Dawins on God, The failed Hypothesis

Scientifically interesting that there is no evidence for a supermind or supernatural. God existence is a scientific hypothesis. See Victor Stenger book "God, The failed hypothesis".

Review: God, The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist, by Victor J. Stenger

Review: Tour de Force by Tom Flynn

Source: http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof.htm

God, The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist, by Victor J. Stenger - £5.29 (from HASSERS Amazon Bookstore)

Are science and religion bitter opponents? Or are they at best complementary, at worst mutually aloof? The late Stephen Jay Gould argued that science and religion occupied “non-overlapping magisteria” and so had nothing foundational to say to each other. Eager to rebut the idea that Darwinism might promote atheism, evolution campaigner Eugenie Scott has distinguished the scientist’s methodological naturalism from the atheist’s philosophical naturalism; for Scott, the one need not imply the other.

Victor Stenger is having none of this.

Since 1988 this prolific physicist-astronomer has penned a stack of books that share a single, hard-nosed assumption, one which he makes explicit in this volume, seventh of the series:

“[T]he supernatural hypothesis of God is testable, verifiable, and falsifiable by the established methods of science.”

Starting with Not by Design: The Origin of the Universe (1988), Stenger trained his encyclopedic knowledge and bracing clarity of thought upon various fashionable strategies by which sophisticated theists have sought to use “boundary issues” in science to defend their metaphysical preferences. In Not by Design Stenger demolished the best anthropic and fine-tuning arguments for a cosmic designer then extant. In 1995’s The Unconscious Quantum he refuted claims that the indeterminacy of quantum physics offers a supra-natural substrate for such metaphysical entities as an immaterial human soul. In 2003’s Has Science Found God? he sifted the evidence of cosmology and physics for – or as it turned out, against – the existence of God as traditionally defined.

For Stenger in these and other works, science can – and must – address the question whether the supernatural can exist. When it does so, in one domain after another, it says “No” in a bell-clear voice: “[B]y this moment in time science has advanced sufficiently to be able to make a definitive statement on the existence or nonexistence of a God having the attributes … traditionally associated with the Judaic-Christian-Islamic God.”

This is a controversial stance, but Stenger is far from alone in it. Intellectual historian David Berman noted that genuine, self-avowed atheism (as opposed to charges of atheism hurled at one’s opponents) was almost unknown until about the time of Darwin. Prior to that time, questions of how the universe came to be or of how living things came to inhabit it were patently insoluble.

Scientifically rigorous skeptics felt compelled toward deism because they had no alternative to positing a God who had, if nothing else, started the cosmic clockwork ticking. Darwin provided a model of how life might have emerged from nonlife through an authorless process.

At about the same time, advances in astronomy and physics made the idea of an authorless universe more conceivable. Overt, informed atheism was finally possible, and spread rapidly through the educated classes. (Closer to our own day, Richard Dawkins has famously written that it was only after he came to a deep understanding of Darwinian theory that his personal “spiritual” quest was able to conclude with a final attainment of atheism.)

The present work, God, the Failed Hypothesis (GTFH), caps Stenger’s nearly twenty years’ exploration of these issues. Where each of his six prior works focused on a particular domain of inquiry, GTFH covers a sweeping expanse of contemporary science, “science” being liberally defined. Stenger’s book encompasses quantum physics, astronomy, the biosciences, and even such social-scientific domains as history and ethics. Also, where his previous works sometimes waxed technical or mathematical, particularly in their appendices, GTFH is written throughout in a voice that any thoughtful reader should find both accessible and compelling.

Following on the heels of Daniel C. Dennett’s Breaking the Spell and Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion, Stenger’s book fills a niche that, in all likelihood, no one but Stenger could have filled.

Rather than writing another brief for atheism, Stenger demonstrates how uniformly the findings of contemporary science support the brief for atheism.

“Existing scientific models contain no place where God is included as an ingredient in order to explain observations,”

he notes dryly. Frequently citing his earlier works, Stenger sometimes gives GTFH the feel of an introductory or “gateway” volume. But this hard-hitting book stands on its own.

GTFH comprises two principal sections, the first strictly scientific, the second more exhortative. The initial section begins with a bracing preface in which Stenger sets forth the terms of debate and argues crisply that science can and does disprove the existence of God. The opening chapter sets ground rules, arguing in particular that

classical theism is rich with claims amendable to scientific testing.

The next four chapters offer a whirlwind tour of the sciences. Chapter Two, “The Illusion of Design,” may be the most powerful refutation of Intelligent Design creationism ever compressed into twenty-nine pages. Chapter Three, “Searching for a World beyond Matter,” demonstrates that the preponderance of scientific findings neither need, nor leave any room for, action by immaterial entities. Chapter Four, “Cosmic Evidence,” tackles believers’ claims that the universe must have had an origin and could not have arisen naturally. Exactly the contrary, Stenger shows with bold authority.

Not even the ancient riddle “Why is there something rather than nothing?” offers theists comfort: recent findings indicate that “nothingness” is unstable.

Brute probability thus favors the existence of something rather than nothing, making God superfluous even here.

Chapter Five, “The Uncongenial Universe,” targets fine-tuning arguments advanced in defense of everything from classical theism to New Age vitalism – running them all to ground in a mere thirty-one pages.

That concludes the first and most valuable section of the book. Stenger now turns his attention to what we might call softer sciences. Chapter Six, “The Failures of Revelation,” treats history, surveying the vacuities of so-called religious experience and the failures of Biblical prophecy. This may be the book’s weakest chapter –secular humanists have heard all this before, while believers will likely dismiss it as atheist chest-beating – but it remains an impressive feat of distillation. Turning to ethics, in Chapter Seven, “Do Our Values Come from God?”, Stenger surveys the weak historical links between religion and the evolution of human values, while in Chapter Eight treats he “The Argument from Evil” with the concision readers will by now expect. The final chapters contrast the kinds of gods that might exist (if only the evidence did not disprove them) with the contradictory, sometimes loathsome notions of God to which some contemporary faith traditions have resorted. He is particularly, and justly, hard on the courant doctrine of “divine Hiddenness.” Stenger concludes by weighing the social utility of religion: far from being worthwhile though untrue, Stenger finds that religion in the abstract has done much more harm than good.

“By ridding the world of God, science helps us to control our own lives rather than submitting them to the arbitrary authority of priests and kings who justify their acts by divine will”

(p. 254).

In God, the Failed Hypothesis, Victor J. Stenger makes a comprehensive and almost overwhelmingly powerful case that if the sort of God most Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe in existed, the resulting physical consequences would be easily measurable by modern science.

Those measurements have been performed, and in every field surveyed the existence of the classical God is flatly refuted. Stenger’s new book is a tour de force of scope, brevity, and rhetorical power. One after another he defeats each of the recently popular, seemingly scientific arguments that believers wield in frantic efforts to defend– let’s face it – their impossible and ungrounded belief systems.

Highly recommended.

The Support of the Premise "No god exists" via the Scientific Method

The Support of the Premise "No god exists" via the Scientific Method

This page is written by Drafterman.

The Support of the Premise "No god exists" via the Scientific Method.

"To believe there is NO God when you can't prove that anymore than I can prove that there is requires faith."

This is a quote lifted off of this group. Neither this specific quote nor its author are being singled out here; It is simply the most recent quote I could think of. It is merely an example being used. Discussion about faith, its different meanings, and the equivocation often used when talking about it in regards to atheism and theism, is outside the scope of this document.

The focus of this document is the idea that the premises "God exists" and "No god exists" are equally valid (or equally invalid). That is, the truth value for both of those premises is the same.

A brief digression before getting into the meat of the matter:

The above sentiment is often expressed by Christians in an attempt to put atheism on the same logic framework as theism. The problem with this is two-fold:

1. It, essentially, is tacit acknowledgement of the weak logic theism rests on. By attempting to drag atheism down to the level of theism, you first have to accept that theism exists on a logically lower level in the first place. The only other possibility is the absurd notion a Christian would go out of their way to raise atheism up to the logical level they believe theism rests on.

2. By making theism and atheism equal, they do nothing for the cause of theism. A person must make a choice, and if the choice is not made on a logical basis (since they are now logically equal) what criteria can one use? The only thing left would be Occam's razor, but that would favor atheism.

The scientific method is a series of steps, based in rationalism and empiricism. It is used as a method to see whether or not hypotheses represent an accurate model of the universe. The scientific method rests on several logical principles, induction and reductio ad absurdum, are often used. If the scientific method is applied to a hypothesis, and the hypothesis survives, it can be said that it is logically more valid than the hypothesis' negation.

It is often acknowledged that science cannot prove anything 100% true. This is a bit of an exaggeration. There are things that science can, indeed, prove 100% true. But these things are usually trivial. For example, I can prove whether or not the volume, mass, or charge of some particle is a certain value. But the utility of that measurement is nil. Only when I use induction to extrapolate a general rule about the universe does it gain potential usefulness. It is also at that point, that it becomes impossible to prove the statement 100% true, since we are now making a claim about all such particles and it is impossible (either literally or practically) to perform all the measurements required for such proof.

For this argument we will make two such general statements:

"All objects, under only the force of gravity, near the surface of the Earth, will accelerate at 32.2ft/s^2"
"No god exists"

Also, for the purposes of this argument we will address their opposites:

"Not all objects, under only the force of gravity, near the surface of the Earth, will accelerate at 32.2ft/s^2"
"God exists"

The first premise can be reworded as:

"At least one object, under only the force of gravity, near the surface of the Earth, will not accelerate at 32.2ft/s^2"

For simplicity we will assign these premises labels:

O = "All objects, under only the force of gravity, near the surface of the Earth, will accelerate at 32.2ft/s^2"
G = "No god exists"

And:

O' = "At least one object, under only the force of gravity, near the surface of the Earth, will not accelerate at 32.2ft/s^2"
G' = "God exists"

O is an excellent hypothesis for application of the scientific method. It makes a general statement about all objects and how they will behave under certain conditions. That is, it addresses a significantly large number of potential events. Its support will provide us a great deal of knowledge about the universe.

Like all hypotheses tested by the scientific method, it is not 100% provable. In order to prove it 100% true, we would have to measure the rate of acceleration of all objects, everywhere, all the time, since the beginning of the universe, to the end of the universe. Even if that were practical, one could correctly argue that just because all objects did follow O, that does not necessarily mean they had to.

So how do we convert O from a hypothesis to a solid theory if we cannot prove it 100% true? We test it. It cannot be 100% true, but it can be anywhere from 0% to just shy of 100% true. So how do we test it? First, we must determine if it is testable.

That is, there must exist a test that can be performed, or observation that can be made, that has the real possibility of showing that it can be false. This feature is called "falsifiability" and is necessary for all scientific hypothesis and theories to have it.

In the case of O, it is most certainly falsifiable: an object can accelerate at a rate other than 32.2ft/s^2 (while still only being under the influence of gravity near the surface of the Earth). That is very easy to test: drop a bunch of objections and measure the rates at which they accelerate. (If you're clever like Galileo, you can roll them down inclines, which is easier to measure, and achieve the same results)

Essentially, we are genuinely trying to prove the hypothesis false. Each test that has the real possibility of proving the hypothesis false, but doesn't, will increase our confidence in the validity of that hypothesis. By confidence I don't refer to some vague emotion, but that the hypothesis literally becomes truer. The more tests we perform and fail to prove it false, the truer it becomes.

Now, let us consider O'. First of all it is not a good hypothesis in consideration for the scientific method since it only makes a claim on at least one object. Second, it cannot be falsified. Even if we measure all objects to be in accordance with O, that will not be disproof of O'. The advantage it does have, though, is that it can be proven true: observe an object that falls at a different rate than specific in O. So it can be 100% true. But until it is, its truth value is unknown.

A summary comparison of the premises O and O':

O Truth values ranging from 0% to an asymptotic value of 100% (always approaching but never reaching) with the ability to test the theory, thereby increasing its value toward that limit.

O' Truth values are either "Unknown" or 100% with no way to reliably test. (Tests can be performed but are inconclusive unless they prove the theory true).

So, unless O' is proven (which necessarily includes the disproof of O) and we perform tests to increase the truth value of O (even by a slight degree) then we are correct in saying that O is a more true, logical, and scientific premise to hold than O'.

Now we translate that for G and G'. Like O', G' is a statement that cannot be disproved since God can always be claiming to be hiding in some gap somewhere. It can be proven, however, by evidence arising of god's existence. So, like O', G' is either 100% true, or unknown.

This also applies for O and G. G can never be proven 100%, thus its truth values range from 0% to just shy of 100%. The only thing that we need to do is to test G. What test can we perform? While some may see this as an impasse, god is often assigned the attributes of omnipotence and omniscience. In situations where we are dealing with an entity that has neither, then I side with Epicurus when he asks "Then why call him god?" Omniscience and omnipotence remedies this situation and alleviates the need for us to develop a test ourselves. God has the knowledge and power to present the evidence necessary to prove his existence. Our participation is passive, but this is not a problem. Thus all we have to do is sit and observe the universe. Every moment that passes by that is not validation of god's existence increases the validity of G.

In summary:


G Truth values ranging from 0% to an asymptotic value of 100% (always approaching but never reaching) with the ability to test the theory, thereby increasing its value toward that limit.

G' Truth values are either "Unknown" or 100% with no way to reliably test. (Tests can be performed but are inconclusive unless they prove the theory true).

So, unless G' is proven (which necessarily includes the disproof of G) and we perform tests to increase the truth value of G (even by a slight degree) then we are correct in saying that G is a more true, logical, and scientific premise to hold than G'.

Replacing back our original wording:

So, unless god is proven to exist (which necessarily includes disproving his non-existence) and we perform tests to increase the truth of god's nonexistence (even by a slight degree) then we are correct in saying that "God does not exist" is a more true, logical, and scientific premise to hold than "God exists".

Caveats:

First, the scientific method and the process by which a hypothesis becomes a theory are, admittedly, greatly simplified; though I contend I have hit all the major points. There are, of course, other issues that are taken in account (for example, the area that the theory addresses and its potential relationship with other theories, a more thorough analysis of its utility and the ability to test, etc.)

Second, one may wonder why, if the above is true, "God does not exist" is not officially made a scientific theory. This is answered by my previous caveat regarding the other issues. The utility of the hypothesis is nil since science already proceeds without assuming god exists. Furthermore, with actual scientific theories, tests require some sort of quantifiable measurement, even when using mere passive observation.

Third and lastly, even with omniscience and omnipotence we still run into the problem of god's will and some may argue that god can prove his own existence, he simply does not *want* to. This is not an issue for several reasons:

• The god typically involved is the Christian God, which has directly interfered in human affairs, thus cannot claim to not want to prove itself since such interaction would constitute proof.

• That the universe could exist in a fashion contrary to the will of an omnipotent, omniscience entity is nonsensical. As humans we have a keen awareness of the difference between our desires and reality because we lack the ability or knowledge to make them come true. This is not an issue for an entity that knows everything and can do anything. Thus the universe necessarily is what they desire. So, as far as any inhabitants of a universe are concerned, if the a god does not want to be proven, then that god does not exist.

• If god is necessarily worthy of worship, then who are we to disagree if it doesn't want to be proven?