We finished this way back in February.

[cedar_grove]

"Who is this God science? Who is God who offers his people power but no moral framework to tell you how to use that power? What kind of God gives a child fire but does not warn the child of its dangers? The language of science comes with no signposts about good and bad. Science textbooks tell us how to create a nuclear reaction, and yet they contain no chapter asking us if it is a good or a bad idea." Angels and Demons by Dan Brown.

I have the honour of reviewing this book, actually had the pleasure of reading most of it too. Someone we know said that we should read this one before we even thought about reading that more famous book of his. So that's what we did. Actually it wasn't the first of his we read. Cody, way back in 2006 read Digital Fortress and really enjoyed it, so we had kind of highish expectations of the book even without the hype of that other one. The subject matter it deals with too, is an interesting one, for me and several others of Cedar. Science vs Religion... does it truly need to be such a dichotomy of thought, or can the two sometimes walk hand in hand?

As far as a thriller went, it was... well I'd not say that it was the best one we've ever read. There were a few unexpected twists, but not much. Much of it was predictable - or maybe that's just my suspicious mind. That's not to say it was in any way boring. It did keep me wanting to read on, trying to figure out how he would get from point A to point B.

As I said there are a few surprises, which obviously I'm not about to spoil... and if you like religious lore, and are interested in things like procedure and due process, then this is probably a book that you'd enjoy reading. My overall impression was that I enjoyed it, and would recommend it for a read maybe one time, but I probably wouldn't read it more than once.

Comments

[calibrata.livejournal.com]

*sigh* I'll believe you about the book being good, but the quote frustrates me. It contains a meme I've heard a number of times, that science comes without inherent morality and therefore science teaching comes without ethical inquiry, that I've found in practice to be absolutely wrong. I've never had a physics class that talked about the Manhattan Project without reference to its political and human consequences, for example. Sure, there are a few more options for where to place the human side -- my embryology class in high school focused way more on teratogens than abortion -- but it's there somewhere in both the textbook and the lecture.

Thanks for posting...

[cedargrove.livejournal.com]

Apologies... I didn't mean to frustrate. I was just trying to find a quote that summed up the book, *shrug* It's what we try to do. (Watch for Teyla's somewhat narcisistic quote for the next review - she knows we're only teasing).

There's a lot of things in the book that we didn't particularly agree with in reference to both science, and religion... but it is an interesting idea. I'll give him that. And the whole illuminati thing... well... Hey, he writes the Hassassin well apparently.

[calibrata.livejournal.com]

Yeah... so I'm not really frustrated with you, but with the author through you. And having not read the whole book, I'm not sure whether I'd feel the same having done so, as you have. (Blah, that didn't quite come out... oh well.)