Rating: 
Summary: Dares to say what few others do
Review: A physicist tackles the ultimate question: is there any reason to believe in any type of god? Bringing together and harmonizing insights in the fields of philosophy, biology, physics, the brain sciences, history, human morality, and scripture revelation, the author argues that what is becoming more obvious as we advance in these realms of knowledge is that there is no evidence whatsoever that there is a superior being presiding over the universe. His argument is clear and well presented. The distinct advantage that this book has over others that attempt to address this same question is that it evaluates it from so many divergent perspectives. Not all of this material is easy reading, but it is all insightful and though provoking. Although there continue to be scientists, philosophers, and historians that believe in some sort of transcendent being, the details of these disciplines are revealing that if there is a god, he is certainly not the God humans have come to assume: law-giving, personal, imminent, and omni-benevolent. One of the boldest assertions herein is the admission of the fact that evolutionary biology has taught us that the universe is indifferent, disinterested, and amoral. While liberal Christians and believing scientists struggle to reconcile evolution with divine revelation, the stark truth is that the idea of a personal, caring God is completely incompatible with the indifference and randomness of evolution. Quantum physics has taught us that the reality that we are accustomed to where every effect has a cause that precedes it is not the reality in the sub-microscopic world. In that world events happen without a cause, particles and anti-particles randomly pop into existence from a seething energy field before quickly annihilating one another. The ultimate beginning of the point-particle universe prior to the Big Bang had no cause, it just was. This is very illuminating material. After all, which is more likely: a seething energy field behaving randomly that 14B years ago inflated the universe we find ourselves in or an eternal, loving, personal, and intelligent Being? Everything in our universe and world goes from simple to complex, not the other way around. The author admits that this is not for the faint of heart. He acknowledges that this awareness will be viewed by some as liberating, by others as terribly lonely; either way the universe doesn't care. This is great reading, challenging, insightful, thought provoking. If you're a believer prepare to have your world-view upset.
Rating: 
Summary: Thanks Mr. Tew your review proves my point!!!
Review: Christopher Tew has unwittingly proven my point by his review of the book and critique of my review. As Mr. Tew states one has to SHARE Mr. Edis's assumptions, in other words we must be locked into a philosophical ideology that refuses to accept empirical evidence contrary to our presuppositions. That was the whole point of my review is that Mr. Edis and Mr. Tew are nothing more than blind materialistic fundamentalist. They ignore verifiable facts just because their ideology takes rule of their lives. This is a dangerous position to be in and one that must be exposed for what its pure ideological dogmatism. Anyhow, let's discuss the books' and Mr. Tews complaints against Daniel. You should understand that there are three major groups out there that try to date and analyze biblical books. 1 The Christians (Those people who believe that the bible is the word of god) 2 The Liberal Scholars (This group is made up of people who are trying to show that the bible is completely wrong and man made.) 3 The Secular Historians (The largest of the three groups whose goal seems to be historical accuracy without commenting on the theistic aspect) Group 1 and 2 both have an agenda. Since they are obviously biased a neutral observer would either exclude them or give them little weight. What Tanner and Christopher have done is exclude group 1 AND GROUP 3. They do this because only group 2 SUPPORTS their belief structure. So rather than try to look for errors, a prerequisite for those who relish accuracy and the truth, they prefer to hold tight to their erroneous constructs. So let's look at the facts that group 3, the secular historians have given us. Many fragments of Daniel have been found at Qumran, an evident sign that the book had caused considerable importance in the 3rd century. This alone devastates the author and reviewers argument, but lets continue. Daniel exhibits extensive knowledge of the 6th century events, far more than would seem possible for a 2nd century writer. For Example:
1. Babylon was the creation of Nebuchadnezzar.
2. Belshazzar was functioning as king when Cyrus took Babylon in 538 BC
3. Intimate knowledge in recording the change from punishment by fire under Babylonians to punishment by being thrown to the lions under the Persian regime.
