The Folly of Stenger

[bjorn]

Stenger is at it again with his annual book on why science and society easily can dismiss God, "God and the Folly of Faith: The Incompatibility of Science and Religion", reviewed by eSkeptic at www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-09-12/#feature

First the standard misunderstanding of what faith is, in a Christian perspective:

"Stenger discusses everything from the origin of the universe to the 2012 elections. Even where one might disagree with his conclusions, he is still thought-provoking. Stenger demolishes the theist argument that science is no less based on faith than religion. He draws a firm line between faith and trust. We have faith in supernatural entities, whose actions we cannot experience directly, or in political or religious leaders whose sincerity has yet to be tested, but we trust science—or a reliable friend, or our auto mechanic—based on our experience. To believe in something in the absence of evidence is, in Stenger’s estimation, foolish, and it would be hard to disagree."

The review doesn't improve by the standard slamming of The Church in WWII.

"Stenger says that the Vatican never excommunicated a Nazi leader. This is incorrect. Hitler and Goebbels were both excommunicated, but not because of their role in World War II or the Holocaust. Prior to the war, Goebbels married a Protestant woman without agreeing to raise their children—whom the couple murdered during the last days of the Third Reich—as Roman Catholics. Hitler was best man at the wedding. It’s not that the Vatican didn’t oppose Hitler—they thought he was too tolerant of other religions!"

Nor is it helped by the standard condrum about who created God, and if God didn't need to be created, then neither did the universe:

"The theistic argument has always been that if the universe exists, it must have had a creator, who can only be God, whatever characteristics one ascribes to Him. This raises the question of who created God. Theists invariably respond that God always existed, to which Bertrand Russell replied that if God could always exist without being created, so could the universe."

When Stenger sets up some alternatives to God as originator of the universe, he shows that the quote incorrectly contributed to Chesterton was rather head on in his case about what happens when someone stops believing in God:

"If the universe was created by a Big Bang, what caused the Big Bang? Perhaps a purple-robed patriarch? Stenger gives us a number of alternative scenarios, all of which leave out supernatural entities. One of these is the two-sided universe. One side is ours, and the other is a mirror image in which time runs backwards. Each side begins with a Big Bang and ends with a Big Crunch, causing the Big Bang on the other side. There, since the arrow of time runs in reverse, ashes burst into flame and turn into wood, water runs uphill, and predators regurgitate their prey, which then comes to life, and the two run off backwards with the predator in the lead."

The reviewer seems anyhow to realise that Stenger some places is on rather thin ice:

"Another scenario Stenger presents is the Multiverse, which holds that our universe is the result of a black hole created in a much larger universe, which in turn came from an even bigger one, and so on forever. This seems to contradict Stenger’s own claim that there are no infinities in nature, which, if true, would narrow down the number of possible scenarios for the origin of the universe. Furthermore, it overlooks the likelihood that each “daughter” universe would be far smaller than its “mother,” ultimately leading to mini-universes too small to create any new ones. And it hands the theists the argument that God must have created the Multiverse, since what else could have started it? In any case, we have no more evidence for other universes than we have for God, and this theory violates Occam’s razor by postulating a vast number of unproven entities. Also, how could scientists verify the existence of black holes, if they are in other universes?"

I guess we have to take the following on trust:

Science does not know everything, but if there are things we do not know, or may never know, there are others we can now be sure of. The supernatural does not exist; the laws governing the universe are immutable, and do not change because of our prayers; we don’t go to heaven or hell, or get reincarnated when we die; there is no inherent purpose to anything in the universe, except for our own lives and what we make of them. If the public can be educated to accept this, it hardly matters whether or not they call the laws of nature “God.”

Even if it is a tad or two hard to see the coherence in an argument that disproves God from miracles:

"God cannot yet be disproved, but at least we can dismiss angels, demons, ghosts and Santa Claus. And if miracles were real, far from proving the existence of God, they would actually disprove it. After all, if the laws of nature do not always apply—if the dead return from the grave—then anything is possible and no God is required to maintain the order of the universe, because there isn’t any order."

[Mike D]

It can be hard to form an accurate picture of a book from a review - it may be that the object of the review is in fact very different from its representation.

That said, if I assume that Stenger's book is as the review says then my response is to feel rather depressed at the cynicism of a book like this. It seems to be squarely aimed at the atheist crowd - who else would be willing to indulge such infantile argumentation, other than someone who was already convinced by it? - and, given that it is a total rehash of existing argumentation, all of which has been done a whole lot better by better writers than Stenger and all of which has been answered by theists, the book seems to serve no purpose other than generating income for its author.

I say all Stenger's arguments have been answered - whether the answers are conclusive or whether they are flawed is moot - the fact is, answers have been made and Stenger shows no signs of engaging with these answers or responding to them, he just repeats the same old arguments - which shows that he isn't interested in convincing people but is content to merely preach to the choir.

[unkleE]

The subtitle surely gives us a hint - "The Incompatibility of Science and Religion".

There are a number of atheists who argue that not only is religious belief wrong, but that it invalidates the believer from any significant scientific respect and position, because it requires them to believe things without evidence. That is perhaps why the question-begging assumptions about what faith actually is are so important, because they form the premise in an implied argument:

1. Faith is believing something without evidence.
2. Scientist X is a christian.
3. Therefore X believes things without evidence
4. Therefore X is not fit to be a scientist. QED.

If they didn't have premise 1, they would have to use something like ....

1a Christianity is not based on evidence

.... which might be harder to argue than just assuming #1.

I don't know. But that's how it seems to me. So the book would have as one of it's main purposes to continue the argument to give christians little scientific respect.