Reddit reviews God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist
We found 11 Reddit comments about God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
NewMint ConditionDispatch same day for order received before 12 noonGuaranteed packagingNo quibbles returns
At its core, atheism is solely the absence of belief in gods/magic/metaphysical/religion etc.
But there are many related issues that are inextricably linked to atheism. A very common one is opposition to the very idea of faith - defined as belief without evidence. Science, being a rigorous method for the continuous pursuit of knowledge, is a natural ally of many atheists and an excellent counterpoint to the phenomenon of faith.
Further, many people take the position that science has nothing to say on the topic of religion or gods (Gould's NOMA). This is entirely untrue. Just as science can be used to determine if there is an invisible elephant with specific attributes in a specific room, it can also be used to test the hypothesis of the existence of a deity with specific attributes. Research along these lines already occurs, such as studies on the efficacy of prayer.
I highly suggest God: the Failed Hypothesis by physicist Victor J. Stenger for any skeptic.
Edit: I accidentally a letter.
Hi, atheist here who is converting to Judaism. Long story, let me see if I can give you the gist of it.
I did not "have a bad experience in the water." I led a perfectly fulfilling life as an atheist, and I gained a lot of respect for atheism and atheists in general. I came to understand how the universe behaves exactly as we would expect it to without a god, and how it is incredibly unlikely that there is a god, given the huge body of evidence against it (a favorite book of mine comes to mind, God: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor Stenger). Nevertheless, I have chosen to convert to Judaism for a variety of reasons, most of which won't make sense to most atheists given that I'm choosing to believe something against truth because it adds meaning to my life (my best friend is an atheist and this is essentially the point he can't understand, and we respect each other for looking at it differently). But there is one psychological explanation I can offer you.
I have a pretty severe case of ADHD. My entire life is constantly in a state of chaos. I generally attribute it to the ADHD but I also believe I have an inherently disordered personality, that leads me to struggle to order my internal and external universe. It's hard for me to explain how profoundly my life is affected by this disorder, especially given the fact that some people don't believe it exists or think the only problem is distraction. I assure you the problems run much deeper, at least for me, and it has lead to problems of both pragmatic concern, and what I'm tempted to call existential concern. It's for this reason that I turned to Judaism. It adds a sort of superstructure to my life, and orders my universe in a way that I've found no secular ideas can. The external moral framework helps me because I really do require external motivation sometimes. The regularity of prayer and services have been immensely beneficial to introducing a state of order into my life. And the day of Shabbat, on which I do not work, write, handle money, or even use electricity, allows me to step back from the busy-ness of everyday life and calmly and objectively look at my life and the world for what it is, not from within the constant need to do but from the outside, reflectively and purposefully. I hope that makes sense to you, and I hope you can see that some people do have actual reasons for being religious other than ignorance. I also hope you see that I'm on your side for the most part...I believe in secularism and I plan to take every opportunity to explain to religious people that atheism isn't the existential nihilistic nightmare that most of the think it is. I understand the problems with religion, and most of people's criticism is deserved. Nevertheless, I wish more atheists could respect people like me and understand where we're coming from here.
TL;DR: Some people have reasons other than ignorance for being religious.
Oh yeah! This one:
God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist Hardcover – January 2, 2007
by Victor J. Stenger
I haven't read that yet. It's definitely on my wishlist now.
Victor Stenger wrote an entire book addressing the fine-tuning argument:
God: The Failed Hypothesis
He put the punchline in the title...
On the whole universe expansion thing, this video should help. I apologies in advance for it being introduced by Richard Dawkins—but like it or not he was an eminent biologist long before he became the poster child for activist atheism and the main lecturer, Lawrence Krauss is perhaps one of the best communicators of astrophysics and science in general since Richard Feynman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
Not caring about the nuts and bolts implications of what you say you believe is not an uncommon dichotomy in believers in belief. If that qualifies as yet another snide remark, again I can only repeat that it isn't supposed to read that way as it certainly doesn't sound like that when I say it in my head. Maybe something weird happens between the synapses and the keyboard that makes me think I'm being clear when I read like a wanker. Who knows?
