God the Evidence : The Reconciliation of Faith and Reason in a Postsecular World

Rating:
Summary: Not convincing
Review: Glynn tries to use several lines of arguments for "proving" the existence of God; one of them being the anthropic principle. Though I agree that the universe and all the constraints to make us possible are most amazing, never-the-less, I don't find it a convincing evidence for God. See my Amazon review of _The Creator and The Cosmos_ by Hugh Ross for more on this.

Glynn uses NDE's as evidence for God, which was about the only thing that I find of interest in his book. Frankly, I just don't know what NDE's mean. Maybe they are a glimpse of eternity, or maybe not. But the fact that there are many similarities, but many differences in experiences leads me to think that maybe they aren't. But I just don't know. Actually, I hope they are real. I've a niece that had one and she says she met her departed grandfather. I just don't know.

Glynn says the value of church attendance is proven by decreased suicide rates, drug use, etc. Actually, I'm sure that is true. For example, I used to attend a church singles group, not because I was a "believer" but simply to meet people. And I did develop good friends there. So what I'm saying is that I recognize that churches can have value, but it may not necessarily be directly due to God's hand, but rather due to the hands of those that make up the church.

Glynn's discussion of the moral basis of the Church, well, I've got a few things to say. He does make a reference to the Crusades and expectedly condemns them. And I don't want the following to sound like I'm bashing Christians; I know that by and large they are good people. And I accept that people like those that partook in the Crusades were not acting in accordance with Christianity. But my problem with Glynn (and other apologists) is that they want to give Christianity no blame for the bad things done by Christians, but want to give full blame to atheism for bad things done by atheists.

In fact, after having made his token condemnation of the crusades, he then pompously claims how throughout history, "good" and "bad" has "tracked closely" with atheism. I'd like to see his chart. Does his chart include not only the Crusades, but also the many Protestant/Catholic wars? Witch hunts? Let's see this chart!

And I've got another problem with The Church being the moral foundation. Assuming that Jesus was the Messiah and he came to Earth 2000 years ago for the purpose of giving the straight scoop on good and bad behavior, well, that doesn't seem to me to have been the most effective method. Would anybody consider it a good way for a father to teach his child morals to write down some parables (whose meaning is not always clear) before the child is born and leave town? If those that do evil in God's name are perverting His teachings, where is God to say, "hey, folks, this isn't right!" Is it reasonable for Him to say, "hey, I told you once 2000 years ago the whole deal and if you can't figure it out, that's your problem"?

Here are perhaps some more modern examples. Most Christian churches discourage divorce. Okay. Some are very strict, only allowable in case of adultery. Some are more lenient. Some insist on no alcohol consumption at all, some allow some alcohol. I can think of some others, but this is sufficient. The point is, not even His own followers can seem to agree exactly on the morals that God supposedly teaches. Christians may say that without God, then morals are based on nothing but what man may (or may not) find convenient. Maybe, but if God has defined an ultimate standard of morals, He hasn't done a good job of communicating it to even His own followers. It seems that man has to make up our own morals by this reason alone.

Finally, even if you insist that Christ's teachings are in fact a good guideline for morals, okay, I won't argue further. But the teachings are what they are, regardless of whether Jesus was God, just a man, or a mythic figure. The teachings are still the same. So Jesus' morals, regardless of how good they are, really don't prove that God had any hand in them.

Rating:
Summary: A good introduction to the coming paradigm shift
Review: I love this book so much that I have bought three copies and continually give them away to friends to read and I end up buying another copy for myself!! This is the book that sets the record straight about the proof supporting the fact that God exists, proofs that cannot be denied by even the most intelligent and hard headed skeptic. This book should convince anyone of sound mind that God must exist. Buy it, read it, then give it to a friend and tell them to do the same!

Rating:
Summary: Ex-Atheist's Case For God's Existence
Review: I once saw the author of this book on a TV interview discussing it and the ideas behind it. I had just been flipping through the channels, and suddenly, there appeared a prominent scholar talking intellectually about science in relation to religion. For a long time I too had been coming to realize that the pre-Enlightenment "nature philosophers" of the 16th and 17th century were right, and it wasn't until materialism (Diderot, Comte) in the 18th century and positivism in the 19th century (Darwin, Nietzsche) took hold that science and religion, once inseperable, drew more and more apart and at an increasingly accelerated pace.

