Reading this book, you will often cry "But WHY? ...Why does that follow from the axioms?"
In short, this book explains WHAT relativity says, but it's very buggy in explaining the REASONING behind those statements.
Some statements simply aren't explained well.
I was disappointed.
Maybe I am too stupid though.

I'm midway through this book and so far it looks ok but not so incredible. I think after reading Igor Novikov's books you'd expect the similar writing style (even though one should not).

The illustrations are good and help clarify some of the concepts.

Keep in mind this book was written in time when the expanding universe phenomenan was still a theory.

Relatively speaking, all in all a good reading but you'd need other books to get a solid foundation (as non-mathematical as it gets) in relativity.

I earlier reviewed this book while I was in the middleo of it. Now that I finished it I give it four stars. I learned a great deal about world lines and Minkowski's spacetime diagrams. This is such an important concept that Einstien has shunned in the begining but later on used it as the foundation fot his general theory of relativity.

The book also has a prologue written in 1996 reflecting on some of the facts stated earlier in the book and new advancements in the field of relativity/quantum physics/cosmology.

The book is a collection of articles published previously by Gardner in different magazines. The length of each article and the press-like style makes it an easy reading for anyone. Definitely it is not the Gardner of "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener" but it constitutes a good illustration of how far we still are from achieving a society that thinks rationaly and scientifically even in the layer of highly educated people.

Gardner recognises that in the variety of topics and outrageus ideas covered in the book not all are of the same category. I would like to see Gardner describe his opinion on which are the criteria that should be met by highly speculative theories in different fields of knowledge that would allow them to be considered scientific speculation and not pseudo-science. How can we provide an open environment that will not kill creativity and at the same time maintain a rigorous scientific approach?

For european readers, either from catholic or lutheran backgrounds, it continues to be surprising to observe how widely spread the creationist mentality is still present in North America.

The references that Gardner makes to many of his readings constitutes a great source of information for further investigation.

If you liked Gardner in "The Whys'" you will not find much value in reading this book. However you may want to give it as a gift in your campaign against irrationality, superstition and manipulation.

There are certain qualities and characteristics that make a great writer. One is the ability to write well, of course, but closely related is the ability to convey clear and succinct concepts in a way that communicates with the reader. The best authors all leave me with that "ahah" moment, as they teach me something I didn't know before.

For these reasons and others, Martin Gardner is one of my favorite authors. I've enjoyed his articles over the years, and find his books both refreshing and educational. This book, "Did Adam and Eve have Navels," is consistent with Gardner's reputation as one of the best science and mathematics authors around.

Gardner's book consists of a collection of essays (there are 28), each dealing with some aspect of pseudo science (or, in some cases, I'd call it pseudo logic). The title on the front of the jacket corresponds with the subject matter of the first essay. There is something about simple questions and observations that fascinates me. They tend to be overlooked or ignored, but often lead us to deep insights. In Gardner's first essay, he explores the logic - or lack of it - in the idea of the mythical Adam and Eve and whether they actually had belly buttons. This seems like a whimsical question, and one probably best forgotten by most people. The problem is, as Gardner points out, whether you answer the question "yes," or "no," there are unexpected consequences.

This is pretty much Gardner's style throughout the rest of the book, as he picks off one after the other unsupported idea or myth. Topics include ideas about intelligent design, egg balancing, numerology, Cannibalism as a myth, Freud, and the Star of Bethlehem.

Some of the most interesting stores Gardner tells, and some of the most alarming, are those that deal with pseudo science at the academic level in some of the nations more prestigious universities. There is the example of Courtney Brown (an associate professor of political science at Emory University) who claims to be able to do SRV (scientific remote viewing, which is another word for clairvoyance) and "Yogic flying." His book has received praise from the likes of Harvard psychiatrist John Mack, who believes that aliens from a different dimension are visiting earth, kidnapping its citizens, and doing some really nasty stuff to them.

There are also stories about the influence of political extremism on science, including the following statement from ultra feminist Lucy Irigary:

"Is E=Mc^2 a sexed equation? Perhaps it is. Let us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What seems to me to indicate the possibly sexed nature of the equation is not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather it is having privileged what goes the fastest ..."

In addition to these exposed escapades, I think my favorite chapter was number 14, which describes "Alan Sokal's Hilarious Hoax." The hoax was a paper that Sokal submitted to the editors of "Social Text," in the Spring/Summer of 1996. Sokal wrote the paper as a hoax to illustrate the foolish things the journal would print, and their failure to engage in any sort of academically meaningful peer review. Sokal began his parody by explaining that there really isn't an objective world out there, that can be studied and understood by the scientific method. As Gardner put it, "the funniest part of Sokal's paper is its conclusion that science must emancipate itself from classical mathematics before it can become a "concrete tool of progressive political praxis."

If these stories didn't portend such dreadful consequences for public policy and science education in America, they'd be so funny you'd hardly be able to stop laughing. Or crying.

About the only complaint I have with Gardner's book is his tendency to laugh off some of the examples of scientific illiteracy. For anyone remotely familiar with science, the laughing off is understandable - as in the case of Lucy Irigary calling the equation E=Mc^2 sexed. The problem is, for those who don't really know much about science (either how it works, or what it says) some of the laughing off might look like pride, or the inability to deal logically with alternative ideas.

To a certain extent, I can understand what Gardner's doing. Some ideas are simply so absurd as to lack any respect at all. [And Gardner would point out that the reason they are absurd has to do with their failure to explain the evidence. So, this is not about pre-conceived perceptions, but about allowing the evidence to lead us to conclusions, instead of following our favorite myths, political convictions, or emotional desires.] Still, there were times I found myself wishing Gardner would say a little more about why some of the ideas in his examples were silly.

Anyway, I really liked this book. I highly recommend it to anyone. It's easy to read, well written, and for anyone concerned about the proliferation of pseudoscience in modern society, it's pretty much required reading.

Business travel sometimes lands you in a hotel with few channels, none of which have anything worth watching. So what do you do after checking email? Hoepfully you'll have something good to read with you - like this book. My fiction reading leans toward mysteries, so it is not much of a stretch for me to find a de-bunking book interesting. These are not really new pieces for the author - really a collection of previously published articles. The magazine legnth and style means each is self-contained and easy to digest - perfect after a 10-hour day at a client. What comes through is just how many whacky ideas are out there. And how a bit of science and a small measure of logic combined with a questioning attitude can help keep you sane. I don't watch daytime TV even when I am home during the day - but I doubt the author is considered a good bet for any of those shows that make their ratings based on the folks that believe that stuff.

This book is a little out of date and a little too basic. It is for the beginner and is not an advanced text. The best thing that it is short. Because it is so short, it had to be packed densely with information, no wordiness. I've never had enough time to read The Codebreakers book, too big. Here I got informed in minimal time and the book is much less expensive -- it's got a better cost to read ratio and cost to information ratio.

Very well written. This book offers an introduction to "crypto-stuff" such as mono/polyalphabetic substitutions and grille methods. It doesn't go into much of anything else in huge detail, but it offers many methods including "how to build" your own encoding/decoding tools. If you're looking for some fun reading, I highly recommend it. If you're serious about learning though, check out "the code breakers" by kahn.

This is a great reference of basic codes. Excellent explanations, examples. Don't expect anything too intense, and you won't be disappointed.

H.G. Wells is one of the finest writters of science fiction of all time, and these stories are no exception. Unfortunately, the editor of this volume makes this a book to be avoided. There are six stories in this book, and before each story is an introduction by the editor. In these introductions, which range from one paragraph to several pages, the editor not only ruins the story by revealing the ending, but he also explains the mistakes with the science that Wells uses in his stories. We are also given a list of the mistakes that Wells made in his predictions of the future. There would be nothing wrong with these introductions if they were in a book of essays and criticisms on H.G. Wells. But they aren't, and the average reader of this book will be one who has not read these stories before. It would be a much better idea to buy another collection of his stories. Then you could actually enjoy the stories by themselves, without feeling like someone is reading over your shoulder, pointing out what's wrong with the book. Although the stories: The New Accelerator, the Remarkable Case of Davidson's Eyes, Under the Knife, the Queer Story of Brownlow's Newspaper, and the title story are all excellent examples of H.G. Wells supreme story telling ability, they can, and should, be read in another book.

