| Accessories By Manufacturer | |
|
|
Email Newsletter
Get info on Sales, Events, New Products, and More!
|
|
|
|
|
| God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist | 
 enlarge | Author: Victor J. Stenger
Creator: Christopher Hitchens
Publisher: Prometheus Books
Category: Book
List Price: $18.98
Buy New: $11.84
You Save: $7.14 (38%)
New (27) Used (7) from $9.69
Avg. Customer Rating:  148 reviews
Sales Rank: 7554
Media: Paperback
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 310
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.9
Dimensions (in): 8.9 x 6.1 x 0.7
ISBN: 1591026520
Dewey Decimal Number: 212.1
EAN: 9781591026525
ASIN: 1591026520
Publication Date: April 8, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Condition: Brand New, Perfect Condition, Please allow 4-14 business days for delivery. 100% Money Back Guarantee, Over 1,000,000 customers served.
|
| Customer Reviews:
 A Pantheist's take on this book September 19, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
As my title indicates I'm a Scientific Pantheist & have been for roughly 10 years although I didn't know the term for what I am until reading Paul Harrison's work a few years ago. I grew up in a family where my mother's side were Pentecostal & my father's were Later Day Saints, so from an early age I knew something was wrong because both groups had very different beliefs, yet each claimed the same god. As a teenager I joined a General Baptist church, because I thought it was a saner creed (no scary talking in tongues or belief in Joseph Smith's bad hieroglyph translations). Later when I was in university I spent a summer abroad in China & that opened my mind, because suddenly I had to reconcile the fact that the vast majority of the human population were not Christian in any way shape fashion or form. How could an all-loving & all-knowing god make such an oversight when it would effectively damn billions of souls to hell for nothing they personally had a choice about? I've read the Bible, Book of Mormon, Tao Te Ching as well as the works of Spinoza all of which put me down the path to where I am today, but this book kind of sealed the deal. It didn't make me an atheist, but it certainly made me uderstand where they are coming from. I found God: TFH to be very good at doing what it had set out to do, which was explaining why the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god doesn't exist. It doesn't 100% rule out the creator god of the deists (but it makes him/her/it seem kind of unimportant) nor does it rule out the universe as god concept that I accept, but it definitely gives some food for thought. I found his arguments to be well-written & easily understood. Those who enjoyed this book would probably also like Dawkins, E O Wilson or even Thomas Paine.
 Acceptable reading but provocative material August 30, 2008
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
Acceptable reading but provocative material. The author is not as clear and for those of us not immersed in the subject the material at times becomes excruciating and frustrating.
 Good in Places August 17, 2008
I bought this book in order to better understand the 'fine-tuning' argument for the existence of God [and other, present-day physics type lines of thought that might be relivant.] In this regard I was not disappointed. So far as I can tell, Stenger does a fine job in presenting the anti 'fine-tuning' side of the dispute. [But then, given my ignorance in this field, I am not really a reputable judge.]
It should be pointed out that the 'fine-tuning' argument leans heavily on recent work in an area that seems to be caught up in a frenzy of wild theorizing. There are LOTS of competing theories about the 'big bang' and what, if anything, preceded it. Only rash souls (or so I think) will base their belief in God, or, for that matter, their disbelief, on the latest word from the cosmologists.
The section on 'design' is also good. If one wants a sort of catalog of all the apparent bad engineering in the 'design' of the human body, etc. this is just the thing.
Much of the rest of the book, in my opinion, is unreliable, sloppy, and rash. Stenger has no interest in challenging the best work produced by 'believers.' Here is a glaring instance: there is no mention of Alvan Plantinga. I know this will sound silly to some readers, but in a present-day work purporting to offer serious discusion of the various reasons for thinking that there is, or is not, a God, the absence of this name is a clear signal that we are not playing in the major leagues.
Perhaps the best and most common argument against the existence of God is 'the problem of evil.' Senger (following some author, or authors, I am unable to identify) puts it this way:
(1) If God exists, then the attributes of God are consistent with the existence of evil.
(2) The attributes of God are not consistent with the existence of evil.
(3) Therefore, God does not and cannot exist.
