What do you think?
Rate this book
God According to God: A Physicist Proves We've Been Wrong About God All Along
This “brilliant” book by an M.I.T. trained physicist “demands the attention of anyone who wonders if God must be exiled from the modern, enlightened mind” (David J. Wolpe, author of Why Faith Matters).In his first book since 2002’s acclaimed The Hidden Face of God, popular scientist Gerald Schroeder combines decades of scientific research and biblical study to present a groundbreaking new theory of how to understand God. With riveting chapters on the origins of life, a scientist’s view of creation, and the unique place of our planet in the galaxy, God According to God offers a radical paradigm shift that will forever change how we comprehend God.“This is as important a book on this subject as I recall ever having read.” —Huston Smith, author of The World’s Religions
260 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2009
145 people are currently reading
430 people want to read
About the author
Gerald Schroeder
16 books73 followersGerald L. Schroeder is a scientist, author, and lecturer, who focuses on what he perceives to be an inherent relationship between science and spirituality.
In 1965, Schroeder received his Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in nuclear physics and earth and planetary sciences. He worked five years on the staff of the MIT physics department. After emigrating to Israel in 1971, he was employed as a researcher at the Weizmann Institute of Science, the Volcani Research Institute, and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His Doctorate was in two science fields, Earth sciences and physics. He teaches at Aish HaTorah College of Jewish Studies.
He professes Orthodox Judaism, and his works frequently cite Talmudic, Midrashic and medieval commentaries on Biblical creation accounts, such as commentaries written by the Jewish philosopher Nachmanides. Among other things, Schroeder attempts to reconcile a young earth creationism Biblical view with the scientific model of a world that is billions of years old using the idea that the perceived flow of time for a given event in an expanding universe varies with the observer’s perspective of that event. He attempts to reconcile the two perspectives numerically, calculating the effect of the stretching of space-time, based on Einstein's theory of general relativity. Schroeder holds to a theistic evolution view.
Gerald Schroeder lives in Jerusalem with his wife (the author, Barbara Sofer). They've had five children with a changing number of grandchildren.
(Sources: Wikipedia, official website)
In 1965, Schroeder received his Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in nuclear physics and earth and planetary sciences. He worked five years on the staff of the MIT physics department. After emigrating to Israel in 1971, he was employed as a researcher at the Weizmann Institute of Science, the Volcani Research Institute, and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His Doctorate was in two science fields, Earth sciences and physics. He teaches at Aish HaTorah College of Jewish Studies.
He professes Orthodox Judaism, and his works frequently cite Talmudic, Midrashic and medieval commentaries on Biblical creation accounts, such as commentaries written by the Jewish philosopher Nachmanides. Among other things, Schroeder attempts to reconcile a young earth creationism Biblical view with the scientific model of a world that is billions of years old using the idea that the perceived flow of time for a given event in an expanding universe varies with the observer’s perspective of that event. He attempts to reconcile the two perspectives numerically, calculating the effect of the stretching of space-time, based on Einstein's theory of general relativity. Schroeder holds to a theistic evolution view.
Gerald Schroeder lives in Jerusalem with his wife (the author, Barbara Sofer). They've had five children with a changing number of grandchildren.
(Sources: Wikipedia, official website)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
November 22, 2011
This book was very difficult for me to rate. No doubt Dr. Schroeder is qualified to discuss both cosmology and the Torah, but as a scientist, I wanted more science and as a Christian, I found his psychoanalysis of the Biblical events annoying. Without a proper understanding of Christ and the New Testament, this book falls short of what it could be.
November 11, 2011
Building from the thesis expounded by J. A. Wheeler, Shouchang Zhang, Anton Zeilinger, and Ed Fredkin that matter originates from a substrata of information, physicist Gerald L. Schroeder ties those sub-atomic “bits” to the biblical idea that God created the earth out of “wisdom.” (p. 226) Schroeder, as one might presume from his earlier work, Genesis and the Big Bang, is a huge proponent of the big bang theory and an expanding universe. Within that understanding, he observes that everything begins with “light” in terms of energy—expanding, annihilating, slowing, and evolving, some of those beams condensing into the lightest of elements (p. 28). From there, he offers the classic illustration of the problem with evolution—memory. He cites the famous UK experiment where monkeys were given unlimited access to typewriters in trying to demonstrate the plausibility of the “infinite monkey” hypothesis and notes that they failed to come up with a single word (even the smallest word “a” preceded by a space and followed by a space as it would be when typed as a word). Nonetheless, just like shaking up a bunch of letters (I think of them as Scrabble tiles) in a basket may produce a word and continued shaking will cause that word to disappear, there needs to be something that will conserve the evolutionary thrust of life. He cites Harvard biologist and Nobel Laureate George Wald as stating: “…mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality—the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind stuff.” (pp. 48-9)
I’m sure others have trod these speculative paths, but Schroeder has a marvelous way of blending Hebrew Bible, rabbinic teaching, and scientific fact/theory into a compelling weave. He deals with the problem of evil as both an artifact of guaranteeing free will and equates the Heisenberg “uncertainty principle” as illustrative of how God might have limited the Eternal Presence in order to allow nature and, as a result, humanity to have such free will. (p. 101) He cites examples of nature’s rebellion (equivalent to entropy) and sees “…from point to point we learn that indifference is one powerful aspect that is not part of God’s relationship and partnership with the world.” (p. 139)
Schroeder presents interesting ideas about the emptiness of materialism, challenging the assertion that consciousness and memories are localized in the brain (p. 150). On two occasions, he points out the significance of understanding the amount of space in an atom by positing the atomic material as the size of an orange and noting that the surrounding electron cloud would be four miles away. The orange only represents one part of solidity as a fraction of a million billion parts of absolute void. The bulk of what we know as matter is absolute void (p. 147). As a result, we really can’t be as certain of materialistic, positivist “science” as we once were. I like it when Schroeder quotes Einstein as stating that “God doesn’t play dice with the universe” but twists it to indicate that “God does allow the universe to play with dice.” (as per Proverbs 16:33) (p. 204)
To be sure, some will summarily discount this volume because it unapologetically speaks of intelligent design (without using that term) and includes some delightful exegesis from the Hebrew Bible to intertwine with scientific fact and theory. A lot of people in the fundamentalist camp won’t like it. His reduction of “evening and morning” on each creative day of Genesis 1 to “chaos and order” (the roots of the words) unhinges that reliance upon 24-hour days of creation (pp. 40-1) and many will feel uncomfortable with his assertion that humanity is called upon to “argue” with God (though his citations from the life of Abraham and Job merely scratch the surface of biblical revelation that indicates this). This is a wonderful volume that merits reading and re-reading. It did for me.
