Interview with Prof.
Victor Stenger
Published
on
September 03, 2009
Victor J. Stenger is an Emeritus
Professor of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Hawaii and adjunct
professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado. He is the author of
five published books, with two more due shortly. He is also the President of
Colorado Citizens for Science (CCFS), Research Fellow of Center for Inquiry
(CFI) and Fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims
of the Paranormal (CSICOP).
MM : Hi Vic, we
welcome you from Mukto-Mona, which is an Internet congregation of society
conscious freethinkers, rationalists, skeptics, atheists & humanists of
mainly Bengali and South Asian descent scattered across the globe. First, We
like to thank you for your on going support for Mukto-Mona over the years. Though
today's interview is mainly prepared to celebrate the upcoming Darwin Day, we
must say that we are very appreciative about your scholarly work on
debunking theistic interpretation of creation, myths, bad science and
pseudoscience of various kinds.
Vic Stenger : Thanks to Mukto-Mona and wishing you a happy Darwin
day.
MM : Why do you think we need to create
awareness about Evolution among lay people and celebrate Darwin Day? Is it
more necessary in today's world then ever before?
Vic Stenger : I don't think it's any more
necessary today that it was when it first appeared in 1859. It may be
the most revolutionary idea in history--that humanity developed by a
series of mindless accidents. I don't see how anyone who believes that
humans are special creations, made "in the image of God," can at the
same time accept Darwinian evolution.
MM : Richard Dawkins has said
in one of interviews that 40% of British pople believe in 'God' where as the
figure is 95% in US. Why America has been way more conservative about
religion than the Europeans? Is there a political, social or historical
reason behind it?
Vic Stenger : Many reasons have been put
forth. But I think one reason for the current dominance of conservatives
in America is money. They have huge amounts of it and are able to market
their product far more effectively than their opposition. And, they are
marketing it to a public that is largely ignorant of science (as well as
everything else of an intellectual nature) and incapable of critical
thinking.
MM : Many argue that a
scientist's position should be agnosticism, as "we don't know everything"
especially about the final "mystery" of the Universe. But you seemed to take
a definite position of Atheism (like Richard Dawkins), as if you are pretty
sure about "nonexistence" of God. How scientific is your ground?
Vic Stenger : Proof in science is not the same
as proof in logic or mathematics. In science, an assertion is considered
proved when the evidence in support of it is so strong that the opposite
assertion is ruled out beyond a reasonable doubt. The
Judeo-Christian-Islamic God plays such an important role in the world
that he should have been detected by now. Instead there is not only no
evidence for such a God,
there is
ample evidence against him. The world looks just like it should be
expected to look in the absence of God. I think this is proper
science--looking at the data.
MM : In your last book "Has
Science Found God?" you tried to provide a critique of contemporary claims
that science supports the existence of God and found them inadequate.
However, in your upcoming book, "God: The Failed Hypothesis", you seem to
claim that science makes a strong case against the existence a God. But many
argue that God itself is not a very well-defined term, and it suffers from
many logical contradictions. So, how much "scientific" is your position in
this case?
Vic Stenger :I do not try to disprove every
conceivable God. I hypothesize a God with certain attributes, then look
for the observable consequences of those attributes. When those
consequences are not seen, then the hypothesis fails. When all put
together, the
Judeo-Christian-Islamic God hypothesis fails.
MM : In some of your books
you relied on multiverse hypothesis, even though it still remains in the
realm of speculation. How are you so sure about that?
Vic Stenger : I have not relied solely on multiple universes for
any of my arguments.
The fine tuning (anthropic principle) argument
fails independent of multiple universes. It is OK to speculate in
science, as long as the speculation is based on well-established
theories. Multiple universes follow as a consequence in a number of
cosmological theories. Someone who makes an argument based on the
assumed existence of a single universe has the burden of proving that
multiple universes do not exist. Since nothing we know forbids them, he
is violating Occam's razor by introducing more hypotheses (the added
hypothesis of a single universe) than are required by the data.
MM : Do you think more
scientists need to speak out against pseudo-science, religion, paranormal
and other superstition just like you did? Why are there very few scientists
talking about these issues?
Vic Stenger : It would help. Most scientists
just think about their own research and worry about funding. It's a
full-time job, so if their work is not threatened they stay out of it.
MM : ID has been defeated in
court in Dover, Pennsylvania; yet you seem to disagree with some of the
statements made by Judge John E. Jones III. Will you kindly explain your
position here?
Vic Stenger : The
judge went further than
necessary in his decision. Once it was proved that the Board
violated the separation of church and state, the case against it was
made. But the judge felt compelled to also rule that ID is not science.
This forced him to define science, which no philosophers of science or
scientists have done to everyone's satisfaction. As part of his
definition he limited science to natural causes and phenomena, which
agreed with the positions of both sides and, in particular, the position
of spokesmen for the scientific community. They thus have played right
into the hands of those who claim science has a dogmatic insistence on
natural or material causes. This position is both unnecessary and false.
Scientists can and do study phenomena such as prayer that may have
supernatural implications.
MM : Vic, we thank you once
again for being with us.
Vic Stenger : Thanks for thinking of me.
Visit :
Prof
Victor Stenger's Article Page
|
