The point of this book is to suggest that there is purpose behind the cosmos. The main evidence for this that Goff uses is the fine tuning of our universe that makes it suitable for life. Most cosmologists agree that this is odd, but many try to explain it using the idea of the multiverse. With some nifty mathematic-less probability (though he does invoke and describe Bayes theorem), Goff demonstrates convincingly that this argument does not hold up. (You can see some detail of how he shows that it's rubbish here.)
We then take a look at a couple of alternative explanations - a deity, or the universe itself embodying a degree of purpose, which comes under the banner of panpsychism. I didn't honestly find the arguments in either of these sections (for and against) persuasive - but this doesn't stop them from being really interesting. In the God chapter, Goff attempts to logically dismiss the concept, but I found this no more convincing than good old Pascal's wager - people have been attempting to make logical arguments about deities ever since logic existed, and none have succeeded.
Similarly, I find the argument for panpsychism thin - but it's still interesting to see it explained by one of its major protagonists. Goff also examines other possibilities from a designer that is not all-powerful to the simulation hypothesis. And he takes us into the mind-body problem, presenting three broad options: materialism (the default scientific view of the physical world being fundamental), panpsychism (his preferred option where consciousness is fundamental and the physical world emerges from this), and dualism (the default non-scientific view, where both the physical world and consciousness are fundamental).
Goff rapidly dismisses dualism making use of Occam's razor, which felt wrong to me. The reality of our understanding of the universe generally requires a lot of 'it's more complicated than we thought' - I don't think Occam's razor is a good enough tool to dispose of an option in such a significant matter as the mind-body problem.
Finally (after a somewhat bizarre plea for the benefits of psychedelics, which I couldn't support), Goff gives us an appendix dealing with the concept that tax is theft. This did slightly emerge from the main text, but is probably best thought of as a separate entity - again, it's a fascinating exercise in thinking about something that brings together moral positions and a field as solid, worldly and sort-of scientific as economics.
It's a slim book and an enjoyable read. Each chapter has an introductory part that takes us into the topic and then a 'digging deeper' part, where Goff takes us through some of the key counter arguments. He suggests you can skip these if you find them too heavy going - but I'd strongly recommend reading them. I've said this book is enjoyable, and it is, but that doesn't mean it's a light read. You do have to think as you go - but the result is well worth the effort.
Hardback:   |
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here
Comments
Post a Comment