I’m sure others have trod these speculative paths, but Schroeder has a marvelous way of blending Hebrew Bible, rabbinic teaching, and scientific fact/theory into a compelling weave. He deals with the problem of evil as both an artifact of guaranteeing free will and equates the Heisenberg “uncertainty principle” as illustrative of how God might have limited the Eternal Presence in order to allow nature and, as a result, humanity to have such free will. (p. 101) He cites examples of nature’s rebellion (equivalent to entropy) and sees “…from point to point we learn that indifference is one powerful aspect that is not part of God’s relationship and partnership with the world.” (p. 139)
Schroeder presents interesting ideas about the emptiness of materialism, challenging the assertion that consciousness and memories are localized in the brain (p. 150). On two occasions, he points out the significance of understanding the amount of space in an atom by positing the atomic material as the size of an orange and noting that the surrounding electron cloud would be four miles away. The orange only represents one part of solidity as a fraction of a million billion parts of absolute void. The bulk of what we know as matter is absolute void (p. 147). As a result, we really can’t be as certain of materialistic, positivist “science” as we once were. I like it when Schroeder quotes Einstein as stating that “God doesn’t play dice with the universe” but twists it to indicate that “God does allow the universe to play with dice.” (as per Proverbs 16:33) (p. 204)
To be sure, some will summarily discount this volume because it unapologetically speaks of intelligent design (without using that term) and includes some delightful exegesis from the Hebrew Bible to intertwine with scientific fact and theory. A lot of people in the fundamentalist camp won’t like it. His reduction of “evening and morning” on each creative day of Genesis 1 to “chaos and order” (the roots of the words) unhinges that reliance upon 24-hour days of creation (pp. 40-1) and many will feel uncomfortable with his assertion that humanity is called upon to “argue” with God (though his citations from the life of Abraham and Job merely scratch the surface of biblical revelation that indicates this). This is a wonderful volume that merits reading and re-reading. It did for me.
January 29, 2011
This book was simply bad. It started out questionable, moved to weak, and ended up a waste of time.
Basically, the problem lies in very poor reasoning, and the inability to get past one's own personal faith position when writing a book that is obviously meant to appeal to a varied audience of intelligent readers.
If one already believes the basic premise that underlies this book, then they will inevitably find Schroeder's arguments to be sound and insightful. Of course, that is really not the point, is it?
If one is not convinced of the premise, one will not find S's conclusions to be convincing. Why? Because he never comes close to establishing the premise.
So, unless you are one of the first group who just likes to have their current beliefs supported, I would say don't waste your time.
Basically, the problem lies in very poor reasoning, and the inability to get past one's own personal faith position when writing a book that is obviously meant to appeal to a varied audience of intelligent readers.
If one already believes the basic premise that underlies this book, then they will inevitably find Schroeder's arguments to be sound and insightful. Of course, that is really not the point, is it?
If one is not convinced of the premise, one will not find S's conclusions to be convincing. Why? Because he never comes close to establishing the premise.
So, unless you are one of the first group who just likes to have their current beliefs supported, I would say don't waste your time.
January 12, 2015
I'm going to write my review as I read;
1- In chapter "one" of his book the author talked about how a communist Russia made terrible things to its own people while their leaders and the party discarded God. I understood from what he wrote that they became atheists so they did bad things to humanity because they've no morality or no guidance for what is right and what is wrong!. Well, What about Hitler and the Nazis they had the cross right on their flag and yet when we speak of the world war II we only think of the Nazis and what they did not only to their people but to the whole Europe and what about Italy and the Fascist were they also Atheists.
It's a weak point to be used in his book, very weak!!
------------------------------------
2- chapter 2: he repeated again the typing monkeys thing trying to show that the the probability that by chance life or the universe could come into existence is very small! Of course it is who can argue the smallness of the probability of monkeys randomly producing one of Shakespeare's sonnets?!. Dawkins in his book "the blind watchmaker" introduced another thought experiment in which randomness coupled with selection could render the process possible.
On page37: he stated a proverb; "the song a sparrow learns in his youth is its song for life'. Thank you for pointing out that the programming the human is subjected yo in his early age might control the way he thinks about issues for the rest of his life and there's indeed the 'illusion of truth' which states that repetition of things might lead to the belief that it's the truth. But then he went on saying that and so we all learnt that Darwin is right!!!, what?!!!!!!. Is he out of his mind or what? We all learnt creationism in schools and homes from teachers and parents and took religious classes in schools but never heard of evolution unless in a small paragraph in a book from a disbelieving-in-evolution teacher!!.
--------------------------------------
3- In chapter 3 the author introduced the marvels of our universe and the conditioned suitable for life which are met in out very planet and not every where else!. I have nothing against that, I don't deny that for life to exist on its current form certain conditions must be met to originate and sustain life but why jump to a conclusion rather than considering all possibilities?!. I can say that the author here stated what is know as the "Goldilocks" which serves the idea that the conditions that helped life to flourish must have been finely tuned "be design". The idea of a God is an old one even among old tribes and the history of mythology in all races speaks for itself, here I'd ask the author where did you get your idea of "an intelligent designer"? did you come up with it out of your inquiries or was it in there the whole time since your very moments in your life?!. I thing for one to jump to the conclusion of a designer is subjected to the "Illusion of truth Principle" where the repetition of something makes one believe it's true as such for every one born to religious parents must have been programmed since his very first moments and ordained in faith such that when became older and think he'd just search for what supports the religious claims unaware that he started his inquiry not empty handed ready for whatever results that might come up but he started already with an answer at the back of his head. The main complexity in my opinion to the idea of a designer is "Causality" for it's only derived from the observation of how things in our own universe act, so to apply it to relation between elements in our universe including us is not a problem but to try to extrapolate it so as to derive the existence of the universe as a whole from something else that needs a proof which I have never come across one till this very moment!!!.
