Or until we find new evidence to real it up a little closer I can't get enuf and loved this book! I've heard several of these arguments before but there are still additional hypothesis that add to the scientific response to theism.
- Japan under Construction: Corruption, Politics, and Public Works.
- God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist by Victor J. Stenger?
- Scientist provides evidence that God does not exist!
- Your audiobook is waiting…;
- Innovation, Knowledge and Power in Organizations (Routledge Studies in Global Competition).
I also applaud the insistence that science does have something to say about God. I've always found it incredibly foolish and hypocritical for theistic elements to stomp on science with their money, politics and dictatorial fear mongering but then insist on seperation from scientific fact when those facts disprove their own authority and do so calmly and with a decorum the religious seem to lack.
Stenger insists that the nature of the God Hypothesis means it CAN be disproven with science and he does so beautifully. Would you recommend this book to a friend?
Why or why not? There are better books on the topic and the narration of this edition is distractingly bad. What was your reaction to the ending? No spoilers please! The least this guy or his producer could have done is research basic pronunciations.
The reading is so distractingly bad as to spoil what is otherwise a competent volume. Was God - the Failed Hypothesis worth the listening time? It's essential reading in this field and therefore worth the listen. The performance of the book did nothing for me other than make it so that I could absorb the book while driving.
Any additional comments? Many of us have waited hopefully for Stenger's volumes to come to audiobook form. I'm guessing that the publisher knew this and rushed the book to audio form. The performance and execution shows it. Stenger is dead. It's really disappointing that this is the result of that one shot. I'm not a professional reader, nor do I claim to be one on TV.
- Food safety - the implications of change from producerism to consumerism.
- Quick Links.
- Figuring the Self Subject, Absolute, and Others in Classical German Philosophy;
- Dont Eat This If Youre Taking That: The Hidden Risks of Mixing Food and Medicine?
- Microsoft Visio 2013 Business Process Diagramming and Validation.
- Showing God Does Not Exist.
- Women and Writing in Medieval Europe: A Sourcebook.
Sadly, this audiobook could've gone down as one of the all time best on this particular subject, however the narrator had other ideas This is the first Audible book I've had to stop listening to due to ear fatigue. It seems to have been recorded with too much emphasis in the low-mid frequencies. I do all my listening on earbuds, and have never had this problem. But it sounds muffled and bottom heavy. Couple that with a lackluster narration, and I just had to stop. Good book though. The content is interesting if not original. There are many other works by and in favor of atheists and atheism that make the case as well or better.
Personally, I prefer Dawkins and Hitchens but to each their own. What is maddening about the audio version is the often horrible mispronounciations of words like automaton pronounced herein as "otto-may-ton" and Empedocles "imp-a-do-clees". How it passed any quality inspection still puzzles me. A great narration by David Smalley of an excellent book! Stenger's methodical approach brings a fresh perspective and intellectual honesty to a sensitive subject.https://pavelitandfidd.ml
According to Science, God Does Not Exist
Scientists have proven boundlessly creative in finding ways to test and blind the seemingly untestable, and it is pleasure to see these techniques applied to the attributes of God-hood. The text was great, but I struggled to finish the book. The author had great ideas but the man reading the book sounds like he's describing an avengers movie trailer. Great book and ideas but please choose a better person to read the book.
The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows that God does Not Exist. By J. Stegner
In a court of law if the prosecutor cannot prove someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then we conclude they are not guilty. Worse for theists is they cannot even prove their theology beyond doubt. In "The Failed Hypotheses," the methodical scientist who investigates these fallacious propositions is a member of a growing culture known as the Secular Movement.
This is his story. This is a really good book, I like how he showed science to prove his statements. I like to live my life on the things I see, not the things that I think I see. Victor at his pithy, no nonsense best! A real philosophical and scientific standpoint. Of the people I have known personally, philosopher of science Larry Laudan, whom I knew briefly when he was in Hawaii, had some effect on my thinking in later years. I would also mention Paul Kurtz, who helped me more as my publisher than as a mentor; I did read a lot of his stuff, as I have other contemporaries.
But really, no single figure dominated, except maybe Feynman. Your last book was called God and the Folly of Faith , can you give a brief summary of your findings? Folly presents my basic thinking about why science and religion are irrevocably incompatible. When a scientific theory disagrees with the data, the theory is discarded. When a religious theory disagrees with the data, the data are discarded. It is foolish to take anything on faith, which is a belief based on no evidence, just wishful thinking. This leads us to your latest book, God and The Atom , can you sum up the position you explore in this?
I trace the history of the notion called "atomism," in which everything is just material particles and emptiness, from its originators in ancient Greece to the present.
Victor Stenger - God: The Failed Hypothesis | Point of Inquiry
The ancients had it basically right, but the idea was suppressed for a thousand years in the Dark Ages when the Catholic Church ruled Europe. In the atomist view, there are no gods who pay any attention to humanity and what we now call the multiverse is infinite and eternal and includes many universes besides our own. Atomism was rediscovered in the Renaissance and helped trigger the scientific revolution. The so-called "standard model of elementary particles" based on atomism has agreed with all observations since the s and has been solidly confirmed by the discovery of the Higgs boson.
First thing's first, do you think we even need a term named 'new atheism'? It's needed because the new atheists make it clear that we should not accommodate religion since even its most moderate manifestations are based on magical thinking and humanity is doomed if we continue down that road. I think it's a bad idea for the atheist movement to take up other causes, worthy as they may be, which already have plenty of organized support. I have been very disappointed to see this development.
It detracts from the mission of fighting against magical thinking and we are still severely limited in resources, especially compared with what religion can throw at us. Many people claim that science cannot prove God doesn't exist. Given the immense volume of work you have done on this subject, there is perhaps no one better suited to answering it. How would you respond? While we cannot prove that every conceivable god does not exist, we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a god that plays such an important role in the universe such as the Abrahamic God would have been detected by now.
When scientist say, "God does not exist," they mean something similar to when they say "aether does not exist," "psychic powers do not exist," or "life does on the moon does not exist.
All such statements are shorthand for a more elaborate and technical explanation, which is that this alleged entity or God has no place in any scientific equations, plays no role in any scientific explanations, cannot be used to predict any events, does not describe anything or force that has yet been detected, and there are no models of the universe in which its presence is either required, productive, or useful.
What should be most obvious about the more technically accurate statement is that it isn't absolute. It does not deny for all time any possible existence of the entity or force in question; instead, it's a provisional statement denying the existence of any relevance or reality to the entity or force based on what we currently know. Religious theists may be quick to seize upon this and insist that it demonstrates that science cannot "prove" that God does not exist, but that requires far too strict of a standard for what it means to "prove" something scientifically.
Stenger offers this scientific argument against the existence of God:. This is basically how science would disprove the existence of any alleged entity. If God existed, there should be concrete evidence of His existence—not faith, but tangible, measurable, consistent evidence that can be predicted and tested using the scientific method.
If we fail to find that evidence, then God cannot exist as defined.