Reality Check: Science Meets Religion

This is a very intriguing piece. I believe there is a significant demand for such discussions, and you've handle it quite well. I especially appreciate your inviting style, which will definitely be a plus for more skeptical readers. A job well done!

Faith Rose
Now to Him

- Reality Check : Science Meets Religion -

(Based on the overview and chapters 1,2 8 and 9)

Reality Check is an interesting and accessible book on a topic I have read a fair bit about over the past few years. In fact, I may be the ideal reader for this book as I am someone who loves a bit of debate about religion and am a person as yet unconvinced who is willing to be convinced. Over the last few years I suppose my reading and debating have altered my status from ‘atheist’ to ‘agnostic’. I doubt whether I’ll ever make it to believer but if anyone wants to convince me I’m always willing to let them try. So, as well as offering some opinions on the technicalities of the writing, it may be of interest to the author if I offer my reader impressions as I went along, saying jow convinced I was by the arguments as I read.

The overview:
-This sets up the basic argument well, an intriguing one at that. Proof of God in brain and mind being two different things, mind existing beyond the time-space continuum. At this stage my interest is piqued. I haven’t come across an argument like this before so it appears original. The actual location of Heaven may be revealed. Really? Ok, I’m doubtful but you’ve certainly got my attention. I want to read on to find out more but I remain skeptical as to how the two separate entities of mind and brain can prove the existence of God. My own impression has always been that one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god through argument.
-“science had everything explained”. In the context, I would have thought ‘has’ would be the better tense (?)
-“This amazing book is mind-blowing, entertaining, humorous and accessible.” I would certainly agree that it often does live up to these adjectives but at the same time the sentence veers towards self-reviewing. I’d have liked a sentence that began with “This book aims to be….” Or something similar.

Chapter 1:
-I very much liked the premise introduced here, that the existence of two separate words for ‘mind’ and ‘brain’ point to an instinctive feeling for the physical and the non-physical. As someone whose job is in languages, I have often thought that language often shows how human beings intuit things even if they are not necessarily fully articulated. So I’m willing to go along with the argument at this stage but I’m still wondering how it’s going to prove to me the existence of God.
-The parts on the various Popes’ attitudes towards evolution and the big bang were fascinating, although I would have liked a little more on the latter in terms of where the argument falls down to convince me there.
-Showing that science and religion are not necessarily incompatible is also an interesting point. I recall reading in Karen Armstrong’s books that most historical scientific exploration was an attempt to get closer to God so it does seem a misconception worth debunking.
-I particularly liked the God-as-painter analogy. This shows that the author has an easy didactic ability and is capable of making complex themes accessible to the reader who may not have previous knowledge of either the scientific or the philosophical views under discussion.
-I did feel a couple of times that there was more self-reviewing going on.
-I wondered here whether it might not be better to put the links either at the end of each chapter or altogether at the end of the book so as to not distract the reader as they make their way through.

Chapter 2:
-In this chapter we have telepathy and out of body experiences as proof of ‘mind’. I found this chapter by far the most entertaining of those I read as it has some incredibly interesting snippets, some of the experiments carried out into telepathy, military investments of it etc. At this stage though I was still wondering whether telepathy is not just another function of ‘brain’ that has yet to be discovered. The out of body experiences would be a more convincing argument for me personally as to the ‘mind’ and it being outside of the time space continuum. The George Radonaic episode was the most entertaining element for me and would be the most convincing for anyone who believes it. I have the feeling though that a sceptic will always be a sceptic and will not believe the story.
-In reading about the experiments on telepathy, I remembered reading Bill Bryson’s A Short History of Nearly Everything and remembered how he made the science parts particularly entertaining by giving the reader a little background and an interesting anecdote or two about the scientists in question. Something akin to that could be worth considering here. The author’s shared dream, I found particularly entertaining precisely because it had this human and personal element to it.
- I also wondered a little whether as many cases of telepathy were necessary. The argument is made after one or two and the reader is left with extremely strong images. Although adding more strengthens the argument, it makes the section begin to feel a little like a list and could make it somewhat less accessible for the reader. Perhaps….

