Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo Sapiens

Major scientific data for me. I could hardly lay it down. It is readable and has deep content. Harold

So far so good. Very fascinating and thought provoking. Full of insight. Challenging at times and slow going. Haven't finished it yet

A gift for my dad and he loved the book.

Great Book! Well conserved and perfectly shipped! I recommend!

To be totally honest I must admit that although the subject matter is of great interest the individual interviews were fairly repetitious all leading to the same conclusion that no one can explain the beginning of the first molecule.

As a seeker of truth, I had hoped for some illumination on the spiritual truths. The different authors are all over the scale with their beliefs....making clear only the limitations of science and human intellect.

The arguments given by Roy Varghese in his introduction that the "Principle of Explanation" requires understanding beyond the contingent facts of science are impressive, (what might be called the Principle of Sufficient Reason).Forceful and cogent reasons for their belief in a divine entity are given by most of the scientists interviewed (including many who are Nobel prize winners). According to Mr. Varghese there was no pre- or post-selection by faith of the responses, and that seems reasonable looking at the variety of the responses including a few responses (particularly amongst the "non-hard" scientists interviewed) that were hostile to the idea of belief.But most impressive is the concluding article by William R. Stoeger, cosmologist and former Astronomer for the Vatican Observatory. For example, talking about pair production (electron and positron from a gamma ray) he says "The positron and electron are not necessarily existing entities--they do not of their nature have to exist, THEY DO NOT EXPLAIN THEIR OWN EXISTENCE (emphasis added).In each case their existence depends on something else, in this case the photon from which they were created, along with the whole causal chain upon which the photon depends. It becomes clear that every physical entity or object is not necessary but only contingent. NO PHYSICAL ENTITY EXPLAINS ITSELF OR ITS OWN EXISTENCE (emphasis added)." Stoeger adds a comment by Steven Hawking (from "A Brief History of Time") that is more pertinent than the position taken in his latest book: "What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?..Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?" Stoeger argues forcefully that science does not explain itself, and that we need to look for something else to explain creation, not necessarily creation at a given point in time, but continuous creation and order.It's clear that the current generation of physicists are, by and large, ignorant of philosophy and the limitations of science, unlike the pioneers of the early 20th century physics (Heisenberg, Wigner, Einstein, Schrodinger). That is sad.

As one reviewer stated, the reviewer who criticized this book on the basis of his antagonism to religious faith missed the point. I would go further and state that he showed the weakness of his own thinking process. True science is religious faith neutral. To conduct good scientific experiements, the question of God is left out of the process. This by no means implies that the scientist does not hold a personal opinion on the subject, either for or against. It merely means he or she suspends personal belief in the interest of conducting good experiments. Further, the number of people who hold to a certain position regarding faith, neither makes that faith valid nor makes it invalid. The professor's personal faith is atheism. That is a religious faith, every bit as much as is theism, creationism, or any other of the many isms of this world. This is very adequately demonstrated by his intollerant review. He takes an extreme position that is on the opposite side of the radical creationists, but is no more defensible then the radical creationists' views. He even goes so far as to suggest that the scientists (some of whom are Nobel Prize winners) who seem to think that a belief in God is not unreasonable, are not intelligent.Now to the book itself. I find it very fascinating to look at the process of how many of the world's great scientific minds approach the questions addressed in this book. The people questioned take positions across the spectrum of belief/disbelief. The book includes a number of answers by those who do not believe in a god. I found the process and approach to be very well done, and to ask reasonable questions.This book I think is worth reading no matter whether you believe in God or don't. The thinking process is never hurt by hearing opinions that differ from your own.

Interesting book. Some of history's most perceptive minds from eclectic religious backgrounds have put forth their reasons why great insight in science is not antithetical to belief in God. This book is a 'must read' for for the following reason. It is quite 'fashionable' to form an opinion regarding God without hearing all points of view. Science has often been falsely pitted against God. This book puts forth a perspective from the other side. This needs to be heard as an extreme form of bigotry is palpably evident in the way belief in God is treated in institutions of learning. Sometimes, belief in God is made to look as though it is a throwback to the dark ages. Nothing can be farther from the truth, in fact the attitude that rejects something without thinking through all available evidence is a throwback to bigoted times. This book also has a limitation. To discover more about God one needs to continue their search beyond this book. If some detail has been covered here from the point of view of Origin, it is outside the scope of this book to cover the subject of God from other vantage points such as "meaning" "morality" and "destiny." I have found all these perspectives uniquely and definitively covered in the Bible, where the fulness of truth regarding God, is revealed.