Rating: 
Summary: A simplistic point of view rejecting the core of religion
Review: The short summary describing the book is misleading. It partly reads:``[...]Acknowledging that the scientific and the spiritual communities are increasingly split, Raymo builds strong bridges between them.[...]'' There are no such bridges in that book. On the contrary, Raymo tries to debunk the core of Christianity. On page 8, we have a good overview of what is coming: ``It became obvious to me that certain doctrines of the Judeo-Christian tradition, including such central tenets of faith as immortality and a personal God who answers prayers, were based on long-discredited views of the world that placed humans in a central position and ascribed human attributes to other creatures and even to inanimate objects.'' This can hardly be called a bridge towards spirituality! Obviously, Raymo never had any prayers answered. Well, did he ever tried? He will not, since his mind is already set up. And he tries to convince you to never try. On the subject of the Shroud of Turin, Raymo does not know the subject enough to even propose a reliable opinion. For example, he declares, in an absolute resounding tone on (p. 15), that the radiocarbon dating of 1988 was a blindfold test. It was not, as it is clearly stated in the article of Damon et al., in Nature. He certainly has not researched much the literature on the subject as this is a well known fact. You just wonder about the rest. Obviously, in his book, he left out all the research that was published by the STURP group. So he made his mind up and forget to open it along the way. It is a book that tries to sell you the idea that you should not base your religious feelings on something else than what science has to offer. No bridges are built there!
Rating: 
Summary: memorable, organized, principled defense of science plus
Review: The tone and 'shape' of the writing are deeply influenced by the author's job. To write the science column for Boston Globe, what i didn't know was he is also a college professor in physics and astronomy, his primary fields from which his examples are drawn. The writing's tone is: exuberent, visionary, pushy, colorful, short and choppy, all at once. It is meant to be rememberable, quick illustrations, pithy organizing principles repeated throughout the book, literally the best writing for newspapers, and maybe for college students. I suspect he is a very good prof, and well received by his students, his care, his devotion to science is obvious, deeply felt, and real.
"A vital religious faith has three components: a shared cosmology (a story of the universe and our place in it), spirituality (personal response to the mystery of the world), and liturgy (public expression of awe and gratitude, including rites of passage). the apparent antagonism of science and religion centers mostly on cosmological questions. What is the universe? Where did it come from? Where is it going? What is the human self? Where do we fit in? What is our fate?" p 2 This is his minor theme, repeated in different contexts, until the end where it becomes a major tying together motif. Quotable and useful organizing principle. " These two postures represent a fault line in our culture, and attitudinal chasm more profound than differences of politics or religious affiliation. We are Skeptics or True Believers."
This is his major theme, obviously the book's title, he however, despite my initial misgivings does not align: religion=true believers, science=skeptics, he is much more subtle and as a result more convincing than this simple pairing would have been. For even science has its share of True Believers, although they are not as numerous as the 47% of the American population that are young earth creationists, the point of an entire chapter, seven. His best illustration is the story of a ball of yarn, a student had used different lengths and different colors to represent the major geological eras. 450feet long=4.5 billion years of Earth history, and a single sheet of paper thickness is 10,000 years, the proposed young earth creationist time line. pg122-126 where he ends with:"I sensed a frisson of fear in my audience. I felt it myself. The universe of the geological eons is terrifying, like the space of the galaxies. Our lives are like a drop of dye in the sea, infinitely diluted. No wonder so many of us deny the evidence of our senses and turn to True Belief, opting for the security blanket, the thumb, the parent's embrace." This is another of his excellent take home motifs, the need for knowledge versus the need for security. Or as i phrase it: security or significance, adventure or safety, travel or stay at home. Two major personality types we see the consequences of all around us, everyday. In online discussions i have become convinced the major problem with YEC is the fear of slipping down the slope to unbelief and skepticism. His points exactly, so again he is good, 'cause he thinks the same thought as i do. The last few chapters are the author's heartfelt understanding as he moves from some simple distinctions to a new religion built with science on the awe that we must feel when looking at the Hubble pictures of a universe with 50 billion stars. The mystery of DNA, an arm's length in each microscopic cell; becomes the mystery of who we are, and where we are going, if only we shed the security of the old anthropomorphic faith, as did he. His motifs ought to be incorporated into many readers systems of thought, their conciseness and applicability are reason enough to read this book. Without necessarily rejecting revealed religion as the author does. A good book, has earned a careful reading.
Rating:
Summary: Nearly poetic description of scientific findings.
Review: When I first picked this book up, I was exhilerated. As time went by and I read a few references to it, I feared silly examinations like those who claim that Einstein was a mystic. Raymo didn't let me down. The book begins with an examination of what science finds. This goes way beyond romaticized mysticism. I mean, seeing an apparition? That's up there with "seeing" a UFO, or firewalking, or any number of silly New Age claims. But that the DNA in EACH CELL of your body, if stretched, is as long as your arm, now THAT'S phenomenal. Sure the language that scientists use is often dry and not exactly Tolstoyesque. But that's because of the scientific method, verifiable or refutable, etc., something not conducive to poetry. Fortunatly someone like Chet Raymo can describe some of those findings in terms palatable to you and me, the nonscientists. There were points in the book I found entertaining. For example Raymo, an astronomer, is in awe at the deep-field photography made possible by the Hubble telescope. Some who've read his column say they look at these photos and "see Jesus." Dare I suggest that those who see Jesus miss the point of the cosmological phenomena witnessed because of the space telescope. (Further, I think Jesus would laugh at their claim!) Raymo was raised and educated a Catholic. He speaks gleefully of the claims of Catholic educators--as do most of us who are products of that experience. But he uses the experience, again, to show that what one can see and experience in a scientific way is more awe-inspiring than anything Catholic theology has taught us! He points out something that could be disheartening to one in a Catholic--or any--mindset who denies much of what has been discovered: We humans are, after all, just specks of dust on another speck of dust, the earth. Consciousness may not be what the religions have made it out to be. Raymo in that sense reminds me of Stephen Jay Gould, paleantologist, who reminds us that we humans are not superior, but our position in the scheme of things is a product of chance, not necessarily divine--or extraterrestrial--intervention. The only "reservation" I have of the book is its seeming rejection of all religions. I may be unusual among skeptics in that I am also religious, a practicing Catholic (though of a small "intentional" community, not a parish into which I wouldn't comfortably fit.) I see that religion and science comfortably coexist, are just different perspectives. Indeed, I see problems arising when the two attempt to overlap. Most of today's New Age foolishness is a mixture of pseudo-science with pseudo-religion, The "unconscious," "alternative" health practices--making use of ancient religious mythology from when faith was all one had! And there are many, many more. They're all ornamented with elaborate, pseudo-scientific jargon and formulae, without the scientific method. That doesn't make religion bad, but makes its misapplication (and, one might add, the near deification of many of its theoriticians!) and application of lots of stupid fads questionable at best, and harmful when applied in lieu of something effective. Anyway, if you have questions as most of us do I recommend the book. I don't find it "irreverent" as some do, just a tad one sided. Maybe the one side is one we'll need to get through much of what we here these days, even from some of the Catholic hierarchy.
| 