Stenger then goes on to argue that while SOME 'pain and suffering' [i.e. SOME evil] may be consistent with the attributes of God, there seems to be more than is necessary. That is to say, he seems to abandon (2) without noticing it. I guess the premise he wants to defend is:
(2') The attributes of God are not consistent with THE AMOUNT OF EVIL exhibited by the real world.
(Something like that.) But now, of course, (1) must be changed too. It's not a big deal; but it's annoying.
Perhaps I should add that, in my opinion, William Rowe owns 'the problem of evil' in it's present form. Another name that does not occur in Stenger's book.
Proves the case! July 24, 2008
4 out of 6 found this review helpful
Most reviewers of Stenger's "God: The Failed Hypothesis" fail to recognize the unique contribution he has made to the logic of the debate. The methodology he uses is different from most of the arguments against God, and it is important to understand this, because his book is a major step forward on this topic. Stenger basically sets out to prove a negative. Although many light-thinking individuals think this is impossible, anyone who has studied high school geometry knows that there is a well-known approach to this challenge. It is the indirect proof, and it works like this: Assume the truth of the proposition you're arguing against. Show that certain consequences must follow if the proposition is true. Observe that those consequences do not or cannot possibly occur. Conclude, therefore, that the original assumption must be false.
So Stenger's approach is to assume the existence of a God (defined pretty much as the Christian one) and deduce what the implications of such an assumption would be in terms of what we would expect to observe in the world. Finding that those observations do not occur, Stenger concludes that there is no such thing as God. Anyone who wants to rebut Stenger's argument, needs to do so within the context of this methodology. Otherwise, you are just talking past each other. Valid rebuttals would be, for example, to challenge his reasoning as to what facts we should expect to observe given the assumption that a God exists. Or perhaps to show that those facts really do occur. But here's the real problem for the theists: You have to say that SOME facts would necessarily follow from the existence of a God and that the absence of those facts would prove God doesn't exist. If you don't admit this, then your concept of God is without meaning, because a proposition that cannot by any stretch of the imagination be falsified, does not say anything. The statement "God exists" cannot be true unless "God does not exist" is false, and there has to be some meaningful observable difference between these propositions in order for either of them to mean anything. However, most theists, especially the Christian ones, do not admit any circumstances at all under which we could reasonably conclude that there is no God. Thus, their concept of God is without meaning, and when they say "God exists," they really are saying nothing at all. Stenger's book is an admirable addition to the debate and succeeds in showing that the assumed hypothesis (i.e., that God exists) is refuted by observations in the real world.
But since many Christians seemingly cannot follow Stenger's argument, nor the arguments of other authors who have defended atheism as a philosophy, it is important for atheists to be able to debate the Christians on their own turf as well. For that reason, in addition to highly recommending Stenger's book, I would also recommend that atheists become familiar with critiques of the Bible, as many Christians find this type of criticism harder to ignore. Americans especially are much more attached to Jesus, than to "God." A good selection in the category of biblical criticism, and a recent one, is The Atheist's Introduction to the New Testament: How the Bible Undermines the Basic Teachings of Christianity by Mike Davis. Together, these two books will cover pretty much any debate you are likely to get into with Christian apologists.
 All Humans are Presumtuous and Ridiculous July 11, 2008
4 out of 31 found this review helpful
Does God exist? Who the hell knows. Certainly not a preist nor a scientist. Nobody knows one way or the other. You either believe based on faith - unseen, unproven belief - or you do not. And moments after our bodies stop, every single person will either know something - or know nothing. But to waste our energy fighting over something that is not given to "proof." Well...it's just very human. Wasting time instead of enjoying what we do know. And worst of all, you've all been doing it for thousands of years and killing hundreds of millions of otherwise happy human beings.
I really want to say that all Christians, Atheists, Muslims, Theists, Jews and Agnostics --and the rest! - should all jump in the same muddy river and just go to hell...but then we'd get into fighting about hell and the devil. Fight, argue, fight, disagree - idiot human beings. Dogs are wiser. They've got it down - eat, sleep, poop, love. I prefer them.
|
|
|
Site by: Troy Peterson | |
