlier book "What Mad Pursuit," he goes off and finds interesting problems to work on.He decided long ago that the two most interesting areas of science are the interface between non-living and living matter -- thus leading to his work on DNA-- and the interface between the brain and the mind.This work summarizes his efforts on the latter problem.

He approaches the problem as a brilliant amateur, one with the talent and reputation to be allowed into the field without having spent his entire youth preparing for it.He thenspends a few years working with some of the best in the world, and then tells us what he learned.In this way, he is sort of a stand-in for those of us who would love to do the same thing, if we were only smarter, independently wealthy, and had a Nobel Prize.That is, it is sort of like George Plimpton's "The Paper Lion,"the classic book by a sportswriter who goes "undercover" as a draft pick for an NFL team in the 1960's to tell us what it is like.

While the concept is great, the results are disappointing.What I got out of his experience is that the mind/brain problem is really, really hard.Even the great Francis Crick was not able to achieve a double-helix-like breakthrough.The reading itself is tough going, and in the end I find I am glad that Crick spent the time to do this so that I don't have to (or rather, I can stop fantasizing about doing it). I learned a lot about what we know about the brain and how we study it, but as far as I can tell the "astonishing hypothesis" remains unproven.

Boring
This was a boring and tedious book and I was glad to be done with it. It was very disappointing, as it was basically a rehash of psychology experiments involving vision, with some basic neurobiology thrown in as background. While it is well written, it goes nowhere. There is very little mention of a "soul" until chapter 18, and there is, of course, no mention of a scientific search for it, or research on it. There cannot be. It pains me to think that Crick spent years on this endeavor. The answer he seeks will come only after a long and arduous study of all aspects of the brain, its anatomy and function, as well as that of the neurons that constitute it. While I agree with Crick in what he is trying to show---that the "I" that is each of us, is the activity of neurons. How to demonstrate this is the problem. Instead of working backwards from behavior to structure, it would be more fruitful to begin with DNA---the genes that determine brain structure, from the neurons to the brain's gross anatomy, and try to reach an explanation of behavior based on the molecular biology of the brain. However, the human brain may be too complex and the problem thus too intractable. Start with something simple, a flatworm perhaps, and work up from there.

Eloquent argument
I love the part at the very end where Dr. Crick serves some delicious food for thought, making one think, "Gee whiz, maybe these archaic superstitions known as 'The World's Religions' are not based on any logic."

Are the eyes really the window to the soul?
Crick claims to be investigating consciousness through the visual system because he believes that the visual system is more amenable to scientific investigation.Those who do not appreciate this tactic, he sniffily claims, do not understand how science operates.It should be clear why it is often necessary to study what can be experimented on first, but this in no way validates this particular strategy.Crick's approach is a lot like trying to understand the mechanics of a car's engine by studying its wheels.Yes, there is a connection, and yes, the wheels are a lot more accessible (especially if you haven't yet figured out how to open the hood).But you won't necessarily learn very much about how the engine actually works.

Closely connected to this difficulty is his refusal to countenance the very question of what consciousness actually is.Of course, not doing so makes his investigation of visual perception as a `mode' of consciousness much more plausible.If one explicitly refuses to define what is under investigation, then investigating almost any related phenomena will do.Unfortunately, this mindset will not actually serve to advance the enterprise very far.Crick uses the glib analogy of a battle: in war, he notes, one will not get far trying to define what a battle is when what is needed are troops and strategy.It should go without saying that this analogy is so deeply flawed as to be useless, except for its intended rhetorical purpose.There is no need to define the battle because that is clearly understood by all out the outset; the same can hardly be said of consciousness.If one does not know what the battle objective is, fighting it well becomes a lot harder.And that is the unfortunate plight of this book.

To be more specific, it seems relatively apparent that whatever else we can say about consciousness, it involves an essentially subjective dimension.Crick makes no mention of this, except to dismiss it as something to be perhaps considered much later.Conversely, it is far from apparent that consciousness must involve visual awareness inherently.Where does this leave blind persons, one might ask?Are they not fully conscious?And today we are close to developing sighted machines, which can process and navigate three-dimensional environments using lasers or stereoscopic video cameras (e.g., the DARPA challenge).Are these machines therefore approaching consciousness?This seems patently absurd.

The book as a whole reeks of a lack of erudition beyond narrow scientific training.We are treated to freshman physiology lessons on neurons, brain areas and basic visual processing, the details which are both not deep enough for real scientific comprehension and far more detailed than necessary for advancing the concepts being discussed.At times, it reads like an undergraduate report in which the student is eager to impress and not let a single fact they have uncovered go unreported - no matter if they actually enlighten the stated aims or not.

In sum, most of the problems with this book could be fixed with a single simple but profound change: change the title to "Primer on Vertebrate Visual Physiology", circa 1995.It probably would not have sold many copies that way, though.

Flawed, but still worth it
The astonishing hypothesis referred to in the title of Crick's book is that all of your phenomenological experience is ultimately reducible to "no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules." So, just how is consciousness neurally instantiated? What the reader should take away from the book is just how difficult of a question this is.

Francis Crick was a thorough going empiricist and he strongly believed that the experimental method was the only way of successfully tackling the problem of consciousness. Along with his close collaborator, Christof Koch, Crick chose visual awareness (rather than say, self-awareness) as the main point of attack. The reason for this is because the visual system is relatively well understood and much easier to study in the laboratory.

Visual processing is an extremely complex business. Essentially, the visual system has to create a fairly high-fidelity representation of the environment (a model) from an array of heterogeneous light patches falling onto the retina. A staggering number of computational processes need to be performed in order for you to become aware of the final output. These processes operate unconsciously, in massively parallel streams. So, what we finally become aware of (our model) is the end result of a great many hidden computations. Much has been learned about the details in which the various features of a visual scene are decomposed and processed, but what remains a mystery is how we ultimately see something (i.e., become visually aware of it). As Crick says, what is required is an account of our "explicit, multilevel, symbolic interpretation of a visual scene."

