In the preface to this intelligent and timely contribution to the debate between science and religion, Victor Stenger quotes a Quaker cosmologist: "There is a huge amount of data supporting the existence of God." Not so fast, says Stenger, let's work through the arguments and examine the evidence and see whether science really does have anything to say about God, not the deist or pantheist god but the theist God "who is worshipped by Christians, Jews, and Muslims" and who is supposed to intervene in the world in a significant way. As one of the select band of physicists and mathematicians who developed the standard model of elementary particles and forces, Stenger is well-qualified to tackle directly the claims that quantum physics and chaos theory and the big bang provide evidence for God. He also revisits the vexed subject of creationism and intelligent design, pointing out along the way that "not a single paper on the subject has been published in a mainstream scientific journal". So much for the theists wanting to do proper science. By the end of this brilliant book, any reasonable person must answer, no, science has not yet found God.
Despite the best efforts of some postmodernists, science is still widely held in Western culture to be the arbiter of truth. It's not surprising that the faithful want a piece of its well-deserved reputation for intellectual integrity. People think science is good at "proving" things. The pope thinks so too ("Pius XII offered the big bang as a 'proof' of creation ex nihilo and the existence of a creator"). What they forget is that science is also very good at disproving things. So, when devout Christians raise creationism onto an unearned pedestal alongside evolution, and stand back to admire their arrogant handiwork, that's not the end of the story. Real scientists see that "creationism makes a wide range of assertions that can be tested empirically", and that it fails every single one of them.
The new wave of proselytizers and advocates of the "wedge strategy", working for conservative, or reactionary, institutions like the Center for Science and Culture, like the prestige the word "science" attracts but don't like being held to account by scientists like Stenger. A common ploy is to "accuse mainstream scientists of dogmatically refusing to accept the 'new evidence' that signs of purposeful design in the universe can be found in scientific data from cosmology, cognitive science, and molecular biology". There's nothing like the charge of dogmatic belief to raise the hackles of an honest scientist. In fact, the argument "that conventional science has a built-in dogmatic attachment to naturalism which prevents it from even considering supernatural causes" backfires spectacularly, and is one of the main themes of Stenger's writing. He points out that "the naturalism of science is methodological and not necessarily ontological." So, "if a theist makes an empirical claim, then scientists can investigate that claim scientifically." And too bad for that claim if it doesn't stack up: it will join the growing pile of junk science of interest only to a dwindling number of "true believers".
Why does this book matter? It matters to anyone concerned about the good name of science, about truth and reason and the role they play in rescuing humanity from the many delusions we enjoy indulging. It also matters because so much is at stake: "it seems that half of the people who believe in God say they do so for what might loosely be called 'scientific' reasons". Stenger is open-minded and is probably more imaginative than most Christians in coming up with ways in which God could be shown to exist. The fact is, he has yet to come across a single scientific reason that stands up to scrutiny.
The debate between science and religion, over which is better at discerning true beliefs, is a relatively recent affair. The first scientists often saw their role as unveiling and describing the detail of God's creation. Thus Newton could look both at the skies and scripture in his search for truth, although whatever his personal beliefs may have been we now remember him for what he discovered as a scientist. As the years ticked by, and the slow work of science accumulated, it became clear that reason was more help than revelation, and that, whisper it quietly, scientific discoveries might actually contradict biblical stories. Verses like "Thou didst set the Earth on its foundations, so that it should never be shaken" forced churchmen "to admit that what is written in the Bible cannot always be taken literally". Thus began the art of apologetics "in which the writings in the Bible are reinterpreted to conform with new knowledge". Ground was conceded, and God retreated from the laboratory. For millennia, priests and theologians had called the shots and decided upon the "truth" as they saw fit. The pendulum swung, and knowledge was once more a one-sided affair, this time with scientists in charge.
Theistically inclined scientists then began to see the potential of quantum mechanics and cosmology to provide cover for their Bronze Age beliefs. They could "warble Platonic melodies of a reality manifested in the equations of mathematics" and preach to a lay public lacking the means to know when the wool was being pulled over their eyes. Thank goodness therefore for Victor Stenger, who has made a late career out of exposing the claims of this new and subtle priesthood. He concludes that the "universe is not populated by mysterious forces... that control our lives and destinies for some unseen purpose." While faith divides the world and preserves untruths, "the self-correcting nature of [science] makes it virtually impossible for scientific fraud to succeed for very long", another reason why the "light of reason" is superior to the "light of faith". Of course, many not only remain to be persuaded, but do not even realize there is anything to be persuaded of.
