Flew's Flawed Science - [critique of Antony Flew's 'conversion']

Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 25, Number 2 ^ | February/March 2005 | Victor J. Stenger

[SpiderMBA]

Victor Stenger propounds the most simplistic arguments possible. I read one or two of his books. He writes, “Arguments as to the statistical impossibility of the universe are simply wrong.” Now you do not counter mathematical calculations by saying “It’s wrong.” No, it is incumbent on the person claiming error to say WHY, quite precisely, it is wrong.

To cite but one example of Stenger’s error on Flew’s book, Stenger claims “infinite regress. It’s Intelligent Designers all the way down.” Well, no it isn’t. It is science’s position that everything must be explained, and explained in a naturalistic way. God, you see, is not naturalistic by any definition of the term. And God cannot be pigeonholed or characterized by man. God is simply inexplicable, and forever beyond our ability to comprehend, at least so long as we live here on planet earth.

So Flew’s logical point is simply that while science is clearly not up to the task of explaining all that surrounds us, God is up to that task. And as to where God came from, well you don’t even have to wait for the answer to that question. The Bible anticipated it, and said “I am.” God the eternal, never created, just was.

Either you have to believe that the universe made itself, out of nothing, and organized all the physics and chemistry books that exist, or else God is eternal. But please don’t fall for the Big Lie that Christians believe one need not study science. Only atheists prattle such nonsense.

[snarks_when_bored]

SpiderMBA:

[Stenger] writes, “Arguments as to the statistical impossibility of the universe are simply wrong.” Now you do not counter mathematical calculations by saying “It’s wrong.” No, it is incumbent on the person claiming error to say WHY, quite precisely, it is wrong.

Statistical impossibility is not the same as statistical improbability. If no one is waiting around for something to happen, and if there's an infinite amount of time available, just about anything can happen. There's a non-zero (albeit exceedingly tiny) chance for a fully equipped Rolls Royce Silver Ghost to materialize somewhere in empty space, but you might have to wait a googol to the googol-th power of years—or much, much longer—to witness that (not to mention the fact that you'd have to be extraordinarily lucky to be near the spot that the materialization occurred).

It is science’s position that everything must be explained, and explained in a naturalistic way. God, you see, is not naturalistic by any definition of the term. And God cannot be pigeonholed or characterized by man. God is simply inexplicable, and forever beyond our ability to comprehend, at least so long as we live here on planet earth.

Giving up on doing science is not the same as doing science.

So Flew’s logical point is simply that while science is clearly not up to the task of explaining all that surrounds us, God is up to that task. And as to where God came from, well you don’t even have to wait for the answer to that question. The Bible anticipated it, and said “I am.” God the eternal, never created, just was.

Invoking the inexplicable to explain the (potentially) explicable is not doing science. And I would point out that it's more correct to say that "science is clearly not up to the task of explaining all that surrounds us" at the present time.

Either you have to believe that the universe made itself, out of nothing, and organized all the physics and chemistry books that exist, or else God is eternal.

That's a false dichotomy. For one thing, it's quite possible that there was never nothing, that there has always been something. For another thing, perhaps a variety of deities cooperated to make the universe. Who knows? And that's the point.

Best regards...

s_w_b