Has Science Found God? The Latest Results in the Search for Purpose in the Universe

Rating:
Summary: To spoil the "surprise", the answer to the title's question
Review: ... is an emphatic: NO!

I should first note that (a) I would rate this book 4.5 stars if I could and that (b) I was a commentator on the author's drafts of this book.

It does with precision and lucidity what it sets out to do, survey current (mis)interpretaions of science that purport to give solace to religious beliefs and theisms of various kinds and show why they are mistaken.

That said, I do not rate it perfectly as it is (in some places) more bibliographical in character. It is useful to have references to all matter of refutations available on the books theme (prayer as healing, Intelligent Design, etc.) but sometimes reading references to refutations elsewhere gets tedious. (For another book on a different subject where this is also done, see my review of Carl Mitcham's book on the philosophy of technology.)

That said, some of Stenger's arguments, particularly concerning details of cosmology are novel and interesting.

Rating:
Summary: Believing in Reality is as Good as in God
Review: and stop asking for time ZERO.
These two messages radiate from professor Stenger's new book. I wish he could have been my teacher. After all, believing that we are just a mere case of a probability is as much helpful and comforting to me as faith in Almighty Spirit.
His writing is very good, however I am a bit disappointed. Subtitle (The Latest Results in the Search for Purpose in the Universe) slightly misleads. Yes, book contains very good scientific part (chapter 4,5,6 and 7) devoted to main topic (evolutionary algorithm, natural selection, entropy of information and Universe, quintessence, symmetry, Big Bang, "beginning" of a time and global laws of physics). The most interesting was section devoted to properties of the Void -properties that remain unchanged today, in our full of matter Universe.
I truly enjoyed his innovative explanation of how simplicity, entropy and symmetry are connected. Excellent are mathematical Appendices showing equations of Planck constants, lifetime of stars (to convincingly prove that no fine tuning is required to produce a universe with long-lifetime stars) and entropy of the expanding Universe. Gracefully and using just a few pages, author connected all famous people (from Lucretius who talked about relativity ca. 55 B.C.E. through Hendrick Lorentz, Ernst Mach to Henri Poincare)involved in space research and science.
Remaining sections consist of polemics, demystification and attempts to settle the score with so called "science theists" like Dembski (prime target), Ross, Newberg and several others. Author's statistical argumentation gets sometimes humorous, but at the same time too aggressive, complicated and eventually boring.
Overall it was a pleasant reading.

Rating:
Summary: Consider...
Review: For the first 39 years of my life I had been an atheist, a communist, and a God-hater. Since two years ago, I believe and love God (who loved me dearly long before I ever acknowledged His existence).

I read with interest the other reviews of Stenger's book. Several people called for "open-minded" theists to read this book and consider switching over to the atheist's camp. If any of you are "open-minded" atheists, agnostics, or skeptics, would you please consider reading one of the following books. They are all available on amazon.com and most are less than $10 used.

The books are: "The Fingerprint of God", "The Creator and Cosmos", and "The Creator and Time" by a Ph.D. in astronomy, Dr. Hugh Ross; and "Origins of Life" by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross.

These books use modern scientific evidences from astronomy, physics, and biology to argue very persuasively for the existence of God.

I gave Stenger's book 3 stars, not one, because it gives, at the first glance, good arguments. However, a close scrutiny shows them to be either flowed or outdated. I think it is important to look at other points of view in order to strengthen (or weaken) your own. In the past 2 years, I haven't read or heard anything that has shaken my belief in God, except perhaps very briefly. However, I have repeatedly found flawed any statement that claimed the unbelief in God was reasonable. (By the way, I have a Ph.D. in physics.)


Rating:
Summary: Has Humanity Found Science?
Review: I laughed, I cried, I stroked my chin pensively. This book sheds a rare light on the most fundamental questions ever posed about the nature of reality. It gives us the benefit of scientific knowledge and methods, but without having to be scientists ourselves, which is pretty darn convenient. Anyone who wants to know how we can approach the "Big Questions" through science gets a good demonstration in "Has Science Found God?".

