Book review: 'Why Science Does Not Disprove God' by Amir D. Aczel

[bananas]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/book-review-why-science-does-not-disprove-god-by-amir-d-aczel/2014/04/10/4ee476ec-a49e-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html

Book review: ‘Why Science Does Not Disprove God’ by Amir D. Aczel

By Alan Lightman, Published: April 10

Alan Lightman is a physicist, novelist and professor of the practice of the humanities at MIT. His latest book is “The Accidental Universe.”

<snip>

Aczel, trained as a mathematician, currently a research fellow in the history of science at Boston University and the author of “Fermat’s Last Theorem,” takes aim at the New Atheists in his intelligent and stimulating book “Why Science Does Not Disprove God.” He attempts to show that the New Atheists’ analyses fall far short of disproving the existence of God. In fact, he accuses these folks of staining the scientific enterprise by bending it to their dark mission. (“The purpose of this book is to defend the integrity of science,” he writes in his introduction.) Yet Aczel has a sly mission of his own. Invoking various physical phenomena that do not (yet) have convincing scientific explanations, he sets out not only to debunk the arguments of the New Atheists but also to gently suggest that the findings of science actually point to the existence of God.

In stockpiling his arguments, Aczel quotes from his interviews with dozens of leading scientists and theologians, and interprets statements in a range of popular writings. The resulting book is part science (interesting but superficial summaries of cosmology, quantum mechanics, evolutionary biology, chaos theory), part history of religion, part philosophy, part spirituality, and a modicum of backbiting and invective. The latter applies to the writings of the New Atheists as well.

<snip to where the reviewer disagrees with the author>

I disagree. It is not the inability of science to explain some physical phenomenon that shows we cannot disprove the existence of a creative power (i.e., God). Science is a work in progress, and phenomena that science cannot explain now may be explained 100 years from now. Before the 18th century, people had no explanation for lightning. The reason that science cannot disprove the existence of God, in my opinion, is that God, as understood by all human religions, exists outside time and space. God is not part of our physical universe (although God may choose to enter the physical universe at times). God is not subject to experimental tests. Either you believe or you don’t believe.

Thus, no matter what scientific evidence is amassed to explain the architecture of atoms, or the ways that neurons exchange chemical and electrical signals to create the sensations in our minds, or the manner in which the universe may have been born out of the quantum foam, science cannot disprove the existence of God — any more than a fish can disprove the existence of trees. Likewise, no matter what gaps exist in current scientific knowledge, no matter what baffling good deeds people do, no matter what divine and spiritual feelings people have, theology cannot prove the existence of God. The most persuasive evidence of God, according to the great philosopher and psychologist William James in his landmark book “The Varieties of Religious Experience” (1902), is not physical or objective or provable. It is the highly personal transcendent experience.

<snip>

[bananas]

1. According to Amazon.com the book will be released on April 15.

According to Amazon.com the book will be released on April 15.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/006223059X

The authors website is http://amirdaczel.com/

[Kelvin Mace]

2. Because science cannot prove a negative

Isn't that elementary?

[bananas]

4. He also suggests that the findings of science actually point to the existence of God.

Invoking various physical phenomena that do not (yet) have convincing scientific explanations, he sets out not only to debunk the arguments of the New Atheists but also to gently suggest that the findings of science actually point to the existence of God.

edit to add: some examples are in the rest of the book review.

[Sentath]

5. The God of the Gaps

Is small, and shrinking.

[bananas]

3. Amir Aczel's bio at huffingtonpost

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amir-aczel/

Amir Aczel

Amir D. Aczel, Ph.D., studied mathematics and physics at the University of California at Berkeley, where he met quantum pioneer Werner Heisenberg; he also received a Ph.D. in statistics. Aczel has published 18 popular books on mathematics and physics, including the international bestseller "Fermat's Last Theorem," which was nominated for a Los Angeles Times book award in 1996 and has been translated into 31 languages. His other books include "Entanglement: The Greatest Mystery in Physics," and "Present at the Creation: The Discovery of the Higgs Boson," reissued in paperback in November 2012. Aczel has appeared on the CBS Evening News, CNN, CNBC, Nighline, the History Channel, and on over 100 radio programs. He has lectured at the Royal Society of Arts in London, at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., at the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles, at the Ducal Palace of Genoa, Italy, and at the Doge's Villa near Venice. His 2008 lecture at the Ciudad de las Ideas international conference in Puebla, Mexico, was attended by more that 3,000 people and televised to over 100 million people worldwide. Aczel's articles have appeared in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Times of London, the Jerusalem Post, Scientific American, as well as in other newspapers and magazines. Aczel was a visiting scholar in the history of science at Harvard University in 2005-7, received a Guggenheim Fellowship in 2005, and was awarded a Sloan Foundation fellowship in 2012. His latest book is Why Science Does Not Disprove God, published by HarperCollins on April 15, 2014.

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Science-Does-Not-Disprove/dp/006223059X/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1394041193&sr=1-7&keywords=aczel

[longship]

6. As far as I know only one of the prominent new atheists explicitly makes that claim.

That would be Victor Stenger. But he qualifies the statement saying that one cannot disprove all gods, but one can reasonably say that the gods of the major world religions are disproven due to the lack of evidence that the gods as described exist. He also says that one cannot disprove a deist god but that is not the god the major religions are talking about.

Dawkins explicitly says that he is not 100% sure there are no gods in The God Delusion when he discusses agnosticism.

As far as I know Dennett and Hitchens have never explicitly opined on the disproof of gods. I am not sure about Harris -- it's been a while since I read his book.

So the straw man the author seems to be erecting may be just not true.

[SamKnause]

7. Question,

if there was undeniable proof that "God" existed would you worship him, her, or it ?

If the Bible is the book that this "God" intended us to follow I would not.

Maybe "God" could actually write a religious book instead of depending on others to put his words to paper.

He could correct all the misinformation, straighten out all of the conflicting statements, and update the Bible making it relevant for this century.

He, she, or it could explain the many heinous actions and decisions that were made. (The actions of this being do not coincide with omnipotence)

I think he, she, or it is extremely lousy when it comes to problem solving.

Just my two cents, though no one asked.

[intaglio]

8. The problem with this is that, if a Deity existed, science could prove it

By observing the effects of this outside force either as they happen or in accounting for the results of those effects. We cannot directly observe or measure dark matter but we can observe it's effects. Because a deity has produced no such effects or results therefore we are free to act as if it was not there.

Essentially Amir D. Aczel has forgotten Bertrand Russell's teapot (or IIRC has tried to reason round it) we have no need to assume that there is a teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars and hence no need to fit special tea pot detectors to our spacecraft. There has been a counter argument made that we would know if such a teapot had been launched but Russell's example does not need such special pleading; an initial act of creation or a non-human agency could have placed such a teapot but we would still have no reason to act as if that teapot existed.

[DavidDvorkin]

10. Yes.

[GeorgeGist]

9. I always ask, where did God come from?

I hear crickets.