Whatever the reason I seem to have inadvertently made you feel as if I'm selling you something. Nothing could be further from the truth. There's no genuine leather-bound books on their way to you, no 30 day money back guarantee if you order now. All I'm trying to do—all I ever hope comes of my passion for communicating what I've learned—is pass on the fact that all you need to do, to learn about the beauty of the godless universe for yourself, is pick up a book on a topic you know nothing about and start reading.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591024811
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268026326&sr=1-8
> its funny how everytime I ask an atheist what proof refutes God's existence they find a way to dance around the question.
Maybe that's because the burden lies on the person making the assertion? hmm? The God of the Gaps argument is so lame. That ever decreasing nook where you think your deity lives is not an impressive or convincing argument.
> science still hasn't explained how life is created or where the infinitely dense ball of matter at the source of the big bang
That doesn't mean magic did it. 500 years ago you'd be saying the same thing except thinking earthquakes and disease are a message from your god. And while science can't prove the things you mention, they have made an awfully good start:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
http://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591024811
Victor Stenger: God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist
http://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591024811
No
Thanks for the reply - I apologize that my own response is so late in coming. I was intrigued by how someone might arrive at faith rationally, and had hoped to pick your brains a bit.
I notice that you do not mention empirical evidence. What are your thoughts regarding the evidence (or the need for evidence, perhaps) for a theistic position?
I admit to being a philosophical lightweight - but I find the lack of evidence for any kind of intelligent agency to be insurmountable. Essentially, I cannot distinguish between a universe containing a God who does not measurably affect change, and one in which no such entity exists.
But in fact, the situation is worse than this. Insofar as I am aware of any evidence, it actually weighs against intelligent agency. See, for example, God - The Failed Hypothesis.
With regards to choosing a specific denomination, the lack of evidence similarly strikes me as insurmountable. Without any evidence, I feel compelled to conclude that the prophets were not supernaturally inspired, and therefore did not have access to additional sources of information. And in particular, claims regarding the afterlife, and how God wishes people to live their lives, ring hollowly.
> Naturalistic accounts of mind in addition seemed particularly poor
I assume you're talking about the phenomenon of consciousness? How do theistic accounts improve on this?
> I realized I'd gone on for a page about how unjustly the Ontological Argument is treated
Do you find the ontological argument compelling? If so, then I'd be interested to see a version of the argument that you consider to do it justice. Personally, I'm with Russell when he states (paraphrasing), "It's easier to feel that something must be wrong with the argument than to actually figure out what."
>> It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that.
I find the above quote impossible to sympathize with. I am only interested in what is true, and I could never actively hope for one set of facts over another. Similarly, I have nothing invested in naturalism. It's simply the best explanation (fits the facts that) I am currently aware of. I'd love for you to convince me otherwise. Hah, I notice that Wikipedia has a Popper quote that I would agree with:
> A naturalistic methodology (sometimes called an "inductive theory of science") has its value, no doubt.... I reject the naturalistic view: It is uncritical. Its upholders fail to notice that whenever they believe to have discovered a fact, they have only proposed a convention.
Anyway, thanks if you read this far.
This was a pretty good read.
As was this.
Still reading this one.
A fun, quick read.
Haven't read it, but if his other book is anything by which to judge, worth a look.
Good luck.
Given the absence of evidence, it is best to accept the null hypothesis - i.e. the position not making positive claims.
A positive claim is something like "God exists" or "This tree exists".
You can touch a tree, take a picture of it, climb it. You can feel a change in temperature when you are walking into its shadow. It is safe to say that it exists.
On to god.
More questions like this can be found in God: The Failed Hypothesis
If you are reserving judgement about god, then are you doing the same for dragons, fairies, santa, the loch ness monster? Why not? All of those mythical things are written about in old books.