Rating: 
Summary: Can one know the mind of God?
Review: Paul Davies book, 'The Mind of God', is a follow-up to is book, 'God and the New Physics.'Davies explores in more depth and detail the philosophical implications of modern physics and how the theories and ideas of modern physics can help in the understanding (and occasionally, deepen the confusion) of ideas that have been in the traditional purview of philosophy and theology. In this respect, science has a basic question that comes to the root of all systems of thought -- why? 'Scientists themselves normally take it for granted that we live in a rational, ordered cosmos subject to precise laws that can be uncovered by human reasoning. Yet why this should be so remains a tantalising mystery. Why should human beings have the ability to discover and understand the principles on which the universe runs?' Davies discusses certain conceptual principles that are essential to the discussion. The division between rational and irrational, particularly in light of 'common sense' -- not too long ago science held itself to be rational because it more conformed to 'common sense' than did 'irrational' religion; as science edges toward the irrational (defined in common sense terms) it loses the ability to use that argument against religion. 'It is a fact of life that people hold beliefs, especially in the field of religion, which might be regarded as irrational. That they are held irrationally doesn't mean they are wrong.' Davies admits his bias toward rationalism, but leaves room open for discussion. He discusses metaphysics in terms of Kant, Hume, and Descartes, drawing into question the very idea of rationality and the terms of existence in which the scientific universe operates. 'No attempt to explain the world, either scientifically or theologically, can be considered successful until it accounts for the paradoxical conjunction of the temporal and the atemporal.' From this opening discussion, Davies proceeds to examine the creation of the universe, asking the interesting question in terms of quantum realities -- does the universe have to have had a creator? And, even if scientifically the universe can 'spontaneously' come into being (as some mathematical models and theories seem to allow), how do we account for the construct of laws of nature that permit such a spontaneous generation? Once again, the question 'where is God?' can still have meaning. Davies spends a great deal of time looking at the nature and use of mathematics in understanding the 'real' world and 'virtual' worlds. Does mathematics exist independently of the universe, or independently of the human conscious construct of mathematics? At what points does mathematical meaning break down (for instance, in the very early universe, when the volume falls below the so-called Planck time, where the universe is theoretically too small for mathematics to be operative). In the final chapter, Davies returns to the ideas of mysticism and the limits of science. 'Mysticism is no substitute for scientific inquiry and logical reasoning so long as this approach can be consistently applied. It is only in dealing with ultimate questions that science and logic fail us. I am not saying that science and logic are likely to provide the wrong answers, but they may be incapable of addressing the sort of 'why' (as opposed to 'how') questions we want to ask.' While many scientists have mistrust of religion and mysticism, there are nonetheless notable exceptions, scientists who themselves are deeply religious or have a mystical turn of mind, such as Einstein, Pauli, Schrödinger and Heisenberg. This is another fascinating trip through the realm of modern science with a particular emphasis on how we know what we know and what there really is to know, and what is in fact knowable.
Rating:
Summary: Can one know the mind of God?
Review: Paul Davies book, `The Mind of God', is a follow-up to is book, `God and the New Physics.' Davies explores in more depth and detail the philosophical implications of modern physics and how the theories and ideas of modern physics can help in the understanding (and occasionally, deepen the confusion) of ideas that have been in the traditional purview of philosophy and theology. In this respect, science has a basic question that comes to the root of all systems of thought -- why? `Scientists themselves normally take it for granted that we live in a rational, ordered cosmos subject to precise laws that can be uncovered by human reasoning. Yet why this should be so remains a tantalising mystery. Why should human beings have the ability to discover and understand the principles on which the universe runs?' Davies discusses certain conceptual principles that are essential to the discussion. The division between rational and irrational, particularly in light of 'common sense' -- not too long ago science held itself to be rational because it more conformed to 'common sense' than did 'irrational' religion; as science edges toward the irrational (defined in common sense terms) it loses the ability to use that argument against religion. `It is a fact of life that people hold beliefs, especially in the field of religion, which might be regarded as irrational. That they are held irrationally doesn't mean they are wrong.' Davies admits his bias toward rationalism, but leaves room open for discussion. He discusses metaphysics in terms of Kant, Hume, and Descartes, drawing into question the very idea of rationality and the terms of existence