Skip to main content

God: the Science, the Evidence - Michel-Yves Bolloré and Olivier Bonnassies ***

This is, to say the least, an oddity, but a fascinating one. A translation of a French bestseller, it aims to put forward an examination of the scientific evidence for the existence of a deity… and various other things, as this is a very oddly structured book (more on that in a moment).

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins suggested that we should treat the existence of God as a scientific claim, which is exactly what the authors do reasonably well in the main part of the book. They argue that three pieces of scientific evidence in particular are supportive of the existence of a (generic) creator of the universe. These are that the universe had a beginning, the fine tuning of natural constants and the unlikeliness of life. 

To support their evidence, Bolloré and Bonnassies give a reasonable introduction to thermodynamics and cosmology. They suggest that the expected heat death of the universe implies a beginning (for good thermodynamic reasons), and rightly give the impression that while Big Bang is not universally accepted amongst cosmologists it is the best supported theory.

As for the fine tuning problem, the authors rightly point out the ridiculously unlikely reality that so many constants of nature are so precisely set to enable the existence of life, leading those who can’t face the idea of a god hypothesis to produce the solution of a multiverse of universes, each with different physical constants. This is countered here mostly with Occam’s razor, missing the far more convincing point that it’s a misuse of probability, deploying the reverse gamblers' fallacy. Of course you can say the creator hypothesis is ascientific because you can't provide proof, but that doesn't stop cosmologists deploying the equally ascientific multiverse hypothesis. I'm less convinced by the life argument, though I do agree that getting to life is a lot more unlikely than has sometimes been suggested.

Overall this section is handled well, making the point that the existence of a creator of some sort is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis which is often simply ignored because many scientists don't like it. The rest of the book, though, moves away from science and tries to go from this to an arguments for a specific Christian God, which works far less well. Bits of this were interesting - notably how unusually close to reality Old Testament cosmology is compared with other contemporary religions - though, of course, the cosmology primarily predates Genesis, some Ancient Greek philosophers, for instance, had some similar views, and you have to interpret some things like creation in seven days loosely. But much of the rest, notably the account of the alleged miracle at Fátima in 1917 stretch objective credibility to breaking point. (It’s interesting that while we are shown photographic evidence of the crowd’s response, there's nothing of the actual event.)

One other oddity is the formatting of the book: this is far more like a Word document than a traditional book with, for example, some text highlighted in blue and paragraphs with line breaks instead of indents. It doesn’t make it harder to read, but just feels amateurish. The book as a whole often comes across as a collection of unconnected parts, leading to considerable overlap and some oddities like one chapter that contains ‘one hundred essential citations from leading scientists’ and two other chapters trying to work out what Einstein and Gödel believed. Does anyone care?

I expected to give up with this book early on, finding it yet another attempt to prove the existence of God. From the start the authors maintain this isn’t possible, but also point out that hardly any scientific hypothesis or theory can be proved - we can merely amass evidence that may or may not support the hypothesis. Like my scientific hero Fred Hoyle before me, I find it difficult not to be swayed towards some kind of intention by the fine tuning evidence. Anything more is a matter of faith, not science. But it was fascinating to see how the authors attempted to go further. A flawed book, but an interesting one.

Paperback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee or taking out a membership:
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The AI Paradox - Virginia Dignum ****

This is a really important book in the way that Virginia Dignum highlights various ways we can misunderstand AI and its abilities using a series of paradoxes. However, I need to say up front that I'm giving it four stars for the ideas: unfortunately the writing is not great. It reads more like a government report than anything vaguely readable - it really should have co-authored with a professional writer to make it accessible. Even so, I'm recommending it: like some government reports it's significant enough to make it necessary to wade through the bureaucrat speak. Why paradoxes? Dignum identifies two ways we can think about paradoxes (oddly I wrote about paradoxes recently , but with three definitions): a logical paradox such as 'this statement is false', or a paradoxical truth such as 'less is more' - the second of which seems a better to fit to the use here.  We are then presented with eight paradoxes, each of which gives some insights into aspects of t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Einstein's Fridge - Paul Sen ****

In Einstein's Fridge (interesting factoid: this is at least the third popular science book to be named after Einstein's not particularly exciting refrigerator), Paul Sen has taken on a scary challenge. As Jim Al-Khalili made clear in his excellent The World According to Physics , our physical understanding of reality rests on three pillars: relativity, quantum theory and thermodynamics. But there is no doubt that the third of these, the topic of Sen's book, is a hard sell. While it's true that these are the three pillars of physics, from the point of view of making interesting popular science, the first two might be considered pillars of gold and platinum, while the third is a pillar of salt. Relativity and quantum theory are very much of the twentieth century. They are exciting and sometimes downright weird and wonderful. Thermodynamics, by contrast, has a very Victorian feel and, well, is uninspiring. Luckily, though, thermodynamics is important enough, lying behind ...
Post a Comment
Read more