Summary
Title: The God Experiment: Can Science Prove the Existence of God?
Author: Russell Stannard
Publisher: Faber and Faber
ISBN: 0571196233
Pro:
• Good explanation of a Christian on why he believes
Con:
• Seems to assume the truth of Christianity from the outset
• Christianity is the only religion really addressed
• Book is largely a interconnected series of rationalizations, not arguments
Description:
• Christian argues for why science supports the existence of God
• Principally an argument for the Christian God, not a generic god
• Flawed presentation from beginning to end
Book Review
But is that true? Russell Stannard certainly seems to think so. A high-energy nuclear physicist who has headed the physics department at the Open University in London for the past 20 years, he has written several books on the relationship between science and religion. This is his latest, an attempt to apply scientific methodology to the question of the existence of God.
There have been many attempts through history to prove the existence of this or that god, but Stannard is looking to see how modern science might provide new information or insight to the project. Does he succeed?
The first thing to look at is whether he is objective. Does he attempt to start from a position of neutrality and allow himself to be lead to whatever conclusion is necessitated by the evidence? The answer to that is no.
At all points, he assumes the truth of Christianity — there are only one or two times where other religions even get a brief mention. Beyond that, Christianity is the only religion he concerns himself with and the language he uses, even when not discussing religion in particular, has a clear Christian bias. For example:
- “...in order for love to be manifest, there has to be self-sacrifice and suffering on the part of the giver, in response to the need and the suffering of the person to whom the love is offered. In a world without any suffering, there would be no needs to attend to, no suffering to alleviate, and no one would, in any case, be allowed voluntarily to take on any measure of suffering on behalf of another.”
This is supposed to be an argument that a loving god could exist even though there is suffering and evil in the world. But if you notice, the last part refers to “take any measure of suffering on behalf of another” — an obvious reference to Christianity’s doctrine of atonement.
This is not an argument that could be offered on behalf of just any god, or on behalf of a generic one. And it is only one example of many. Throughout the book it is pretty clear that the author is not engaged in a search for a conclusion supported by the evidence, but is instead engaged in a search for whatever he can find that will reinforce what he already believes.
The second thing to look at is whether or not he offers consistently logical arguments in favor of the propositions he is defending. Once again, the answer is no. One example of fallacious reasoning occurs early on, in his discussion of miracles. He agrees that most reported miracles — even those recorded in the Bible (no mention of miracles in other religious traditions) are unlikely to be accurate as told.
But after that, he does argue that miracles are indeed possible — yet how is it possible that a law of nature could be violated? He makes the argument some natural laws are “higher” than others — for example, the laws of relativity take precedence over Newton’s laws. He then concludes:
The God Experiment: Can Science Prove the Existence of God? by Russell Stannard
- “In the same spirit, one might postulate that, although relativity rules the roost as far as the hierarchy of physical laws is concerned, it might not be the last word. It could be argued that even that set of laws is subservient to a further law: the truly all-embracing law of love. According to the religious point of view, love is the very reason for the existence of ourselves and the Universe.”
Aside from the fact that he is arguing, once again, from a particularly Christian perspective, he has also committed the fallacy of equivocation. He is using ‘law’ with one meaning when talking about ‘physical laws’ but in an entirely different and metaphorical way when talking about the ‘law of love.’
This is only a small sampling of the flaws in the book, but despite those flaws it is still an interesting read. There is no question but that Stannard raises a lot of interesting and important issues. In addition, this book is perhaps one of the better works by a Christian explaining why he thinks science supports his religious beliefs. He doesn’t actually offer any sound reasons to believe, but he certainly offers lots of rationalizations for the beliefs he already holds.