in which the scientific universe operates. `No attempt to explain the world, either scientifically or theologically, can be considered successful until it accounts for the paradoxical conjunction of the temporal and the atemporal.' From this opening discussion, Davies proceeds to examine the creation of the universe, asking the interesting question in terms of quantum realities -- does the universe have to have had a creator? And, even if scientifically the universe can 'spontaneously' come into being (as some mathematical models and theories seem to allow), how do we account for the construct of laws of nature that permit such a spontaneous generation? Once again, the question 'where is God?' can still have meaning. Davies spends a great deal of time looking at the nature and use of mathematics in understanding the 'real' world and 'virtual' worlds. Does mathematics exist independently of the universe, or independently of the human conscious construct of mathematics? At what points does mathematical meaning break down (for instance, in the very early universe, when the volume falls below the so-called Planck time, where the universe is theoretically too small for mathematics to be operative). In the final chapter, Davies returns to the ideas of mysticism and the limits of science. `Mysticism is no substitute for scientific inquiry and logical reasoning so long as this approach can be consistently applied. It is only in dealing with ultimate questions that science and logic fail us. I am not saying that science and logic are likely to provide the wrong answers, but they may be incapable of addressing the sort of 'why' (as opposed to 'how') questions we want to ask.' While many scientists have mistrust of religion and mysticism, there are nonetheless notable exceptions, scientists who themselves are deeply religious or have a mystical turn of mind, such as Einstein, Pauli, Schrödinger and Heisenberg. This is another fascinating trip through the realm of modern science with a particular emphasis on how we know what we know and what there really is to know, and what is in fact knowable.
Rating: 
Summary: "nothingness" and a nothing book
Review: Paul Davies is a physicist who is at the limits of the knowledge God may well have imposed on human beings. To reject belief in God, is to ultimately belive that physics can describe to humanity the concept of "nothingness". He rambles about how the laws of physics could have come about themselves or their analogy with mathematical laws, which have "always existed". At times he he is trying to convince himself in self creation as much as the reader, yet it all falls down for he knows himself, no human mind can tell us what "nothingness" is. His attacks on Christianity and Islam are pathetic. He has NEVER read a single respectable translation of the Qur'aan. In all he displays nothing more than the neo-humanist ideas prevelant in western academia, where mankind finds its own moral values or lack of them.
Rating: 
Summary: A fascinating journey, a doubtful destination
Review: Paul Davies takes us on a journey through the centuries and the insights of scientists and philosophers who spend lifetimes pondering the questions of existence. Its a fascinating journey. The ridiculous looks sublime and the sublime ridiculous as we sift through hypotheses on our path towards ultimate truth. A particularly satisfying insight for me was the realization that the scientific "God" does not equate with "The Unknown" in the sense of 'that which is not yet known' but rather "The Unknowable" in the sense of 'that which cannot be known'. I came across Godel's Incompleteness Theorem about a decade and a half ago but never realized its significance in this context. But whereas the journey is fascinating, the destination is disappointing: a transcendent being accessible through mysticism. Really! Well, if its a choice between mysticism and "The Unknowable" I'll take the "The Unknowable" any day. I can live with that. I mean what is life without a bit of mystery. But then what do I know. I found the map so difficult to understand that its probably not surprising the I failed to reach the destination. What I do know is that my next book will not be one on mysticism though I wouldn't mind getting my hands on a copy of "The Cosmic Blueprint". By the way, in answer to the question posed in the book: how can you tell the difference between a vivid dream and reality? Well, try reading "The Mind of God" next time you have a vivid dream. You'll soon wake up to yourself!
Rating:
Summary: A must read for the religious and the intelligent.
Review: Religion, Philosophy and Science are neatly contrasted against each other on the subjects which matter. Concepts in theoretical physics are explained in lay-person's terms and are thus very readable and understandable to the non-dork. The only thing not covered in this book, much to my dismay is the comparing and contrasting of the enormous black holes in our universe to the gaping holes in the "religious whacko" ideology, which we have somehow tolerated throughout history!
Rating:
Summary: Best in this subject. My favorite book of all time! so far
Review: The author has his feet firmly planted in science, but, unlike some scientists, is not afraid to try to tackle the really tough and meaningful issues. Extremely well written. Requires no background in math or physics but some sections you may have to read twice. This book really is a MUST READ. Conclusions are a little surprising.