The book carefully and dispassionately addresses claims made by various religious sources that science supports their belief in a God of some sort. Some of these claims can be checked out on a factual basis, and this book does that in spades.

At other times, those same sources have also said that their God is beyond the scope of scientific investigation, so it's not quite clear what they really mean.

As confusing and uncertain as we may find humanity's sometimes fumbling journey of scientific discovery, many find it much more helpful and accomplished than the strange and wildly unreliable ways of faith.

As far as the impassioned, melodramatic criticisms of this book go, merely dismissing evidence or arguments we may find personally objectionable as "propaganda" is not a very reliable way to figure out the facts. As soon as the anti-science types come up with something better than science for learning about ourselves and our universe, then we can take them seriously. But to date, they don't got jack, and they don't even step up to the plate - it's heckling from the bleachers. I prefer the approach taken by Stenger in this book.

Rating:
Summary: Prof Stenger has it right
Review: In this book Prof Victor Stenger reaffirms what 350 years of the scientific method has taught us -- that when it comes to the earth, life on earth, and the universe we live in, that there is no need to call for supernatural explanations for what we experience.

Everything we know and observe can be explained by the present state of science. Will this change as our knowledge deepens? Probably so, but the natural explanation will always prevail over the theological traditions.

It is a call for rational, logical thought -- shorn of mysticism and sloppy thinking.

As a biologist I highly reccommend it.

Rating:
Summary: More combative than illuminating
Review: Occasionally, I get trapped into a conversation that I really hate. The person I am talking to suddenly starts a conversation with someone who isn't even there. I get to hear all about how bad the missing person is, major excerpts of past and imagined conversations between them, and just what they would tell that missing person if they just had the chance. The problem of course is one of bias and, usually, a lack of interest.

Reading this book can be a bit like that. There is no doubt in Stenger's mind that the answer to the question in the title is a resounding no.

A generally used argumentation tactic is to carefully set up a straw man to represent the opposing view then set about demolishing it. Stenger never even lets his straw men get up to their knees before blasting away at them. Perhaps there is an assumption that the reader is supposed to be well versed in the arguments of theists. Stenger is far too concerned with smashing his opponents arguments before he ever sets them up. He even makes fictional representations of long dead scientists to put words in their mouth to represent the theist and atheist positions. Finally, he seems to be guilty of the charge he makes of his theist opponents, that they are ignorant of science, when he shows his ignorance of religion.

This book really hits its stride when it stops trying to tell why the theists are wrong and starts to talk about basic physics in the absence of God. The thought experiment that develops the basic laws of conservation in a formless void was particularly interesting. Stenger is obviously a first class cosmologist and when he writes in this area, the book is very compelling.

But at the end, he drags out long dead hoaxes of seances and ESP as though these have any relevance to modern religion. He wraps up with what can only be described as an atheist manifesto that is more tiring than revealing.

Pull out the interesting nuggets and ignore the rest.

