18 of 137 people found the following review helpful
Good Science, Bad Theology,
This review is from: God the Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist (Paperback)
Stenger brilliantly proves that something he has called "god" does not exist. As any proper theist would agree. He is very learned in the best of Physics but what has he read of the best theologians - Thomas aquinas, Augustine of Hippo, Karl Rahner, Karl Barth ? Does not understand about double causation ? Has he never read that God being described as "all powerful" means not "can do anything" but "can do what He wills to do"
Physics answers the questions physics asks.
But he could just as easily write an equally learned and fatally flawed book entitled "How Science shows that Love does not exist " or "How Science shows that Beauty does not exist
If a non-scientist wrote a book entitled "How Philopsphy proves Science is wrong" Sterner would be affronted.
Tracked by 2 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 20 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 6 Jun 2008 20:29:34 BDT
Sir, 'theology' is a polite term for articulate occult babble more excusable in history given the levels of ignorance applying at the time. Please do not confuse it with knowledge, fact or science, but if you have the cosmic co-ordinates of Heaven and Hell please do leave them here.
In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jun 2008 14:18:44 BDT
In reply to an earlier post on 7 Oct 2008 14:51:45 BDT
Amazon Customer says:
This is very odd indeed. One person argues that the theology is bad and the other that the science is bad? So together you get a rather phantasmagorical book refuting nonsense with nonsense?
Posted on 29 Jan 2009 13:04:51 GMT
Mr. Rd Green says:
Love does exist, beauty does exist. They can be proven by chemical reactions triggered in our brains. There is not one piece of proof relating to religion other than the accounts of cavemen who used stories to explain the complex world around them. We don't need these stories anymore and books like this will become more and more commonplace until thiestic beliefs fizzle into obscurity where they belong.
This feedback is nonsense. You obviously feel the need to protect your beliefs but at least have a valid argument. You're reinforcing the authors views.
Posted on 11 Dec 2009 17:24:19 GMT
C. Cryer says:
If your review is to be taken seriously, first you must get Stenger's name right. Typo, i doubt it
In reply to an earlier post on 13 Nov 2011 18:29:52 GMT
Mr. T Holton says:
Posted on 29 Jul 2012 16:45:16 BDT
[Richard Dawkins was criticized in much the same way after publishing The God Delusion. The biologist P.Z. Myers, on his Pharyngula blog, responded to this criticism, and his response was later used by Dawkins in the preface to the paperback edition of The God Delusion. Here's what wikipedia has on it:]
Myers has voiced the position that many of the responses to Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion are what he calls "Courtier's Replies". Replying to critics who felt that Dawkins ignored sophisticated versions of modern theology, Myers compared them to courtiers fawning on the legendary emperor who had no clothes:
"I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk. Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity."
In reply to an earlier post on 25 Nov 2012 21:32:43 GMT
So in the final analysis we have to abandon all logic, even our own senses as onto-logically they prove nothing? Whilst simultaneously accepting the most fantastically absurd assertions of bronze age shepherds? I'll take my own senses and my own feeble, some would say very feeble, intellect, over pregnant virgins, magic apples, and talking snakes, at least until someone proves absolutely that anything metaphysical exists outside the imagination of bronze age humans.
In reply to an earlier post on 25 Nov 2012 22:05:26 GMT
Mr. T Holton says:
You may like to engage with these thoughts more thoroughly by searching for Prof David Bartholomew speaking in a seminar at the Faraday Institute on 23 Nov 2010.
In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jan 2013 16:53:24 GMT
Last edited by the author on 20 Jan 2013 16:54:56 GMT
T. Costick says:
@T.Holton. I took your advice and tracked down the video of David Bartholomew's critique of Stenger's book. I _cannot_ recommend anyone else doing so.
From the outset, Bartholomew reveals his bias against Stenger's viewpoint, talking down his academic qualifications and revealing his own jealousy of Stenger's success as an author. It is clear that Bartholemew approached this with his mind set against every point made in the book. Bartholomew is obviously NOT an unbiased reader and his attempts at refuting Stenger's arguments are laughable.