As a side note historians used to criticize Daniel for the following items until recent finds have vindicated the books historical accuracy. Conversely, Daniel exhibits no knowledge of 2nd century events, quite curious for a book that is theorized by a few liberal scholars to have been penned in the 2nd century. Daniel uses three (not two) languages; Persian, Aramaic, and Hebrew. The Persian expressions in Daniel are specifically OLD Persian words. Linguists date these old Persian sources to pre 350 BC. This is also evident that the Septuagint translators made inexact, almost guesses as to the meaning of these words. It stretches credulity to believe that Daniel was authored in 167 BC and less than 30 years later the meaning of the words have been lost or forgotten. It is absolutely farcical to assume Daniel was authored, accepted into the canon (this alone averages 100+ years), transported to Alexandria Egypt, translated into Greek all in a scant thirty years. Pleaaaaaase, if you buy this then you also believe that Rome WAS built in a day. Another hurdle with the allegation that the book was written in the 2nd century is that Daniel usesPersian terms for government terminology where one would expect a writer in the 2nd century BC to have employed the current Greek government expressions. Again no explanation is given for this simply because no rational one can be given. The Aramaic in Daniel is what linguists call Imperial Aramaic, as you undoubtedly know language changes greatly over time, just read Lincolns Gettysburg address to get the point. There are several papyri that have been dated around 5 - 6 century BC where the Aramaic matches that of Daniel (see the Elephantine papyri for example). The papyri that have been dated at the 2nd century BC show notable differences. This leads the UNBIASED linguists to date the document as early of the later part of the sixth century BC. As you can see linguistic evidence is clearly against a date in the second century BC.
I can continue listing a panoply of evidence that historians use to date this book, but just this small sampling should suffice those who are really interested in learning about history without the philosophical burden of naturalism dictating to them that they must disregard truths in favor of their ideology. In conclusion Mr. Edis and Mr. Tew presents a modified Maccabean view, however a fair and UNBIASED survey of the data seems to indicate that historically, linguistically, and logically a second century date for the autograph of Daniel is extremely difficult to maintain. In essence you can still find people that believe the world is flat, but if you look at the evidence you will reach the conclusion that the world is oval and Daniel was written pre 3rd century BC. Mr. Tew and Mr. Edis have fun in your fundamentalist world of naturalism as for me; I will take the empirical and verifiable evidence and use them to ascertain truth.
Rating:
Summary: A skeptic looks at souls, gods, and the cosmos ...
Review: Edis does a very good job of presenting a skeptical view of personal deities, revelation, the nature of mind, souls, immortality, revelation-based morality, etc in the light of modern science. I enjoyed his exposition greatly; this book is no rant, but simply a calmly reasoned overview. Edis brings balance to the topic, as in:
"Skeptic though I am, I do not live by reality alone. Our Gods do not belong in our explanations, perhaps not even in our hopes, but they should be at home, I think, in our stories and songs. ... Maybe myth is but a deeper truth. ... After all, human hopes and desires are an incoherent mess, so to consistently speak to us, a myth must be able to generate many different, contradicting levels of meaning. ... Our myths are false, and they are sometimes dangerously paranoid. Yet I respond to these stories not despite, but partly because of their falsehood."
A very enjoyable read, with a number of intriguing ideas.
Rating:
Summary: Challenging, thought-provoking
Review: Great book. Made me rethink things, and got me interested in finding out more.
Rating:
Summary: What a book!
Review: I have an interesting perspective on Taner Edis. As a fourth-year biology undergraduate at Truman State University (where Edis teaches), I have heard him speak twice. The first time was a short speech to a small group of Freethinkers about the subjects covered in his book. The second time was an afternoon Science Hall lecture on design in the universe. In that lecture, he identified the two elements of "design": chance and necessity. Purpose was not one of them, which may have been one of the many things that upset a fellow science professor (a rather belligerent old Creationist) to the point that he referred to Edis as "the Inquisition." I assure you, the label is unwarranted. I have never run into a more intelligent, unbiased "skeptic" in my life ... Edis's book synthesizes a lot of material from history, theology, philosophy, and science. He deftly addresses not only Christianity, but also Judaism and Islam. The material is very in-depth, though, requiring some sort of elementary understand of the aforementioned subjects prior to reading the book. In stark contrast to Christian apologists, Edis takes a rather passive approach to God and other theological matters, free from insults and judgements. He never identifies himself as an atheist - only as a skeptic. And it becomes clear to the reader at several points in the book that Edis has a profound and legitimate interest in the concept of God - far from the idea, perpetuated by many Christians, that non-Christians are just out to get Jesus. Edis has a quiet respect for some elements of religion, and a quiet disgust for some of the fundamentalist interpretations of reality. Because Edis's book is so full of all kinds of information, there is little I want to say about the arguments presented against God. It's not like that, really. I mean, the book has a lot of value, in a lot of different areas. Edis merely shows the reader that the arguments FOR God are lacking quite a bit - especially evidence and coherence! He does not attack God or believers, though. A very fulfilling read for anyone with a little background or a little interest in these subjects.
