First off - for those of you who are wondering if this was written by the same "Scott Adams" who wrote Dilbert, the answer is yes. Don't let that influence your expectations about this book, though.
Dilbert is made of pure win and glory, but "God's Debris" is an entirely different kettle of fish.
Adams calls this a thought experiment disguised as a piece of fiction. I'd call it a mind fuck disguised as a short story, for people who sometimes daydream about philosophical ideas when they're stoned on their own.
You can buy this book in most good bookstores, but Scott Adams being cool as shit, he uploaded a copy of the book as a PDF file on the internet for anyone to download.
Before you start reading the book though, it's really important to read the text I quoted below - if you buy a physical copy of the book, the text is at the beginning and it explains some very important stuff, for some reason it wasn't included with the online copy.
Quote:
Introduction
This is not a Dilbert book. It contains no humor. I call it a 99-page thought experiment wrapped in a fictional story. I'll explain the thought experiment part later.
God's Debris is not being published in the old-fashioned dead-tree way because it doesn't fit into normal publishing cubbyholes. There is even disagreement about whether the material is fiction or non-fiction. I contend that it is fiction because the characters don't exist. Some people contend that it is non-fiction because the opinions and philosophies of the characters might have lasting impact on the reader.
The story contains no violence, no sexual content and no offensive language. But the ideas expressed by the characters are inappropriate for young minds. People under the age of 14 should not read it.
The target audience for God's Debris is people who enjoy having their brains spun around inside their skulls. After a certain age most people are uncomfortable with new ideas. That certain age varies by person, but if you're over 55 (mentally) you probably won't enjoy this thought experiment. If you're 80 going on 35, you might like it. If you're 23, your odds of liking it are very good. If you're a literary critic, keep in mind that I hate you, too, and I said it first.
The story's central character has a view about God that you've probably never heard before. If you think you would be offended by a fictional character's untraditional view of God, please don't read this.
The opinions and philosophies expressed by the characters are not my own, except by coincidence in a few spots not worth mentioning. Please don't write me with passionate explanations of why my views are wrong. You won't discover my opinions by reading my fiction.
The central character in God's Debris knows everything. Literally everything. This presented a challenge to me as a writer. When you consider all of the things that can be known, I don't know much. My solution was to create smart-sounding answers using the skeptic's creed:
The simplest explanation is usually right.
My experience tells me that in this complicated world the simplest explanation is usually dead wrong. But I've noticed that the simplest explanation usually sounds right and is far more convincing than any complicated explanation could hope to be. That's good enough for my purposes here.
The simplest explanation approach turned out to be more provocative than I expected. The simplest explanations for the Big Questions ended up connecting paths that don't normally get connected. The description of reality in God's Debris isn't true, as far as I know, but it's oddly compelling. Therein lies the thought experiment:
Try to figure out what's wrong with the simplest explanations.
The central character states a number of scientific "facts." Some of his weirdest statements are consistent with what scientists generally believe. Some of what he says is creative baloney designed to sound true. See if you can tell the difference. (My emphasis - lulz)
You might love this thought experiment wrapped in a story. Or you might hate it. But you won't easily get it out of your mind. For maximum enjoyment, share your legal copy with a smart friend and then discuss it while enjoying a tasty beverage.
Only half way through but so far I will describe this as pantheism disguised as bullshit. Maybe a little harsh and there is classical good shit in there but some bullshit to, IMO.
Only half way through but so far I will describe this as pantheism disguised as bullshit. Maybe a little harsh and there is classical good shit in there but some bullshit to, IMO.
Not pantheism, panentheism. And chances are that you're missing the point (I say this as someone studying philosophy at university).
I'd like to hear it, I only read half (I say that as someone who would simply like to know and you seem the one who knows such things and I love to learn in between my gas pumping and bottle collecting).
I'd like to hear it, I only read half (I say that as someone who would simply like to know and you seem the one who knows such things and I love to learn in between my gas pumping and bottle collecting).
Relax guy, if you want to talk about this just PM me. It would ruin the point of the story to explain it here, given that you're supposed to figure it out on your own.
Who the hell are you telling to relax! Just kidding, I enjoyed the begining but I was forcing myself to read the evolution and esp parts and got bored I admit and would genuinely like to know what I missed but I will finish it and then say as I should have done first.
Idk I defienlty didn't agree with a lot in this book but Swis spent hours arguing with one of his best mates about this book so it was well worth reading it.
on
23-05-2007, 22:00
Hybrid Mode
