The Philosophical Scientists

The British trained scientist/author presents a pro-religion argument in this short book. He takes aim at Darwin's theory of natural selection and Herbert Spencer's coined phrase "survival of the fittest," and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. His argument is based on the improbability of the above stated tenets based on specificity -- the probable inordinate lengthy amount time needed for an item to evolve to certain complexity verse the perceived age of the universe (one example used is haemoglobin). During the author's presentation, he presents a whos-who list of physicists. "I have found few, from Einstein to Schrodinger, who at some stage or another did not have to introduce God." The reference to 'mind stuff' is the stated opinion that once you get to a certain level in any science the language of mathematics dominates which is the representation of 'mind stuff' -- abstract and generalized. "The idea of a universal mind or LOGOS would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." - Sir Arthur Eddington "If the universe is a universe of thought, then its creations must have been an act or thought." - Sir James Jeans Once the author introduced the term LOGOS, with its religious implication, I knew one element of the fundamentalist science believing community of readers would attack his thesis no matter what [they drank the Kool-aide long ago and will not change], but the author's version of God would bother most believers of most established religions. "It appears that 'THE STUFF OF THE WORLD IS MIND-STUFF,' and that this applies both to the Void [God] and its shaping [LOGOS]. We are virtually back to something like Genesis." Personally, I enjoyed and recommend this book and I find its most harsh book review critics interesting, especially when they attack the author's intelligence and use misspelled words to do so, ignoring the argument. Stuart Kauffman's latest book "Reinventing the Sacred" might be a good follow-up to read. [NOTE: I do not claim to be an English usage expert so disregard any poor grammar or misspellings -- thanks]

A friend lent me a copy of this little book and I must admit that I expected it to be just another in a long line of books that start from the premise: "wow! the universe is complicated so it must have been created." But it is not that at all. The author makes a very specific and telling comment on the state of science today, at least physics, that it was largely derailed from its search for an understanding of the cosmos by the Second World War and the practical concerns that needed to be addressed at that time. Physics became focused on very practical matters of defense, rather than knowledge for its own sake. This changed focus continues to the present day, largely because of continuing military and corporate funding of most physical research. I think it was Paul Forman from the Smithsonian that said that many people today no longer have faith in Science mainly because scientists seem to be for sale to the funder with the deepest pockets. The scientific method no longer is seen as a producer of inviolate truth. Instead, we get partisan politics. As for the specific points that Mr. Foster makes, although very thought provoking, I find myself not convinced of his arguments, because ultimately, it is all based on the assertion that the universe is made up of "mind stuff" and what that is is left to the discretion of the reader. Thought provoking but ultimately not very useful. We sort of know what he is speaking about, but it doesn't take us any closer to an understanding of what "mind stuff" is. I contrast this with another book that I read recently: "An Introduction to Awareness" by James Corrigan in which the author does in fact specify exactly what "mind stuff" is (he doesn't use that expression) and how the cosmos and our consciousness of it and ourselves works. You can read the two together, starting with Foster's book, and I think you will see that alternatives to the mechanical, material view of reality do exist. Corrigan's specific purpose, he says in the book, is to gives us an understanding of reality that allows for Science and Spirituality, although not dogmatic religion, nor for that matter scientism. The basic point that I find difficult to accept is that the universe was created. Both Science and Religion seem to require an event horizon for the universe and I think in both cases the story is just an imaginative tale not worth fighting over. Foster's focus on a creation event is not necessary for the otherwise thought-provoking ideas he brings to light. It's worth reading however.