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.
Christian leaders rarely do, and they wait until it's no longer a secret to admit to it. And I have known lots and lots of self-righteous Christians who don't admit any moral failure whatsoever, but they sure like to preach to others.
Arasina,
“What constitutes good and what are its origins?”
Exactly! All the science, all the matter, all the formulas and time spans and chaos and “chance”....
None who are atheists or evolutionists can touch the origins of intangibles such as the knowledge of good and evil. None of them can touch the intangible term LOVE and all it includes.
In a world where evolution and atheism is the ‘answer’ for some, they need to forever cease from using terms like these:
Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, meekness, hate, good, bad, hope, trust, behave, misbehave, compassion, care....and a host of other terms relative to human behaviors.....that are literally ‘untouchable’!
In a world of evolution, of ‘matter’ and chaos, none of these intangibles can exist. The only term that can exist in evolution that is intangible is “instinct”. But instinct and evolution never taught love, or knowledge of good and evil.
There is no point in history where a molecule divided and suddenly it was able to determine “good” or “bad”. Never did a molecule divide and say “Ooooooo I love that”, or “I hate that”. How utterly ludicrous!
Personally, the evolutionists/atheists’ story is dead in the water right here. And yet our world is full of all these terms - good, bad, love, hate even among our atheists and evolutionists. For an athiest to say they do not believe in God, a Creator God, and yet use language that could not exist with it being given by a Supreme Being, is almost humorous (sic). Same with an evolutionist. Both speak from both sides of their mouths if they use terms like ‘love’. They actually believe ‘instinct’ and evolution taught ‘love’ and the knowledge of good and evil from absolutely nothing. They have to say, ‘It was chaos that gave us Love and knowledge of good and evil’. The buck stops here.
I believe it is time all of you who deny the Creator God to own up to these facts or start living like the instinctive animals you think you evolved from. You cannot have it both ways and you are intelligent enough to know it. You cannot tell your children you ‘love them’ when you cannot begin to conceive of where ‘LOVE’ came into being - other than to say ‘it evolved’. I’ll bet you even claim you know what LOVE ‘feels’ like, and yet you can’t come close to touching it! You can’t see it either, but you KNOW it’s there, don’t you! But you are hellbent on the almighty, “I have to see it to believe it!” Sure you do.......
Oh - LOVE evolved....? The burden of PROOF is on you!
Which leads me to one other point. Nevermind Augustinian quotes. Hebrews 11:1 says, “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for, and certain of what we do not see.”
I did not see Jesus on that cross, yet I am certain....I’m SURE it did happen. I am also CERTAIN he did rise on the third day. I did not see the creation, yet I believe it occured.
(We are in fact here!) (Read Romans 1 - it is loaded.)
Some of you out there are CERTAIN we all crawled up on a beach somewhere and developed a very complex mind and body over time. None of you were there and yet you believe it.
Faith in God, or faith in some form of evolution and/or chaos....both require faith since we did not see these things take place. (Some did see Jesus hang on a cross, and recorded it, while no human ever ‘saw’ evolution, the big bang or any other derivitives of it, yet have their faith in it.)
A reasonable mind knows this to be true. A reasonable mind knows certain intangibles cannot readily be explained away. Knowledge of good and evil came from somewhere and I do not hear the best of the best of writers dissecting the beginnings of LOVE or the knowledge of ‘good and evil’. This subject is in fact avoided by many and yet it is a highly unique feature of humanity itself along with the other intangibles mentioned.
Faith is then required by all humans (instilled in them, actually) - whether we all want to admit it or not. Yes athiests, you do have faith. Your faith is in a statement that says ‘there is no God’. But you cannot PROVE he does NOT exist, so you do in fact place faith in something you cannot see. You do not have the means to PROVE God either way, do you!?
Since faith is required by all, I will stand with many others of long ago.....to suggest that faith be placed somewhere that provides an end with a means! Eternity with the Creator in His home sounds far superior to the alternative of promised fire for those who choose to ignore Him.
The true motivator though, should be “Love”. The unique love given to humankind. Love for the One who died and rose to assure a home in heaven for each of us who choose His Way.
All this to say something very simple: We ALL have faith - Now where are you going to choose to put it?
Someone once said about God, the He uses
“...the simple things to confound the ‘wise’.....”
bump
Only two reasons for men to do the right thing....fear/love of God OR fear/love of fellow man. You choose which is the more compelling of the two.
The main point is that there are waaay too many coincidences in the universe to make me think it was all random. I’ve got a million of ‘em, but those two made me go from “I’d doubt it” to “probably”.
Here - I’ll help your analogy...
What’s really impressive is that when your shooter goes to examine his shots, he finds next to every hole a paint brush and paint with which to paint his bulls-eye.
It is amazing isn’t it?
They do exist, although they are chemical reactions in your brain rather than physical manifestations.
The latter, for sure.
Fellow man has no ability to damn you to eternal suffering; you help your fellow man without promise or fear of postmortem reward or punishment.
You do it because it's the right thing to do, not because some celestial dictator tells you to.
Indeed they might. Some of the human sacrifices in pagan Celtic Britain were willing to be consecrated and have their throats slit, because trhey believed they were rewarded with honors inthe Druid heaven.
As another example, certain Islamic muhajidin argue that using Muslim civilians as shields is not morally offensive because if the shield dies, he or she dies as a martyr (shahid) and attains paradise.
All of the arguments against religion are correct, if you find the appropriate false religion to apply them to. I'm no defender of false religions and false gods. Quite the contrary.
I said this relative to someone being able to touch these things. Atheists, evolutionists and others are so hung up on touching or seeing.....but they can’t see any of these things - yet all these and morality...continue to ‘govern’ the majority of humanity.
Having said that - God (and his son) still governs all, even though it may not appear as such sometimes.
There's nothing wrong with any of those things, and none of them are exclusionary to "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control."
Show me one that contradicts the other.
Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, meekness, hate, good, bad, hope, trust, behave, misbehave, compassion, care.....In a world of evolution, of ‘matter’ and chaos, none of these intangibles can exist.
Again - none of THESE....along with morality can exist for those who think they have to see or touch in order to believe in God.
No; that’s not relevant. The point of the analogy is that it illustrates the confusion about selective sampling; hence, the Texas Sharpshooter who brings a paintbursh and can to paint bulls-eyes around his shots after the fact is the correct analogy.
Non-believers take philosophy very seriously, and are perfectly fine with concepts that they cannot empirically see and touch, they just don't need an invisible authoritarian to make them exist.
Religion was mankind's first crack at philosophy, although a very poor one. That is why so many elements of religion and philosophy are parallel.
Religion is to philosophy what alchemy is to chemistry and what astrology is to astronomy. Its just taking us a little longer to shake than the latter two.
Nonsense. The basic elements of logic were studied long before Christianity existed.
You mean like the way there is an exact integer numbers of days in a year... er, nevermind... perhaps you mean the way there is about the same amount of land north and south of the equator... ah, somebody help me out here....
Obviously, your "coincidences" are examples of cherry-picking: heads I win, tails doesn't count.
Non Sequitur. The fact that someone makes outlandish claims on one subject does not necessarily disqualify that person from being respected on other subjects (though it does give grounds for increased scrutiny and skepticism).
For example: Isaac Newton spent developed a rather bizarre skein of "Biblical prophecies" of the sort commonly found these days in vanity-press crank literature. He spent more time and effort on this pursuit than he did in laying the foundations for modern mathematics and physics. That does not make him any less a genius in the latter fields of endeavor.
Reason is based on Christianity (or, at the least, an uncaused cause that commands we reject superstitious idolatry).
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.