What do you think?
Rate this book
Quantum Gods: Creation, Chaos, and the Search for Cosmic Consciousness
Does quantum mechanics show a connection between the human mind and the cosmos? Are our brains tuned into a "cosmic consciousness" that pervades the universe enabling us to make our own reality? Do quantum mechanics and chaos theory provide a place for God to act in the world without violating natural laws?Many popular books make such claims and argue that key developments in twentieth-century physics, such as the uncertainty principle and the butterfly effect, support the notion that God or a universal mind acts upon material reality.Physicist Victor J. Stenger examines these contentions in this carefully reasoned and incisive analysis of popular theories that seek to link spirituality to physics. Throughout the book Stenger alternates his discussions of popular spirituality with a survey of what the findings of twentieth-century physics actually mean. Thus he offers the reader a useful synopsis of contemporary religious ideas as well as basic but sophisticated physics presented in layperson's terms (without equations).Of particular interest in this book is Stenger's discussion of a new kind of deism, which proposes a God who creates a universe with many possible pathways determined by chance, but otherwise does not interfere with the physical world or the lives of humans. Although it is possible, says Stenger, to conceive of such a God who "plays dice with the universe" and leaves no trace of his role as prime mover, such a God is a far cry from traditional religious ideas of God and, in effect, may as well not exist.Like his bestselling book, God, The Failed Hypothesis, this new work presents a rigorously argued challenge to many popular notions of God and spirituality.
292 pages, Hardcover
First published April 21, 2009
19 people are currently reading
550 people want to read
About the author
Victor J. Stenger
31 books216 followersVictor John Stenger was an American particle physicist, outspoken atheist and author, active in philosophy and popular religious skepticism.
He published 13 books for general audiences on physics, quantum mechanics, cosmology, philosophy, religion, atheism, and pseudoscience. He popularized the phrase "Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings".
He published 13 books for general audiences on physics, quantum mechanics, cosmology, philosophy, religion, atheism, and pseudoscience. He popularized the phrase "Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
August 2, 2023
The best ever quote i've seen
"The problem in this day and age, aside from fundamentalist pseudoscience and in reaction to it, is that scientists nowadays want to sell books and become public figures, which means becoming vocal in areas quite outside their own fields of expertise."
"The so-called "New Atheist" phenomenon is a good example of this postmodern, trendy social movement by scientists who seem to make up for lack of any real philosophical sophistication with copious amounts of verbiage."
---
Amazone
Since the discovery of Quantum Mechanics in early 20th century, physicists (including several of the founders of QM) were surprised about the ontological implications of it. In short, QM, which is by now the very pillar of our technological society, appears to imply that there is no objective reality that science studies, in the sense that the only way to make sense of the theory is by assuming that reality is contingent on consciousness.
Einstein complained about QM implying that the moon is not there when nobody is looking.
A comment attributed to Niehls Bohr is as follows: "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is.".
Werner Heisenberg wrote: "One cannot go back to the idea of an objective real [material] world whose smallest parts exist objectively."
Pascual Jordan wrote: "Observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it....We ourselves produce the results of measurement."
Eugene Wigner wrote: "It is not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness...It will remain remarkable in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the conclusion that the content of consciousness is an ultimate reality."
John Wheeler wrote: "No elementary phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon." And "Useful as it is under everyday circumstances o say that the world exists 'out there' independent of us, that view can no longer be upheld. There is strange sense in which this is a 'participatory universe'".
Arthur Eddington: "To put the conclusion crudely - the stuff of the world is 'mind stuff'".
Bernard d'Espagnat: "The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."
David Mermin commenting on Einstein's question: "We now know that the moon is demonstrably not there when nobody looks."
Sir James Jeans: "The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine."
Martin Rees: "The universe exists because we are aware of it." Euan Squires: "Every interpretation of quantum mechanics involves consciousness."
Nick Herbert published an entire book about the ontological implications of QM, "Quantum Reality".
As recently as 2004 Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner published "Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness".
Other excellent books are "The Ghost in the Atom" edited by Paul Davies, and "Quantum Phyisics - Illusion or Reality" by Alastair Rae.
These are all no-nonsense physicists, and many of them are eminent ones.
So QM represents a real problem for any materialistic understanding of reality. As philosopher Bertrand Russell put it: "It has begun to seem that matter, like the Cheshire Cat, is becoming gradually diaphanous and nothing is left but the grin, caused, presumably, by amusement at those who still think it is there".
So it was with some interest I started reading Stenger's book to see how he dealt with this problem.
I couldn't be more disappointed.
First of all he doesn't make any serious effort to deal with it.
Rather he concentrates on the various New Age gurus who publish pseudoscience, on various paranormal claims (telepathy and the like), on the sensationalist documentary "What the Bleep do We Know?", as well as on physicists Fritjof Capra's "The Tao of Physics" and Amit Goswami's "The Self-Aware Universe".
The latter two books interpret the quantum problem from the point of view of Eastern mysticism, which may or may not be appropriate, but which is irrelevant to the seriousness of the question at hand.
The whole book strikes me as an intent to use a lot of smoke to convince the reader that there isn't really any serious problem to deal with in the first place.
The book contains many errors and misleading statements in its discussion of science.
So for example on page 95 it says "The organs of the human body, including the brain, run on Newtonian mechanics" - which must be news to biochemists and neuroscientists.
On page 103 it says "[Stephen Jay] Gould also insisted that there was no guarantee evolution would always act to produce increasingly complex forms of life with ever-broadening capabilities. However this remains controversial." In fact this isn't controversial but a rather obvious property of Darwinism.
On page 184 it says "There is no wave-particle duality. Photons are just particles". Actually, that photons sometimes display particle-like behavior and sometimes wave-like behavior is an observational fact and one of the fundamental insights of QM.
On page 207 he writes "No one has ever seen a particle moving faster than light nor transmitted information from one point to another superluminally." In fact in 1995 Horst Aichmann and Gunter Nimtz have transmitted Mozart's 40th Symphony as frequency modulated microwaves (i.e. photons) through an 11.4 cm length of barrier at a velocity of 4.7 times higher than light speed, receiving audibly recognizable music.
On page 196 he claims that the "observer" in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM need not be a conscious being but may be any "passive measuring instrument". In fact what constitutes a "measurement" is much debated about and Stenger's claim above is very far from the concensus. Take for example the famous "Schrodinger's cat" thought experiment: The paradox of having a cat in a quantum superposition of being both alive and dead at the same time would not disappear were one to put a video camera inside the cat's box; rather both the cat and the camera would exist in a quantum superposition.
