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.
Download God The Failed Hypothesis How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist
This paperback edition of the New York Times bestselling hardcover edition contains a new foreword by Christopher Hitchens and a postscript by the author in which he responds to reviewers' criticisms of the original edition. Models and Methods. The Illusion of Design. Searching for a World beyond Matter. Indeed, most competent scientist-theologians agree that evolution took place through natural selection. Thus the lack of evidence of design does not contradict the religious view as it refers to issues of mechanism that have no theological implications either way.
However, it is certainly not a scientific proof, as we have not solved the hard problem of consciousness, and do not even know how to begin tackling it. This is not science in any ordinary sense of the word.
This speculative theory, which apparently presumes that the laws of physics existed in some Platonic domain before space and time came into being, does not deal with the ultimate issues of creation or existence, and is certainly not proven science. Stenger does not take seriously the arguments of John Barrow, Martin Rees, Steven Weinberg and others that only a very small region of the physical parameter space allows life to exist, which many scientists feel requires an explanation.
Stenger presents nothing here that a social scientist would recognize as valid data.
While his claim is in part correct in describing how humans behave, it does not illuminate the sources of ethical right and wrong. Furthermore, it undermines any claim to the existence of an objective morality that all humans share, which the author implicitly claims to be the case in his subsequent argument. So what is the experiment that establishes evil as a scientific fact? Hence this is an ethical claim falsely dressed up as science. But this argument does show a belief in absolute standards of right and wrong, in agreement with my own belief that there is a moral reality underlying the universe.
All these points constitute acceptable philosophical argument for the non-existence of God, but none of them amount to a genuine scientific proof. Overstating what science can do is bad for science, as it undermines both its integrity and its believability. It is also a mistake to present the public with a false dichotomy between science and religion, because this will unnecessarily tend to fuel an antiscientific backlash in wider society.
The aim of the book is to apply scientific-like reasoning to issues of ultimate reality. But this is not new: it has been developed in depth by philosopher-theologians such as Arthur Peacocke, John Polkinghorne and Nancey Murphy, whose writings on this topic are ignored by the author. He won the Templeton Prize for progress in the understanding of science and religion. Browse all. This critic is making fun of that. Holy crap, what an idiot! Um, yeah, that's basically the massively accepted and assumed consensus on the part of nearly all scientists, as well as freethinkers, rationalists, and plenty of other people.
That pretty much nails it on the head. If science can explain natural causes, etc, for a whole variety of things, events, etc, then YES, you don't bring god into it! It's been proven to be non-supernatural.larabridal.ru/profiles/so-barata-azitromicina.php
Download God The Failed Hypothesis How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist
Fundies excel at nit picking non-fundie philosophers, other religionists particularly other theists , scientists, and other people of differing persuasion, yet once you start pointing out the thousands of discrepancies, inconsistencies, inaccuracies god showed Moses the part of Cannan known as "Dan" before he died, the irony being, there was NO place named "Dan" at the time; how do you know which of the two creation stories to believe in Genesis? The Jewish Messiah was supposed to have descended from King David's lineage. So two gospel authors felt it important to include Jesus's genealogy to "prove" he descended from David, thus helping to confirm his legitimacy.
However, one just goes back some 14 generations to David while the other exceeds 30 and more generations, and to top it off, virtually none of the names of Jesus's ancestors leading to David match! Maybe one name. That's it. So, which one's right? How do you know which to believe? Or are neither of them right?
- Customer Reviews.
- God - the Failed Hypothesis.
This spurious discrepancy immediately calls into question the credibility of both authors and both gospels. But I said there are two problems. The beauty of the second problem is that it's so much more relevant that it pretty much wipes out any issues with or complaints about the previous problem I just described. The Messiah had to be of the line of David, and if Jesus was the Messiah, he would then have to have descended from the line of David.
Well, throughout their history up to and beyond this time in Jewish culture, a person's line and genealogy was defined SOLEY through their fathers! Indeed, these two gospel genealogies refer, as is seen regularly throughout the bible, to a person as "son of 'X'," etc.
