Refuting Vic Stenger: fine tuning (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, March 04, 2014, 13:12 (3709 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Stenger's defense of atheism:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/how-to-debate-religion_b_4876997.html
Not all points are givens.-They certainly aren't. Here are a few examples:-1) "If you are a non-expert on any subject, you should not say anything about it beyond your competence."-Sound advice, but what would Stenger say to a theist who advised a theologian to stay clear of physics, chemistry and biology?-2) "If the God most people worship existed, we should have seen evidence for him by now. The fact that we do not proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he does not exist."-Who decides the criteria for "evidence"? I haven't seen any evidence that convinces me, but David and Tony have, so who does Stenger mean by "we"? What "evidence" have we seen that life and the mechanisms for reproduction and innovation could arise by chance? None. Does this prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that chance is impossible and design is the only solution? Of course not. Until these mysteries have been solved, "we" can have faith in a superpower or in chance, or "we" can stop making faith-based judgements, and keep an open mind.-3) "Science and religion are fundamentally incompatible because of their contradictory view on the source of knowledge. Science assumes that only by observation can we know about the world. Religion assumes that in addition we learn by revelations from God."-"Revelations" are a soft target, but science and religion (i.e. belief in a "divine creator") are perfectly compatible if you go beyond the limitations of science and try to answer the questions science raises. The atheist scientist may believe that the complexities of life are the product of chance combinations, but this is not science. The theist scientist may believe they're too complex to be anything but the product of design. This is not science either. The moment a scientist or anyone else proposes an answer to the unanswered questions, he enters the realm of philosophy, and in that realm science and religion are compatible.-4) "Atheists claim that the universe just "popped" into existence. I can't believe this.
A number of plausible scenarios have been published by reputable scientists in reputable scientific journals. If you insist they are impossible, then you have the burden of disproving them."-The fact that there are a number of them suggests that most if not all are wrong. If the theist can't disprove an unproven theory of origins, nor can the atheist. Russell's orbiting teapot applies to these plausible but unproven scenarios (e.g. the multiverse) just as it does to the God theory. Stenger falls into all the traps he sets for his theist opponents.
 
5) Stenger pooh-poohs NDEs. He says you can only prove they are not hallucinations if "the subject returns with some knowledge that she could not possibly have known prior to the experience". Clearly this is a subject he should have steered clear of, since there are numerous examples of such information being obtained.-6) "The obvious presence of design and complexity in the world, especially in life, proves there was a designer.
That was a good argument prior to Darwin when people had no idea how life came about. Darwin showed that complex organisms evolve from simpler ones by purely natural processes, without the need for a more complex designer."-Firstly, even post Darwin, we still have no idea how life came about, as he admits later. Secondly, what does he mean by "purely natural processes"? We have no idea what processes have enabled so-called simple organisms to live, let alone invent the complex forms of life we know today. I agree that this does not prove the existence of a designer. It proves nothing, so why should the atheist pretend he knows more than the theist? -7) "Many Christians believe in evolution.
Not really. Surveys indicate that what most believe in is God-guided evolution. That is not evolution as understood by science. That is intelligent design. There is no room for God in evolution."-There is no room for God in science, if we think of science as the study of the observable, material world. Science attempts to provide factual information, but Stenger's "understanding" of that information as "purely natural processes" (see below, on "Nature") is philosophical, not scientific. Objective information and subjective interpretation can be perfectly compatible, and God-guided evolution will still be evolution! Darwin himself explicitly left room for God in his theory.-8) "Science still has not shown how life began.
That is true; but it does not follow that life had to be created by God. To assert that, you have the burden of proving that science will never discover the natural origin of life." [/i]-Of course it doesn't follow. But if a theist can't disprove the negative (science will never discover "the natural origin" of life), nor can an atheist disprove the counter negative (science will never discover the supernatural origin of life). Besides, our knowledge of Nature is so sparse, we have no idea what it might encompass. The terms natural and supernatural are therefore meaningless except to those who insist they already know what is natural.