Rating:
Summary: A Great Defense
Review: Since I come from a Mormon background, I have many friends and family members who are devoted Mormons. These people don't understand why a sensible person like me could be an atheist. The arguments I hear from them are precisely the ones addressed in this book. Now I have the ammunition to stand my own ground!
Rating:
Summary: My Faith is Superior to Your Faith
Review: Taner Edis is a naturalist. The religion (I use the term religion because Taner defines it this way) of naturalism is a worldview that believes if you can't measure it, weigh it, stain it, and see it under a microscope, then it doesn't exist. Belief in the emotions, mind and feelings are products of your physical body.
Naturalism came out of the Greek philosophy called atomism in the 400's BC. However, naturalism, swiftly lost support as it was philosophically unsustainable and scientifically incongruous. Over 2000 years later naturalism was on the upswing and gaining converts. The rationale behind this newfound popularity was two-fold;. Atheism and Darwinism were faltering. Atheism was being ruined philosophically while Darwinism was failing scientifically.
So in the 1950's a curious marriage occurred of 3 diverse constructs that were close to extinction. What came out was the religion of Naturalism where atheism can be thought of as father god and Darwin as the savior. So what we have here is a book penned by a zealot expounding his beliefs upon the masses all the while proclaiming: "All religions are false except mine, follow me for enlightenment." Chapter 1 is about philosophical arguments about god. Chapter 2 is about Darwinian evolution and chapter 3 is about physics and cosmology. These three chapters cover distinct material; however, Mr. Edis uses the same principle line of reasoning in each chapter. His argument is that Chance or uncaused causes give proof that there are no gods but his. If Christianity uses the Holy Spirit as the third part of their triune god then naturalism uses chance to be the missing part of their trinity.
It seems unusual that Mr. Edis has placed chance on his alter of worship, since chance has been meticulously refuted philosophically, scientifically and mathematically and relegated to the dung pile of history. His argument that probabilities in Quantum Mechanics are fundamental or irreducible is patently false. There is no mathematical model for irreducible probabilities. There is not even a mathematically definition of a random number sequence. Taner believes that he shows a truly random sequence in his book the problem is that the sequence shown is NOT truly random rather it is recursively random.
The randomness he claims has no foundation in mathematics and to date no-one has been able to construct such a foundation. My argument with Mr. Edis is that I only see a problem with developing a better theory to help explain away chance. I do not see the need to invoke the god of chance when conventional logic or mathematics will do.
In Chapters 4 & 5 Mr. Edis goes on to attack Christianity. While I am not an expert on the bible I found several glaring errors in his work. For example the book of Daniel in the Old Testament has some predictions in it about future leaders. It lists names and dates of future kings and amazingly the prophecies all came true. Taner simply says know body can predict the future with that amount of accuracy so therefore, the book was written after all these things happened. So rather than try to figure out a new theory Tanner simple re-dates the writing of the book to the 1st century BC. He then recasts it as a historical narrative of what happened and not a book of prophecy.
Perhaps Mr. Edis is ignorant of two facts about Daniel. First, over half of the book is written in Imperial Aramaic. It is with a high degree of accuracy that SECULAR historians can date this Aramaic to the 6th or 5th century BC. The second is that the Septuagint (Greek translation of known Old Testament books) contained Daniel. The Septuagint was completed in the third century BC in Alexandria.