Then he stated the properties of our universe and especially the earth and how that is "tuned" to nurture life!!. we're here and life as a whole exists because of the properties that can be seen around us but claiming that these are the only conditions that need to be met for life and without it no life would have existed, that claim needs a proof!. Life would have taken a different path should any of these conditions became different!.
finally he stated that we're living indeed in a very special planet designed for life and mocked Carl Sagan for saying that our planet is only ordinary and after all of that he stated the probability of a star meeting 18 conditions for life and end up with a number of 10,000 earth like planets meeting exactly the same conditions as our own planet!!!. Then it's indeed an ordinary planet and I can't understand how he contradicted him self in such a way!!!.
-----------------------------------------
4- Chapter 4. one thing is to be said in here, the author believes that Adam and Eve lived on earth 2448 years before the revelation on mount Sinai. no comment!>
-----------------------------------------
After that the book transforms into a religious book talking about what is in the Bible and about God relationships with his creation and his prophets, etc.
The book is not to be considered as one to be used for debates concerning God's existence and proving it through science, it's absolutely not that kind of books. It's much like a book for religious people to renew their faith, much like a religious explanatory book but from a scientist rather than a cleric!!.
1- In chapter "one" of his book the author talked about how a communist Russia made terrible things to its own people while their leaders and the party discarded God. I understood from what he wrote that they became atheists so they did bad things to humanity because they've no morality or no guidance for what is right and what is wrong!. Well, What about Hitler and the Nazis they had the cross right on their flag and yet when we speak of the world war II we only think of the Nazis and what they did not only to their people but to the whole Europe and what about Italy and the Fascist were they also Atheists.
It's a weak point to be used in his book, very weak!!
------------------------------------
2- chapter 2: he repeated again the typing monkeys thing trying to show that the the probability that by chance life or the universe could come into existence is very small! Of course it is who can argue the smallness of the probability of monkeys randomly producing one of Shakespeare's sonnets?!. Dawkins in his book "the blind watchmaker" introduced another thought experiment in which randomness coupled with selection could render the process possible.
On page37: he stated a proverb; "the song a sparrow learns in his youth is its song for life'. Thank you for pointing out that the programming the human is subjected yo in his early age might control the way he thinks about issues for the rest of his life and there's indeed the 'illusion of truth' which states that repetition of things might lead to the belief that it's the truth. But then he went on saying that and so we all learnt that Darwin is right!!!, what?!!!!!!. Is he out of his mind or what? We all learnt creationism in schools and homes from teachers and parents and took religious classes in schools but never heard of evolution unless in a small paragraph in a book from a disbelieving-in-evolution teacher!!.
--------------------------------------
3- In chapter 3 the author introduced the marvels of our universe and the conditioned suitable for life which are met in out very planet and not every where else!. I have nothing against that, I don't deny that for life to exist on its current form certain conditions must be met to originate and sustain life but why jump to a conclusion rather than considering all possibilities?!. I can say that the author here stated what is know as the "Goldilocks" which serves the idea that the conditions that helped life to flourish must have been finely tuned "be design". The idea of a God is an old one even among old tribes and the history of mythology in all races speaks for itself, here I'd ask the author where did you get your idea of "an intelligent designer"? did you come up with it out of your inquiries or was it in there the whole time since your very moments in your life?!. I thing for one to jump to the conclusion of a designer is subjected to the "Illusion of truth Principle" where the repetition of something makes one believe it's true as such for every one born to religious parents must have been programmed since his very first moments and ordained in faith such that when became older and think he'd just search for what supports the religious claims unaware that he started his inquiry not empty handed ready for whatever results that might come up but he started already with an answer at the back of his head. The main complexity in my opinion to the idea of a designer is "Causality" for it's only derived from the observation of how things in our own universe act, so to apply it to relation between elements in our universe including us is not a problem but to try to extrapolate it so as to derive the existence of the universe as a whole from something else that needs a proof which I have never come across one till this very moment!!!.
Then he stated the properties of our universe and especially the earth and how that is "tuned" to nurture life!!. we're here and life as a whole exists because of the properties that can be seen around us but claiming that these are the only conditions that need to be met for life and without it no life would have existed, that claim needs a proof!. Life would have taken a different path should any of these conditions became different!.
finally he stated that we're living indeed in a very special planet designed for life and mocked Carl Sagan for saying that our planet is only ordinary and after all of that he stated the probability of a star meeting 18 conditions for life and end up with a number of 10,000 earth like planets meeting exactly the same conditions as our own planet!!!. Then it's indeed an ordinary planet and I can't understand how he contradicted him self in such a way!!!.
-----------------------------------------
4- Chapter 4. one thing is to be said in here, the author believes that Adam and Eve lived on earth 2448 years before the revelation on mount Sinai. no comment!>
-----------------------------------------
After that the book transforms into a religious book talking about what is in the Bible and about God relationships with his creation and his prophets, etc.
The book is not to be considered as one to be used for debates concerning God's existence and proving it through science, it's absolutely not that kind of books. It's much like a book for religious people to renew their faith, much like a religious explanatory book but from a scientist rather than a cleric!!.
November 24, 2022
I love Schroeder's writing and reasoning in this book, though I disagree with some of his conclusions. The disagreements are minor and deal with Old Testament interpretation. Schroeder makes a strong claim for the "Big Bang Theory " and points out that there is no contradiction between this theory and the book of Genesis. He highlights how time is fluid, active, and dynamic. Schroeder also emphasizes that God is the active, dynamic, and the fluid force behind all creation. His reasoning is matter comes from energy, and energy from thought. The energy used to create the universe came from the mind(thoughts) of God. It was not random!
