On Being: A Scientist's Exploration of the Great Questions of Existence

by Peter Atkins

Peter Atkins is the shining exception to the rule that scientists make poor writers. A Fellow at Oxford and a leading chemist, he has won admiration for his precise, lucid, and yet rigorous explanations of science. Now he turns his forensic mind to the greatest--and most controversial--questions of human birth, death, the origin of reality, and its end.

In On Being , Atkins makes a provocative contribution to the great debate between religion and science. Atkins makes his position clear from the very first "The scientific method can shed light on every and any concept, even those that have troubled humans since the earliest stirrings of consciousness," he writes. He takes a materialist approach to the great questions of being that have inspired myth and religion, seeking to "dispel their mystery without diminishing their grandeur." In placing scientific knowledge in such cosmic perspective, he takes us on an often dizzying tour of existence. For example, he argues that "the substrate of existence is nothing at all." The total electrical charge of the universe, among other things, must be nothing--zero--he writes, or else the universe would have blasted itself apart. "Charge was not created at the electrical Nothing separated into equal and opposite charges." He explores breathtaking questions--asking the purpose of
the universe--with wit and learning, touching on Sanskrit scriptures and John Updike along the way.

Genres: Science, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Popular Science, Biology, Physics, Chemistry

128 pages, Hardcover

First published March 17, 2011

About the author

Peter William Atkins is an English chemist and a Fellow of Lincoln College at the University of Oxford. He retired in 2007. He is a prolific writer of popular chemistry textbooks, including Physical Chemistry, Inorganic Chemistry, and Molecular Quantum Mechanics. Atkins is also the author of a number of popular science books, including Atkins' Molecules, Galileo's Finger: The Ten Great Ideas of Science and On Being.

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.

Reviews

[James Murphy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Peter Atkins' concern is existence itself, the fact of it as life, what it means to exist, how existence begins and ends. His logical beginning is the birth of the universe and how we think everything began. His discussions include the idea that change is really the breaking down of matter, the meaning of disorder, and a debate about the denial of information represented by Creationism as opposed to the value and possibility of science. He spends time writing about the beginning of life and its end, as well as the end of everything. Atkins is a solid believer in science's ability to explain everything and to eventually answer every question we could ask. And though he realizes the hold spiritual explanations have on human imagination and need, he's firm in the knowledge that they don't offer the scientific and confirmable explanations to the questions mankind has always asked. Much of his book is devoted to addressing this dichotomy.

On Being is miles over my head, particularly the intricate detail of molecular chemistry taking place during birth and death. I'm better equipped to deal with the philosophical ideas he writes about rather than the pure absolutes of math and science.

[Sandra Deaconu · Rating 1 out of 5]

Cum a fost creat Universul? Cum au ajuns oamenii să stăpânească Pământul și cum au apărut ei pe lume? Există eternitate dincolo de lumea aceasta? Sunt doar câteva dintre întrebările la care autorul minte că va răspunde în Despre viață și moarte. În realitate, nu face decât să bată câmpii pe un ton didactic și rigid într-o încercare forțată de a combina știința cu filosofia, făcând totodată trimiteri spre mitologie și literatură. Am aflat câteva lucruri interesante, dar nu suficiente încât să merite efortul de a răzbate prin formulările lui întortocheate degeaba. Nu am mai citit cărți de genul acesta și poate nu am înțeles-o eu pe deplin, dar cred totuși că, dacă era scrisă cum trebuia, creierul meu nu ar fi simțit că duce o luptă să priceapă ideile incomplete din frazele kilometrice. Recenzia aici: https://bit.ly/2LolwQp.

