Month: October 2010

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters, the blog where we dive into the ocean of truth! We’ve lately been going through Victor Stenger’s book “God: The Failed Hypothesis.” Tonight, we’re looking at the chapter on the Uncongenial Universe.

Most of you reading this are probably reading it on a computer assuming someone didn’t print it out for you. It is traveling around the world to reach you, likely as you sit in your own homes with heating and air conditioning, indoor plumbing, and a steady supply of food. Many of you sleep safely and have cars to drive you around. You live your life without major worries of life and death.

That’s not all. There are some exceptions, but by and large, life is usually good. We tend to get around well on this planet and so now having said that, I’m going to start discussing Stenger’s chapter meant to show the bad thinking behind such productions as “The Privileged Planet.”

To which, Stenger had a problem with the Discovery Institute wanting the Smithsonian to show the film. The Smithsonian did eventually, but they did not accept payment. Why is this a problem? Because the sectarian motives of the film were not overtly made known and we sure can’t show religious material.

It’s something that’s rather confusing. Whether you like the Discovery Institute or not, I always thought that science was supposed to be based on the evidence and not the motives behind a worldview. Sure. DI could be entirely wrong, but they are not wrong ipso facto because they could have “religious motivation.”

Of course, if we accepted religious motivation as a standard, we would have to throw out Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, etc. None of these men saw religion as a hindrance to science but rather saw it as a great aid to science, or rather believing in God gave them reason to do science, but that science benefited their religion overall by showing the glory of how the creator created.

The next section to deal with is life in the universe and how common is it. Naturally,we know for sure of no other life, at least life as we know it, beyond ourselves. Often we can be told that this is a cause to not believe in God for if God existed, surely he would not create a universe of just empty space! On the other hand, if there were life on other planets, we can be sure we would be told that this is why we can see how easy it is for life to arise up by natural processes and therefore there is no need for God. The argument can work both ways.

It’s for reasons like that that I prefer other arguments. Now if someone can argue the science well, by all means go for it. I believe Christianity is established on better grounds, but I would hope atheists would at least be consistent.

Stenger in this section tells of how we hear the sun is a typical star, but this isn’t true, and I agree with him on the sun. I disagree with him on how we hear it is a typical star. For his ranting against The Privileged Planet, you’d think he’d know that in the book, a good portion of chapter seven is spent arguing that this is not the case. The writers want to stress that the sun is no ordinary star.

Stenger goes on speaking of the authors of the book to say “The very reasons that Gonzalez and Richards give for Earth being ‘privileged’ make it very unlikely that humans could survive without extensive life support, even on those planets that might otherwise be suitable for some kind of life.”

Why, yes. I do believe that’s what they mean when they say our planet is privileged. The book is called “The Privileged Planet.” It’s not “The Privileged Planets.”

So I suppose Stenger thinks stating the case of Gonzalez and Richards is somehow an argument against them.

Stenger goes on to say:

Obviously, if the physical parameters of our environment were just slightly different, life as we know it on Earth would not have evolved here.

Note: This is something obvious. You should obviously know that life being here as it is is something unique and incredible.

Last I checked, That’s what DI is saying.

Stenger goes on to explain this however that since the universe contains so many planets, we would expect one of them to have life. We just happen to live on that planet!

Earlier, Stenger had gone after Hugh Ross for mentioning the probabilities of factors of our universe that make it unlikely that we are an accident and increases the likelihood of theism. Stenger said that Ross did not give a probability of divine design itself being right or wrong however.

Yet when Stenger gives a probability here, he can say “Pretty good” and that counts.

The claim of Ross and others is not a God of the Gaps argument. Instead, it is saying that God has explanatory power because there’s reason to believe there is a God behind it since there are marks of intelligence. Ross is not positing God because he is stumped on life. He is positing God based on positive evidence.

As for Stenger, he has given the problem Richard Swinburne spoke of. Swinburne asks us to imagine ourselves sentenced to death. We are tied to a post and blindfolded and before us are one hundred sharpshooters with laser sights on their rifles. At the command of “Fire!”, they shoot. If something goes wrong, it is considered justice that we can go free.

So you are there and you hear the command and you hear one hundred rifles go off. However, you realize you have not lost consciousness. Someone comes and undoes your blindfold and your ropes and you find out that while the guns went off, somehow, you didn’t die. A friend later sees you and comments on your luck to which you say “Nothing lucky about it. Surely sometime all of them would miss!”

If you said that, your friend would rightfully find you crazy. We all know that the reason one hundred of them would miss is because of some intelligence wanting them to miss. Maybe they were all given blanks or maybe they were all bribed. Either way, it wouldn’t just happen. That’s the point. To say “We just happen to be on the right planet” is to come up with an excuse. We are wondering if there is a why as to why we are on the right planet. Now it could be this is a fluke, but the more evidence we can find, the more that will seem unlikely.

