God - the Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist

Two Pew Research Center surveys in 2006 and 2009 showed 83% of the general public and 33% of scientists believe in a traditional God. If you include a "universal spirit or higher power" this becomes 95% and 51%. Victor Stenger's 2007 book God: The Failed Hypothesis is probably best suited for the 51% of scientists, assuming they're real scientists, that is, that they base their beliefs on evidence and understand the necessary protocol for doing so. Scientists who don't believe have probably already thought these issues through, and most of the general public may find Stenger's approach either tedious or offensive. For a more conversational treatment of the same issues they should pick up Sam Harris' The End of Faith or the slightly more confrontational The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.The hypothesis is written in the positive - that God exists. This is important because it as an extraordinary claim and normally would require extraordinary evidence. Regardless, the author looks for *any* evidence. While God can not be disproven with 100% certainty (maybe He exists and has yet to reveal himself) the hypothesis can be confidently dismissed by an overwhelming lack of evidence. This would be analogous to concluding that your elderly neighbor in Chicago is not also the masked gunman of Toronto. You don't *know* that it's not the same person, but you have absolutely no reason to think it. The same type of standard can be directed to the hypothesis that God exists.The first step is to nail down the definitions. He distinguishes between lowercase god and uppercased God with the former includes all sorts of deities, spiritual beliefs, and supernatural forces. This would be the 12% and 18% in the graph above. The God of his hypothesis is the capital-G God, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, and the version of this which would be recognizable to the vast majority of believers. It does not include any abstracted, esoteric, clever interpretation of this God which often comes from theological gymnastics. The God is the God of most believers of these three faiths.And then the hypothesis, which he explains must have several characteristics: 1. protocols must be impeccable, 2. it must be established before the data are collected, 3. the work must be done without prejudice, 4. the hypothesis must be falsifiable, and 5. results must be independently replicable.People should feel comfortable embarking on this inquiry. If God probably exists, they'll see, and God may be pleased. If God most very probably doesn't exist, that's good to know too. To cling to the idea that it still *might* be true despite complete lack of evidence would be analogous to living in fear of the elderly neighbor because they *might* be a frequent-flying ruthless killer of Canadians. Why would anyone choose to do that?There are plenty of ways the hypothesis of God would have been supported. If lightning were to only strike wicked people, revelation were to predict future events, or if prayer improved the health of the prayed-for ... these would all support the hypothesis. But it fails, which won't come as a surprise to those who have been through this exercise in other ways.After addressing the question from many sides: illusion of design, evidence from the cosmos, failures of revelation, do values come from God, the argument from Evil, and more, he addresses the important question of whether beauty, hope, morality, kindness, generosity, love, forgiveness, and all those good things exist without God. The evidence shows clearly, strongly, thankfully: yes.There are also extensive end-notes and references after each chapter, as one would expect. The scientifically minded and the clear-thinkers will appreciate this book's direct treatment of this important question.

Victor J. Stenger's overall thesis is this: That God is a testable hypothesis, therefore falsifiable; To say that God is a testable hypothesis is to say that God can be formulated in the scientific model in accordance to what most believers believe about God (given that there is sufficient consensus). The function of scientific models is to both explain the observable data and to make observable or testable predictions. If concept of God can be formulated into a scientific model, as Stenger suggested, then it follows that the scientific model of God can make testable predictions that can be tested, therefore falsifiable. Stenger also noted that the scientific model of God would not be concerned with the very nature of God, and this is important since many theologians and beleivers assert that God's nature is ineffable. Rather, the scientific model of God concerns what the universe should look like if God exist, given that God is an agent with purpose and intention who performs actions that intervene into the natural order of things. The intervention of God's actions in relation to Nature is a key concept of God that is testable, because if God truly does interfere with Nature, then the effects of that interference should be observable since any event in nature (including God's interference) is observable.This overarching thesis is not only crucial, but detrimental, especially when Stenger gathers all the examples and evidences to support his argument that God-Hypothesis is either rendered falsified or superfluous. Stenger pointed out that because there are other hypothesis that explains many natural phenomena which believers insist requires Supernatural cause, the God-Hypothesis is not without its competitors. While the God-Hypothesis does have a potential to be a grand scientific theory in the midst of this competition, this is not the case given that many other independent hypothesis with a natural explanation has made observable predictions that have been successfully tested and supported. Given that these hypothesis explains the phenomena without resorting to the supernatural cause, what scientific value does the concept of God have?Theist can reasonably argue that Stenger has not falsified the God-Hypothesis, but such arguments do not bother me at all (nor do I think they would bother Stenger himself). Why is this? Because Stenger convincingly demonstrated that God can be a testable scientific model, thus a falsifiable hypothesis. By arguing this point, the theological ramifications are significant: There is no longer any excuse to vindicate God from scientific inquiry, and an appeal to Faith or Mystery simply will not do anymore. Appealing to faith or ineffability will not render God an unfalsifiable and untestable hypothesis, rather it would not do very much since the very definition of God as an intervening agent could sufficiently entail testability. A theistic believer (with the exception of a deist) cannot appeal to faith without also including the definition of God as an intervening agent, whose actions interfere with human and natural affairs, because the very faith that believers appeal to also depends on that definition.The scientific ramifications of Stenger's argument is also significant in regards to theism, because this would mean that the scientific model of God would predict the effects of prayers, the occurrences of miracles, the prophecies, the problem of evil, and the fine-tune arguments. Stenger succeeded in articulating this implication to such a degree that nobody can easily argue that God transcends scientific inquiry. What is even more disturbing is that there actually has been scientific studies on prayers and miracles, and so far the majority of the results have been negative. This would be a problem to the majority of the believers who believe in intercessory prayers.So far, I applaud Stenger for making a successful argument that God can be a testable hypothesis, and showing many scientific evidences that could reasonably be construed as contrary to the predictions that the God-Hypothesis made. People can argue all they want about the existence of God, but if Stenger's argument is both valid and sound, then the God-Debate may eventually end with a solid conclusion pretty soon.

Undaunted, Stenger puts god and his apologists under his microscope and submits them to the scientific method. He tackles (almost) every hypothesis with solemnity and provides compelling arguments worthy of the most respectable science book. He teaches us that science works and that it can be trusted. Highly recommended.

buono

That book is so fantastic! I really recommend it. It's a reading to be done and understood for all us.

Before I give you an insight into this astonishing controversial publication, here is something for you to consider:In this ‘age of enlightenment’ – the question arises ‘do you need a ‘God’?’A ‘modernist’ is a theological ‘code’ for people who do ‘not’ believe in ‘God’; who do ‘not’ believe that the world was created ‘in seven days’; who do ‘not’ believe that the Earth is ‘flat’; who do ‘not’ believe that ‘Eve’ was ‘created’ from ‘Adam’s’ rib; who do ‘not’ believe in ‘Heaven’ and ‘Hell’; who do ‘not’ believe in ‘the virgin birth’ - aka ‘the immaculate conception’; and who do ‘not’ believe in ‘the resurrection’.Modernists connect themselves to a particular church and serve within that church as Bishops; Deans; priests; pastors; vicars; clerics etc. so as to have the power and clout to provide a ‘moral compass’ and ‘speak out’ on sociological issues such as bullying; homelessness; racism; sex education; pornography; abortion; contraception for the under-sixteens; trouble-free divorce; uncouth foul-mouthed, talentless role-models; ‘vanity-driven’ lifestyles; consumerism; ‘in-your-face’ public over-exposure to sex and violence; and global oppression; and persecution.Some modernists believe in disestablishmentarianism – the view that established churches such as Lutherans; Protestants; Catholics; Methodologists; Baptists; Jews; Islamists; and so forth should ‘not’ be part of the state and should ‘not’ intervene on subjects such as Sunday trading; inner-city issues; public expenditure on welfare and the generation of employment – and some condone ‘honour’ killings.Everyone on this Earth should have a little place that they can say “This is my home!” – a place where they are always welcome - a place that they can call their own.For over 800 years – beginning with the ‘The third Crusade’ in 1187 AD – Britain has taken a powerful stance and ‘punched above its weight’ in the world against despots and oppressors (which set in motion the signing of the ‘Magna Carta’ – the ‘Great Charta’ of human rights - in 1215 AD).As a tolerant secular nation, globally respected for our sense of ‘fair play’, we took on ‘The Armada’ and fought with the Dutch against the Spanish to suppress King Philippe and his despicable barbaric ‘Spanish Inquisition’; we fought with the Dutch against the French and the Spanish to quash Louis the XIV ‘Divine right of kings’ as he attempted to impose his expansionist interests to dominate Europe; and we have fought with the Germans against the French to suppress ‘Emperor’ Napoleon’s ‘Conquest of Europe’ – following the good hiding Nelson gave him over Egypt.We have fought with the French and the Dutch against the Germans and Italians to crush Hitler and Mussolini; and we have influenced the UN to suppress Franco’s barbaric cruelty to the Spanish people (the French graciously homing the Spanish refugees who fled the terror) - which led to ‘The Spanish Miracle’ and the eventual reinstating of their monarch; as well as diplomatically arbitrating - and where necessary – forcefully interceding - to destroy other despots and their cloying destructive, barbaric ‘rule-by-fear’ regimes - regimes that suppress women; keep people entrenched in abject poverty, famine, and disease; and purposely prevent ‘human advancement’ through superstition, ignorance, and bigotry so as to deliberately hold back ‘enlightenment’ – respect for the sublime, free scientific enquiry, and the exercise of ‘reason’ (determining ‘how and why’) - the potent weapons that lead to the total destruction and annihilation of dogma, delusion, and fear - the enablers of totalitarian regimes.So ‘in the grand scheme of things’ - where does ‘this’ publication fit in? And what purpose does it serve?Well – I have to say that whilst the now deceased author puts forward very strong compelling scientific evidence to shoot down the ‘authenticity’ of ‘The Law and the Prophets’ - aka ‘The Old Testament’ to refute the biblical chronicles and any ‘existence’ of a ‘God’ – an example being how satellite cameras encircling the planet and observing our Earth in the ‘infra-red’ spectrum – the spectrum that allows us to ‘see’ through forests and buildings, and ‘see’ underground – has not revealed any evidence of ‘battle-sites’ or large ‘settlements’ as claimed in ‘the bible’ - I am struggling to see what the ‘well-read’ author - with support from his huge bibliography - wishes to achieve by ‘stating the obvious’ – that god does not exist - without providing any form of alternative ‘moral compass’ – merely leaving the reader in an ‘abyss’ without any guidance as to how to shake off the hideous, sinister, penetrating evil we call ‘religion’, and its horrific morbid ‘fears’ of ‘we are all sinners from day one’ (yeah right) and an ‘after-life’ that delivers fear and dread (does it really!).If you seek proof that ‘God’ is bunkum – bunkum that motivates wars and brings about preventable global death and destruction – in total contradiction to the preached ‘religious’ dogma – then this book is perfect for you.If you are person seeking guidance on how to achieve happiness and fulfilment - ‘without’ resorting to an immoral god and the vile corrosive effect extremist religion has had on global society – then although this publication does not offer, or profess to offer a ‘way forward’, this publication will provide you with ‘lots’ to think about.The nice thing about the way that the author has structured the content is that you can instantly ‘dip in’ to any aspect of interest so the information is readily ‘getatable’ without having to wade through reams of laborious prose.ASIDE: Two films to watch are ‘Intolerance’ – a masterwork of the ‘silent film’ era by D W Griffiths; and Powell and Pressburger’s classic ‘must see’ film ‘Black Narcissus’ (now fully restored on BluRay and DVD in 4K resolution by Martin Scorsese with funding from the BFI). Be blown away by Jack Cardiff’s stunning cinematography (using the palette of Van Gogh) and be mesmerised by the dazzling performance from Deborah Kerr as a nun assigned to a missionary hospital in Nepal - who’s religious conviction is ripped apart when she witnesses avoidable harrowing catastrophes through the results of gross incompetence and a deluded belief in ‘faith healing’. Or read ‘The Age of Reason’ written by Thomas Paine in 1794 AD – and come away enlightened (all available from Amazon).We all possess an ‘inner reality’ that most people suppress or ignore because of manipulation from others and a willingness to conform to society like a sheep. We learn through tragedy and error that we should seize life by being autonomous and taking risks; and refuse to be manipulated by others or waste time on trivia that does not get us anywhere and usually makes someone else rich - whilst accepting responsibility for the consequences of our decisions and fix things when they go pear-shaped if we are to bring excitement, enlightenment, and meaning to our short time on the planet.Laugh when you can; apologise when you should; kiss slowly; forgive quickly; and always be prepared to take chances.Carpe Diem!

Victor Stenger goes about with science to say that there is no basis for belief in a greater creator being. The science is impeccable. And Stenger is convinced and convincing. Very good.