"The Astonishing Hypothesis" does not provide anything like a Crick-Koch `theory' of consciousness. In fact, Crick goes to some length to eschew any precise definitions or theories. Any such purported theories, he believed, were pre-mature. (The closest that he comes to presenting some kind of a theory is his `Processing Postulate'). Instead what the book offers is a general strategy for submitting the problem to experimental study. Here the idea is to look for neural signatures of awareness or more technically the neural correlates of consciousness (abbreviated NCCs). In a nutshell (excuse the oversimplification), here is what NCCs are all about: submit to study some visual phenomenon which has an ambiguous interpretation (e.g., the Necker cube which can be perceived in two possible ways) and simultaneously obtain measures of neural activity. Some portion of the neural activity associated with the processing of an ambiguous figure will remain invariant (that portion which corresponds to the unchanging retinal input) while another, minimal portion of the neural activity will vary along with the percept. This variant, minimal portion is a good bet for representing a NCC, a neural signature of awareness. Finding a NCC can also tell us many other interesting things, such as whether or not there any special properties of the neurons in question, whether they are located in particular places or cortical layers and so on. And, a similar mechanism which underlies visual awareness is likely to underlie other forms of awareness. [Note that this addresses what David Chalmers has called the `easy' problem of consciousness and does not touch on the `hard' problem. There is a possibility however that Chalmers' hard problem is ill-posed and that there may in fact not be a hard problem to address].

Crick presents the results of many interesting research studies that bear on the problem of consciousness. He devotes some space to the issue of temporal binding and the 40-Hz oscillation hypothesis (or more precisely, the gamma-band oscillation hypothesis) as well as the potential importance of reverberatory thalamo-cortical circuits (see also the work of Gerald Edelman). Crick also speculates about the possibly important role played by the claustrum in the generation of consciousness (something he thought about a lot just prior to his death). Unfortunately for the general reader, this comes only near the end of the book, after a rather protracted discussion of the psychology and neurobiology of vision. For a reader who is unfamiliar with neuroscience, all the hard work done to get to the final portion of the book may produce a low pay-off. It seems that Crick could have got the main point of the book across just as strongly while omitting some of the technical details along the way. For those who have some familiarity with the subject matter the book will actually be an interesting and concise review but since the work was intended for a general readership one must judge it according to that criterion (and this is one of the book's flaws).

Francis Crick died in 2004. This marked a tremendous loss to the field as Crick was blessed with a brilliant mind and he undoubtedly had it in him to make many more important contributions. He brought his enthusiasm to the study of consciousness and made it a bona-fide scientific problem. For this, among other things, he should be celebrated.

A few final remarks about the book's title are in order. First, "The Scientific Search for the Soul" is a sensationalist title that was more likely than not the publisher's idea. Second: as most of the people working in the neurosciences adopt a materialist perspective (the most famous exception of course was Sir John Eccles), the purported astonishing aspect of the hypothesis has sometimes been questioned. And yet, this idea (that our consciousness, in all its richness, is in some mysterious way the result of biophysical processes) really should be astonishing. It is easy to be familiar with the workings of the brain and still slip into old habits of thought, implicitly believing that there really is some homunculus in the head who is doing all of the perceiving. As Crick says, "A man may, in religious terms, be an unbeliever but psychologically he may continue to think of himself in much the same way as a believer does, at least for everyday matters."

It is interesting to speculate about whether our experience of ourselves would change even in the hypothetical case that we did have a complete neurobiological theory of consciousness. ... Read more

Book Description
The God Hypothesis seeks to reverse the profound misunderstanding that science has disproved the existence of God. Drawing on the fairy tale of Goldilocks and The Three Bears, Michael A. Corey believes that the just right conditions that created life on earth provide overwhelming evidence of an Intelligent Designer at work. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (9)

Michael Corey is a fat loser.
This is an awful book.The arguments he puts forth make it seem as if he has never read any literature on the same subjects.His "arguments" have been debunked by Richard Dawkins and many others.This is not a book for an intellectual.This is a book for the "common man," whose academic interest is only predicated on his desire to defend his irrational and preposterous believes.And, as the saying goes, "God must have hated the common man, because he made them all so common."

