Return of the God Hypothesis

[Skull]

About one hour interview with Meyer about his valuable new book - which I have yet to read:

 

[sealybobo]

About one hour interview with Meyer about his valuable new book:

So not even a theory. Doesn’t qualify as a theory. Still just a hypothesis

 

[Skull]

So not even a theory. Doesn’t qualify as a theory. Still just a hypothesis

A thesaurus gives them as virtual synonyms.

 

[sealybobo]

So not even a theory. Doesn’t qualify as a theory. Still just a hypothesis

A thesaurus gives them as virtual synonyms.

No. On can hypothesize a god exists. But you would need some evidence for it to become a theory. Testable. Verifiable. And what your grandmother told you doesn’t count as evidence.

 

[TransLivesMatter]

Are there any facts that can prove that God exists?
What does it matter anyways? Conservatives make up their own facts and will believe anything a loud mouth preacher tells them

 

[Skull]

Another supportive review, in text:

Return of the God Hypothesis

 

[Skull]

This is a balanced review from goodreads:

Gilad Sommer rated it liked it [three stars]

First of all, I really admire Meyer's intellectual depth and width. His ability to understand and explain different areas of scientific knowledge is impressive. I read his book "Signature in the Cell", and I found his arguments for the need of intelligent intervention in the formation of the DNA code and his criticism of the unsatisfying explanations of Neo-Darwinism convincing.
I had a few problems with this book, however.
The first part of the book is a synthesis of the ideas he developed in his last two books, as well as new ideas about the "fine tuning" of the universe. As usual, he covers them with aplomb, although I felt he was less pedagogic than usual. His criticism of the inadequate materialistic explanations of the origins of life and the universe are convincing.
When it comes to theological arguments, however, that's when he becomes a Christian apologist instead of a scientist or philosopher. He treats other theologies in quite a superficial way.
For example, his description of Hinduism as a form of pantheism, and its one-page cancellation, is quite condescending and shows a shallow view of the topic.
In my opinion, Meyer should have stopped in the possibility of the existence of a Judeo-Christian-like creator God, but not try and explain it as the best possibility among different theological causes.

To sum, this book brings up interesting reasonings for the possibility of a Judeo-Christian creator god, but lacks a theological depth and width equal to its scientific-intellectual one.
If you're a Christian looking to justify your already held beliefs then this book is for you.
If you're looking for a serious scientific discussion of the mysteries of the universe, I recommend his other two books.

 

[sealybobo]

This is a balanced review from goodreads:

Gilad Sommer rated it liked it [three stars]

First of all, I really admire Meyer's intellectual depth and width. His ability to understand and explain different areas of scientific knowledge is impressive. I read his book "Signature in the Cell", and I found his arguments for the need of intelligent intervention in the formation of the DNA code and his criticism of the unsatisfying explanations of Neo-Darwinism convincing.
I had a few problems with this book, however.
The first part of the book is a synthesis of the ideas he developed in his last two books, as well as new ideas about the "fine tuning" of the universe. As usual, he covers them with aplomb, although I felt he was less pedagogic than usual. His criticism of the inadequate materialistic explanations of the origins of life and the universe are convincing.
When it comes to theological arguments, however, that's when he becomes a Christian apologist instead of a scientist or philosopher. He treats other theologies in quite a superficial way.
For example, his description of Hinduism as a form of pantheism, and its one-page cancellation, is quite condescending and shows a shallow view of the topic.
In my opinion, Meyer should have stopped in the possibility of the existence of a Judeo-Christian-like creator God, but not try and explain it as the best possibility among different theological causes.

To sum, this book brings up interesting reasonings for the possibility of a Judeo-Christian creator god, but lacks a theological depth and width equal to its scientific-intellectual one.
If you're a Christian looking to justify your already held beliefs then this book is for you.
If you're looking for a serious scientific discussion of the mysteries of the universe, I recommend his other two books.

Spoiler Alert. He doesn’t bring us any closer to proving god.

If his arguments were good I suspect you’ll start making them here and then we will let you know their fatal flaws

 

[Skull]

Spoiler Alert. He doesn’t bring us any closer to proving god.

If his arguments were good I suspect you’ll start making them here and then we will let you know their fatal flaws

Why wait for me, who has not even started the book? Read it yourself and enlighten us. But you would have to be open to doing that.

By the by, I am a Buddhist, so Theism is not my "thing".

 

[sealybobo]

Spoiler Alert. He doesn’t bring us any closer to proving god.

If his arguments were good I suspect you’ll start making them here and then we will let you know their fatal flaws

Why wait for me, who has not even started the book? Read it yourself and enlighten us. But you would have to be open to doing that.

I’m not.

So you haven’t even read it yet? Omg! Lol

 

[Skull]

Considering Sommer's review, I may never read it. But it will influence many away from orthodox scientific materialism as an explanation for everything - which is good.

"When it comes to theological arguments, however, that's when he becomes a Christian apologist instead of a scientist or philosopher. He treats other theologies in quite a superficial way.
For example, his description of Hinduism as a form of pantheism, and its one-page cancellation, is quite condescending and shows a shallow view of the topic.
In my opinion, Meyer should have stopped in the possibility of the existence of a Judeo-Christian-like creator God, but not try and explain it as the best possibility among different theological causes."