Summaries and Customer Reviews are supplied by Amazon.com

Average Customer Rating:

Polemic

Customer Rating:

A new addition to the recent new atheist polemics. Stenger has done only marginally useful scientific work. As for his suggestion that Anthropic Fine tuning is a non-problem because of his simplistic program MonkeyGod that purports to simulate universes and "show" that anthropic universes are commonplace, no serious cosmologist takes this seriously. Martin Rees's "Just Six Numbers" is a good guide to the real science. This book might be useful to those who are making use of the freedom God has given them to reject Him (see Pascal on 'why God hides'), but in reality the case for theism has never been stronger. Evidence of the Big Bang, anthropic coincidences, the fantastic complexity and functionality of biological systems, and the deepening intractability of naturalistic explanations for the origin of life and consciousness all support theism. (This review originally ended here. But in response to a comment by 'Jack The Sausage' suggesting that it showed how little I understood 'actual scientific knowledge', I added the following to clarify it.) Recent scientific knowledge has tended to offer strong epistemic support for religious belief (at the very least, the answer to the question 'does science contradict religion' is obviously 'no'). The Big Bang, to take just one example, is a reason theism fits the data better than atheism - undoubtedly one of the reasons atheists tried to avoid it so desperately and for so long. Of course God is not a 'scientific' hypothesis, but then neither is atheism. They are both metaphysical postulates. The task human beings face is to decide which is the best fundamental interpretation on the basis of the evidence. Scientific evidence is involved in this. Personally I believe theism is the most rational hypothesis we have. In fact one of the things it says is that reality is completely rational - arguably one of the reasons science never really got off the ground anywhere except the Christian West, where it was embedded in a theistic matrix. (Many great scientists of the past were believers, e.g. Kepler (astronomy), Pascal (hydrostatics), Boyle (chemistry), Newton (calculus), Linnaeus (systematic biology), Faraday (electromagnetics), Cuvier (comparative anatomy), Kelvin (thermodynamics), Lister (antiseptic surgery) and Mendel (genetics). See Stanley Jaki's 'The Road of Science and The Ways to God'). By contrast, one of the sillier aspects of the new atheist books (which will undoubtedly make for some interesting sociological analysis in 50-100 years time) is their 'evolution explains everything' stance - an idea that is at best unproven and at worst total nonsense - or a strange a priori assumption of materialism/metaphysical naturalism for which science provides absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Putting some philosophical goggles on before you do science isn't science at all. Science is supposed to look at facts then form theories, not (as we see in much modern biology) start with dogmas then ignore facts. Many people who understand actual scientific knowledge much better than me, you or Stenger (who, as I stated in my review, has done only marginally useful scientific work) seem to agree that theism is a very rational position: Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist)"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." George Ellis (British astrophysicist) "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." Paul Davies (British astrophysicist) "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe. The impression of design is overwhelming." Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy) "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." John O'Keefe (NASA astronomer) "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures. If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." George Greenstein (astronomer) "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency-or, rather, Agency-must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist) 'The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics) "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say `supernatural') plan." Again: "I invite you to examine the snapshot provided by half a century's worth of astrophysical data and see what the pieces of the universe actually look like...In order to achieve consistency with our observations we must...assume not only creation of matter and energy out of nothing, but creation of space and time as well. The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole." Roger Penrose (mathematician) "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." Tony Rothman (physicist) "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist) "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine. Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist) "What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? ... Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why?" (Not a theist, but an important point lucidly put.) Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician) "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it." Ed Harrison (cosmologist) "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God-the design argument of Paley-updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." Edward Milne (British cosmologist) "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." Barry Parker (cosmologist) "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists) "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with `common wisdom'." Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics) "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life. Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (computational quantum chemist) "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, `So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." Robin Collins, an American scientist with three degrees and two doctorates in mathematics, physics, and philosophy: "The extraordinary fine-tuning of the laws and constants of nature, their beauty, their discoverability, their intelligibility - all of this combines to make the God hypothesis the most reasonable choice we have. All other theories fall short." Allan Rex Sandage (famous astronomer, dubbed the "Grand Old Man of Cosmology" by the New York Times, and a former atheist): "It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science. It was only through the supernatural that I could understand the mystery of existence." Lord Kelvin, who made important discoveries in thermodynamics and died in 1907: "Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us...the atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words." (Proceedings of the Victoria Institute, No. 124, p.267). Yes, science is amazing, beautiful and has proved an astonishingly fruitful investigation of the physical universe. But it doesn't exhaust reality. (It cannot even answer the question 'why is science possible?') Stenger thinks that because God isn't observable by the scientific method - i.e., can't be 'scientifically proven' - he doesn't exist. This is ridiculous. In fact the statement 'only believe something if it can be scientifically proven' is self-refuting (because it cannot be scientifically proven). Stenger does have one thing going for him: he isn't as rude and bilious as Dawkins. But his arguments are really quite pitiful overall (in this book, Comprehensible Cosmos, Not by Design, misc. reviews). Nicholas Beale has convincingly refuted them. * He says, correctly, that "if God exists he should be the source of our morals and values". He then claims that: "These principles should be original and clearly not of natural origin". All mainstream Christian thinkers would hold that God has been guiding people towards Him through their consciences since the dawn of history. * "Believers should be observed to live by these principles and not decide right and wrong for themselves". He then interprets the former to mean that all believers should invariably live by these principles. Well that might be nice, but it is certainly the opposite of Christian doctrine on this point, and there is no reason to suppose that it should be true. Of course in general the worst crimes against humanity have been committed by Atheists, who have no solid basis for their morality, contrary to his statement that "atheists are just as moral as believers" - well some may be but on AGGREGATE not. And as for taking obsolete commandments from the OT, Chistianity has never held that these are binding on Christians. So his 'argument' might apply to certain extreme Jewish sects - I don't know - but it is certainly not a refutation of any mainstream Christianity I know. * His idea that mystical or religious experiences should lead to empirically testable knowledge is again rather laughable. That is not what religious revelations are about - and no-one claims they are. There are excellent reasons to do with freewill why God does not do this. * He also has a big non-argument that "If humanity is so special, why so much wasted matter in the universe"? Since it takes about 12bn yrs for humanity to evolve the Universe has to be c12bn light years in size, and to achieve the critical densities that are necessary you need about the matter that we have. He completely fails to engage with the anthropic fine tuning that even impresses atheist astronomers like Martin Rees - most cosmologists accept that the only reasonable alternative to Anthropic Fine Tuning is a vast plethora of multiverses: he seems to be stuck badly in the past and unwilling to engage with the facts. Another point is that Christianity has never said the humanity is THE purpose of the cosmos, just A purpose of the cosmos. The 'wasted matter' has value in itself: as Psalm 19:1-6 says, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun. Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it; and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof". (Genesis also records God saying 'it was good' at each stage of Creation.) * He then suggests that the Bible makes scientific claims like "the earth is flat". (Well, Ps 93v2 says in the Prayer Book "He has made the round world, so sure that it cannot be moved" - but sadly this seems to be a mistranslation, and modern translations don't say "round"!) The fact is that the Bible is not a scientific treatise, and it says nothing about whether the world is flat or round. In OT times people probably assumed it was flat, by NT times it was known to be round. (Erastothenes (276-194 BC) famously made a reasonable estimate of its circumference.) * His assertion that there is no evidence for the life and death of Jesus is absurd, and to say that "physical and historical evidence" "rules it out" is again pitiful. I'm not an expert on the 1st Temple but I very much doubt his assertions about this: as for archeological evidence of Exodus this is a moot point, but the fact is that Archeology can rarely prove