Dinesh D'Souza: When Science Points To God

Townhall ^ | November 24, 2008 | Dinesh D'Souza

[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.

[GunRunner]

So if there's no God, then there has to be an infinite number of universes.

Your proof falls apart on the first line.

[fr_freak]

Nonsense. It is readily observed that behavior according to basic civilized rules produces better long-term results than instant gratification.

Morality, especially as espoused by most religions, tends to protect the weak from the strong, or obliges the strong to protect and care for the weak. Without morality, there is very little reason to justify these things. When you speak of long-term results being better with civilized behavior, that is only true up to a point. When a situation arises where you would be best served by murdering someone, only morality stops you from doing so. The idea that some form of self-discipline would stop you has no sound basis. Why would self-discipline come into play if your only goal is for the benefit of yourself and your "tribe"? Self-discipline simply means restraining yourself from doing such things until you are sure the benefits outweigh the consequences. The example I gave earlier was one where you knew you could get away with murdering someone and taking their stuff without anyone ever knowing. Self-discipline is satisfied once it knows that you and your people won't be harmed.

[jwalsh07]

His logic was excellent, his wording not as good. But his logic goes like this.

In a multiverse all events and things will exist somewhere. That is the logic behind multiverse adherents dismissing the Anthropic Principle. The problem is that a Supreme Being is included in that set of events. Thus by multiverse logic the Supreme Being exists.

[TonyStark]

Thus by multiverse logic the Supreme Being exists.

Excuse me for just jumping in here, but this is a field in which I have some interest.
Only if the SB is contained within the physics of the set of multiverse options is it (He) a necessary component. This gets very abstract, but the Many Worlds hypothesis doesn't actually require any super-set outside of the possible set of quantum mechanical universes. The Anthropic Principles, strong and weak, do not require or even infer a Supreme Being if the Many World hypothesis is adopted. Conversely, neither does MW exclude a SB, since a Level 4 Muliverse includes meta-quantum mechanical universes...

[jwalsh07]

Excuse me for just jumping in here, but this is a field in which I have some interest.

No excuse necessary to jump in but always feet first lest your cabeza meet the bottom of the pool.

Only if the SB is contained within the physics of the set of multiverse options is it (He) a necessary component.

By definition the Supreme Being is neither contained nor constrained by the laws of physics. Check with planck time if you don't belive me.

This gets very abstract, but the Many Worlds hypothesis doesn't actually require any super-set outside of the possible set of quantum mechanical universes.

Multiverse doesn't require quanta at all. In fact there must be universes where QM does NOT apply because all events will happen in the, drum roll, MULTIVERSE!

The Anthropic Principles, strong and weak, do not require or even infer a Supreme Being if the Many World hypothesis is adopted.

So you say. I don't agree, a multiverse where all events event requires the SB.

Conversely, neither does MW exclude a SB, since a Level 4 Muliverse includes meta-quantum mechanical universes...

Here, I'll defer to your superior knowledge. I can't even get to the Level K Multiverse.

[sig226]

Hoyle was at least honest about it. Others are not. The simple truth is that the big bang defined all of the universe. Prior to it, the laws of nature weren’t defined. The theories behind the big bang explain, very clearly, that at the energy levels involved in the creation of the universe, the masses of particles and the energies of the fundamental forces of nature become meaningless. The only way to know what happened in the big bang is to recreate it, which we will not do for obvious reasons.

I have no trouble believing that God can create a universe that is 13 billion years old or 5,700 years old. I have sincere peoblems with athiests who claim that since we can not understand the beginning of the universe, it proves that there is no god. That’s not just illogical, it’s stupid.

As to the origin of life, we can’t even define life. Have we determined if viruses are living things yet? I think it was Robert Heinlen who threw a lovely monkey wrench into the definition of life in Stranger In A Strange Land, although I could be wrong about the book.

Might I suggest that you visit the Astronomy Picture of the Day threads? (I post them.) The science of it is linked and often insightful, and the pictures are really cool. :)

[Darkwolf377]

Here's my question; what exactly is virtuous about faith? Why does the belief in something for which you have no evidence constitute a positive?

Though an atheist like me may be the last person you should ask this of, the answer, for me, was given by Billy Graham to, of all people, Woody Allen.

They were on a TV show in the 60's, Dick Cavett, perhaps. Allen asked Graham "What if you're wrong?" And Graham responded to the effect that even if he were, he still would benefit from his belief because it guided him to a life that was about being good to others and so on.

What he was saying, to me, was that the Bible works even if you consider it just a book of moral tales. One can't dismiss the Bible's impact as a summation of a certain moral point of view (or views). Aesop's "Fables" work as moral instructions even if they're just made up, so for someone like me who doesn't believe in the Bible's holiness, it's still a great work of moral instruction.

[gleeaikin]

“If it is going to be a religion free thing at the government level then that means no atheism either on a public bus.”

I just googled restrictions on metro advertising and it had nothing on religion or nonreligion. Restrictions were on drugs, alcohol, obscenity and the like.

I don’t know about the London advertising, but in DC the group sponsoring the ads is American Humanist Association. While the organization has atheists, it also has agnostics, and who knows what else. Their position is that belief in a specific religion is not necessary to promote good, worthwhile behavior. I doubt that the ads are being run because scientists are begining to feel they are on a slippery slope. Rather as the extremes of religion are seen more and more, they are appealing to people who want to be part of a group that celebrates and promotes the good aspects of humanity, without contamination by religious extremism.

The ads are specifically an effort to let people know there is an organization that they might like to join which has similar values and viewpoints.

[sig226]

Arguing after the fact that it's improbable that the universe would have the correct physical attributes to create life is not only erroneous -- it is downright gibberish. The three obvious fatal fallacies in the argument are:

It actually isn't. If the mass of a hadron was a little different, or if the energy of a lepton was a little different, there would be no carbon and oxygen. If, as I pointed out with the Hoyle quote, the resonance of the carbon nucleus was a little bit different, there would be no carbon and no life, or universe, as we know it.

Your argument extrapolates. If we are a statistical accident of high energy physics, it follows that there were other accidents of high energy physics that did not produce the conditions for life as we know it. Either that or the universe got lucky on the first try. But there is no evidence of these other universes, a fact you use in your own argument comparing our universe to others that might have been. There is no proof that a different universe came before us and no proof that a different universe will come after us. It's beyond our ken.

It is in fact a serious problem with the anthropic theory of the universe - that we are capable of questioning the origin of the universe because it produced an environment that allows the evolution of living things that can question their origin. It's a circular argument. It sounds the same as the fundamentalist argument that only God can create beings who can question his existence, therefore the fact that we question his existence proves there is a God.

The simple fact is that this is the universe. By definition, this is all there is. We're stuck with it and we have to understand it in terms that make sense given what we can see. What came before it? What will come after it?

Yo no se. :)

[john in springfield]

Your proof falls apart on the first line.

No, given the "finely-tuned nature" of the universe, we would seem to really only have two choices: either the universe was purposefully created (which would have to have been done by an immensely powerful intelligent being -- "God" by about any definition), or, if it happened by chance, then there must necessarily exist an essentially infinite number of universes in order to make it possible. The proposition that ours is the only universe, and that it is here by chance, is many, many orders of magnitude too improbable to believe.

Therefore, apparently, if there's no God, then we have to have an essentially infinite number of universes.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

You are absolutely right. I did not make the original connection to Plato, but that is the exactly the cave. So bascially 300 years of modern scientific thought have got us back to where the (fudge-packing) Greek philosophers were 3000 years ago.

[gleeaikin]

“You do it because it’s the right thing to do, not because some celestial dictator tells you to.”

Years ago I was discussing the concept of limbo with a middle aged Italian/American catholic, and a recent immigrant German catholic. For those who don’t know, my understanding is that limbo is it is a place where unbaptized babies go without ever being able to go to heaven.

The Italian/American catholic said,”Well, I just don’t know, but the priest says that’s the way it is, so I guess that’s the way it is.”

The German catholic said, “If God would do that to little unbaptized babies, I might believe in him, but I would not WORSHIP him.” I’m with her.

[2Wheels]

Mr. GunRunner

You said, “The book of Job is not humbling. In fact if I had to list 10 reasons why I’m no longer a believer, the book of Job would be up near the top of the list.

If the god of Job did exist, I would rebel against him and call for regime change. It is a sick, sick story.”

I wondered what your stand was - and this made it quite apparent!
Job, the man, showed us all what a lowly human can do with faith. He showed us the epitome of unfaltering immoveable faith.
The book of Job also shows us some ‘philosophy’ and how rationalizing can convince anyone of anything - unless their core faith is strong enough to withstand the barrage via Job’s wife and 3 ‘friends’. In the end of Job, we see the true value of man’s philosophy and rationalization as God puts man in his place.
It is quite telling that if God’s response to Job doesn’t humble you, there is some serious bitterness and rebellion going on!
I dare say - the Job story is far from a valid reason for your “rebellion”.
I’m certain you have a million questions as to why God would allow such a thing to happen to one with the faith of Job. Even Job had a few questions for God, didn’t he? But Job - through all that - never let go of the hand of God.
Can I ask that you read Romans 1? Here is what I really want you to see: Please really read it.

16I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

GunRunner - you need to see the line that says, “...so that men are without excuse.” So after all the teeth gritting and anger and rebellion and whatever else is going on - at the end of the day there is a man in front of a mirror who has to ask himself what his faith is in.

There is a point where God does ‘give you over’, but notice God did not inflict this on you or anyone else. They knew God and replaced him with something, anything else. (The most famous god of all time is the god of “ME”.) They made the choice of giving up the True God and so - God eventually ‘gave them over’.

Don’t let this be you.
I apologize if this is off subject to the original thread or inappropriate here.

[steve-b]

It is in fact a serious problem with the anthropic theory of the universe - that we are capable of questioning the origin of the universe because it produced an environment that allows the evolution of living things that can question their origin. It's a circular argument.

Er, the circularity of the argument is precisely why the argument "a universe capable of generating intelligence is improbable" fails. For obvious reasons, the question can only be posed within a universe that does generate intelligence. Heads I win; tails doesn't count -- the probability of winning is 1.0.

[steve-b]

It sounds the same as the fundamentalist argument that only God can create beings who can question his existence, therefore the fact that we question his existence proves there is a God.

The fallacy in that argument is a completely different one. Either one defines "God" as encompassing anything that can create intelligence (in which case the statement is trivially true, and trivially useless), or not (in which case one concedes that intelligence can possibly arise from some other source, thereby undercutting the original assertion).

[steve-b]

The book of Job is not humbling. In fact if I had to list 10 reasons why I'm no longer a believer, the book of Job would be up near the top of the list.

Indeed. While reading O'Brien describing the power of the Party to the half-broken Winston Smith in 1984, I knew it was reminding me of something, but it took a while to realize that it was the book of Job....

[2Wheels]

What on God’s green earth!?

Darkwolf: As an atheist, what in the world qualifies you to determine what a “great work of moral instruction” would be?
Here lets say this another way: There is no such thing as “morals” without God giving them to us! Do you not see how ridiculous your statement is?
Please inform us all of your qualifications as to what is moral?
There is only one source of morality - despite the millions of us who think we “KNOW” what is moral and not, but yet we often do just about anything to keep from looking to God’s word for answers to morality.
It is impossible to accept the Bible as a ‘great book of morals’ and in the same breath deny its ‘holiness’. You have no morals to refer to without God/scripture having provided them to you to begin with!
You don’t believe in the Bible’s holiness, which implies you do not believe in God, but you think morals came into being...........somehow....some way?!!!?
I just have to know how this came to be! Please explain!

Gunrunner - it is quite clear you do spend a great deal of time in scripture. You better be careful - many an atheist attempts to prove the Bible wrong and end up highly devout Christians. Praise God!
(I also suspect you were not raised as an atheist!)
But also, as I already said - it is apparent you have a ton of questions or you wouldn’t ask things like this:

“Here’s my question; what exactly is virtuous about faith? Why does the belief in something for which you have no evidence constitute a positive?”

Why do you have a need for clarity on this? I have immense faith that God is real, that heaven is real and that hell is real. One of those is not a positive. To declare you have no faith is first of all not true. But, for the sake of your argument, for one to claim no faith in God - is the same as saying there is no eternity of any value. Dead is dead....back to dust. The End. You are right, nothing positive there! That is why by default - having faith in eternity, particularly in heaven with God? How could that not be positive???? Faith placed in anything else not positive is it?
Get past yourself here. You are making all this way too complex. Humans are masterful at complicating something beautifully simple.
“1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.” I Cor 15

What more do you need to know?

[steve-b]

It is obvious on the face of it that morals must have a basis that is not rooted in any particular religious claim. Without a basic “neutral” foundation, there is no way to determine which of the various mutually exclusive claims (e.g. “Morality requires human sacrifice”, “Morality requires the subjegation or destruction of the infidels”, “Morality requires that you love your brother as yourself”) trumps the others.

[GunRunner]

Thankfully, there's no evidence that the god of Job exists, or that Job himself was ever a real person. So I'm not currently rebelling against anything, unless you count the fact that I've added the western Judeo-Christian god to the list of thousands of other gods like Zeus, Osiris, Odin, and Vishnu that I don't believe in.

My point on using the word 'rebel' was that I've somewhat crossed over into the realm of antitheism, rather than just atheism. That is, not only do I not believe, I think it would be pretty awful if it were all true, and I'm thankful that its not. There is no supernatural being watching over my every move and analyzing my every thought. And thankfully so; we do not live in a divine North Korea with a nosy dictator overseeing human affairs.

If a supreme being did exist, I would "pray" that it would not be the one described in Job, who is an arrogant aristocrat who allows horrible things to happen to Job at the hands of Satan simply to prove a point, or more pointedly, to win a gentlemen's agreement. His actions are very reminiscent of how Greek gods used to behave. Satan and god's discussion remind me of two plantation owners sipping scotch and playing pool while arguing over who has the most loyal slaves.

Forget that noise! I bow to no one, especially the god of Job. Thankfully he's not real and is a creation of mankind.

[GunRunner]

What more do you need to know?

Really? I've got tons more questions.

-Are Hindus virtuous for their faith?
-Do non-Christian Buddhists burn in hell for all eternity when they die?
-Are books and gospels not included in the Bible and/or were suppressed by the Catholic church also the word of God? (New Testament apocrypha like the Gospel of James for instance) Or is it only the word of god if the church says so?
-What is the age of the Earth?
-Are Thomas Jefferson and other Founding Fathers who were deists in hell right now?

Those are just the religious questions off the top of my head. I'm sure I've got more if I wanted to give it more thought.