Rating: 
Summary: Great subject matter but limited depth of explanations
Review: The author's introduction of Stephen Hawking's theory on the origins of the universe and the clever way in which quantum physics explains time and space bending toward the massive gravity of the big bang is fascinating, as a result it was argued we do not need a creator per se because there is no beginning. The blend of philosophical and scientific information was captivating. In addition, the author expounded on the notion of a universe that is computer generated following the same universal laws, in other words our universe was created by a computer, and perhaps we are on the threshold of creating our very own universe (a la Isaac Asimov's "The Last Question.") - this theory was simulated in John Conway's "game of life" which can be viewed on the internet. However, much of the book felt indecipherable - not necessarily because of the complexity, but the lack of depth of certain concepts. It's possible that this book was not intended to be read by a scientific layperson, however, I feel that I am a clever enough person to understand many of these concepts. The author consistently referred to other books or other chapters, which made this book feel more like a summary than a unique read. He would eagerly explain a certain theorem and then disregard an adequate explanation (one glaring and frustrating area was his explanation of omega.) I felt as if I should have read some of the books he was referring to rather than read his. So the upshot of reading this book was that I fully intend to explore other scientific and philosophical issues that were covered in "The Mind of God." The subject mater is superb, but the depth of the explanations was very limited.
Rating:
Summary: Good information -- but not impressed with writer's style
Review: The writer presented excellent information to readers who are interested in relating the latest advances in physics and the question of God's role in the universe. I think there is a wealth of information provided and an attempt by the author to amalgamate many (too many) views in the scientific community from ancient Greeks to modern times. However, I think there are 2 major flaws in the book: First, the author has limited his analysis (intentionally or unintentionally) to the so called western-philosophies with only a couple of references to eastern schools of thought. He has fallen in to the trap that many western thinkers have fallen into, which is that the domain of nature philosophies has only started from the Greek and gone westward ever since. I found that narrow and limiting. Second, the style of writing made me feel like I am reading a researcher's notebook where the emphasis on stuffing the pages of information without paying close attention to the easy flow of the developing argument or thought. The writer managed to develop many thoughts and arguments, but could have made it an easier read.
Rating:
Summary: Davies tries to reconcile scientific fact w/religious ideas
Review: There are things that have been taught by established religions, which, over time, have been known to conflict with the findings of scientists. Is there some common ground where the two can meet? In "The Mind of God", Paul Davies makes an honest attempt to examine both and see where the road leads. As the questions arise, Davies shows us how certain religious teachings cannot be currently reconciled with today's science, yet, science stills leads us to the logical conclusion that God must exist. Of course, since Davies is more of a scientist than a religious expert, my copy is full of notes with Bible verses which match up with his conclusions - so, just maybe the two "universes" can get along. For those who are interested in both areas of life, this book is a MUST read.
Rating:
Summary: Metaphysical journey
Review: This book addresses fundamental metaphysical and epistemological issues, in a clear, rational, and profund way, using a language accessible to any reader who has basic knowledge of the main streams of present theoretical physics. Paul Davies has the merit of being a great and at the same time humble scientist, one who is able to lower himself from the high pedestal and make his thoughts available to the general public. Paul Davies is a scientist who does not subscribe to convential religion and for this reason some readers might interpret his ideas as a denial of "God." In fact, in his quest for an ultimate understanding of the laws of nature, he is actually affirming the existence of something "beyond," whilst admitting our inherited limitations and the possibility that there may be some things with explanations that we could never grasp, and maybe others with no explanation at all. Some routes to knowledge might bypass or transcend human reason (be it mystical, revelation, or supernatural).
He carries the reader throughtout this journey for ultimate truths, starting with the Greek philosophers, all the way to the main streams of theoretical physics, probing theories of origin and destiny, space and time, creation by design or chance, nature of life and consciousness, the universe as a gigantic computer, mathematical "truths," quantum physics and so forth. The beauty of Paul Davies is that he is able to present all this rich and complex matter with an open mind, exposing not only his personal opinion but also the pros and cons as manifested by a wide range of intellectual gifted minds. He does take a firm stand with respect to a "superunifed" theory, arguing against it on the basis that such model relies on mathematical assumptions which do not correspond to our universe and though the theorems of mathematics may be deduced from within the system of axioms, the axioms themselves cannot.
Beside being a scientist, Paul Davies is above all a man who feels bewildered, seduced, and enchanted by nature's simplicty within its overall complexity, by this universe which is not seen as the plaything of a capricious deity, but as a coherent, rational, elegant, and harmonious expression of a deep and purposeful meaning (we are truly meant to be here). It is a positive stand, with an open mind, where there is no room for dogmas!
| 
