Victor Stenger: God the Failed Hypothesis

[kerry]

Listened to Stenger last night at a local venue. He's less well known than Hitchens/Dawkins/Harris/Dennett but writes books in the same vein. He seems quite good at criticizing the people who argue that current science supports a God hypothesis. His most recent book argues that not only does science not support the God hypothesis but actually falsifies it. His talk spurred a fair amount of animated discussion by the audience.
Like Dawkins, he's such a died in the wool empiricist that he can't appreciate the possibility that some theists approach the question of God without attempting to justify God's existence with evidence rooted in sensation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Stenger

[Kuan]

Yeah. Problem with scientists is they want to knowledge of God and they want it to be some sort of Justified True Belief (JTB) in Plato's sense. There's a difference between knowledge and belief, the latter being only one necessary condition for the former.

[Carleton Hughes]

Have you read what Sterne,Hume,Russel and Rabelais have to offer on the subject?

[djugurba]

Originally Posted by kerry

Like Dawkins, he's such a died in the wool empiricist that he can't appreciate the possibility that some theists approach the question of God without attempting to justify God's existence with evidence rooted in sensation.

I worked with a (liberal) Mennonite pastor a couple of years ago, and he was curious about my non-belief-based (Batchelor-esqe) buddhism. He was willing and able to discuss the grounds for his faith, and believed fully that the sensations he had and emotional connection he had related to his faith were themselves a sort of empirical evidence. (He also later bought my veggie-powered 300SDL!) Though certain sensation-based experiences of my own (in college, ahhhh college) left me dubious as to the ultimate veracity of anything sensory, he seemed convinced and at least he'd given it some thought. I could respect his position even if I found it wanting, because he at least recognized the importance of investigating his beliefs.

I think the problem is that most folks do not give it any thought at all, or any sort of sufficient critical thought. Too often, self-righteousness precedes the requisite investigation that would so-entitle the pontificator. But perhaps I'm a bit of an an empiricist shill myself.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by djugurba

...
I think the problem is that most folks do not give it any thought at all, or any sort of sufficient critical thought. Too often, self-righteousness precedes the requisite investigation that would so-entitle the pontificator....

True of people in general, not only theists.

B

[djugurba]

Originally Posted by Botnst

True of people in general, not only theists.

B

I didn't so specify- on purpose. I agree completely.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by djugurba

I didn't so specify- on purpose. I agree completely.

Mah bad!

[kerry]

Originally Posted by djugurba

I worked with a (liberal) Mennonite pastor a couple of years ago, and he was curious about my non-belief-based (Batchelor-esqe) buddhism. He was willing and able to discuss the grounds for his faith, and believed fully that the sensations he had and emotional connection he had related to his faith were themselves a sort of empirical evidence. (He also later bought my veggie-powered 300SDL!) Though certain sensation-based experiences of my own (in college, ahhhh college) left me dubious as to the ultimate veracity of anything sensory, he seemed convinced and at least he'd given it some thought. I could respect his position even if I found it wanting, because he at least recognized the importance of investigating his beliefs.

I think the problem is that most folks do not give it any thought at all, or any sort of sufficient critical thought. Too often, self-righteousness precedes the requisite investigation that would so-entitle the pontificator. But perhaps I'm a bit of an an empiricist shill myself.

I was a Mennonite for a while and appreciate a lot of their political ideals. Interpreting emotional states as indications of a divine presence seems pretty unreliable to me, given the facts that our emotions can be stimulated by various material causes.
I'm familiar with Sterner, Hume and Russell. I'd say that Stenger is definitely drawing upon Hume and Russell.

[Matt L]

But how about that "other side?"

How would you suggest that I investigate God? If it feels good, it's the right religion? But that's the same "relativistic moral" path that I'm accused of now!