Stenger’s “God and the Atom”

Richard Feynman once opined on the most important sentence in science:

If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generation of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words? I believe it is the atomic hypothesis that all things are made of atoms — little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another. In that one sentence, you will see, there is an enormous amount of information about the world, if just a little imagination and thinking are applied. [ Six Easy Pieces, p 4]

If the idea that everything we see and interact with can be broken down to particles and void – in short, to atomism – could be the foundation of a reborn science, then it makes sense to use atomism as the starting point for a discussion of a science-based world view. That’s what Victor Stenger is attempting to do in his latest book God and the Atom. By showing how universe rests on a foundation of particle physics, Stenger can show that there is no place for – or at least no need for – God and the supernatural.

It’s an ambitious goal, one made more complicated by Stenger’s decision to include a history of the idea of atomism from ancient Athens through the Renaissance, and carry the thread through his discussion of particle physics. However, Stenger’s forty year career as a particle physicist make him qualified to make the attempt.

And it’s a solid attempt but, sadly, not a very successful one. Stenger needs to cram history, a whole field of science and an entire worldview into 300 pages, with end notes. The results are predictable: the early history is choppy, the arguments are scant and little space is given to counterarguments. Not surprisingly the physics are handled well, if perhaps a bit speedily for some readers. His use of the history from Newton onward is smooth and helpful in connecting the development of particle physics. But Stenger’s central argument needs more space to develop than he’s allowed himself.

To pick one problem, there’s Stenger’s approach to reductionism. While it may be accurate to say that particles and void are the foundation of our universe, we do not live in that foundation. We live in a house constructed on that foundation, and it is not easy to see how the foundation gives rise to the house.

How do atomic interactions “scale up” into the world we experience? That’s an important question to deal with if you’re going to be appealing to a popular audience. You have to connect the world they live in with the world Stenger is describing.

One way to deal with this a discussion of emergence. Stenger spends only a few paragraphs on the issue (pp. 270-271), and he seems to view the topic with suspicion. Perhaps this is because so many philosophers and liberal theologians like Philip Clayton are claiming the word emergence and taking it farther than scientists would go, but leaving out the discussion creates a massive gap.

Obviously, I am in complete sympathy with the goal of describing a bottom-up universe. But such a worldview is counter-intuitive, and learning to think in terms of complex systems giving rise to phenomena – of chaos leading to order – takes careful teaching. Saying in essence “here are the atoms, there is no God” doesn’t really address the problem.

Hallquist on Eich
Romance at Mars Hill
Atheists at CPAC
Atomism is Just a Theory
  • Artor

    I’m going to go ahead and outright disagree with Stenger on this one. I don’t see how a bit of scientific data that is not actually verifiable without an advanced technology, can help people who have lost all their science. Rather, I would want to preserve an elegant statement of the scientific process and the rules of logic, as these things can be used to recreate our entire base of scientific knowledge, even if starting from square one.

  • JoeyBagadonuts

    Give Praise! He is everywhere.

  • kessy_athena

    If the primary goal is to transmit a “bottom up” worldview, is atomism really the most important part of it? Would it really change things if matter were made of a continuous substance rather then particles?

    I think the most essential piece is simple empiricism – that the most effective way to learn about the world is through observation and experimentation.

  • The Watchman

    Becoming fools they worshipped the creation rather than the Creator.

  • rick_povero

    ** why both reductionism and emergence are irrelevant

    There are altogether no supernatural phenomena; there are only supernatural interpretations of phenomena.

  • Jerry Lynch

    There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
    Than are dreamt of in
    your philosophy.
    Shakespeare, “Hamlet”, Act 1 scene 5
    I suppose I just don’t understand why the preference for Time and Chance over an Intelligent First Cause. For Stenger’s book to work wouldn’t he have to prove or at least give sufficient evidence to show that this is how existence comes into being naturally? To point to existence and say, “Look!” is the same type of circular arguments given by many Christian apologists. For me, the unavoidable presence of intelligence in every aspect, nook, and cranny of the universe can’t be denied. Even if all our theories find strong and covincing evidence of the BIG Bang, that still cannot explain the brilliance of creation. It would have to be a matter of faith to believe this existence is natural. “It’s just what Nature does!” But there is no way to be sure. I am not sure I am explaining myself well enough; this thought just occurred to me. It has never been an ambition of mine to persuade an atheist to believe in God. It has never even been a thought of miine. I don’t care. I believe in Evolution but for me, that holds no evidence against the existence of God. It will threaten certain peoples belief about God and it will serve others to believe is has disproven the existence of God, yet Evolutionary Theory is no more or less than our present understanding of llife formation. Neutral on any grander or damaging implications.

    • Ashetalia Staatz

      Hume, Treatise of Human Nature: “Power and necessity are qualities of perceptions, not of objects, and are internally felt by the soul, not perceived externally in bodies.”

      He’s not talking about the immortal soul, but the human mind. The “bodies” are the objects we perceive.