Chapters 8 and 9
-I’ll combine my comments on these two as they have the same format and both left me with similar impressions.
-Basically, this was exactly the type of thing I was looking for when I first started reading around the topic. I wanted a concise and understandable rundown of the theories so far so that I had a good background from which to progress. I didn’t find a lot that was accessible and concise so this is definitely welcome and refreshing.
-For my own position, I found the word ‘refuted’ in the title of chapter 8 a bit much since, as I mentioned earlier, I don’t think the argument can ever truly be won by debate. I’d have liked something like ‘A rebuttal’ better.
-Chapter 9 continues along the same format and is interesting and concise but I did wonder about allocating various ‘strengths’ to the arguments. I would imagine different arguments would have different degrees of efficacy on different people. For me, the intelligent design argument, or at least in terms of the physical universe being so finely balance in its mass and charges of particles etc., is the argument that most made me think but here it’s only down as ‘medium’ strength.

This is a very entertaining book. I began unconvinced and finished reading still on the fence, as I always do, but I was entertained and informed along the way and feel richer for the debate. Anyone interested in these themes would do well to have a read of Reality Check.

All the best with it,

Ross

I've read the entire 12 chapters of your book. I see you live in Dorset. We may be neighbours, I live in Sandford near Wareham.

Back to your book. Truthfully, I feel wary of giving feedback on such a thoughtful piece of work about the most profound subject. But I'll try.

Your book is extremely well written, researched and set out. Every point you make is very clear. The analogies are extremely imaginative and very effective. The passion in your work is powerful and every paragraph is thought provoking. Your arguments are well thought through and persuasive.

It took me a few chapters before I picked up the strength of your religious conviction. I think it's chapter 5 when you declare your faith. I share your conclusions about a Creator however I come from entirely the opposite end of the spectrum. My ideas are not founded on scripture although they may fit the messages of the Bible. (I hesitate to recommend my own novel to you even though I also use science to build a case for a Creator; I hesitate because you have such strong ideas and faith I fear you might find my work provocative and that might interrupt your enjoyment of the story)

With regard to your book I would suggest that everyone reads it and thinks very carefully about what you say. I believe this book definitely deserves publication.

Ian,

I read chapters 1, 7, 8, and 9. In chapters 8 and 9, your survey of arguments both for and against the existence of God provides the reader with a way to better compare and contrast different viewpoints. Additionally, it provides a far wider foundation upon which to base a decision. Presenting the strengths and weaknesses of all of these different viewpoints was one of the things I liked most about what I read. I was really interested to read these chapters because, as a mathematician and a Christian, while there may be perceived conflicts between science and religion, I believe there are no conflicts between the structures and systems of the universe and God.

Your book also explains things very well. You have made much accessible without sacrificing scientific integrity. Put another way, you write very well.

While there will always be those disagreeing about various points, I think your book will be enjoyed by many and will encourage lively discussion.



Minor points

I think I noticed two typos.

Chapter 1 (6th paragraph from the bottom): Speaking of shared dreams you write, “It is more detailed that” should be “detailed than.”

Chapter 9 (1st paragraph from the top): “This chapter, with a similar layout to the previous chapter, considers various classis arguments.” Should be “classic arguments.”

David

Hello Ian-
Reality Check; Science meets religion--

After reading all chapters posted, i conclude that this is one hell of a book, excuse the pun; and so well researched, and your thoughts are radical on this matter.
Here i should nail my vote to cross ' I do believe in God'
Albert Einstein line, very relevant to-day and very much relates to what you have written.
You present the preface very well for the deep and very serious read to come.

It will pull in the 50%9 as you say) , believers to read this , however the majority of book readers are just looking
for the other type of genres to read.

Perhaps if it were written in a lighter vein , and the subject matter kept somewhat under the surface, but there all the same; it might capture that majority.
i have attempted to do this with my book, humour on top and the social conditions of the time, there , but under the surface.
hope that helps ian.

