<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: The untestable hypothesis
Review: I first got acquainted with Stannard's work when he appeared on a popular BBC program as part of a panel of distinguished scientists. The panel was assembled to comment on the problem of creationism in American public schools. When Stannard spoke I was intrigued to hear of an experiment that an organisation he was associated with was conducting: "The God Experiment".When I saw a copy of the book with the same name at a local book store, I bought it immediately. I had hoped that it described in detail the results of the "prayer" experiment that was out to "prove" (or disprove) God's Existence. Unfortunately mention of the actual experiment, conducted with the assistance of hundreds of patients about to undergo heart surgery, was quite brief and had not been completed at the time of publication. Instead, Stannard proclaims that the actual investigation into the existence of God requires multiple sources of evidence in addition to the actual empirical "prayer" experiment. Stannard commences by examining whether miracles can indeed occur. After a long discussion, he ultimately confesses that it is up to the individual to make up their mind. He then proceeds to dicuss the views of two psychologists regarding religion. He sides with the theistic psychologist and attempts to discredit the logic of the non-theistic one by employing some very simple, unconvincing arguments. His discussion on why suffering exists in the world is quite amusing. He turns the tables on the reader by proclaiming that in some instances evil and suffering are "necessary" and "good". In the light of this proclamation, he continues to say that it is plausible that God can exist in a world full of suffering. However, once again he concludes by falling back on his favourite expression: "It's a mystery". In later chapters Stannard discuss such topics as biological evolution and the big bang theory. He argues that at the fundamental level these scientific theories require the existence of God. Although I didn't agree with some of his conclusions, I was fascinated by his theories regarding God, time and Quantum mechanics. Stannard's book was an enjoyable read. He is a physicist that knows his material and may convince some readers of God's existence on a scientific level. However, his theological apologetics are very weak. Stannard should stick to particle physics.
Rating: 
Summary: If you open yourself up, it'll change the way you think
Review: In modern times, reconciling science and religion is a truly daunting task. Yet sub-atomic physicist and Christian, Russell Stannard, has, in 'The God Experiment' set out not just to do this but to provide scientific evidence for God's very existence. And its done incredibly. Stannard addresses every problem and aspect of God and belief from a scientific standpoint, intertwining the worlds of prayer, creation and resurection with those of quantum physics, evolution and even the social theories of Freud and Juny. He draws on a wealth of theories and seeks to unite them, some times going against them but always with respect. 'The God Experiment' is theologically liberal without shrinking from issues. It isn't a cliche and it is genuinely groundbreaking and individual in its thought. You can see Stannard is a man of great faith and yet his background is totally that of science. This book will challenge both those who are religious and those who are not. It is written with great precision and knowledge but makes no fraudulent claim to have all the answers, just represents radically different approaches to questions about our existence. Fortunately the science is mostly presented in an easy to understand fashion - it is only in the last 2 chapters where it becomes difficult and this is more because of the nature of the subject than its presentation. There are fascinating side-routes into the great philosophers, theologians and scientists which encourage further reading into a whole range of topics: the book deals with so much that it branches off into all sorts of different areas. Another important feature of the book is that it is not biased and always examines both sides of the story. The scientific apporach taken brings really novel ideas to the debate theologically. Occasionally the rigorous sticking to a scientific approach jars, but it is always interesting. The God Experiment is truly new and will change the way you think about God and science.
Rating:
Summary: Understand the merging of our God and our science.
Review: Russell Stannard is a scientist with the heart, mind, and soul of a theologian/minister and seeks to explore the compatibility of science and religious beliefs. He presents science that the intelligent layperson can understand, including quantum physics and relativity. In presenting evidence for the Big Bang and evolution, he goes beyond the intelligent design theories I have heard before, to include new ways of understanding God's role. He gives wonderful scientific/theological views on miracles, evil and suffering, the resurrection, how the world began, the physical laws of our world and how God relates to them. His exploration of the dimension of time that we live in, but that God is beyond, is wonderfully enlightening and mentally challenging. The analogies he presents when discussing complex issues of science or of God's relationship to us are wonderful new ways of understanding age-old questions. I highly recommend this book for those seekers or scholars who are trying to comprehend how our concept of God fits with today's scientific knowledge of the world and our place in it.
Rating: 
Summary: A Mixed Review
Review: The author's scientific credentials are impeccable, but his knowledge of Christianity is pretty dismal. For example, he writes that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. I'm no Biblical scholar, but I know that, not only is there no Scriptural authority for that claim; there is no evidence whatsoever. If a "creation scientist" claimed that the dinosaurs were animals that Noah forgot to put on the Ark, he would be ridiculed as an illiterate Bible pounder. When a man of learning chooses to write about religion and science, he owes it to his audience to be as careful about his religious data as he is about his scientific data. The author accepts the Resurrection on faith, although he says that if it turned out that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, he (Stannard) would still be a Christian. The truth is, if Jesus didn't die and rise again, his whole mission is pointless. I was disappointed, but others might enjoy this book. It's not the worst book in the world; I may have set my hopes too high.
Rating: 
Summary: Shouldn't Quit His Day Job1.
Review: To flesh out what one previous reviewer hinted at, this book attempts what several philanthropic organizations are paying good money for: To meld religion (Faith/Un-reason) and Science (Reason / Unbelief). It is a mildly interesting read, yet Stannard ends up doing a dis-service to both particle/ Astro-physics, and Christian Apologetics. There is a sound thinking behind epistmilogically seperating physics and meta-physics: one is academic, one is artistic. The last culture to wed them with success was the Greek, and we are long past Athenian philosophical treatises on objectivity and subjectivity. Try reading Stephen Hawking, and Debates between Dan Barker and William Craig on The Secular Web. At least it was short, though.
Rating:
Summary: Shouldn't Quit His Day Job1.
Review: To flesh out what one previous reviewer hinted at, this book attempts what several philanthropic organizations are paying good money for: To meld religion (Faith/Un-reason) and Science (Reason / Unbelief). It is a mildly interesting read, yet Stannard ends up doing a dis-service to both particle/ Astro-physics, and Christian Apologetics. There is a sound thinking behind epistmilogically seperating physics and meta-physics: one is academic, one is artistic. The last culture to wed them with success was the Greek, and we are long past Athenian philosophical treatises on objectivity and subjectivity. Try reading Stephen Hawking, and Debates between Dan Barker and William Craig on The Secular Web. At least it was short, though.
<< 1 >>
| 