Rating:
Summary: One of the Best
Review: Of all the skeptical literature I have encountered dealing with the question of the existence of God and the supernatural, the books and essays of Physics Professor Victor Stenger have been among the most influential in steering me towards the philosophical position of atheistic naturalism. Dr. Stenger's compelling analysis, insight, and experience in dealing with issues lying at the interface between science and religion are admirably displayed in his well-balanced yet cogent new book, "Has Science Found God?" The book is rather unique in the skeptical literature in that it approaches the question of God from an empirical perspective (rather than just on the basis of philosophical arguments), persuasively arguing that God is an empirically confirmable hypothesis: If God exists, we should be able to find unambiguous evidence for his existence (for example, in evaluating the efficacy of prayer).
The central question Stenger addresses in the book is: Does our current scientific understanding of the world provide support for the existence of God or the supernatural? Has, indeed, science found God, as claimed by many religionists, including some theistically-minded scientists? Stenger concludes that current scientific data offer little support for the existence of God or for a supernatural realm beyond the natural world. However, Stenger correctly points out that science is non-dogmatic with regard to existence claims. Should phenomena or observations appear in the future which cannot be explained naturalistically, and which point to none other than a supernatural explanation, science should and will examine them. Thus, contrary to the claims of many religionists, science is not committed to metaphysical naturalism, and supernatural explanations do indeed have consequences that in principle should be empirically verifiable. All science asks for is evidence, as evidence and consistency with current knowledge is the only way to distinguish claims which are false from those which might have some basis in reality. Religionists cannot have it both ways, arguing that God is both undetectable and unfalsifiable, yet causally interacts with the world and intervenes in human affairs.
Stenger provides wholly naturalistic explanations consistent with current physics for the existence of the universe and its apparent "fine-tuning" for the emergence of (our form of) life, thus refuting the claim that a supernatural explanation is required. Stenger shows that no violation of the great conservation laws of physics, (e.g., the first and second laws of thermodynamics) necessarily occurred during the big bang and in the emergence of life: Current physics allows a zero-energy symmetric void to produce a non-empty universe with a total net energy of zero, thereby fulfilling energy conservation. An expanding universe allows local pockets of order to spontaneously form as the total allowable entropy of the universe increases. Current physical cosmological theories imply that our universe may be but a small bubble of an eternally inflating "multiverse" comprised of a potentially infinite number of universes characterized by different physical constants, thus providing a naturalistic explanation for the apparent "bio-friendly" conditions of our universe. Thus, Stenger argues, the universe is not tuned to us, but rather we are tuned to the universe. He also indicates how the great conservation laws of physics are simply consequences of the space and time symmetries of the void.
Stenger skillfully dismantles Dembski's information-theoretic argument for intelligent design and shows claims for the existence of paranormal phenomena and for the efficacy of prayer to be without scientific merit. Stenger persuasively argues that studies of ESP and other "psi" phenomena conducted over the past century have been flawed both experimentally and in their statistical analysis of data, and at best show results that are questionable or inconclusive.
Ultimately, the power of Stenger's book lies in its honest and objective appraisal of the facts that are currently available. While science cannot prove the non-existence of any entity, whether it be God or the soul, there is no reason why the existence of such extraordinary and presumably influential entities should not be compellingly revealed through scientific inquiry. Stenger concludes that the empirical facts support a Godless universe described by natural laws and in no need of supernatural explanation. Thus, God is a superfluous, non-parsimonious hypothesis that should be sliced away by Occam's razor. Besides, even if a God were introduced as an explanation, what would that really solve? We would then have to explain where God came from, thus leading to infinite regress. As the philosophical argument goes, If the universe has to be created and designed then so does God- and if God does not need to be created and designed, then neither does the universe. In fact, Stenger points out that current physics implies an eternal, time-symmetric universe that was not created, thereby rendering a supernatural explanation for the universe irrelevant. In conclusion, I cannot recommend this important book enough to those interested in the interface between science and religion, and especially to those who are "on the fence" in deciding between theism and naturalism. This is the kind of book that can persuade agnostics and even some open-minded theists to embrace atheistic naturalism as the only intellectually responsible and parsimonious philosophical position to adopt in light of our current scientific understanding of the world.

Rating:
Summary: What hath Stenger wrought?
Review: Stenger's book sketches the stormy road travelled since the science revolution of the 17th century and leads us up to the present, where the two titanic worldviews of Mythos and Logos are locked in a mighty death struggle. Appropriately, the preface begins with a commentary on the cataclysmic events of 9/11.

To borrow Plato's Cave analogy, Stenger is the slayer of shadows on the Cave wall. One by one, he demonstrates how each flickering supernatural shadow is but an illusion born of hopes, fears, a desire to control others, and to calm ourselves in the face of a capricious Nature.

