Dinesh D'Souza: When Science Points To God

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.

Where did God come from? Nothing?

Who knows? But why not give the same skepticism to the idea of "there is no God"? All science is a building of knowledge begetting knowledge; and yet we discard the most basic idea of cause and effect.

Which is why I ask - where have you seen something come from nothing? And yet without skepticism, you think it's possible - the causeless effect - matter appearing - governed by laws that came from ...nowhere??

Parallel universes, endless expansion and contraction; all of these are greeted with a "hhmmm... that's an interesting hypothesis, it's possible...yes I like the idea." And this without a single shred or inkling of possibility.

And yet, bring up the idea of a creative mind? Oh, the skepticism - "that's impossible - you're a fool for accepting the idea of a fairy tale."

Everything in our experience points to effects having a cause. Why don't we extrapolate that out when it comes to origins?

Well, this is far from flaming, but merely a reasonable exchange.....that has veered off original course somewhat!

God's word defines morality. I choose to follow His Word and choose to (attempt) to follow His moral code. Not my moral code - God's moral code. My faith is in God, but that does not imply I get to push my faith or His morals on you and never did. Please don't confuse all that.

Self righteousness? For you to say this here provides more info than may be realized....could write tons here.

Self righteousness has nothing to do with attempting to follow God's moral code - rather submitting to His moral code! If someone claims to be in submission to God and at the same time is self righteous......RUN!
If anyone is self righteous, they are the ones who deny they are the created. They do in fact - stand and rely on their own “self” for all things (well who else is there, then?). That....is self righteousness....but I'll bet you do find that surprising.

I don't determine morality on my own - I go with what God's word says.

I'm very curious as to how the Bible can be a ‘great book of morals’, and from your view, not be given by God to men to write, yet these men some how had a reasonable sense of morality.(?) (And oh by the way - you seem to think they are ‘ok’ morals some how?) (It is good tho, that you have read some of the Bible at least!)

This begs the question again that no one is too eager to answer....is where did any or all this morality come from, if not from God? It did not crawl up on a beach. It did not come to being by a billion years of some if-then-else cancellation process.
I'm not asking you to change your morals, I want you to tell me historically how the first decision between good and evil came to pass? Tell me where the very first thought of good and evil came from in human history.

The ‘holiness’ factor I mentioned is in ‘God given’ versus just a bunch of books written by men that happen to contain someone’s version of ‘morals’.

One of the big points here that is apparently not getting across - is that all of you who claim there is no God, and who are adamantly opposed to the idea of submitting to a higher power - need to be able to explain where morals, morale, good and evil knowledge came from.
I don't need to hear of your views of how life began. You can argue all day about big bangs, amoebas, beach scenes and monkeys - but I personally want you all to explain in detail where and how the human mind - uniquely - ‘developed’ knowledge of good and evil. And again, instinct does not apply.

thank you.

I don't determine morality on my own - I go with what God's word says. I'm very curious as to how the Bible can be a ‘great book of morals’, and from your view, not be given by God to men to write, yet these men some how had a reasonable sense of morality.(?) (And oh by the way - you seem to think they are ‘ok’ morals some how?) (It is good tho, that you have read some of the Bible at least!) This begs the question again that no one is too eager to answer....is where did any or all this morality come from, if not from God? It did not crawl up on a beach.

While I of course don't expect you to agree with my point of view, I am once again perplexed by the inability of believers to at least UNDERSTAND such a common view.

Ever hear of Aesop's Fables? They don't come from God, they come from tales told among just regular folks, assembled by a slave.

I'm not comparing these to the Bible in any way except to say these are morality tales, and they at no time have been said to come from God.

They came from the accumulated wisdom and observation of...people.

Again--you don't have to agree with my point of view, but it's bewildering to me why you can't simply understand what I mean when I put forth my belief that the Bible tales are invented stories meant to show what some have decided is morality based on the ethical beliefs that emerged over thousands of years of human behavior, during which a society or societies saw what, in their view, worked for them, what didn't; what actions were justified and which weren't.

The Bible says there are some actions which are justified, even killing, and others which are not; there are countless moral codes of lands, tribes, nations, religions which do the same, and they don't come from the god you choose to believe in.