Evolution is Anti-knowlege - Self Organization is non causual reasoning - Big Bang, a mathematic singularity
1. Collin Patterson said, "Last year I had a sudden realization.For over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way.One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night; and it struck me that I had be working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing that I knew about it.That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long...Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing... that is true?All I got was silence."The doctrine of evolution is anti-knowledge meaning it does not convey knowledge.Evolution is a false faith endorsed by academia and sponsored by strong political and economic pressure to accept.Evolution does not create beauty, harmony, nor cooperative systems and at best natural selection yields unstable, chaotic, and competitive networks. The idea of gradual change over billions of years producing a tree of life can not be proven. Evolution proof is impossible because it has no reversible pattern or algorithm.Evolution is the product of "Self-sufficient" thinkers who ignore any role that God had in the creation.Evolution is the ultimate excuse to ignore God.Preachers of evolution argue, "our behavioral freedom would necessarily be short-circuited by our direct perception of God's Great glory, and this something that is generally deemed to be incompatible with our existence as free-will beings."We are agents of a Divine God and God's creations are designed for beauty and the benefit of man."The whole idea here is to infuse some much needed ambiguity into the creation, so that human freedom can be preserved as a result."The universe is far more surprising that any one could ever image.God is central and important part of explaining cosmological and biological theories.
2. "We also know that the finite property of self-organization couldn't possibly have been responsible for its own origin, because there was a definite point in the past before it ever existed."Self-organization would need a reason or explaining power for existence, causal or otherwise, other than itself.The only way out of the bind is to suggest that self-organization is "eternal in nature".The phenomenon of self-organization is not eternal in nature.
3. Fundamental laws and constants of nature do not gradually evolve into their present life-supporting character.Natural selection and Darwinism fail.
4. "Where did the universe get this seemingly self-sufficient character to begin with?"Jesus Christ is the power by which the Universe is powered and remains in order.Accepting this fact brings certainty and faith in the purpose of man.We don't need to fear cosmological destruction by random events.
5. The Universe is expanding or inflating, at approximately 4 millions per hour. The Universe is not expanding at a constant rate suggested by Einstein's cosmological constant. Einstein called the cosmological constant a mistake. Einstein believed in "Spinoza God," and impersonal Deity who only revealed himself in the orderly workings of nature."In Einstein's mind, such an impersonal Creator could conceivable have allow these worldly evils to happen, either because he wouldn't have known about them, or else because he wouldn't have cared about them."Einstein was reluctant to accept the big bang bringing him to the acceptance of a personal creator. The secondlaw of thermodynamics says that the total amount of disorder in the universe can never decrease.A winding down suggest their must have been a winding up.George Gamow big bang calculations predicted 25 percent of the matter in the universe will be helium and the other 75 percent, hydrogen.Penrose and Hawkings proof of the big bang was found in the peculiar properties of black holes."Sufficiently dense stars that exceeds the Chandrasekhar limit, the inward pull of gravity will eventually be able to overwhelm the outward push by the Pauli Exclusion Principle (force to accelerating a particle to the speed of light), with the result that the star will begin a calamitous period of runaway contraction."The singularity is a state of zero size and infinity density.
6. The amount of matter produced by the big bang is exact. Any more matter and gravitational contraction would occur and not enough and galaxies would not form.The cosmic initial conditions are very fine tuned to support life.A veil of mystery will always prevent science from understanding the initial condition.At 10 minus 43 power seconds, Planks Wall is the temperature point where temperatures are so high that the four fundamental forces of physics dissolve.Limitations include limits to human intellect, measuring apparatus, and the intrinsic uncertainty of quantum reality.
7. The notion of oscillating universes that move back and forth between contraction and expansion are not feasible. The universe is expanding with not force strong enough to cause contraction, the universe will not collapse because there isn't enough matter to cause the collapse.Each cycle of expansion and contraction in an oscillating universe must produce an increase in cosmic disorder, or entropy.The increase in entropy would reveal itself in an increase of photons and nuclear particles.The universe does not seem to be the product of an infinite number of cycles.There is no known physical mechanism that is capable of reversing a cosmic contraction.

Oops. (Reckless, but slightly better than 2 stars)
At about the same time I received this book, I read a similarly titled book whose thesis is the exact counter-argument to Corey's; that volume being "God: the Failed Hypothesis," by Victor Stenger. Both books are --intensely-- flawed. Stenger presents an easily rebutted collection of arguments that he claims to be 'science' putting God to the gallows once and for all. By his own modest admission, Stenger's interpretations of certain physical theories depart substantially from the understandings of most physicists, and many of Stenger's offbeat "interpretations" are simply silly. Unfortunately, the present volume, "The God Hypothesis," by Michael Corey, is argued almost as badly.

Corey does present enough 'expert testimony' to make the case that "our 'just right' goldilocks universe" is outrageously unlikely, impossible by any reasonable standard, unless it has been intended by a Super-intellect having some conceptual 'likeness' to Anaxagoras' 'primordial Mind' and Aristotle's 'First Mover'. Support is cited from the recent work of many well-known physicists: Gribben, Davies, Hawking, Penrose, Rees, Barrow, Gingerich, Dyson, Jastrow, Smoot, and many more, as well as many biologists. If Corey had been a great deal more cautious in his interpretations and comments regarding the citations he makes, the book could have been both shorter and more powerfully argued. But when Corey throws his own 'scientific' understandings into the mix, he often succeeds only in muddling the topic at hand. Corey's defective spin on physical theory will have informed readers (perhaps especially those who might otherwise be inclined to agree with his thesis) gritting their teeth and wincing. Some examples of Corey's poor understanding of physics:

1) He says that the "flatness" of the universe refers to the fact that it can be accurately described with Euclidean geometry, that space-time is fortuitously not curved, and that life can only exist in a universe consistent with Euclidean geometry. Ouch! There is just no salvaging this kind of tangential blunder.

2) He says that most stars are like ours because they are "main sequence" stars. This seems to demonstrate a poor understanding. The main sequence is the long, 'star-like' phase typical of several classes of stars. Our star (the sun) is actually UNLIKE the vast majority of stars; as a Class G star, only about 8% of other stars are 'similar'. By far most stars are Class M and are decidedly different from our sun (they cannot have systems that host life as we know it).

3) He calls 10 to the negative 39th power a "huge number." Perhaps he means "huge" as in its largeness of extreme smallness??

At any rate, Corey too frequently 'shoots himself in the foot' with erroneous 'scientific' commentary. His book could have been much better if he could have stayed out of his own way. The book's slightly redeeming value is that the scientifically uniformed reader will not notice the author's interpretational gaffes (which are generally tangential and superfluous to his central thesis). The book is also a pretty good bibliographical source for more serious study. In short, the book's potential merits are conspicuously sullied by its author's careless commentary.

Just make sure you read "The God Delusion" as well
Every single one of Corey's points is debunked in Dawkins' book.

Of course, if you find the placebo effect of believing in a Supreme Being provides you comfort, and truth is relatively unimportant, avoid Dawkins' book and believe what you want to believe.

Masterpiece
This book is about as near as Christianity can get to an additional sacred revelation. In its pages Corey gives an immensly intimate look at God in His artistic facet as Creator of the universe. Upon completing the book, I was both mentally and spiritually satiated, and felt as if I had actually been shown the glorious blueprints of the universe as once abstracted in the mind of God. The details of Gods creative plan are so vividly depicted that reading the book is practically analogous to viewing a collection of art work painted by Christ Himself! This book is destined for immortality, and will be remembered in a thousand years from now as the most awe-inspiring scientific work of humankind. ... Read more

Book Description
Provides the foundations of a genuine unified field theory. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (4)

Great read
This short book outlines Ervin Laszlo's vision of an Integral universe. He draws together quantum mechanics, complexity and realtivity describing the underlying quantum coherence that links them all together through a psi field so we see sub atomic physics, living systems, human consciousness and the fartherest galaxy are all linked together to make a cohesive whole. I would recommend first reading "Science and the Re-enchantment of the Cosmos" unless you already have a good grounding in current scientific thought as it introduces the topic in less technical terms. Having said that it is still quite readable.

