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.
These examples illustrate why the underlying standard of morality is necessarily independent of religious claims — otherwise, there is no way to distinguish between various mutually exclusive religious claims on moral subjects and discern which of them are, in fact, based on valid morality.
The notion of an uncaused “first cause” goes back at least to Aristotle, who lived in the fourth century BCE.
>>Is it reasonable to misbehave if there is not a deity? No.<<
Hahahaha!
The question is of the same veign as “Is it true you’ve stopped beating your wife”. That is, if there is no deity, then the word “reasonable” has no meaning or, more precisely, has a different definition for every human with reasoning power.
And then the question is answered very nicely in the very last sentence of Judges:
In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.
This is funny, they used to just throw infinite time into their “theory”. Now they throw infinite universes. And yet it is not proveable, which makes it faith.
As I have said from the beginning, both sides are a religion, but only one will admit it.
Oh, I should mention that Christians have always believed there is a parallel universe. We call it heaven.
>>Is it very likely that there is a deity? No. <<
You’ll have a hard time convincing those who have a personal relationship with Him of that.
>>The central argument of these scientific atheists is that modern science has refuted traditional religious conceptions of a divine creator. <<
Those that actually believe that tripe really need to read up on DNA.
As a scientist in a 1990’s Scientific American article once said, regarding DNA, “the more we know about it, the more it looks like someone designed it”.
Just sayin’...
>>Note, though, that if someone rejects rationality as a criterion for judging conduct...<<
To who’s rationality are you referring. Saddam thought he was rational. Hitler thought he was rational. If there is no deity you have the luxury of defining your own rationality and consensus doesn’t count. After all, consensus would be merely a result of evolution, which was accidental.
Maybe cancer is more valuable than people and we should nurture it rather than kill it. I mean, we got lots of people, and we seem to make all we want...
LOL. Stevo, the point of this article was that the universe seems custom made for life. IOW everywhere you look in biology - or cosmology - you find "paint brushes & paint" supplied just as if they were meant to be there.
I understand your argument that these "amazing finds" are nothing more than finding that "round pegs fit round holes" - no surprise there.
I am simply expanding your Texas SharpShooter analogy to help illustrate the point of this article.
Now you don't have to agree - but neither do I have to find your analogy useful as it is simply another tool to obfuscate the glaringly obvious question:
"Where in your experience have you seen something come from nothing?"
I know. Read what I wrote.
>.It is readily observed that behavior according to basic civilized rules produces better long-term results than instant gratification.<<
By who’s definition?
I had a similar argument with a Benedictine nun once, who averred that even if there were no God she would act as she did, because "it's just a good way to live." That's as may be --- for her -- but for me, it makes no sense to live in voluntary poverty, chastity, and obedience for a lifetime if "you only come this way once" and therefore it's up to you to "grab all the gusto."
Our loves are as great as our hopes, and the thorough-going atheist has no hopes of anything other than a 100 mph crash into a solid brick wall. And in the long run --- if he cares to think of that which he will never see --- the long sigh of entropy in the heat-death of the Universe.
>>As you note, those who lack that self-discipline tend to degenerate into tribalism...<<
Why is that a bad thing?
So, did god design the AIDS virus too?
Which I find to be ironic considering their mystical beliefs. Atheism has nothing in common with science.
>>So, did god design the AIDS virus too?<<
That is a twist on the old phrase, “How could a loving God allow all the suffering in the world?” The answer? Sin. How did the aids virus get to people? How does it spread? Are there innocent victims? Yep, just like in car accidents.
For a good read on this whole concept, read “The Problem of Pain”, by C.S. Lewis.
Once, years ago, I had a fear. That fear was dying. The end of my life. Since I have known Christ, I don't worry about it any more. I live my days. If that day should come, then I am prepared. My old grand mother, who lived to be a wonderful 99.5 years old told me she never feared death. Not when she was 20 and not when she was 95. She said she KNEW there was a better place. She said she KNEW that she would be in Heaven with God. That is FAITH! Something liberals don't have. If they cannot see it in the NY Times or on CNN, they don't believe it.
I beg to differ.
Tchaikovsky, the Hubble telescope, and the microchip provide things of such grandeur that it's hard for me to believe that people once got excited over a burning bush or parlor tricks with wine and water.
If heat death occurs before we've found a way to colonize outside of the universe, then I hope we will have left a good mark on history. I don't need a pedagogical fairy tale to give me hope.
You've got a good point there. You're in agreement with the Apostle Paul when says,
"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.
"They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them." (Romans 2:14-15)
The Catholic West has a tremendous, millennium-long heritage of reflection on Natural Law --- a philosophy which gave birth to International Law via such thinkers as Bartolome de las Casas and Francisco de Vitoria, and crucially influenced even our own Declaration of Independence ("the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,") and Constitution.
But you were specifically talking about design. Did god design the DNA for the AIDS virus? Human behavior may contribute to its spread, but where did it come from?
I asked my boss, who is an experimental physicist, how he reconciles his devotion to Christianity with being a physicist. He replied, “You can question a person’s scientific beliefs but you can’t very well question their faith.”
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.