Customer Reviews
Polemic - By: Mr. W. S. Knowland, 05 Sep 2008 
A new addition to the recent new atheist polemics. Stenger has done only marginally useful scientific work. As for his suggestion that Anthropic Fine tuning is a non-problem because of his simplistic program MonkeyGod that purports to simulate universes & "show" that anthropic universes are commonplace, no serious cosmologist who takes this seriously. Martin Rees's "Just Six Numbers" is a good guide to the real science. This book might be useful to those who are making use of the freedom God has given them to reject Him (see Pascal on 'why God hides'), butin reality the case for theism has never been stronger. Evidence of the Big Bang, anthropic coincidences, the fantastic complexity & functionality of biological systems, & the deepening intractability of naturalistic explanations for the origin of life & consciousness all support theism.
Not a universally accepted viewpoint by scientists - By: Seeker of Elegance, 02 Jun 2008 
"God" is clearly important enough to have generated a vast plethora of literature for & against "Him".
Whilst quite clearly presented & logical, Hitchens axiomatic basis for existence is for physical "obersvability"in some sense. Yet this is the the longest standing argument of asthestic philosophy, not something new.
I would love to see Hitchens expand his axiomatic basis for existence to encompass arguments that were new & more convincing that 'I cannot see(observe)' so 'I dont believe'
Our own existence is confounding enough - I am not sure humanity has truly solved this mystery.Why are we self aware? Who & what are we?
All this before what is "God"?
Paul Davies 'Goldilocks Enigma' & the 'Mind of God' present an alternative scientific viewpoint - he is a theortical physicist & comologist- the axiomatic basis for his arguments here are different. Why are we who we are & what exactly are we produces deep questions as to existence &in my view more fruitful than the 'prove he doesn't exist' approach of the God Hypothesis which is essentialy based on only one line of argument.
Allin all great to see so much God talk likein this book.Its definitely the way forward but this book does not indicate the end of the road.
Scientific method for unscientific hypothesis - By: Roland, 02 Jun 2008 
Victor Stenger is explainingin the entire first chapter the scientific method & what a theory is compared to hypothesis, & why/how science is able to test some of the religious hypothesizes.
The next chapter is then focusing on the testing of supernatural claims & highlights that several studies about the usefulness of prayers have been conducted. These studies were funded from religious organizations like Templeton, so not from "bad atheist scientists" who only want to disprove them. Nevertheless despite heavy intercessory praying of whole religious communities for the health of freshly operated patients, no positive effect of prayer could be found.
After this Stenger is demolishing the `fine tuning' Goldilocks argument about the basic constants of the universe, which is so often used from theists as the last deist refuge to house their God of the dwindling gaps. After reading several books mentioning this `fine tuning' & haven't found a strong scientific rebuttal, I was quite surprised that the so miraculous `fine tuning' argument is only valid if a single factor is changed c.p. (all other left unchanged). Stenger claims that several alternative combinations of the 4 fundamental constants are possible & are providing a stable universe where stars can form & burn for billions of years as well.
To give an example of real life: my car is so fine-tuned if the gearbox is just 2 millimeter from the engine block it would not work, if the clutch is just a few millimeter apart it would not close & can't drive, if the crankshaft is just a little shorter ...etc... yes true if just a single parameter is changed, but there are many other brands & models where another combination of all this parts resultin a proper working car.
The maximal entropy of the initial universe makes a deity unnecessary & unable to control any future development of the universe especially when quantum effects prevent any deterministic Lamarckian plan. And the universe don't need to be `divinely created' as the universe has a zero balance of energy & mass versus gravity e.g. coming out of nothing.
All claims of creationist & ID are refuted by the usual arguments from evolution, & the millennia old philosophical word games as `proof of God' ala St. Augustine or Aquinas are countered by logical arguments from modern philosophers, who show logical arguments (proof) that God does not exists.
Also the Biblical history is outed as fiction & fairy tales as most stories from Genesis, great flood, Abraham, Exodus, Canaan's conquest, David & Solomon's powerful `golden empire' etc. are falsified from historical & archeological evidence. Ergo the god YHWH from the Bible as basis for Judeo-Christian-Islamic faith who is interacting with the local tribes of bronze-age gout & sheep herders does not exist.
In short Victor Stenger is claiming the absence of evidence on that grand scale plus all the falsifications of theist claims are evidence of absence & falsification of the theist God hypothesis, & is even a strong indicator for the non existence or of a deist God.
Good Science, Bad Theology - By: J. S. Pullen, 13 May 2008 
Stenger brilliantly proves that something he has called "god" does not exist. As any proper theist would agree. He is very learnedin the best of Physics but what has he read of the best theologians - Thomas aquinas, Augustine of Hippo, Karl Rahner, Karl Barth ? Does not understand about double causation ? Has he never read that God being described as "all powerful" means not "can do anything" but "can do what He wills to do"
Physics answers the questions physics asks.
But he could just as easily write an equally learned & fatally flawed book entitled "How Science shows that Love does not exist " or "How Science shows that Beauty does not exist
If a non-scientist wrote a book entitled "How Philopsphy proves Science is wrong" Sterner would be affronted.
God: the eternal underachiever - By: Sphex, 18 Jan 2008 One of the many tiresome conversation stoppers people resort to is "But you can't disprove the existence of God!" In this stunning book, Victor Stenger provides convincing arguments that, actually, you can. Stenger writes: "The thesis of this book is that the supernatural hypothesis of [the Judeo-Christian-Islamic] God is testable, verifiable, & falsifiable by the established methods of science." His strategy is to run with this hypothesis and, with an open mind, to look for any objective evidence that may support it, all the while maintaining the rigour of the best scientific inquiry. If such evidence is not found, if the universe reveals only purely material & mindless processes to our observation, then the likelihood is that there is no such God. The "lack-of-evidence argument" works hard &in the end the hypothesis fails: this is a very powerful "scientific argument against the existence of God".
Atheists since Bertrand Russell have replied to this question of "proof" by saying that you cannot disprove the existence of a teapotin orbit, but this doesn't mean you should believe that such an object exists, much less base your life on this belief. The knockdown argument against this response is, apparently, that beliefin orbiting teapots would not inspire the great art that belief in, say, the Virgin Birth does. (The Archbishop of Canterbury recently used this very same argumentin conversation with Ricky Gervais, not caring that it has no bearing on the truth of the belief: an atheist has no difficultyin accepting that a false belief can inspire all manner of human activities, from painting the Sistine Chapel to torturing unbelievers.) Of course, if all the teapot did was stewin space, a silent emblem of Englishness, its existence would indeed be hard to disprove. But if shamans engagedin tea dances & then claimed their cups were filled to overflowing with the finest brew poured from the celestial pot, then we ought to be able to check this out.
Stenger asserts that "science is not forbidden from considering supernatural causes" & reminds us that "religions make factual claims that have no special immunity from being examined under the cold light of reason & objective observation." He rejects Stephen Jay Gould's proposition that religion & science are "non-overlapping magisteria" & laments the fact that too many scientists have been content to leave religion well alone (in part, perhaps, because of concerns over funding & the low status of atheistsin public life, as well as having better things to do). Theists, on the other hand, have never been shy to plunder science for whatever might be useful: "the notion that the observation of nature alone provides evidence for the existence of God has a long history". However, that history is coming to an end for some theologians, who "have gradually begun to accept the absence of objective evidence for God & have been forced to conclude if a god exists, he must purposely hide himself from us." Like the problem of evil, the hiddenness of God is an intellectual hoop no bigger than the eye of a needle through which only the most emaciated theological mind can jump. As for ordinary believers, few will even try, especially while they are distracted by the shiny bauble of "intelligent design".
Theists are drawn to design arguments like rap stars to bling, and, while some atheists groan at having to cut yet another head off the hydra of creationism, Stenger relishes the task. Each theistic claim - for the design of the eye, a nonphysical soul or the fine-tuning of the universe - is an opportunity to falsify the hypothesis that there is a God. The new pinups for swivel-eyed creationists are Dembski & Behe, who both make "statements that are provably wrong": Dembski's "information" is related to entropy & is therefore "not a conserved quantity like energy", while Behe seems to be unaware of the literature on "irreducibly complex" systems. Catholics can believein evolution, just so long as it applies only to the body & not the mind. Although he can provide no evidence for a "disembodied soul", Pope Pius XII cannot imagine "the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter". Too bad for him. As for fine-tuning, the whole argument "ultimately makes no sense... all physical parameters are irrelevant to an omnipotent God." There is also the obvious fact of the "uncongenial universe": vast tracts of space & time unfit for life of any kind. Again, no sign of & no need for a designing, intervening, caring god.
The real surprise to many readers, however, will be Stenger's take on that ancient philosophical question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" The irresistible suggestion for many is that there must have been a "creator" of some kind. That Lear exclaimed "nothing will come of nothing" is not the reason we think he lost the plot. The laws of physics had to come from somewhere, surely? And what does Stenger say? "They came from nothing!" The state of "nothing" is as simple as it gets & is not very stable. "Only by the constant action of an agent outside the universe, such as God, could a state of nothingness be maintained. The fact that we have something is just what we would expect if there is no God." The laws of physics follow from "the very lack of structure at the earliest moment." It would seem that one of the few remaining mysteriesin this universe is why anyone still takes the god hypothesis seriously.