February 21, 2025
THE PHYSICIST OBSERVES THAT MANY OF OUR CONCEPTS ARE ‘NOT THE GOD OF THE BIBLE’
Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder wrote in the Introduction of this 2009 book, “Each of our three local cultures [Christianity, Judaism, Islam] address the one God… this spiritual Oneness… mirrors… the physical unity upon which rest all aspects of the material world. Much of the four decades of my career as an M.I.Y.-trained scientist and, in parallel, three decades of my study of the Bible has been devoted to probing this physical and spiritual unity… The deeper truth that I discovered is that, when we get beyond a superficial understanding… we find that the physical and the metaphysical make up a single reality… viewed from two vastly different perspectives. It is this that I teach in my classes on science and the Bible.” (Pg. 2)
He continues, “There is something very basic missing in the simplistic view of the God of the Bible… Most obviously, if God is in control, why isn’t the world perfect?... Are we dealing with an absentee God[?]… The biblical message is that God is there to help, but steps back… and insists that we do our part in the job. God has chosen us to be partners. With the Divine hiding of face, God’s presence becomes masked, at times even unpredictable and certainly not always controlling events… By abandoning preconceived notions … and replacing them with the Bible’s description and nature’s display of God---we will learn about God according to God.” (Pg. 3-5)
He goes on, “Not all of God’s traits are friendly… the God of the Bible wants us to adhere to the standards presented in the Bible.” (Pg. 13) He adds, “if there is a God active in our universe and that God cannot perform miracles… then this is not much of a God. Miracles upset the regularity of nature upon which the scientific method of analysis relies.” (Pg. 16)
He turns to ‘the ultimate question’: “Why is there an ‘is’? Why is there something rather than nothing? For that answer both science and religion must turn to the metaphysical.” (Pg. 21) He asserts, “It is time to lay to rest the misguided but popularly believed untruth that in our world, gradual, step-by-step random mutations could have climbed the mountain of improbability and produced the magnificent abundance of the earth’s biosphere.” (Pg. 34)
He rejects the idea of ‘parallel universes’: "As a scientist, I am embarrassed that such logic can make its way into a widely read scientific journal… Our universe has laws of nature made for life. The physical constants that regulate the laws of nature… are perfect for sustaining life… the perfection of nature’s laws for sustaining life in our universe in no way suggests the existence of other less life-friendly universes. The perfection of our universe’s laws of nature is a fact… this perfection is so highly improbable that some explanation other than a simple onetime random event is required.” (Pg. 39
He is skeptical about the notion that “nature, by random chance mutations, has been able to form the few hundred thousand proteins useful to earthly life.” (Pg. 44) He continues, “we are back to [probability] calculations as the first form of life, a microbe, mutates and either advances or perishes as it starts to climb the mountain of improbability by random mutations on the DNA that in time will lead to kidneys, bones… eyes, brains, mind, sentience… Clearly there must be other factors that limit the types of mutations can occur… And that is the entire point. Nature is skewed toward life.” (Pg. 44-45)
He explains, “Let us make some guesstimates of the likelihood of finding in our universe each of the variables listed above… the likelihood of finding anywhere in the entire universe stellar system with a planet able to support complex intelligent life… The probability that any one galaxy would have more than one life-bearing stellar system is slim indeed.” (Pg. 80)
He then begins discussing the Bible: “We discover the startling truth of God’s character in Exodus… Exodus 3:14 is a verse often mistranslated… The meaning of the Hebrew text is vastly different from the King James rendering of that verse, ‘I am that I am.’ … The irony of this ongoing error is that the exact Hebrew word in question, ehe’ye, appears just two verses earlier, in Exodus 3:12, and both the Latin and the Greek translations render this ‘I will be,’ not ‘I am.’ But ‘I am’ is so much more … appealing to our preconceived notions of God than ‘I will be’ that the translators actually changed the meaning of the biblical text!” (Pg. 85)
He observes, “The question is not ‘if’ self-awareness can arise from a particular mix of these seemingly inanimate subatomic particles. We are living proof that it can and did. The problem is to identify at what level of complexity sentience and choice and mind come quantifiably online…. Our free will is at such an advanced level that the Divine leeway … has actually granted us license to choose between life and death…” (Pg. 103)
He then turns to the Near-Death Experience [NDE]: “the ‘discussion’… relates to whether near-death experiences result from the persistence of a metaphysical consciousness that we associate with the mind even after the brain has ceased to exhibit the measurable activity we associate with life. If the mind is not within the brain… then it is not confined by the vitality of the brain, even though our body’s awareness of the mind is totally dependent upon our brain as the receiver. At death, mind as a free consciousness would break from its relation with the physical body and brain.” (Pg. 150)
He notes, “We have no conscious awareness of the molecular processes that yield our memories. At times our thoughts seem to arise from nowhere. The wellsprings of consciousness… are a complete enigma… Are all our musings, the sounds and pictures we find in our head, built of molecules, even though those molecules are silent and sightless? Or could there be a transition from a physical brain to a metaphysical mind? If mind is within the brain, it is very well hidden.” (Pg. 153-154)
He states, “The tendency to see the world as a duality, to separate the material from the spiritual, is purely myopic. Through we habitually relate spirituality to prayer or mediation or some magnificent view of nature, the God of the Bible finds a broader ground for Divine inspiration. The very fact that the Bible five times over describes the construction of the Tabernacle teaches that the works of our hands have the potential to inspire. The reality of life is that we have been imbued with a physical body within which, during our term on earth, resides a searching soul. Both body and soul require our personal effort if they are to be adequately nourished.” (Pg. 169)
He summarizes, “The message keeps repeating itself throughout the Bible. God wants our love, but wants it more than via the abstractions of prayer and meditation. Biblically, our love for God is most avidly played out in how we relate to others. The dynamic God of the Bible, the God that told us, ‘I will be that which I will be,’ wants its creatures also to be dynamic and proactive in forming a harmonious society.” (Pg. 180-181)
He acknowledges, “When Steven Weinberg complains that ‘signs of a benevolent designer are pretty well hidden,' he is right in line with the biblical description of God’s role in the universe. There is no hint of a constant microengineering by God either in the world or in the Bible… The God that most skeptics reject, a God with unceasing hands-on control, is simply not the God of the Bible. The biblical God may enter the fray when the flow of nature and humanity strays too far from the intended teleological path. In general, however, the running of the universe is not a power play by God… The Bible recognizes that flaws exist in nature’s design… The God of the Bible expects us to fix them. That’s what partnership is all about.” (Pg. 212-213)
He concludes, “to use our potential most effectively we have to abandon, actually sacrifice, the popular though erroneous image of God the Father who controls our every act. The biblical image of God implies that God could indeed control every nuance of our acts and every tinge of our thoughts. But a God that would act out that potential power is not the God of the Bible… the God of the Bible has placed that power in our hands.” (Pg. 217)
This book will be of great interest to anyone studying contemporary spirituality, and related topics.
Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder wrote in the Introduction of this 2009 book, “Each of our three local cultures [Christianity, Judaism, Islam] address the one God… this spiritual Oneness… mirrors… the physical unity upon which rest all aspects of the material world. Much of the four decades of my career as an M.I.Y.-trained scientist and, in parallel, three decades of my study of the Bible has been devoted to probing this physical and spiritual unity… The deeper truth that I discovered is that, when we get beyond a superficial understanding… we find that the physical and the metaphysical make up a single reality… viewed from two vastly different perspectives. It is this that I teach in my classes on science and the Bible.” (Pg. 2)
He continues, “There is something very basic missing in the simplistic view of the God of the Bible… Most obviously, if God is in control, why isn’t the world perfect?... Are we dealing with an absentee God[?]… The biblical message is that God is there to help, but steps back… and insists that we do our part in the job. God has chosen us to be partners. With the Divine hiding of face, God’s presence becomes masked, at times even unpredictable and certainly not always controlling events… By abandoning preconceived notions … and replacing them with the Bible’s description and nature’s display of God---we will learn about God according to God.” (Pg. 3-5)
He goes on, “Not all of God’s traits are friendly… the God of the Bible wants us to adhere to the standards presented in the Bible.” (Pg. 13) He adds, “if there is a God active in our universe and that God cannot perform miracles… then this is not much of a God. Miracles upset the regularity of nature upon which the scientific method of analysis relies.” (Pg. 16)
He turns to ‘the ultimate question’: “Why is there an ‘is’? Why is there something rather than nothing? For that answer both science and religion must turn to the metaphysical.” (Pg. 21) He asserts, “It is time to lay to rest the misguided but popularly believed untruth that in our world, gradual, step-by-step random mutations could have climbed the mountain of improbability and produced the magnificent abundance of the earth’s biosphere.” (Pg. 34)
He rejects the idea of ‘parallel universes’: "As a scientist, I am embarrassed that such logic can make its way into a widely read scientific journal… Our universe has laws of nature made for life. The physical constants that regulate the laws of nature… are perfect for sustaining life… the perfection of nature’s laws for sustaining life in our universe in no way suggests the existence of other less life-friendly universes. The perfection of our universe’s laws of nature is a fact… this perfection is so highly improbable that some explanation other than a simple onetime random event is required.” (Pg. 39
He is skeptical about the notion that “nature, by random chance mutations, has been able to form the few hundred thousand proteins useful to earthly life.” (Pg. 44) He continues, “we are back to [probability] calculations as the first form of life, a microbe, mutates and either advances or perishes as it starts to climb the mountain of improbability by random mutations on the DNA that in time will lead to kidneys, bones… eyes, brains, mind, sentience… Clearly there must be other factors that limit the types of mutations can occur… And that is the entire point. Nature is skewed toward life.” (Pg. 44-45)
He explains, “Let us make some guesstimates of the likelihood of finding in our universe each of the variables listed above… the likelihood of finding anywhere in the entire universe stellar system with a planet able to support complex intelligent life… The probability that any one galaxy would have more than one life-bearing stellar system is slim indeed.” (Pg. 80)
He then begins discussing the Bible: “We discover the startling truth of God’s character in Exodus… Exodus 3:14 is a verse often mistranslated… The meaning of the Hebrew text is vastly different from the King James rendering of that verse, ‘I am that I am.’ … The irony of this ongoing error is that the exact Hebrew word in question, ehe’ye, appears just two verses earlier, in Exodus 3:12, and both the Latin and the Greek translations render this ‘I will be,’ not ‘I am.’ But ‘I am’ is so much more … appealing to our preconceived notions of God than ‘I will be’ that the translators actually changed the meaning of the biblical text!” (Pg. 85)
He observes, “The question is not ‘if’ self-awareness can arise from a particular mix of these seemingly inanimate subatomic particles. We are living proof that it can and did. The problem is to identify at what level of complexity sentience and choice and mind come quantifiably online…. Our free will is at such an advanced level that the Divine leeway … has actually granted us license to choose between life and death…” (Pg. 103)
He then turns to the Near-Death Experience [NDE]: “the ‘discussion’… relates to whether near-death experiences result from the persistence of a metaphysical consciousness that we associate with the mind even after the brain has ceased to exhibit the measurable activity we associate with life. If the mind is not within the brain… then it is not confined by the vitality of the brain, even though our body’s awareness of the mind is totally dependent upon our brain as the receiver. At death, mind as a free consciousness would break from its relation with the physical body and brain.” (Pg. 150)
He notes, “We have no conscious awareness of the molecular processes that yield our memories. At times our thoughts seem to arise from nowhere. The wellsprings of consciousness… are a complete enigma… Are all our musings, the sounds and pictures we find in our head, built of molecules, even though those molecules are silent and sightless? Or could there be a transition from a physical brain to a metaphysical mind? If mind is within the brain, it is very well hidden.” (Pg. 153-154)
He states, “The tendency to see the world as a duality, to separate the material from the spiritual, is purely myopic. Through we habitually relate spirituality to prayer or mediation or some magnificent view of nature, the God of the Bible finds a broader ground for Divine inspiration. The very fact that the Bible five times over describes the construction of the Tabernacle teaches that the works of our hands have the potential to inspire. The reality of life is that we have been imbued with a physical body within which, during our term on earth, resides a searching soul. Both body and soul require our personal effort if they are to be adequately nourished.” (Pg. 169)
He summarizes, “The message keeps repeating itself throughout the Bible. God wants our love, but wants it more than via the abstractions of prayer and meditation. Biblically, our love for God is most avidly played out in how we relate to others. The dynamic God of the Bible, the God that told us, ‘I will be that which I will be,’ wants its creatures also to be dynamic and proactive in forming a harmonious society.” (Pg. 180-181)
He acknowledges, “When Steven Weinberg complains that ‘signs of a benevolent designer are pretty well hidden,' he is right in line with the biblical description of God’s role in the universe. There is no hint of a constant microengineering by God either in the world or in the Bible… The God that most skeptics reject, a God with unceasing hands-on control, is simply not the God of the Bible. The biblical God may enter the fray when the flow of nature and humanity strays too far from the intended teleological path. In general, however, the running of the universe is not a power play by God… The Bible recognizes that flaws exist in nature’s design… The God of the Bible expects us to fix them. That’s what partnership is all about.” (Pg. 212-213)
He concludes, “to use our potential most effectively we have to abandon, actually sacrifice, the popular though erroneous image of God the Father who controls our every act. The biblical image of God implies that God could indeed control every nuance of our acts and every tinge of our thoughts. But a God that would act out that potential power is not the God of the Bible… the God of the Bible has placed that power in our hands.” (Pg. 217)
This book will be of great interest to anyone studying contemporary spirituality, and related topics.