Now Stenger goes on to discuss fine-tuning, to which I think in the examples, he more indicates fine-tuning than goes against it. I will not argue the points however since that is in the area of physics and I am not a student of physics. I study philosophy, theology, and history. Thus, let us move ahead to the parts where he discusses theology and philosophy.

To begin with, he speaks of waste, which is again implying a theology. It is saying that if God existed, he would surely have planted life on all these planets. To have waste however is to have something not fitting its purpose, to which Stenger never gives the purpose. As for an example of waste, Stenger says “Why would God send his only son to die an agonizing death to redeem an insignificant bit of carbon.”

Now maybe I’m mistaken on this, but Stenger has said that Sam Harris started writing because of 9/11 and the new atheists are worried about the dangers religion brings. I wish I had known earlier that these dangers were simply dangers to an insignificant bit of carbon. That’s a good question then Stenger! Why should anyone care if all we are is an insignificant bit of carbon?

Of course, it could be we are not, and that could be based on the belief that man is more than just the material that makes him up. There is something in humanity that is inherently good and this is not based on just his material. It is based on his very existence. Man is not insignificant. In fact, the biblical view says just the opposite. Man is that who bears the image of God.

Stenger goes on to tell of how the universe bears no resemblance to what is described in Genesis. Genesis tells of Earth as a flat and immovable circle at the center of a firmament or vault of fixed stars, circled by the sun, moon, and planets.

I wonder what translation Stenger is reading. I don’t see that. Of course, these are the people who complain about people who take the Bible literally and whenever it comes their time to interpret the text, they always interpret it literally. Never mind that we could actually try to understand the historical context, the words used, the way knowledge was communicated, etc.

With reasoning like this, it’s a wonder if any of the new atheists could ever pass a class on literature.

Continuing his bad theology, Stenger says:

In fact, when you think of it, why would an infinitely powerful God even need six days? Wouldn’t he have the ability to make everything in an instant? And, why would he have to rest when it was all done?

There are times it’s hard for me to imagine how someone could be more ignorant of his opponents’ views while writing against them.

To begin with Stenger, you’re not the first to think this. Augustine himself knew that God didn’t need six days. He believed in an instantaneous creation. Why six days then? (I am not at this point discussing if they were literal 24-hour days or long periods of time) God need not do everything immediately simply because He can. I would argue that God was getting the Earth ready for life and using a gradual process rather than an instant one. I would also point to poetical ideas in the first chapter. For instance, in the first three days, the habitats are made and in the corresponding last three days, they are inhabited. An excellent look on this can be found in the book “The Genesis Debate.”

Why rest? That is not to be taken literally but to show the importance of taking time out from work. The Jews were commanded to do this. It was a time to appreciate what was done. Stenger takes this text literally and thus creates a straw man. I do not know of any evangelical, young-earth or old-earth, who would say God literally needed to rest because He was tired.

Maybe Stenger could point me to them.

In conclusion, I see Stenger again as unfamiliar with what he critiques and I am left once again believing that the Earth is designed and in fact, Stenger has given me more reason to think such.

We shall continue tomorrow.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! We’ve lately been reviewing some of Victor Stenger’s books and tonight, we’re dealing with chapter 4 of “God: The Failed Hypothesis” on the case of cosmic evidence.

This chapter is a search of the cosmos for evidence of God’s existence and it right off starts with miracles. Now I would think a chapter like this should have started with a discussion of the cosmos, but okay. Stenger claims that cosmological evidence should show evidence of well-established laws of nature or a causal ingredient not understandable in material or natural means alone.

To begin with, why should there necessarily be miracles throughout the history of the cosmos in order for God to exist. Is Stenger saying that if there are no miracles, there is no God? A deist would have just said “Of course there are no miracles, but there is still God.” This is not science then but theology. It is saying that if God exists, He must act in such and such a way and to say how He must act is theology. As for whether the universe itself needs a cause, we’ll look into that as we go on.

So let’s do that. The first is the creation of matter. Stenger tells us that matter can be created out of energy and disappear into energy. Where does energy come from? Stenger does grant that it has to come from somewhere. Stenger doesn’t say where. He just says that the positive and negative energies in the universe cancel each other out. Once again, the question is where did those energies come from? Stenger doesn’t say. Instead, that the universe is so finely balanced seems to argue more for an intelligence than anything else.

What about order? Stenger tells us that since we have a universe starting in a Big Bang, then there wasn’t order. It started as chaos and then turned to order.