I was totally intrigued by you book and found it to be very informative
good luck with; it
six stars
tom bye
from hugs to kisses'[

Tom. I know where you are coming from. I wrote this book in parallel with a humorous novel which does, indeed, keep the subject matter at a lower level than the story. I met a publisher at the Winchester Writers' Conference about this novel and she said you can probably only get the subject matter published by a Christian publisher and reach other people via those readers. The aim of my novel was to reach them directly. I have become discouraged with completion of that because of this problem. I shall see what happens with this short book - 'Reality Check' - written in response to this problem. I may publish it as an eBook first to get it out there quickly. Publishing via the conventional route can take over 2 years. Many thanks for your comments and support. I appreciate your encouragement. I have put your book on my watchlist to look at shortly. Kind regards, Ian.

Hello Ian-
Reality Check; Science meets religion--

After reading all chapters posted, i conclude that this is one hell of a book, excuse the pun; and so well researched, and your thoughts are radical on this matter.
Here i should nail my vote to cross ' I do believe in God'
Albert Einstein line, very relevant to-day and very much relates to what you have written.
You present the preface very well for the deep and very serious read to come.

It will pull in the 50%9 as you say) , believers to read this , however the majority of book readers are just looking
for the other type of genres to read.

Perhaps if it were written in a lighter vein , and the subject matter kept somewhat under the surface, but there all the same; it might capture that majority.
i have attempted to do this with my book, humour on top and the social conditions of the time, there , but under the surface.
hope that helps ian.

I was totally intrigued by you book and found it to be very informative
good luck with; it
six stars
tom bye
from hugs to kisses'[

This is a very intriguing piece. I believe there is a significant demand for such discussions, and you've handle it quite well. I especially appreciate your inviting style, which will definitely be a plus for more skeptical readers. A job well done!

Faith Rose
Now to Him

I only read the preface and chapter 1. I applaud your desire to prove God through science, I assume in order to convince skeptics who are not accepting of the idea of faith, even though I know that faith is the only avenue to the knowledge of God. It seems that you have struggled to describe something that is much simpler than what you have presented. We are triune - body, soul, spirit. Your description of "mind" is perhaps my understanding of "soul". The soul (mind, will and emotions) does not inhabit or proceed from the brain, it empowers the brain. I hope I am not out of place voicing this opinion. I am no Biblical or religious scholar, just an ordinary believer who knows and has seen the power of God by faith.
M. Wilhelmsen
Exact Places

Many thanks for your comments. I think I have tried to make it clear I do not believe anything proceeds 'from' the brain (other than feedback). I agree, only faith will do at the end, and what this book does, especially in the final chapters not uploaded, is to make this point very strongly. The method, however, is to try to use evidence and logical argument for the unbeliever to firstly accept there must be a God and then move to the next stage, put doubts behind, and then believe, 'like little children'. This is the main plank - although you were missing the vital information! Many thanks for your comments which are greatly appreciated. Ian

I only read the preface and chapter 1. I applaud your desire to prove God through science, I assume in order to convince skeptics who are not accepting of the idea of faith, even though I know that faith is the only avenue to the knowledge of God. It seems that you have struggled to describe something that is much simpler than what you have presented. We are triune - body, soul, spirit. Your description of "mind" is perhaps my understanding of "soul". The soul (mind, will and emotions) does not inhabit or proceed from the brain, it empowers the brain. I hope I am not out of place voicing this opinion. I am no Biblical or religious scholar, just an ordinary believer who knows and has seen the power of God by faith.
M. Wilhelmsen
Exact Places

Many thanks for your comments. I think I have tried to make it clear I do not believe anything proceeds 'from' the brain (other than feedback). I agree, only faith will do at the end, and what this book does, especially in the final chapters not uploaded, is to make this point very strongly. The method, however, is to try to use evidence and logical argument for the unbeliever to firstly accept there must be a God and then move to the next stage, put doubts behind, and then believe, 'like little children'. This is the main plank - although you were missing the vital information! Many thanks for your comments which are greatly appreciated. Ian

