God's Debris

Thank reader mblumber for this review of Scott Adams's God's Debris, newly republished in hardcover after starting out life a few years ago as an e-book. For those who've never seen Adam's serious side, this is an interesting introduction. God's Debris author Scott Adams pages 128 publisher Andrew McMeel, Publishers rating 9 reviewer mblumber ISBN 0740721909 summary An existential thought experiment in the form of a dialogue.

I like reading books that make me think, but not in the same way that I think when I'm at work or doing homework. When reading for pleasure, I want something that at first glance is so strange it's absurd, but at closer examination makes a tremendous amount of sense. That depth is the essence of Scott Adams' God's Debris, A Thought Experiment.

Adams is not known for writing super-intelligent commentaries on life, at least ones without a punchline or visual gag. Creator of Dilbert, his writing to this point has focused upon the world of cubicles and shifting organizational charts where engineers and management ('induhviduals' as he often calls them) square off in battles where the engineers are right and management is wrong. Very straightforward, enjoyable reading, but nothing compared to his latest work.

God's Debris was first published in May of 1999 as an e-book. It is sold by Digital Owl and can be purchased as bits for $4.95 or in hardcover wherever books are sold. The story focuses on both the physical laws of nature (relativity, gravity, the origin of the universe) and the psychology behind religion. The story is told by a fairly educated narrator talking to an unseen second character who seems to hold a deep understanding of the universe. As I read more, I found my own questions being raised by the narrator, and addressed by the other character. This arrangement makes for a very strange read, but the unusual format enhances the overall reading experience.

This book second guesses everything one learns in school, and comes close to succeeding. I cannot think of a single statement in the book that can be proven incorrect. To a college-educated reader like me, some of the assertions may seem totally ridiculous -- the problem is that they make just as much sense as Einstein's relativistic physics. In the introduction to the book, Adams observes the fact that ' ... the simplest explanation usually sounds right and is far more convincing than any complicated explanation could hope to be.'

The protagonist makes some very peculiar assertions throughout; My favorite is a statement he makes about the true nature of gravity, specifically that it is fueled by probability. The idea his advances is that all matter is constantly switching in and out of existence, and that is how objects move. The reason that matter appears to be attracted to other matter is that, according to the rules of probability, each piece of matter will inherently appear closer to massive objects the next time it comes back into existence. If you didn't understand that, and you'd like to, then you should read the book.

If you are a religious person, I can assure that this book will be disturbing. Although not told from an atheist point of view, the protagonist rejects the traditional view of religion. There are references to religious beliefs as 'delusions' only intended to allow the less-enlightened to live in relative peace in a world which has little. Taken as a whole, the views expressed can best be summarized ala Jesse Ventura, that 'organized religion is a crutch for the weak-minded.'

I'm purposely avoiding going into detail about the contents of the book. This is not only because a small piece doesn't make sense by itself, but also because most of the fun is in the discovery. Reading this book, you feel as if you are the first and only person to truly understand the world. I wouldn't want to spoil that for you. It's only 132 pages, broken up into very short chapters, and it can be read on your lunch break. I highly recommend it.

You can purchase this book at Fatbrain. Do you want to see your book review on Slashdot? Please take a look at the book review guidelines first.

Comments

Re:I'd have a hard time taking this book seriously

[T1girl]

I've learned more from Scott Adams' books, comic strips and LOTD forum than all the corporate seminars, hot-shot management guides and corporate CEO puff biographies I've attended or read all rolled into one. He can say more in a few short sentences or cells than most of these windbags say in a ponderous volume of prose. Who says comic books and graphic novels aren't a legitimate forum for art and ideas? Satire is wasted on some people.

Vote today on Dilbert's List of Top 822 Most Unhelpful Statements From the Help Desk

as far as religion goes (from a Christian)

[Anonymous Coward]

I have long held the opinion, based on my own observations backed by historical facts, that organized religion has been the greatest cause of interference in a persons relationship with God and Christ. (which is really what it is all about)

As for the science vs. religion, I never understood the hypocricy of people who get angry about the past of religion's stupidity towards scientific discovery and the scientific method, yet then turn around and pull the same crap. It is true that many use religion, philosphy, money, relationships, sex, and other 'things' (including drugs, porn, video games, food, excercise, etc) in order to not have to deal and cope with life, but that no more makes them automatically 'wrong' than justification make it right.

I get rather frustrated at people who while claim to be faithful Christians, they get very angry if you question them. (note that here I mean question, as in seeking to learn and analyze... NOT when you are obviously picking a fight (e.g. "How does this work?" as opposed to "Why would anyone use that?!")) The bible teaches us to question our own reality and our beliefs, otherwise we will never really have faith. a sword is tempered and folded under intense heat and pressure, over time and with blood, sweat and tears... if you just poured in the alloy in a mold you would merely have a very heavy and fragile (relatively) stick.

I personally have never seen any dichotomy between science and religion... any religion that I am familiar with. However it is hypocritical zealots (Sept 11, anyone?) that are the problem. Ghandi once said that the Christian Bible was the best manual for how to live. While he personally did not accept Jesus, he understood the logic of what the Bible taught (thats the theology part).

oops, this is way too long. Whether it is religion, politics, or your choice of shoes... always try to take a logical and rational outlook instead of an emotionally reaction.

This is my opinion, and it can be taken for thought, or discared... but it is still my opinion. I at least still have that right.

Re:as far as religion goes (from a Christian)

[ckokotay]

Amen to that. As a Christian I am very frustrated at the way 'organized' religeon has distorted God and Christ in order to fit its own theological conclusions. I hate to say it, but, IMHO, large organized Christian 'based' religeons are the devils greatest tools of deception. It is less obvious, and more dangerous to give someone 95% of the truth, but leave out the 5% that really makes a difference in a persons salvation. I see it in constant biblical misinterpretations, which if the 'reader' would actually sit down and read the words to figure it out for themselves, they would be astounded at the amount of crap that is really being preached in the pulpit. Even some of the preachers themselves know they are not right (I know at least 2), but continue to tow the line for the sake of their 'job' Not a good thing at all, and it is so widespread - rooted in traditions that go back a thousand or more years, that it is impossible to disuade people in large numbers from it to the actual truth. There has been almost no reconciliation between science and christianity either. I am fascinated by technology and the universe, as much as everyone else here, but I take it for what it is, and I do not let it rule my existance.... my 2 cents anyway.

Re:Another day...

[Ami Ganguli]

Without having read the book, it sounds like the whole point is that these wacko theories, while strange, are just as good as any other theory to explain phenomena we don't understand.

I suppose you could say that God reaches out and pushes massive bodies together. Or that invisible chewing gum binds things together. It may well be that the "truth" (if we ever discover it) will be just as strange. Certainly quantum theory is bizarre and, if people I respect didn't keep telling me it was true, I wouldn't beleive it.

It doesn't sound like Adams is a an anti-religious zealot at all, but rather somebody who's very aware of the limits of scientific knowledge.

Re:Gravity and what Physics says

[alienmole]

But that Gravity quote seemed sort of silly. It doesn't actually explain why matter inherently comes back into existence closer to large objects.

That same problem applies to all of our physical theories about the universe, at some level. Newton's theory of gravity did not explain why massive objects attract each other - they just do. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity does not explain why spacetime warps in the presence of mass - it just does.

All we can really do with our theories is describe what we observe, and develop predictive models. Physics doesn't provide an ultimate answer to the question of "why" - it only ever provides local answers, pushing back the "why" to a different level.

Scott Adams' theory of gravity does this too, and is actually quite comparable to Newton's theory. In fact, I'm sure it would be possible to develop an Adamsian theory that's the equal of Newton's theory in all predictive respects - but you would ultimately find that you could dispense with the winking in and out of existence stuff, just as Einstein was able to dispense with the ether as a medium for the propagation of electromagnetic waves. As you pointed out with the carrier pigeon example, if something can't be detected, and doesn't add predictive value to a theory, to all intents and purposes it doesn't exist.

artists as philosophers

[Alien54]

Of course, anyone who is working hard as an artist, even as a comic strip artist, doing commentary on life, is going to develop a philosophy, a world view.

now this may not be a sophisticated as a physicist, or your college certified philosopher, but it can be useful. Not everything will be spot on, that depending entirely on the insights of the author.

I for one, do not know what he would make of the guy who has offered a million dollar reward for evidence conclusively proving there is no afterlife.

But that is part of the fun of talking about things like this.

Slight difference

[Bilbo]

Not that I think Jesse Ventura necessarily understood the subtle difference, but there is a difference between "Religion" (i.e., the fundamental belief in the existence of a Higher Power (i.e., "God") outside of the scope of our physical world) and "Organized Religion" (a formalized set of beliefs, often propagated by an organized, hierarchal system of "Priests").

The former is a system of beliefs which one comes to based on one's own experiences and understanding.

The latter is an external system, often forced on individuals, without any thought on their own part.

I happen to be a very "religious" person myself, but I'll be the first to admit that a huge percentage of people filling our churches, synagogues, mosques or whatever are there simply to be led around by the nose without having to really wrestle with the deeper questions of life and their existence.

In that sense, yes - "Organized Religion" is certainly an Opiate.

Re:What if ...

[gdyas]

What if science were a crutch for the weak-minded?

And what if the world sat spinning on a stack of turtles? It's a cute theory, but you'd have to prove it. And there's the difference between faith and science. There's a large amount of evidence supporting quantum mechanics and little supporting the existence of God. Science isn't a crutch for anything. It's just a formal method for finding out how the world works. You hold yourself to strict rules of evidence, and bit by bit, fact by fact, crawl toward a greater understanding of physical phenomena. You make alot of mistakes along the way. You interpret things incorrectly, make false assumptions, etc. But by jerks & starts you make progress and we learn more.

To paraphrase from Richard Feynman re: quantum electrodynamics: "It probably doesn't make sense to you, but that's not important. It doesn't have to make sense, because regardless of our reason and logic that is how it is."

Re:Another day...

[gdyas]

science freely admits that it doesn't know what caused the big bang explosion and probably never will.

Not knowing is no reason to pick up the closest fairy tale at hand and go parading it around. If the choice is between the confortable security of myth or an uneasy yet honest lack of knowledge give me that latter.

Re:I'd have a hard time taking this book seriously

[legLess]

Satire is wasted on some people.

Satire?? Dilbert is one of the sorriest attempts at satire ever. What's Dilbert's basic message? "Bosses are stupid, but we all have to do what they say anyway, unless we can trick them by being lazy or fucking up."

Folks, wake up and smell the capitalism. Real satire inspires you to action, it twists in your mind until its meaning is communicated, it disturbs and outrages. Real satire has teeth, it draws blood. If you want satire read Jonathan Swift:

My hate, whose lash just Heaven had long decreed,
Shall on a day make sin and folly bleed.

His satire had a goal, a purpose. He wrote to tear down empires, to destroy human stupidity.

Scott Adams has an entirely different goal: to become rich as Croesus by exploiting human stupidity and pandering to it. Pathetic.

Re:Science must be testable

[gowen]

The Copenhagen interpretation claims that wave functions in Quantum mechanics collapse because they are effected by being observed by an intelligent observer.

No, it doesn't. Remove the word "intelligent" and you're closer. All CI says

1. Wave functions are probabilities
   
2. Any act of measuring involves interaction, and interaction collapses the wave function, and measurements are indeterministic.
   

Not unreasonable. And certainly not dissimilar from the Law of Large Numbers (since that deals with probabilities and CI says thats what we're dealing with).

You can see this by taking a large number of observations of photons or electrons or whatever and seeing the 'spike' from the wave function collapse.

What spike? The spike in what? This is physics, be specific

Organization is amoral.

[kannen]

Organization in a religion is neither good nor bad. It is amoral. Organization merely provides structure.

Christian theologians talk about the wine and the wineskins. The wine is the good message that Christians have to share with others. The wine is vitally important - it is what has real value. The wineskins are the structures that facilitate the growth of the message. The value of the winkeskins is directly related to their effectiveness in delivering the wine to the people. They have no value apart from the wine.

The problem of most Christian organizations is that they have forgotten the importance of the wine. They have allowed the wineskins to be seen as valuable in and of themselves. The structures of the church - the buildings, the meeting formats, the hymns (Oh the hymns!!), even the chairs - have remained the same for hundreds of years because they have been valued for their tradition. But they should not be valued if they do not effectively communicate the wine, and judging by the number of people bored out of their minds on Sundays, they are definitely not serving this purpose. They were once effective, but they are not any longer.

Organized religion is good when it provides an effective means of distributing special revelation to the populace. Every part of a Christian organization should be geared towards distributing the wine. Organized religion is bad when it is not willing to prune away the dead branches. If members are not willing to do so, if they value any part of the structure more than the wine, their organization is destined for trouble.