I really enjoy books like “A Short History of Nearly Everything” and “A Brief History of Time.” When I saw this book I thought it would be true to the title and tell me how the universe can go from nothing to something. Sadly the book does not follow through. Krauss keeps getting distracted with his hatred of religion and trying to prove the universe was not created. According to him, whenever an atheist scientist is proven wrong it is and evolution of knowledge. When a religious scientist is proven wrong it is an indication of ignorance. He takes great joy in pointing out those that he considers ignorant. Too bad more of his energy was not applied to the proposed subject of the book. Science with an agenda is never as accurate as scientific observation and presentation with an open mind.
Learn, understand, then decide whether you accept or reject.
If you want to hear someone glorify Richard Dawkins, get this book. Otherwise, find something more informative than this junk.
His whining about religion and why God doesn't need to exist. Who cares? Just give us the science and theories about how the universe formed. If he had done that the book would have been enjoyable. I got really tired of him trying to convince me why I should stop believing in God, and telling me how much religion has derailed science.
Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin by Stephen Jay Gould.
Voices and pace were okay.
Does not apply.
Step away from following scientists' explanations of the universe for a couple of years, and you'll find yourself years, or lightyears, behind. That's what I did, while I merely inhabited the universe for a while. Krauss does a great job with his own read, just like lectures he gives, explaining what's currently understood about the universe, and the evidence for it.
Creationists will find some points of argument against their view, but the book is not about creationism or otherwise. It's about observations which explain how the universe got to be what it is now (or was when the light we're seeing now started travelling toward us).
I started relistening almost as soon as I finished the first time, to bring into sharper focus the ideas which were new. This is one book which may be ideal for Whispersync. I wouldn't want to miss the author/lecturer's audible explanations, but it would be nice to have the print to review ideas already presented.
This book stimulated me to listen to the humorous and also recommended A User's Guide to the Universe, which helped round out my understanding of current concepts in cosmology.
Lawrence's interview on Colbert gave me the impression that I would learn something about nothing. Mostly this a summary of modern cosmology with too much talk about religion. Apparently, Lawrence wants to be the Dawkins of cosmology. Everything he had to say about nothing he covered in the 3 minutes with Colbert.
I loved the science. "Nothing is unstable!"
There are no spoiler here. The ending is just more of the science.
It is always nice to hear the author tell their own strory
The authors constant need to talk about god moved me to dislike the book. I don't think that science is about whether god exists or not.
The Author, while claiming to be focused on science for the sake of science spends way too much time trying to convince everybody that god does not exist. When I buy I science book, I want a science book. When I buy a theological book, I want a theological book. The author is so insistent on proving there is no god that he almost sounds like an extremely religious person who is trying to make you believe in god. I would argue that the author while consistently saying he has no faith in religion, is treating science as if it is a religion.
Sometimes I would think while listening to the book "come on, get on with the science" I've had enough of this lame discussion on how he has mathematically proven God does not exist. Also, what he fails to understand in his constant battering criticism of religion is that some religions have actively encouraged the seeking of knowledge and the study of science. As a Muslim, I know that my religion encourages me to learn and study. Religion is something we accept based purely on faith. I don't need mathematical proof that God exists. Science is based on math, observation and analytical thinking, I compartmentalize the two and have no issues with believing in both.
If the two conflict, not a big deal, chances are there is something I have misinterpreted from either the science side or the religion side. If the the conflict is extreme, I don't give myself a headache about it. Science has done good things to my life and religion has done good things to my life, I don't feel compelled to go around actively trying to discredit one or the other. For someone who does not believe in God, I would consider the lengths to which this author has gone in an attempt to prove this idea almost like an act of desperation. His arguments had the same tone, pitch and fervor of some of the extremely religious guys I've met who are trying to sell me their way of life as the only way that makes sense.. So, dear author, tone it down a bit and focus on the science next time.
Haven't read the print version. I learn from this type of book better by listening. Lawrence Krauss is one of my favorite physicists, and he delivers in this book. He takes a tangled subject and unwinds it with passion and fervor.
The story of nothingness, or how we came to be.
Audible needs to format reviews for the book type. Not all books are works of fiction with characters.
I really liked the way this book brought together all of the relevant theories of physics to explain how our universe was created. It was technical in parts, but overall was simple enough to understand.
It was exhausting though, to hear the author's constant trumpeting of his accomplishments and predicitions. His rantings against religion also became tiresome. While sympathetic to his point, I felt this issue was addressed SO MANY times throughout the book, it almost became its main point.
Author Krause needs to be more careful distinguishing what is science and what is merely the hope or speculations of scientists. He is so desperate to eliminate any basis for religion in the universe that he overlooks those things that are supported only by his "faith" in science and not by science itself. His "what ifs" and "perhaps" thoughts are reminiscent of the show Ancient Aliens, not real science.
Only by rejecting the tools and methodology of religion ( e.g., personal faith and revelation) can he conclude there is no support for God in creation. If we rule out the tools of science in the same way (e.g. mathematics) we can conclude there is no support of science in creation. We need an approach that recognizes everyone's tools.