Could you elaborate? Why would this make you return to faith?
And if the sun and the moon are exactly the same size, then why do we have annular eclipses?
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.
Likewise, if there is a deity and an afterlife, believers might convince themselves that they're doing someone a favor by torturing them to death, since after all, what's a little excruciating pain in this world as compared to the eternity of the afterlife?
Thanks for the ping!
Science is based on reason. Reason is based on Christianity (or, at the least, an uncaused cause that commands we reject superstitious idolatry).
Atheistic materialism is not even faith. It's irrational delusion.
I used to be an atheist/agnostic even though I was brought up in a strong Christian household. Through my study of Physics and Mathematics I again found faith. I can pinpoint the turn around to two things. The first chip on my shoulder was blown off when I learned that the sun and moon were EXACTLY the same size at their zenith in the sky. The second blow came when I really started to understand the universal constant “e” (elementary charge).
This part below reminds me of Plato's Allegory of the Cave in his work The Republic.
Without diminishing the contemporary philosopher, he has in a sense updated Plato in the IT idiom.
First, he said to imagine the universe as you perceive it to be your “human interface” with reality. Similar to the screen on your computer, it represents what is happening, but is not a true representation of reality. Evolution guarentees that it cannot be. The amount of energy needed to perceive real reality would be a huge waste. Your perception is evolved so that your “hack” into reality is better than the “hack” of what you want to eat or what wants to eat you. Humans may not even have the capacity to understand reality. Thus, trying to expain the universe by using what we are able to perceive is like trying to explain what is happening in a computer by what you see on the screen. The screen represents reality, but it is not. It is your “human interface” because you cannot communicate with the true reality of the computer.
He's completely right about science and belief, and helped me along many a time.
His best assertion: Jesus was either God, or he was an insane person. The things He said claimed His own divinity and therefore disqualified Him from being just a great human philosopher, prophet or philanthropist.
I keep the assertion in mind because I know that the Moose Limbs venerate Jesus as a great philosopher, prophet, and philanthropist, which He is not.
The only relevant observation I have is a similar realization regarding biology and medicine... there are too many finely tuned systems which interact... it would be so unlikely that the machinery of a cell 'evolved' in the Brownian-motion-to-Darwin-survival model espoused by just about everyone in contemporary science, that I find the situation comical.
Keep thoughts like that to yourself, though, or you will find yourself out of work in most universities.
Really? Please cite book and verse where eternal damnation is mentioned in the Old Testament. Please note that Sheol is not hell.
I wasn't addressing the topic of admission of moral failure, only that a believer's morals are likely tuned to whatever their "personal" god's morals are, which differ from person to person.
I still learning to love the O.T. and the N.T. equally, since both focus on God’s provision for His Son to provide redemption. “And Abraham said, My son will provide Himself a lamb.....” (Gen. 22:8a)
Then in John 1:29, “The next day John seeth Jesus unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.”
And in O.T. book of Isaiah 9:14 “Therefore the LORD Himself shall give you a sign; Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel(God with us)”.
We know in the N.T. “A voice from heaven spoke, and said, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, Hear Him.”
South Park had a wonderful parody of Richard Dawkins, in a two-part episode, with Dawkins being portrayed to say “Logic and reason aren’t enough: You also have to be a dick to everyone who doesn’t think like you.” The result is, in the future, people are still having arguments and very deadly wars over idiotic differences, and, in this case, it’s over the stupidest possible difference— the choice of name for the group atheists belong to.
Minus the typos, that should be in Bartlett's Familiar Quotations. That is just brilliantly stated.
Could you elaborate? Why would this make you return to faith?
And if the sun and the moon are exactly the same size, then why do we have annular eclipses?
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.
That describes human failure, not God. God's Holy Word is and always will be constant.
I've seen alot of looseness with facts, going so far as to claim Hitler was Catholic. This illustrates just how much atheists misunderstand Christianity.
My advice is to compare the actions and behaviors of Christians with New Testament scriputre. You'll find alot of people considering themselves to be Christian are not.Sometimes not even close!
I didn’t bother.
With this statement,
“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.”
he told me he was beyond reasonable argument because we don’t have the same frame of reference (the consistancy and authority of God’s Word).
Yes, both the moon's orbit around the Earth, and the Earth's orbit around the sun are elliptical, so they appear as different sizes at different times of the year.
Why this would make someone sympathetic to the divine is beyond me. In a 100 million years the Moon will be several thousand miles further from the Earth than it is now, so all eclipses will be annular. Our evolutionary descendants will not see the same illusion.
bttt
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.