Stoney

Axel, there might not have been a big bang; that is just a theory yet to be proven. The fact is that each of us (myself included, of course) has our own "opinions," but they are based on those few things that media coverage has made us aware of, namely snippets of very complex theories of which we often fail to grasp the true essence or implications. Perhaps I am a bit of a science fundamentalist too, as I find it somewhat annoying that everyone uses cell phones and MP3s without knowing anything about tunnel effect or Shannon's theorem, which are not just tricks for wacky mathematicians but demonstrations of how reality appears before our eyes in a fundamentally flawed manner. I am convinced that if scientific culture were not surrounded by this aura of mystery that makes it seem more like a curiosity for a few rather than a rational exploration of reality, if the true significance of the scientific discoveries of the last century were fully understood and not relegated to a freak show at the mercy of TV programs like Voyager, there would be fewer "opinions" based on clichés and more sense of truth. And I reviewed this book precisely to invite those interested to get informed and to better redefine their opinions in light of what is presented here, perhaps as a starting point for a more exhaustive inquiry.

4) The scientist-theologians you mention, although incredibly intelligent, have had their minds clouded by religious dogmas that they have been unable to overcome. They were unable to develop a scientific model that did not include the hypothesis of God. Probably, this has delayed progress as we know it by several hundred years. However, the book shows how the logical reasoning many of them relied on was false or poorly founded. 5) Just recently, with tragically current events, we have witnessed how much religious institutions care about human values such as life and death, and the choices individuals can make regarding them. Let’s say that if these institutions are the guardians of the human values you speak of, then I will continue to cling tightly to my "science talibans."

@Gbrunoro. I had promised myself not to intervene again, but I cannot resist. 1) The idea that religions do not provoke wars but that it is only stupid men who do so is half-true. Every religion contains fundamentalism, at least in nuce. After all, no matter how hard one strives to be tolerant and objective, it is very difficult to be certain that one is worshiping the true revealed God while also accepting that other people worship others who, to avoid contradicting one's own beliefs, must necessarily be false. You must admit that the most instinctive reaction is to impose one's own truth on the "infidel"; tolerance is a feeling that comes afterward, and not everyone is capable of developing it. 2) The first scientists who built atomic bombs did so within a conflict instigated by a dictatorship that had the motto "Gott mit uns." 3) The book merely states that investigating religion with rational tools makes no sense. It does not say that the Divine Comedy is nonsense or that one should not pay attention to human feelings and values. The fact that our brain is limited is something science itself demonstrates (this will be the tenth time I say it: it is the thesis of the book!), which is why we must be careful when it tries to venture into the blind alleys of dogmas and blind beliefs: it all ends badly!

I knew I would stir up a hornet's nest with this review. I don’t want to defend atheism vehemently, nor do I want to take overly rigid positions. I would simply like to invite everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs, to read this book, which I believe can teach a lot to everyone, even though it may be challenging for those who are not familiar with the world of mathematics and science. This book dispels many of the clichés about religion and science that we are all used to, and which have inevitably appeared here in the comments on this page, so the best way to respond to all of you is nothing more than to repeat the obvious: read the book.

@Genoo. The reasoning you present is based on incorrect premises, and this book precisely dismantles this way of thinking, which is to say that "if science cannot explain everything, then we need God." This reasoning is irrational and misleading: if science has discovered little to nothing, and if science itself finds that there is not even a rational way to understand the universe around us, just imagine how sensible it is to think we can explain the existence of God. Does that resonate with you?

@Genoo: an extremist is someone who exceeds in advocating their opinion while lacking objectivity. This is not about personal opinions but about scientific theories, that is, proven facts black on white. Accusing a mathematician of "imposing his truths" makes me laugh a little because it's a contradiction in terms (to say the least). It seems to me that people never take it well when someone rationally shows them that, in the end, they actually believe in fairy tales. Comfortable, beautiful, romantic, but still fairy tales.

Indeed, Macaco, the most beautiful age of life is the one in which you understand nothing about life itself. I haven't read the book.

However, the objection remains: no full nudity. It's a matter of principle; I find it contradictory: I mean, she takes mind-blowing photos and then acts all modest, what sense does that make? As if that would make her less tr... Bah.

The Weierstrass theorem is brilliant. The central limit theorem is beautiful. Science will forever free us from the idea of God. I haven't read the book.

Thank you so much Bartle ;)