Stunning!
Not only is the book stunning; so is the fact that only 2 other souls have been moved to submit reactions. Laszlo's effort to integrate what is known about the spectrum of existence ... from the subquantum to quantum to living systems to conscious levels ... is beyond expectation or even imagining!Unlike too many other authors these days, Laszlo doesn't blithely claim that "science" has "proved" his ideas or something on which his thesis depends, he admits it is, as yet, an untested hypothesis. But what an hypothesis! How thoroughly explicated! How thoroughly examined his building blocks!If I hadn't read this 2003 publication, I might have dusted off his 2005 publication, Science and the Akashic Field, as inadequately founded in fact. Happily, I had read it and I'm convinced that Laszlo has come closer than anyone else who has recently tried it to at least approach a "theory of everything." Right after finishing this one, I read John Lamb Lash's Not in HIS Image, which explains the folly of politically-motivated salvationist religion and how it has eventuated in the ecodisaster we see before us. Here's what I think we need to do. Lock these two geniuses in a room and tell them to figure out what's happening and tell us what to do to survive the mess we've made before we let them out. If some object to this idea as being somehow unethical, we could at least plead that they write a book together, pooling their incredible wisdom and intuition, because between the two of them, they just might be able to help us make the needed corrections in cultural behavior.

The connectivity hypothesis.
Interesting for those who already have done some reading about the Akashic Field or Zero Point Field.

Astounding synthesis
This book is mind-boggling in its scope and erudition.I can't speak to the eventual consensus validity of its proposals, but I can say it's a very pleasing tour of huge swathes of cutting edge science and beats me to the page on many big ideas connecting biology, physics, and consciousness research.If you're interested in the "new physics," evolutionary theory and or consciousness studies, or all three as I am, you'll love this book. ... Read more

Book Description
Serves as a valuable introduction to Cassuto's illuminating commentaries on the Pentateuch, in which he emerges as one of the most original modern biblical exegetes. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (6)

The death of the "documentary hypothesis"
This series of lectures was originally published as "Torath HaTeudoth" by Magnes Press (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem) in 1941.The first English edition, a translation by Israel Abraham, was published in 1961.This edition, published 2006, is a reissue of the first English translation by Israel Abraham (1961), together with a new introduction by Joshua Berman.

These lectures, delivered by Rabbi Umberto Cassuto (1883-1951), summarize his indepth research, spanning no less than 25 years, into the Graf-Wellhausen "documentary hypothesis".Unfortunately, Cassuto died before he could see all his major commentaries through to completion and publication.The unfinished nature of Cassuto's work makes this makes the present series of lectures all the more crucial in understanding his thinking.

According to the "documentary hypothesis", the 5 Books of Moses were compiled from 5 independent source documents, each independently presenting its own version of the entire history of Israel from the Creation to Moses.This hypothesis suggests that each document was characterized by its own theology, politics, language, and style.

The "documentary hypothesis" rests on 5 pillars:

1. the use of different names for the Deity;
2. variations of language and style;
3. contradictions and divergences of view;
4. duplications and repetitions;
5. signs of composite structure in the sections. (p.17)

In these lectures, Cassuto systematically and with precision demolished these five pillars.For this reason, it is hard to see why scholars cited in the media still trot out the alleged findings of this unscientific and fallacious speculation.

A gentle but potent act of demolition
A short series of lectures to teachers, given over 50 years ago, the book crystallises Cassuto's scholarly work on Genesis.

Mildly and politely he butchers the documentary hypothesis. His exposure of parallel historical developments in studies on Homer is telling, the simple but potent critiques of overreading Hebrew idiom are especially revealing, given that the lectures were themselves given in Hebrew, and he displays the hollow unravelling of 'composite passages' by showing the nonsensical narratives that result from a strict dissection by 'author'.

Critics who think the hypothesis retains any credibility who haven't read at least this popular introduction really have their heads in the sand.

Yet it would be a mistake to consider this a critical or negative book. Whilst he doesn't here formulate an alternative, his affection for the warmth and captivating charm of Genesis is infectious. Despite his mistrust in a Mosaic authorship, his awe for its majesty and distinctive characteristics from contemporary literature is also evident.

A highly recommended and surprisingly easy read.

Cassuto Destroys the Documentary Hypothesis
This review is based on the Magnes Press edition of this book which is difficult to find; I hope there is little change in this new edition. In any case, it's wonderful that this treasure is now easily available.
In a series of eight lectures Cassuto destroys the Documentary Hypothesis, the theory that the text of the Pentateuch was edited from four independent source-documents.
Cassuto describes the development of the theory, and the evidence on which it is based: the use of different names for God in the Pentateuch, variations of its language and style, apparent contradictions and divergences, duplications and repetitions and signs of composite structure in the text.
Cassuto argues that these pieces of evidence, individually and cumulatively, do not render the Documentary Hypothesis probable. Cassuto provides simpler explanations of the evidence. These explanations also fit in better with our background knowledge, including knowledge of the style of ancient near eastern texts.
For example, Cassuto points out that the different divine names are used consistently in different contexts. This is best explained by the divine names having different meanings (but the same reference). Further literature of the ancient near east evinces similar context-sensitive usage of different divine names. If the Documentary Hypothesis is not true, we would find precisely the usage of divine names that we do find.
Cassuto defends his claims with numerous sources, his extensive knowledge of ancient literature and Biblical Hebrew. In contrast, the proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis resort to circular reasoning and outlandish explanations of the text, as Cassuto shows.
Cassuto's understanding of the details and rules of Biblical Hebrew is profound, and there is much to learn here that I have not found elsewhere. This includes five rules used in the Bible to determine which first person pronoun is to be used, how the Bible decides to use descending or ascending order in compound numerals, and the difference between expressions such as "karath berith" and "heqim berith".
The beauty of Cassuto's style of writing is matched only by the clarity of his exposition.
Cassuto's opinion on the origin of the text does not appear to be religious. Rather, he believes that the Pentateuch selected and refined ancient traditions; Cassuto compares this to Dante who transforms material derived from many sources into a unique harmony. Whether or not one believes in the divine origin of the Pentateuch, however, Cassuto's book is an unanswerable attack on the Documentary Hypothesis and a powerful defense of the unity of the text.
I strongly recommend Cassuto's book along with Kitchen's "On the Reliability of the Old Testament".