In the story "The Country of the Blind" H.G. Wells manages to capture the dark side of humanity and place it in the metaphor of blindness. He does this well and his point is well made. By focusing on how the man thinks himself superior because he can see, Wells illistrates a point most of us can see as obvious. When he thinks it is his right to change thier way of life to his "better" way, I was reminded of all the cultures that have been changed or even wiped out by those who thought they were superior. Also, when Wells turns it around and shows the blind as thinking themselves superior it shows that even when we think we are not like the perfect man, we all are. The first pages dragged a bit, but the content and pace of the rest of the book made it well worth it!

A nontheist stumbles into a country so infested with godworship, that his claim to have a nonexistent sense called "reason," enabling him to see that their beliefs are falsifiable fairy tales, causes the inhabitants to assume that he is insane. When he falls for a female godworshipper, his need to belong prompts him to yield to their demand that he be surgically cured by having the organ responsible for his delusion, an organ that they do not have that he calls his "brain," amputated. At the last minute, he realizes that no woman or society is worth a lifetime of brainless conformity, and flees.

Martin Gardner surprises us again with his new work about scientific fraud. Together with Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan, Gardner shows us the real way of science. This book is a rich in surprising information an clear writing.

Another priceless installment of the essays of Martin Gardner, collected from his "Skeptical Inquirer" column "notes of a fringe watcher." Like all of his writings on pseudoscience and new age junk thinking, 'Adam and Eve' is a mix of insightful observations and penetrating analysis. Gardner has such a grasp of history and literature that it is hard to imagine anyone have the breadth of knowledge he brings to a topic. I invariably finish reading one of his essays nodding my head and thinking, "I wish I'd said that." Gardner has a way of capturing the essence of an argument that makes me feel like he's giving word to my own thoughts.

The title essay focuses on the dilemma of fundamentalists who would insist on a young earth in spite of the crushing weight of scientific evidence to the contrary. God, they claim, simply created everything with the "appearance of age." Thus the question, did Adam and Eve have navels, is relevant. If they didn't, then they were not perfect human beings, as Genesis says and theology demands. If they did, than God added the navels to preserve the appearance of parentage, adding a deceptive element to the creation of the first humans. Gardner's essay traces the history of the argument, which he shows is not new at all, throughout history and literature.

Gardner's other essays include topics as diverse as egg balancing on the equinox, quantum mechanics and the supernatural beliefs and writings of Isaac Newton.

I've written elsewhere that Martin Gardner is one of the few people I can personally point to as a intellectual mentor. His books illustrate a clarity of thinking and writing that is rare enough these days. Gardner is a breath of fresh air in a world of pseudoscientific smog.

I found this the chewiest of the four Martin Gardner collections that I have read. Once again the venerable champion of common sense assumes his role as the sorcerer's apprentice trying to sweep back the tide of pseudoscience. And once again he provides insight into just how overwhelming that task really is.

There are 28 essays in this collection, all but one from Gardner's column in the Skeptical Inquirer. They range over such matters as UFOs, religion, social science, astronomy, evolution versus creationism, etc. There is a chapter on "Alan Sokal's Hilarious Hoax." ( I too thought it was pretty hilarious. See my review of The Sokal Hoax: The Sham that Shook the Academy (2000).) There is one on cannibalism in which I found Gardner's skepticism understandable, especially as he points out that it is always the other culture that makes the accusation; however his essay finally suggests that the debate may be more over the extent than in any doubt about its occurrence. The Adam and Eve question is of course a joke, but the kind of joke that has been taken seriously by some for hundreds of years. For me it's similar to the question about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. More germane is the chapter, "Freud's Flawed Theory of Dreams" followed by "Post-Freudian Dream Theory" in which it is demonstrated once again that Freud was, shall we say, mistaken.

The chapter on Carlos Castaneda is illuminating in what it reveals about the gullibility of some anthropologists, while the essay on the ill-fated Heaven's Gate "Bo and Peep" cult is sad. Gardner has some fun with Jean Houston, channeling master and New Age guru to Hillary Rodman Clinton. Apparently Houston's spin on channeling is that it is a kind of trance experience that allows one to come into contact with Jung's "collective unconscious" (p. 125). Notable is Gardner's accusation that Temple University "has become a center for the promulgation of some of the wildest aspects of pseudoscience" (p. 221). (Can Harvard be next?) I was amused to find that the "urine therapy" that Gardner takes apart really is predicated upon the use of human urine. I had seen the name before but naively thought it was "Your-reen therapy" after somebody's surname! The final chapter, "Science and the Unknowable" is a fine essay on the philosophy of science.

One of the very best reasons for reading Gardner is to appreciate how clear his expression is, and how readable he makes just about any subject (including the philosophy of science!). He has a gift for making the abstract concrete and the obtuse transparent. May his tribe increase.

Martin Gardner is an excellent writer and his other books have been a delight to read. Perhaps I would not have expected as much from this book if it had been labeled as being written for the 8 to 12 year old. Very young magicians are likely to enjoy this, but most adults interested in "mental magic" will probably be disappointed.

I recommend this book for math magic lover. All the math tricks have pre-determined outcomes that either absolutely certain or have a high probability of being correct. Because the tricks has pre-determined outcomes, we will not be able to do the trick twice to the same audience.

A fun book for young Magicians, also has some ideas that can be food for thought for older Magicians to develop and put into their shows. A great value considering the high price of a lot of Magic books these days. --L Betz

Being an Oz fan for nearly 50 years, I was reeled in. But I quickly drowned in Gardner's laundry list of celebrities, authors and beloved fictional characters who are insulted by their inclusion in this lusterless soggy saga. L. Frank Baum has been maligned. All of us who grew up with or grew to love the Joy of Oz have been maligned by this preposterous travesty. Save your money and your time. This book is neither adult nor children's literature. It's just plain drivel. - advice from a former schoolteacher.

I had the misfortune to pick this book up in a science fiction bookshop recently. The spiel on the back of the book - not clearly marked out as a children's book in its UK edition, I might add - promised a great deal, and being a fan of Jeff Noon's writing, in particular his Lewis Carroll homage 'Automated Alice', I was quite taken with the possibility of discovering an American equivalent, a funky modern revisiting of the Land of Oz.
Sadly, 'Visitors From Oz' proved to be abominable tripe.<

Any discussion of this book's merits is now rendered irrelevant by the fact that it includes certain scenes which have the potential to upset readers in the wake of recent events. These might not destroy the appeal of a movie or TV show aimed at adults; they represent a more serious problem in the case of an Oz book, since the Oz books generally serve to bring joy and happiness to readers of all ages. (In L. Frank Baum's day his publishers used the slogan "No Baum book ever sent a child to bed to troubled dreams.") I think it will be a long time before anyone will again want to read this book or give it to their children to read. Previously I would have given "Visitors from Oz" three stars, but now, unless Gardner revises it, "Visitors" may as well never have been published.

Half Truths (Suppressed Evidence): Any statement usually intended to deceive that omits some of the facts necessary for an accurate description.

I agree it is good to debunk bogus pseudo-science. At the same time, I think most people would agree that in any critique being factually accurate, fair, and honest to context is important; and therefore, when quoting, summarizing, and paraphrasing from an original source one should do so accurately, fairly, and in context to assure one does not distort the original sources meaning in any way by adding or subtracting from it.

In Did Adam and Eve Have Navels on page 42 Gardner states (my emphasis):

"On page 1352 of the Urantia Book we learn that the Jupiter-Saturn encounter of May 29, 7 B.C., gave the appearance of a single star, which we know it didn't, and this accounts for what the supermortals call the "beautiful legend" that grew up about the "Star.""

Later Gardner refers to the Star of Bethlehem as a legend or beautiful myth, and states on page 44:

"In my not-so-humble opinion, the story of the Star is pure myth, similar to many ancient legends about the miraculous appearance of a star to herald a great event, such as the birth of Caesar, Pythagoras, Krishna (the Hindu savior), and other famous persons and deities."

As the full quotation of the paragraph below shows, this is essentially what the paragraph in question in the Urantia Book is saying; that there was no Star of Bethlehem, it was only a myth, a legend, albeit a beautiful one, and that ancient man was "continually spinning such beautiful myths about the lives of their religious leaders and political heroes."

The actual and complete paragraph in the Urantia Book states:

"These wise men saw no star to guide them to Bethlehem. The beautiful legend of the star of Bethlehem originated in this way: Jesus was born August 21 at noon, 7 B.C. On May 29, 7 B.C., there occurred an extraordinary conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation of Pisces. And it is a remarkable astronomic fact that similar conjunctions occurred on September 29 and December 5 of the same year. Upon the basis of these extraordinary but wholly natural events the well-meaning zealots of the succeeding generation constructed the appealing legend of the star of Bethlehem and the adoring Magi led thereby to the manger, where they beheld and worshiped the newborn babe. Oriental and near-Oriental minds delight in fairy stories, and they are continually spinning such beautiful myths about the lives of their religious leaders and political heroes. In the absence of printing, when most human knowledge was passed by word of mouth from one generation to another, it was very easy for myths to become traditions and for traditions eventually to become accepted as facts." (Urantia Book 1352)

Gardner's statement above implies that the Urantia Book claims "the Jupiter-Saturn encounter of May 29, 7 B.C., gave the appearance of a single star..." This is false and a distortion of the actual paragraph's meaning. The first sentence in the paragraph states clearly "These wise men saw no star to guide them to Bethlehem." Nowhere in the paragraph in question is it stated that the Jupiter-Saturn encounter gave the appearance of a single star. I searched the online version of the Urantia Book and could find no statement that the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction "gave the appearance of a single star." This appears to indicate that Gardner has misquoted the Urantia Book by adding information that was not in the original source and omitting information, the first sentence of the paragraph in question, which contradicts his own fallacious statement. Gardner then goes on to use his own false statement as a basis upon which to criticize the Urantia Book, by stating "which we know it didn't." I fail to see how this erroneous quotation, which falls short of even minimal accuracy and fairness, furthers the cause of reason or science.

In Gardner's "not-so-humble opinion" the story of the Star of Bethlehem is only a myth similar to many ancient legends about famous persons and deities. This is essentially what the Urantia Book is saying in the paragraph in question, which leads me to ask, why would Gardner overlook this and instead distort the paragraph's meaning by misquoting it and then go on to make the same point? Did he simply repeat the story of some over zealous reader without checking the facts? Whatever the reason, perhaps Gardner should exercise a little more caution by actually reading the source he is quoting, and at a minimum attempt to quote it fairly, accurately, and in context.