On page 197 he criticizes Bohm's interpretation of QM by pointing out that it offers "nothing new in calculational ability and producing no unique empirical results". But the same goes for all interpretations of QM, so this is hardly grounds for criticizing one of them. On page 206 he writes "The only deterministic quantum theory is that of Bohm". Actually there is only one quantum theory. Bohm's is one out of several naturalistic interpretations of quantum theory, and his is not the only deterministic one, for Everett's so-called "many worlds" interpretation is deterministic too.
On page 228 he approvingly quotes Jacques Monod who wrote: "Chance alone is the source of every innovation, of all creation, in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution."
This may be the personal belief of Monod, but it's not a belief based on science. For even though the theory of evolution allows for "pure chance" it does not require it. Indeed the Darwinian mechanism works just as well using not chance but a deterministic pseudo-random generator. That's why the theory of evolution has not falsified determinism.
Stenger continues by praising those scientists who wrongly hold that the theory of evolution implies Monod's view: "This remains the view of most scientists, but only a few such as Monod, Steven Weinberg, and Richard Dawkins have the courage to say so publicly. And they are castigated for it."
I don't know whether Weinberg and Dawkins share Monod's unscientific view that the theory of evolution implies randomness. Actually I doubt it.
Dawkins has only claimed, correctly, that the universe we observe is just as it would be if evolution was based on blind chance - not that evolution was based on blind chance. Certainly philosopher Daniel Dennett does not share Monod's belief, as he has explicitly spoken against it.
Where things get bizarre is when Stenger tries to do philosophy.
On page 64 Stenger handwaves away a major view about reality called idealism by noting that when one kicks a rock the rock kicks back; of course that would also be the case if idealism is true, so it's not like kicking a rock "refutes" idealism.
On page 66 Stenger informs us that time exists only in the human mind and that time is really a human invention.
On page 73 we are informed that space too is only a human invention. Humanity has "what masquerades as free will", so free will too is presumably a human invention. Even the laws of physics are "human inventions" (page 262).
Amazing how when one assumes that God is just a human invention, a lot of other basic things must follow suit.
On page 211 he claims that materialism is consistent with "commonplace experience". In fact it's very difficult to see how materialism could possibly be consistent with the very fact of experience; it appears Stenger has never heard of the hard problem of consciousness, or perhaps he tries to shove it under the rug too.
A major part in the end of the book is dedicated to the question of whether the claim that God acts specially in creation is compatible with science. He mentions in some detail the ideas of several theologians in this respect but then comments on their ideas with just a few words, such as "Good try." (page 216), as if he wants to give the impression that such ideas are not worth discussing - but if so why describe them in the book in the first place? In this context Stenger quickly becomes self-contradictory:
On page 241 he states that if God played such a special role in the universe then God "should leave observable physical evidence".
But on page 221 he describes how God could violate the laws of physics in a way that this violation would simply not be "detectable to humans".
Not to mention that if this manner of divine action is fundamentally not detectable to humans then it is incoherent to claim that it represents a violation of the laws of physics; after all we know about the laws of physics from what we can detect.
On page 243 he again describes how God could act in the universe: "To have full control over all events God would have to manage the motion of every fundamental particle in the universe in a nanosecond-by nanosecond basis. I suppose, being omnipotent, he could do that."
So God could massively interfere with the universe without science detecting it after all. So what's the problem? That he "gets the impression in his reading that most theologians would not be happy with that solution". So there.
When confronted with one of the few philosophical premises everybody agrees with, namely that from nothing nothing comes, he redefines "nothing" as what has no structure (page 250), but clearly that's not what "nothing" means.
Argumentation by the redefinition of common concepts appears to be a fashionable trend in atheism.
On page 263 we learn that we can view the Earth and humanity as "forms of frozen nothing". As I said, bizarre.
Finally, the carelessness of the book is annoying.
In the foreword written by the well-known Michael Shermer we read that physicist Amit Goswami had said "The material world around us is nothing but possible movements of consciousness. I am choosing moment by moment my experience."
Shermer then informs us that in his monthly column in Scientific American he publicly challenged Goswami to leap out of a twenty-story building and consciously choose the experience of surviving the experiment. Impressive, no?
Only on page 38 of his book Stenger makes explicitly clear that when Goswami says "I" or "you", as in "you make your own reality", he means the "all-pervasive cosmic consciousness" and not some individual human.
So what is one to make of Shermer's huge equivocation in the foreword? Perhaps he did not read the book to which he wrote the foreword?
But then again didn't Stenger read Shermer's foreword he put in his own book? Hardly likely. It's far more likely that they just don't care. It's all about making an impression.
The book does have some merits. Its explanation of some modern scientific concepts, especially in relation with special relativity, is lucid.
It very convincingly criticizes all claims of top-down causality noting that in all such cases computer simulations using only bottom-up causality produce the relevant effects one ascribes to top-down causality.
But on the whole this is very superficial and misleading book.
Any of the books I mention above does a much better job explaining quantum weirdness.
Dianelos Georgoudis
---
A child on the philosophy-of-science playground...
If you cast your ontological marketplace vote on what the so-called New Atheist movement enthusiastically tells you (which, let us remember, represents a small but vocal group among the general population), skeptics such as Richard Dawkins (biology) and Victor Stenger or Steven Weinberg (physics) have pretty much eradicated the validity of any type of religious or "spiritual" belief.
According to Dawkins, "Darwin chased God out of his old haunts in biology" (which may be news to some distinguished biologists), and supposedly physicists like Stenger "closed the gaps" on theist hopes from the physics angle, in his numerous books and articles.
I guess all hope for mankind's spiritual inklings has been killed...
Or maybe not.
Stenger's Quantum Gods book is a follow-up to his earlier best-selling God: The Failed Hypothesis. The earlier book targeted the Abrahamic (Judeo-Christian-Islamic) religions, and now Stenger goes after so-called New Age spirituality, or what he calls quantum spirituality, where proponents try to use quantum mechanics to justify a wide range of non-empirical beliefs...many of which have paranormal or Eastern philosophy nuances.
The second part of the book tries to tackle what he terms quantum theology, in which QM and chaos theory are called upon to provide a place for God to act in the world without violating any natural laws.
First, the New-Age phenomenon.
Stenger picks some pretty easy targets to critique, and he does so with obvious relish. He examines typical New-Agey "create your own reality" themes from two enormously popular films (i.e., "The Secret" and "What the Bleep Do We Know"), then turns his attention to a few "fringe" physicists espousing New-Age views (Amit Goswami, Fred Alan Wolf, etc.), plus a few other New-Age characters. Stenger's sarcasm is in full force here, targeting the modern phenomenon where the word "quantum" obviously becomes a buzzword for any type of bizarre pop fad an author wants to promote.
Let's go on to a more problematic aspect of Stenger's book, which is expressed in his comments on so-called "quantum theology".
In my opinion, Stenger's arguments on this topic tend to be superficial and largely inadequate dealing with the complex arguments involved, making this section of his book much weaker than when he is attacking various New-Age beliefs.
