4,8
PDF Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe with FREE MOBI EDITION Download Now!
The New York Times bestselling author of Darwin’s Doubt presents groundbreaking scientific evidence of the existence of God, based on breakthroughs in physics, cosmology, and biology.Beginning in the late 19th century, many intellectuals began to insist that scientific knowledge conflicts with traditional theistic belief—that science and belief in God are “at war.” Philosopher of science Stephen Meyer challenges this view by examining three scientific discoveries with decidedly theistic implications. Building on the case for the intelligent design of life that he developed in Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt, Meyer demonstrates how discoveries in cosmology and physics coupled with those in biology help to establish the identity of the designing intelligence behind life and the universe. Meyer argues that theism—with its affirmation of a transcendent, intelligent and active creator—best explains the evidence we have concerning biological and cosmological origins. Previously Meyer refrained from attempting to answer questions about “who” might have designed life. Now he provides an evidence-based answer to perhaps the ultimate mystery of the universe. In so doing, he reveals a stunning conclusion: the data support not just the existence of an intelligent designer of some kind—but the existence of a personal God.
At this time of writing, The Ebook Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe has garnered 9 customer reviews with rating of 5 out of 5 stars. Not a bad score at all as if you round it off, it’s actually a perfect TEN already. From the looks of that rating, we can say the Ebook is Good TO READ!
PDF Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe with FREE MOBI EDITION!
“In my first year of teaching, I had an exceptionally bright freshman student, a religious agnostic, who happened also to star as a defensive lineman on the football team. The student, who went on to get a PhD in computer science and philosophy of mind, began during his freshman year to investigate faith questions. To his great frustration, however, he found conversations with believing students intellectually unsatisfying.’’Why?“ He came to these discussions assuming that science had undermined the credibility of theistic belief. When he posed critical questions about why—in light of such challenges—he should consider belief in God, other students repeatedly told him, “I don’t know. You just have to have faith.”Terrible response.(Recalls (in contrast) the Proverbs chapter 22:“For your confidence to be in Jehovah,I am giving you knowledge today.Have I not already written you,Imparting advice and knowledgeTo teach you true and reliable words,So that you can return with an accurate report to the one who sent you.’’Good description of Meyer’s book)“After one of these conversations with a fellow undergraduate, he barged into my office to report in a loud voice about his disappointment with religious believers. He exclaimed in complete frustration,“Why can’t someone give you reasons for faith?”“I offered to do a class on the topic. His incredulous reaction still haunts me. He asked,“You mean you think there are some?”I then told him, by now with somewhat more conviction,“Of course. I wouldn’t be a Christian if I didn’t.”And this shows the purpose of this work. Scientific reasons for faith in a creator.Why did Meyer search?“I’ve long had special empathy for young people searching for answers to the big questions and for meaning and purpose in their lives. Their stories of cognitive dissonance and doubt, of angst and lost faith, move me in part because they remind me of my own experience of troubling questions and acute anxiety as a teenager.’’Meyer confronts another current problem . . .“While taking college philosophy classes, I realized that theism solved other fundamental philosophical problems. For example, since the Enlightenment, philosophers have found it difficult to justify a belief in the reliability of human knowledge of the physical world. Oddly, I worried about this too as teenager. I remember looking at a windowsill in my bedroom and wondering if the impression of it in my mind accurately represented the actual object in the world. I worried, “How do I know that my perceptions of reality are accurate?” You can probably imagine that I wasn’t much fun at parties! The problem of epistemology, the basis and justification of human knowledge, has commanded the attention of philosophers for centuries, many of whom doubted our perceptions and our ability to understand the workings of nature. Many philosophers have adopted various forms of skepticism or “antirealism” that deny the reliability of the human mind or our ability to form accurate representations of a mind-independent world around us.’’Right. What’s the answer?“ Krebbs argued that though the reliability of the human mind—and the assumptions it makes about the world—could not be justified empirically, it could be justified theologically. If one presupposed the existence of a benevolent God, one had good reason to trust in the design of the mind and the reliability of its built-in assumptions about the world. Theists assume the uniformity of nature, because they believe that God is a God of order who sustains the regularities that we describe as the laws of nature. Moreover, theists also believe that God designed human beings with their cognitive capacities.’’The same ‘designer’ of (physical) nature and the tool (mind) to understand it.“Therefore, they have reason to think that the assumption we all necessarily make about the uniformity of nature matches the way the world actually works. That assumption, in other words, is objectively true as well as subjectively necessary to our everyday functioning. As you will recall, this way of thinking led to the idea of the intelligibility of nature that provided a foundation for the scientific revolution.’’This prove God’s existence?