June 21, 2020
Some excerpts:
“The first six days as described in Genesis 1 take us from the creation of the universe to the creation of humanity. The entire account is described in a mere thirty-one verses. At M.I.T.’s Hayden library, we probably have twenty thousand books on the events covered in those six days – not from a theological perspective, but from a scientific one that deals with the cosmology, physics, and biology of a universe created with energy capable of producing life, brain, and sentient mind. Up the Charles River from M.I.T., at Harvard Weidner library there are probably fifty thousand books on these topics. With only thirty-one verses in the first chapter of Genesis, we shouldn’t expect each Divine detail in the cosmic development described there to leap off the biblical pages.” – Page 87
In regard to nuclear physics and [quantum mechanics] Schroeder writes:
“Our human perception of reality is a vast illusion, an artifact brought about by our limited senses of touch and sight. The scientific revelations of the past century have forced us to reevaluate the essence of that reality.” – Page 148
“The startling, totally counterintuitive, yet scientifically proven discoveries of physics reveal that our world, at its deepest level, is not built of tangible discrete objects. Rather, when we look closely, we find that reality is as gossamer as a thought, that existence is closer to being an association of ideas than a conglomeration of atoms. The dogmatic myth of materialism has been proven to be wanting, more fantasy than fact. Again, in the words of Nobel laureate and biologist George Wald, “The stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is mind that has composed a physical universe.” – Page 151
“But a revolution has occurred in this perception. It started with Einstein’s amazing laws of relativity, that the passage of time is not constant, and the dimensions of space are flexible. Then came the discovery of the uncertain, fuzzy world of the quantum. And suddenly our classical view of reality, the inbred misconception that reality must conform to our logic, was shattered. We have discovered that the reality we perceive stands in place of, or better said, represents, a deeper essence of truth.
And that is what I discuss here, the idea, admittedly speculative, that the truth of our universe is not as we perceive it, even with the aid of the most sophisticated particle accelerators and most powerful space telescope; that from the invisible realm of the quantum to the vast reaches of space, our universe may more closely resemble a thought than a thing.” – Pages 219-220
“The first six days as described in Genesis 1 take us from the creation of the universe to the creation of humanity. The entire account is described in a mere thirty-one verses. At M.I.T.’s Hayden library, we probably have twenty thousand books on the events covered in those six days – not from a theological perspective, but from a scientific one that deals with the cosmology, physics, and biology of a universe created with energy capable of producing life, brain, and sentient mind. Up the Charles River from M.I.T., at Harvard Weidner library there are probably fifty thousand books on these topics. With only thirty-one verses in the first chapter of Genesis, we shouldn’t expect each Divine detail in the cosmic development described there to leap off the biblical pages.” – Page 87
In regard to nuclear physics and [quantum mechanics] Schroeder writes:
“Our human perception of reality is a vast illusion, an artifact brought about by our limited senses of touch and sight. The scientific revelations of the past century have forced us to reevaluate the essence of that reality.” – Page 148
“The startling, totally counterintuitive, yet scientifically proven discoveries of physics reveal that our world, at its deepest level, is not built of tangible discrete objects. Rather, when we look closely, we find that reality is as gossamer as a thought, that existence is closer to being an association of ideas than a conglomeration of atoms. The dogmatic myth of materialism has been proven to be wanting, more fantasy than fact. Again, in the words of Nobel laureate and biologist George Wald, “The stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is mind that has composed a physical universe.” – Page 151
“But a revolution has occurred in this perception. It started with Einstein’s amazing laws of relativity, that the passage of time is not constant, and the dimensions of space are flexible. Then came the discovery of the uncertain, fuzzy world of the quantum. And suddenly our classical view of reality, the inbred misconception that reality must conform to our logic, was shattered. We have discovered that the reality we perceive stands in place of, or better said, represents, a deeper essence of truth.
And that is what I discuss here, the idea, admittedly speculative, that the truth of our universe is not as we perceive it, even with the aid of the most sophisticated particle accelerators and most powerful space telescope; that from the invisible realm of the quantum to the vast reaches of space, our universe may more closely resemble a thought than a thing.” – Pages 219-220
July 21, 2012
By far one of the best books I have read. Admittedly it can be physics heavy, I had to re-read many parts in order to follow the author, but that is due only to my lack of understanding in the field. However, Dr. Schroeder has taught me greatly with his books. I would love to have been a student of his and he is definitely on my “persons I would love to meet” list. It also makes the top ten of my “required reading for” all list
January 8, 2015
The title is misleading— nothing is proved. However, the book presents another lens through which to examine the divine and our assumptions and understanding. If you are an atheist, I doubt this book will change your mind. If you believe modern, western Christianity has it all nailed down then you will probably have major issues with the book.
