Scot Adams (http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/about.html), the creator of Dilbert (http://www.dilbert.com/), has also written a couple of books. In the last couple of days, I've read my way through
God's Debris (free for download (http://www.andrewsmcmeel.com/godsdebris/)), and I must say that it was mighty amusing, entertaning and mind-twisting!
It's an easy-to-read book, it doesn't take long time, but after just have read it one time, I really feel like starting over again straight away! If you have some hours to spare (not many, 10 at the most I'd say), I'd really reccomend you to take a look at this one :)
I'm not good at making interesting summaries/synopsis, so I'll just quote the introduction of the book:
Quote from: God's DebrisThis is not a Dilbert book. It contains no humor. I call it a 132-page thought experiment wrapped in a fictional story. I’ll explain the thought experiment part later.
God’s Debris doesn’t fit into normal publishing cubbyholes. There is even disagreement about whether the material is fiction or nonfiction. I contend that it is fiction because the characters don’t exist. Some people contend that it is nonfiction because the opinions and philosophies of the characters might have lasting impact on the reader.
The story contains no violence, no sexual content, and no offensive language. But the ideas expressed by the characters are inappropriate for young minds. People under the age of fourteen should not read it.
The target audience for God’s Debris is people who enjoy having their brains spun around inside their skulls. After a certain age most people are uncomfortable with new ideas. That certain age varies by person, but if you’re over fifty-five (mentally) you probably won’t enjoy this thought experiment. If you’re eighty going on thirty-five, you might like it. If you’re twenty-three, your odds of liking it are very good.
The story’s central character has a view about God that you’ve probably never heard before. If you think you would be offended by a fictional character’s untraditional view of God, please don’t read this.
The opinions and philosophies expressed by the characters are not my own, except by coincidence in a few spots not worth mentioning. Please don’t write me with passionate explanations of why my views are wrong. You won’t discover my opinions by reading my fiction.
The central character in God’s Debris knows everything. Literally everything. This presented a challenge to me as a writer. When you consider all of the things that can be known, I don’t know much. My solution was to create smart-sounding answers using the skeptic’s creed: The simplest explanation is usually right.
My experience tells me that in this complicated world the simplest explanation is usually dead wrong. But I’ve noticed that the simplest explanation usually sounds right and is far more convincing than any complicated explanation could hope to be. That’s good enough for my purposes here.
The simplest-explanation approach turned out to be more provocative than I expected. The simplest explanations for the Big Questions ended up connecting paths that don’t normally get connected. The description of reality in God’s Debris isn’t true, as far as I know, but it’s oddly compelling. Therein lies the thought experiment: Try to figure out what’s wrong with the simplest explanations.
The central character states a number of scientific “facts.†Some of his weirdest statements are consistent with what scientists generally believe. Some of what he says is creative baloney designed to sound true. See if you can tell the difference.
You might love this thought experiment wrapped in a story. Or you might hate it. But you won’t easily get it out of your mind. For maximum enjoyment, share God’s Debris with a smart friend and then discuss it while enjoying a tasty beverage.
Think I'm definetly gonna get my hands on the sequal,
The Religion War, and I'll probably also see if I can get a hardcopy of
God's Debris - would be two nice books to have in my book shelf :)
Thanks Bob, I shall give it a go!
TL.
35 pages in and I'm hooked:learn:
Cool! :yahoo:
Just stumbled upon this again. Bump for those that like to read stuff that makes brains spin.
Yeah it a great read, lead to me and a mate discussing it for about 4 hours while at work. (Thank god for working in HE) :)
It is always nice to get a free book. However, the book is purely fiction. It is full of logical gaps and faulty assumptions. Also I get a bit concerned when I know the author, afaik, is a creationist.
Quote from: BrotherTobious;279316(Thank god for working in HE) :)
Amen to that. Which one?
Quote from: Dr Sadako;279918It is always nice to get a free book. However, the book is purely fiction. It is full of logical gaps and faulty assumptions. Also I get a bit concerned when I know the author, afaik, is a creationist.
There is no doubt Adams is religious, I just ignore that. The philisophical questions of free is always interesting. Agreed, more interesting when Hawking (or, especially John Gribbin) discuss it, since I personally can relate to it, and because I often disagreed with Adams, but I enjoyed it.
Quote from: Carr0t;279924Amen to that. Which one?
University of Portsmouth :)
Quote from: Dr Sadako;279918It is full of logical gaps and faulty assumptions.
