Good Science, Bad Theology - Rated 
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 - Rated 
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.
In many ways the best of the "atheistic" books recently published - Rated
"The thesis of this book is that the supernatural hypothesis of God is testable, verifiable, and falsifiable by the established methods of science." --from page 29
"...I will...argue that...science has advanced sufficiently to be able to make a definitive statement on the existence or nonexistence of a God having the attributes that are traditionally associated with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God." --from page 11
These statements are a great leap forward from the fairly recent belief (I'm thinking of the late, great Stephen Jay Gould, for example) that we ought to render unto science things belonging to science and unto religion things belonging to religion. But what Professor Stenger is saying is that we can look at religion in a scientific sense and decide which aspects of it are true and which are false. In particular Stenger looks at the God of Abraham and fulfills the promise of the subtitle: "How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist." Note that it is only the personal God of the three Middle Eastern religions that he specifically lays to rest. The Ineffable God of the Vedas is presumably still standing, as are many other gods who are not defined as personal and possessing the three O's: omnibenevolence, omnipotence, and omniscience. An interesting book including arguments against the existence of some other gods is The Impossibility of God (2003) by Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier (cited by Stenger; see my review at Amazon).
Stenger's is a step-by-step consideration of the arguments and the "evidence" for God's existence, followed by a demonstration that the arguments are faulty and/or the evidence is lacking. For example, he shows how the evil in the world is inconsistent with a God possessing the three O's; he shows how all the endless stories of miracles and such are easily explained by means not requiring an intervening deity; he (as many others have) demolishes the argument from design; he shows how morality has nothing to do with God or religion, that it is something humans naturally have, and that in fact, followers of especially Islam and Christianity, are less moral by most standards than are unbelievers.
The God of the Old Testament is exposed as ruthless and evil; Stenger even refers to the so-called "hidden" God (that is, hidden from nonbelievers) of evangelical Christians as a "hideous God." His point is that by staying hidden from nonbelievers this God (cf. the God of John Calvin) effectively makes certain that most people will spend an eternity in hell, people such as "Mahatma Gandhi...along with the six million Jews killed by Hitler and billions of others who died without accepting Jesus." It is interesting that Stenger allows that such a god could exist, but "I personally want nothing to do with him." (pp. 239-240)
As significant and important as showing that God is a hypothesis that has failed is, I think some other aspects of this fascinating book are what make it such an important read. I learned that a good answer to the eternal question (and one of my favorites) "Why is there something rather than nothing?" can be answered by "nothing is unstable" (Frank Wilczek) or, to put it another way, it is impossible for there to be nothing but nothing. (pp. 132-133)
I also discovered that the universe did not necessarily begin with the Big Bang, that events do not necessarily have causes, and that "even if the universe does not have a mathematically infinite number of events in the past, it still need not have a beginning." Additionally (quoting philosopher Keith Parsons), "To say the universe is infinitely old is to say that it had no beginning--not a beginning that was infinitely long ago." Here Stenger makes a nice distinction between the infinite of mathematics and the infinite of physics. He writes, "Physics is counting. In physics, time is simply the count of ticks on a clock. You can count backward as well as forward. Counting forward you can get a very big but never mathematically infinite positive number and time 'never ends.' Counting backward you can get a very big but never mathematically infinite negative number and time 'never begins.'" (pp. 123-125) The salient point, as Georg Cantor made clear, is that infinity is a mathematical concept and not a number. These points are brought to refute the claim that the universe must have had a beginning and therefore a creator God.
Stenger even brings entropy into the picture as an argument against the universe being created. He notes "If the universe were created, then it should have possessed some degree of order at the creation...." But according to Big Bang theory the initial state of the universe after the Planck time was one of high entropy or "total chaos." He then calls in "the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the total entropy or disorder of a closed system must remain constant or increase with time." So far it sounds like this is good argument (as it previously might have been) for God the Creator to have injected order into the cosmos since we clearly have order today. But then Stenger shows that because the universe is expanding, the order we see here on earth and elsewhere doesn't violate the second law because "maximum entropy...increases faster than the actual total entropy...." (pp. 117-119)
I have read and reviewed in recent months The God Delusion (2006) by Richard Dawkins; Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (2006) by Daniel C. Dennett; and The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason (2004, 2005) by Sam Harris. While all three are excellent books and sorely needed in this time of attempted evangelical takeover of our culture and government, none of them is as closely and convincingly argued as is this book.
to be read with an open mind - Rated
In recent years there has been a series of books of this ilk from various authors. Some from a scientific standpoint, some from a historical or sociological viewpoint.
This book is of the scientific genre. Victor Stenger is a Professor of Physics and Astronomy, and uses his undoubtable scientific knowledge to convincingly argue against the existence of God. In my personal view, Stenger succeeds in his aim in providibg enough evidence to prove his case.
That said, the validity of the arguements are in the eye of the beholder. It is sad that many of the reviews written on this and similar works often entail, at best closed minds, and at worst vitriolic abuse against the other side. In my view, if one trully believes their faith to be strong then surely they should be willing and able to listen to the views of others without feleing threatened. And this applies to to atheists and theists. Let the atheist reviewers be prepared to critically analyse works of the other persusasion.
In the first chapter the author explains the scientific method. This is important because many lay-people lack real understandign of scientific principles - beleiving it only to deal in irrefutable facts.
In the rest of the book the evidence for and against the existance of God is critically assessed. This entails an examination of numerous topics ranging from the truth or otherwise of biblical prophecies to the claims of intelligent design to "documented" miracles etc.
All of this research could very well have produced compelling evidence for God, but none of it has. Stenger logically concludes that the evidence looks exactly the way we would expect it to look in the absence of God.
The only weaknes of the book I think is that certain topics could have been covered in a bit more detail, such as the most recent arguements on "intelligent design". Overall though most of the important issues are exhaustively covered, and there are plenty of references for those who which to investigate further.
The book is very well written, and easy to read in most part. Although some of it would likely too be hard to follow without a reasonable prior knowledge of science.
The physics of faith - Rated
A number of years ago, the late [great?] Stephen J. Gould produced "Rocks of Ages". The work was designed as a peace offering between those relying on reason and those relying on faith to view the cosmos. Gould, like some others of the time, was willing to let "moral" issues remain in the hands of religious leaders. Science, he declared, was a separate "magisterium". Victor Stenger declares that such a separation is false and misleading. He argues that gods, particularly that of the "three great monotheisms" is a fit subject for scientific study. In this captivating and skillful analysis, he does just that. The results, ably presented in fluent language, are devastating to the notion that any supernatural being, especially the Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity, has substance. If such a thing could exist, it would be too remote from human conditions to have any meaning.
Although Stenger credits Galileo and Darwin with significant contributions to pushing a god away from human affairs, it's his own field of physics that provide the most compelling evidence, or lack of it, for any gods. As with any research subject, the author formulates hypotheses explaining why a god should exist, then tests them for valid evidence. To apply scientific methods to examining the evidence for the supernatural, he explains that ideas about the world are observed and models derived to explain their workings. Those models must be tested by valid methods, comprehensive and definitive. His examination of intercessory prayer as a healing mechanism [Chap. 3] demonstrates how flawed methods skew evidence. Ignoring real evidence, as his examination of the "Illusion of Design" demonstrates, has allowed such commentators as Michael Behe and William Dembski to forward untestable concepts of how life's processes work.
Perhaps the most compelling section [Chap. 4 "Cosmic Evidence"] in this book is his discussion of the big bang. How often have we heard the challenge: "What caused the Big Bang?" by believers who need a deity to initiate the cosmos, even if it clearly has no role in it. Stenger takes us back to the first instance of the universe's beginning. He notes that the actual origins may be debated: the universe may recycle itself or have come from another universe, for example. Ours, however, began in chaos, but quickly followed the laws of physics the author has studied for so long. From that point, there's no role for a deity to play - Nature's own rules are in command. Physics, not gods, gave us stars, galaxies, the heavy elements needed to form life and a place where conditions were conducive to that result. As a conclusion to this segment, he even asks why there should be a universe at all - the ancient philosophical question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" His answer clarifies the question from a physicist's empirical stance.
As he progresses through the book, the author postulates questions about what justifies a god - particularly that of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions. The roles assigned to the deity, one whose adherents declare it to be "omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent [at least to humans]" fail every empirical test. It is certainly not "all-knowing" or it would prevent some events that go against its own dicta. It is clearly not "completely powerful" since too many phenomena cannot be attributed to it. The "benevolent" argument was destroyed by Charles Darwin, and the history of its own actions belie that contention. A god demanding genocide or acts such as the destruction of the World Trade Center, can hardly claim "benevolence". To attribute to such a deity the origin or definition of "morals" is false, and Stenger rebukes Gould and others for making such an attribution. Morality, as Stenger shows, is widespread across the animal kingdom, a product of natural selection, not divine ordinance or declaration. This fact, he contends, is important for us all to understand in order not to fall prey to leaders who inflict arbitrary decisions on us claiming divine inspiration.
It is difficult to praise this book highly enough. Although there have been many books recently published to show why belief in the supernatural is misplaced, few have taken a hard scientific path to make their case. Stenger's book, although the latest in a string by this author, is his most outstanding effort. Readable and informative, it should be taken up by any who make arguments for faith in deities and who declare religion should guide our lives. Even the dedicated non-theists will find it useful. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
|