September 4, 2025
When we get beyond a superficial understanding of the tangible, material world, we find that the physical and the metaphysical make up a single reality, one world viewed from two vastly different perspectives.' (Gerald Schroeder, God According to God, p.2) The MIT-trained physicist and applied theology professor's 2009 book may make overly exaggerated claims in its subtitle – A Physicist Proves We Have Been Wrong About God All Along – but, in the words of one reviewer, 'demands the attention of anyone who wonders if God must be exiled from the modern, enlightened mind.' Though I have not yet read the whole book, it appears that he does a good job of refuting the worldview of scientific atheists such as Stephen Hawking, who maintain that 'somehow, from absolutely nothing came a massive burst of exquisistely hot energy, electromagnetic radiation, or superpowerful light beams' and insist that this burst of energy, 'having no mass whatsoever, can metamorphose and become the solid elements that combined to form all the material world.' In one place, he even suggests that 'physics not only has begun to sound like theology. It is theology.' In place of blind chance, he firmly re-establishes the orchestrating, directing, intervening hand of our Creator God – though, as with his previous books, such as The Science of God and The Hidden Face of God, one may not agree with all his attempts to reconcile the biblical account of creation with current scientific knowledge. Philosophically, however, I have yet to see how he juggles the conflicting claims of free will with the clear scriptural teaching on God's sovereignty, where even the cast of the lot or a die is determined by the LORD (Proverbs 16:33). This, according to the front flap overview, is the main thesis of the book: 'Schroeder presents a compelling case for the true God, a dynamic God who is still learning how to relate to creation. The key to God's action in the world, says Schroeder, can be found in a well-known verse in Exodus that is typically translated "I am that which I am." Schroeder's correction that it should be translated "I will be that which I will be" reveals a God that changes Its presence to fit the ever-changing world. 'This opens our eyes to other characteristics of God that we have long overlooked despite their being present in some of the most popular stories in the Bible - a God who regrets (the flood of Noah), a God who wants us to argue with Him (Jacob wrestling with God in the desert), and thus a God who changes His mind (Moses convinces God to spare the Israelite people), and a God who allowed nature, and the creation itself, from the very start, to rebel (Adam's and Eve's betrayal in Eden).' As I say, I'm not sure how he reconciles this with teaching such as Philippians 2:13, 'it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure,' or Nebuchadnezzar's insight in Daniel 4:35 that 'he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?"' No doubt, we shall see!
July 21, 2023
This book falls closely in the Jewish tradition of being thought-provoking as its main purpose. The author, one with a fairly conservative Jewish faith, expounds on physics, and his study of Jewish text in a concordist fashion. Concordism is the view that science and the Bible speak of the same “truth categories” and thus will concord. I do not hold this view, but find the version presented in this text far more compelling than versions from authors like Hugh Ross. This is mostly rooted in the understanding of text that the author brings. The rich Jewish tradition of textual interpretation is one of the strongest points in the book. However, this is also one of the hardest to follow. As a Christian myself, I find the “interpretations“ of certain passages odd, and sometimes nonsensical. The author leans heavily on one particular, Jewish scholars interpretation of “fruit trees”. This interpretation is a central tenant of the book. It’s hard to be on board with this interpretation if you don’t respect the authority of Jewish interpretation history as pseudo-inerrant. This is another appealing point of the book for the conservative Christian community. The author holds a view of scriptural text that would be called inerrant in the Christian community.
It should be noted that one of the strongest points of this book is the philosophical implications of the authors use. The pure brain power the author brings in understanding complex physics also makes the volume worth the read.
I would highly recommend this book to those who appreciate books that don’t try to tell you what is true, but rather make you think. While the author presents his view, as “the truth” I found it very enjoyable for its thought-provoking nature. It also presents a compelling the theodicy which may appear to some as a form of panentheism or panpsychism but does not endorse either.
It should be noted that one of the strongest points of this book is the philosophical implications of the authors use. The pure brain power the author brings in understanding complex physics also makes the volume worth the read.
I would highly recommend this book to those who appreciate books that don’t try to tell you what is true, but rather make you think. While the author presents his view, as “the truth” I found it very enjoyable for its thought-provoking nature. It also presents a compelling the theodicy which may appear to some as a form of panentheism or panpsychism but does not endorse either.
March 9, 2024
Although there are great nuggets of information and truth in this book, there are a number of theological errors. It is a struggle reading how the author portrays God as not being omniscient. How does an omniscient God come to knowledge and not already be all-knowing? How can God who declares to be unchanged, change over time based on human experience? The author’s account of the earth’s imperfections is that they existed in creation, before the fall and not as a result of the fall. Where does God’s failures start and where do they end? If He errs, can every time there is something that is not agreeable be assumed that God erred? There are some troubling analyses in the book. This was my second book from this author and my last.
October 9, 2018
The subtitle is click-bait, because there's nothing here that I haven't read elsewhere, though Schroeder comes at it from a different angle.
Using observations of nature, he asserts that God has a personality and wants to partner with humanity rather than control us. I believe both of these things, but John Mark Comer is more persuasive about the personality aspect in God Has a Name and John Walton covers the partnership aspect especially well in his Lost World of Adam and Eve. I recommend those books.
Using observations of nature, he asserts that God has a personality and wants to partner with humanity rather than control us. I believe both of these things, but John Mark Comer is more persuasive about the personality aspect in God Has a Name and John Walton covers the partnership aspect especially well in his Lost World of Adam and Eve. I recommend those books.
May 21, 2024
While I loved Schroeder’s first three books on science and faith when I read them a couple decades ago, this book serves as a reminder that mere knowledge of Ancient Hebrew does not made a good exegete. The unbiblical philosophical commitments are obvious throughout, leading to a position of open theism and Pelagianism all the while claiming these positions are made “abundantly clear” in scripture. If nothing else, this book serves as a good reminder that repeatedly claiming something is in scripture does not, in fact, make it true.
September 23, 2025
Wasn't sure what to expect
This is interesting. Some perspectives I hadn't considered before about the creation form a physics perspective and a God perspective. Mind opening and this led to an interesting conversation with a friend already.
This is interesting. Some perspectives I hadn't considered before about the creation form a physics perspective and a God perspective. Mind opening and this led to an interesting conversation with a friend already.
April 17, 2019
Meh... church group study book. Loved the group, didn’t like the book.
January 18, 2010
As a physicist who also has a deep knowledge of the Old Testament, Schroeder has been an influential thinker. His basic thesis is that god is not infallible, but an evolving, mostly hands-off Mind that undergirds existence. Not exactly the clock maker who abandoned his clock, not exactly impersonal, but close enough for practical purposes.
In fact the main flaw of this book is that it completely fails to demonstrate how such a god is different from no god at all -- how such a god would be relevant to one's individual existence within the scope of one's lifetime. Nor does it evade the inevitable rationalizations about the "problem of pain" -- you would have to accept some kind of afterlife as a settled fact in order to rationalize random suffering and loss.
The book's main contribution, if you can call it that, is that it attempts, with mixed results, to harmonize scripture with this more scientific hypothesis about god, thus giving those unwilling to let go of the Bible as a holy book a framework for a new theology that is more in step with the reality of how we actually experience life. In other words, Schroeder strikes at the heart of the fantasy god who is a wise, consistent, unchanging, benevolent father figure who will always take care of us if we do well. For chipping away at that fantasy, at least, I have to take my hat off to the author.
In fact the main flaw of this book is that it completely fails to demonstrate how such a god is different from no god at all -- how such a god would be relevant to one's individual existence within the scope of one's lifetime. Nor does it evade the inevitable rationalizations about the "problem of pain" -- you would have to accept some kind of afterlife as a settled fact in order to rationalize random suffering and loss.
The book's main contribution, if you can call it that, is that it attempts, with mixed results, to harmonize scripture with this more scientific hypothesis about god, thus giving those unwilling to let go of the Bible as a holy book a framework for a new theology that is more in step with the reality of how we actually experience life. In other words, Schroeder strikes at the heart of the fantasy god who is a wise, consistent, unchanging, benevolent father figure who will always take care of us if we do well. For chipping away at that fantasy, at least, I have to take my hat off to the author.
October 12, 2011
Schroeder comes about as close as anyone has in explaining my opinion of God and His functioning. Close, but not all the way. It seems no one does, and it seems that if I'm to find a book that is exactly in confluence, I am going to have to be the writer. There's much pseudo-profundity here in the style of Rav Soloveitchik, and Schroeder teases out lessons about G-d's mercy by treating the bible as a linear treatise. Unfortunately, it isn't, whether you're ultra-orthodox or a secular biblical scholar. Also in error is the style-mirroing of the laughably inferior "Permission" books, in which theistic arguments are presented without bringing to fore well-established atheistic responses. Another mistake is discussion of odds, which never impress me. Just because something rarely occurs, but occurs anyway, doesn't mean discussion of its odds has any value. It happened. Deal with it. And Schroeder, discuss the size of the universe first before discussing those odds. You'll see the odds are not as small as you explain.
December 4, 2010
I hate it when they put "physicist" in the title to make you think that the author will naturally be forced to throw a bit of science into it. He apparently felt uncompelled to do any serious writing from a scientific point of view in my opinion and what he did contribute (more specifically his thoughts on cosmology) was both severely outdated even for the books publishing date and altogether pointless. On the other hand I love the Hebrew language and I did learn a few Hebrew words that I found useful and what he had to say about the god of the Torah and the Talmund was I felt more realistic than most believers can muster. At least he painted a more realistic view of God according to scripture, but I wonder if he realizes that this "realistic" view is what contributes to many leaving their faiths.
February 7, 2013
Some interesting views about God. Despite basing its arguments mainly in the Torah and ancients Jewish commentators, the author's view of God is not a traditional one. For him, God has been also learning how to deal and how to relate with His creation, specially us, humans. We are "partners" of God in keeping His creation.
One of the most interesting parts is the argument in favour of the existence of a metaphysical world based in modern physics discoveries. Wisdom precedes energy and material world is just one part of the reality.
All in all, a good read. Although a bit slow and technical at times (both in physics and in theology), is a worthy effort.
One of the most interesting parts is the argument in favour of the existence of a metaphysical world based in modern physics discoveries. Wisdom precedes energy and material world is just one part of the reality.
All in all, a good read. Although a bit slow and technical at times (both in physics and in theology), is a worthy effort.
February 3, 2017
This book, a combination of scientific research and Biblical study, offers readers a new standard of how to understand God. Bypassing the age-old debate between science and religion, the author instead examines the world around him and the writings in the Bible in order to discover the true nature of God.
With attention to the characteristics of God as seen in the Bible, this scientific view of creation and the place of our planet in the solar system, the author offers much for readers to contemplate.
Highly recommended.
With attention to the characteristics of God as seen in the Bible, this scientific view of creation and the place of our planet in the solar system, the author offers much for readers to contemplate.
Highly recommended.
September 19, 2014
While not 100% in agreement with the authors views, I did find that this book opened my mind to an important line of thought, that being that "God" is actively working towards communicating his intentions for mankind in a process that evolving as we slowly grow in our spiritual lives. For me, this was a significant read. I am now planning to read other works by this author.
January 6, 2016
Very interesting book! Schroeder comes from a physics background and writes an interesting and sometimes provocative account of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He isn't an American Christian, and some of what he discusses will be WAAAY beyond the pale for those from a fundamentalist background, but I think you will find it thought-provoking whether you agree or not.
May 18, 2011
Very scientific. Shows how through science and math it is impossible that creation was a random mutation from nothing. Makes Darwin and Hawking look like idiots...I love that part.
A very hard read.
A very hard read.
October 16, 2015
This book is absolutely terrible. It makes so may incoherent logical leaps that it's impossible to take it seriously. A ridiculously bad read, steer clear from this turd.
October 23, 2011
fantastic
January 1, 2013
WOW! I knew most of the covenant information, but the quantum mechanics wave/particle duality hypothesis of consciousness was new to me and very intriguing.
December 17, 2012
Very interesting book written by a Jewish Physicist.
July 16, 2013
essentially boils down to the question: are we just an accident?
July 14, 2014
Amazing book!! A must read!!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews