I read this book seven years ago, and I have vague memory that Adams was purposefully controversial rather than truth-seeking and, while maybe not out-and-out wrong, relies on misleading connotations to make his point. Based on my memory alone, I would downvote this. I'm curious well this memory holds up, so I'm holding off judgment for the moment while I skim it.
ETA: Wow, that was absolutely horrible. Meant as "serious philosophy" or not, that really failed. Perhaps for someone with no exposure to philosophy, it might useful to nudge them towards getting them to "think." Seems about as likely to be actively harmful, though. Adams is on the edge of clearing up some confusions, but then falls into worse ones himself.
Some gems:
The fact that we exist is proof that God is motivated to act in some way. And since only the challenge of self-destruction could interest an omnipotent God, it stands to reason that we [...]. We are God’s debris.
Probability forces the coin toss to be exactly fifty-fifty at some point, assuming you keep flipping forever. Likewise, probability forced us to exist exactly as we are. Only the timing was in question.
Rationality can’t explain our obsession with the Internet. The need to build the Internet comes from something inside us, something programmed, something we can’t resist.
God’s dust disappears on one beat and reappears on the next in a new position based on probability. If a bit of God-dust disappears near a large mass, say a planet, then probability will cause it to pop back into existence nearer to the planet on the next beat. Probability is highest when you are near massive objects. Or to put it another way, mass is the physical expression of probability.
The problem with skeptics is that they are right too often...
Light can be thought of as zones of probability that surround all things. A star, by virtue of its density, has high probability that two of its God-dust particles will pop into existence in the same location, forcing one of them to adjust, creating a new and frantic probability. That activity, the constant adjusting of location and probability, is what we perceive as energy.
“Probability is the expression of God’s will. It is in your best interest to obey probability.” “How do I obey probability?” “God’s reassembly requires people—living, healthy people,” he said. “When you buckle your seat belt, you increase your chances of living. That is obeying probability. If you get drunk and drive without a seat belt, you are fighting probability.”
I read this book seven years ago, and I have vague memory that Adams was purposefully controversial rather than truth-seeking...
It's not meant to be "serious philosophy". He's not presenting the ideas in the book as being literally true, he's just provoking the reader to look at the issues in the book in a different light. Forcing the reader to consider alternative hypotheses, if you will.
Except it's a serious case of privileging the hypothesis. Pulling bullshit out of thin air != considering alternative hypotheses.
I recall this being mind-blowing when I was 16. I expect it to be less mind-blowing now, not so much because I'm older, but because I think each person only has so many times they can get their mind blown.
I think it was valuable to me at the time, less valuable to me having had my mind-subsequently blown by the Sequences, which are more coherent and with greater sense of purpose behind them.
EDIT: On rereading my comment I feel that I haven't emphasised the awfulness of God's Debris enough. It's probably actively harmful to read it.
Given the almost universally negative response and the given quote it's probably better to reduce easy access to the text.
Thank you all for your responses.
I read that a long while ago and thought it was very profound.
I read it recently and was appalled at my former self for falling for such gibberish.
That scream of horror and embarrassment is the sound that rationalists make when they level up. -Eliezer Yudkowsky
The best I can say of God's Debris is that Adams is at least asking the right questions. Unfortunately the book is too ready to offer its own completely bogus, hypothesis-privileging answers.
EDIT: On rereading my comment I feel that I haven't emphasised the awfulness of God's Debris enough. It's probably actively harmful to read it.
It had too many factual inaccuracies used as analogies. I became too frustrated with being unable to correct the voice of the author and stopped reading it.
“Morality?”
“Yes, morality.” I felt I was making a good point even though I didn’t know what it was.
Many parts of it are charming. I'm not sure the book will be all that interesting to someone who has a settled impression of God, though.
[Edit] Another gem:
If you want to understand UFOs, reincarnation, and God, do not study UFOs, reincarnation, and God. Study people.
God's Debris is for people who "enjoy having their brain spun around in their skulls." I think I can safely assume that this descriptive of a larger proportion of LessWrongians than the average population.
Without going too far into depth, I will say that it is one of the more enjoyable reads I've had lately, the philosophy the main character espouses is coherent and astoundingly seductive in it's simplicity - even as it requires you to tilt your head and squint a little to see it.
Scott Adam's God's Debris