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.
If some Sunday-School teacher had invented "pedagogical fairy tales" to chide and guide her kiddies, she would not have invented anything so quirky and strange as a draconian king who would let none buy nor sell on all the earth unless they had his number inscribed on their and and forehead, nor a nameless "I AM" who cares to set the Pharaonic slave-class free.
She would be more likely, I think, spin tales of dragons who are innocent but different, and need only to be understood; and an evolving Little Eukaryote that Could.
Damn typsos...
If you believe that is an opinion, you don't understand the idea of faith.
If one were operating purely on rational thinking, one couldn't believe in a God for which the only evidence IS faith.
The whole point of faith is belief in something for which you have no empirical evidence--if you had PROOF that God existed, you wouldn't NEED faith. What is the value of faith if there is evidence?
You're talking about the makeup of the two belief systems, which isn't what we're talking about. I said I didn't see a difference between the partisans on both sides claiming they had The Truth and who thought they were in the right to try to convince others of The Truth.
Compared to the number of actual believers to the number of atheists, the believers are way, WAY ahead in the self-righteous department.
“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.”
Philosophy...love...morality...good and evil.....
They may not need an invisible authoritarian to make these intangibles exist, but they better done some heavy ‘philosophising’ to have these come from nowhere too.
It is quite clear many of these individuals are very intelligent. But none of them can ‘explain away’ where the knowledge of good and evil came from.
Instead, they’d rather spend their lifetime playing chess with God - and he will play with you (except that life is not a game) - but your final move is your choice.
They would rather listen all day to their own human intelligence (self imposed gods) than to accept the more reasonable faith with a very comforting eternal promise.
Philosophy? What value is it - in the end? Read in Job where God answers Job - and be humbled......
Looking up at the brilliant pinpoints of light, sparkling in the high plains air, I thought of how they came to be.
Einstien's formula - E=Mc2 floated up from memory...
Knowing that the equation can be turned around to M=E/c2 I thought, "Yeah! All that MASS up there now shining down - it appeared after the tremendous energy burst of the Big Bang! The rest is history."
Almost back at the gate, confident that I'd figgered it out, an almost audible thought(?) came to me...
"Where did the ENERGY come from?"
At that time; I had no answer.
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?
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.
Well, that's a matter of opinion.
Your comment in post 70 was I like the Old Testament better, at least when it comes to concept of hell, which is absent.
The concept of hell (punishment) is not absent from the OT. The OT may not contain the vivid descriptions that the NT does, but it's clearly mentioned.
Where is eternal damnation for the dead mentioned in the NT? Please cite an example.
Sheol does not represent eternal damnation and was a place for righteous and unrighteous alike, like Hades; it doesn't count.
Typo, meant OT.
It is a question that can never be answered by science - it is answered by faith. I may not be able to prove God's existence or the possibility of life after death, but Jesus Christ told us he exists, and life does continue on - all we have to do is believe in him.
If I choose to follow God's Commandments, live a good life and put my faith in him, then I have hope from his promises that I will live on past my physical end. If I choose not to believe, then death is the final stop for me, with no hope beyond that. Now which is the smarter choice?
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.
They do exist, although they are chemical reactions in your brain rather than physical manifestations.
Those qualities are NOT chemical reactions in the brain. That's working on the assumption that the chemical reactions CAUSE the emotions or characteristics. It's more likely that those intangibles cause the chemical reactions.
Science cannot even begin to touch so much of human reality. It fails woefully.
Neither of those verses describe a place where you go when you die and face unending torture as punishment for your sins for all of eternity.
To quote Douglas Adams, "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" Why do love, joy, peace, and kindness have to have supernatural qualities?
When I look at a beautiful painting, its nothing but a collection of brush strokes on canvass. Moonlight Sonata is nothing but strings vibrating inside a piano, but its still beautiful. Emotions are nothing but chemical and electrical reactions in your brain, but that doesn't make them any less real or important.
We don't need an omnipotent interdimensional Big Brother ruling over us to make it real, at least I don't anyway.
Bookmark.
I agree KosmicKitty. The more I learn about the universe the more divine it becomes. And by “divine” I mean that literally.
Impeccable logic.
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.