a negative - the fact that you can't find something doesn't mean it doesn't exist! * Again his "argument" "Evil exists, therefore God does not exist" is pitiful. No mainstream religion has ever claimed that Evil does not exist. And Stenger doesn't even engage with theodicy. * The idea that the laws of nature arose from nothing is plain silly - only by a gross abuse of language can a "quantum fluctuation" be considered nothing - and it can only exist because of pre-existing physical laws! * In his review of J.Polkinghorne's 'Belief in God in an Age of Science', Stenger says: "Theologians and scientists each seek understanding. But theologians rely on the mythical tales and subjective human experiences that emanate from the insignificant point in spacetime that encloses human history. Scientists, by contrast, view a range of space from inside atomic nuclei to the farthest quasar, and a range of time from a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang to the present. They see a universe more vast and with far more potential for development than has ever been imagined in any scripture or mystical trance." This confuses what people look at and where they look from, and confuses size with SIGNIFICANCE. The actual vantage point of scientists is from a much smaller subset of spacetime than that of theologians. And theologians view Eternity, of which the Universe is an infinitessimal fraction. Furthermore in practice scientists each look at a tiny piece of the whole of the "scientific" domain in any depth. Even Bertrand Russell, who called the human race a 'curious accident' in a backwater, was convinced that human beings dwarf the whole of the rest of the universe in value: 'I have long ardently desired to find some justification for the emotions inspired by certain things that seem to stand outside human life and to deserve feelings of awe. I am thinking...in part of the vastness of the scientific universe, both in space and time, as compared to the life of mankind...And yet I am unable to believe that, in the world as known, there is anything that I can value outside human beings...Not the starry heavens, but their effect on human percipients, have excellence; to admire the universe for its size is slavish and absurd'. ('The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell', ed. P.A.Schilpp, Northwestern University Press, p.19-20). Einstein said much the same thing: 'If there were not this inner illumination [the human mind], the universe would be merely a rubbish heap'. * In 'Not by Design', Stenger objects to Aquinas's argument for a first cause as follows: 'Later philosophers...have pointed out the error in Aquinas's logic: if a first cause, uncaused, is possible, why must it be God? The first cause, uncaused, could just as well be the universe itself'. That would only be true if the universe were necessary and not - as it is - contingent. But the idea of the existence of the universe being necessary rather than contingent is patently absurd. As Stephen Barr says, 'The existence of the particular universe in which we live is plainly not a necessity. In this particular universe there is a sycamore tree in my front yard. It might just as well have been an apple tree. To say that this universe, in all its particularity, with all of its details, had necessarily to exist is not only absurd, it is also profoundly unscientific in spirit. It would mean that everything about the world could be deduced by pure thought without taking the trouble to do any experiments or make any observations. If the world with all its contents were necessarily as it is, then Columbus did not have to sail the ocean blue - he might have been able to deduce the existence of American and even to have mapped all its mountains and charted all its waterways without leaving his armchair'. The problem with Stenger is this: there are philosophical difficulies for both Christian theism and Atheism, it is a balance of probablities and anyone who can say otherwise - like Stenger who suggests that Atheism is proven beyond reasonable (he may even say possible) - is simply ignorant or deceitful. Like most contemporary missionary atheists, Stenger is both. The fact that Stenger's book is prefaced by Hitchens (who doesn't even PRETEND to be a scientist, philosopher or anything other than an angry person) should be a clear warning sign. (But at least Hitchens is honest - unlike Dawkins who is really nothing more than an expert in the behaviour of chicks at feeding time.) The bottom line: there are much better books of pseudo-scientific atheist chic around than this one. Atheists would be better off spending their money on Weinberg's 'The First Three Minutes' - at least he's actually one of the most distinguished scientists of our time, unlike Stenger. But Stenger's book does make excellent devotional reading for Christians, just like Dawkin's God Delusion. I believe Stenger is due to debate The Revd. Dr John Polkinghorne KBE FRS in the near future. It should be interesting. Sorry this review was so long. Most of it was the collection of quotes - hopefully someone will enjoy having them collected together in one place. (One final point: strictly speaking God, who is Being itself, does not exist (which means to be 'placed outside') in the same way as the created things which form the only object of experience for our natural faculties. That is why all the mystics and saints throughout human history have described the first contact with supernatural reality as being an experience of nothingness.)