I only read the preface and chapter 1. I applaud your desire to prove God through science, I assume in order to convince skeptics who are not accepting of the idea of faith, even though I know that faith is the only avenue to the knowledge of God. It seems that you have struggled to describe something that is much simpler than what you have presented. We are triune - body, soul, spirit. Your description of "mind" is perhaps my understanding of "soul". The soul (mind, will and emotions) does not inhabit or proceed from the brain, it empowers the brain. I hope I am not out of place voicing this opinion. I am no Biblical or religious scholar, just an ordinary believer who knows and has seen the power of God by faith.
M. Wilhelmsen
Exact Places

Many thanks for your comments. I think I have tried to make it clear I do not believe anything proceeds 'from' the brain (other than feedback). I agree, only faith will do at the end, and what this book does, especially in the final chapters not uploaded, is to make this point very strongly. The method, however, is to try to use evidence and logical argument for the unbeliever to firstly accept there must be a God and then move to the next stage, put doubts behind, and then believe, 'like little children'. This is the main plank - although you were missing the vital information! Many thanks for your comments which are greatly appreciated. Ian

Cariad, thanks a lot for your comments. I shall ponder over them, but I have acted at once on the Bryson comment which is a very good point. Any 'Brysonese' is, anyway, probably restricted to a particular part of the book in any case ('against God arguments rebutted') and to make a point of it is perhaps not appropriate anyway. As for hard evidence, I am sure you are aware the bane of anything that ventures into the supernatural is always on the edge. I cite quite a number of different examples so people can hopefully find at least one they can accept. Thanks a lot for your time and input which is really appreciated. I have watchlisted 'Stones' and will take a read ASAP. Kind regards, Ian

A very interesting book - on a subject/subjects that I find compelling. Style is good - could be read by anyone without confusion. I read the book for my own interest - and here it might help to explain that I am a God believer to start off with. (and have had an OBE and other experiences that go along with some of the points you make. So - the following observations I made as I read, were made as though I were a non-believer. I could hear the voice of non-believing friends saying 'aha, but...' at certain points, so it is with this in mind that I make a lot of my points, not necessarily my own views. Also some minor points re the text.

First off, minor text observations - Near the beginning, two 'will's together - 'I will present, will make....' you could exchange the first 'will' for 'shall' and avoid that.
Later in that first part you say - '....more chance of them turning to beleive in God than....' should that be 'belief'?

Main observations: A non-believer may take exception to a couple of instances where you make a claim or statement of 'fact' without appearing to back it up - for eg. 'Why not just call that source God and stop fighting the idea...' - to which they would immediately say - 'Why? Just because you don't know the answer - why fill the gap with 'God?' or - 'there is a great weight of material to prove the existence of God.... ' to which they may reply - what? where? (now, you may well have the answer to this in an appendix or footnote - but you should then have a letter indicator or similar so they can find the referred material in appendix or foot of page.)

You cite a lot of instances of events - such as the OBEs or the distance hypnosis, or the telepathy of bushmen etc. and while you do give a reference or link - these things need as much scientifically verified (not just, for eg, the paranormal press or study bodies) to convince the sceptic.

Likewise I'd be careful of a statement such as (not quoting you directly here) if your belief or non belief might make the difference between eternal life or annihilation, wouldn't you give an hour or so to finding out - I might not use this argument since it smacks of 'belief because of threat or fear.' which is what many atheists are convinced drives faith alone - fear of death or non-existence alone.

Ok. Those were points that occurred to me from that one point of view - how a non-believer might find some of the material. For myself, I enjoyed the read and found it accessible and interesting, though I too like plenty of verified backup from more than one source - not just the biased one of either side. I like your arguments and some of your analogies - especially the painting one - an unusual and very good way of putting it.

One more thing - I notice you mentioned Bill Bryson humour - well, I didn't find any. That is NOT a criticism or insult, just a comment. I found it a thoughful, interesting and fascinating piece of writing, and didn't, in fact, want humour in it. I think it's better straight.

Cariad.


Cariad.