However, Stenger is again doing theology. Upon what basis does he argue that God must begin with everything orderly instead of God using laws of physics to bring order to the universe? Why must God create the exact way Stenger wants Him to create to exist? Stenger should keep in mind the title “Big Bang” was at first a pejorative title for the theory. This wasn’t a chaotic explosion but an orderly event.

Does the universe have a beginning? Most of us use the Kalam argument to demonstrate that and we use the horizontal version (Although I prefer the vertical one). The argument includes the point that if the universe existed for an infinite number of moments in the past, we would never reach today because we would have completed an infinite number of moments and an infinite set can’t be completed.

Stenger’s answer is that we can always have one event precede another and one event come after another.

This is why people who do physics should stick to physics instead of philosophy. Stenger doesn’t even get the point that it is being argued that an infinite set can’t be completed. To say “We can add one more before that” does not deal with the Kalam argument

Stenger also gives us the syllogism for the Kalam argument.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Stenger tells us that William Lane Craig, famous for defending this argument, takes the first premise to be self-evident. He also says Craig does this with no justification other than common every day experience. This is the same experience that teaches us that the world is flat. In reality, events at the atomic and subatomic level are observed to have no evident cause.

First off, anyone who has actually read Craig notes that Craig is well-aware of objections to the first premise and defends against them. Many Christians have read the Lee Strobel books and this is an argument that Craig even deals with in “The Case For A Creator.” That Stenger is unaware of this indicates to me he hasn’t really read Craig’s material.

Second, common experience teaches us many beliefs that we hold to be true that we would be hard-pressed to prove. For instance, I believe there is a world outside of my mind and I believe that matter is real. I believe it’s self-evident that it’s wrong to torture innocent children for fun. To say that common experience is not a good teacher is simply false. It is where most of us learn our most basic beliefs.

Third, Stenger is again falling for this flat Earth myth which shows me just what kind of researcher he is when he steps out of his field. Aristotle taught the Earth was a sphere. The ancient Greeks knew it well. The medieval church continued the tradition. However, we have known for some time that Stenger is a man of faith.

Finally, to say that the events at the atomic and subatomic level have no evident cause is not the same as to say they are uncaused. Either causality, a principle we’ve understood for years, is in error, or else we are lacking in our understanding of a field that’s still relatively new. I’ll wager for the latter.

Stenger asks that even if the universe is caused, why does that cause have to be something other than a natural cause? That’s the point however. The argument is that nature itself needs a cause and nothing is self-caused. Not only that, matter is always in a state of potential moving from one mode of existence to another. It has limited existence and not pure existence. It is limited by something greater than itself. We have covered this in our look at simplicity in our study of the doctrine of God in the Summa.

Stenger eventually gets us to where the laws of physics came from. What’s his explanation? I’ll quote him here.

“They came from nothing!”

Hard to believe Christians are supposed to have the absurd position when Stenger believes laws can just come into existence from non-existence. I am even more amazed that some people find this to be an explanation. Let me spell something out Stenger. Nothing is non-existence and it is incapable of causing anything.

Why is there something rather than nothing? Stenger comes to this question and quotes a philosopher who says the answer is “There has to be something.” Why? Why does there have to be anything?

Stenger asks about conceptual problems. How do we speak of nothing. What are its properties? This has already been answered. Nothing is non-existence. It does not have properties. It has no causal power, aside from in the atheist universe where apparently it can somehow make everything.

Stenger also asks why is there God instead of nothing? The answer is that God is the basis of existence itself because He is being without limits. God’s existence is not caused but rather He is His existence. His unawareness of history answering this objection or even presenting any arguments shows me the lack of research on Stenger’s part.

Stenger instead tells that the transition from nothing-to-something is a natural one because nothing is instable. Again, it isn’t. It is just nothing. You cannot say what nothing is other than describing it as nothing. However, for Stenger, that something exists is evidence enough that there is no God.

Because if there was a God, there would obviously be nothing…..

Except God is something…..

We shall have to see if the rest of the work is more pleasing> For now, Stenger just gives cop-outs and has lazy research on his topic. Let him stick to physics, for he cannot do philosophy or theology.

We shall continue tomorrow.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! We’ve lately been looking at the work of Victor Stenger, one of the new atheists. Tonight, we’re looking at the chapter of “Searching For A World Beyond Matter.”

As is normal for Stenger, we have the usual problem of a lack of sources. For instance, Stenger said that the ancients believed the heart was the center of being and intelligence. Now it could be that this is the case. I’d be willing to grant it for the sake of argument. However, he gives no sources. For a man who raises a battle cry against blind faith, he expects his readers to have blind faith in what he says.

For Stenger, the ancient view of man began to change around the time of Descartes. Once that was done, Europe abandoned blind obedience to authority that had stifled progress for centuries. Instead, people began to rely more on empirical data.

