Posted on 11/24/2008 12:56:31 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Contemporary atheism marches behind the banner of science. It is perhaps no surprise that several leading atheists—from biologist Richard Dawkins to cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker to physicist Victor Stenger—are also leading scientists. The central argument of these scientific atheists is that modern science has refuted traditional religious conceptions of a divine creator.
But of late atheism seems to be losing its scientific confidence. One sign of this is the public advertisements that are appearing in billboards from London to Washington DC. Dawkins helped pay for a London campaign to put signs on city buses saying, “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Humanist groups in America have launched a similar campaign in the nation’s capital. “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness sake.” And in Colorado atheists are sporting billboards apparently inspired by John Lennon: “Imagine…no religion.”
What is striking about these slogans is the philosophy behind them. There is no claim here that God fails to satisfy some criterion of scientific validation. We hear nothing about how evolution has undermined the traditional “argument from design.” There’s not even a whisper about how science is based on reason while Christianity is based on faith.
Instead, we are given the simple assertion that there is probably no God, followed by the counsel to go ahead and enjoy life. In other words, let’s not let God and his commandments spoil all the fun. “Be good for goodness sake” is true as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go very far. The question remains: what is the source of these standards of goodness that seem to be shared by religious and non-religious people alike? Finally John Lennon knew how to compose a tune but he could hardly be considered a reliable authority on fundamental questions. His “imagine there’s no heaven” sounds visionary but is, from an intellectual point of view, a complete nullity.
If you want to know why atheists seem to have given up the scientific card, the current issue of Discover magazine provides part of the answer. The magazine has an interesting story by Tim Folger which is titled “Science’s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator.” The article begins by noting “an extraordinary fact about the universe: its basic properties are uncannily suited for life.” As physicist Andrei Linde puts it, “We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible.”
Too many “coincidences,” however, imply a plot. Folger’s article shows that if the numerical values of the universe, from the speed of light to the strength of gravity, were even slightly different, there would be no universe and no life. Recently scientists have discovered that most of the matter and energy in the universe is made up of so-called “dark” matter and “dark” energy. It turns out that the quantity of dark energy seems precisely calibrated to make possible not only our universe but observers like us who can comprehend that universe.
Even Steven Weinberg, the Nobel laureate in physics and an outspoken atheist, remarks that “this is fine-tuning that seems to be extreme, far beyond what you could imagine just having to accept as a mere accident.” And physicist Freeman Dyson draws the appropriate conclusion from the scientific evidence to date: “The universe in some sense knew we were coming.”
Folger then admits that this line of reasoning makes a number of scientists very uncomfortable. “Physicists don’t like coincidences.” “They like even less the notion that life is somehow central to the universe, and yet recent discoveries are forcing them to confront that very idea.”
There are two hurdles here, one historical and the other methodological. The historical hurdle is that science has for three centuries been showing that man does not occupy a privileged position in the cosmos, and now it seems like he does. The methodological hurdle is what physicist Stephen Hawking once called “the problem of Genesis.” Science is the search for natural explanations for natural phenomena, and what could be more embarrassing than the finding that a supernatural intelligence transcending all natural laws is behind it all?
Consequently many physicists are exploring an alternative possibility: multiple universes. This is summed up as follows: “Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse.” Folger says that “short of invoking a benevolent creator” this is the best that modern science can do. For contemporary physicists, he writes, this “may well be the only viable nonreligious explanation” for our fine-tuned universe.
The appeal of multiple universes—perhaps even an infinity of universes—is that when there are billions and billions of possibilities, then even very unlikely outcomes are going to be realized somewhere. Consequently if there was an infinite number of universes, something like our universe is certain to appear at some point. What at first glance seems like incredible coincidence can be explained as the result of a mathematical inevitability.
The only difficulty, as Folger makes clear, is that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of any universes other than our own. Moreover, there may never be such evidence. That’s because if there are other universes, they will operate according to different laws of physics than the ones in our universe, and consequently they are permanently and inescapably inaccessible to us. The article in Discover concludes on a somber note. While some physicists are hoping the multiverse will produce empirical predictions that can be tested, “for many physicists, however, the multiverse remains a desperate measure ruled out by the impossibility of confirmation.”
No wonder atheists are sporting billboards asking us to “imagine…no religion.” When science, far from disproving God, seems to be pointing with ever-greater precision toward transcendence, imagination and wishful thinking seem all that is left for the atheists to count on.
bump
Science requires faith.
Imagine…no abortion.
On another note, religious beliefs give people hope and if you take that away then you make them depend on the government for hope alone which is sad.
there’s a reason why all the communists promoted atheism.
As an atheist, I find the billboards mentioned silly. The thing that I always bring up to other atheists is that they are as obsessed with everyone else NOT believing as many believers are obsessed with everyone else believing. I don’t see much difference—the rabid on both sides seem to be nervous about letting others make up their own minds.
That's a bit broad, isn't it? Not sure I get your point there--whose definition of misbehavior?
Repeating that I'm an atheist, I've always found this a moronic ideal. I've seen plenty of good coming from religious folks, and plenty of evil; ditto from atheists.
If there were no religion, I don't see how the world would just automatically be improved.
Frankly, I do not believe there must be a conflict be science and religion. The current generation of scientists has made it so because they are “physicalists” i.e. they are convinced there is a material explanation for everything.
There are few who do not see things this way and are trying find the link. I met this guy: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/hoffman.html
not too long ago and he had an amazing and convincing explanation.
First, he said to imagine the universe as you perceive it to be your “human interface” with reality. Similar to the screen on your computer, it represents what is happening, but is not a true representation of reality. Evolution guarentees that it cannot be. The amount of energy needed to perceive real reality would be a huge waste. Your perception is evolved so that your “hack” into reality is better than the “hack” of what you want to eat or what wants to eat you. Humans may not even have the capacity to understand reality.
Thus, trying to expain the universe by using what we are able to perceive is like trying to explain what is happening in a computer by what you see on the screen. The screen represents reality, but it is not. It is your “human interface” because you cannot communicate with the true reality of the computer.
Scientists can’t explain what the universe is composed of (although there are fuzzy theories) and they don’t even have a theory for what causes human consciousness. Of course if the brain is just a representation of reality, that is perhaps understandable. Could you explain the an icon on your computer if you weren’t willing to believe there was something beyond it?
That much said, there is a lot going on in religion that does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. Religious doctrine often can best be understood by thinking of it like a file of the pictures of your children on a computer screen. The file is important to you, you would not put it in the “recycling basket” and erase it. But you do not believe that this file really looks like that or really contains your pictures (they are a series of 1s and 0s of course). However, you take the representation seriously, but not literally.
Religios movements are unfortunately filled with a lot of people taking things literally that should only be taken seriuosly. Thus the conflict with science. Those who take things literally are not so open to being questioned. The scientists are equally guilty, but in a different way. Moreover, “faith” is often just an excuse for believing something about which one is uncertain. Scientists have “faith” too, but claim to be open to challenging it if given evidence to the contrary. Religions don’t usually appreciate this, but Christianity has proven remarkably adaptable on questions that scientists have answered (round earth revolving around the sun not in the center of the universe)
Hoffmann believes that scientists will spend another 20 to 30 years trying to figure our the “physical” explanation for things. Then enough of the old school will be dead and perhaps it will be possible to apply the scientific method to some of the ideas that religion has had for the past 10 millenia.
Applying the scientific method to religious concepts would be a revolution of extraordinary proportions. Too few scientists have been willing or able to go down this path. There will be opposition from both science and religion to doing so. But it is probably the only way to really begin to answer those huge open questions.
I think it is because some militant athiests believe that simply because a lot of people kill in the name of God, that if they stop believing in God they will stop killing.
You perhaps understand this is ludicrous because people always find some excuse to kill each other.
My off-the cuff definition of ‘misbehavior’ would run as follows: acting either with reckless disregard or with malice aforethought to harm others who have done no harm to you. A full account of why such behavior is not reasonable in the universe as we currently understand it would not be a quick write. Maybe another time. Note, though, that if someone rejects rationality as a criterion for judging conduct, the conversation is at an end anyway and it’s probably wise to make sure your gun is loaded when you’re dealing with that person.
Allow me to point out one critical difference. A Christian (and probably true for many or even most other religions) believe that there will be a point of judgment, and a salvation from that judgment. By presenting their views as persuasively as possible may lead to the salvation of another. What motive does an atheist have for similar behavior? I submit, nothing similar.
I disagree completely. An atheist's motive is to awaken someone from a delusion so they can actually deal with what IS as opposed to what they wish were so.
Agreed, and religion isn't about rationality.
So if there's no God, then there has to be an infinite number of universes. If there is an infinite number of universes, then pretty much anything that CAN happen will happen. Therefore, if it's possible for a God to exist, he probably does.
The magazine has an interesting story by Tim Folger which is titled “Science’s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator.” The article begins by noting “an extraordinary fact about the universe: its basic properties are uncannily suited for life.” As physicist Andrei Linde puts it, “We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible.”
-
Coincidence or design? Don’t you just love how hard some work to NOT believe in life being God-breathed? It is so obvious to most people who are not trying to justify their own reasons for their rebellion. It is their choice after all to believe or not believe in a Creator-God, as laid out for us in scripture. It’s all right there, but men striving for knowledge and power will continue to go to any lengths to prove there is NO God. Why is this?
Over and over again science proves that there is a pattern and purpose to life. I guess this goes against the sensibilities of the “Intelligent” who must see to believe. For the Christian, it is much the other way around, we believe. It is because of this belief that we see...
“Faith is believing what we cannot see and the reward for this kind of faith, is to see what we believe.” ~ St. Augustine
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.