I only read the preface and chapter 1. I applaud your desire to prove God through science, I assume in order to convince skeptics who are not accepting of the idea of faith, even though I know that faith is the only avenue to the knowledge of God. It seems that you have struggled to describe something that is much simpler than what you have presented. We are triune - body, soul, spirit. Your description of "mind" is perhaps my understanding of "soul". The soul (mind, will and emotions) does not inhabit or proceed from the brain, it empowers the brain. I hope I am not out of place voicing this opinion. I am no Biblical or religious scholar, just an ordinary believer who knows and has seen the power of God by faith.
M. Wilhelmsen
Exact Places

Hi Ian, I placed Reality Check on my watchlist so that I may read it as soon as soon as possible. Your pitch makes it very enticing. Looking forward to it.
Marjorie Wilhelmsen
Exact Places

To: Stuart & Victor. Thanks a lot for your comments which are much appreciated. I may not have a formal religious background (nor did the disciples), but I do have a lot of experience in research and writing about complex subjects so they are easy to understand. Hopefully that will help do the trick. Unfortunately most religious publishers are wary of something coming from a new angle. This is why I am seriously thinking of publishing this as an eBook first - although I will give publishers a try first.

I found the first two paras of the Overview boring, cudnt put a finger on why, but the last two were AWESOME!! – Saying you can provide the location of Heaven, now THAT’s a hook if ever I saw one!! And the forth para where u say ur going to counter arguements against God, now thats cool too coz we know a scraps coming!!! – So personally didn’t like the first two, but loved the last 3! This book is obviously well thought out and professional. For publishers to go for something like this id GUESS that ur bio was just as important ie are you a lecturer in religious studies or something else that adds to ur credibility to talk about this? – im thinking of The Last Lecture by Randy Pauch which gathered a tremendous Youtube following before his thoughts and philosophies were put in a book. There’s obviously a big market for this kind of stuff, such as the god delusion and when u think about sales of mel gibsons Passion of the Christ, you know the Christian audience will really get behind something if you like it. Do harpercollins have a Christian division? – there may be specific publishers for this kind of genre and hitting them may lead to greater success. The approaches taken in this book are very original from what i know of the subject. I really like the take on trusting ur gut instincts coz so often in life they prove to be true – somehow you just know when ur making the wrong decision so this is a arguement we can all relate to. Overall the chapters i looked at do seem to support your initial outline – its accessible, smoothly written and convincing! The book really stands out in this genre for taking original viewpoints and taking on new arguements so that could be a major selling point when approaching publishers. Have star rated highly and will be backing soon! Get hammering on the doors of those Christian publishers!!

Hi Ross,
Many thanks for you detailed response, which is greatly appreciated. With regard to some of your comments, I should perhaps clarify by telling you the extracts are from actual text I will probably publish as an eBook shortly; hence 'sales-speak' included. Given the first chapter will be a free sampler, this is also 'sell-text'.
In view of your great interest in this subject, if you would like to read the entire book then please contact me via my author website at iankingsley.com and I will forward a copy. It would be really great to have your opinion based upon the entire book and I would really appreciate that.
Overkill on telepathy? Maybe, but it is essential to win the reader's acceptance it is a reality in order to lead on to subsequent arguments.
Many thanks for your feeback which is greatly appreciated.
Kind regards,
Ian

Hello Ian:

I read all of the uploaded chapters and was impressed at your ability to communicate the most abstract of concepts in a clearly digestible form. In the world of biblical apologetics, there are a surplus of works which are evidence based; i.e., which tend to focus on arguments within the physical world, but there is a tremendous need for the genre represented here; i.e., arguments which transcend the physical world. For many, if not most, the task of adequately preparing oneself to respond to such questions is simply too daunting.

I appreciate the scholarly professionalism and the extensive referencing.

Blessings to you as you continue to rise to the challenge of what most would consider to be an extremely difficult calling.

James Revoir

Hi Ian,

I've just finished reading the opening chapter of your book and look forward to reading what follows. I've put Reality Check on my WL.For what it's worth, I've written a book covering some of the same subjects you discuss. It is called "The Nexus: The True Nature of Nature"'. No, I'm not asking that you back it, but simply wish to alert you to the Calvinist take on reality as expressed therein.

Thanks for posting a quality book.

Neil Cullan McKinlay
.

- Reality Check : Science Meets Religion -

(Based on the overview and chapters 1,2 8 and 9)

Reality Check is an interesting and accessible book on a topic I have read a fair bit about over the past few years. In fact, I may be the ideal reader for this book as I am someone who loves a bit of debate about religion and am a person as yet unconvinced who is willing to be convinced. Over the last few years I suppose my reading and debating have altered my status from ‘atheist’ to ‘agnostic’. I doubt whether I’ll ever make it to believer but if anyone wants to convince me I’m always willing to let them try. So, as well as offering some opinions on the technicalities of the writing, it may be of interest to the author if I offer my reader impressions as I went along, saying jow convinced I was by the arguments as I read.

The overview:
-This sets up the basic argument well, an intriguing one at that. Proof of God in brain and mind being two different things, mind existing beyond the time-space continuum. At this stage my interest is piqued. I haven’t come across an argument like this before so it appears original. The actual location of Heaven may be revealed. Really? Ok, I’m doubtful but you’ve certainly got my attention. I want to read on to find out more but I remain skeptical as to how the two separate entities of mind and brain can prove the existence of God. My own impression has always been that one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god through argument.
-“science had everything explained”. In the context, I would have thought ‘has’ would be the better tense (?)
-“This amazing book is mind-blowing, entertaining, humorous and accessible.” I would certainly agree that it often does live up to these adjectives but at the same time the sentence veers towards self-reviewing. I’d have liked a sentence that began with “This book aims to be….” Or something similar.

Chapter 1:
-I very much liked the premise introduced here, that the existence of two separate words for ‘mind’ and ‘brain’ point to an instinctive feeling for the physical and the non-physical. As someone whose job is in languages, I have often thought that language often shows how human beings intuit things even if they are not necessarily fully articulated. So I’m willing to go along with the argument at this stage but I’m still wondering how it’s going to prove to me the existence of God.
-The parts on the various Popes’ attitudes towards evolution and the big bang were fascinating, although I would have liked a little more on the latter in terms of where the argument falls down to convince me there.
-Showing that science and religion are not necessarily incompatible is also an interesting point. I recall reading in Karen Armstrong’s books that most historical scientific exploration was an attempt to get closer to God so it does seem a misconception worth debunking.
-I particularly liked the God-as-painter analogy. This shows that the author has an easy didactic ability and is capable of making complex themes accessible to the reader who may not have previous knowledge of either the scientific or the philosophical views under discussion.
-I did feel a couple of times that there was more self-reviewing going on.
-I wondered here whether it might not be better to put the links either at the end of each chapter or altogether at the end of the book so as to not distract the reader as they make their way through.

Chapter 2:
-In this chapter we have telepathy and out of body experiences as proof of ‘mind’. I found this chapter by far the most entertaining of those I read as it has some incredibly interesting snippets, some of the experiments carried out into telepathy, military investments of it etc. At this stage though I was still wondering whether telepathy is not just another function of ‘brain’ that has yet to be discovered. The out of body experiences would be a more convincing argument for me personally as to the ‘mind’ and it being outside of the time space continuum. The George Radonaic episode was the most entertaining element for me and would be the most convincing for anyone who believes it. I have the feeling though that a sceptic will always be a sceptic and will not believe the story.
-In reading about the experiments on telepathy, I remembered reading Bill Bryson’s A Short History of Nearly Everything and remembered how he made the science parts particularly entertaining by giving the reader a little background and an interesting anecdote or two about the scientists in question. Something akin to that could be worth considering here. The author’s shared dream, I found particularly entertaining precisely because it had this human and personal element to it.
- I also wondered a little whether as many cases of telepathy were necessary. The argument is made after one or two and the reader is left with extremely strong images. Although adding more strengthens the argument, it makes the section begin to feel a little like a list and could make it somewhat less accessible for the reader. Perhaps….

Chapters 8 and 9
-I’ll combine my comments on these two as they have the same format and both left me with similar impressions.
-Basically, this was exactly the type of thing I was looking for when I first started reading around the topic. I wanted a concise and understandable rundown of the theories so far so that I had a good background from which to progress. I didn’t find a lot that was accessible and concise so this is definitely welcome and refreshing.
-For my own position, I found the word ‘refuted’ in the title of chapter 8 a bit much since, as I mentioned earlier, I don’t think the argument can ever truly be won by debate. I’d have liked something like ‘A rebuttal’ better.
-Chapter 9 continues along the same format and is interesting and concise but I did wonder about allocating various ‘strengths’ to the arguments. I would imagine different arguments would have different degrees of efficacy on different people. For me, the intelligent design argument, or at least in terms of the physical universe being so finely balance in its mass and charges of particles etc., is the argument that most made me think but here it’s only down as ‘medium’ strength.

This is a very entertaining book. I began unconvinced and finished reading still on the fence, as I always do, but I was entertained and informed along the way and feel richer for the debate. Anyone interested in these themes would do well to have a read of Reality Check.

All the best with it,

Ross

Gareth, thank you so much for your kind and encouraging words. You read the book just in time because I agree with some advice recently received that because of the original nature of this book it is as well to remove a large slice of the content for copyright reasons. I have left some of the more general chapters but excluded some of the chapters with more original content. Hopefully it still leaves sufficient material for other Authonomy readers to assess its general worth. So far as your own book is concerned, I leave it to you as to whether you would like me to take a look. Please message me separately if you would (although away for a week from today). Many thanks once again for your kindness and sensitivity (something often lacking around here). Ian

I've read the entire 12 chapters of your book. I see you live in Dorset. We may be neighbours, I live in Sandford near Wareham.

Back to your book. Truthfully, I feel wary of giving feedback on such a thoughtful piece of work about the most profound subject. But I'll try.

Your book is extremely well written, researched and set out. Every point you make is very clear. The analogies are extremely imaginative and very effective. The passion in your work is powerful and every paragraph is thought provoking. Your arguments are well thought through and persuasive.

It took me a few chapters before I picked up the strength of your religious conviction. I think it's chapter 5 when you declare your faith. I share your conclusions about a Creator however I come from entirely the opposite end of the spectrum. My ideas are not founded on scripture although they may fit the messages of the Bible. (I hesitate to recommend my own novel to you even though I also use science to build a case for a Creator; I hesitate because you have such strong ideas and faith I fear you might find my work provocative and that might interrupt your enjoyment of the story)

With regard to your book I would suggest that everyone reads it and thinks very carefully about what you say. I believe this book definitely deserves publication.

Great opening chapter which really grabbed my attention. Very clearly written. I'm looking forward to reading this with a receptive mind. My novel 'The Waters of Lalibela' attempts to show that physics and religion can be unified and I'm keen to understand your ideas on the subject. Once I've had chance to read your book I'll add my comments. New to Authonomy so I'm just getting the hang of it.

Hi Andi,
Many thanks for your honest opinion. You have some good points. I will think on, however, the intentionally chatty style, especially in Chapter 1, needs to make potential readers think about whether they might be missing out on something if they don't read on. I agree there is repetition, also later in the book about concepts, but the book does keep picking up the same ball and taking it further, which inevitable leads to some repetition.
Thanks a lot for your view. Not to repeat unintentionally, but I will 'think on'!
Kind regards,
Ian

Hi Ian,

I had time to read the first chapter; wish it could be more, but I have lots of promised reads, plus a job! I should state at the outset that this isn't the sort of book I usually read, so please take my suggestions with a grain, no make that a pound of salt.

You're a solid writer. Grammar, punctuation, and word choices are all correct, which is all too rare. Not getting tripped up by an error really helps the work flow nicely.

And you're passionate. That comes across loud and clear. You tell us right off the bat that you're going to teach us something new, which is exactly what you want to do in a work of nonfiction.

Ian, I found a lot of repetition in this. It seems that you make the same points over and over. I also find your exhortations to the reader - "wouldn't you find it worth a few hours of your time?" "How undignified would that be?" "Just suspend your disbelief." - take away from your argument. It seems that you've taken a chatty approach to your work, but I think those asides take the reader outside your argument instead of drawing him/her in.

In the same way, I see some over-explaining. It's like a comedian explaining the joke, what's known as "stepping on your own lines." Example: the status quo....tripping up.." My personal preference, especially with non-fiction, is to state the point and move on. If you need to explain what you said, then maybe go back and explain it better the first time.

I think if you went back and tightened up some of the writing, you'd be much better able to persuade people of your thesis.

Anyway, my two cents, which may be totally worthless. I do wish you well with this unique and passionate work.

All best,
Andi

Ian,

I read chapters 1, 7, 8, and 9. In chapters 8 and 9, your survey of arguments both for and against the existence of God provides the reader with a way to better compare and contrast different viewpoints. Additionally, it provides a far wider foundation upon which to base a decision. Presenting the strengths and weaknesses of all of these different viewpoints was one of the things I liked most about what I read. I was really interested to read these chapters because, as a mathematician and a Christian, while there may be perceived conflicts between science and religion, I believe there are no conflicts between the structures and systems of the universe and God.

Your book also explains things very well. You have made much accessible without sacrificing scientific integrity. Put another way, you write very well.

While there will always be those disagreeing about various points, I think your book will be enjoyed by many and will encourage lively discussion.



Minor points

I think I noticed two typos.

Chapter 1 (6th paragraph from the bottom): Speaking of shared dreams you write, “It is more detailed that” should be “detailed than.”

Chapter 9 (1st paragraph from the top): “This chapter, with a similar layout to the previous chapter, considers various classis arguments.” Should be “classic arguments.”

David

Ian,

I read chapters 1, 7, 8, and 9. In chapters 8 and 9, your survey of arguments both for and against the existence of God provides the reader with a way to better compare and contrast different viewpoints. Additionally, it provides a far wider foundation upon which to base a decision. Presenting the strengths and weaknesses of all of these different viewpoints was one of the things I liked most about what I read. I was really interested to read these chapters because, as a mathematician and a Christian, while there may be perceived conflicts between science and religion, I believe there are no conflicts between the structures and systems of the universe and God.

Your book also explains things very well. You have made much accessible without sacrificing scientific integrity. Put another way, you write very well.

While there will always be those disagreeing about various points, I think your book will be enjoyed by many and will encourage lively discussion.



Minor points

I think I noticed two typos.

Chapter 1 (6th paragraph from the bottom): Speaking of shared dreams you write, “It is more detailed that” should be “detailed than.”

Chapter 9 (1st paragraph from the top): “This chapter, with a similar layout to the previous chapter, considers various classis arguments.” Should be “classic arguments.”

David

Ian,

I read chapters 1, 7, 8, and 9. In chapters 8 and 9, your survey of arguments both for and against the existence of God provides the reader with a way to better compare and contrast different viewpoints. Additionally, it provides a far wider foundation upon which to base a decision. Presenting the strengths and weaknesses of all of these different viewpoints was one of the things I liked most about what I read. I was really interested to read these chapters because, as a mathematician and a Christian, while there may be perceived conflicts between science and religion, I believe there are no conflicts between the structures and systems of the universe and God.

Your book also explains things very well. You have made much accessible without sacrificing scientific integrity. Put another way, you write very well.

While there will always be those disagreeing about various points, I think your book will be enjoyed by many and will encourage lively discussion.



Minor points

I think I noticed two typos.

Chapter 1 (6th paragraph from the bottom): Speaking of shared dreams you write, “It is more detailed that” should be “detailed than.”

Chapter 9 (1st paragraph from the top): “This chapter, with a similar layout to the previous chapter, considers various classis arguments.” Should be “classic arguments.”

David