You label your moral code as superior because it comes from God the Creator. Fine. Others say your god isn't the creator, and guess what? Their opinion matters TO THEM as much as yours matters to you.

You can say "But MINE is the right one!" all you like, and it doesn't change the situation, which is one person claiming his is THE God, his THE morality.

You're perfectly within your rights to do so. But that doesn't change for one second that I don't believe it, nor do I have to believe it.

Again, I'm not asking you to like it--I don't care whether you do or you don't. But can't you at least understand the position?

Darkwolf377...

I’m probably the last person you want to hear from and a delayed response at best!

I know I come across harshly for which I apologize. I also apologize if it is inappropriate to answer and divert from the original subject matter, but I see this happening with all kinds of subject matter in FR, so I assume it is acceptable to some degree(?).

For brevity - here are your quotes, and then I’ll make a comment or two about them on the whole afterward:
“They (morality tales) came from the accumulated wisdom and observation of...people.”
“Bible tales are invented stories meant to show what some have decided is morality based on the ethical beliefs that emerged over thousands of years of human behavior, during which a society or societies saw what, in their view, worked for them, what didn’t; what actions were justified and which weren’t.”
“...it (morality, good/evil) came from the human experience of that behavior which benefits the individual while at the same time allowing society to function based on local custom and prefered behavior...”.

Ok - let me clarify that I do understand people make choices in what they believe and I don’t want to come across as beligerant and telling you - you are dead wrong. That is not at all what I want to say.
Certainly I cannot and will not force or push my stuff onto you.

So, it is good tho, to attempt to prove things out and/or at least discuss, right?

Your three quotes above are your answers to questions I posed in asking you (anyone) to explain how those first beings in the human chain (at any point) came up with that ‘sparkle’ to even consider intangibles such as ‘good’ and ‘bad’?
I need this explained in really simple terms. Fuzzy terms like “emerged over thousands of years of human behavior” just doesn’t tell me a thing about that one ‘person’ that first came up with ‘good’ and ‘bad’. That initial spark of knowledge of something not seen, not ever even thought of prior to a certain moment in ‘evolutionary history’, yet it “emerged” some how, some way.

That is the moment I need explained in detail. I need for you to tell me what put the bug in their ear that made them consider something inconceivable prior to that moment in all of world history. This knowledge of good and evil emerged from what exactly?
Also, several of you seem to place this event or ‘emergence’ of knowledge of good and evil in relatively modern days and not something that would or could(?) have occured with our cavemen friends from the past, or even earlier in the chain. It would be interesting to hear how any evolutionist would arrive at a time frame within such a monumetal event could have occured - this kodak moment when that first ‘person’ suddenly thought of ‘good’ and ‘bad’.
You can say it emerged all day, but it had to emerge from someone somewhere at a specific moment the first time.

So if I hear correctly from your standpoint, humankind went from the basics of eating, sleeping, reproducing surviving existence - basically the animals life as it had been for.....a long time........to the one unique set in the ‘animal kingdom’, and one individual from that set of animal life at some point in time conceived from nowhere, this notion of good and/or evil?
I’m going to say it one more time. The emergence came from somewhere the first time it occured. Tell me all about that moment, please.

(And I must say, the third quote of yours sounds like it is straight out of a book or dictionary.)
While this definition would suffice as the ‘end all’ giving some a nice warm fuzzy, it does nothing to provide an answer as to the origination of morality from a point in time when - just before that moment - was never dreamed of by these human animals....or wait....is it animal humans?
It is difficult to absorb your point of reference when you speak of humans rather than us as - just animals. We are in fact - just ‘animals’ by the default rule of evolution - once wild, then magically ‘domesticated’ over time and accrued this thing known as morality. Or have we acheived something higher than the plane of the animal kingdom?
So when I replace all your references of “human” with “animal” - then attempt to come up with a point in time that a single animal (that first one) came up with this good/bad thing...it truthfully becomes quite silly....

I need this explained in really simple terms. Fuzzy terms like “emerged over thousands of years of human behavior” just doesn’t tell me a thing about that one ‘person’ that first came up with ‘good’ and ‘bad’. That initial spark of knowledge of something not seen, not ever even thought of prior to a certain moment in ‘evolutionary history’, yet it “emerged” some how, some way.