“This type of argument did not prove the existence of God. But it did suggest that positing God’s existence allowed one to live consistently—such that one’s stated philosophy would match one’s implicit beliefs as expressed in action. Since we all live as though we believe that nature will exhibit the same basic laws and regularities in the future as it has in the past, and since only belief in a benevolent God provides an adequate explanation for the reliability of that and other such necessary assumptions, only theists have a belief system that matches the way they act.’’Now, I’ve realized that myself. Atheism isn’t really consistent. Almost.“ Krebbs argued, further, that when people act as if they accept the reliability of the mind and its built-in assumptions about the world, they are essentially acting as if they believe that God exists, even if they deny as much in their explicitly stated philosophies.’’Intriguing.Who else saw this?“Darwin worried about a closely related problem. He wondered how we could trust the reliability of our cognitive faculties if they had evolved from the minds of lower animals. As he explained in a letter to a friend . . .“But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”Yep, this a real problem. Think ‘fake news’. How to tell false or true?What other causes are there to adopt atheism?Mayer relates conversation with famous atheist Thomas Nagel . . .“I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”Wow!“His candor about his philosophical predilections impressed me and reminded me of some of my own internal struggles. During college, I was particularly conflicted in my philosophical inclinations and desires. As I perceived how theism answered many philosophical questions, some of my existential angst abated. At the same time, the sense of accountability that theistic belief placed on me put me in the awkward position of believing in God for philosophical reasons, but not wanting theism (and specifically Christianity) to be true for other, more personal reasons.’’He’s not the only one!Last page . . .“Nevertheless, this book has better news: neither of the widely offered responses to the death of God—angst or Sisyphean resistance—is in fact necessary. Not only does theism solve a lot of philosophical problems, but empirical evidence from the natural world points powerfully to the reality of a great mind behind the universe. Our beautiful, expanding, and finely tuned universe and the exquisite, integrated, and informational complexity of living organisms bear witness to the reality of a transcendent intelligence—a personal God.’’I agree.“The press of this evidence upon our scientific awareness suggests that we do not need to “invent” God or even to accept God’s existence as a mere philosophical necessity. Instead, reflecting on this evidence can enable us to discover—or rediscover—the reality of God. And that discovery is good news indeed. We are not alone in a vast impersonal and meaningless universe—the product of “blind, pitiless indifference.” Instead, the evidence points to a personal intelligence behind the physical world that we observe. This realization has inspired and can continue to inspire deep scientific investigation into the underlying order, beauty, and design of life and the universe.’’Think scientific revolution.“But it has another implication as well. As psychologist Viktor Frankl noted in his classic book Man’s Search for Meaning, human beings cannot help but ask questions about the meaning of their own existence. But since meaning can only be recognized and conferred by persons, and is arguably found best in relationship between persons, the return of the God hypothesis also revives a hopeful possibility—that our search for ultimate meaning need not end in vain.’’My favorite part.I present table of contents for excellent overview. Part I: The Rise and Fall of Theistic Science1 The Judeo-Christian Origins of Modern Science2 Three Metaphors and the Making of the Scientific World Picture3: The Rise of Scientific Materialism and the Eclipse of Theistic SciencePart II: Return of the God Hypothesis4 The Light from Distant Galaxies5: The Big Bang Theory6: The Curvature of Space and the Beginning of the Universe7: The Goldilocks Universe8: Extreme Fine Tuning—by Design?9: The Origin of Life and the DNA Enigma10: The Cambrian and Other Information ExplosionsPart III: Inference to the Best Metaphysical Explanation11: How to Assess a Metaphysical Hypothesis12: The God Hypothesis and the Beginning of the Universe13: The God Hypothesis and the Design of the Universe14: The God Hypothesis and the Design of LifePart IV: Conjectures and Refutations15: The Information Shell Game16: One God or Many Universes?17: Stephen Hawking and Quantum Cosmology18: The Cosmological Information Problem19: Collapsing Waves and Boltzmann BrainsPart V: Conclusion20: Acts of God or God of the Gaps?21: The Big Questions and Why They MatterMeyer writing for educated, serious, academic audience. Refers several times to his experiences while university professor. And basically considers reader such a student.Nevertheless, not obscure or pedantic, but, clear, respectful, direct. Most pages easy to chew, and pleasant to digest. Detailed explanation without becoming boring. Some overlap from his previous books.Uses primarily a historical, biographical method. Index shows numerous references to - Bayesian analysis, Big Bang, Boltzmann, Robert Boyle, Sean Caroll, Francis Crick, Darwin, Dawkins, Einstein, Hawking, Fred hoyle, Lawerance Krauss, Newton, Sir John polkinghorne, Carl Sagan, Allen Sandage, etc., etc..Profound research! And relates some personal conversations and even intimate revelations. Adds real insight and genuine interest.Does include scientific theory. Bayesian analysis, Doppler effect, quantum tunneling, DNA and information theory (Claude Shannon), Abduction (Charles Sanders Peirce), General Relativity, etc., etc..I learned a lot. And enjoyed it.I listened to audible version. Pleasant.RecommendedAbout one hundred photographsHundreds and hundreds of references in bibliographyTremendous scholarship!Hundreds and hundreds of extensive notes (linked)Overwhelming research!Exhaustive index (not linked)(See also: “The dogma of evolution Kindle Edition”’, by Louis Trenchard More; “The Evidence of Things Not Seen: Reflections on Faith, Science, and Economics” by Vernon Smith)
Post a Comment