[Brett Williams · Rating 3 out of 5]

Reason at a cost

Author Peter Atkins wrote perhaps the most amazing science text ever written, a thriller from start to finish: Physical Chemistry 8th Ed. (Which, by that electrified version of the Pony Express, I received pristine from Malaysia for a bargain price!) Writer of over 70 books, it was with great anticipation this little volume would shed some light on ontological questions of growing concern in the creeping sense of meaningless modernity. Atkins put the kibosh to that early: “…as we see no objective evidence for the non-physical, but appreciate that there is a great and forceful sentimental longing for it, we cannot in all intellectual honesty accept its existence…”

But is this intellectual honesty, honest? Could it be that “forceful sentimental longing” is a clue to another reality, of human nature? Quite non-rational as compared to the rational nature of nature and the capacity of science to understand it. As Marcel Gauchet writes in his Disenchantment of the World, “The illogical solution to our illogical condition.” While Atikins (and his pal Dawkins) seethe over religious beliefs, practice, corruption, Intelligent Design, terrorism, etc. as mind closing dogmas (territory I’ve tramped myself through run-ins with Creationists), his prologue also closes the door on that spiritual aspect of humanity. Evidenced from the first temple at 10,000 year old Çatalhöyük, the 24,000 year old Venus of Laussel, or cave paintings at Lascaux 30,000 BC. This is not to say the gods are real, but the human nature they reveal is.

Atkins does provide new perspectives on old things. Creation can be seen as creation of nothing from nothing, given pairs of opposite charge yield a zero net charged universe. Easy. (Really?) Entropy’s disorderly decay is responsible for all that order we see – temporary as it is. He does a nice job with analogies of lifting weights to make things run, like DNA, ultimately with the sun as the heavy lifter. His description of cellular replication is a mind bender that makes a Newton and Einstein guy like me shake my head in wonder. And his description of rigor mortis (I’ve long puzzled over how that happens) made my skin crawl. I salute Atkins for communicating the joy of understanding, even though his comes with the required cost of denying another aspect of human nature.

[Hiroshi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sharp wit cutting into mythological ignorance or pure laziness on part of the religious, it gives hope that science is and will be more capable of enlightening our understanding on anything than previously thought. One might say the book embodies a manifesation of rational optimism in a positively more humane manner than Matt Ridley's, perhaps.

[Ashley Reid · Rating 1 out of 5]

I am a huge science geek and I;m note really religious, but this book seemed a bit derogatory towards religion and any beliefs that do not agree with scientific findings.

I wouldn't really recommend it to anyone, but I would probably avoid this if you value your beliefs are offended by people belittling them.

[Emre Sevinç · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a very short read, and depending on your position, it is either preaching to the choir, or trying to persuade people who will not be persuaded by the arguments anyway. In my case, the book falls into the first category, and that's not a bad thing at all, but I think the author has a pretty one-dimensional and naive view of religion, as in "pure belief in some mythologies and nothing else", not taking into account the fact that the mess we're in is much more complex.

Apart from the book's naïveté in that regard, it provides a basic scientific tour of what we know about the origins and development of universe and life. There's also ample speculation (with a lovely and unexpected reference to John Updike), but it doesn't take away anything from the general flow of the book. It is nice to see the author's admiration at chemical and biological processes, based on his scientific expertise. It is in those sections where he provides us with a glimpse into the miraculous mechanisms underlying even a single cell, showing how much modern science has achieved in demystifying the mysteries of life.

I can't say this is a bad book, but if you've had a basic science education in physics, cosmology and biology, or at least followed the popular expositions of the modern developments in those fields, there isn't much to be gleaned from this very short treatise. If, on the other hand, you're looking to learn about them, then again, this book is really short and doesn't do much justice to those topics, so you'll need to look elsewhere.

[S · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am speechless after reading On being. Peter Atkins has successfully managed to reflect on what is Nothing? Lately, I have been asking myself the same question; what is Nothing? Is it black? Does it look like an apple but transparent maybe? I am glad I read this book because Atkins is brave enough to challenge us into thinking about Nothing. Similarly, identifying life and defining life are two different things and once again, Atkins gives various examples to prove his point.
Life and death are explored in detail and has left my BRAIN awestruck at the intricacies of it all! While reading the chapters on life (Chp 3) and death (Chp 4), I realized what it means to know science, to drink, eat and live science. It has done wonders for life on Earth. Although, reading about death and all the gory details that accompany it, I could feel shivers run through my spine! Absolutely in love with this book! Looking forward to read some 80+ books Atkins has written. And packing my bags to go meet the man himself!

[Keith James · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another excellent read by the poet laureate Peter Atkins, Dawkins says "There is real poetry in the real world, Science is the poetry of reality" if this is true; then Peter must be the poet. Excellent book detailing the rigors of scientific inquiry; while dismantling bronze age hokum.

[Ian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Enjoyably scathing about religious mythology.

[Shien Yang · Rating 4 out of 5]

Surprisingly beautiful prose coming from a scientist. A relatively informal review of existential issues.

[Jason · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have almost read everything by Peter Atkins, this one is truly beautiful.

[Daniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

In his short book On Being: A Scientist's Exploration of the Great Questions of Existence, Peter Atkins romps through pretty much everything:

Prologue
Chapter 1: Beginning
Chapter 2: Progression
Chapter 3: Birth
Chapter 4: Death
Chapter 5: Ending
Epilogue

"Chapter 1: Beginning" covers the origin of the universe. If you've read books such as A Brief History of Time or Cosmology: A Very Short Introduction you'll be comfortable here.

"Chapter 2: Progression" is about the evolution of humans and all other life on Earth. Atkins gives the intellectual fraud of creationism the savaging it well deserves. Anyone in need of still more savaging can find plenty, such as The Not-So-Intelligent Designer: Why Evolution Explains the Human Body and Intelligent Design Does Not by Abby Hafer.

Atkins mentions that Life is easy to identify but remarkably difficult to define. He lists several characteristics that living things can be said to possess, and he gives examples of things that aren't alive (viruses, cyclonic storms) that have one or more of these characteristics. He also mentions some things that are decidedly alive (such as mules) that lack at least one important characteristic (the ability to reproduce).

Atkins makes an omission in this passage, which seems remarkable to me given his stature in chemistry. He doesn't mention the word "enzyme" here. (He mentions it later, in connection with the process of death, and he alludes to enzymes when he describes how living things perform analogously to machines that harness the energy from falling weights to move other weights uphill.) Here is where another book (Enzymes: A Very Short Introduction by Paul Engel) provides valuable insight. Living matter (as we know it) differs from nonliving matter by having intricately organized teams of enzymes, able to catalyze (greatly speed up) highly specific sequences of chemical reactions, giving rise to what physiologists call metabolism. Enzymes act like chemical worker bees of the cell, making all its processes go.

Engel explains how enzymes played a key role in the history of science, namely in the downfall of vitalism. Atkins is very much a non-vitalist, putting him at odds with such mistaken titans of the past as Louis Pasteur. Pasteur found that certain processes (e.g. fermentation and putrefaction) only seemed to occur in presence of living microbes such as yeasts and various decomposers. And so Pasteur erroneously believed that living matter undertook a different kind of chemistry than non-living matter. But then other chemists were able to prepare non-living extracts from living cells, and use the extracts to perform the fermentation and so on. Eventually chemists worked out that the extracts contained what came to be known as enzymes.

Furthermore, "the first living entity" may itself have been an enzyme - more specifically, a ribozyme that was able to catalyze its own replication in the ancient "RNA World."

Including enzymes as a marker of life answers (or at least illuminates) the question about whether viruses count as alive. Most viruses do not contain enzymes, or if they do, those enzymes are inactive until the virus encounters a suitable host cell which pulls the viral contents inside and activates them. Viruses are inert outside of a host cell, in much the same way that a computer storage medium is inert when outside an electronic device that can read and write it.

Also it's odd that Atkins, being highly competent with mathematics, limits himself to a purely verbal attempt at defining "life." Why not try a numerical score? One could give points for each property of "life" that an entity possesses. Atkins lists several properties of being alive in his paragraph. A bacterial cell gets the maximum score for each property, while all the other counterexamples score high on only one or some of the properties. This is the approach that political scientists take when trying to decide whether a particular nation is a "democracy" or something else: they come up with an index to measure how much of a democracy a given nation is.

"Chapter 3: Birth" is about the process of reproduction in living things, especially humans. "Chapter 4: Death" is about the grim future that awaits us all (unless some nearly unimaginable scientific breakthrough delivers indefinite life extension). Although Atkins doesn't mention the term body farm, he describes some details of the decomposition processes that forensic scientists study in those facilities. As composting is one of my hobbies, I've observed plenty of decomposition, although never of human bodies. "Chapter 5: Ending" is about the end of the world, as seen through the baseless speculations of religions, contrasted with the hard-won understanding of science.

Overall I enjoyed the book and I recommend it. The rest of this review mentions some other passages that deserve comment.

Is science worth it?

Atkins begins the book by limiting his focus "on the ability of the scientific method to illuminate matters of great human concern and drive out ignorance while retaining wonder." In so doing, he states that he won't consider the argument about whether the benefits of science outweigh its costs. Fair enough, it's his book and he can consider anything he wants. But he sneaks in a subtle assumption via verb tense that the alert reader should notice:

"Nor shall I linger on the argument about whether these novel stuffs, including better medicines, better and more abundant foods, better fabrics, better modes of communication and transport, better modes of entertainment, and so on, weighed against the social costs, including better ways of killing, injuring our environment, and accidentally or intentionally maiming, add overall to the sum of human happiness."

The rhetorical trick here, perhaps inadvertent, is to imply that the full benefits and costs of present science are already apparent. This overlooks the potentially enormous future costs of, say, man-made global warming once nature's bill for present human consumption comes due. As David Archer explains in The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth's Climate, the benefits from burning fossil fuels are immediate, while most of the costs arrive only after considerable delay. Thus to the degree that science enables humans to extract and burn Earth's stored fossil carbon, we cannot judge the net benefit of science fairly on a snapshot of the present. Instead we need to include the future impacts of science, both positive and negative. We know science is currently enabling humans to run up a massive tab that will land on future humans and other living things, but at the same time today's investments in scientific research should provide benefits in the future. Will the long-term benefits of science exceed its long-term costs? No one can say, but we each have some influence on just how large the costs will be, by the amount of fossil fuels we choose to burn today.

This consideration of the future costs and benefits of science shouldn't affect Atkins' focus for the book (the impact of science on the traditional great questions of human existence), but he could have been explicit about them. While I don't expect it, science could yet turn into humanity's greatest mistake. It might have almost done so during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Why is the world of STEM so male-dominated?

Atkins alludes in passing to the gender imbalance among mathematicians and others who rely heavily on mathematics for work or pleasure, suggesting it may be a "sociological" phenomenon. He notes that Mankind's development of mathematics has mostly been the work of "man kind". It's certainly true that much of history has been unkind to women (in just one of countless shameful examples, the USA waited until 1920 to give women the right to vote). However, the easing of institutional barriers to entry has not yet resulted in perfect proportional representation of all groups of people everywhere. For example, there has been a remarkable overrepresentation of Jewish mathematicians. However, I think a more important question is why hardly anyone at all is mathematical, as evidenced by this very book's refusal to include any math. (As Stephen Hawking famously observed, each equation added to a book halves its sales.) We owe our hard-won mathematical knowledge to the work of a remarkably tiny subset of humans who possessed rare gifts, and to the tiny subset of living humans who nurture the flame. Humans vary markedly in their mathematical ability and inclination to study mathematics. That there should be gender and ethnic imbalances among the residue of mathematically adept humans cannot be surprising. Evolution was ungenerous to humanity in general when rationing the scant supply of mathematical ability, so why would anyone expect evolution to have been either fair or politically correct?

[Jonathan Hockey · Rating 1 out of 5]

A typical failed attempt of a scientist to practice philosophy. At the point when philosophy should start Atkins gets emotional and starts attacking the religious shadows surrounding him with mindless rants. Atkins felt required to include multiple pages on his in depth critique of Creationism and defence of Natural selection and Evolution. Here was his critique of Creationism: nonsense, anti-science, ineffective, dishonest, dangerous to society. Less philosophy, more just bitter polemics. It's like when you don't particularly like someone, but when someone else beats up on them just a bit too much, you start to realise you like that person even less. And it has got so tiresome and predictable. If you are even going to mention something like creationism in a book purporting to be philosophy, then give some philosophical arguments against it, don't engage in childish mud slinging, you make yourself look bad and you make creationism look good.

We get it, scientist atheist types really hate other religious ideas. Keep your personal problems out of your attempt to be philosophical though please. You undermine any reasonable debate about anything when you lower things to ridicule of any divergence from your scientific consensus. He loves science so much, but like with many, science has become a placeholder for the changing things that happen to be good, useful and practical to him in life. He does not have a stable and clear definition. And this is an ongoing philosophical dispute. Atkins never got started on this real debate because he is too busy chasing the religious shadows haunting him in the night.

At the end Atkins tells us he has faith that there is nothing the scientific method cannot elucidate. Well, given he devoted much time to arguing that there is indeed nothing, that the positive of existence is balanced out by the negatively charged things, the matter by the anti-matter, so that no explanation for something being here is needed as there is technically nothing anyway. When someone engages in this kind of argument, yes maybe he is right, scientific method tells us a whole lot about nothing. Much ado about nothing. He says science is like common sense but honest! He seriously gives as his main argument a moral claim of honesty for his "team". This is how he ends the book, with of course a couple of extra poetic phrases after it to convince people he is not some robot, and that science is not out to kill us all with a smile, because it can string together a little poetic flourish at the end.

The manipulative transparency and shallowness of these types of people in their philosophical splutterings that we all know are just a thin veil for promoting their own particular kind of religious belief as better than all other types of belief has long ago become stale.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

For the atheist in your life, a scientist's exploration of religious questions.
This book was difficult to read for a lot of good reasons. First of all, there's the filter I have about not offending other people's religious beliefs, even though I was the only one in the room reading it. He makes a good case for the danger of fundamentalist religious views and it's hard to remember that, yes, it's OK to poke fun at beliefs which are ultimately harmful.
Second, it's really scary to think about death. I don't spend any time thinking about the afterlife, but thinking about "this" being "it" is scary.
I think there was something else that was hard to get past, but I can't remember what it was.
Once I embraced the discomfort that the book brings, I was free to see the beauty of what he was talking about. The last sentence of several chapters has a certain rhythm that I won't spoil, but once I pondered that, I thought it was beautiful to think of humans in that way. Also, his descriptions of the sun and the end of the universe was worthy of wonder and awe.

3/12/13
Update: Bob, the coworker that gave me this, just died over the weekend. I think me telling him I liked the book was our last interaction.

He had a lot of bad experiences with Catholicism growing up and spent a lot of money on a couch trying to get it out of his head. So it makes sense he would like this book.

The part that I skirted around in the first writing of this review was the section on death. Atkins says, Nothing extra happens after you die. There's no evidence of other energy. Nothing. A scary prospect, but one that Bob seemed to accept before he died.

That's not a comforting belief for a lot of people and Bob did not have many comforts in his life that I can tell, and so I imagine that's why Bob took comfort in his vacations, his reading, his concerts, and the meaning from the work that he did.

He also was a little lazy on paperwork and he liked to get other people to do his work sometimes, so that was another way in which he had taken comfort (sorry, I don't believe in not speaking ill of the dead).

Anyway, I just realized the connection between his recent death and the book's view on death, so I wanted to write a little something more.

3/13/13:
And the plot thickens further:
The Oregonian reported that it was a drug overdose.
This is all kinds of weird: 1) Bob seemed pretty vice-free to me. 2) He was a drug and alcohol counselor who wasn't openly in recovery.
Was it accidental? Intentional? Reckless?
This doesn't make much sense to me right now and I fear it may never make sense.

[Jason Mills · Rating 5 out of 5]

On Being is a wonderful little book. Atkins goes through a handful of Big Questions: the origins of the universe and of life, the nature of reproduction, the end of life and the fate of the solar system and the cosmos. For each, he skims across the quaint stories offered by religions before expounding the realities unearthed by the diligence of science.

There's not a word wasted in 100 pages of crisp prose, nor anything that will tax the general reader. Occasional passages of more technical detail are in small print, and the reader is invited to skip them. Don't: they're fascinating, and his expositions of mitosis and the chromosomal square-dance of meiosis are absolute models of clarity.

Another delight is that Atkins has a dry, understated wit that is sharper than a serpent's tooth. On every page there is something worth quoting:

Those who promote the spirit might claim to know in their hearts that there is more to the world than the physical, but hearts are unreliable organs of knowledge.

Abstraction is taken to its limits in the Hindu Rigveda and Chandogya Upanishad, when being was achieved by the negation of non-being; but that is perhaps not a wholly satisfying explanation to every Western ear, coming as it does within an ant's fingerwidth of being a cop-out.

Although this splendid little volume slots neatly onto the shelf of recent atheist texts, it is less a polemic than an affirmation: Atkins does not so much attack the absurdities of religion as simply dismiss them, laying out instead the marvellous range and depth of scientific understanding. It's an elegant and glorious celebration.

[Richard Underwood · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was both excellent yet disappointing at the same time. It provides an excellent description for crime writers wanting information about the physical processes that happen to a body after death, but from a scientific viewpoint there is too much acceptance of unscientific or unproven assumptions.

From my point of view as an author of crime fiction the chapter on death was excellent, and I recommend that chapter for any authors who need to describe what happens to a dead body.

From my point of view as a scientist I found many sections of the book disappointing. The whole book purports to be an examination of 'being' using the 'scientific method' yet the author repeatedly makes broad statements unsupported by scientific research.

To give just one example, the author writes "We know that consciousness is an outcome of the neuronal actions that constitute the operation of the brain," as though that is a fact, but it isn't.

Consciousness is an enigma which science has not yet cracked, and as far as I am aware there is no evidence consciousness is caused by neurons in the brain. Examination of neural activity in the brain has so far failed to explain consciousness, and the nature of consciousness is currently at one of the most hotly contested frontiers of science.

So, excellent description for crime writers wanting information about the physical processes that happen to a body after death, but from a scientific viewpoint there is too much acceptance of unscientific or unproven assumptions.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm normally late to the party when it comes to science (non-fiction) books, reading them years, sometimes decades, after their 1st edition release. Finally a book I was actually looking forward to getting my hands on shortly after release and as a birthday present thus hopped straight to the top of my reading list, leap frogging Richard Dawkins' 'The Selfish Gene' in the process. Reading something so new I feel gives more relevance to the scientific theories explained.

I loved the ease at which Atkins forms memorable quotes such as "We are not merely stardust and the children of chaos, we are the spreaders of light". I felt the book was more difficult to read than some Dawkins books I have on the same subject, especially the first 3 chapters, but it makes up for this in it's brief 105 pages and the last 2 chapters: BIRTH and ENDING, both very interesting to the point that I had to read both in one sitting, rare for a slow reader like myself.

Although I had already made up my mind on the subject of ENDING (life and universe), I arrived at the exact same conclusion as Atkins but from a less scientific perspective. It was nice to find out some of the science behind my own belief system and exploration of the truth of existence that so many people just don't want to know or too lazy to try and contemplate.

I will certainly be recommending the book to friends and family but I'll also be pushing chapters 4 and 5 under their noses in particular.

[Rob Adey · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a strange but interesting and I'm-not-sure-how-intentionally funny book about the beginning and end of life, and the beginning and end of the universe, as explained by science, and the scope of science itself (unlimited, Atkins reckons).

Atkins' tone is a bit 1950s - if there's an audio version, I hope it's read by Professor Yaffle - but perfectly clear, and he does a good job of explaining some detailed and complex processes.

On the funny side, there are pages of flowery attacks on creationists, regardless of the probability of a single creationist going anywhere this book or any shelf it's ever likely to live on (though he taught at Oxford - maybe some feud with a theology professor over parking spaces?).

Funniest of all is the chapter on bodily death. The best way to do this, Atkins decides, is to imagine his own death and what will happen to his corpse. There follow many interesting passages, from which emerge hints of the scenario Atkins imagines - set upon by thugs, left 'near-naked' in a chilly wood, undiscovered for days - and lots of unexpected detail on the rectal temperature of his decomposing cadaver.

Sadly, the Kindle version does not feature a graph of the ever-changing rectal temperature of Peter Atkins' decomposing cadaver.

[Paul Adkin · Rating 3 out of 5]

I love Peter Atkins' ability to simplify the complex, but I found this work less satisfying than his Creation Revisited, mainly because his humour, which is often sarcasm, rings very pompously and even arrogantly at times. He is a 100% atheist, which is fine, but being 100% anything places one dangerously close to the category of fundamentalism. For any other science fundamentalists or avid atheists, the book should be informative and amusing; for those in the opposite spectrum of faith, the book may be infuriating at times (but then why would they ever read it?) For someone like me who sits somewhere in between the extremes, it is informative, or more precisely explicative, if at times annoying. Also, be warned: if you buy the book online like I did, it is very thin.

[Sol · Rating 4 out of 5]

Peter elucidates a shit-ton of scientific info on beginning, ends, and everything in between in a careful, concise, and illuminating style. His persiflage and wit when trying to understand organized religion is hilarious, too.

[Jitin Singla · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author is basically comparison western religions to Science. All these people completely either unaware of Indian history of science and religion or ignoring it intentionally are misleading the people.

[Sabarinath · Rating 3 out of 5]

The hardest 105 pages I have read so far. While the premise is great , the effort at creating a sharp narrative filled with thinly disguised contempt for non-science has made the text very difficult to read , at least for me.

The book did point me towards better reads like Astrophysics for people in a hurry , the blind watchmaker etc, in itself its a difficult read for people like me who have been focussed largely on their area of expertise for a while than they have lost touch with general science

The 5 chapters covering each of life mysteries is a great structure to attack the main premise but all of them left me a bit unsatisfied with the content , probably because a lot of it flew over my head.

It would have been better to keep the language simpler , reflected in some parts by the analogies around weights to explain biological processes.

All in all , a difficult introduction to the questions, but hey, at least the structure and pointers help prepare my mind for further investigation.

[Tony Dib · Rating 3 out of 5]

كانت كتب بيتر أتكينز ومازالت مرجعي الأول في الكيمياء الفيزيائية؛ الكيمياء الكمومية والديناميكا الحرارية، فمؤلفاته هي من أهم الكتب التدريسية في هذا المجال. كتاب "عن الكينونة" هو أول عمل من نوع الفلسفة العلمية أقرؤه له. الفكرة الرئيسية هي أنه عند محاولة الإجابة على أكبر وأصعب الأسئلة الوجودية، فإن المنهج العلمي هو الوسيلة الوحيدة التي يمكن الوثوق بها. من ناحية أخرى، يقوّض التفكير الديني قدرتنا على إنشاء حقيقة موضوعية فيما يتعلق بأصل الحياة، التطور، التكاثر، الموت وما بعده.
أعجبني، لكنه ليس بمستوى ما قرأت من كتبٍ أخرى تناولت نفس الأفكار بشكل أفضل.

[Voyt · Rating 4 out of 5]

POSTED AT AMAZON 2011
I like Peter Atkins - his small previous book about laws that drive the Universe. This one is short as well, 100 pages of musings. Title is a bit misleading in this case. Here we have the ode to science vs. myths (religious believes). Science is progressive, religion static and contributing to nothing. Plenty of cynicism towards myths, admiration for science, science that is able to explain why we stink after death, but cannot explain why penis is used for urination as well as procrastination (LOL).
So we learn how in theory "true" Nothing could be converted into physical nothing that we experience (interesting thoughts). Then we read about reason, purpose, random chances, evolution's facts and theory of natural selection.
Science is smart, discovered what is chromosome, DNA, ATP and concluded that life is information by the flux of energy, we are children of the chaos. Then we know with the large certainty how our Sun will die and when. To be honest, Professor Atkins does not hide facts that science has come across limitations, or at least now, is unable to explain all.

Now back to myths. Several pages are devoted to the myths called Creationism. Here I tend to agree with the author. He asks himself where such ideas are coming from and why people adopt such grotesquely primitive views that are close to being dangerous to society at large.. He throws into the same basket those who believe that there is "life after death" and even proposes to study the psychological and cultural viscera behind this "attack on reason".

My problem with "On Being"? - too harsh criticism of the myths. Children are encouraged to read fairytales and myths. Then why we adults are ridiculed by doing this? Does religion truly cut legs of a chair at which science sits? I do not see such scenario and this book just proves it. Therefore why bother? Myths/faith are like oil and do not mix with water, this should be obvious to any intelligent individual.

Now, for the sake of the balance, one can pick "God's Universe" by astronomer Owen Gingerich. Short and compact text as well showing that (quote):"the scientist with theistic metaphysics will approach laboratory problems in much the same way as his atheistic colleague across the hall."

[Valay Agarawal · Rating 3 out of 5]

Too anti-religion. Not wrong though.

[MS · Rating 3 out of 5]

3 starzzz

[Rory Clark · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Equilibrium is when all the weights are resting on the ground"... "My life, like yours, is the temporary avoidance of this state of equilibrium."

[Ulrike Bungert · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bisschen Nietzsches Wiedergeburt....

[Bookblog.ro · Rating 5 out of 5]

Peter Atkins, un reputat chimist britanic, autor al mai multor cărți de factură științifică, are curajul ca, prin intermedierea științei, să combată miturile care s-au creat de-a lungul timpului în jurul problemelor care privesc creația, evoluția, viața, moartea și ceea ce se află dincolo de ea. Spun curaj pentru că prin expunerea pe care o face în această carte, autorul demontează credințe atât de împământenite, încât practic, ele reprezintă piatra de temelie a vieții spirituale a miliarde de oameni. În descrierile sale, Peter Atkins este conștient de felul în care argumentul științific va fi perceput de către acei oameni care, indiferent de credința pe care o au, sunt prea rigizi pentru a accepta că, spre exemplu, fosilele de dinozauri sunt schelete reale ale unor animale reale, care au trăit cu adevărat pe pământ cu milioane de ani în urmă, și consideră că acestea sunt simple capcane plasate de Dumnezeu în sol pentru a testa puterea credinței. De asemenea, asumarea credinței științifice (și spun asta, nu cu intenția de a crea un oximoron), este la Atkins dusă până la capăt, acceptând inclusiv să ignore (sau să amestece) încărcături semantice filosofice pentru unele cuvinte care definesc noțiuni ce stau la baza acestei teze. „Cu riscul de a-i enerva pe filosofi, voi folosi adjectivele fizic și material într-un mod interșanjabil; voi păcătui, de asemenea, neoperând o distincție între naturalism […] și materialism[…].”

Cele cinci teme abordate în această carte sunt prezentate pe un fond de argumentare științifică care implică explicații ce se află la limita comprehensivității, de care Atkins este conștient, de altfel. Există în carte câteva paragrafe scrise cu un caracter ceva mai mic decât cel folosit în general. Continuarea recenziei o găsești aici http://www.bookblog.ro/recenzie/expli...

[Dawn Peers · Rating 3 out of 5]

There is no doubt Peter Atkins has literary ability and scientific knowledge, and the subject matter of "On Being" is definitely interesting. But that being said, I was disappointed with the length of the book, which relegates this more to an essay than a book, especially with the given cover price.

I am more used to reading scientific works along the lines of The Road To Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe or Parallel Worlds: The Science of Alternative Universes and Our Future in the Cosmos.

As a literary device for non-scientists, "On Being" is a good little read with some nice anecdotes. But on the whole, with the lack of scientific depth and with the author seemingly having a propensity to ramble unnecessarily, I would relegate this book to "a decent evening read". Not terrible, but neither challenging nor ground breaking in its content. If he decides to write a longer version with less ramble and more science, I would still buy it to see how it improved the overall subject matter.

*note I received this book for free for review purposes as part of the Amazon Vine program*