Not a universally accepted viewpoint by scientists

Customer Rating:

"God" is clearly important enough to have generated a vast plethora of literature for and against "Him". Whilst quite clearly presented and logical, Hitchens axiomatic basis for existence is for physical "obersvability" in some sense. Yet this is the the longest standing argument of asthestic philosophy, not something new. I would love to see Hitchens expand his axiomatic basis for existence to encompass arguments that were new and more convincing that 'I cannot see(observe)' so 'I dont believe' Our own existence is confounding enough - I am not sure humanity has truly solved this mystery.Why are we self aware? Who and what are we? All this before what is "God"? Paul Davies 'Goldilocks Enigma' and the 'Mind of God' present an alternative scientific viewpoint - he is a theortical physicist and comologist- the axiomatic basis for his arguments here are different. Why are we who we are and what exactly are we produces deep questions as to existence and in my view more fruitful than the 'prove he doesn't exist' approach of the God Hypothesis which is essentialy based on only one line of argument. All in all great to see so much God talk like in this book.Its definitely the way forward but this book does not indicate the end of the road.

Scientific method for unscientific hypothesis

Customer Rating:

Victor Stenger is explaining in the entire first chapter the scientific method and what a theory is compared to hypothesis, and why/how science is able to test some of the religious hypothesizes. The next chapter is then focusing on the testing of supernatural claims and highlights that several studies about the usefulness of prayers have been conducted. These studies were funded from religious organizations like Templeton, so not from "bad atheist scientists" who only want to disprove them. Nevertheless despite heavy intercessory praying of whole religious communities for the health of freshly operated patients, no positive effect of prayer could be found. After this Stenger is demolishing the `fine tuning' Goldilocks argument about the basic constants of the universe, which is so often used from theists as the last deist refuge to house their God of the dwindling gaps. After reading several books mentioning this `fine tuning' and haven't found a strong scientific rebuttal, I was quite surprised that the so miraculous `fine tuning' argument is only valid if a single factor is changed c.p. (all other left unchanged). Stenger claims that several alternative combinations of the 4 fundamental constants are possible and are providing a stable universe where stars can form and burn for billions of years as well. To give an example of real life: my car is so fine-tuned if the gearbox is just 2 millimeter from the engine block it would not work, if the clutch is just a few millimeter apart it would not close and can't drive, if the crankshaft is just a little shorter ...etc... yes true if just a single parameter is changed, but there are many other brands and models where another combination of all this parts result in a proper working car. The maximal entropy of the initial universe makes a deity unnecessary and unable to control any future development of the universe especially when quantum effects prevent any deterministic Lamarckian plan. And the universe don't need to be `divinely created' as the universe has a zero balance of energy and mass versus gravity e.g. coming out of nothing. All claims of creationist and ID are refuted by the usual arguments from evolution, and the millennia old philosophical word games as `proof of God' ala St. Augustine or Aquinas are countered by logical arguments from modern philosophers, who show logical arguments (proof) that God does not exists. Also the Biblical history is outed as fiction and fairy tales as most stories from Genesis, great flood, Abraham, Exodus, Canaan's conquest, David and Solomon's powerful `golden empire' etc. are falsified from historical and archeological evidence. Ergo the god YHWH from the Bible as basis for Judeo-Christian-Islamic faith who is interacting with the local tribes of bronze-age gout and sheep herders does not exist. In short Victor Stenger is claiming the absence of evidence on that grand scale plus all the falsifications of theist claims are evidence of absence and falsification of the theist God hypothesis, and is even a strong indicator for the non existence or of a deist God.

Good Science, Bad Theology

Customer Rating:

Stenger brilliantly proves that something he has called "god" does not exist. As any proper theist would agree. He is very learned in the best of Physics but what has he read of the best theologians - Thomas aquinas, Augustine of Hippo, Karl Rahner, Karl Barth ? Does not understand about double causation ? Has he never read that God being described as "all powerful" means not "can do anything" but "can do what He wills to do" Physics answers the questions physics asks. But he could just as easily write an equally learned and fatally flawed book entitled "How Science shows that Love does not exist " or "How Science shows that Beauty does not exist If a non-scientist wrote a book entitled "How Philopsphy proves Science is wrong" Sterner would be affronted.