There is, of course, a problem with leading people out of the Cave, as philosophers from Plato to Strauss have noted. What happens when we emerge from the warm, dark, cozy womb of illusion into the vast, glittering, majestic world of the real Cosmos? Gone is the anchoring (if stiffling) notion of being umbilically connected to an omnipotent creator and the constant focus of his angry-but-loving attention. Instead we find ourselves to be sovereign entities in a stunningly beautiful and overwhelmingly vast material universe, risen from bacteria, not fallen from grace; free to negotiate our destiny as individuals and as a species, but very much alone. The philosophers feared mass nihilism and despair if the common folk ever discovered the supernatural world is a noble lie.

Stenger does not give many tips on how to survive being born from the Cave into the Cosmos. As a physcist, perhaps curiosity provides all the ambroisa he needs to nourish his spirit. For the non-scientists among us, especially the poetically inclined, the story doesn't end with our birth from the Cave. Rather we are just beginning the preface of a new story, a story so exhilerating and awe-inspiring that our descendents will look back on the shallow myths of our generation and be amazed that any of us found substenance in the shabby worn-out stories from antiquity.

Birth is a bloody and traumatic experience. Many will react to Stenger's book as a newborn reacts to being thrust from his own comfy little cave - with a wailing "Waaaaaa-haaaaa!" -- not to mention clenched fists and kicking feet.

But it gets better for the newborn. The dark, warm, watery cave is quickly forgotten as he becomes absorbed in a brilliant unfolding new world of perceptions and sensations. It will get better for us, too, when the poets pick up where Stenger left off, and begin weaving from science, new stories of humanity's life in the Cosmos, and new, more effective ways to negotiate our existence.

Rating:
Summary: An intriguing argument which will interest many
Review: This presentation of the latest results in the search for purpose in the universe provides a skeptic's view of scientific links between religion and theories of the universe's properties. In Has Science Found God: The Latest Results In The Search For Purpose In The Universe, Victor Stenger persuasively argues that nothing in modern science supports spiritual or supernatural explanations, and he provides rational explanations for empirical observations which originally seemed mystical in nature. An intriguing argument which will interest many.

Rating:
Summary: Has Science Found ANYTHING?
Review: Vincent Cheung:
...the scientific method itself precludes the knowledge of truth, so that even with the correct presuppositions, science is completely incompetent as a way to discover the nature of reality. Ronald W. Clark comments, "Contemplation of first principles progressively occupied Einstein's attention," and in such a context, he quotes Einstein as saying, "We know nothing about it at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren....the real nature of things, that we shall never know, never." The typical college student would disagree, but the typical college student is not Einstein. Of course, he could only speak as a representative of science and not revelation.

Karl Popper:
Although in science we do our best to find the truth, we are conscious of the fact that we can never be sure whether we have got it....In science there is no "knowledge," in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth....Einstein declared that his theory was false - he said that it would be a better approximation to the truth than Newton's, but he gave reasons why he would not, even if all predictions came out right, regard it as a true theory.

W. Gary Crampton:
In the laboratory the scientist seeks to determine the boiling point of water. Since water hardly boils at the same temperature, the scientist conducts a number of tests and the slightly differing results are noted. He then must average them. But what kind of average does he use: mean, mode, or median? He must choose; and whatever kind of average he selects, it is his own choice; it is not dictated by the data. Then too, the average he chooses is just that, that is, it is an average, not the actual datum yielded by the experiment. Once the test results have been averaged, the scientist will calculate the variable error in his readings. He will likely plot the data points or areas on a graph. Then he will draw a curve through the resultant data points or areas on the graph. But how many curves, each one of which describes a different equation, are possible? An infinite number of curves is possible. But the scientist draws only one.

Bertrand Russell:
All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: "If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true." This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: "If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing." If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based.

-----
Recommended books:

Gordon Clark, Philosophy of Science and Belief in God (Trinity Foundation)

Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations (Reformation Ministries International)