What I liked about this book was its clarity, its readability; the scholarly elucidations are at once essential and accessible, and the author makes his arguments effectively, using scientific facts to back them up. I found it riveting, especially the first part, the first 50 or so pages dealing with cosmology and physics. This is the strongest part of the book with the best arguments for God's existence. I'm a novelist, so I consider myself a student of human nature--anthropology, philosophy, and theology interest me and I use what I learn in my fiction, often developing my own ideas on things. "God The Evidence" has enlightened me in several areas. Highly recommended.

David Rehak
author of "A Young Girl's Crimes"

Rating:
Summary: Not exactly what I expected
Review: I'm sorry to say that this book didn't hold my attention too well, it took great effort to make it half way through, though the second half did get more interesting. I respect the author for his efforts in trying to get people to see that God does indeed exist, but on an intellectual level it's not meant for everyone. Many scientific references are made throughout the book which unfortunately I could honestly not relate to one hundred percent of the time. That said, perhaps the title mislead me into thinking I was going to read a book more about religion and less about physics, atheistic scientists, philosophers, etc.. However, the historical references were very thorough and made many crucial points. At the end of the day I found myself agreeing with alot of the author's observations on morals and the damage done to society when they are lost, as well as on other issues. I can't really give this one more than three stars though, probably due to the fact that it wasn't really what I had in mind when I purchased it.

Rating:
Summary: Not bad, but you will want to read more
Review: Patrick Glynn's "God: The Evidence" is a well-written and balanced book overall. It should not bore the reader and its style quite readable and well-tempered (not too academic, lest less technical readers get lost, not too simplified, lest scientists and philosophers lose patience). It really has something for anyone interested in God, science, philosophy, etc.

Ultimately, I think his analysis is correct that unlike the 1970s, where it seemed to many that scientific discoveries precluded the existence of God, today (late 1990s and now early 2000), scientific discoveries tend to be more congenial to God's existence. As a Ph.D. candidate in philosophy, I affirm his view that the materialism/mechanism of the 19th century is failing to account for many phenomena. He also had some good points about the prejudice of some scientists, in just simply dismissing Aristotle's notion of final cause, page 54, (its like saying, "I just don't like it"). When one considers much of the evidence regarding the "anthropic principle" in cosmology, it does seem as if the universe is hot-wired for life (no accident). But of course you have to decide for yourself, and Glynn does give many opposing arguments, which is nice.

So should you buy this book to prove something to yourself?

As a teacher of philosophy, I have learned that in order to prove or disprove anything to anyone at least two criteria are necessary:

(1) He/she has an open mind about the issue (no predetermined conclusions, such as some atheists and believers have) (2) There must be a starting point for the knowledge to flow from (if someone is a pure skeptic and the two of you cannot agree on a single thing like "we both know trees exist, right?", then the whole idea of proof or refutation is hopeless).

Of course extremists on both sides (fanatical bible waving literalists, and hardcore atheists will not in the least be open to this book, since they have all the answers already how could a book do anything to them?)

Ultimately, Glynn says that he does not think reason/science can give you faith, and he is correct. But it can, to echo the words of Aquinas centuries ago, remove barriers to one embracing God.

So if this topic interests you and you have a desire to integrate science/philosophy/theology, etc., Glynn's book will generally not disappoint (though you will want to read much more . . .)

Hopefully, one day books like this will not be necessary, when humankind grows up spiritually. That is, when it sees all humans as spiritual brothers/sisters, ends the killing of each other over money, power, and religion, and realizes that God exists, loves us all, and is the one we seek in our hearts . . . but that will take time. Perhaps some believers will have to work as hard as the atheists to overcome their hard hearts; for some cling to an idolatrous god who damns people for not being Christian . . . others hate the idea of a creator and sacrifice/responsibility for others.).

Rating:
Summary: Selective and Weak; A Disappointment
Review: This book is full of assumptions and superficial assertions. Chapter one is just a precursor to weak arguments. Martin Rees's book, "Just Six Numbers" is far better and makes no assumptions about science and scientists in general and allows readers to gain insight without weak rhetoric. If Glynn knew anything about quantum mechanics he wouldn't have to write a rhetorical book defending religion (which isn't being attacked by science). One of numerous flaws in this book comes when Glynn attacks Creationists on pg. 34 to give himself credence, yet only 3 pages earlier he used an old Creationist argument of a junkyard to argue for Creation!...thus completely eliminating any credibility he could have established. His references in the back of the book show he is selective in his sources. Nowhere do I see any scientific papers having been referred to, only references to opinionated books (like his own) which are easy to attack and make a case against. NEWSFLASH! Opinion ISN'T science! Science (especially in quantum mechanics) points to a Creator and never claimed to "know everything" or claim "God is dead" as Glynn reports. I challenge him to find any scientific source that makes such claims, and no Glynn, Marx and Freud weren't scientists. Science observes what goes on around us and tries to explain those phenomena as best it can with tentative theories using God-given brain power, it does not (as Glynn mistakenly assumes) set out to disprove God.
This book is terribly disappointing and shows how poor writing can create an issue and polarize it. The struggle isn't between science and religion, it is between uninformed wannabe "scientists" and good-intentioned but uninformed Christians. This book is just part of that circular argument. Glynn should have risen above such a level.

