A Secret of the Universe by Stephen L. Gibson Search Amazon for other books by or about Stephen L. Gibson. Rating: Reviewed by: Maurice Williams

Stephen L. Gibson has embarked on an ambitious odyssey to convey his convictions about the merits of truth-driven thinking by means of a fictional novel where two lifelong friends have a dialog about different world views: religious and scientific. He does a good job of it. The novel is long, but would have to be long to adequately characterize the fictional people as well as expound the rationale Gibson wrote into the book. The main characters are Ian Keppler and Bill Vanderveen. Both get married in the novel; both have children. There are many characters: in-laws, parents, friends, and a study-group of scientists trying to discern what is really true in human traditions. Gibson does a fine job rounding out the characterization. He describes some surprising conduct on the part of some characters, but, in the concluding chapters, he lets that conduct amplify his thesis. So the fictional novel is effective.

A tougher task is to bring in the opposing world views for Bill and Ian to discuss. Gibson does a good job here. I was surprised at some of the world views described, but Gibson provides ample references to show that these views are indeed held by real people, experts in their fields. A difficulty with lengthy technical material is that many writers will simply narrate the views instead of expressing the different views through dialog between characters. Gibson's dialog, when he uses it, is good, but there are long sections of the book that are narrated.

Gibson also builds suspense as he relates these conflicting positions. The reader does not know which direction Gibson will take himself until very late in the book. Halfway through the book I got the impression Gibson was going to favor one side of the discussion. This suspense is good to hold reader attention. Gibson might have done better if he quoted an even number of experts on both sides of the controversy. Late in the book, I realized he supplied more expert opinion for one side that the other. Much later in the book, I realized there remained not enough pages to reverse the arguments to the other side. So it was an uneven contest from then on.

Gibson argues against emotion-driven thinking, proposing that truth-driven thinking is preferred. He's correct. All of us would agree to that. In his book, however, when Bill Vanderveen, suddenly discovers the secret of the universe, the discovery is realized during very emotional circumstances. When Ian affirms the secret to his sons, it is also done at a moment when emotions are high. I think this is a flaw in the book. The secret of the universe should have been discovered during a truth-driven exercise devoid of emotion and the other impediments to clear thinking that Gibson points out in his book.

Gibson has focused everything, even religion, on a scientific quest for truth using the scientific method, but science doesn't study God or religion. Anything relating to God or religion is better evaluated through the disciplines of philosophy and theology. Gibson applauds the work scriptural specialists have done in reconstructing ancient manuscripts, particularity Gnostic manuscripts. However, there is an ongoing legacy of Christianity whose manuscripts were not lost. To be fair to the Christian tradition, one would have to take into account both sources of information. The manuscripts that were lost and recently found might represent what earlier generations rejected. The traditions that were saved probably represent what previous generations thought was correct and worthy of preservation. Presuming that the lost manuscripts portrayed authentic Christianity and the information that was preserved portrayed a subverted Christianity goes well beyond science.

Gibson proposes that there is no evidence of God, no revelation, nothing more than what humans can imagine. Gibson has Mac, one of the proponents of atheism, state that, since the earliest days of tribal conflict, distinctions between people have most commonly existed based upon their various religions. I don't think tribal conflict has its roots in religious views. I see on television that meerkats (Animal Kingdom), chimpanzees (Planet Earth), and packs of wolves also have tribal conflicts. I would have thought that animal nature is the root cause of tribal conflicts and not something peculiar to humans. Gibson wonders: "how our minds, the cells in our head, could absorb and process such concepts as Einstein's relativity." Does Gibson think that humans are entirely physical, no spirit-no soul? One would presume so reading the book. The secret, when Gibson finally reveals it, is very elementary. Everyone would probably agree with the secret.

A Secret of the Universe is good, exciting, and entertaining fiction; and it contains a lot of surprising information, with plenty of references, that many readers may not be aware of. Read it for entertainment and information. But you might not agree with Gibson's conclusions.

Maurice A. Williams, August 3, 2007