Secular historians virtually all agree that Daniel was written between the sixth and fourth century BC. This is at least 300 years before the alleged events happened and 400 years earlier than Mr. Edis opines.
Taner is also woefully uniformed about what Christianity is. No matter what you believe most people understand the basic tenants of that faith; that Jesus Christ was the son of God and came to the earth to die on the cross as an atoning sacrifice for man's sins. In other words his death on the cross had to occur; it was Jesus' purpose on earth.
Throughout the fourth and fifth chapters Taner extols the belief that Jesus failed when he was executed on the cross (see pg 154 for just one example). This fundamental lack of understanding should cause concern for anyone since he is trying to judge something that he does not have the faintest clue about. I think it goes without saying that any philosophical faith/belief system, whether god based or man based can invade and cause prejudices that are disastrous to the scientific method. The biggest problem today is not faith-in-god scientist, which are a minority, but instead faith-in-materialism scientist, like Mr. Edis, which are by far the majority. Don't get me wrong, a materialistic scientist can still be a good scientist as long as his scientific work ethic is left uncorrupted by his faith and he restricts the practice of his faith to his spare time. Whether, on the other hand, a true naturalist can ever do science without letting his prejudice get into the way, is not an open question. To date, I have not seen a single case, where the materialist did not compromise the demands of scientific methodology in flavor for his bias. I have seen it, again and again.
Mr Edis what you preach is adherence to a dogmatic protocol. No Thanks, I would rather keep my reason and intellect than blindly follow your philosophical presuppositions. And as far as you practicing true science I don't see much difference between your blindness or of those you criticize.
Rating:
Summary: Concerning one area of another reviewer's misrepresentations
Review: Taner Edis presents a reasoned and detailed explanation for his point of view. If one shares his assumption that empirical reasoning can be applied to this question, then Mr. Edis provides more than ample support and enables the reader to draw conclusions based on that assumption.
It is troubling to read in another review statements about this book that simply are not true. The most obvious of these concern the Book of Daniel.
Edis gives his reasons for considering the Book of Daniel to be after the fact prophesy, and most modern historians and non-fundamentalist Biblical scholars agree with those reasons. Daniel was written in Hebrew (Chap. 1 and part of 2), then in Aramaic (the rest of 2 - 7), a language used until after the time of Jesus, then again in Hebrew (7 - 12), and in two (at least) literary styles. The first section ascribes to Daniel various legendary exploits of another, earlier area hero as adapted and modified by Jews who knew of Persian and Hellenic culture, perhaps writing in the third century BCE.
The prophesies belong to the latter section which was written long afterward, after the major prophesies had occurred but before the Maccabean revolution, which is not mentioned though it was of greater import than many of the prophesies that are given. Increasing inaccuracies in the prophesies for events after ~167 BCE make that the likely time of writing or final editing.
Only the first five books of the Septuagint Greek version belong to the early period of its translation. The rest, including Daniel, was done by later translators, and this means that the Book of Daniel is consistent with the above approximate date. Daniel is considered by everyone to be the most recent of the Old Testament books.
It may be that the prototype(s) for Daniel made true prophesies, but this cannot be proved from historic, linguistic, or stylistic elements in the book itself, all of which point to a later period. The use of evidence rather than faith or belief is a crucial point of Mr. Edis' book.
Rating: 
Summary: He shows the willingly blind their own ignorance...