The problems begin when Stenger turns his focus off of easy targets and broadens his attack on human "spirituality" (for lack of a better term) in general...which, of course, is an irritating topic to any committed "reductionist".
It is one thing to ridicule certain fringe physicists, for example, who are far away from the mainstream of orthodox science.
It is another thing entirely, however, to attack all metaphysical reflection as if Stenger's own dismissive stance is the only intelligent choice.
Simply, there are numerous world-class physicists, biologists and other scientists who do NOT share Stenger's disdain for anything smacking of "spirituality" (or using Stenger's own definition here, of "somethingism" as opposed to "nothingism").
It is difficult to get this point across to avid readers of the pop atheistic literature, who are typically only exposed to very limited segment of reductionist reading material.
And alas for Stenger personally, some of his fellow physicists (with vastly different metaphysics) are more distinguished in their science work than he is. Just for my own curiosity, I browsed to see how many physicist Nobel-Laureates, for example, have publicly espoused plainly "theistic" or more generally some type of "spiritual" worldviews...sure enough, they aren't hard to find.
My point here isn't to play some kind of game of one-upmanship, but merely to remind fans of Stenger's books that his extremely dismissive worldview isn't necessarily shared by some very distinguished scientists...nor necessarily even by other physicists.
What any objective observer of the New Atheist phenomenon should realize is that attempts to somehow link spirituality to a faulty or inferior intellect (common enough in their literature) is laughable. No one should take this kind of caricature seriously.
But my objection against Stenger's black-and-white reductionist pitch to readers goes deeper than merely comparing scientific achievements on various sides of the reductionist debate.
The heart of the problem with dogmatic atheistic views like Stenger's is, it closes off any real inquiry into metaphysical reflection, PERIOD.
The problem for Stenger assuring us physics has (supposedly) undermined this whole "metaphysics" enterprise - "superstitions", I believe, is the common atheist dismissal - is that no such thing is possible, categorically speaking.
As (agnostic) biologist H. Allen Orr observed in an excellent article for New Yorker (The God Project), "What experiment could prove that the universe has no purpose? To suppose that a kind of physics can demolish a kind of metaphysics is to commit what philosophers call a category mistake."
And we've got more problems. Some of Stenger's views are controversial/idiosyncratic to say the least, which many of his readers might not be aware of.
For example, Stenger has an interesting slant on so-called wave/particle duality.
Stenger's take on the subject is that waves do not exist, and physicists have been wrong all these years referring to a wave/particle duality at all.
J. Storey
November 9, 2013
Recipe for a great science book:
1. Find a writer who is both extremely fluent as a writer and as a scientist.
2. Piss this writer off by letting pseudoscience claim his area of specialty makes claims it does not in a cinematic documentary and best-selling books.
3. After completing the book, get one of the most recognizable skeptics to write the forward.
4. Unleash upon the world.
To say I enjoyed "Quantum Gods" is an understatement. This book is the first time in months that I read something that I could not put down. Now, I will grant, thanks to John Gribben, Leonard Suskind, Stephen Hawking, Richard Feynman, and Steven Weinberg, I was more fluent on the topic of quantum mechanics than perhaps others. This gave me a certain advantage in not being daunted by the detailed explanations (more on this in a moment).
The apparent impetus for this book was the popularity of "What the Bleep Do We Know" and the "The Secret." Having put to rest in previous books the question of whether science can disprove the monotheist god (contrary to Dawkins' claim, Stenger shows how it is possible), Stenger turns his pen on "quantum spirituality" and the New Age movement.
Michael Shermer's forward contains his usual flair and humor, introducing the book and doing what Christopher Hitchens had done for "God: The Failed Hypothesis." The praise given is well-deserved, and the book delivers as Shermer promises.
If there is one "problem" with the book, it is this: Quantum Mechanics and its subsidiary disciplines are not common sense and in fact sometimes defy how we macro-creatures think the world works. If a reader is not at least passingly familiar with the ideas, the book quickly bogs down. If however the reader is willing to push forward, some themes arise as well as some familiar names. That Stenger once worked with Dr. Richard Feynman, I think, is why Stenger is so capable of making quantum mechanics understandable. The history lessons given here are essential and the reader quickly becomes familiar with the great minds of the discipline as well as their discoveries.
As Stenger proceeds, some of the questions from theists and very plausible answers arise. In no way does the author give short-shrift to the theologians (and quantum consciousness proponents), quoting them verbatim before demolishing their arguments. Admittedly, he is far less kind to the New Age garbage than he is to the monotheists and their attempts to find a place for their god in quantum mechanical functions.
I recommend this book highly as long as you have the discipline to wade into the theories, make the effort to read the diagrams, and remember that Albert Einstein himself was disturbed by the implications of quantum theory. If you watched "What the Bleep Do We Know," read "The Secret," or you have been taken in by Deepak Chopra's books, please understand you really do not know "bleep" about quantum theory...and as Stenger shows, the authors and producers of those works are lying to you.
1. Find a writer who is both extremely fluent as a writer and as a scientist.
2. Piss this writer off by letting pseudoscience claim his area of specialty makes claims it does not in a cinematic documentary and best-selling books.
3. After completing the book, get one of the most recognizable skeptics to write the forward.
4. Unleash upon the world.
To say I enjoyed "Quantum Gods" is an understatement. This book is the first time in months that I read something that I could not put down. Now, I will grant, thanks to John Gribben, Leonard Suskind, Stephen Hawking, Richard Feynman, and Steven Weinberg, I was more fluent on the topic of quantum mechanics than perhaps others. This gave me a certain advantage in not being daunted by the detailed explanations (more on this in a moment).
The apparent impetus for this book was the popularity of "What the Bleep Do We Know" and the "The Secret." Having put to rest in previous books the question of whether science can disprove the monotheist god (contrary to Dawkins' claim, Stenger shows how it is possible), Stenger turns his pen on "quantum spirituality" and the New Age movement.
Michael Shermer's forward contains his usual flair and humor, introducing the book and doing what Christopher Hitchens had done for "God: The Failed Hypothesis." The praise given is well-deserved, and the book delivers as Shermer promises.
If there is one "problem" with the book, it is this: Quantum Mechanics and its subsidiary disciplines are not common sense and in fact sometimes defy how we macro-creatures think the world works. If a reader is not at least passingly familiar with the ideas, the book quickly bogs down. If however the reader is willing to push forward, some themes arise as well as some familiar names. That Stenger once worked with Dr. Richard Feynman, I think, is why Stenger is so capable of making quantum mechanics understandable. The history lessons given here are essential and the reader quickly becomes familiar with the great minds of the discipline as well as their discoveries.
