| |
Nabaza.net-The MarketPlace - God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist
|
List Price: $17.95
Our Price: $12.21
Your Save: $ 5.74 ( 32% )
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
Manufacturer: Prometheus Books
|
Average Customer Rating:   
|
|
Binding: Paperback
Dewey Decimal Number: 211
EAN: 9781591026525
ISBN: 1591026520
Label: Prometheus Books
Manufacturer: Prometheus Books
Number Of Items: 1
Number Of Pages: 310
Publication Date: 2008-04-08
Publisher: Prometheus Books
Studio: Prometheus Books
|
|
|
|
|
|
Editorial Reviews:
|
This edition includes a new Foreword by CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS, author of the #1 New York Times bestselling GOD IS NOT GREAT.
In the paperback's afterword, Victor Stenger addresses criticisms of his New York Times bestselling first edition.
Throughout history, arguments for and against the existence of God have been largely confined to philosophy and theology. In the meantime, science has sat on the sidelines and quietly watched this game of words march up and down the field. Despite the fact that science has revolutionized every aspect of human life and greatly clarified our understanding of the world, somehow the notion has arisen that it has nothing to say about the possibility of a supreme being, which much of humanity worships as the source of all reality.
Physicist Victor J. Stenger contends that, if God exists, some evidence for this existence should be detectable by scientific means, especially considering the central role that God is alleged to play in the operation of the universe and the lives of humans. Treating the traditional God concept, as conventionally presented in the Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions, like any other scientific hypothesis, Stenger examines all of the claims made for God's existence.
He considers the latest Intelligent Design arguments as evidence of God's influence in biology. He looks at human behavior for evidence of immaterial souls and the possible effects of prayer. He discusses the findings of physics and astronomy in weighing the suggestions that the universe is the work of a creator and that humans are God's special creation.
After evaluating all the scientific evidence, Stenger concludes that beyond a reasonable doubt the universe and life appear exactly as we might expect if there were no God.
|
|
|
Spotlight customer reviews:
|
Customer Rating:
Summary: Good in Places
Comment: I bought this book in order to better understand the 'fine-tuning' argument for the existence of God [and other, present-day physics type lines of thought that might be relivant.] In this regard I was not disappointed. So far as I can tell, Stenger does a fine job in presenting the anti 'fine-tuning' side of the dispute. [But then, given my ignorance in this field, I am not really a reputable judge.]
It should be pointed out that the 'fine-tuning' argument leans heavily on recent work in an area that seems to be caught up in a frenzy of wild theorizing. There are LOTS of competing theories about the 'big bang' and what, if anything, preceded it. Only rash souls (or so I think) will base their belief in God, or, for that matter, their disbelief, on the latest word from the cosmologists.
The section on 'design' is also good. If one wants a sort of catalog of all the apparent bad engineering in the 'design' of the human body, etc. this is just the thing.
Much of the rest of the book, in my opinion, is unreliable, sloppy, and rash. Stenger has no interest in challenging the best work produced by 'believers.' Here is a glaring instance: there is no mention of Alvan Plantinga. I know this will sound silly to some readers, but in a present-day work purporting to offer serious discusion of the various reasons for thinking that there is, or is not, a God, the absence of this name is a clear signal that we are not playing in the major leagues.
Perhaps the best and most common argument against the existence of God is 'the problem of evil.' Senger (following some author, or authors, I am unable to identify) puts it this way:
(1) If God exists, then the attributes of God are consistent with the existence of evil.
(2) The attributes of God are not consistent with the existence of evil.
(3) Therefore, God does not and cannot exist.
Stenger then goes on to argue that while SOME 'pain and suffering' [i.e. SOME evil] may be consistent with the attributes of God, there seems to be more than is necessary. That is to say, he seems to abandon (2) without noticing it. I guess the premise he wants to defend is:
(2') The attributes of God are not consistent with THE AMOUNT OF EVIL exhibited by the real world.
(Something like that.) But now, of course, (1) must be changed too. It's not a big deal; but it's annoying.
Perhaps I should add that, in my opinion, William Rowe owns 'the problem of evil' in it's present form. Another name that does not occur in Stenger's book.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Proves the case!