You cannot do without this book
I used this work in a paper a couple of years ago but I had to borrow it from a university library.I got my copy of the new reprint last week and read it in one sitting yesterday.It reminded me of things I forgot after turning in the paper.

When I read the part about how the supporters of the hypothesis falsified their data, I was flabbergasted.Since I wrote my paper two scientists have had to withdraw major papers because they falsified their data.In one case women died because of the scientist's lies.

Luckily the hypothesis is not a matter of life and death.It's also incompatible with scientific method.Fuhgeddaboudit.

Best in this field and a modern-day miracle!
This book is the best in this field for both serious scholar and/or anyone who wonders about the reliability and credibility of the first five books in Bible, especially Genesis. If the documentary hypothesis by Wellhausen over 100 years ago shakes one's faith and confidence in Bible (Old Testament), this book dismantles the very foundation of the documentary hypothesis.

Cassuto's excellent scholarship and majestic presentation will capture his readers as if walking between the walls of waters in Exodus. This book settles the whole matters of controversy. This is an awesome book! I almost think that this is a modern-day miracle that we have an author like him and this very book.
Richard K. Min, Dallas, Texas, September 22, 1999.

And finally we now have a long-waited reprint available! (February 2006) ... Read more

Product Description
Although originally published more then 50 years ago, this little Cassuto book is still probably the best, most focused attack on Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis and a powerful defense of the integrity of the biblical text. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (4)

a good introduction to the topic
This book only focuses on the book of Genesis, and by its own admission is just a sneak preview of a much longer book by the same author- so it was not intended to be an exhaustive discussion of the topic.

Nevertheless, this book is at least useful as an introduction to the pros and cons of the Documentary Hypothesis ("DH") (the theory, still widely believed in secular academic circles, that the Torah was the work of four authors identifiable by various verbal tics).Not being an expert on the topic, I can't fully evaluate Cassuto's arguments- but I can say that this book is at least an interesting introduction.

Cassuto addresses a variety of arguments for the DH, including the following:

1.The argument based on various Divine names.Some parts of the Torah call God "Elohim", while others use other names.DH supporters view this discrepancy as evidence of multiple authorship; Cassuto, by contrast, argues that the author of the Torah uses different names in different contexts- for example, using a more "personal" name (Yud-Hay-Vav-Hay) in "literature having a purely Israelite" content, and "Elohim" in more universalistic passages.Thus, one author could have comfortably used different names for God in different contexts (Cassuto expresses no opinion as to whether that author was Divine, at least not in this work).
In support of this view, Cassuto notes that similar dichotomies exist in Egyptian and Babylonian literature.

One problem with Cassuto's view: he cites about half a dozen varying ground rules for which name should be used, and admits that these rules sometimes come into conflict with each other.Thus, there is no "bright line" rule separating Elohist passages and Y-H-V-H passages, which means that Cassuto's explanation is not capable of being logically proved.

2.The argument based on style; DH supporters rely on differences in style, while Cassuto argues that the same author can write differently in different contexts (just to simplify a complex issue).

3.The argument based on substance.DH supporters argue that substantive differences such as varying chronologies are evidence of multiple authorship; Cassuto wonders why an editor of these multiple authors would allow inconsistencies to flourish.Cassuto suggests that one author might have cited preexisting traditions even when they were (or appeared to be) contradictory, in order to preserve tradition or to speak to different readers on different levels.

This is an important book for understanding how the Bible was written
This book is a necessary tool that MUST be in any serious Bible scholar's library.

Cassuto Destroys the Documentary Hypothesis
In a series of eight lectures Cassuto destroys the Documentary Hypothesis, the theory that the text of the Pentateuch was edited from four independent source-documents.
Cassuto describes the development of the theory, and the evidence on which it is based: the use of different names for God in the Pentateuch, variations of its language and style, apparent contradictions and divergences, duplications and repetitions and signs of composite structure in the text.
Cassuto argues that these pieces of evidence, individually and cumulatively, do not render the Documentary Hypothesis probable. Cassuto provides simpler explanations of the evidence. These explanations also fit in better with our background knowledge, including knowledge of the style of ancient near eastern texts.
For example, Cassuto points out that the different divine names are used consistently in different contexts. This is best explained by the divine names having different meanings (but the same reference). Further literature of the ancient near east evinces similar context-sensitive usage of different divine names. If the Documentary Hypothesis is not true, we would find precisely the usage of divine names that we do find.
Cassuto defends his claims with numerous sources, his extensive knowledge of ancient literature and Biblical Hebrew. In contrast, the proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis resort to circular reasoning and outlandish explanations of the text, as Cassuto shows.
Cassuto's understanding of the details and rules of Biblical Hebrew is profound, and there is much to learn here that I have not found elsewhere. This includes five rules used in the Bible to determine which first person pronoun is to be used, how the Bible decides to use descending or ascending order in compound numerals, and the difference between expressions such as "karath berith" and "heqim berith".
The beauty of Cassuto's style of writing is matched only by the clarity of his exposition.
Cassuto's opinion on the origin of the text does not appear to be religious. Rather, he believes that the Pentateuch selected and refined ancient traditions; Cassuto compares this to Dante who transforms material derived from many sources into a unique harmony. Whether or not one believes in the divine origin of the Pentateuch, however, Cassuto's book is an unanswerable attack on the Documentary Hypothesis and a powerful defense of the unity of the text.
I strongly recommend Cassuto's book along with Kitchen's "On the Reliability of the Old Testament".