As Stenger proceeds, some of the questions from theists and very plausible answers arise. In no way does the author give short-shrift to the theologians (and quantum consciousness proponents), quoting them verbatim before demolishing their arguments. Admittedly, he is far less kind to the New Age garbage than he is to the monotheists and their attempts to find a place for their god in quantum mechanical functions.
I recommend this book highly as long as you have the discipline to wade into the theories, make the effort to read the diagrams, and remember that Albert Einstein himself was disturbed by the implications of quantum theory. If you watched "What the Bleep Do We Know," read "The Secret," or you have been taken in by Deepak Chopra's books, please understand you really do not know "bleep" about quantum theory...and as Stenger shows, the authors and producers of those works are lying to you.
June 1, 2011
In recent years it has become fashionable for various new age types and Christian apologists to attempt to use findings in quantum physics to prove the existence of the supernatural. This is, perhaps, most exemplified by the new age "documentary" film What the Bleep Do We Know, a work so full of credulous nonsense that it must have set a new record for thickest bullshit per minute in a feature length film.
Enter Victor Stenger, a retired experimental physicist with vast knowledge in the subject of quantum physics. Stenger very carefully and methodically explains what quantum physics is and isn't, and shows why the facts imply just the opposite of what the new agers and Christians say. That is, there almost certainly isn't a god or other supernatural force influencing events in the universe.
While I occasionally found Stenger's explanations of quantum physics a little hard to follow, and had to go back and read some sections over a few times, I thought he mostly made his case admirably well. In the end I was extremely impressed with this book. I learned a lot about quantum physics, and it was satisfying to finally read a book directly responding to some of the cosmological claims of the new age crowd. My only complaint is that he probably spent more time on Christian claims than the new agers. However, he redeemed himself by doing a great job of that too.
Read this book!
Enter Victor Stenger, a retired experimental physicist with vast knowledge in the subject of quantum physics. Stenger very carefully and methodically explains what quantum physics is and isn't, and shows why the facts imply just the opposite of what the new agers and Christians say. That is, there almost certainly isn't a god or other supernatural force influencing events in the universe.
While I occasionally found Stenger's explanations of quantum physics a little hard to follow, and had to go back and read some sections over a few times, I thought he mostly made his case admirably well. In the end I was extremely impressed with this book. I learned a lot about quantum physics, and it was satisfying to finally read a book directly responding to some of the cosmological claims of the new age crowd. My only complaint is that he probably spent more time on Christian claims than the new agers. However, he redeemed himself by doing a great job of that too.
Read this book!
October 23, 2024
NOW STENGER CRITIQUES “NON-MIRACULOUS” CONCEPTIONS OF GOD
Victor John Stenger (born 1935) is an American particle physicist, philosopher, author, and religious skeptic; he is also a regular featured science columnist for the Huffington Post.
He wrote in the Preface to this 2009 book, “In ['God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist'] I tried to be very clear that I was not talking about every conceivable god, just the God with a capital ‘G.’ This is a God who not only created the universe but continues to play a central role in its operation and, most important, in the lives of humans for whom he has reserved a special place in the scheme of things… I am not finished. Other conceivable gods can be imagined whose attributes also lend their actions to be examined under the light of reason and science… Many people in nations less religious than America believe there must be more to the universe than matter. I will focus on two concepts of realities thought to lie ought there beyond the material world of science that at the same time are based ostensibly on scientific principles---specifically quantum mechanics… The first concept, which I term ‘quantum spirituality,’ asserts that quantum mechanics has provided us with a connection between the human mind and the cosmos. The second concept, which I term ‘quantum theology,’ argues that quantum mechanics and chaos theory provide a place for God to act in the world without violating his own natural laws.” (Pg. 13-14)
He continues, “I will [also] consider … a God who created the universe but does not act in any way that is inconsistent with the laws of nature. This God would be very difficult to detect by the means I applied in ‘God: The Failed Hypothesis.’ Such a God would not perform miracles… Such a God would have left no evidence behind at the creation, so we would expect creation to appear perfectly natural to physicists and cosmologists… Such a God would not answer prayers… Such a God would not reveal facts to humans that they cannot have obtained by sensory means… A moral God who deliberately hides himself, exacting punishment on those who do not believe for good reasons… However, we can imagine a God who deliberately hides from us but issues no punishment… and no reward… Such a God would not need his creations to grovel before him.” (Pg. 15-16)
He acknowledges, “The story of Galileo’s trial by the Inquisition… is also part myth and part fact. Historians now largely agree that Galileo was not tried for teaching heliocentrism, but for disobeying a Church order… in 1616 he was instructed not to discuss heliocentrism as a fact until he had definitive physical proof. This he claimed to have in 1632 with the publication of Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. In fact the proof presented there, which was based on the assumption that Earth’s motion causes the tides, was wrong." (Pg. 89-90)
He asserts, “Since we still do not understand how life originally came about on Earth, anyone is free to propose that God initiated the process. However, saying that ‘God did it’ is no more an explanation than ‘Nature did it.’ We need to know how it was done. Furthermore, just because science cannot currently explain the origin of life, we have no reason to expect it never will. Seeking God in the gaps of scientific knowledge has never proven to be a fruitful enterprise. Science has always had a way of filling its own gaps.” (Pg. 103)
He also notes, “However, Darwinism is perfectly compatible with the deist god of the Enlightenment. Evolution can be seen as the way the deity decided to create life in the universe, the whole development of life including humanity being written into the laws of nature at the creation. The problem is, this requires an acceptance of the clockwork universe and leaves no room for human free will… However… the clockwork universe has been refuted by quantum physics, thereby pulling the rug out from Enlightenment deism.” (Pg. 104)
He says of Fritjof Capra’s 'The Tao of Physics,' “To Capra, bootstrap theory was a beautiful example of the connectedness that he found in Eastern philosophy… Capra joined [Geoffrey] Chew’s group in 1975, just having written his best seller, and… just as the bootstrap began to unravel.” (Pg. 145) Later, he adds, “Capra was putting his money on bootstrap theory, which did away with the notion of elementary particles. However, even by the time of the publication of Tao, elementary particles were back in fashion and had become part of the standard model… Capra’s contention that physics implies a universe as one interconnected whole is edifying and poetic. Certainly, parts of the universe are connected in various ways. But Capra insists that we cannot understand our world unless we treat it as one inseparable whole.” (Pg. 171)
He argues, “The main message about complexity… for the purposes of this book is the fact that complexity can arise naturally from simplicity… The development of complex systems from simpler systems has been demonstrated in virtually every field of science and, indeed, everyday life. Snowflakes develop spontaneously from water vapor. Amino acids and other molecules of life are easily assembled from basic chemical elements… Once life exists, organisms develop from the splitting or merging of cells.” (Pg. 151) He continues, “Emergence is just a name for the evolution of complexity out of simplicity, no doubt a notable phenomenon and little doubt that it arises purely from particles of matter.” (Pg. 161)
He explains, “evolution does not conflict with the new deism… while we do not know exactly the mechanism by which our universe appeared 13.7 billion years ago, we can present any number of plausible scenarios based on well-established physics and cosmology… Similarly, we cannot explain exactly how life originated, but many proposed scenarios consistent with well-established chemistry and biology can be found in reputable scientific journals. Thus no rational basis exists for claiming that a supernatural origin for life or the universe must have occurred… no case can be made that we need something more than matter to understand the universe.” (Pg. 211-212)
He asks, “If life is converging inevitably toward high intelligence, how is it that of the millions of species on Earth we have only one, Home sapiens, with that ability? Look how far ahead we are than other animals in intelligence. Indeed, since most life forms are microbial, intelligence would not seem to be very high at all on the universe’s agenda.” (Pg. 231)
He states, “The new deist god creates the universe but includes in it a huge element of chance. Of course apologists will work very hard to reconcile this new god with Christianity, but… It is hard to see how they will make this god into one who still should be worshipped and prayed to… I have bad news for them. Modern physics and cosmology imply that all the creator did when he made the universe, if he existed at all, was make a single toss of the dice.” (Pg. 235-236) Later, he adds, “The Enlightenment deist god, who created a perfectly predetermined universe, can almost but not quite be ruled out… And science has no reason to introduce into its explanatory systems an Enlightenment deist god.” (Pg. 261) Still later, he observes, “Deism and Christianity have always been totally incompatible---as incompatible as science and Christianity.” (Pg. 243)
He summarizes, “My main arguments against the existence of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God are scientific ones. A God who plays such an important role in the universe as the God of the great monotheisms should leave observable, physical evidence for his existence… he cannot deliberately hide from us and remain a moral god… Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence beyond a reasonable doubt when the evidence should be there and is not found… God’s actions in the world, including the creation itself, should be detectable. Of course, an all-powerful God is free to do whatever he wants, but it is inconsistent with his omnipotence for God to violate presumably perfect laws that he instituted in the first place. Furthermore, such a God would be much easier to detect by our direct observation of natural law violations. We see no such violations… We can safely conclude that an omnipotent God who takes direct divine action in the world without violating natural laws can be ruled out.” (Pg. 241)
He concludes, “So we appear to have good evidence for a universe that came about spontaneously, without cause, from nothing. The laws of physics also came from nothing. The structure of the universe emerged from nothing. Indeed, we can view that structure, including Earth and humanity, as forms of frozen nothing.” (Pg. 262-263)
This book is a substantial addition to Stenger’s earlier arguments; this book focuses more on the “religious/philosophical” issues than the “scientific” issues, but it will be of great interest to those who like his other books (although it should be supplemented with at least one or two of his more scientifically-focused books).
Victor John Stenger (born 1935) is an American particle physicist, philosopher, author, and religious skeptic; he is also a regular featured science columnist for the Huffington Post.
He wrote in the Preface to this 2009 book, “In ['God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist'] I tried to be very clear that I was not talking about every conceivable god, just the God with a capital ‘G.’ This is a God who not only created the universe but continues to play a central role in its operation and, most important, in the lives of humans for whom he has reserved a special place in the scheme of things… I am not finished. Other conceivable gods can be imagined whose attributes also lend their actions to be examined under the light of reason and science… Many people in nations less religious than America believe there must be more to the universe than matter. I will focus on two concepts of realities thought to lie ought there beyond the material world of science that at the same time are based ostensibly on scientific principles---specifically quantum mechanics… The first concept, which I term ‘quantum spirituality,’ asserts that quantum mechanics has provided us with a connection between the human mind and the cosmos. The second concept, which I term ‘quantum theology,’ argues that quantum mechanics and chaos theory provide a place for God to act in the world without violating his own natural laws.” (Pg. 13-14)
He continues, “I will [also] consider … a God who created the universe but does not act in any way that is inconsistent with the laws of nature. This God would be very difficult to detect by the means I applied in ‘God: The Failed Hypothesis.’ Such a God would not perform miracles… Such a God would have left no evidence behind at the creation, so we would expect creation to appear perfectly natural to physicists and cosmologists… Such a God would not answer prayers… Such a God would not reveal facts to humans that they cannot have obtained by sensory means… A moral God who deliberately hides himself, exacting punishment on those who do not believe for good reasons… However, we can imagine a God who deliberately hides from us but issues no punishment… and no reward… Such a God would not need his creations to grovel before him.” (Pg. 15-16)
He acknowledges, “The story of Galileo’s trial by the Inquisition… is also part myth and part fact. Historians now largely agree that Galileo was not tried for teaching heliocentrism, but for disobeying a Church order… in 1616 he was instructed not to discuss heliocentrism as a fact until he had definitive physical proof. This he claimed to have in 1632 with the publication of Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. In fact the proof presented there, which was based on the assumption that Earth’s motion causes the tides, was wrong." (Pg. 89-90)
He asserts, “Since we still do not understand how life originally came about on Earth, anyone is free to propose that God initiated the process. However, saying that ‘God did it’ is no more an explanation than ‘Nature did it.’ We need to know how it was done. Furthermore, just because science cannot currently explain the origin of life, we have no reason to expect it never will. Seeking God in the gaps of scientific knowledge has never proven to be a fruitful enterprise. Science has always had a way of filling its own gaps.” (Pg. 103)
He also notes, “However, Darwinism is perfectly compatible with the deist god of the Enlightenment. Evolution can be seen as the way the deity decided to create life in the universe, the whole development of life including humanity being written into the laws of nature at the creation. The problem is, this requires an acceptance of the clockwork universe and leaves no room for human free will… However… the clockwork universe has been refuted by quantum physics, thereby pulling the rug out from Enlightenment deism.” (Pg. 104)
He says of Fritjof Capra’s 'The Tao of Physics,' “To Capra, bootstrap theory was a beautiful example of the connectedness that he found in Eastern philosophy… Capra joined [Geoffrey] Chew’s group in 1975, just having written his best seller, and… just as the bootstrap began to unravel.” (Pg. 145) Later, he adds, “Capra was putting his money on bootstrap theory, which did away with the notion of elementary particles. However, even by the time of the publication of Tao, elementary particles were back in fashion and had become part of the standard model… Capra’s contention that physics implies a universe as one interconnected whole is edifying and poetic. Certainly, parts of the universe are connected in various ways. But Capra insists that we cannot understand our world unless we treat it as one inseparable whole.” (Pg. 171)
