A God That Could be Real: Spirituality, Science, and the Future of Our Planet

A God That Could Be Real by Nancy Ellen Abrams

It was the subtitle “Spirituality, Science and the Future of Our Planet” that piqued my interest in this book. Spirituality and science have always been interests of mine. I've never been one to see them as opposites and have always tried to make them work together for me. But I don't have a great deal of knowledge in either area. Nancy Ellen Abrams has the knowledge of science and the experience of religion (both positive and negative). This book is her result of trying to make science and religion work together.

From the beginning, Abrams had me hooked. Not that I believe everything as she explains it, but the idea of an emergent God is intriguing. I am an unabashed born again show more Christian, so sometimes her depersonalization of God was discomfiting, but as far as I can tell, her logic is sound and she goes into some detail to back up what she's saying. One thing I really appreciate is that as I read her explanations of several things, the Bible verse that said the same thing (as far as how we should respond, in particular) came to mind. What she said did not tear down my faith, but reinforced it.

Since I never did believe God was an old man beyond the sky, and have pretty much always believed our view of him changed as our comprehension of ourselves and our universe has changed (though he has not changed), what resonates most strongly with me is her definition of God on page 74.

“God is … not the atoms, humans, stars, or galaxies; it's the conceptual framework that holds them together and gives meaning to our universe.”

That fits just fine with my view of a personal God. When she talked about truth boxes, I wondered if perhaps God is a box framed beyond string theory (or what replaces it). For me, God will always be unknowable, except on that personal level. I don't need more and that doesn't in any way conflict with anything science has to say.

Her third section gets somewhat “preachy,” which I found rather ironic. Nonetheless, I do agree with what she's saying. Believers and non-believers need to come to some consensus on common ground and stop the “us” versus “them” attitude. Truly, our world does depend on it. Now.

I would recommend this book to anyone. We need to talk about who/what God is and not hate each other for our differences. show less

The author is married to physicist Joel Primack and has co-authored two books with him, [The View from the Center of the Universe] and [The New Universe and the Human Future]. Long an atheist, Abrams entered a 12 step program for an eating disorder and discovered that the requirement to acknowledge a higher power added a meaningful dimension to her life. Exploring what might exist that is worthy of the name "God" and that is "real" (that is, conforms to science as we know it), she generates some fascinating hypotheses. Abrams says that when world view and God view are in sync, then we are integrated into a meaningful existence, but this hasn't happened since the 17th century, when the concept of the celestial spheres was shattered. So show more science and religion go down different paths and individuals either turn completely to one or the other or struggle with attempts to integrate them. With her knowledge of the current scientific understanding of the universe, Abrams postulates a fascinating scenario of God as an emergent phenomenon, a very real phenomenon, from that rarest of matters, stardust that engages in complex thinking.

I appreciated the very clear picture of the physical nature of the universe, from the micro to the macro, and the analogies Abrams draws from it. The "truth box" for Newton's laws of physics is limited, with different laws for quantum and large-scale physics. Similarly, our human identity ranges from the individual self up through family, tribe, nation, religion, species, life, to Earth. If we can become whole through integrating these scales, bringing them into harmony, and apt at being able to shift perspectives as needed, then both God and science can become powerful forces to direct us and bring meaning to our lives.

I found a lot that resonated with my cognitive map of reality here, and will probably read this again to develop a deeper understanding of Abrams' ideas. It was an extremely interesting read. show less

I requested this book because my hope was that Abrams would offer some definitive science in regard to spirituality, not the Intelligent Design mumbo-jumbo coming out of the Religious Right. Unfortunately, so far (at the half-way point), I am both disappointed and annoyed by this book.

First, although she starts with some allusions to recent scientific discoveries (Dark Matter and Dark Energy) she quickly crawls onto the couch of "writing-as-therapy"--launching into her own battle with eating disorders and 12-step programs (I respect addiction-recovery programs when used appropriately, but I get really perturbed when people trot them out in order to give credibility to an argument that simply hasn't sufficient evidence--that is abuse of show more the program's intent and denigrating to the people who actually rely on it to move beyond their addictions.) in which one must surrender to the non-logical, non-scientific world of faith. In and of itself, this would not be a problem IF she was writing a self-help guide. But, Abrams is attempting to sell this as science without any scientific data or evidence. The personal issue portion that wormed its way into her narrative was a definite turn-off. However, in trying to remain open-minded, I continued.

The next annoyance is her inconsistency. In the second chapter she discusses at length, although without any corroborating evidence or support, what God is not. Apparently, God is not some abstract, "out-there" being that existed before the beginning of the Universe because in her mind that would be ridiculous. She also claims that as a teen she considered God a product of human thought, but dismisses this also. Yet, in the very next chapter, Abrams tells the reader that God is "emergent"--a formulation or creation of humanity's aspirations and society. What is that but a human abstraction? What is God at this point but a CREATION of the human mind? In this case, human mindS. I wonder whether she re-read her own writing here because nearly everything she discounted as "God" she incorporated into her "emergent" version. In neither case does she present any compelling evidence or reasoning that her version (based on assumptive premises) is any less abstract or metaphorical than the ones she eliminated as "medieval". In fact, she clings to the analogy of the ant and the ant colony as the visual template for humanity's relationship to this emergent god. Is that any different than calling God a "Watchmaker" as the Deists did, or "God is Love" as many contend? God the Ant-Colony. Yeah, okay.

The degree in which Abrams repeats her primary claim (among other ideas) is the third item of irritation for me. How many different ways can you claim that God is "emergent"? Is her claim so weak that she must repeat it in the hopes that somehow one of the times I read it I will "believe" it? Isn't that asking for the very thing she wanted to avoid: FAITH? Where is the scientific experimentation? The methodology? The formulation of a model and the testing of the model? She rightly posits that our 21st century world needs to move away from a 15th century "God" but it seems she's also throwing out the entire Age of Enlightenment to boot--the good (scientific method/inquiry) as well as the bad and the ugly.

Next, she exposes her own inability to keep an open mind in the face of evidence which causes her to paint herself into a corner that only her assumptions and "belief" can resolve. On page 48, she claims that we could consider ourselves "no-thing" (although she apparently does not recommend it) since, at the quantum level we are ultimately swirling bits of energy. She outright insults this perception as "insane" and counter to "reality" (hers?). Yet, she spends an entire chapter in "non-reality" considering how abstract human constructs (education, economy, society) are "real" although they have no physical form nor can be sensed in a physical manifestation. I wonder how she can so glibly dismiss the beliefs and practices of nearly a half-billion Buddhists, one billion Hindus, and other derivative religious sects who consider this world samsara (an illusion) and have realized before quantum physics was accepted as fact that we are essentially "no-thing". Even within top 3 monotheistic faiths (Christianity, Judaism and Islam), there are components that indicate that our world, our physical manifestation is transitory and that what we consider "real" and "physical" is nothing more than a vehicle for the spirit which exists in a different, more permeable realm. Buddhists even consider the notions of heaven, hell or and afterlife more of that illusion that we create to rationalize our existence and give a sense of permanency to our egos. Some recent, ACTUAL science (and mathematics) even suggests that our Universe is indeed nothing more than a projection. No-thing. Light and energy and vast amounts of space. How does this fit into her emergent world-view? There is nothing (ha!) negative about realizing that "reality" is illusive in nature. Or, that there can be degrees of reality based on a person's worldview. For some, dreams are as real as being awake. For others, only the physical world and that which the senses can "feel" are real. It's no more farcical than claiming God is a life-form that emerged from our evolution but has no substance or physical manifestation to corroborate said existence? Oh, right, that might be any other "god".

She's very anthropocentric and outright dismisses the possibility that "god" can represent any creature other than humanity because, she claims, only humanity searches for "meaning". Apparently humanity is the only species that feels such things as "gratitude" or "aspiration" to improve. This flies in the face of research, both anecdotal and scientific that would suggest that mammals, in particular dogs, cats, and other higher order mammalians, do indeed have the ability to feel a wide range of emotions and can actually communicate them with some proficiency even to us "stunted" humans. Moreover, this might even suggest that animals do strive to improve. She seems to lack knowledge about other studies that suggest that humans are more "programmed" in their behaviors than previously considered, especially when it comes to language, morality and other "higher level" functions. Does this mean we are incapable of producing a "god" according to her line of reasoning?

The book is easy to read although at times very pedantic and dogmatic. Abrams speaks to the reader as if he/she were a child needing to be "learned"--almost like scolding. Its nearly as annoying as Niall Ferguson's Colossus, a book I could not bring myself around to completing because of it's sheer lack of adherence to historical concepts and knowledge, misrepresentation of social and cultural systems and how they interact, and denial that anyone could possibly view the world in a non-capitalistic, white middle-class male manner. It was as far from any "reality" as this book is shaping up to be. Only my curiosity about where Abrams will go next (that and it's only 175 pages) keeps me engaged to any degree.

I really had hoped that she would have kept to a stricter, more scientific, less presumptuous discussion regardless of whether her readership could "do the math". I would prefer having to struggle with the theories and equations if they lead to somewhere new and intriguing than to feel nastily compelled to drill holes in every new statement to stave off the boredom of circling around the premise yet another time. show less

Growing up Christian, currently exploring mysticism and paganism, and working on a class on how to build my own theology, this book came at a critical point in my life. And while I might see the point that other reviewers have made, that it is a book on spirituality for atheists, I don't see that as a point against it. In fact, I think that's a point strongly in its favor. I am not atheist, by any stretch of the imagination, but neither do I dismiss that an atheist has the right to a spiritual practice... and by learning what might work for her, I am expanding my horizon of potential spiritual experiences, too.

This book explores what spirituality might mean to someone who needs to understand the world based on cause and effect, testing show more hypotheses, and actually getting data points back to consider. It is a book that embraces the concept that a god-figure is not, and should not be, static. Instead, a conception of God should grow and change as our understandings of our world do.

I personally loved the concept of an emergent God, a God of stories and cross-cultural understandings, a God who exists not because one group is willing to believe, but who exists because of how we all believe and live and grow. Much like the global economy isn't made by one transaction house, God is not made by one religious text.

There were moments when the tone of the writing changed drastically, even mid-paragraph, from academic to personal. This could be a drawback for some. It helped to keep me engaged in the writing, though, since I am not scientifically trained or studied in dark matter or universe-expansion theories. show less

This book *could* be a major entry into debates not only about the relationship between science and religion, but the very nature of religion itself. Readers familiar with any part of the last 100 years or more of this subject in the field of religious studies will hear tantalizing echoes of philosophies, theories, frameworks, and explanations they know well. If Abrams had included notes of any kind -- even a bibliographical essay -- then interested readers without superhuman powers of recall could see where she takes the arguments of past thinkers from Augustine and Anselm to Marx and Durkheim, and beyond. This lack of signposting might ultimately gain her a reader or two who might otherwise have been turned off by apparent show more "academese," but it comes at the cost, I fear, of a more fruitful dialogue with the cutting edge of religious and theological studies.

I hope I am proven wrong. I hope that scholars far and wide will take up her challenge to see God in nature, indeed in *human* nature. I hope, though, that this further conversation will occur with due (even eager, perhaps) acknowledgment of (for example) the history of pantheism and panentheism; proofs offered for God's existence, ontological and otherwise; and the impact of evolutionary thinking on religion from David Hume to Darwin to (dare I say...) Dawkins.

Simply put, I find brilliant the fact that her application of "emergence" to thinking about God might leave room for an ever evolving notion of God that is, furthermore, always beyond the full grasp of human intellectual comprehension. This will not satisfy committed religious believers. It is unlikely to sway militant atheists, though some open-minded opponents of organized religion may find it aesthetically pleasing or even elegant. She does not write with the rigor required by academic philosophy or theology, beyond just the lack of scholarly apparatus. However, her idea *needs* to be discussed, both in light of its (unacknowledged) sources and parallels and in light of what it could possibly offer the future of what is inaptly cast as the "debate between science and religion." Discussions of, for example, 1) philosopher John Hick on "ultimate Reality," 2) the distance between Durkheim's and (her teacher) Eliade's notions of sacred and profane, and 3) Stephen Jay Gould's "nonoverlapping magisteria" could all be envigorated by a shot in the arm from Abrams.

To sum up: this book's ideas deserve a wide audience. show less

This is one of the most intriguing books I have read in some time. It shows us a way forward toward a coherence that transcends the divisive religious doctrines that deny the well-established truths of the universe and the sterile scientific models that ignore or dismiss the power of spirituality.

Throughout history concepts of God have evolved to explain the workings of the universe as it is best understood. Historically theologians did their best to make their image of God consistent with the universe as they understood it to be. Today our understanding of the universe has advanced far beyond what the gods of traditional religions explain. These obsolete gods are holding people back. This book proposes a concept of god that is show more up-to-date with our present understanding of the universe.

The book emerges from a dilemma faced by the author. Because her husband is Joel Primack, a prominent physicist who studies the origins of the universe, she is conversant with the most up-to-date research describing the origins of the universe and its composition including dark energy and dark matter. Based on her husband’s research, she has total confidence in the accuracy of these scientific findings. She lived as an atheist most of her life. However, recently she has been able to recover from an addiction to overeating using the spiritual approach of a twelve-step program. She conceived of the higher power called for in the program as a “loving but unbullshitable witness to my thoughts.”

She abandons the tired question “Does God Exist?” as a hopeless distraction and instead pursues the question “Could anything actually exist in the universe, as science understands it, that is worthy of being called God?” The price of a real God is that we have to consciously let go of what makes it unreal.

Rejecting intelligence, tool making, and language as the defining characteristic of humans, she proposes that humans are unique because we aspire to something more. After illustrating the concept of emergence she presents the core thesis of the book: God is endlessly emerging from the staggering complexity of all humanity’s aspirations across time. God is all that drives us forward toward what we can be and what we want to be.

Chapters 4–6 making up part II of the book are somewhat contrived. Here she attempts to accommodate spirituality, prayer, and afterlife within her reality-based concept of God. These ideas are thought-provoking and worthy of more discussion, but not yet settled in my mind.

In Chapter 7 she gives practical suggestions for renewing and reinventing religion. After describing actions to bring religion into harmony with reality, she identifies three sacred goals: 1) to protect our extraordinary jewel of a planet, 2) to do our best for future generations, and 3) to identify with humanity’s story.

Chapter 8 outlines a “Planetary Morality.” Here she considers the essential question: “How can we individually expand our moral sense to care about our collective effects at size scales and timescales we are just beginning to grasp?” She presents eight high-level principles for good living informed from a global perspective.

This book is both poetic and scientific. Within a rigorous scientific framework she passionately discusses spirituality, prayer, love, identity, common bonds, heaven, and hell. “For the first time we can have a coherent picture of reality that meets our highest scientific standards, reveals unexplored terrain in ourselves, has a meaningful place for an awesome God, and frees our spirits to strike out with fervor—and not a moment too soon.”

Read this important and thought-provoking book. It is boldly conceived, well written, clearly argued, and backed by reliable evidence. show less

[LT Early Reviewer]
I went into this book with enthusiasm. I am a scientifically trained engineer and a Christian, and long frustrated with the ongoing and mostly nonconstructive arguments between atheists with total faith in science and those religious folks who have near-zero trust in science.

And Abrams' stated approach and objectives are quite enticing. However, I felt that she dropped the ball and failed to achieve her objectives. And it seems that the stumbling block is mainly that she seems to not recognize that she is marginalizing the religious viewpoint while intending to provide the atheist with a spiritual option. For example, she repeatedly refers to the 'real' world as things that science can prove or investigate, rather show more than referring to this as the material world (as both atheists and the religious can be comfortable with). She simply assumes that 'real' and 'material' mean the same thing, which is not true for her religious audience. She also confuses the issue (and, I think, further relegates the religious to second-class status) by using 'God' to mean many different things - God (though not very often); our understanding of God; "versions" of God; a certain religion's or denomination's dogma about God; or an individual's belief about God. This inconsistent (and, for the religious, incorrect) use of the term is both confusing and annoying. There may be varied understandings of who/what God is by the religious, but they all understand the word "God' to mean essentially the same thing. So, for example, you get phrases like "Within monotheism, God had evolved from...", when what is meant is more like "Within monotheism, the believer's understanding of God had evolved from...", and you also get something like: we can "participate in the evolution of God." which is virtually guaranteed to shut down a thinking monotheist, when "participate in the development of our understanding of God" may achieve the stated goal.

Abrams, in other ways, uses certain loaded words when she could easily use alternatives - she uses 'evolve' for 'change', 'real' for 'material', and 'magic' for 'supernatural'. Most religious folks would agree that our picture/understanding of God has changed; that science is exceptional in defining and understanding how the material universe works; that God and many manifestations of God are supernatural. But, by repeatedly using her chosen, loaded words for these things, she is not only irritating her religious audience, she is practicing what she identifies as a fault in evangelicals - that "They reinforce this picture of reality with the kind of language they use every time they talk to each other."

Abrams ignores (or is unaware) of the fact that many Christians know that our understanding of God is a continually growing thing. She assumes that this changing understanding shows that God is made by man, even while celebrating that science's changing understanding of the universe shows that science is a trustworthy way to understand it.

On the positive side, my margin notes indicate many points of agreement, and also contain many 'arguments' with the author. This is the healthy way (beyond scientific inquiry) for us to make progress in our understanding of God, the cosmos, and how humans fit into it all.

There are many specific concepts and conclusions in this book that I would argue about, but questioning and considering other interpretations of the world that surrounds us is part of growing in our understanding, and for that, Abrams work is of value. However, the repeated short-changing and mis-quoting of a large number of the religious begins to overwhelm the usefulness of this work for a religious person. For this reason, and because Abrams seemed to be restating herself more than patience could handle, I stopped after Chapter 5.

If you can get a copy of this book and try to read the first 5 chapters or so with an open mind, it can be quite useful. There are many ways in which Abrams ideas can help the religious better understand the atheist, and better understand some of the issues that separate us. But for a religious person to read this effectively, I think you must replace the words 'real' and 'reality' with 'material' and 'material world', and frequently replace the word 'God' with some reference to religion, a religious group, or a person of faith. Doing so may make it easier to capture the essential points of Abrams' work, and you may even be able to finish the whole book.

Os. show less