And I hope you're seeing the irony now, and thus the outright bullshit? He literally passed no genes or DNA on to Jesus. Freaking beautiful. And yet you'll never hear that mentioned in church, will you? Look, not everyone will agree with the thesis of this book or Stenger, his points, examples, etc, and I get that. No book is universally loved and respected. And while I agree that a couple of the chapters are certainly weaker than others, which is virtually inevitable in a book such as this, and while Stenger doesn't resort to a Ph.
And while I've obviously read better, conversely I've read much, much worse, so I thus think that Stenger did a fairly good job at a complex and incredibly comprehensive subject books 10 times this length could have been written about this, and you still wouldn't touch on everything , and while Stenger could have chosen to better address a few issues or perhaps have touched on some that are left out of this volume, on the whole, it's not a bad place to start for those who want to see how god stacks up against science.
God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist
Oh, and I read one or two criticisms that focused on Stenger apparently addressing only the christian god. Well, I'm pretty sure that most points made in this and similar books could and do apply to ALL theistic gods, if not ALL alleged supernatural entities as a whole. The fact that Stenger refers to the christian god should not be held against him, because he is writing from the perspective of one raised and educated in, and almost certainly lives in the primary biggest and best known christian country, one in which you're exposed almost exclusively to the christian god and one in which right wing evangelicals have been working for decades to creative an evangelical theocracy here, and in which they've nearly succeeded and probably will.
Thus destroying the country in the process. Finally, I'm very willing to bet the people criticizing this author for focusing on the christian god, apparently to the exclusion of Allah or Yahweh, are believers of and followers of these other religions, or even other ones, and I'd be shocked if these people actually think Stenger should be additionally addressing these other gods, as they share equal importance to the christian god. In fact, I'd be willing to bet a whole lot on that.
So, hypocrites, don't be so damn stupid!
If you can't fight the facts, shut up. And ultimately, please know that if science doesn't have the answer for everything and it doesn't - yet , that doesn't freaking automatically mean the answer must obviously be supernatural, and moreso, must also be the christian god! There's no logic to that at all! Even if the supernatural were given partial credence, what gives you or anyone the right to insist it be the damn christian god yours instead of Buddha, Allah, Thor, Zeus, or any of the thousands of other gods that have and do swirl around this planet?
Geez, try to use your brains for once and stop being a sheeple! What makes you so sure that you are right, in your christian god, while Muslims, who are equally as fervent and devout -- if not moreso -- and equally convinced of their heaven and hell, are obviously wrong, or ditto for Jews, Hindus, and so on? Even IF there were supernatural explanations for anything, why in the world does it have to be your own instead of someone else's?
Think about that, why don't you. In the meantime, recommended book. Kaulashvili Aug 22, He goes further than most atheists go in his assessments. Generally, "god" is considered unfalsifiable, and the lack of belief comes largely from the lack of scientific physical evidence, or from personal experiences sometimes with believers who aren't exactly great people, etc. Victor Stenger goes a step further, and tries to disprove the existence of any god stated to exist.
That's quite a step to take, and it's up to you if he succeeds or not. While I myself think that historical evidence and the lack thereof for certain stories whether from the Bible or any other religious text is certainly relevant and worth discussing, I do not believe that the entire idea of at least something supernatural can be entirely dismissed in this or any other way.
- About This Item;
- God the Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist.
- Environmental Science: A Study of Interrelationships, 12th Edition!
- Related Posts.
- Meditations on First Philosophy: with Selections from the Objections and Replies (Oxford Worlds Classics).
After all, one cannot absolutely prove a negative such as "God does not exist. Well, I needn't have worried on that score, as Stenger demonstrates an extremely solid grasp of the scientific method. Basically, he treats "the God hypothesis" as a scientific hypothesis, just as if it concerned any other subject a scientist might want to investigate.