This isn’t really the case. Aristotle was an empiricist and Aquinas followed that tradition. It was around this time that some began to complain against empiricism. Descartes himself was a rationalist. Authorities were also not followed blindly. The teachings that had been handed down had worked for years.

Consider Stenger in his own field. Is it likely that most physicists today have read Ptolemy’s Almagest or works of Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton? It’s quite unlikely, and in some ways, understandable. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Most scientists want to read the latest work in their fields that can be found in their journals and work is built on the foundation of the great scientists of the past.

Philosophy is based on principles more and these are the principles of thinking that tend to trace back to either Plato or Aristotle. There are two competing schools of thought with variations in between them. In theology, it is important to read the ancient texts of the deity one worships and older can be better.

Science on the other hand was not held back. People just did not have the resources or finances to do science until some practical issues were dealt with. These included agriculture and medicine. Knowing the motion of the planets just wasn’t relevant to someone who had little leisure time and simply wanted to keep his family alive.

Going through this chapter, much of what is said isn’t relevant to our purposes until we get to the studies on prayer. Now I will grant I am skeptical of these prayer studies because I do not believe a free-will agent such as God is required to act in such and such a way. However, I also disagree with Stenger that God does not exist based on these studies.

To begin with Stenger, tells us that published findings showing prayer has a positive value have been found unconvincing. He simply points to another book of his to demonstrate this. No reason otherwise is given. It would have been nice to have seen somewhat of an argument.

The numerous problems are ones such as we cannot control all the people praying. Different people are praying for people even if they are not in a “prayed-for” group. These people surely know some other people who are praying for them. You might find one or two who don’t, but it’s likely most people today know a Christian who is praying for them, especially in America where these studies often take place or other developed nations.

Second, God is not forced to answer any prayer and his refusal to do so says nothing about His existence or non-existence. God’s existence is best established by sound argument rather than by experiments of this nature. I believe Christians should stick to the traditional arguments.

Finally, prayer’s greatest benefit will not be seen in the miraculous healing, but in the changing of lives. Prayers may not always change external circumstances, but they will change our relationship to those circumstances. They can change us more than they change the world. Growing in holiness is the best purpose of prayer.

Much of the case showing Stenger’s problems with Near-death experiences and the existence of the soul I have written about elsewhere. I recommend the reader go here

We shall review the next chapter tomorrow.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are continuing to dive into the ocean of truth! We’re continuing our look at Victor Stenger’s book “God: The Failed Hypothesis.” Our subject tonight will be the second chapter, “The Illusion of Design.”

Early on, Stenger has a great section on how before the age of science, religious belief was based on faith, tradition, Scriptures, and teachings of holy men and women specifically selected by God. However, science began to erode these teachings such as a flat Earth and the planet being at the center of a firmament of stars and planets. People then began to look to science for proof of a supreme being apart from revelation.

It’s a fascinating paragraph. What’s most interesting about it is how wrong it is. As we saw in the other book, Stenger has a problem when speaking on history that he does not use sources. He tells a story, and this story is just wrong.

For instance, the theologians of the early church and the medieval period were willing to use reason to make their case without Scriptures. This is not to deny they saw authority in the Scriptures and in the teachers that came before them. Indeed, every field recognizes authorities in that field. Stenger’s own field would recognize Einstein and Newton as authorities to not take lightly. Hear for instance what Thomas Aquinas said in the second chapter of the first book of Summa Contra Gentiles:

Secondly, because some of them, as Mohammedans and Pagans, do not agree with us in recognising the authority of any scripture, available for their conviction, as we can argue against the Jews from the Old Testament, and against heretics from the New. But these receive neither: hence it is necessary to have recourse to natural reason, which all are obliged to assent to. But in the things of God natural reason is often at a loss.

If I debate with a Jehovah’s Witness, that person recognizes the New and Old Testament as an authority so I can use that. For the Jew, it is just the Old Testament and I can use that. For the Muslim, atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, etc., it would be reason or any holy book of theirs that I could use.

But what does Aquinas mean to say natural reason is at a loss? It is not that natural reason is bad. It is that it requires much reasoning to reach the knowledge of God and few have the time or intellectual power to do it. Aquinas does go on to give reasons for belief apart from the New Testament.

Second, Stenger believes in the flat earth myth. The truth is, the church knew the Earth wasn’t flat. The ancient Greeks knew it. The medievals knew it. Most people could even tell you its circumference. How? It wasn’t from the holy books, but from using science. In Article 1, Question 1, of the Summa Theologica, we have an example of this:

Sciences are differentiated according to the various means through which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e. abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself. ,/blockquote.

Atheists have been spreading this myth for so long that they’ve come to believe it themselves.

