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.
The point is that the questions of “why” physical constants happen to be compatible with intelligence or “how” they got that way are meaningless, since they obviously cannot be asked unless the constants do in fact permit intelligence to arise. As I noted earlier, this is a form of the Texas Sharpshooter joke.
Our Creator is first discovered through observing natural cause and effect. The more Atheists run away from God, the more they will find Him.
Bookmark.
Ping!
ping
Sure it is. If there is no deity, everything is allowed. And if everything is allowed, there are funner things to aspire to than "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control."
There's always fame, fortune, amusement, excitement, comfort, pleasure and ease.
Perhaps it will be objected that these things can bring fulfillment only in the short run. On the other hand, without faith, a short run is all you've got. Why waste it on patience and faithfulness?
There's some history here:
Acts 24:25
As Paul talked about righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come, Felix was afraid and said, "That's enough for now! You may leave. When I find it convenient, I will send for you."
These atheistic scientists should decouple God from religion. The ‘Religion = God’ formula seems to be confusing them.
Religions are man made. They are constructs, responses to internal and external forces which couldn’t be comprehended, and have been used to all manner of control and convenience for thousands of years. The ‘God’ you find in the various religions is inevitably unscientific.
But God isn’t religion. God is in the smallest and largest things, and in everything. If we look, inside and out, big and small, in how things work and how things balance and how things are, God will be come apparent.
One thing you’ll notice about those who claim
“morality doesn’t require God” -
they always define “moral behavior” in accordance with
their own actual behavior choices.
So, by self-definition, they are “moral” people.
This is Pantheism, and I reject it as unbiblical. It is the worship of the creation instead of the creator.
If you'd say the EVIDENCE of God, or the EVIDENCE of divine creation "is in everything", you'd be biblically correct.
I like the Old Testament better, at least when it comes to concept of hell, which is absent.
In the OT, once you expired, whether it was through god's numerous genocides, plagues, or triggered natural disasters, he was done with you; there was no punishment for the dead.
If such a place actually existed, mankind should rightfully lobby for its abolition.
The only difference between atheists and believers wanting others to believe as they do is that believers really do believe that there is a hereafter and that everyone will spend it somewhere. There’s the concern for where.
As far as others making up their own minds, as believer, I do feel that choice is theirs. I’m not nervous about others not believing as I do because I perceive it as a threat to my own beliefs; I’m secure enough in them that other’s faith, or lack of it, doesn’t faze me.
Likewise, I don’t want anyone making false professions just for lip service.
And I'll ask you the same question:
Where in your experience have you seen something come from nothing (or in the case of the universe - everything coming from nothing)?
“morality doesn’t require God” -
they always define “moral behavior” in accordance with
their own actual behavior choices.
So, by self-definition, they are “moral” people.
True for believers as well.
A "personal" god is a running fad with the religious community. It seems that everyone seems to know god and exactly what he wants, which obviously differs from person to person.
You're just as likely to have a Christian disagree with another Christian on what is "moral" as you would a Christian and a non-believer.
bump
So it goes.....
In other words, the Texas Sharpshooter who shoots a hundred bullets at a wall and then paints a hundred bulls-eyes around them is ten times more impressive than one who does only ten of each. Gotcha.
Likewise, the “morality doesn’t require God” crowd usually defines morals the same as those established BY God.
Even they see the wisdom of “Love thy neighbor as thyself” and “Do unto others....”.
They just come up with all kinds of convoluted reasons why they can justify agreeing with Scripture without just coming out and admitting that it’s right because....
Gunrunner: "True for believers as well."
I don't think so. I know lots and lots of Christians who quickly admit to moral failure. It's rare to find agnostics or atheists who admit they fall far short of their own moral standards. As for "disagreements"....even the self-proclaimed christians who favor allowing abortion are very quick to tell you they are "personally opposed" to it.
You need to read the OT better if that's what you think.
This “universal morality” is what many (including CS Lewis) refer to as a “personal revelation” of God.
Romans 2:15
They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts. The way their minds judge them gives witness to that fact. Sometimes their thoughts find them guilty. At other times their thoughts find them not guilty.
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.