He argues, “The main message about complexity… for the purposes of this book is the fact that complexity can arise naturally from simplicity… The development of complex systems from simpler systems has been demonstrated in virtually every field of science and, indeed, everyday life. Snowflakes develop spontaneously from water vapor. Amino acids and other molecules of life are easily assembled from basic chemical elements… Once life exists, organisms develop from the splitting or merging of cells.” (Pg. 151) He continues, “Emergence is just a name for the evolution of complexity out of simplicity, no doubt a notable phenomenon and little doubt that it arises purely from particles of matter.” (Pg. 161)
He explains, “evolution does not conflict with the new deism… while we do not know exactly the mechanism by which our universe appeared 13.7 billion years ago, we can present any number of plausible scenarios based on well-established physics and cosmology… Similarly, we cannot explain exactly how life originated, but many proposed scenarios consistent with well-established chemistry and biology can be found in reputable scientific journals. Thus no rational basis exists for claiming that a supernatural origin for life or the universe must have occurred… no case can be made that we need something more than matter to understand the universe.” (Pg. 211-212)
He asks, “If life is converging inevitably toward high intelligence, how is it that of the millions of species on Earth we have only one, Home sapiens, with that ability? Look how far ahead we are than other animals in intelligence. Indeed, since most life forms are microbial, intelligence would not seem to be very high at all on the universe’s agenda.” (Pg. 231)
He states, “The new deist god creates the universe but includes in it a huge element of chance. Of course apologists will work very hard to reconcile this new god with Christianity, but… It is hard to see how they will make this god into one who still should be worshipped and prayed to… I have bad news for them. Modern physics and cosmology imply that all the creator did when he made the universe, if he existed at all, was make a single toss of the dice.” (Pg. 235-236) Later, he adds, “The Enlightenment deist god, who created a perfectly predetermined universe, can almost but not quite be ruled out… And science has no reason to introduce into its explanatory systems an Enlightenment deist god.” (Pg. 261) Still later, he observes, “Deism and Christianity have always been totally incompatible---as incompatible as science and Christianity.” (Pg. 243)
He summarizes, “My main arguments against the existence of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God are scientific ones. A God who plays such an important role in the universe as the God of the great monotheisms should leave observable, physical evidence for his existence… he cannot deliberately hide from us and remain a moral god… Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence beyond a reasonable doubt when the evidence should be there and is not found… God’s actions in the world, including the creation itself, should be detectable. Of course, an all-powerful God is free to do whatever he wants, but it is inconsistent with his omnipotence for God to violate presumably perfect laws that he instituted in the first place. Furthermore, such a God would be much easier to detect by our direct observation of natural law violations. We see no such violations… We can safely conclude that an omnipotent God who takes direct divine action in the world without violating natural laws can be ruled out.” (Pg. 241)
He concludes, “So we appear to have good evidence for a universe that came about spontaneously, without cause, from nothing. The laws of physics also came from nothing. The structure of the universe emerged from nothing. Indeed, we can view that structure, including Earth and humanity, as forms of frozen nothing.” (Pg. 262-263)
This book is a substantial addition to Stenger’s earlier arguments; this book focuses more on the “religious/philosophical” issues than the “scientific” issues, but it will be of great interest to those who like his other books (although it should be supplemented with at least one or two of his more scientifically-focused books).
October 23, 2021
It is a pretty technical book that aims to debunk claims by the folks of ‘the secret’ fame and fans of Deepak Chopra and the likes who have long claimed that quantum physics clearly concludes that the whole universe is interconnected, that our consciousness determines our reality, that there is no objective reality outside of our senses, and the idea of god in light of these findings is redundant. I think the author’s objection is to these people bringing quantum physics into the scheme of things that could have simply remained in the purview of philosophy or psychology. It will be particularly hard to wrap your heads around if you are not from the pure sciences and/or research. It also deals more with how quantum physics quite blatantly refutes any and all claims made by abrahamic religions be it the creation of the universe, god, time, or astronomy (To me this was an easy target and one that has been addressed by many people before) It does not deal a lot with eastern philosophy or mythology except in a couple of pages in one chapter. All in all a decent read!!
December 25, 2016
In college, I was really into Taoism and Eastern philosophy. I often heard the claim that physics has found evidence for Taoist claims. I was fascinated with books like The Tao of Physics, and this led me to a deep interest in physics. I took many physics classes and excelled in them. I became a research assistant, and briefly considered double-majoring in it. I kept looking for parallels between physics and Taoism, but it just wasn't there. Since then, I've always wondered why spiritualists, who know nothing of physics, make ambitious claims about the implications of physics, whereas the vast majority of actual physicists make no such claims. Why not just look at the actual science and see what it has to say?
That's what this book does. To my surprise, it doesn't spend much time debunking spiritual claims. It mostly just explains the actual science. Which would be great if the explanations were explicable. As a former physics student, I understand the basic physics lessons of this book, but they're terribly explained. If I didn't already know what he was trying to say, I would be totally confused. It would make sense that the quantum and particle physics would go over my head, but judging from his poor explanations of basic physics, I think this was at least partly the fault of the author. And if a former physics student can't understand this book, I doubt most other laymen would understand it.
Something this book is mildly successful at is showing that, just because physics does not confirm ambitious spiritual claims like ESP, mind-over-matter, and souls, does not mean that physics (actual physics, not spiritual pseudoscience) does not have plenty of spooky, mind-blowing implications. The idea that something can be two things at once, or two places at once, or that matter is just a form of energy, or that complexity naturally evolves from simplicity, isn't that kind of amazing? Isn't that enough to fascinate us, without the need for making up outlandish claims and trying to abuse physics to support them?
At the end, he spends a lot of time on deism, which seemed strange, but apparently, a lot of Americans describe their supernatural beliefs in terms that fit the label deism, although they don't use that label themselves. Basically, science has demolished the traditional Christian God that interferes with the laws of nature, because absolutely no evidence of such interference has been found. Science has become so advanced that, if there were such a highly-influential being, we should have found plenty of evidence of it by now. But, still, not a shred. This puts theologians and pro-science believers in a pickle: how to reconcile this? So, they go about a lot of mental gymnastics, trying to squeeze God in somewhere. What they end up with is a god that scarcely does anything, a deist god. They look at particle physics for ways that God might micromanage the behavior of particles. But that's about all they have left, and even that is on shaky ground.
That's what this book does. To my surprise, it doesn't spend much time debunking spiritual claims. It mostly just explains the actual science. Which would be great if the explanations were explicable. As a former physics student, I understand the basic physics lessons of this book, but they're terribly explained. If I didn't already know what he was trying to say, I would be totally confused. It would make sense that the quantum and particle physics would go over my head, but judging from his poor explanations of basic physics, I think this was at least partly the fault of the author. And if a former physics student can't understand this book, I doubt most other laymen would understand it.