The Best Work in this Field...Awesome and Majestic
This book is the best in this field for both serious scholar and/or anyone who wonders about the reliability and credibility of the first five books in Bible, especially Genesis.If the documentary hypothesis by Wellhausenover 100 years ago shakes one's faith and confidence in Bible (OldTestament), this book dismantles the very foundation of the documentaryhypothesis.Cassuto's excellent scholarship and majestic presentation willcapture his readers as if walking between the walls of waters in Exodus. This book settles the whole matters of controversy. This is an awesomebook!I almost think that this is a modern-day miracle that we have anauthor like him and this very book. Richard K. Min, Dallas, Texas,September 22, 1999. ... Read more

Book Description

This book presents the Riemann Hypothesis, connected problems, and a taste of the body of theory developed towards its solution. It is targeted at the educated non-expert. Almost all the material is accessible to any senior mathematics student, and much is accessible to anyone with some university mathematics.

Book Description
For 150 years the Riemann hypothesis has been the holy grail of mathematics. Now, at a moment when mathematicians are finally moving in on a proof, Dartmouth professor Dan Rockmore tells the riveting history of the hunt for a solution.

In 1859 German professor Bernhard Riemann postulated a law capable of describing with an amazing degree of accuracy the occurrence of the prime numbers. Rockmore takes us all the way from Euclid to the mysteries of quantum chaos to show how the Riemann hypothesis lies at the very heart of some of the most cutting-edge research going on today in physics and mathematics. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (14)

Lacks clarity and focus
I don't know what it is with the latest books trying to popularize certain branches of contemporary and modern science, but it seems to me that poetic and decorated language now sells better than scientific clarity and educational value. This book serves more as a general overview into a wide range of more or less related open and solved problems in mathematics and physics rather than an interesting introduction into the problem of prime number distribution and the Riemann hypothesis. The many analogies, which are often explained in too much detail, do not only distract from the main topic, but often lack a considerable amount of relevance. In several cases they don't even lead to any meaningful conclusion for the particular problem at hand. Near the end of the book, the author somewhat succeeds to "close the circle", but overall this work leaves much to be desired. In my opinion a great opportunity to explain the book's topic to a general audience was missed.

Not surprising to read other reviews here
How do you write a book about mathematics and numbers without any? I got lost in the sea of abstract forced analogies and ended up more confused, irritated, and lost than I had when I began reading the book. 80 pages into the book, I give up and will read Derbyshire's book, about which I have read good things.

Disclaimer: I am not a mathematician by training but have a science/engineering background. Even if I did not understand all the details, I had hoped the book would at least grip my attention and make me want to learn more.

What a contrast (and a frustrating one at that) attempting to read this book was...especially considering I just finished reading QED - The strange theory of light and matter by Richard Feynman. There couldn't be two contrasting writing styles!

A diverging book!
I felt very irritated by reading this book. Many analogies and side stories lead to loose the focused main subject. Stories always diverge, never converge to any meaningful understanding. Avoiding equations and narrative description of the content of equations rather makes even difficult to understand. Simply showing equations is much better. A very badly organized poor book

forget it
This wasn't any good as a hardback and reissuing it
in paperback doesn't change matters.
To get an idea of what you are in for, see the reviews
of the hardback version.
Bottom line: don't waste your money.

Sniffing is really Asymmetrical Time Reversal
You can see why the Riemann Hypothesis allegedly led to John Nash's label of mental instability.This book is the best math book out there and it's definitely out there.All the best mathematicians should go insane but then hopefully make it back to acceptable society (without having to undergo secret CIA drug experiments like the Unabomber did at Harvard).

And so we STALK -- but what exactly?That's the point isn't it? (to conjure up Dedekind, Godel, Cantor, and so many other greats that challenged the norms of demented ecstasy).

I think the grand message of this book is that not only do we get a very clear and concise overview of the whole history of mathematics but in the end we find out that the logic on which math is based is totally a mystery.

Call it the "abduction" logic, as created by C.S. Pierce (a sort of intuitive inference).Nevertheless the promo by Professor Strogatz (on the first edition) calls the Riemann Hypothesis a conspiracy which F.W. Schelling would say is totally accurate -- a great spiral of asymmetrical time reversal arising out of pure empty awareness.

It appears that math has always been a spectator sport, that the grand paradoxes created by Euler really were proofs for God, that all the power based on math really is an illusion. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (5)

The role of empiricism in geometry and mechanics
Geometry. "The geometrical axioms are ... neither synthetic a priori intuitions nor experimental facts" (p. 50). Not a priori because we can conceive non-Euclidean geometries. Not experimental because "if geometry were an experimental science, it would not be an exact science. It would be subjected to continual revision" (pp. 49-50). Furthermore, the space of our senses---"visual, tactile, and motor"---"differs essentially from geometrical space. It is neither homogenous nor isotropic; we cannot even say that it is of three dimensions" (p. 56). Clearly, intuition aids us in the "extremely complex" "association of ideas" (p. 56) necessary to organise our sensory input. Indeed, "none of our sensations, if isolated, could have brought us to the concept of space; we are brought to is solely by the laws by which those sensations succeed one another." (p. 58). Experiment tells us "not what is the truest, but what is the most convenient geometry" (pp. 70-71). In particular, experiment cannot determine whether the geometry of the universe is Euclidean or non-Euclidean, because any experimental result allows for interpretation in both systems. For example, Euclidean geometry can accommodate a hyperbolic astronomical triangle, say by altering the assumption that light rays are straight, which Poincaré thinks "every one would look upon [as] more advantageous" (p. 73) than to adopt a non-Euclidean model of the universe. "[I]f we are not convinced by these considerations, I challenge any one to give me a concrete experiment which [cannot] be interpreted in the Euclidean system, and which [can] be interpreted in the system of Lobatschewsky. As I am well aware that this challenge will never be accepted, I may conclude that no experiment will ever be in contradiction with Euclid's postulate." (p. 75).

Newton's laws. The law of inertia is not an experimental fact (pp. 91-97). "Have there ever been experiments on bodies acted on by no forces? and, if so, how did we know that no forces were acting? The usual [empirical illustration] is that of a ball rolling for a very long time on a marble table; but why do we say that it is under the action of no force?" And conversely, let's say that the ball does deviate from its path, and that we cannot find any force to blame this on. Does that falsify the law of inertia? No, it only means that we do not understand the force in question. A force was acting on the ball by definition, since force is mass times acceleration. There is no way to define force independent of F=ma (pp. 97-101). Thus the law of inertia is true by definition, as is F=ma. But to define force as mass times acceleration we first need to know what mass is. For this we need to assume the law of equality of action and reaction so that we can define (ratios of) masses from ma=ma for two bodies acting on each other. "This would do very well if the two bodies were alone and could be abstracted from the action of the rest of the world; but this is by no means the case" (p. 101), a difficulty from which "there is no escape" except the following definition, "which is only a confession of failure: Masses are co-efficients which it is found convenient to introduce into calculation" (p. 103). Thus, analogous to the situation in geometry, the laws of mechanics amount to convention. "This convention, however, is not absolutely arbitrary; it is not the child of our caprice. We admit it because certain experiments have shown us that it will be convenient" (p. 136).

Personal view from a crucial era
Poincare wrote the essays in this book about a hundred years ago, in 1905. That was the landmark period after Maxwell and before special relativity. I was fascinated to read this snapshot from such an exciting era in scientific thought.

This first-person view is set in the era when the all-encompassing ether was still considered seriously. People had recent memory of debates about whether electrons were real. There was no unification of rays from uranium and radium with cathode rays, x-rays, and ultraviolet.

The intellectual seeds of modern science had been sown, though. Experiments with ultraviolet foretold Einstein's photoelectric effect. Lorentz had already stated some of the invariants that led to relativity. Probability was just entering mainstream scientific thought, preparatory to statistical mechanics, quantum theory, and Heisenberg.

As Poincare covers the science of his day, he does so in the style of his day. He is quite unashamed in describing the British scientific temperament as boldly intuitive, but informal and sometimes spotty. By contrast, he describes the French as rigorous and inclusive, although maybe a bit too staid. Not just the science, but the social attitudes of the day come through in the pleasant little book. If you study the history of science and are partial to primary sources, I recommend this highly.

great book---both pop sci& thought-provoking
it is philosophy,precisely it is positivism(with slightly revised)!people who like read Henri Poincare might compare his with Ernst Mach.

An essential book in the philosophy of science
While not mathematical, the approach is so informed by a mathematician's way of looking at the world that some may find this wonderful book less exciting than it truly is.This is one of "the important books"in the philosophy of science.

Dissapointing
I, a dedicated science lover, did not enjoy this book thoroughly. While itdoes provide some useful information, it is sometimes inaccurate and dull. ... Read more

Book Description

Amazon.com
Why is it that most of us find baby animals irresistibly cute? Why do somany people fear even the sight of snakes? What prompts us to feed birds, to allowcats to roam around the house at will, to admire the lines of dogs and horses? StephenKellert and Edward Wilson, the prolific Harvard biologist, gather essays by varioushands on these and other questions, and the result is a fascinating glimpse into ourrelations with other animals. Humans, Wilson writes, have an innate (or at leastextremely ancient) connection to the natural world, and our continued divorce from ithas led to the loss of not only "a vast intellectual legacy born of intimacy"with nature but also our very sanity. There is much to ponder in this timely book.Book Description

"Biophilia" is the term coined by Edward O. Wilson to describe what he believes is our innate affinity for the natural world. In his landmark book Biophilia, he examined how our tendency to focus on life and lifelike processes might be a biologically based need, integral to our development as individuals and as a species. That idea has caught the imagination of diverse thinkers.

The Biophilia Hypothesis brings together the views of some of the most creative scientists of our time, each attempting to amplify and refine the concept of biophilia. The variety of perspectives - psychological, biological, cultural, symbolic, and aesthetic - frame the theoretical issues by presenting empirical evidence that supports or refutes the hypothesis. Numerous examples illustrate the idea that biophilia and its converse, biophobia, have a genetic component:

• fear, and even full-blown phobias of snakes and spiders are quick to develop with very little negative reinforcement, while more threatening modern artifacts - knives, guns, automobiles - rarely elicit such a response
• people find trees that are climbable and have a broad, umbrella-like canopy more attractive than trees without these characteristics
• people would rather look at water, green vegetation, or flowers than built structures of glass and concrete

Customer Reviews (5)

an able collection that needs updating
This book contains writings and research from several fields, their experts trying to confirm the hypothesis that human beings are naturally drawn to various manifestations of the natural world ("biophilia"). This hypothesis is important not because it can start a new religion or redeem the world, but because it balances more pessimistic views of human nature with the idea that we have a natural psychological connection to our fellow creatures. This in turn implies that we harm our own psyches to the extent we push other beings out of existence.

Don't expect any end-stage science from this book. The editors make it clear up front that these are tentative, exploratory, and sometimes speculative investigations. The amount of biophilia research funding remains quite small compared to environmental research on how to market things or brainwash customers. The studies herein go up to the 1990s, so it's time for another collection.

A chapter that puzzled me was written by Dorion Sagan and Lynn Margulis to argue that appeals to save the planet are grandiose. Granted; Joanna Macy has been making the point for decades that we are PART of the planet, not sitting high above it. At best we can participate in its self-healing from what humans have done to it. But the authors go beyond this to normalize what we have done to it, even suggesting that we could be making way for the next evolutionary experiment of Gaia. I hate to use the hard word "misanthropic," but dismissing global warming and mass extinctions with the suggestion that "the decline in species diversity may be balanced by an increase in technological diversity" is astounding. It is quite a contrast to the growing numbers of people who feel the pain of those disappearances and declines with agonizing urgency and sorrow. I'm concerned that it also supports the very passivity and hopelessness that deprive the public sphere of so much pro-environmental energy directed toward appreciating and encouraging Earth's self-healing complexity: a very different idealism from the heroic posture of the world-shaper.

Wonderful reading
This was recommended by a scientist-science teacher-friend and I was simply blown away by the implications. If this theory is correct, then it explains the human descent into madness brought on by increased development without thought.

Difficult but important
Human beings are deeply psychologically attached to nature and the sooner we realize that, the better off we'll be. Why are houseplants so popular? Why do so many children's books feature animals as main characters? Why domore Americans visit zoos than sporting events? Why are so many of usworried about rainforests we'll never see firsthand? Unlike the previoustwo reviewers, I hold that our ties with nature are deep and ancient. Wecan bury them under concrete but WE CAN'T CUT THEM. As a last word: most ofthe really happy people I know have a deep relationship with nature orsomething from nature, such as a pet.

This book is more postmodernism jibberish
In Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectual's Abuse of Science, postmodernists are taken to task for distorting physics and math through poetic license that says nothing and means nothing.Edward O. Wilsonlikewise has criticized postmodernists for their attacks on science andWestern knowledge, and now we have the evolutionists stooping to the samedistortions of logic and clear thinking in pursuit of personal agendas toresurrect a new religion of nature.In the book The Biophilia Hypothesis(henceforth BioHyp) we can clearly delineate between the evolutionaryobservations of our past and what it should mean to us today.This bookmerges evolutionary knowledge of our environment for survival, with anethic of deep ecology that is as befuddling and lacking in coherence asanything I have previously seen written by those who claim to be on theside of neo-Darwinist empiricism.But we should all recognize that it iseasy, even for true empiricists, to slip into quasi-religious cults evenwhile appearing to embrace the principles of science.Since this book doesnot have any coherence, aside from making some rather bland connectionbetween how humans interact with nature which I accept but fail to see asprofound, I will take a few of the most egregiously inept statements in thebook to pull the rug out from under their proposed paradigm.

This booktries to equate affiliation with nature with the essence of a good lifethat has meaning.Granted, many aspects of human nature go into themake-up of our beings, including: the need to create, observe nature, havesex, accumulate and show off our amassed wealth, dominance over others,athleticism, gathering and enjoying food, AND competition with other humangroups including warfare and genocide.Yes, along with a love of naturehumans also have a blood lust that these authors all know exists but failto address in this book.Another quasi-religious group of scientists couldeasily conjure up a new natural paradigm based on warfare (perhaps like theSpartans) and be equally content with a new culture based on love ofanimals but hatred of other humans (perhapsthe genophilia hypothesis?).

"The biophilia hypothesis necessarily involves a number ofchallenging, indeed daunting, assertions. Among these is the suggestionthat the human inclination to affiliate with life and lifelike process is:1) Inherent (that is, biologically based); 2) Part of our species'evolutionary heritage; 3) Associated with human competitive advantage andgenetic fitness; 4) Likely to increase the possibility for achievingindividual meaning and personal fulfillment; and 5) The self-interestedbasis for a human ethic of care and conservation of nature, most especiallythe diversity of life." [20]

Assertions 1,2 and 3 I have no problemwith, they are simple evolutionary statements.However I take strong issuewith 4 and 5.Lets rephrase 4: "[T]he inclination to affiliate withlife . . . is [l]ikely to increase the possibility for achieving individualmeaning and personal fulfillment."Let us merely rephrase it to read,"The inclination for humans to commit genocide is likely to increasethe possibility for achieving individual meaning and personalfulfillment."I contend that genocide and group cohesiveness are infact far more powerful emotions than our need of love for nature.And yetwe have been able to subdue this emotion quite nicely by introducingincentives in cultures to forego blood-letting for other more valuable pasttimes.Likewise, BioHyp may improve our urban environment by paying moreattention to planting trees and providing for some bird sanctuaries, but Iwould contend that the average urban dweller is far more impacted by dailyroad rage than they are sensitive to the number of animals and fauna theyobserve on their journey to work.That is, hostility to other humans whomay have offended me carry a much greater burden on my temperament thanseeing a squirrel climb up the tree as I walk to my garage.

Assertion 5above, in order to be true, must show that an extreme caring andconservation for nature, one that must reduce the average material wealthof humans while also reducing the number of humans, is of real benefit tohumans: that is, it is a good in itself, to all humans!Does this hold forthose who will not be born?For those who will die on the way to theemergency room because we have reverted back to bicycles or horse andbuggies?Don't get me wrong. I am not an egalitarian that thinks"banning guns to save just one child is reason enough to give up ourconstitutional rights."Its just that no group or philosophy can makethe above statement to simplistically and universally alter our national orhumans agenda.They are calling for a ecological Jihad that is notwarranted.Our culture cannot be cut from whole cloth based on suchsimplistic assertions.They are made up of a myriad of compromises andconstraints that do not fall easily into any one fundamental of humannature as espoused in BioHyp.

Sorry, but the authors got it all backwards
The great biologist Edward O. Wilson noted that human beings seem to have some constants in what they like in the natural world. Everybody likes the landscape they grew up in, but there appears to be a surprising consensus, at least among men, in favor of landscape with these features: grassy parklands with intermittent trees, water, high points providing vistas across a complex landscape, and the ability to see but not be seen.Researchers believe that this represents an inborn affinity toward the superb hunting grounds in which humans evolved in East Africa. From this work, Wilson announced the existence of biophilia, the innate human love of nature, and asserted that this means we should Save the Rainforests (home to most of the species of Wilson's beloved ants).

As much as I admire Wilson, I have to point out that his political argument is absolutely not supported by this research, which demonstrates not that humans like all forms of nature but that they have strong opinions about which landscapes they prefer. Reread the description of the consensus pleasurable landscape: does it remind you of anything that modern humans all around the world spend billions upon? Yup, what we males really have an innate affinity for are golf courses. In fact, we probably have an innate aversion toward rainforests, with their snakes, bugs, and lack of sunlight. Humans have largely avoided rainforests throughout our history, and today rainforests are much more popular on the Upper West Side of Manhattan than in the Amazon.

None of this implies that we shouldn't Save The Rainforests ... Read more