What is fuzzy about the expression “emerged over thousands of years of human behavior”? It is rather juvenile to think that our entire morality just popped into existence in one person. Our political system, our sciences, our art, our civilization didn't just happen all at once, so what is so confusing about the idea that as humans gradually moved from tribal to community cohabitation that certain attitudes and behaviors would develop?

It is rather simplistic to say as you do that if I can't come up with the name of the one person who suddenly discovered morality (which I never claimed to have because I never claimed such a person existed) than the only answer is that a being who somehow was never born and has always existed dropped it on our heads like a rock. It's like people who believe UFO's are alien spaceships--just because I can't explain what that light in the sky is, how does one make the leap to saying "Ah ha, an alien spaceship!" without any evidence at all?

One only need look at how human behavior, ethics and community has evolved in the period of recorded history to see that people do indeed change their behavior over time to accomodate different ideas as acceptable and others are not in terms of human behavior. As I said previously, you don't have to ACCEPT the point of view I have, but to say you don't even UNDERSTAND it shows one is either stupid (which I don't believe you are) or simply willfully ignoring alternate points of view.

Your mistake, I think, is refusing to budge from your rather odd idea that the ONLY conceivable origin of morality is if one single human was given the idea as a gift from above.

I'm not trying to force you to believe my position, which is something many religious folks do try to do. I'm just trying to get you to accept that an idea you may not agree with is not so crazy as you seem to want to believe it is. Based on thousands of years of human civilization, which even you must agree shows we have evolved in our thinking about MANY things (humanity didn't just accept Christianity in one weekend), I'm perfectly comfortable in believing that the concept of morality (which you must agree has MANY interpretations, many of which we can both agree are abhorent) is the sum of centuries of thinking, action, and exchange of thoughts and ideas.

In comparison, claiming that an invisible god just dropped the idea of morality from the sky seems silly to me.

DARK-

“What is fuzzy about the expression “emerged over thousands of years of human behavior”? It is rather juvenile to think that our entire morality just popped into existence in one person. Our political system, our sciences, our art, our civilization didn’t just happen all at once, so what is so confusing about the idea that as humans gradually moved from tribal to community cohabitation that certain attitudes and behaviors would develop?”

Fuzzy is ‘emerged’. Fuzzy is that you are attempting to relate science and art and pol systems and civilizations - every one of which can be touched and seen and developed over time out of the imagination of our minds.
Morality (knowledge of good and evil) emerging from wild ape-dom in a single ‘animal’ set is not and cannot be related to the items you list here.
No, I’m not literally asking you to name the person who came up with morality. You are missing the intent. You are saying morality emerged from wild animal ape-dom and has ‘evolved’ to what it is today.
You jumped out on me by saying ‘our entire morality popped into existence in one person’. No, I didn’t say that. I said that it didn’t come from no where. It had to start in someone somewhere and in fact, someone did have to start that ball rolling at some point. It didn’t happen randomly, simultaneously all over the place either.
In the same way the elements that make up this universe didn’t come from just no where, neither did morality. Are you going to say the universal elements emerged over time from nothing too?

“Your mistake, I think, is refusing to budge from your rather odd idea that the ONLY conceivable origin of morality is if one single human was given the idea as a gift from above.”

You hit the nail on the head. Except that it is not a mistake and really not so odd when there are millions who believe precisely that morality did ‘come from above’. The mistake that I hope you don’t find ‘odd’ later on is in those whose pride and intelligence exceeds the gift offered to all who will choose the gift.
Here it is in all its fundamentality:
Adam and Eve made a choice and ate of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden. Yes, then...the knowledge of good and evil did drop right out of the sky because God made it so. Don’t forget that it was their choice.
You....are not willing to believe (so far in your life) that God had man write these things, let alone that those things written in the Bible are even remotely true.
It is truly simple. You either believe it, or you don’t.

And I’m not forcing anything on you. You hang here an aweful lot. The choice is and has always been yours in what you will believe. All I want you to do is be exposed to maybe one thought you haven’t considered in life’s quest for knowledge.
None of this has any relevance to my acceptance or unwillingness to hear alternative views that you keep bringing up.
There is truth and there is everything else. Bible based faith for the believer is truth. If God does exist - uh yes he does - then nothing you or I believe will change his plan. We either accept his plan out of love for the truth and his son or not. The choice for us is what are we doing with our brief lives?
If I take the standpoint that I believe in all God says he is and does - what have I to lose for placing my faith in him? What is so valuable about this life that so many are willing to ignore a gift from God?
It all seems silly? What will you do when you find out is isn’t silly?

“So your big “evidence” is that “millions believe it”.
By that “logic,” since Islam is now the most popular religion on the planet, you’ll be converting any day now. How could billions be wrong?
People who use popularity as their ultimate go-to for their beliefs have no logic or facts to stand on, only emotion.”

I never came close to saying my ‘big evidence’ was just that millions believe it. You are over simplifying me to justify your own stance.

The evidence to support belief is a Creator God is endless and has absolutely nothing to do with popularity. You’ve added the popularity idea to this conversation, not me.
Take all your Islam and popularity jibber jabber somewhere else.

Billions are in fact wrong....who actually think and believe all this is the result of chaos. There is zero logic in chaos, chance and the concept of evolution.

The choices are simple - you believe in chaos and chance, but can’t prove them, or you believe in a Supreme Being who created it all and yet, I cannot “prove” God because I cannot touch Him or show him to you (although his creation proves him - read Romans 1). In either case - faith and belief are requirements. What are you going to believe in?
Too simple for you? Leave it to mans ‘intelligence’ to complicate a simple existence....

“Man is without excuse...”

You are right Dark, here is what you said:
(knowledge of good and evil)“emerged over thousands of years of human behavior”...
and you said you, “...never once said anything about apes or apedom.”

Now it sounds like you are implying humans are not from apes? Do you believe in evolution? Or are you saying this emergence of good and evil is a really modern emergence long after we dwelled in caves?
Please explain. What time frame did humans gain this knowledge of good and evil?

There is no rational discussion on this point when you cannot prove your point. You have no text or data whatsoever that can come close to explaining why only a single species on the planet has the knowledge of good and evil. It is all your theory or a complacency to accept any glossy losely termed ‘explanation’ as long as its under the evolutionary umbrella.

I can tell you and show you good and evil exist. I can show you what the Bible says about its origins. I can tell you only humankind possesses knowledge of good and evil. And I can tell you that if you think we are merely a modern segment in a long chain of animal evolution, we would NOT have magically “emerged” at any point in time....with any form of a moral code. If so, prove it well beyond your words here: “emerged over thousands of years of human behavior”...

I do believe in evolution, or something like it. I just don't think it has anything to do with this discussion.

What time frame did humans gain this knowledge of good and evil?

I have no idea.

There is no rational discussion on this point when you cannot prove your point.

Which point?

You have no text or data whatsoever that can come close to explaining why only a single species on the planet has the knowledge of good and evil.

The same reason why only a single species on the planet has the knowledge of the automobile.

And you have only one text and no data outside that single text that "proves" your belief in god, which is the same as no proof--but of course, you have faith, which is the opposite of proof. So you are asking me for proof, yet you don't believe in the need for proof in your own belief. Apples and oranges.

It is all your theory or a complacency to accept any glossy losely termed ‘explanation’ as long as its under the evolutionary umbrella.

You assume I think I know where the world came from and have all the answers. I don't. Neither do you. The difference is, I admit it.

I can tell you and show you good and evil exist.

So can I.

I can show you what the Bible says about its origins.

Meaningless. You point to a book as your authority, yet I don't recognize that single book's authority, so it means nothing to me.

I can tell you only humankind possesses knowledge of good and evil.

When did I claim other animals had such knowledge?

And I can tell you that if you think we are merely a modern segment in a long chain of animal evolution, we would NOT have magically “emerged” at any point in time....with any form of a moral code.

Of course you can tell me that. You can assert anything. You have not a shred of evidence outside of one religious book to back up your interpretation, though. And since I don't believe in the validity of that text as a holy book, it's meaningless to me. You can assert all you like and it wouldn't convince me of a thing.

If so, prove it well beyond your words here: “emerged over thousands of years of human behavior”...

I could fill a library with books proving my point. All you have is one book asserting yours.

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.