The Essential Reader: Think!

Think! Why Crucial Decisions Can't Be Made in the Blink of an Eye
by Michael R LeGault

This book "Think!" was written in reaction to "Blink!", an earlier book that endorsed quick, emotional, gut-level decision making. The author of "Think," Michael LeGault, begs to differ: many problems in society today, he opines, are the fault of quick, emotional, instant decision making. In contrast, he espouses decisions that are thoughtful and rational.

Some chapter titles in Part One provide a feeling for his point of view:

4. Feeding the Feel-good Monster.
5. The Rise of the Political and Correct, the Fall of the Smart and Quick
7. "I'm Too Busy," the Myth of Stress and Information Overload.

In reality, you're going to employ both approaches. It is important to bring knowledge and wisdom to bare on decisions; but other times, you gotta go with your feelings 'cause you just don't got enough data at hand.

I like that he is against the current climate change hysteria, but not so keen that he minimized the influence of religion on people's thought making process. Christianity, for instance, merges Jewish mysticism with Greek logic, which prepped thinkers like Newton and Pascal. At best, he can only report that they dabbled in spirituality.

Which is a loss to the reader, for spirituality to these men was more than irrational feelings. It informed their world view, making possible the advances in human understanding, because they sought them out. Their line of thinking would have gone along these lines:

1. God exists.
2. Therefore there are reasons for how the world works.
3. Therefore there are rational bases for all activity, biological and otherwise.
4. Therefore there are rules that underpin the rationality.
5. Therefore I can discover these rules.

For thinkers like Newton and Pascal, ignoring spirituality may have led to a no-go process of thinking: no God, no reason, no rationality, no rules, nothing to discover.

Nevertheless, I found Part One to be good reading, and I heartedly endorse the first third of the book. But then Mr LeGault bogs down in Part Two. Entitled "Inspiration," it briefly describes numerous great thinkers that have become cliched. His collection of names and their stories are overly familiar to all of us: Einstein, Copernicus, Shakespeare, Edison, Newton... Far more interesting would have been great thinkers we've rarely heard of. I began to feel that the publisher asked the author to bulk up the page count.

I began to skip through Part Two's remaining chapters, and early into Part Three I blinked and gave up on this book. Part Three is "Fixes" -- the longest part and the most tedious. Mr LeGault looses the rationality that he preached about in Part One, and resorts to guesswork of what might fix our screwed-up society. Teachers will not be pleased of his criticism of modern classroom techniques.

Published in 2006 by Threshold Editions
ISBN 1-4165-2378-2
viii + 356 pages

In paperback for $16.47 from Amazon.com; also available used. Click for more information about Think!: Why Crucial Decisions Can't Be Made in the Blink of an Eye

Comments

[Julian Hardy]

"For thinkers like Newton and Pascal, ignoring spirituality may have led to a no-go process of thinking: no God, no reason, no rationality, no rules, nothing to discover."

Hmmmm ... a lack of (religious) spirituality doesn't seem to have been much of an impediment to such thinkers as Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Steven Hawking ...

[Pete Yodis]

1. God exists.
2. Therefore there are reasons for how the world works.
3. Therefore there are rational bases for all activity, biological and otherwise.
4. Therefore there are rules that underpin the rationality.
5. Therefore I can discover these rules.

These points sound similar to what Francis Schaeffer wrote about in "How should we then live" concerning the rise of modern science. A good read...

Pete

[Pete Yodis]

"Hmmmm ... a lack of (religious) spirituality doesn't seem to have been much of an impediment to such thinkers as Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Steven Hawking ..."

Yes, but these men came after the rise of modern science and got the benefits of the christian world view that perhaps fostered the rise of modern science. Whether they liked it or not, these men had been affected and were operating in a world that was structured on the benefits of what drove Newtown and Pascal. Some might falsely argue that modern science came about because of a fight against the idea of God and maybe religion - when in fact men like Newtown, Pascal, and many others who were both deeply religious (I hate that word) and scientifically brilliant were making discoveries because their belief system caused them to even think that the world is discoverable in logical rules. Again, I highly recommend Francis Schaeffer's book "How Should We Then Live." It is thought provoking even if you don't agree with this conclusions. (which I do). Schaeffer will separate the scientific movement into 2 parts - what he calls "modern science" (fostered by Pascal, Newtown, etc..) and what he calls "modern modern science" (your examples of Einstein, Sagan, and others might fall into this category).

[matt]

The idea that his involvement with the Catholic church encouraged Newton to discover the laws of physics is a bit self-contradictory. The Catholic church encouraged faith over rationality. Pinning God down with rules other than what is found in the Bible landed Galileo and others in hot water. I don't think you can ascribe his curiosity to the church in that way. Greek logic really didn't re-enter christianity until the reformation. If you listen to the difference between protestant sermons and catholic homilies, this difference is still aparent. Protestants are trying to argue with you, but catholics are simply telling you what to believe.

Also, I believe it is wrong to say that Einstein was not interested in God. He was of course Jewish, but not practicing, although the concept of God directly influenced his discoveries. When he was trying to formulate basic laws, he was said to have asked himself "If I were God, how would I have arranged things". Many of his famous quotes also talked about God, such as "God does not play dice". He definitely believed in God, although not a personal God who intervenes in everyday life. Einstein's God was essentially the collection of the laws that govern the universe.

[Pete Yodis]

Matt, don't quite understand the connection with Newton and the Catholic Church. Newton would be "classified" as a protestant. Don't think anyone was suggesting an involvment with the Catholic Church is what lead him to believe that things are discoverable and logically arranged - unless I missed something - did I? As far as faith and rationalism - to me they go and hand in hand and I am pretty sure Newtown would agree. As far as Galileo and what got him into hot water - I think we can learn that when organizations incorrectly assert things that are not true and then try to back them up with scriptural references that don't support what they are saying - its a bad thing. Galileo got into hot water because the Catholic church was holding onto a belief that was not true and not biblically based. I think Newton might have agreed with that assessment given his interest in scripture and what it is says...

[TT]

It's a very interesting question why modern science started in Christian (plus Greek & Jewish roots) Western Europe, not in China, India or other such places.

The Catholic church has always stressed that faith and reason should be compatible (think Thomas Aquinas, John Paul II's Fides et Ratio) . On the flip side, scientists and scientific progress are much less rational than is taught in high school. The Galileo case is much more complex than "Galileo was right" - a good starting point is here (and I should note that Galileo is wrong - first, because he pushed Copernicanism (circular orbits) which was wrong (orbits are elliptical), and second, with Einstein & General Relativity, there are no absolute reference frames)

If you want a deeper look at faith, physics, and the start of science, Stanley Jaki's books are a good starting point.