God
2007 • 294 pages
Ratings4
Average rating3.3
15
Ratings4
Average rating3.3
Throughout history, arguments for and against the existence of God have been largely confined to philosophy and theology, while science has sat on the sidelines. Despite the fact that science has revolutionized every aspect of human life and greatly clarified our understanding of the world, somehow the notion has arisen that it has nothing to say about the possibility of a supreme being, which much of humanity worships as the source of all reality. This book contends that, if God exists, some evidence for this existence should be detectable by scientific means, especially considering the central role that God is alleged to play in the operation of the universe and the lives of humans. Treating the traditional God concept, as conventionally presented in the Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions, like any other scientific hypothesis, physicist Stenger examines all of the claims made for God's existence. He considers the latest Intelligent Design arguments as evidence of God's influence in biology. He looks at human behavior for evidence of immaterial souls and the possible effects of prayer. He discusses the findings of physics and astronomy in weighing the suggestions that the universe is the work of a creator and that humans are God's special creation. After evaluating all the scientific evidence, Stenger concludes that beyond a reasonable doubt the universe and life appear exactly as we might expect if there were no God. This paperback edition of the New York Times bestselling hardcover edition contains a new foreword by Christopher Hitchens and a postscript by the author in which he responds to reviewers' criticisms of the original edition.
Reviews with the most likes.
Ok, let me put this as simply as possible. I have been an Atheist for the last four years, ever since I was an adorable 14 year-old with long beautiful hair, and as I was reading this book, taking the Atheist stance - which is now second nature to me - I was not convinced by what he was saying.
Seriously. Then how about a theist?
The arguments were very brief, not elaborated, not justified and not even given enough examples. Most of the examples are even a mention of someone else's book or essay, or even sometimes his books and essays (the author's) without quotes or elaboration of the person's idea. Just a quick mention. To tell you the truth, the book felt like a miniature advertisement electronic board.
I can sometimes move from Atheist stance, to theist stance (since I was one myself and since I have a big fat skeptical brain in that cute skull of mine and because I suspect I have multiple characters disorder), and I could tell sufficiently that it was not a book that could convince a theist. It was too brief, and his very frequent mention of the two words “In short” three times every single page while not even providing a long argument in the first place made me want to bitch slap his old face.
The arguments were good, and I could see a handful (NOT MORE) of new ideas that I have not heard of before. These could come in handy on the long term, maybe if as an Atheist I want to debate someone, and that means I have to find ways of elaborating his ideas. But on the short term, the book seemed like a poor job of organizing jumbled ideas that we see everyday on social networks and blogs and even ideas mentioned in other Atheist books.
Let me put the last idea simply. Imagine the book was a text book and it was taught, just as it is in a university course, and then a test about the book was given to students. They have a few days to prepare and study the book. I can tell you, if the book was presented as a science course, no one will pass.
The book was very poorly written and poorly elaborated, and poorly justified that a person who doesn't a prior knowledge of things of this kind will have a very very hard job understanding the book due to the lack of explanations.
And I want to bitch slap his old face another time because of the amount of times he said “in short, our universe would look exactly the same if our universe did not have a creator”. Seriously. It is like he made up for the lack of explanation and elaboration and the poorly presented arguments by saying this sentence at the end of every SUB CHAPTER .