God: the eternal underachiever

Customer Rating:

One of the many tiresome conversation stoppers people resort to is "But you can't disprove the existence of God!" In this stunning book, Victor Stenger provides convincing arguments that, actually, you can. Stenger writes: "The thesis of this book is that the supernatural hypothesis of [the Judeo-Christian-Islamic] God is testable, verifiable, and falsifiable by the established methods of science." His strategy is to run with this hypothesis and, with an open mind, to look for any objective evidence that may support it, all the while maintaining the rigour of the best scientific inquiry. If such evidence is not found, if the universe reveals only purely material and mindless processes to our observation, then the likelihood is that there is no such God. The "lack-of-evidence argument" works hard and in the end the hypothesis fails: this is a very powerful "scientific argument against the existence of God". Atheists since Bertrand Russell have replied to this question of "proof" by saying that you cannot disprove the existence of a teapot in orbit, but this doesn't mean you should believe that such an object exists, much less base your life on this belief. The knockdown argument against this response is, apparently, that belief in orbiting teapots would not inspire the great art that belief in, say, the Virgin Birth does. (The Archbishop of Canterbury recently used this very same argument in conversation with Ricky Gervais, not caring that it has no bearing on the truth of the belief: an atheist has no difficulty in accepting that a false belief can inspire all manner of human activities, from painting the Sistine Chapel to torturing unbelievers.) Of course, if all the teapot did was stew in space, a silent emblem of Englishness, its existence would indeed be hard to disprove. But if shamans engaged in tea dances and then claimed their cups were filled to overflowing with the finest brew poured from the celestial pot, then we ought to be able to check this out. Stenger asserts that "science is not forbidden from considering supernatural causes" and reminds us that "religions make factual claims that have no special immunity from being examined under the cold light of reason and objective observation." He rejects Stephen Jay Gould's proposition that religion and science are "non-overlapping magisteria" and laments the fact that too many scientists have been content to leave religion well alone (in part, perhaps, because of concerns over funding and the low status of atheists in public life, as well as having better things to do). Theists, on the other hand, have never been shy to plunder science for whatever might be useful: "the notion that the observation of nature alone provides evidence for the existence of God has a long history". However, that history is coming to an end for some theologians, who "have gradually begun to accept the absence of objective evidence for God and have been forced to conclude if a god exists, he must purposely hide himself from us." Like the problem of evil, the hiddenness of God is an intellectual hoop no bigger than the eye of a needle through which only the most emaciated theological mind can jump. As for ordinary believers, few will even try, especially while they are distracted by the shiny bauble of "intelligent design". Theists are drawn to design arguments like rap stars to bling, and, while some atheists groan at having to cut yet another head off the hydra of creationism, Stenger relishes the task. Each theistic claim - for the design of the eye, a nonphysical soul or the fine-tuning of the universe - is an opportunity to falsify the hypothesis that there is a God. The new pinups for swivel-eyed creationists are Dembski and Behe, who both make "statements that are provably wrong": Dembski's "information" is related to entropy and is therefore "not a conserved quantity like energy", while Behe seems to be unaware of the literature on "irreducibly complex" systems. Catholics can believe in evolution, just so long as it applies only to the body and not the mind. Although he can provide no evidence for a "disembodied soul", Pope Pius XII cannot imagine "the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter". Too bad for him. As for fine-tuning, the whole argument "ultimately makes no sense... all physical parameters are irrelevant to an omnipotent God." There is also the obvious fact of the "uncongenial universe": vast tracts of space and time unfit for life of any kind. Again, no sign of and no need for a designing, intervening, caring god. The real surprise to many readers, however, will be Stenger's take on that ancient philosophical question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" The irresistible suggestion for many is that there must have been a "creator" of some kind. That Lear exclaimed "nothing will come of nothing" is not the reason we think he lost the plot. The laws of physics had to come from somewhere, surely? And what does Stenger say? "They came from nothing!" The state of "nothing" is as simple as it gets and is not very stable. "Only by the constant action of an agent outside the universe, such as God, could a state of nothingness be maintained. The fact that we have something is just what we would expect if there is no God." The laws of physics follow from "the very lack of structure at the earliest moment." It would seem that one of the few remaining mysteries in this universe is why anyone still takes the god hypothesis seriously.