Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! Tonight, we are continuing our look at the work of Victor Stenger in God: The Failed Hypothesis. We will review the first chapter titled “Models and Methods.”
In this chapter, Stenger lays out the methods that he plans to use to examine the evidence. He mentions good criteria like protocols need to be clear so possibilities of error can be evaluated, the idea being tested must be clearly established prior, the least biased people should be doing the study, the ones making the hypothesis must know how it could be falsified, and results can be independently replicated.
This works great for science, but not necessarily for everything else. What of falsifiability? Can that concept be falsified? What would it mean if it was. There are some principles that cannot be proven wrong by their definition such as the Law of noncontradiction. If you think you have, then you have proven that B is true as opposed to non-B positing a difference between B and non-B which relies on the LNC.
Stenger states when speaking of falsification in fact that God is supposed to be everywhere so if we look inside of a box we should find his, thus confirming his existence, or not find him, refuting his existence.
Yes. He really says that.
It is a category fallacy as we say that God exists but he does not exist as we do and His being everywhere does not mean He is spatially everywhere. He is in all places as He is the cause of that place existing and He is sustaining it. Does Stenger really think we should see that which is immaterial by looking in a box?
Stenger does say that some who want to limit science to natural forces provide “unwitting support for the assumption that science is dogmatically naturalistic.”
I don’t know anyone who assumes that it is. I do know several people, myself included however, who believe that some scientists are dogmatically naturalistic, and I would include Stenger. I have no problem with science being the study of natural causes. Would Stenger tell me what kind of scientific experiments he thinks he could perform on God if he found God’s existence?
Stenger makes the case that many giants in history of science were not dogmatic (Although I could argue that Galileo was). I do agree that science requires being demanding and not believing claims blindly. I do believe it is difficult and requires work. However, none of that rules out that scientists can be dogmatic because they are unaware of their own presuppositions that they bring, which includes Stenger. To be fair, it can include Christian scientists as well.
Stenger asks why a scientist would object to data for the supernatural. I answer that it is more than just a question of the intellect but also of morals and volition. There is no reason that the concept of God would hinder scientific research. If anything, it gives more meaning to it as one comes to discover the glory of God and the pursuit of science becomes a branch of theology in a way studying the greatest mind of all.
Stenger goes on to argue what he believes are some definitional disproofs. The first is the virtue argument. The premise I first disagree with is that God being great includes the greatness of virtue. This is based on Anselmian thought of the greatest possible being. I do believe God is the greatest being there is, but we must have a definition of greatness prior. Aristotleanism gave us that which Aquinas used. This was looked at in our study of the doctrine of God and of goodness based on the Summa. God being a moral agent treats morality as something God ascribes to that is above Him. God is all good and all He does is good but not because He has to do good based on something beyond Himself, but because His own being is goodness and He cannot violate Himself. Hence, I do not believe God has to overcome pain and suffering to be good. He is good by nature.
The next is that of worship and moral agency. Stenger says that no being could be a fitting agent of worship since worship requires the abandonment of one’s role as an autonomous moral agent.
I have no idea where Stenger got that definition from. I find the entire argument incoherent.
Next is the problem of evil. I have written about it elsewhere on this blog, but the problem of evil does not follow from the premises and most atheists have dropped it. Note also Stenger never gives a basis for good or evil.
Next is the argument that all that a perfect creator creates must be perfect, but the universe is not perfect. I recommend seeing the work done on perfection in the Summa here, but that which is totally perfect would have to be its own existence. Everything else is imperfect in someway though it can be perfect according to its mode of being, but it must not be necessarily so.
Stenger’s argument just doesn’t follow.
Stenger also says omnipresence is impossible. A transcendent being cannot exist anywhere in space and an omnipresent one must exist everywhere in it. Stenger just does not know his terms. Transcendent does not physically exist and omnipresence does not require that. God is omnipresent in that He is the cause of the existing of all places.
Stenger’s next argument is that a non-physical being cannot be personal. It would have been nice for him to have given an argument that a requirement of being a person is being physical. None was given.
Finally, the objection of “God cannot create a rock so big he can’t lift it.” That Stenger comes to this level shows how weak his argumentation is. Christian theologians have long said God cannot do nonsense. God is incapable of making contradictions because reality does not function in contradictions.
These are all the disproofs Stenger gives, and he does not deal with the counterarguments for God’s existence at all.
Interestingly, Stenger makes this statement later on:
The elements of scientific models, especially at the deepest level of quantum phenomena, need not correspond precisely to the elements of whatever “true reality” is out there beyond the signals we receive with our senses and instruments.
Paging Immanuel Kant anyone?
And here all this time I thought science had the goal of understanding reality. Stenger’s statement seems to indicate otherwise. Consider this also in light of what Stenger says on the same page:
Metaphysics has surprisingly little use and would not even be worth discussing if we did not have this great desire to understand ultimate reality as best we can.
Yes. The doctrine of being is of little use in understanding existence….
Stenger states that it would not be worth discussing if we did not have this great desire to understand ultimate reality. We do have this great desire however, therefore metaphysics is worth discussing. It would seem then that metaphysics is needed to understand ultimate reality, and yet Stenger says it is of little use.
Stenger tells us also that God models are human inventions. Stenger finds it amazing that so many people in a sophisticated and modern age cling to primitive and archaic images from the childhood of humanity.
First off, I had no idea Aristotle was so primitive.
Second, we also still hold to ideas like the objectivity of truth, the existence of objective moral values, there is a world outside of our minds, evil ought to be punished and good ought to be rewarded, etc. Using a calendar does not refute an argument and Stenger does not understand the arguments he attempts to refute.
But ignorance has never stopped the new atheists.
So Stenger has set forward his method and his models. Unfortuntely, his method doesn’t really apply and his arguments just don’t work. Maybe we’ll see some more substance later on.
We shall continue tomorrow.
Support Deeper Waters on Patreon!
