- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
This interesting, short book attempts the impossible - and fails.
Would that Dr. Haisch had stayed in his field of expertise, astronomy, and used the powers of scientific enquiry and logic at his disposal, perhaps he would not have come to the erroneous conclusions that he did. First and foremost, he errs in state that "While scientific orthodoxy boasts no churches, it is nonetheless a faith - a faith whose ritual is skepticism." He seems to forget that the objective of science is to question all hypotheses until satisfactory and repeatable proof has been provided. Skepticism is what allowed him to become the acclaimed astronomer he is! Take skepticism away from science and you are left with ... Faith! Unquestionable, improvable, unreliable and totally unscientific.
Take, for example, his 'if-then' proposition on pages 66-67: "If consciousness underlies the universe, and your own consciousness is capable of seeing into or communicating with other levels of consciousness, then what people, especially mystics, have seen and experienced does constitute real data. In this view, we are all little pieces of the same consciousness that has deliberately fragmented itself so that you can be you and I can be me. This is the essence of the God Theory." By ASSUMING that his two "if" statements are true and unassailable, he proceeds to his "then" statement as a logical conclusion and the basis for his whole theory. But it is, in fact, not a scientific theory, since to become a theory, in science, the theory must begin as a "model" and cannot proceed to a "theory" until it has been thoroughly empirically and riskily tested, and show itself to be useful. Hence, he elevates his untested "model" of God to the status of "theory", belying his use of faith as the support of his argument rather than logic and the scientific principle.
Interestingly, Dr. Haisch cites only 24 books from a mere 20 authors in his failed God Theory. This is a good read for those who want to see the use of pseudo-scientific principles, pseudo-logic and scientific wording to obfuscate the real issue: the lack of support for his failed hypothesis.
2 out of 4 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted May 30, 2009
Very simple thoery
I found this book to be more of an autobiography than anything else. It is interesting but don't buy it for education or research. The actual theory could have been written in about 10 pages.
I like his theory. I wish he would have expanded it somewhat.
1 out of 3 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.