Calculating God

Reviewer Michael Huang contributed this thoughtful review of Robert J. Sawyer's Calculating God, a SF book that explores philosophical and theological ground as well as the frontiers of technology and space travel. Whether or not you have a preconceived answer to the central question the characters grapple with, Calculating God may cause you to consider your arguments in a new light.

Calculating God author Robert J. Sawyer pages 336 publisher St. Martin's Press rating 8 reviewer Michael Huang ISBN 0-312-86713-1 summary Systems of philosophy and belief clash when alien civilizations visit Earth and encounter scientist Thomas Jericho, while an apocalyptic explosion threatens to settle the argument.

The Scenario

In a nutshell, Calculating God is the story of paleontologist Thomas Jericho's encounter with two alien species which visit earth, and which reveal that the cataclysmic events that shaped Earth's evolution (meteor impact, mass extinctions, etc.) all happened simultaneously on their home planets as well. Both aliens have come to the conclusion that the universe is intelligently designed to support life, and that God the Creator is the direct cause of all these cataclysms. Those shattering events, they believe, led to the development of intelligence. Jericho, an atheist, is forced to come to grips with the aliens' undoubtedly superior scientific knowledge and their theistic conclusions at the same time he is diagnosed with cancer which the aliens are unable to cure despite their technology. Meanwhile, the imminent death of a nearby star threatens to wipe out all life on Earth and all the aliens' home-worlds in a supernova. Will it take a miracle to save them all, or is this a divinely ordered cataclysm?

What's Bad?

Most of the touchy issues concerning evolution and intelligent design were handled very fairly. However, I still believe that the two extreme fundamentalists (from Arkansas, no less) are caricatures and stereotypes rather than genuine religious extremists. Being a somewhat liberal evangelical Christian, I personally know quite a few people who can be fairly characterized as religious extremists -- and they definitely would not take the actions that the book's characters take. So the subplot concerning them is weak.

I was also somewhat put off by the breezy, colloquial writing style, which included numerous pop-culture references. While this style made the book fun and easy to read, it will also date this book considerably in the years to come, and books with ideas of the high caliber presented here ought not to date themselves so quickly. Other religiously themed SF books, like Mary Doria Russell's The Sparrow and Walter M. Miller Jr.'s A Canticle For Leibowitz will stand better through time than this novel, filled with Twilight Zone, South Park, and Star Trek references. That's a shame. Sawyer has a unique take on these issues, and this book ought to stand for a long time to come as a great contribution to both SF and the intelligent-design debate.

Neither of these flaws takes too much away from the enjoyment of the book, however.

What's Good?

Plenty. First and foremost, this book is a novel of ideas, and the ideas are potentially explosive. Sawyer handles them fairly, though those committed to a naturalistic viewpoint may think he concedes too much to the intelligent design side, while young-earth creationists and others will not like his somewhat unorthodox views of what the Creator is like. He explains arguments on both sides very clearly and completely, usually through the debates that Thomas Jericho (the unbeliever) and Hollus (the alien believer) constantly have over the existence of God. Those of you who are interested in the arguments developed in the book would do well to check out not only Dawkins and Gould but also Michael Behe, whom I believe is the main source for the intelligent-design material; Sawyer even cites his book by name inside the novel.

This book would be boring, however, if it contained nothing more than debates between two characters about science and religion, which is why Sawyer adds a personal, tragic element to the story in the form of Thomas's terminal lung cancer, contracted from breathing in dust during his paleontological studies. The ideas he debates about God, the meaning of life, and morality thus take on a brutally personal dimension and are not merely abstract mind-games; one chapter that describes his anguish over his impending death is particularly convincing (though the mood does spill over into sheer melodrama at times). Thomas has a wife and a young adopted son, and to leave them behind in death is almost more than he can bear. What happens to his beliefs and his outlook in life by the novel's end is probably the most realistic outcome I've seen in books of this sort. (No, I'm not telling you what it is. It's a major spoiler ...)

So What's In It For Me?

This book, though it is by one of Canada's foremost science fiction writers (Sawyer also wrote the Hugo-nominated novel Factoring Humanity) with impeccable hard SF credentials, is sure to cause some controversy here on Slashdot -- but you should read it as an example of how even explosive issues can be handled in a civil, fair and enlightening way. This book may not be destined to be a classic of the genre, but it still stands a chance to help Sawyer finally earn his well-deserved Hugo.

Purchase this book at Fatbrain.

Comments

Language and Logic

[deander2]

My question requires a little explination first.

One hurdle that must be cleared when discussing these issues is the language barrier. While I cannot speak for everyone, my experiences involve this:

Logic places strict definitions and requirements on words in the English language, elements which may not be as stringent in everyday life. The concepts of knowledge, truth, reasoning are good examples.

I, as a person who views religion through the glasses of a scientist evaluating a theory, see no compelling evidence for any of the major religions. This is not the say there is no God; there very we may be. I just have no knowledge of his existence, and therefor do not assume it. I draw my fundimentals about the universe through logic and science, methods which have long proven histories of successfully uncovering mysteries of our universe. Because of this, when I speak I speak according to the rules of the system; mainly I talk under the stringent definition of logic.

When discussing (using the strict definitions) complex issues with individuals of a less logistic background, I make concessions required by logic such as "yes, we don't know everything about the universe and therefor cannot disprove your 'theory' when your 'theory' does not make any measurable claims about the universe." These "concessions," while valid in the extreme, are then canabilized and used to "explain" why science in whole should be scraped and we should all take a literal view of King James.

This lack of common definitions eventually boils down even the best discussions to a game of semantics, and is one reason why I am not as inclined as I used to be to talk about religion.

So my question is this:

How does the book deal with the issue of logic? Do both characters obey the strict definitions? Do they both avoid them? Does man A become annoyed at man B because he's not playing fair logic? Are the differences exploited by the author to advance his own viewpoint?

Are there any books that fairly deal with this issue?

What do you think?

Behe's tired old argument from design

[quarnap]

OK, I haven't read the book, but from the reviewer's mention of Behe, I'm assuming it appeals to his argument from irreducible complexity of biologicl systems. The gist of the argument is that a biological system that is sufficiently complex enough in Behe's sense cannot have evolved into its present state. Therefore, we have evidence for an intelligent designer. It is amazing that seemingly rational people can make a leap from something that science is (currently) unable to explain, to something that is unexplainable in principle, namely god, as the explanation. Positing god doesn't "explain" anything at all. It simply ends all discussion of how things happen by claiming that god did it. (And don't ask where god came from.) Reminds me of that old cartoon of the two mathematicians standing in front of a blackboard full of equations done by one of them. In the center of the board are the words "and then a miracle occured" and the mathematics continues on. The one mathematician is saying to the other, "I think you need to be a bit more explicit here."

Re:while I'm not familiar with Behe's work...

[gwernol]

I do think that two important pieces of the argument from design are being left out in your summary. The first is that objects that appear to be designed do imply some sort of designer.

Nonsense. What about the "face on Mars" picture? This was an image from the Viking orbiter that looked remarkably like a carved face on the surface of Mare. To some, it even looked like the face of Christ! It had to be designed, right? It sure looked like it - even to me. By your argument, it therefore must have been designed.

Of course, when the Mars pathfinder probe flew over the same spot a few years later, and photographed the same region, it became clear that the particular angle of the light that had caused a random jumble of rocks to look like a face.

The second is whether that designer needs to be some sort of deity. The complexity of life does imply that there is some sort of design process at work.

Again, no. There are lots of examples of extremley complex systems that arise out of random formation processes, without any form of designer. I strongly suggest you study Chaos Theory, and Emergent Systems Theory, especially how Neural Nets work. A complex system does not imply a designer.

Which isn't to say all complex systems lack designers, just that complexity is not in itself any indication of the process that formed the system.

I tried calculating God once ...

[IntelliTubbie]

... but I kept getting this stupid 216-digit error that crashed my computer. 1:39 pm, restate my assumptions:
1. Mathematics is the language of nature
2. Everything in nature can be understood through numbers.
3. If you graph the numbers of any system, patterns emerge.
4. Therefore, there are patterns, everywhere in nature ...

Oh crap, I've got another headache coming on ... gotta go.

Rejoyce! I've found Hank!

[Spoing]

WARNING: The story below is a classic. Even though it is, it will still be moderated down because it's not PC and will probably insult the religously minded of /. or be seen as some sort of bigotry.

So be it, it's still on topic, and the heathens here who will still get it.

1. Religion in a nutshell

   This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:

   John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."

   Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."

   Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His ass?"

   John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the shit out of you."

   Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"

   John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropists. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever he wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss his ass."

   Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."

   Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"

   Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."

   John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."

   Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"

   Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."

   Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?"

   John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."

   Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"

   Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the shit out of you."

   Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?"

   John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."

   Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"

   John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."

   Me: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"

   Mary: "Well, he gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."

   Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?"

   John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"

   Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."

   John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass He'll kick the shit of you."

   Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from him..."

   Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."

   Me: "Then how do you kiss His ass?"

   John: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."

   Me: "Who's Karl?"

   Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."

   Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His ass, and that Hank would reward you?"

   John: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."

   1. From the desk of Karl
   2. Kiss Hank's ass and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
   3. Use alcohol in moderation.
   4. Kick the shit out of people who aren't like you.
   5. Eat right.
   6. Hank dictated this list Himself.
   7. The moon is made of green cheese.
   8. Everything Hank says is right.
   9. Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
   10. Don't use alcohol.
   11. Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
   12. Kiss Hank's ass or He'll kick the shit out of you.

   Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."

   Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."

   Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."

   John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."

   Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"

   Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."

   Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the shit out of people just because they're different?"

   Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."

   Me: "How do you figure that?"

   Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"

   Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."

   John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."

   Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."

   John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."

   Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."

   Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."

   Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."

   John: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"

   Me: "We do?"

   Mary: "Of course we do, Item 5 says so."

   Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"

   John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."

   Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"

   Mary: She blushes.

   John: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."

   Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"

   John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."

   Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"

   Mary: She looks positively stricken.

   John: He's shouting. "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"

   Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"

   Mary: Sticks her fingers in her ears."I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."

   John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."

   Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."

   Mary: She faints.

   John: He catches Mary. "Well, if I'd known you where one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."

   With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.