Customer Reviews
Not 'Just right' - By: JA Foxton, 03 Feb 2008 
This book left me with mixed feelings. Maybe I can start with what I found positive about it? The early sections of the book were quite exhilarating. Paul Davies skilfully communicates some complex ideas about the origin of the universe. However by the middle of the book, he (or I?) was losing touch with the material & it seemed to become an exploration of various, highly speculative positions.
As he says at the end of the book, many scientists are going to view his stance as crypto-religious. There is probably some truth in this but, in his defence, it is worth pointing out that the early part of chapter 9 contains an excellent critique of Intelligent Design.
My concerns about the book also started at an early stage. It seemed very strange to encounter, on the third page of the preface, a reference to 'atheists' & their interest in the idea of a multiverse. Having picked up this book expecting a consideration of the science involved, I didn't reallly anticipate that atheism or theism would enter the picture at alll. However, it does make it much easier for me to recommend that anyone interested in the fine-tuning arguments should read something by the physicist Victor Stenger who, very elegantly, disposes with the fine-tuning arguments - & without the need to posit multiverses.
Towards the end of the book Paul Davies says, 'At the end of the day, alll the approaches I have discussed are likely to prove unsatisfactory. In fact, in reviewing them they alll seem to me to be either ridiculous or hopelessly inadequate...' Having waded through the tour of 'fake' universes etc., I agree. Ultimately the book seemed unsatisfying & I would recommend trying 'The Fabric of the Cosmos' by Brian Greene in preference to this book.
Popular science books can open up very esoteric areas to the layperson. Paul Davies does this well. Popular science books can also be quite inspiring & leave one with a feeling for the tremendous progress which has been made in our understanding. This book did not falll into this category for me.
THE GOD HYPOTHESIS explained the "Goldilocks Effect" First! - By: Michael A. Corey, Ph.D., 30 Dec 2007 
My name is Dr. Michael A Corey, & I have been a huge fan of Paul Davies' work for many years. He has influenced my various books more than any other single individual, so I find it very interesting that he has adopted the "Goldilocks Principle" that I first used in my earlier book THE GOD HYPOTHESIS: DISCOVERING DESIGN IN OUR "JUST RIGHT" GOLDILOCKS UNIVERSE. I actuallly saw him briefly at a conference at Harvard back in 2001 & I gave him a copy of THE GOD HYPOTHESIS, which has Goldilocks on the cover eating her porridge. So in one sense I am quite flattered that he liked my analogy enough to use it in his own book. I also find it remarkable that Amazon is bundling my book with his, because they both use the Goldilocks Principle to make their respective cases. However, Davies comes to a decidedly different conclusion that I do. He prefers to explain why the many foundational parameters of our universe are "just right" by resorting to a large (or perhaps infinite) number of other alternative universes that we cannot see or otherwise scientificallly detect with our best cosmological instruments. This isn't science at alll, unfortunately, because these other universes cannot ever be seen or measured in any way. They are just the only way that a non-theistic explanation can be devised for our "just right" universe, because if there are a huge number of other universes, then it might be possible that we just happened to evolve in the one universe that just accidentallly happened to be supportive of carbon based life. But this just seems a little too "ad hoc" for me, because massive physical coincidences like this, where tens of thousands of blind physical forces nevertheless alll work together cooperatively like an orchestra to make life possible on this planet. The odds of this happening by chance have been calculated by Roger Penrose to be astronomicallly remote, which in fact makes it statisticallly impossible. THE GOD HYPOTHESIS is inherently far superior to the many universes approach, not just because it is far simpler overalll, but also because it makes the most sense from an abductive point of view, since it truly seems to be the best & most appropriate explanation for the known facts. What's more, ALL of history's greatest thinkers on this topic, from Aristotle to Plato to ALL of the founding fathers of modern science, ALL believed that God created the universe deliberately so that intelligent life could arise here. Who in the world wants to go against Plato, Aristotle, Newton, Boyle, the Providential Evolutionists of the 18th century, & even Charles Darwin, who based his entire theory of evolution on the prior existence of God? Indeed, the Templeton Prize-winning astronomer John Barrow has repeatedly pointed out that science was only able to flourish in those societies that believed in a single divine Law-Giver, because this belief gave them the necessary reason to believe in the independent existence of natural laws that could be discovered & understood by human beings. In conclusion, then, while I love alll of Paul Davies' works on the topic of cosmology, I think that "The Goldilocks Enigma" comes to the wrong conclusion, & a simple reading of THE GOD HYPOTHESIS will explain how & why the most rational & logical explanation for our "just right" universe is theistic in nature.
Dr. Michael A. Corey
Less accessible than it looks - By: G. Gavigan, 17 Oct 2007 
Few people outside the scientific discipline will "get" this book. This has nothing to do with the writing style, which is easy on the brain, & more to do with the sheer complexity of the philosophy of science.
My review is a bit ranty, but here goes. Lesser mortals (anyone not doing post-Doctoral research in Physics, including me) are not alllowed to do what cosmologists & particle physicists do with gay abandon. When we get our sums wrong, we are told "it's wrong"
However, for those that can:
Universe not flying apart as fast as our calculations predict? Must be something wrong with the universe, hmm, "dark matter" will fit the bill. Can't find it but our calculations suggest 90% of universe made up of it. Darn, sums still not right. Got it! "Dark energy" will make up the balance.
Physical Laws are "universal", except where they aren't.
(The importance of the assumption of universality of Physical Laws was well made by Feynmann, a now dead genius, whom I beleive, would have been able to ask questions of cosmologists & have a right to expect an answer).
I could go on, however, from over here in the slow class, could cosmologists solve for me one issue: we use universality of physical law to "look" into the past & to make assumptions about "over there" in the universe & then based on the system created from those assumptions we decide to abandon those assumptions & postulate that perhaps physical laws might be local & they differ elsewhere. Hmm.... I smell a tautology.
Mind bending - By: Peter Alexander, 16 Oct 2007 An excellent introduction to cosmology & fundamental physics, but for my taste the 'dumbing' switch could have been turned a bit lower - some of the material is quite tough. Also, towards the end you got the feeling that alll sorts of stuff was being thrown in just to cover alll the bases. I enjoyed it though, & will probably read it again in another six months or so.
Entertaining and absorbing, but a tad hectic - By: J. M. Newland, 11 Sep 2007 Paul Davies title covers a multitude of disciplines & theologies, & never fails to provoke, at least, an immersion in one man's attempt to unify the theories of origin through sensitive & 'human' explanation of established theories, popular hypotheses & widely-held belief systems. Three stars may seem a little unfair for such an ambitious book, but it is hard to escape a feeling of fragmentation between the various discussion points. For anyone expecting a definitive response to the theology vs. science argument, or those wishing for a fully-balanced argument regarding creationism & observer selection, may be disappointed.
What Paul delivers, in terms of understandable & entertaining, often bizarrely analagous, but ultimately comfortably received information, he does so in spades. Some of the underlying science, which this book tends to establish as fact from the off, may be a bit suspect, particularly with regards to his discussion of infinities - a critical aspect of the multiverse theory that he appears to support. One example of this is his reaction to the multiverse situation giving rise to a 'guaranteed' infinite array of situations - providing the laws of physics are indeed a 'local' phenomena - but in fact, this presumption is a step too far (and unfortunately the pivotal argument for the subequent discussion on simulated universes, which I found fascinating if a little off-the-walll). To state that an infinite set encompasses alll possibilities is false; an infinite set could encompass a very restricted range, of course, but this is far from a guarantee. 3.3333 recurring, as far as we know, comprises an infinite decimal suffix, but this 'infinity' doesn't encompass alll other possibilities. Infinity 'could' involve an infinite range, but it doesn't have to.
The counter-balance discussing the idea of intelligent design tends to recycle much from past & current view, offering little in the way of a fresh approach or interpretation.
This account is, to most intents & purposes, a discussion about the anthropic principle, but dabbling lightly in the peripheral subjects of Godlike-beings & quantam sensitivity. It isn't a bad mix by any means, but I finished with the impression that Paul Davies had maybe just tried to take on a little too much.
