Negative Positive
Title: Not a persuasive scientific approach!
Review: I opened this book prepared to be impressed, but instead I found a woefully inadequate line of reasoning. It began with the author's use of his own experience with mind-altering chemicals to argue that human consciousness is a merely biochemical phenomenon (sample sizes of 1, or n=1, are usually not a sufficient basis to make such a sweeping conclusion!). The chapter on the origins of life presents explanations that still reside in the realm of theory and conjecture, and are critically short on citations of peer-reviewed literature. And the point when I finally put the book down is when the author, in the chapter explaining the existence of atheism, begins by arguing that all human traits are normally distributed (ie, the "bell curve" or Gaussian distribution)! I submit that the author has some learning left to do with regards to what he expresses as his own "religion"- the religion of science.
Is the review positive or negative? 