Rating:
Summary: Makes a strong argument in simple terms
Review: This book was recommended to me by a friend I met who actually went from being an atheist to a believer in God, after reading this book. Intrigued, I went out and bought it and I couldn't put it down! Although already a believer, I really enjoyed its practical grounding and skeptical approach. It gave me a lot of scientific, psychological, and physiological fodder for defending the existence of God to others, and to myself. There was also discussion of various life-after-death experiences from a wide range of people all over the world, totally unconnected, and the conclusions that must be drawn from such things. The book was refreshing to read in that it gave me further statistical evidence of the power of religion to reform and empower individuals in life. I recommend this book to many. I have heard some scientists on TV rebuking some of the scientific claims of the author about the difficulty in finding another explanation for the order and consistency found in the Universe, but over all the book gives such conclusive and logical arguments that any weaknesses in one aspect cannot be weighted against the sheer dominance of the conclusions of the author. Also, there was interesting discussion of the powers of ALL religions, not just one sect or church, to improve lives, and to experience life-after-death reunions and joyful heaven-like realities.

Rating:
Summary: Pushes the Hot Button
Review: This is a very good and swift read. Patrick Glynn takes the reader on a fast-paced voyage through five areas where secular research has unintentionally stumbled into nagging questions on the existence of God.
He begins with the anthropic principle in the physical science realm, which points out the coincidental universe in not likely to be coincidental. (Stephen Hawking made a career out of fighting the anthropic principle. Unfortunately, his solution is mathematically brilliant but founded upon a reverse leap of faith that is equally as fantastic and dogmatic as the idea of God.) Patrick moves swiftly on to statistical data from mental health practice which shows that the spritually connected wind up better off in the mental health arena. Patrick follows this up with news from the more concrete world of medicine, where several studies published in medical journals have conluded that meditative states and prayer directed toward God positively correlate with faster recoveries from injury and illness and better general health. He then goes back in time and sumarizes the core findings on the Near Death Experience made by the original research teams in the early 1970s prior to the entry of the subject into the popular arena. Finally, Patrick goes through an overview of how secular philosophy is turning itself reluctantly back from the "God is Dead" world of the early 20th Century to the conlusion that God is making come-back in the 21st. This is a wide field, and Patrick's purpose seems to be to get you thinking along one or more of these lines and let you follow up. It will definitely punch the "hot button", as evidenced by the angry reviews on this page. Contrary to some assertions, the book is well researched and documented. And it does not "prove" that God is there. It simply shows the proverbial smoking gun and asks you if you think it fired itself... or did someone or something pull the trigger?

Rating:
Summary: Proves no barrier between science and religion
Review: This is the story of Patrick Glynn's journey from a believer to an agnostic and then back to a believer. From the time of Copernicus to Galileo to Darwin and beyond, science has continuously raised questions about ideas of belief and then answered the questions in a manner that does not require religious belief. Religion has taken a beating more and more at the anvil of science. The problem is that science and religion have always treated each other as being mutually exclusive. You believe in one or the other.

While this book does not prove God exists, it does a very good job of showing that science and religion do not have to be at opposite ends. Science has advanced over the last 25 years to the point where the best explanations for some things are that a guiding hand has been at work. The position that if you believe in science then you cannot believe in God is shown to be untenable. This does not prove that God exists, only that there is no real obstacle standing between science and belief in God. Not an argument for a particular religion or a particular God, it points out that belief in a guiding intellect that pervades the universe is a tenable position and also the position most consistent with the current state of science.

Rating:
Summary: A great introduction to/overview of the recent evidence
Review: While Glynn's book is not likely to convince a hardened skeptic alone, his footnotes are a wealth of resources one could consult for more information. This book is definitely a thought provoker and a great, readable introduction to matter of the compatibility of science and religion. I was glad to see that this book pushes no particular denomination or group although Glynn is a Christian. I would recommend this book to anyone who is searching but doesn't know quite where to start.