Arguing Science: A Dialogue on the Future of Science and Spirit

by Rupert Sheldrake, Michael Shermer

Two controversial authors debate the nature and methods of science, its dogmas, and its future. Rupert Sheldrake argues that science needs to free itself from materialist dogma while Michael Shermer contends that science, properly conceived, is a materialistic enterprise; for science to look beyond materialist explanations is to betray science and engage in superstition. Issues discussed materialism and its role in science, whether belief in God is compatible with a scientific perspective, and parapsychology.Michael Shermer is Editor-in-Chief of Skeptic magazine and the author of numerous books including Skeptic .Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of ten books including his most recent, Science Set Free , which challenges scientific dogma.

Genres: Science

160 pages, Kindle Edition

Published October 3, 2016

About the author

Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of more than 80 scientific papers and ten books. A former Research Fellow of the Royal Society, he studied natural sciences at Cambridge University, where he was a Scholar of Clare College, took a double first class honours degree and was awarded the University Botany Prize. He then studied philosophy and history of science at Harvard University, where he was a Frank Knox Fellow, before returning to Cambridge, where he took a Ph.D. in biochemistry. He was a Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge, where he was Director of Studies in biochemistry and cell biology. As the Rosenheim Research Fellow of the Royal Society, he carried out research on the development of plants and the ageing of cells in the Department of Biochemistry at Cambridge University.

Recently, drawing on the work of French philosopher Henri Bergson, he developed the theory of morphic resonance, which makes use of the older notion of morphogenetic fields. He has researched and written on topics such as animal and plant development and behaviour, telepathy, perception and metaphysics.

Reviews

[Ronny Kjelsberg · Rating 2 out of 5]

Nei, dette var tynne greier. Kjøpte den på Mammutsalg på tross av at den var utgitt av det useriøse altiforlaget Flux på norsk. Det er jo greit å bli utsatt for de beste argumentene fra de man er uenige med, og ikke bare de tidvis karikerte framstillingene som deres meningsmotstandere kommer med, men dersom Sheldrake og det han kommer med her er det beste så er det tynt.

Det hjelper heller ikke på at dialogen tydeligvis er foretatt på en såpass rotete måte at det gjerne kommer to og to innlegg fra hver hvor den ene gjerne allerede har svart ut den andres innspill før de kommer.

Sheldrake surrer med ymse rare teorier som han tydeligvis ikke klarer å gi slipp på, om tankelesing, "morfisk resonans", en "bevissthet" som gjennomsyrer alt, og en tro på gud han tror han kan begrunne rasjonelt.

Shermer er ikke alltid så mye bedre selv. Han påpeker med rette at mye av det Sheldrake kommer med bare er lek med ord som han aldri definerer. (Hva mener han med at f.eks. en stjerne har "bevissthet".) Men han går jo i samme fella selv når han snakker om ting som fri vilje. (For hva er "vilje" og hva er "fri".) Jeg er fristet til å komme med mitt standardsvar på spørsmålet om fri vilje: Vi har ikke fri vilje til å oppføre oss på noe annet vis enn som om vi hadde fri vilje. (Eller man kan legge til det gamle munnhellet "jeg kan gjøre som jeg vil, men jeg kan ikke ville som jeg vil".)

Og Shermer legger til grunn en (dessverre blant skeptikere vanlig) grunn og forenklet forståelse for hva religiøse (i hvert fall av Sheldrakes type) forstår med religion, og dermed ender han opp med en kritikk som i stor grad bommer.

Sheldrake på sin side virker tidvis å ha problemer med å holde en høflig og saklig tone. I passasjer virker han både sur og bitter (antagelig av å ikke bli tatt på alvor av det vitenskapelig miljøet).

Hadde håpet å bli litt klokere av denne, men hvor mye klokere blir man av å lese en dialog mellom to menn som tror de er mye smartere enn de er, selv om en er mye lenger ut på vidda enn den andre? Ikke så veldig.

[Yasser Mustafa · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hmm. I do not have mush to say about it. I did enjoy it, but I do not think it is what I hoped for. I was looking forward to a heated debate on science,atheism, and religious issues but What I got is a heated debate on Sheldrake`s opinions, which are not representative in any case of mainstream religious views. He identified himself as a christian though I am pretty much sure what he said is not Christianity- or more specifically, it is not what most Christians believe.

Regardless of what I hoped for. I guess that Sherman had the upper hand most of the book. However, Sheldrake made some good points regarding ESP. And in general, it was fruitful conversation where both debaters had pointed out things I was not aware of before.

[Joseph Schrock · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Arguing Science” juxtaposes an atheistic-scientific worldview with a theistic-scientific outlook. I had been, decades ago, an agnostic (NEVER an atheist), but then, spiritual encounters with the Divine revolutionized my life. Thirty years ago I would have sided with Michael Shermer in a book like this. In my recent reading of the book, however, I was committed to a worldview that is much closer to that held by Rupert Sheldrake than to Shermer’s atheistic outlook.

I thought that most of the arguments on both sides were presented intelligently, but Shermer has an anti-spiritual/materialist bias, while I would suggest that (maybe) Sheldrake is more open to ALL possibilities, all the while devoted to true, objective, and unbiased science. Maybe my judgment call is itself biased. However, I believe that knowledge of truth on a given issue tends to bias one in favor of that which “rings true”.

I found the book to be an engaging presentation of clashing worldviews – a clash in which, admittedly, my outlook was not neutral. In my judgment call, Sheldrake is the hero and Shermer the villain. Regardless, reality and truth prevail.

[Andreas Schmidt · Rating 1 out of 5]

Il copione mi pare sempre lo stesso: credono di essere apolitici, invece lo sono, e trasferiscono la loro ideologia alla scienza che ritengono invece pura e incontaminata da ideologie, per utilizzarla come una clava contro la religione (perché non contro l'induismo, il taoismo o l'islam, ma solo contro la fede cristiana che è la radice della civiltà occidentale?) per dare una versione da incubo dell'universo.
Questo è C.V.D. di cosa significhi la scienza politicizzata.

[SAURABH GUPTA · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Arguing Science: A Dialogue on the Future of Science and Spirit" is a thought-provoking exchange between scholars about the intersection of science and spirituality. This engaging book delves into the complexities of reconciling these realms, offering diverse perspectives that challenge conventional thinking, making it a valuable read for those interested in this ongoing debate.

[Yuser Alhaj · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed it, interesting dialogue between both of them, Although I wish it was extended and more detailed in some aspects.
I can't agree or take Rubert's morphic resonance seriously, still it was interesting to know bout it.

[S117]

interestingly enough I agree and disagree with both of them.

[Amberle · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book despite the fact that I did not understand all of the arguments on both sides. I feel just a little bit smarter! It gave me reason to stop and think, really consider what I believe and don't believe. It also gave me a huge list of books that I need to read because the authors refer to plenty of other books for resources and facts. I especially enjoyed the part of God vs Science. I feel like perhaps the "fluffy" stuff is not proven yet because we don't have the technology, yet. I am open to possibility yet I also value science and its methods. Anyone interested in Science - read this book.