Questions on Science and Religion

[rug]

The following is an interview that will appear in the book How to Prove God Does Not Exist by Trevor Treharne, to be released in September by Universal Publishers.

Posted: 06/11/2012 9:44 am
Victor Stenger.
Physicist, Ph.D., bestselling author, author of 'God and the Folly of Faith'

What is the fundamental conflict between science and religion? Is it one that will never be resolved?

The two have opposing views on what constitutes reality. Science finds no need to include any substance beside matter in order to describe our observations of the world. Religion holds that there is a world beyond matter. Religion claims it has a way of obtaining knowledge that is separate from the scientific method of observation and experiment. The religious believe that we have an inner faculty of some sort that enables us to learn about the world, the universe, and reality without such observation. It is hard to see the two ever resolving this conflict.

One of your more recent books, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, is certainly a timely one based on how common that argument is currently proving. What is your summary on what is wrong with the fine-tuning arguments?

As I have said before, the universe is not fine-tuned for us--we are fine-tuned to the universe. I claim that the statements made about fine-tuning are not accurate. When theists talk about something being fine-tuned to one part in ten or a hundred orders of magnitude, they are simply incorrect. If you look more closely at the physics and cosmology, you will see that there is plenty of room to vary their various parameters and still maintain some kind of life. Our form of life is certainly sensitive to the parameters and if the parameters of the universe were different, our form of life wouldn't exist; I agree with that. But our form of life is not the only form of life one can imagine.

www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/questions-on-science-and-_b_1585151.html

I look forward to the proof that God does not exist.

[Shadowflash]

1. There is no way to prove God doesn't exist

Not anymore than you can 'prove' that the invisible, intangible and unusually quiet dragon in my garage doesn't exist. I say he does and you cannot prove otherwise. Please PROVE to me that there is NOT a heard of goats grazing in the grass in a hidden cavern deep beneath the surface of the moon.

However if we are talking about using credible and verifiable evidence to show such a thing is unlikely, that's another story entirely.

[cbayer]

2. Another philosopher/physicist who thinks he holds the truth.

Couldn't be less interested in his book, but that's just me.

[edhopper]

4. Since I never

heard anyone from any religion claim to have THE TRUTH.

[cbayer]

5. Of course you have. What's your point?

[edhopper]

6. You seemed to be criticizing him

for making statements about his understanding of the Universe backed by the science and evidence he is proficient with.
Do you similarly condemn the religious folk who make statements about the "truth".

[cbayer]

9. No, I am criticizing him for making statements about his understanding

of god, for which there is not scientific evidence either for or against.

And yes, I do similarly condemn anyone who insists that they hold the truth regarding the existence or non-existence of god(s) - particularly when they say there is only one way.

[longship]

10. Stenger doesn't claim truth but he does have facts

His field is particle physics which is deeply steeped in quantum field theory.

I happen to agree with him on these issues, although my physics education doesn't include a graduate degree.

Stenger's argument is based on the fact that in physics we see no violations that would give rise to positing the existence of anything like a personal god. He specifically states that he does not exclude a deist god, but says that except for a very few cases people are talking about the personal god of the major three desert religions.

His opinion on fine tuning is right on target. Theists are always using these "god of the gaps" arguments. They have always done so because it is their sole argument for truth that matches actual data, beyond any claims for their holy books, or some personal experience (which science generally and correctly excludes --anecdotes are not data).

The basis of my atheism is the same as Stenger's. Neither of us claim that we have the truth. (So you are wrong about that, my friend.) All we have is data and a plausible theory which, by the way, works very, very well. It's not perfect, nor is it complete. But science keeps making improvements which is what it means to do science.

Will gladly respond if you have questions/comments.

[cbayer]

13. The name of his book is "How to prove god does not exist".

I read that as claiming truth.

I think that I am over my head here, though. My education in physics is limited and I did not enjoy it. However, Neil deGrasse Tyson has made it more appealing to me.

Religion in general and deism in particular will never be proved or disproved by scientific data, imo. It is something essentially different, but not incompatible.

As for the god of the gaps, imho there will always, always be gaps. We know only a minuscule amount of what is knowable.

[laconicsax]

14. You might want to re-read the OP.

Especially this part:

The following is an interview that will appear in the book How to Prove God Does Not Exist by Trevor Treharne, to be released in September by Universal Publishers.

In the unlikely event that you're still confused, the book "How to prove god does not exist" is being written by Trevor Treharne, not Victor Stenger.

Allow me to quote from a book Stenger actually did write.

Just because science cannot prove that Zeus does not exist, we can't conclude that he does.

[longship]

15. I haven't seen the book, but I am very familiar with his previous books.

One is pure physics, with the mathematics, The Comprehensible Cosmos. The other two are connected to his skepticism.

Quantum Gods, is a take down of ignorance of quantum theory being used as a justification of all sorts of kooky rubbish. From Deepak Chopra to Judith Darlene Hampton he explains how they go off the rails. The latter, AKA JZ Knight, who pretends to be channeling a 35,000 year old Ramtha, the Lemurian (shades of Ghost Busters) which she does with a cheesy Indian continent accent. Her Ramtha cult produced the film, What the Bleep do We Know?, which is demonstrable quantum new age (pronounced newage -- rhymes with sewage) rubbish. If you disagree with my assessment, look into it yourself, but make sure you look up Ramtha. You'll probably agree that it's total lunacy.

The other book is, God: The Failed Hypothesis. This is one with which you might disagree. But, one has to understand that Stenger, right off the bat, states that his intention is not to prove all possible gods impossible. Rather, the whole purpose is to lay down, with some scientific rigor (given an admittedly non-scientific audience) the reason why the God of the three great so-called monotheistic religions probably does not exist. Note I did not write, nor does Stenger, that God absolutely does not exist.

That last point is a big departure between science and religion. In the former, everything is tentative on evidence (actual data, not anecdotes). It is the religious who make claims of absolute truth. How would you answer the question What if there is evidence that you are mistaken? It is a question that a scientist must consider every day, if they are to succeed. I don't see much of that in the established churches. That's a problem as far as I am concerned. And therein lies the non-overlapping magisteria.

Good topic, eh?

[laconicsax]

12. What "truth" does he think he holds?

How do you know that he doesn't or that it's not the truth?

[edhopper]

3. That is such a simple

and succinct rebuttal to the "fine tuned by God", "Goldilocks" bullshit that has current favor.

[struggle4progress]

7. I guess it's been a while since Stenger did any physics

Or maybe he's just not a very good historian or philosopher of physics

Science finds no need to include any substance beside matter in order to describe our observations of the world, he says

Hmm. Either that's a vacuous play on the word "substance" -- or else it just doesn't correspond at all to the history of physics: physicists, for example, long ago began to consider things like electromagnetic and gravitational fields

[longship]

8. Fields are not substance

The fields are a convenient model used to predict emergent behaviors and the energy and forces of nature that result from the substances. The forces are real. Fields are an abstraction that enable physicists to very precisely calculate the emergent behavior of particles (substances) and the strength of the forces acting on particles.

So I don't understand what you saying here.

Plus, we can actually observe the result the effects of fields. Put a magnet on a table. Place a sheet of paper over it and sprinkle iron filings on it. Voila! You'll see the field lines.

So there is a basis for using fields. Plus, don't ignore the fact that it actually works.

[struggle4progress]

11. I'm not interested in playing semantic games around "substance"

And I'm not objecting the use of fields in physics

I'm arguing with Stenger's pompous, and useless, blather that the only thing that matters is matter itself. He's a physicist: he should frickin know better than that. But he's so wrapped up in reaching his conclusion, he doesn't notice himself spouting bullshizz

[longship]

16. Pompous? I think not. At least according to best science.

The universe is made of twelve particles of matter; four forces of nature. It's a wonderful and significant story.

Brian Cox, particle physicist, CERN

Not to invoke an argument from authority, but Cox has the simplicity correct. Matter, as far as we experience on this planet, is all that matters (pun intended). All our experiences, and I do mean all, are based on these primary, simple principles. All the complexity of life, and its social complexities are emergent behaviors based on such simple principles that you could write the entire equation on a T-shirt.

Google "standard model T-shirt"

Gravity stands aside. It isn't part of the standard model. Here's where our ignorance is showing. Not only doesn't it not meld with the quantum world of the standard model, nobody has any idea how to accomplish that very task. Furthermore, there are two huge questions yet unanswered by gravity, and quantum. What the fuck is dark matter? What the fuck is dark energy.

We're pretty damned sure that dark matter exists and is matter. It just isn't baryonic. It has to be something new which doesn't interact via electro-magnetism (light). But it is matter because it has to have mass because we can see gravitational effects.

Dark energy? Who the fuck knows why the universe is seemingly intent on ripping itself apart? But the data suggests nothing but this conclusion. Got a better answer? Can you demonstrate it to the satisfaction of your peers? Then, make sure you have a tuxedo for your trip to Stockholm.

These are good questions.

[Jim__]

17. Stenger is not giving the full story on his assertion about an eternal universe.

He says:

... The way I handle that question now, which is consistent with all existing knowledge of cosmology and physics, is that the universe is eternal. It didn't come from nothing, or something for that matter, because it always existed and it always will. Our universe began with the big bang. I don't dispute that, but it could have come from an earlier universe and there are proposals available in literature--written by reputable scientists, published in reputable journals, and fully worked out mathematically--that provide scenarios for how our universe could have come from an earlier universe. They don't prove it really happened that way. However, they serve to refute any claim that our universe had to be supernaturally created ex nihilo.

But his claim is really not consistent with all existing knowledge of cosmology and physics. Cosmologists have said that at least 3 common models - which seem to include the scenarios that Stenger is talking about - for our universe are inconsistent with an eternal universe:

...

For instance, one idea is that the universe is cyclical with big bangs followed by big crunches followed by big bangs in an infinite cycle.

Another is the notion of eternal inflation in which different parts of the universe expand and contract at different rates. These regions can be thought of as different universes in a giant multiverse.

...


Then there is the idea of an emergent universe which exists as a kind of seed for eternity and then suddenly expands.

...


Today, Audrey Mithani and Alexander Vilenkin at Tufts University in Massachusetts say that these models are mathematically incompatible with an eternal past. Indeed, their analysis suggests that these three models of the universe must have had a beginning too.

...

Subsequently, Leonard Susskind essentially agreed with Mithani and Vilenkin.

Stenger should be aware of this; and, if he is, he owes it to his readers to give them this information.

[dimbear]

18. Chemists are in a better position.

Every aspiring chemistry student early on has to choose between chemistry and alchemy. Alchemy is far more shiny and attractive, and it promises wonderful rewards, such as infinite wealth and practically eternal life. Alchemy makes far better promises, yet by in large, real students in the real world chose chemistry.

[GeorgeGist]

19. Stephen Hawking has proven ...

that there is no need for 'God'.

[trevortreharne]

20. Judge for yourself...

Hi all, pleased to see the title alone has got people talking, but my book is out now should you actually want to know what I argue:

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/how-to-prove-god-does-not-exist-trevor-treharne/1112075544

[rug]

22. Welcome to DU and thanks for chiming in.

If it's not too much trouble, can you list the "five key justifications outlined for why god does not exist"?

I promise not to respond until I've read the book but I'd appreciate a headsup.

[onager]

23. The Stenger bashing in this thread is hilarious

First, the rect...or of Google U weighed in with this:

s4p: I guess it's been a while since Stenger did any physics...

Yes, poor, doddering, ignorant old Stenger retired from experimental physics way back in the 1990s.

His last frivolous, worthless job was on a team investigating some trivial bullshit about neutrinos. The team leader, Masatoshi Koshiba, shared the 2002 Nobel Prize in Physics for their research:

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2002/koshiba-cv.html

Ha ha! What a loser that Stenger is!

s4p: Or maybe he's just not a very good historian or philosopher of physics.

No, he's only an Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at the Univ. of Colorado. And retired Professor Emeritus of physics and astronomy at the Univ. of Hawaii.

Also former visiting researcher at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in England, the National Nuclear Physics Laboratory in Frascati, Italy, and the University of Florence in Italy.

Lightweight!

Then there's this:

Jim__: But his claim is really not consistent with all existing knowledge of cosmology and physics.

Could you please summarize "all existing knowledge of cosmology and physics?" Thanks!

[rug]

24. Well, you've just topped them.