Victor J. Stenger. God and the Folly of Faith: The Incompatibility of Science and Religion. Amherst: Prometheus, 2012. See here to buy the book.
Victor Stenger was a particle physicist, a philosophy professor, and
an atheist. Years ago, I checked out from the library one of his books:
God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist.
But I did not finish the book because, quite frankly, I did not
understand it: it was way over my head. Or it threw a lot of
information at me at once that I had a hard time digesting. Last
Sunday, I saw Stenger’s God and the Folly of Faith at my local
library, and it looked to me like it would be easier for me to
understand. Not only did it look like it would offer a robust and lucid
critique of the cosmological and fine tuning arguments for the
existence of God, but it also went through the history of science, which
I figured might be good for me to know, as someone who may eventually
teach religion. I decided to check out the book, and I finished it
yesterday.
The book was definitely worth reading for the history. While Stenger
ultimately argues that religion has retarded the progress of science,
he does interact with contrary points-of-view. The book had a lot of
the usual atheist critiques of religion that one can find in a variety
of places—-that religion has no evidence for its claims, that the Bible
has problems, and that the religious right is dangerous. But I did
learn things from this book that I either did not know before, or that I
knew vaguely. I learned about how animals can be superstitious, and
how more advanced animals appear to have a sense of morality. I also
learned about studies that indicate that the brain actually acts in a
certain way before humans consciously make decisions, and Stenger
wrestles with the question of whether this means that humans lack free
will.
There was a lot in the scientific parts of the book that were
difficult for me to understand, since the natural sciences are not one
of my areas of aptitude. As for Stenger’s discussion of the Big Bang
and the question of whether the universe had a beginning, which I
somewhat understood, I was not entirely clear about whether or not
Stenger believed that the Big Bang marked the beginning of our
universe. Stenger discussed the Big Bang in seeking to refute the
cosmological argument, the argument that the universe had a beginning
and that God was the beginner of it. On the one hand, Stenger seemed to
argue that the Big Bang was only the beginning of our universe, but
that there could have been previous universes going back infinitely, and
there may be other universes still. On the other hand, Stenger also
seemed to question that the Big Bang even marked the beginning of time
and space (my question: even for our universe?), and he defended the
argument that the Big Bang could have come from a quantum vacuum (which
is something, not nothing) by saying that the universe could have always
existed and did not necessarily have a beginning. Does Stenger define
“universe” differently based on what he is arguing: he means our
universe in some cases, and at other times means everything that exists
and has ever existed?
Stenger addresses the philosophical question of whether there can be
an infinite regress going backwards, for how can we arrive at the
present if the past goes on infinitely? Apologists argue this to say
that the universe and time had to have a beginning, which they attribute
to God. I was satisfied with some of Stenger’s answer to that. He
said that, according to theism, God goes back infinitely, and he
questioned whether creation can occur outside of time, for how can there
be a “before” and “after” creation if it was occurring outside of
time? Ultimately, though, I was not satisfied with how he addressed the
infinite regress. That does not mean that Stenger was unimpressive,
for his scientific arguments may very well hold water, and there may be
natural ways to account for the universe and life. While a lot of his
scientific discussions went over my head, in reading them I was amazed
by how the universe is—-particularly by how time can go forward and
backward. (Stenger says, for example, that we may have tunneled out of a
previous universe, and, from its perspective, it tunneled out of us,
since its time goes backward.)
Stenger is sometimes characterized as one who believes that science
disproves God’s existence. I thought that he believed that when I saw
the title of the first book of his that I checked out: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. He does not seem to go that far, though, at least not in God and the Folly of Faith.
He does not believe that there is proof for God’s existence, or that
God is necessary to explain the universe and life. He says at one point
in the book that, if scientists were to discover God in the future,
then they would believe in him, implying perhaps that he does not
utterly dismiss the possibility, from a scientific perspective. He is
also open about times when science has gotten things wrong in the past,
and yet he prefers an approach that changes with new evidence over the
dogmatism of religion. There are many times, though, when he seems to
maintain that God’s existence is unlikely. If there were a God, would
not there be some evidence for him? And, considering the chance that
exists in our universe, would there be a God who plays dice with the
universe—-who throws the dice and lets what comes up come up, as opposed
to being one who consciously and with forethought designed things the
way that they are? Stenger finds that unlikely.
In my opinion, Stenger’s discussion about morality was probably the
weakest in terms of supporting atheism, and yet I respected him more
after reading it. Stenger does take some good jabs at religion, as when
he points out the apparently immoral parts of the Bible (i.e.,
slavery). Yet he, and also atheist Sam Harris, seem to question whether
evolution can provide a solid explanation for certain aspects of
morality. Ultimately, Stenger settles on saying that, as animals become
more complex, they develop more of a sense of morality, and, for
Stenger, God is not necessary for those animals to become complex
because the simple becoming complex occurs often in nature. Stenger in
this book is critical of giving science to the scientists and giving the
field of morality to religion, for he believes that science has
something to contribute to the field of morality. I agree with him on
this, even if he seemed to acknowledge that science so far has had
limits in providing a foundation for certain aspects of morality.
Stenger has other discussions as well, as he addresses a scientist
who tries to find a scientific explanation for the miracles of Jesus,
the question of whether religion has practical benefits, near death
experiences, and attempts to apply concepts of physics in a spiritual or
New Age direction. Overall, he is skeptical of these things. He does
seem to acknowledge that religion can contribute to a positive attitude
and, in the process, greater physical health, but he also believes that
atheists can be healthy, too. Moreover, he maintains that atheism can
give people a humbler and better sense of their place in the universe.
Religion will still be a part of my life, for it gives me comfort and
direction, but I still found that Stenger made worthwhile points for me
to read.