Review: The book is ok but he gives too much respect to religion. There isn't much here that hasn't been said before countless times. People pre-decide what they believe no matter what the evidence and this has been true since the beginning of history. How many religions and different gods has their been throughout time? We hardly know of any beyond major religions, I'm sure there are thousands of more appealing and more just mythological stories and characteristics of these gods then the so called Judeo-Christian psychotic one. The author admit's they (religions) are false but things that are false should not be appealing to him or our children as a whole, they should be studied in philosophy classes or classes dedicated to critical thinking and the development of a scientific mind. I admit the idea of acting good and being rewarded and brought back to life to live forever in paradise is a nice IDEA but the works that contain such ideas as an afterlife shouldn't be given any merit today in the modern world we've outgrown that kind of ignorance and false knowledge that our ancestors needed psycholically to get by in a harsh, unjust and unfair world. The problem of course with biblical or religous belief is that there are three claims that must consistently be met and internally consistent throughout such a book. Our ancestors had impossibly big ideas about god and other things because they had no idea how nature worked so they floundered by imagining explanations for them based on a mixture of emotions, ignorance and misunderstanding. You cannot fault them for everyone is born ignorant and woefully so. We're so lucky to have an education system in this moderm day and age that kills superstition. The problem with christians is that the bible makes incorrect statements about reality, no omniscient god could ever make a mistake, so the only valid christian interpretation is a young earth (Genesis 1) and that demons exist and cause disease (Mathew 8:30-34), thats what the bible teaches and no god who claims to be omnipotent, omniscient and loving could ever make such a backward book. In the case of mathew 8, demon performs excorcism of demons from men and these spirits go into the pigs and cause them to run into the lake and die. Now Jesus if you are not a unitarian is God incarnate, how can he be god if he's pretending to cast out demons when he (god) knows they don't cause disease? or what about Jesus outright denial he is god in Luke 18:19 -- Luke 18:19 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good-except God alone. Here we have christ admitting he is not good and only GOD is, if they are co-equal and co-eternal then why not just say "Yeah I'm good because I'm god." It's these stupid contradictions and errors in the bible that kill the alleged prophetic evidence, the ENTIRE bible must be flawless and without error for the bibles prophecies to even be CONSIDERED as evidence, if theres any error elsewhere that kills the fragile structure that is the bible and other holy books because of the (usual) three things claimed about their gods properties and powers: Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Benevolent.
Rating:
Summary: He shows the willingly blind their own ignorance...
Review: The book is ok but he gives too much respect to religion. There isn't much here that hasn't been said before countless times. People pre-decide what they believe no matter what the evidence and this has been true since the beginning of history. How many religions and different gods has their been throughout time? We hardly know of any beyond major religions, I'm sure there are thousands of more appealing and more just mythological stories and characteristics of these gods then the so called Judeo-Christian psychotic one. The author admit's they (religions) are false but things that are false should not be appealing to him or our children as a whole, they should be studied in philosophy classes or classes dedicated to critical thinking and the development of a scientific mind. I admit the idea of acting good and being rewarded and brought back to life to live forever in paradise is a nice IDEA but the works that contain such ideas as an afterlife shouldn't be given any merit today in the modern world we've outgrown that kind of ignorance and false knowledge that our ancestors needed psycholically to get by in a harsh, unjust and unfair world. The problem of course with biblical or religous belief is that there are three claims that must consistently be met and internally consistent throughout such a book. Our ancestors had impossibly big ideas about god and other things because they had no idea how nature worked so they floundered by imagining explanations for them based on a mixture of emotions, ignorance and misunderstanding. You cannot fault them for everyone is born ignorant and woefully so. We're so lucky to have an education system in this moderm day and age that kills superstition. The problem with christians is that the bible makes incorrect statements about reality, no omniscient god could ever make a mistake, so the only valid christian interpretation is a young earth (Genesis 1) and that demons exist and cause disease (Mathew 8:30-34), thats what the bible teaches and no god who claims to be omnipotent, omniscient and loving could ever make such a backward book. In the case of mathew 8, demon performs excorcism of demons from men and these spirits go into the pigs and cause them to run into the lake and die. Now Jesus if you are not a unitarian is God incarnate, how can he be god if he's pretending to cast out demons when he (god) knows they don't cause disease? or what about Jesus outright denial he is god in Luke 18:19 -- Luke 18:19 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good-except God alone. Here we have christ admitting he is not good and only GOD is, if they are co-equal and co-eternal then why not just say "Yeah I'm good because I'm god." It's these stupid contradictions and errors in the bible that kill the alleged prophetic evidence, the ENTIRE bible must be flawless and without error for the bibles prophecies to even be CONSIDERED as evidence, if theres any error elsewhere that kills the fragile structure that is the bible and other holy books because of the (usual) three things claimed about their gods properties and powers: Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Benevolent.
|