Comment: Most reviewers of Stenger's "God: The Failed Hypothesis" fail to recognize the unique contribution he has made to the logic of the debate. The methodology he uses is different from most of the arguments against God, and it is important to understand this, because his book is a major step forward on this topic. Stenger basically sets out to prove a negative. Although many light-thinking individuals think this is impossible, anyone who has studied high school geometry knows that there is a well-known approach to this challenge. It is the indirect proof, and it works like this: Assume the truth of the proposition you're arguing against. Show that certain consequences must follow if the proposition is true. Observe that those consequences do not or cannot possibly occur. Conclude, therefore, that the original assumption must be false.
So Stenger's approach is to assume the existence of a God (defined pretty much as the Christian one) and deduce what the implications of such an assumption would be in terms of what we would expect to observe in the world. Finding that those observations do not occur, Stenger concludes that there is no such thing as God. Anyone who wants to rebut Stenger's argument, needs to do so within the context of this methodology. Otherwise, you are just talking past each other. Valid rebuttals would be, for example, to challenge his reasoning as to what facts we should expect to observe given the assumption that a God exists. Or perhaps to show that those facts really do occur. But here's the real problem for the theists: You have to say that SOME facts would necessarily follow from the existence of a God and that the absence of those facts would prove God doesn't exist. If you don't admit this, then your concept of God is without meaning, because a proposition that cannot by any stretch of the imagination be falsified, does not say anything. The statement "God exists" cannot be true unless "God does not exist" is false, and there has to be some meaningful observable difference between these propositions in order for either of them to mean anything. However, most theists, especially the Christian ones, do not admit any circumstances at all under which we could reasonably conclude that there is no God. Thus, their concept of God is without meaning, and when they say "God exists," they really are saying nothing at all. Stenger's book is an admirable addition to the debate and succeeds in showing that the assumed hypothesis (i.e., that God exists) is refuted by observations in the real world.
But since many Christians seemingly cannot follow Stenger's argument, nor the arguments of other authors who have defended atheism as a philosophy, it is important for atheists to be able to debate the Christians on their own turf as well. For that reason, in addition to highly recommending Stenger's book, I would also recommend that atheists become familiar with critiques of the Bible, as many Christians find this type of criticism harder to ignore. Americans especially are much more attached to Jesus, than to "God." A good selection in the category of biblical criticism, and a recent one, is The Atheist's Introduction to the New Testament: How the Bible Undermines the Basic Teachings of Christianity by Mike Davis. Together, these two books will cover pretty much any debate you are likely to get into with Christian apologists.
Customer Rating:
Summary: All Humans are Presumtuous and Ridiculous
Comment: Does God exist? Who the hell knows. Certainly not a preist nor a scientist. Nobody knows one way or the other. You either believe based on faith - unseen, unproven belief - or you do not. And moments after our bodies stop, every single person will either know something - or know nothing. But to waste our energy fighting over something that is not given to "proof." Well...it's just very human. Wasting time instead of enjoying what we do know. And worst of all, you've all been doing it for thousands of years and killing hundreds of millions of otherwise happy human beings.
I really want to say that all Christians, Atheists, Muslims, Theists, Jews and Agnostics --and the rest! - should all jump in the same muddy river and just go to hell...but then we'd get into fighting about hell and the devil. Fight, argue, fight, disagree - idiot human beings. Dogs are wiser. They've got it down - eat, sleep, poop, love. I prefer them.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Great Arguments
Comment: I found some great nuggets of logic and wisdom in this book. I want to re-read it for additional detail, but overall I would recommend it!
Customer Rating:
Summary: God The Failed Hypothesis?
Comment: Stenger's book is a scientific/logical critique of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God having the apparent purpose of countering all possible reasons for believing in that God. It contributes to the growing cottage industry of atheistic books and as for some others of those books I give it a reluctant thumbs up. I liked the range and abundance of ideas Stenger offers. My two main disappointments with his book were: (1) the title implies a categorical denial of God (not just the JCI God) thereby promising more than it attempts to deliver and (2) throughout many of the arguments I had intrusive thoughts of `Yes, but' and `No, No, No,' (my usual experience with atheistic books.) Since for Stenger's book I may lack the required understanding, I await the judgments of more acute and better-educated minds.
I was particularly struck by the sense of being cornered and bludgeoned into acceptance during my reading of the book, which did not seem consistent with the scientific objectivity I expected to find, but the final chapter's discussions of God and current events suggest a possible reason. The author appears to have a political passion for the topic extending beyond scientific and philosophical curiosity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