Martin Gardner's book entitled URANTIA: The Great Cult Mystery is a skeptic's critique of The URANTIA Book (UB), a 2097-page compilation of several papers allegedly authored by several 'divine revelators,' each one claiming to be a representative of God's vast celestial hierarchy. These 'authors' were commissioned by their heavenly 'supervisors' to enlighten the inhabitants of this planet (which they call Urantia) as to how mankind has been supposedly misled throughout human history by the errors of religious thinking. The primary target for which the UB 'authors' claim is in need of 'correction' in the arena of religion is the Bible, with all its misconceptions regarding the nature of God, who Jesus was, etc. Mr. Gardner, although not a Bible-believer himself, finds it difficult to accept the truth-claims that these alleged celestial authors present, in light of several factors. To begin with, Gardner takes exception to the many scientific errors to be discovered within the pages of the UB. He devotes two full chapters of his book to illustrate portions of the UB's vast science content which have been rendered outdated because of discoveries made since its publication in 1955. In some cases, the science content became outdated even before the UB was published, and in still others, the purported scientific 'facts' were already incongruent with the science of the time, which can only be attributed as outright errors on the part of these alleged higher minds! Why would these divine revelators allow the publishing of such self-damning evidence? Gardner points out a disclaimer inserted in an attempt to 'inform' the reader that the authors were given a 'prime directive' by their superiors not to reveal any unearned science to us evolving mortals and to write their scientific treatises within the limits of our then-current vernacular. However, Gardner does not buy this pitch, because at the same time these intergalactic messengers are bedazzling us with their brilliance as pertains to things known, they also baffle us with a fantastic model of the universe that is beyond our wildest dreams and which is, of course, unearned science. One might be compelled to ask how the UB allegedly got into print in the first place, assuming it was commissioned by unseen heavenly beings. In probing for answers to this question, Gardner provides more compelling evidence that the UB was the brainchild not of celestials, but of mere terrestrials. The UB authors purport that its papers were presented through the thought patterns of a certain unnamed human contact whose disposition was suitable for said transferences of knowledge. By some 'unrevealed' process, these revelations were transposed into a written format, from whence we got the UB after several of these 'contact' sessions. The term 'channeling' comes to mind, although UB adherents vehemently deny that this was the method used, preferring instead to keep both the method and the human contact a mystery for the sake of mystique. However, Gardner's skeptical nose smells a rat. He reports that a man named Wilfred C. Kellogg, patient and brother-in-law of then psychiatrist William S. Sadler III, was the 'human contact' from whose subconscious the revelations began to emanate. In addition to the spiritual content of the early sections of the UB (the source of which may well have been Kellogg's channelings), Gardner cites Sadler as a major contributor to the making of the UB. Gardner provides ample evidence to substantiate his assertion. Dr. Sadler's earlier published books reveal him to be a racist and a proponent of eugenics, both concepts of which are given full endorsement by the 'divine revelators.' But what tips the scale of human invention is the weight of Seventh Day Adventist influence to be found in the UB. Both Sadler and Kellogg were one-time Adventists who were expelled from the church around 1906; and henceforth began the nocturnal 'contact sessions' at the good doctor's residence. The UB authors wholeheartedly endorse such 7DA doctrines as soul-sleep, the annihilation of the wicked, the denial of the existence of hell, and that Jesus Christ is (the archangel) Michael. What Gardner denotes as amazing irony is Sadler's connection with Ellen White, Adventism's seer and prophetess. Prior to his expulsion, Sadler wrote a letter to Sister White (a complete copy of which can be found in Gardner's book), wherein he began questioning her authenticity as a prophetess in light of her recently-discovered plagiaristic tendencies. One can read between the lines of Sadler's letter that he was really asking whether plagiarism was a legitimate mode of divine revelation (as though he were contemplating the same). Not coincidentally, Gardner lastly reveals and elaborates upon a long list of plagiarisms recently discovered within the pages of the UB! If the reader is endowed with even a basic ground-level knowledge of the Bible, then many particular contrasts will stand out clearly when comparing notes. As Mr. Gardner points out, the UB vehemently denies such historic Christian doctrines as the Atonement and the Virgin Birth. But even though Gardner's book provides ample and compelling evidence that the UB was written by humans, Gardner does not go far enough to expose the spiritual con from this Christian's point of view. In exchange for bestowing divinity upon the would-be believer, the UB compromises traditional Christian doctrine. These are but a few of the observations that a discerning Christian will make when comparing the UB with the Bible. The UB author(s):

1) Claim that the Old Testament represents the evolved religion of a superstitious desert clan; 2) Rewrite the four Gospels to fit their own preconceived agenda; 3) Write up a history of Jesus' years as a youth and young adult, again agenda-driven; 4) Disparage Paul as having influenced Christianity by injecting Hellenism and Paganism; 5) State that Jesus was not the Messiah, nor did He claim to be;

and the list goes on and on (but enough about my personal beef). Martin Gardner's book is a fascinating and entertaining read, if the reader can get beyond his penchant for making condescending remarks toward UB adherents.