Something this book is mildly successful at is showing that, just because physics does not confirm ambitious spiritual claims like ESP, mind-over-matter, and souls, does not mean that physics (actual physics, not spiritual pseudoscience) does not have plenty of spooky, mind-blowing implications. The idea that something can be two things at once, or two places at once, or that matter is just a form of energy, or that complexity naturally evolves from simplicity, isn't that kind of amazing? Isn't that enough to fascinate us, without the need for making up outlandish claims and trying to abuse physics to support them?
At the end, he spends a lot of time on deism, which seemed strange, but apparently, a lot of Americans describe their supernatural beliefs in terms that fit the label deism, although they don't use that label themselves. Basically, science has demolished the traditional Christian God that interferes with the laws of nature, because absolutely no evidence of such interference has been found. Science has become so advanced that, if there were such a highly-influential being, we should have found plenty of evidence of it by now. But, still, not a shred. This puts theologians and pro-science believers in a pickle: how to reconcile this? So, they go about a lot of mental gymnastics, trying to squeeze God in somewhere. What they end up with is a god that scarcely does anything, a deist god. They look at particle physics for ways that God might micromanage the behavior of particles. But that's about all they have left, and even that is on shaky ground.
February 12, 2010
This is Stenger's critique of quantum consciouness and things like the Secret. He spent a long time reviewing the science of quantum mechanics, which just makes my head hurt. I know its necessary for a general audience. However, I don't feel he spent enough time on the critique portion of the book - it was almost an afterthought. As a result, I don't feel his arguments are as strong as they could be. And, as always, he's a bit dry.
May 3, 2015
I think his previous book, God: The Failed Hypothesis was better. While I liked this book, I found a couple chapters pretty tough going, and I have degrees in Physics. Thus, from the point of view of a general audience, I docked it a couple stars.
August 31, 2019
Debunking "Quantum Flapdoodle"
Of the spate of books published in recent years debunking the notion of a personal god (and some others), none was better than Victor J. Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis (2007), which I highly recommend. Here Professor Stenger, who is a philosopher and a physicist, goes after the idea that quantum indeterminacy is somehow supportive of the notion that we have "cosmic consciousness" in our finite little brains.
By the by, Stenger also wishes to discredit the idea that there can be a God, such as the "omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent Judeo-Christian-Islamic God who is regularly fooling around with the laws of nature without our knowing it. "But he could surreptitiously intervene to prevent many diseases and catastrophes, so the fact that he does not also counts against his existence." Stenger does allow that the deist God of the Enlightenment is marginally possible but that "science has no reason to introduce into its explanatory systems" such a God. (pp. 261-262)
Okay the mainstream notion of God is dead and buried. Still alive and well somewhere outside of time and space is the new deist God that set things in motion and then retired to examine his navel. Well, even the God of Jehovah presumably didn't have a navel. Anyway, this deist God included in the structure of the universe "a high element of chance." Stenger then follows Hume in concluding that events are either caused or are random, which effectively destroys the quaint notion of free will. However, in keeping with ideas from string theory and other models from contemporary physics, Stenger posits that "the universe…had a spontaneous, uncaused, natural origin from a state of chaos equivalent to 'nothing' [which] agrees with all the data." He even presumes to answer the monumental query of philosophers, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" His answer: "'something' is more natural than 'nothing'." (pp. 262-263)
More interesting than these assertions to me is Stenger's curiously postmodern statement that "The laws of physics were not handed down from above but are human inventions. They take the form they do in order to guarantee that they describe observations invariant to any particular point of view." (p. 262) His explanation however, coming as it does from the world of particle physics, was not intelligible to this uninitiated reader. I wish it were.
You may notice that I am quoting so far entirely from near the end of the book. This is because most of the book is a kind of Particle Physics 101 laying the groundwork for Stenger's conclusions as mentioned above. Consequently I was not as enamored of this book as I was of his previous. My guess is that he felt he needed to follow up on the success of "God: The Failed Hypothesis" and didn't have all that much new to say. What he does say is profound (as usual in my not so humble opinion) but hardly needs an entire book to say it. I think the reader who has already read a number of books on particle physics, relativity and string theory might get the meat of this book by reading Michael Shermer's excellent Foreword which he entitles "Quantum Flapdoodle and other Flummery" (which says it all, really) and Stenger's Preface, and a few selected chapters beginning with Chapter 1, and perhaps skipping to Chapter 14.
Incidentally, one of Stenger's contentions in Chapter 1 "Belief and Nonbelief in America" is that a much larger percentage of Americans believe in a deist sort of God than in the literal God of Abraham. I hope he is right because the deist God kills no first born sons nor does he send non-believers to eternal hell and damnation.
Let me close with this quote from page 239 which I think sums up Stenger's position very well: "In this and in previous books I have tried to show that both observational data and mathematical theory demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that no spirit world exists. The universe is truly comprehensible as a purely material system."
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
Of the spate of books published in recent years debunking the notion of a personal god (and some others), none was better than Victor J. Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis (2007), which I highly recommend. Here Professor Stenger, who is a philosopher and a physicist, goes after the idea that quantum indeterminacy is somehow supportive of the notion that we have "cosmic consciousness" in our finite little brains.
By the by, Stenger also wishes to discredit the idea that there can be a God, such as the "omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent Judeo-Christian-Islamic God who is regularly fooling around with the laws of nature without our knowing it. "But he could surreptitiously intervene to prevent many diseases and catastrophes, so the fact that he does not also counts against his existence." Stenger does allow that the deist God of the Enlightenment is marginally possible but that "science has no reason to introduce into its explanatory systems" such a God. (pp. 261-262)
Okay the mainstream notion of God is dead and buried. Still alive and well somewhere outside of time and space is the new deist God that set things in motion and then retired to examine his navel. Well, even the God of Jehovah presumably didn't have a navel. Anyway, this deist God included in the structure of the universe "a high element of chance." Stenger then follows Hume in concluding that events are either caused or are random, which effectively destroys the quaint notion of free will. However, in keeping with ideas from string theory and other models from contemporary physics, Stenger posits that "the universe…had a spontaneous, uncaused, natural origin from a state of chaos equivalent to 'nothing' [which] agrees with all the data." He even presumes to answer the monumental query of philosophers, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" His answer: "'something' is more natural than 'nothing'." (pp. 262-263)
More interesting than these assertions to me is Stenger's curiously postmodern statement that "The laws of physics were not handed down from above but are human inventions. They take the form they do in order to guarantee that they describe observations invariant to any particular point of view." (p. 262) His explanation however, coming as it does from the world of particle physics, was not intelligible to this uninitiated reader. I wish it were.