Ah, but you would say that you are a scientist!:boxing::devil::D
A mildly amusing read, with the prospect of the human plaster, and moreover, religious overtones to abandon contraception and turn the other cheek rather outdated.......I wonder if the sequel explain anything about those nasty God pimples called Supernova's?.
Have to say I'm with The Doc on this one.:stroke:
Well I've read the thing, and a couple of hours reading led to a complete change in the way I see things, I imagine it will take far far longer to settle in. I don't immediately believe in god, or reject everything I've learned about physics, this book is more like a self help book. It teaches you about people, or even yourself.
If you think about this book in detail it neither supports god nor science. It is written cleverly. I liked some of the arguments used like the theory of evolution, the different maps etc.
In the past religion guided actions, the fear of heaven or hell kept people in line. As the book correctly says, probablity has taken over. We weight our options by potential outcomes. Will an action lead us to life in prison, will it make people like us, will we be richer/poorer for it.
4 billion people "believe" in god is what I come away from this book remembering. If there was a god who demanded what religion asks and people believed this they would act as he asks. It is merely conformity which has people believing. However that is just as true with science. As a scientist I put my faith in peer review. I don't personally check all the facts. I trust that the majority of scientists that have checked something did it correctly. I don't question things I "know" to be correct. I "know" they're correct as many people can talk me through why they're correct. Much like religious people can convince people there is a god, I'm convinced science holds the answers. So essentially science and religion serve the same role in society, faith in a system that tells us in various ways how to live our lives.
Pretty deep book.
I found the book truly amazing and entertaining (hey, it was I who recommended it in the first place :flirty:). Haven't gotten as far as to buy the sequel,
The Religion War, yet - but it is still some place on my todo list.
Quote from: T-Bag;280104As a scientist I put my faith in peer review. I don't personally check all the facts. I trust that the majority of scientists that have checked something did it correctly. I don't question things I "know" to be correct. I "know" they're correct as many people can talk me through why they're correct. Much like religious people can convince people there is a god, I'm convinced science holds the answers.
The main - and very important difference - with science versus religion, is that in science you have the (at least theoretical) opportunity to control and check the answers others have come up with. That is the simplest definition of science in my mind: a series of clearly defined steps, that can be reproduced an infinite amount of time, and always will give the same answer/conclusion as earlier.
Right, pull up that chair Bob, I've got some beer, let's try and kill four hours :D
Quote from: T-Bag;280104Well I've read the thing, and a couple of hours reading led to a complete change in the way I see things, this book is more like a self help book. It teaches you about people, or even yourself.
But interestingly they didn't market it that way, perhaps because most self help books, in my opinion, begin treating the reader like a moron who has never thought for themselves in the first place, which of course could be true?....If however, you have had the occasion to contemplate your navel on a regular basis, then the base lessons here are a bit like doing revision, you knew it anyway but it always helps with the memory.
Quote from: T-Bag;280104If you think about this book in detail it neither supports god nor science. It is written cleverly. I liked some of the arguments used like the theory of evolution, the different maps etc.
There we would have to disagree. The slant for me was clearly to religion, and, if you were going to be crass about it, I would liken this book to a meandering rediscovery of an individual's own beliefs in religion, interspersed with the "other side's" arguements, to form a "new wave" version of religion.
Quote from: T-Bag;280104In the past religion guided actions, the fear of heaven or hell kept people in line. As the book correctly says, probablity has taken over. We weight our options by potential outcomes. Will an action lead us to life in prison, will it make people like us, will we be richer/poorer for it.
And in the past before religion guided actions, it wasn't science, but the FEAR of something else (King\Chieftan\Dinosaur) that guided actions.
This for me is the crux of my discontentment with the book. We are still animals, whether we want to believe it or not, whether we aspire to be "above" the rest of the planet....hell, he even argues himself that GOD would not put humans first as he wouldn't have that concept of "premier creature". Yet, when suggesting Humans would be Band Aids to the supreme being's rehabilitation, completely forgets? that he has already argued that if GOD was the big bang, then everything and every creature would have to be part of that reconstitution, and not just humans.
In effect he is theorising, and rather poorly in my opinion, that the reason there are no more miracles is because GOD needs to be whole again (convenient) but, if the whole of the Universe is God, then until it all comes together again (Is there a scientist in the house?) then faith will just have to remain that.......a Human perception that no Scientist will ever be able to disprove......ergo, inertia for Mankind forever......bet God didn't see that coming?!!:narnar:
Quote from: T-Bag;2801044 billion people "believe" in god is what I come away from this book remembering.