Did they believe Earth was at the center? Yes. They got that from Aristotle and at the time, it was good science. The Ptolemaic system worked and it worked well. Copernicus’s objections were not only questioning the understanding of Earth but that of motion. It took time for the new idea to be accepted and this is the way changes take place in science. An excellent look at this is Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.”

However, the center was also not a good place to be. God was seen in Aristotlean thought as on the outer edges. At this point in time, Aristotle had been practically canonized. Galileo’s most difficult battles were not fought with the church but with the secularists of the day who were accusing him of bad science and frankly, the evidence wasn’t there at the time. We can say now that Galileo was right, but we cannot say a theory in the past should have been accepted by modern standards. The question is if those people at that time had sufficient evidence to believe the new theory and they didn’t.

Finally, what evidence does Stenger have of people using science to try to prove a supreme being as if it was the final authority? When did this happen? Who were the minds behind this? Stenger gives no examples. The reason he doesn’t is most likely that he has none.

Stenger of course brings up Paley and then counters with Darwin, to which I have the same objection. A different instrumental cause does not prove a different efficient cause. Now I do not believe God used macroevolution to achieve His purposes, but if He did, my faith would not be damaged.

Stenger also says the Bible describes creatures being made in fixed and immutable forms. It would have been nice to have seen a verse of Scripture that actually teaches this. None is given. It is the idea of fixism that was replaced by Darwin’s idea. The idea was based more on philosophy than on Scripture however.

The movement of ID does not depend on fixism either. It would not even necessitate the destruction of macroevolutionary theory. It simply says that it could be that there is a guiding intelligence involved and if so, we can look at the world around us as the result of intelligence and seek to understand why things are the way they are, which is the question of teleology. Now teleology exists in some extent already in macroevolutionary theory in the idea of survival of the fittest.

The solution then is to look at the claims and realize science cannot rule out the idea of a designer. Let sides present their case in science labs and not in courtrooms as has recently been the case. To bring the court into this is to say that what is to be considered science should be determined by someone outside of the field of science. If the idea is bad, it will surely die out a natural death. In the meantime, it will raise objections that will help the true side. If the idea is good however, it will open up further ideas of research and I would add could make those of a more religious nature prone to enter science and enrich it with their ideas.

Stenger also writes about those who think simple organisms cannot explain the complex lifeforms we have today. He writes that “Simplicity easily begets complexity in the world of locally interacting particles.” Fair enough. I’ll grant it for the sake of argument. I just want to know if Stenger is willing to take this to the realm of metaphysics.

If he is, then he will need to dismiss Dawkins’s 747 argument against God’s existence, that God must be very complex to have all the attributes He has. Dawkins assumed a material understanding of God. If Stenger thinks God must be complex, I will ask him the metaphysical basis for such a statement. What is his training in that field and his qualifications?

In talking about complex specified information, Stenger says that Dembski can walk into his garden and see petals on a flower that follow the Fibonacci sequence and realize that this came about by a natural process.

Dembski would easily answer however that this is begging the question. Stenger says there is no God and there is complex specified information. How did it come about? Simple. It came about by natural processes. How do we know this? There is no God. In fact, I think Dembski could in fact thank Stenger for giving an example of intelligent design and how there is then an intelligent designer behind the universe since so much follows a mathematical code.

Stenger believes that simple rules are enough. Now I do not believe that to be the case, but I will grant it. He then says that for these, at most, a simple rule maker of limited intelligence is required.

I wonder how he would respond to someone who said this. “I am an atheist, but I believe that outside of the universe there is a simple rule maker of limited intelligence.” If Stenger wants to start at just that level, I’ll take it. My theism is still around then, but atheism is not.

Stenger also brings up bad design and says how a properly designed human should look. The question is “properly designed for what purpose?” To ask if something is properly designed assumes that there is a purpose for which that thing is designed. To speak of improper design is even to speak of proper design. Stenger is bringing in teleology and to bring in teleology is to bring in God. Also, if Stenger does not know the purpose to man, how can he speak of humans being designed wrong? If he says there is no purpose, then how they’re designed doesn’t really matter.

Stenger concludes saying that the universe looks exactly as it would be expected to look if there was no God. How does he make this comparison statement however? Does he know of a universe where there is God and he can then compare? Stenger has earlier used the idea of fixism, but could it be Stenger is a victim of his own theology?

That’s right. Even atheists have a theology. They have an idea of the kind of God they disbelieve in. This God possesses certain attributes and does not possess others. As soon as Stenger says “If God exists, he would do things X way,” then he is arguing theology and not science and I can say “Very well. Now let’s look at theology and philosophy and see how good your idea is.”

For someone who is wanting to use science to disprove, Stenger is really slipping in more presuppositions than anything else. That is the problem with his worldview. It is not the science. It is the presuppositions that he brings with that science that is really driving the science.

Stenger has claimed to show the illusion of design, but in reality, he has not made an argument against design, but made the illusion of an argument.

We shall continue tomorrow.

Share this:

• Print
• Email
• Facebook
• Reddit
• Tumblr
• Twitter
• Pinterest
• Pocket

Like this:

Like Loading...

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.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! Tonight, we’re going to start another book of Victor Stenger’s. This time, we’re looking at “God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist.”

You know it’s going to be fun when the title is even a category fallacy.

That, of course, is something we’re going to get into.

To begin with, Stenger wants to make the case be entirely scientific. He says that philosophy and science have played their roles, but science has sat on the sidelines. I agree in some ways. However, that is because of what science is. Science isn’t capable of settling the debate once and for all either way. I don’t think theists can use science to prove God. I don’t think atheists can use science to disprove God. That doesn’t mean science is useless in the debate. Inferences can be drawn. An atheist can infer from what he believes to be a sound case from macroevolution to atheism being true. I don’t think that’s sound, but he can. The believer in Intelligent Design can infer from that a designer, which I do think is more sound since the ID believer is positing intelligence and the case of macroevolution does not rule out intelligence.

This is my first problem with Stenger. Stenger places science over these areas which happens to be the problem of American culture today. It is assumed that the scientists are the ones who know the best and religious people are those who know the least. Granted, many religious people have abandoned the intellectual grounds of their faith, but for those of us who bear the name of Christ, that is not because of a command of Christ but of not following the command of Christ. I’m not saying we should all be intellectuals. We’re not all meant to be. I’m saying we can all however know what we believe and why and realize blind faith is not even faith at all and is certainly not a virtue.

Stenger says he is aware that sophisticated theologians have developed highly abstract concepts of a god they claim to be consistent with the teachings of their faith. Stenger says that this can be abstracted enough to be beyond the realm of scientific investigation, but your average believer won’t recognize this deity.

First off, we do not just have sophisticated concepts of God, but also arguments for them. For many people for instance, when they read about how Aquinas believed God is simple, they just assume that he just thought that up without any reason whatsoever. At this point, I don’t care if Aquinas was right about what he said, even though he was. I care that he did have reasons for believing what he believed and that was based also on his epistemology. He argued like a philosopher.

Second, the church has not had a history of ignoring science. I also don’t just mean that they saw science as a threat. They didn’t. They saw science as an aid to understanding the glory of God in creation. When philosophers made arguments for God, it was not because they were afraid of the realm of science.

Third, Stenger should really not be seeking to just speak to the typical believer, which is a point I was getting to last night with the new atheists not wanting to take on the toughest arguments but appeal to only those who do not know their faith well. Throughout the works of the new atheists, you will consistently find that they do not interact with what their opponents say. They consistently make the same mistakes, such as none of them has a valid definition of faith that is based on a study of the ancient languages.

Stenger’s case in fact is built entirely on the God of the Gaps. He states that “If God exists, he must appear somewhere within the gaps of scientific models.”

Why think this however? It is as if to say that if Shakespeare does not appear in any gaps in his plays, then he does not exist. This doesn’t mean that God cannot step in, but there is no requirement that says that he must. For instance, a deistic concept of God is still God and it would not be ruled out.

In fact, for centuries, Christians doing science were pleased when they filled in the gaps and saw more of the glory of God. Consider what Proverbs 25:2 says:

It is the glory of God to conceal a matter;
to search out a matter is the glory of kings.

I have several times seen the question of atheists of why doesn’t God do something like tell us immediately all that we need to know. He doesn’t because part of the joy for us is discovering more about Him. This is also for those who want to know Him. I do not wish to enter the debate about the so-called hiddenness of God, but for early Christian scientists, they believed that they were revealing further the glory of God by doing their science. For too many atheists, showing an instrumental cause is the same as disproving an efficient cause.

Stenger’s main point isn’t even valid in the Preface. I will condemn a God-of-the-gaps mentality just as much. I am against it in the sense that because we have an unknown, we should not automatically try to put God in. However, this does not rule out that God could be what does fill in some gaps. I don’t think there’s wrong in thinking that. I think there’s wrong in thinking that without having sufficiently examined alternative explanations. It does no harm to God considering those of us who are theists have good reasons to uphold his existence such as the existence/essence argument, the argument from beauty, the moral argument, the kalam cosmological argument, etc. or we can believe in times that he did act in the past with sufficient and justified reason such as the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

But it would not be sufficient to just end here and say “Thus, we have no reason to read further.” By all means, let us let Stenger make his case, but as he wishes to examine the data as a scientist, so we wish to examine the inferences he makes from the data as philosophers and theologians.

Let the challenge begin.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! Sorry about last night, but I had some business that I needed to take care of. If the blog doesn’t come up, there’s no need to assume the worst. Tonight, I’d like to give my conclusions after reading Stenger’s book on the future of atheism.

I see the future of atheism as bleak, and this is largely based on the work of the new atheists. The new atheists come at their topic being unfamiliar with the arguments hoping to prey on a people who are unsuspecting and do not know why they believe what they believe well. It is banking on the ignorance of man.

This is also because of the age of the internet. In many ways now, the internet has been good to us. We do have ready access to much information and one can read scholarly articles online. It is also a good place to have the public exchange of ideas, such as how this blog reaches an audience through Theologyweb.com as well.

However, it has also been said that when ignorance meets ignorance, you simply get more ignorance. This is often why our Bible studies don’t go well as we just sit around and discuss what the text means to us. How many Bible studies get at what the text means? How many sermons really dig into the meat of the Word rather than just go straight to application?

On the internet, this happens often through wikipedia and youtube. With Wiki, anyone can edit anything and ignorance can become fact easily. Who wrote that article? You don’t know. Now I will look at wiki at times for simple basics or at things in the entertainment industry, but not for a real scholarly debate.

YouTube can be a tool for good, but you need to look at who’s making the video? Do they have the credentials that they need? Are their arguments sound? Remember, the presentation of the argument can blind you to the actual argument. This is a way the images can come to do your thinking for you.

In a culture of such ignorance, I think the new atheists will reach some. However, the more informed people are the ones who will not buy into their argumentation. I’m not saying that’s only theists. I admire the atheists who have the guts to come out and say the new atheists are hurting the cause of atheism, and I have seen some atheists write and speak about how bad the books of the new atheists are, and I’m grateful.

Lest anyone misunderstand me, such ignorance is also bad from the theistic perspective, as I’ve hoped to show in speaking about our Bible studies and about our sermons. Too many theists have based their whole worldview on how they feel. In fact, that is where our culture is going entirely. We often make the most important decisions of all based on nothing but feeling.

The problem with the new atheists is not only that they do not know theism. I also do not think they know atheism. An atheist like Nietzsche if he were around today would be tough as nails on the new atheists. He would tell them to get rid of this silly idea they have of morality being a reality apart from God. I disagree with Nietzsche’s conclusions, but he at least had the guts to stand by them.

The new atheists pull ideas of morality and truth out in the air without anything to support them. In this, they make the same error Christians can make. They do not argue at the level of presuppositions. They argue at the level of application. They take as a given morality and objective truth and the knowability of the world through rational means. They do not give a framework for these.

This is also what is done with the problem of evil. The debate does not even start with the basis of good and evil. Instead, the new atheists just assume that something is evil. In many cases, I will agree with them. When they speak of murder done in the name of Christ, I agree that that is evil. I just ask if there is a basis for that.

This is also why so many debates are so simplistic. Consider the creation/evolution debate. It is assumed by many in the debate that if evolution is true, then Christianity is false. I am not a scientist, but I know enough to know that evolution is not the end of the story and it’s a mistake for atheists and theists to think it is. I have no problem with atheists being critical of movements like ID or Christians being questionable of evolutionary theory. We need to examine the reasons.

This also applies with miracles. The atheists often make the case that these are the accounts of people who were superstitious and believed anything. If you begin with the presupposition of naturalism, of course a miracle is going to be ridiculous. That presupposition is what needs to be discussed. Someone is not foolish for believing in a miracle. You could make the case for them being foolish for believing in a miracle blindly.

Stenger thinks the future looks good for atheism. I disagree. I see it more as a knee-jerk reaction to a theism that is not satisfying, and that is the fault of those of us who are Christians at times as well. We Christians need to be living the light, but we need to do more than live it. We need to know it. A faith that is devoid of content and simply a list of rights and wrongs is not going to convert the world.

My call to Stenger and the new atheists and myself and fellow Christians and other theists is to return to the debate. Books like those of the new atheists do not take the debate seriously. The new atheists do not interact with the material and that will be their downfall. Whether it comes at the hands of theists or other atheists, I do not know, but those who treat the new atheists as serious debaters simply do not know the debate, and they only drag it down to a polemical level.

Tomorrow, we shall start a new book.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! Tonight, we’re going to do the final chapter in Victor Stenger’s book “The New Atheism: Taking A Stand For Science And Reason.” In this chapter, Stenger looks at the future of atheism.

I recall the words Ravi Zacharias said once that he got from an unnamed professor of his. Ravi stated that prediction is always difficult, especially about the future.” Stenger and I predict very different things about the future. I will give mine another day, but for now, let us spend our time examining his.

To begin with, Stenger starts with a history of religion. He tells of how supernatural forces were invoked as leaders sought to control the people. What’s missing? You guessed it! Sources! Stenger gives a just-so story that does not have any documentation and sounds more like a Freudian idea (Which has no backing) than any actual reading of history (Of course, we already know if he had read scholars of history, he would not treat the Christ-myth idea seriously).

Stenger also tells us that religion and morality have always gone hand in hand, but is this the case? The Greeks, for instance, believed in objective moral values, but never seemed to tie them to God. Their gods were often just as depraved as they were, if not more so! Such happened also with gods in other religions. More often, it was about power more than morality. When Sennacherib marches against Judah for instance, he says it is because God told him to. It was the drive for territory and power rather than the goal of being a righteous people.

Stenger instead relies on the social contract idea and says that religion often leads to the breakdown of the conflict. Any examples given? Not one. The problem with social contract theories is that the only reason I should abide by them is that I don’t want to get punished. It’s not because I seek the good of my fellow man. If I can do X and get away with it, then why not?

What about the reformer’s dilemma? What happens when someone wants to change the contract for how we live. Gandhi did. Martin Luther King Jr. Did. The abolitionist movement did. Yet each of these are seen as heroes and if we see ourselves as better, then we have a standard outside of the contract we are pointing to.

Morality without a referent is flawed. Anyone can change the rules at any time and no change is better or worse than another change. In theis, there is a transcendent basis that says that man is good because he exists and existence is good because that is the very nature of God.

How does one live without religion? Stenger tells us that we make our own meaning and meaning, value, and purpose are human ideas. Does he really believe this? Did Charles Manson and Timothy McVeigh and others make their own meaning by determining what lives were of value? If I decide that life has no purpose, then who is to say that I am wrong if that is a human idea? If it has no purpose, why not obliterate my neighbor rather than love him? Now I could instead love him. There’d be no reason to do so. There’d be no reason to not do so. It’d just be something to do.

What about Stenger’s own words? Can I determine my own meaning for them? Could I close the book and say “Stenger wishes we were all theists and thinks atheism is bankrupt!” We rightly decry the postmodern movement, but could it be that the postmodern movement is, as Nietzsche saw, the logical outworking of man’s murdering God?

In talking about religious views, Stenger says it is not coherent to kill for your religious beliefs. Now I do agree my Christianity condemns the taking of innocent life, but if Stenger believes that killing for religious beliefs is incoherent, I’d like to know why. I’m not saying it is. I’m just wondering if he could make an argument for it. The only way would be to describe a way that the universe is in a moral sense and a way we ought to act in response in an obligatory sense. His worldview denies both of those!

In reply to evil, Stenger says the big questions of evil are not answered by theism. Now I believe they are, but my question to him is, are they by atheism? What answer does atheism give? Bertrand Russell once asked what a Christian will say by the bedside of a dying child. That’s a good question! Here’s one that was asked in reply by William Lane Craig. What will Bertrand Russell say?

One reason for adopting a worldview should be the explanatory power that it possesses. If you are going to adopt atheism as your worldview, you need to do so because it can answer questions others can’t. If atheism has no such answers, then I would say be an agnostic instead. It’s far more reasonable.

In summarizing the new atheism, Stenger again repeats the mantra that faith is believing something without evidence. As we have shown, this proves that Stenger is a man of faith since he believes his definition of faith even though he has given no evidence to support it.

Stenger also says many biblical practices such as slavery and the subjugation of women are immoral by modern standards. Now we could argue what slavery is in the biblical period and I think Stenger would come up dreadfully short on what he thinks the Bible is talking about. The most in-depth review online can be found here . I also recommend the book by Walter Kaiser “Towards Old Testament Ethics.” Subjugation of women will wait for the next book we review.

What I’d like to comment on however is this idea of modern standards being the source. By this standard, we can simply say everyone else is wrong because they’re different. It is congratulating yourself for reaching a goal and that goal is defined by the place you’re at. Who says modern man is right? Now he could be, but he could also not be and we can’t know unless we have something beyond modern man.

Ironically, Stenger next says that this shows that morality is not constant but evolves with time. Evolves to what? Are we reaching some goal? But if that is the case, then this is no longer naturalistic evolution as that would exclude a final cause, especially in the area of morality. We could agree that morality is changing, but without a standard, it is doing just that. It is not changing for better or for worse. It is just changing.

Finally, Stenger says that religious believers are driven by fear. Stenger reveals more about himself than about his opponents. My life is not lived in the fear of God but the joy of the adventure of learning more every day. I wonder how many religious people Stenger has really talked to to come to this conclusion. I know his research has been lacking, but when I meet someone who is Christian and driven by fear, they are definitely the anomaly.

Stenger has hope for the new atheism. What’s my response to the future of the new atheism?

That will be in my conclusion tomorrow.