Given that Martin Gardner is a skeptic, and that the Urantia book is a so-called "revealed" Bible-like text which mixes Christianity, philosophy, history, and many strange, wild, and often nutty ideas, Gardner's book is primarily worth reading for the history and background of the Urantia Book and movement based upon it. Gardner's opinions are condescending and nasty at times, but one expects that from so harsh a critic of spirituality as he. I am a liberal Christian and an open-minded skeptic, not a "Urantian", yet I have read much of the Urantia Book and know many Urantians, good people all of them. While I am generally skeptical of any claims of spiritual revelation, I have found the Urantia movement peaceful and positive in nature, not worthy of being labeled "cult" and lumped in with Waco, Heaven's Gate, etc. I do not buy most of what the Urantia Book claims as reality, but that does not mean I do not respect much of what the readers stand for. I do believe Martin Gardner has done us all a service in tracking the cloudy history of the Urantia movement and how "the book" came to be, and I believe as he that the U Book is simply a creation of human minds. Educated human minds, but human minds, nonetheless. Yet that does not lessen my appreciation for the merits of the U Book, it's devoted readers, and the message it tries to get across. I would recommend this book with very few reservations, to all Urantia readers and believers, and anyone interested in the real history of the movement. It not only enhanced my understanding of the U Book, it filled in most of the blanks on the creation of that mammoth text. To Urantians afraid of reading this book or critical of Gardner, I believe you do yourselves and your movement a disservice. I would invite you to open the windows a bit. Start with this book.

Gardner's claim of plagiarism of Quimby's writings by Mrs. Eddy simply doesn't hold water. Quimby did reach the point of recognizing to a meager extend the influence of the human mind on the body. So by necessity, some of Mrs. Eddy's writings might seem to parallel Quimby's writings regarding the human mind/body relationship. But that's as far as any seeming similarity can be found between the two. Here's excerpts about what Mrs. Eddy says about Quimby in her book, Miscellaneous Writings:

"Having practised homoeopathy, it never occurred to theauthor to learn his [Quimby's] practice, but she did ask him how manipulation could benefit the sick. He answered kindly and squarely, in substance, 'Because it conveys electricity to them.' That was the sum of what he taught her of his medical profession.

"The readers of my books cannot fail to see that metaphysical therapeutics, as in Christian Science, are farther removed from such thoughts than the nebulous system is from the earth.

"I never heard him say that matter was not as real as Mind, or that electricity was not as potential or remedial, or allude to God as the divine Principle of all healing. He certainly had advanced views of his own, but they commingled error with truth, and were not Science."

Throughout the latter years of her time here on earth, Mrs. Eddy was constantly being accused of plagiarizing the writings of Quimby. Many of her detractors claimed that he was the one who healed her of her many years of invalidism. The truth is that she seemed to derive temporary benefit from his treatments, but soon after, lapsed into an even worse physical state. Eventually she was completely healed through her own study of the Bible and her faith in a higher power, far transcending the electricity/magnetism techniques that Quimby employed. It's obvious that Gardner didn't study Mrs. Eddy's writings sufficiently to discern the vast gulf between her teachings, and those of Quimby. And as other reviewers have noted, he misstates many facts regarding the life of Mary Baker Eddy, which seriously compromises and undermines his arguments from the starting line to the finish line. Don't waste your money on this one.

After reading Gillian Gill's well researched biography of the founder of the Christian Science church, Gardner's book is incredibly disappointing. Misconstrued facts, while presented in a persuasive way, demolish his thesis. Gill's work, (a non-Christian Scientist just like Gardner) is the antithesis of Gardner's. She is fair, evaluative, does not editorialize, and while she tells things that Christian Scientists may or may not appreciate, she is honest to the core. Gardner would have done well to peruse the work of a TRUE writer (Gill) before attempted his own falsified fiction of an American religious figure.

You won't find any spin from brainwashed followers in this book. The truth shall set you free.

This is the 1978 edition of a book that was updated and re-published in 1990! It is rather silly that anyone is even offering the old edition for sale.
The paperback (pub in 1991) is available and for sale at a lower price!

Actually, the 1990 edition is somewhat behind the times in its sections on elementary particle physics, etc., and it is past time for this book to be updated again.