Shame those 4 Billion don't believe in the first Commandment then?.....for their very "faith" and the actions the pursue in it's name will ensure he never lives again (another convenience?).
Quote from: T-Bag;280104Pretty deep book.
Well they do say you can drown in two inches of water:devil:
I'm all for science. In July I'll be shaking hands with some very nice people handing me some paper who think I'm acceptable at it. In October some very nice people will start giving me money to do some research for them and hopefully in a few years time I'll get to call myself Doctor*. I fully believe that science is right, and religion is the cause of a large number of the problems in the world, now and for the past few thousand years.
It's one of those things though, you have one person that believes something and it's not a problem. You get a large enough group and there can be no logical discussion.
It does no harm to take a step back and hear a contrary point of view and use that as an excersise to reassure yourself you're correct.
Though when I tried this with some Jehova's witnesses I kept pointing out holes in their logic and cyclic arguments and they didn't seem to enjoy it. I can quote what they said:
Them: If there was a god how would you get to know him?
Me: I suppose I would mave to meet him
Them: Wouldn't you want to read his autobiography?
Me: Books are written with a viewpoint in mind. Even modern biographies are written by ghost writers and leave anything negative out.
Them: Not the bible.
Me: Even if it was his word originally, over the years it has changed and been translated. The people doing that have a perspective they want to get across.
Them: Do you know the name of god?
Me: Ermm... Jehova?
Them: Yes. It was in the Bible 8000 originally.
Me: That's my point. Someone decided they didn't want it so it was removed. It's not the fully story anymore.
Them: The bible is the truth.
So yes. Religious belief is often there because it's not been fully thought through. Hopefully if read by a typical christian would ask enough questions that atleast the way they think about god will change slightly, which is a good first step.
P.S: Dingo if the Theory of inflation is to be believed then the universe is perfectly balanced. It shouldn't contract. It will expand at it's current rate for a while and then when cool enough the dark energy regime will dominate and the rate of expansion will become exponential and the universe will become very dark and very cold.
*The piece of paper is an MPhys degree, and the Phd will be in anti-matter physics performing laser spectroscopy of positronium in Swansea and Cern.
Quote from: T-Bag;280162P.S: . It will expand at it's current rate for a while and then when cool enough the dark energy regime will dominate
Are we talking about the Universe or the EU?
Quote from: T-Bag;280162...... and the universe will become very dark and very cold.
......but at which time a Saviour will be born, and three old blokes in pointy hats will follow a star to the East, hang on, I've just had an idea for a book!!:norty::)
ps Good luck with the PhD:D
QuoteGod's Debris creates a philosophy based on the idea that the simplest explanation tends to be the best, which is a corruption of Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor).
The problem with having an omnipotent [insert deity of choice] is that it by its definition i.e. omnipotent is that he/she/it is not simple in any shape or form and thus contradicts the entire argumentation of the book. Even if [insert deity of choice] was not omnipotent but was powerful enough to create the universe it is still a pretty darn complex entity we are discussing. In comparion the Big Bang, deity excluded, is actually a far simpler explanation and fits better to both the books idea and Occam's razor.
On top of that the book adds the idea that "God" is collecting itself. Hey ... if that isn't even more complex and as far from "simplest explanation" you can get I don't know.
As I said previously. It is fiction with a touch of pandeism. Some of the science presented is not accurate or bent versions of the truth.
Quote from: Dingo;280152Right, pull up that chair Bob, I've got some beer, let's try and kill four hours :D
Sounds like a grand idea :cheers:
I live in Trondheim, you live "Somewhere over the Rainbow", so where should we meet up? :narnar:
Quote from: Bob;280198Sounds like a grand idea :cheers:
I live in Trondheim, you live "Somewhere over the Rainbow", so where should we meet up? :narnar:
Ah Bob, I think you fail to see the similarities?!:rolleyes: (requires more than two inches of water!), which upon one level could disappoint, but if you have a "hot sister", would not be incompatible!!.:devil:.
As I understand it (you may disagree) , Norwegian women are amongst the most intelligent (and caring.....whatever!) women on the planet......so they clearly know where I live (which of course may be right next to you).....if you wish to get in touch with your "feminine side" then I would suggest you volunteer to run the National Football Team.......but whatever you do, don't begin to imagine that the "women" are not in control.......and GOD will be so P****d, he may even write a book about it......with a title like the Bibble, or similar.
I can save your sister!..........but does she come with a refund voucher:taz: