Has Science Found God? The Latest Results in the Search
for Purpose in the Universe.
Victor J. Stenger. Amherst, NY. Prometheus Books , 2003. 295 pages.
$30 hardcover.
By Karl Giberson
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. For every
particle there is a corresponding antiparticle.
Such dualisms are commonplace. The philosopher Hegel developed an
elaborate theory of history based on the struggle between theses
and antitheses. And indeed there is a great deal of illumination
that results from identifying key initiatives in the world and their
opposition.
Physicist Victor Stenger has written an impassioned antithesis to
the entire set of assumptions on which the existence of a publication
like Research News is based. The book has a title quite similar
to many that have appeared in these pages: Has Science Found God?
The Latest Results in the Search for Purpose in the Universe. The
answer that the book provides, however, is quite different.
Stenger, no stranger to readers of this publication, (see the January,
February and June 2002 issues of Research News for his work) argues
forcefully that science has not turned up any evidence that God
exists. Covering all the bases, he looks at creationism, intelligent
design, faith healing, religion and health, the origin of the universe,
the anthropic principle, near-death experiences, prayer studies,
parapsychology and more. In each case, the happily liberated ex-Catholic
author concludes either: a) the evidence is simply not there or,
if it is, it does not imply the existence of God; or b) there is
an equally compelling or even better case for a non-theistic explanation.
Stenger’s criticisms are aggressive. Intelligent design theorist
William Dembski, described as “confused,” is faulted
for using a definition of information that “does not correspond
to that used in the field;” the conclusions of Research News
editor-in-chief Harold Koenig are faulted for being so statistically
weak that they could never have gotten published in a physics journal;
Larry Dossey is aggressively critiqued for having created a “composite”
character named Sarah with an extraordinary near-death experience
and passing her off as real, a charade exposed by Susan Blackmore.
“Bible Code” guru Michael Drosnin is faulted for his
“ignorance of biblical scholarship.” Templeton laureates
John Polkinghorne, Ian Barbour, and Arthur Peacocke, labeled “premise
keepers,” are treated a bit more respectfully, but the latter
is accused of promoting a Christianity “pruned of virtually
every traditional teaching.”
In such a wide-ranging work there are bound to be some problems.
Stenger is not careful to distinguish between religion-and-health
studies that require a supernatural explanation and those that can
be explained within the framework of contemporary science. Intercessory
prayer studies, in which someone prays for a subject without the
subject’s knowledge, are testing for some kind of interaction
that could only be described as supernatural. (Such studies, unfortunately,
have not done very well and null results are the norm.) On the other
hand, correlations between health and religious practice, such as
those discovered by researchers like Dale Matthews, Ken Pargament,
Koenig and others, have never claimed to provide, as Stenger suggests,
“scientific support for a supernatural role in health.”
Has Science Found God? does not, of course, destroy the basis for
the science-and-religion dialogue. And that is not really what it
is trying to do. What Stenger offers in this polemical, no-holds-barred,
personal, often idiosyncratic survey is a fresh look at the “evidence”
for God from someone who does not believe. The science-and-religion
community, for obvious reasons, is dominated by people who believe
in God, many with considerable passion, and many who have believed
in God for their entire lives. The editors, contributors, advisors
and readers of Research News fall comfortably into this group, for
the most part. Within such a context it is all too easy to forget
that there are radically different ways to look at the complex and
wondrous world in which we live.
Careful consideration of opposing viewpoints can sharpen your self-understanding,
give you a better sense for what you believe. Or it can change your
mind. At the very least it promotes humility, opening your mind
to a richer appreciation of “how little we know,” a
phrase that is often on the lips of Sir John Templeton.
Do not read Stenger’s book right before church, as it certainly
does not promote a devotional frame of mind. But do read it.
Karl Giberson is editor of Research News.
back
to top
|
|