You may notice that I am quoting so far entirely from near the end of the book. This is because most of the book is a kind of Particle Physics 101 laying the groundwork for Stenger's conclusions as mentioned above. Consequently I was not as enamored of this book as I was of his previous. My guess is that he felt he needed to follow up on the success of "God: The Failed Hypothesis" and didn't have all that much new to say. What he does say is profound (as usual in my not so humble opinion) but hardly needs an entire book to say it. I think the reader who has already read a number of books on particle physics, relativity and string theory might get the meat of this book by reading Michael Shermer's excellent Foreword which he entitles "Quantum Flapdoodle and other Flummery" (which says it all, really) and Stenger's Preface, and a few selected chapters beginning with Chapter 1, and perhaps skipping to Chapter 14.
Incidentally, one of Stenger's contentions in Chapter 1 "Belief and Nonbelief in America" is that a much larger percentage of Americans believe in a deist sort of God than in the literal God of Abraham. I hope he is right because the deist God kills no first born sons nor does he send non-believers to eternal hell and damnation.
Let me close with this quote from page 239 which I think sums up Stenger's position very well: "In this and in previous books I have tried to show that both observational data and mathematical theory demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that no spirit world exists. The universe is truly comprehensible as a purely material system."
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
Read
September 9, 2024I enjoyed God: The Failed Hypothesis. This one was not nearly as good, although I do think I have a slightly better understanding of quantum mechanics and particle physics than I did before reading it. But, as Richard Feynman famously stated, "if you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't understand quantum mechanics," so maybe I understand it less now?
June 26, 2014
Quantum mechanics are fascinating to me, and while researching the subject I found this book. As soon as I started it, I realized that this book wasn't just atheist in its view, it was adamantly anti-theist. Author Victor J. Stenger holds no punches with his refutations of religious claims correlating with the quantum realm. The entire book is a meticulous scientific examination at quantum mechanics and the new wave of spirituality stemming from the uncertainty of its principles.
With Newtonian physics, it could be posited that a deist God created everything at the beginning with very specific laws of physics that governed all matter in the universe. This left little up to chance or free will due to the precision and predictive nature therein.
With the discovery of quantum mechanics, the Copenhagen Theory posited that nothing in nature should be assumed to exist unless we can observe or examine it. This is called positivism. With the unpredictability of quantum particles such as quarks, leptons, and bosons, spiritualists and theologists were able to hypothesize that the quantum realm is where God is able to impose his will. Moreover, that the unpredictability actually pointed to God making the decisions of how these particles will behave.
Stenger gives step-by-step scientific explanation of why this is not so, refuting new-age transcendental meditation along with other ideas of quantum spirituality that became popular in society.
In order to understand most of the book it is probably recommended to have a solid knowledge of quantum mechanics and its principles, otherwise the reader will become lost. I have a pretty good understanding of QM, but even then, the author gets even more in depth with quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics, as well as astrophysics.
The book is written in a style of a doctorate dissertation, with plenty of fire and indignation, thanks to the author. I enjoyed reading portions of it but other parts were very slow. Pretty good book. Wouldn't read it again though.
With Newtonian physics, it could be posited that a deist God created everything at the beginning with very specific laws of physics that governed all matter in the universe. This left little up to chance or free will due to the precision and predictive nature therein.
With the discovery of quantum mechanics, the Copenhagen Theory posited that nothing in nature should be assumed to exist unless we can observe or examine it. This is called positivism. With the unpredictability of quantum particles such as quarks, leptons, and bosons, spiritualists and theologists were able to hypothesize that the quantum realm is where God is able to impose his will. Moreover, that the unpredictability actually pointed to God making the decisions of how these particles will behave.
Stenger gives step-by-step scientific explanation of why this is not so, refuting new-age transcendental meditation along with other ideas of quantum spirituality that became popular in society.
In order to understand most of the book it is probably recommended to have a solid knowledge of quantum mechanics and its principles, otherwise the reader will become lost. I have a pretty good understanding of QM, but even then, the author gets even more in depth with quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics, as well as astrophysics.
The book is written in a style of a doctorate dissertation, with plenty of fire and indignation, thanks to the author. I enjoyed reading portions of it but other parts were very slow. Pretty good book. Wouldn't read it again though.
January 6, 2011
This is a very good book for understanding the implications of quantum mechanics on religion and the existence of God. I especially appreciate the last chapter "Nothingism". This chapter describes a fantastic theorem derived by mathematician/physicist Emmy Noether. She showed that three kinds of symmetry (space translation, rotation, and time translation) imply three kinds of conservation: linear momentum, angular momentum, and energy.
Some of the later chapters in the book are too philosophical for my taste; in fact, the chapter "Where Can God Act?" contains long quotations from a theological project that are full of jargon, and simply seem like gobbledigook to me! Also, I had previously read two of Victor Stenger's earlier books, Physics and Psychics: The Search for a World Beyond the Senses and God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. Unfortunately, much of Quantum Gods: Creation, Chaos, and the Search for Cosmic Consciousness is a repeat of these earlier books, so I didn't get much out of it.
Some of the later chapters in the book are too philosophical for my taste; in fact, the chapter "Where Can God Act?" contains long quotations from a theological project that are full of jargon, and simply seem like gobbledigook to me! Also, I had previously read two of Victor Stenger's earlier books, Physics and Psychics: The Search for a World Beyond the Senses and God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. Unfortunately, much of Quantum Gods: Creation, Chaos, and the Search for Cosmic Consciousness is a repeat of these earlier books, so I didn't get much out of it.
January 17, 2015
Stenger is a brilliant physicist and is at his best explaining the intricacies of quantum mechanics in an across the kitchen table top manner. He traces the development of scientific ideas and battles such as Newton (light is composed of particles) versus Huygens (light is a wave) through Young's double slit experiment, then the bringing together of magnetism and electricity into electromagnetism and finally resting when the QED (quod erat demonstrandum) necessary for good science is transformed into the QED of quantum electrodynamics.
Stenger's raison de etre however is to alert us that quantum mechanics is being perverted into a very non-scientific "quantum flapdoodle" in the words of Murray Gell-Man. By this he means, it is being used to explain the spiritual world and he takes a "no prisoners" attitude towards the various new age gurus that litter the landscape. While I found these diversions uninteresting, there is enough good science there to make it a four star. Provability is critical to science. If a theory exists that it is untestable in this world then in the words of the great Wolfgang Pauli: "It's not even wrong".
Stenger's raison de etre however is to alert us that quantum mechanics is being perverted into a very non-scientific "quantum flapdoodle" in the words of Murray Gell-Man. By this he means, it is being used to explain the spiritual world and he takes a "no prisoners" attitude towards the various new age gurus that litter the landscape. While I found these diversions uninteresting, there is enough good science there to make it a four star. Provability is critical to science. If a theory exists that it is untestable in this world then in the words of the great Wolfgang Pauli: "It's not even wrong".
May 26, 2014
Another crystal-clear book from Victor Stenger who never fails to convey the most powerful arguments against "quantum flapdoodle". This book can be enough resource to dismiss all New Age spiritualism.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews