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.
Your post is quite reasonable. I agree.
When atheists say, for example, "no need to posit God, because we have an explanation for matter, it is made of such-and-such..." to me just begs the question, "Who set up the framework for this to occur? Who invented space and time?
If God did it, then, how absurd is it to argue about the universe being billions or thousands of years old? He invented the time by which we primitively try to measure a handful of things.
We ultimately know very little, and certainly not enough to say for a certainty whether or not God exists."
Thanks for a most logical POV!
This is what the 'scienticic' types here cannot seem to understand; that umpteen billion year old univewrse was expanded out of nothing, matter, time and all, about 6000 years ago +/-
Difficulties in clasification are expected in a continuum. The more you learn about history, the finer the gradations.
Absolutely not. Their "faith" is a horrible abomination that completely ignores God's commandments.
"-Do non-Christian Buddhists burn in hell for all eternity when they die?"
All who deny Christ are subject to the second death.
"-Are books and gospels not included in the Bible and/or were suppressed by the Catholic church also the word of God?"
Most of them, definately not. They were not included because they were obviously not of God.
" -What is the age of the Earth?"
Ages are dependent on time, which is itself a creation to be extinguished. God existed out of constraints like time and space, and will dispense with them after they have served their purpose.
"-Are Thomas Jefferson and other Founding Fathers who were deists in hell right now?"
None of our founders were diests, and most certainly not Jefferson, who was known to spend two or more hours each day in prayer, and lead a church service each sunday in the chamber of congress. We cannot know where any deceased person is because we cannot discern the state of their hearts.
I’m certainly glad to see when someone doesn’t mince words with the truth.
And someone needs to get away from their childish view of “hell” - the “flames” are figurative.
The lamentation is real, however, when a soul realizes that God has granted their desire to remain separated from Him, FOREVER.
I used both of those arguments as examples of fallacies. The fact that we exist in a universe that can produce us does suggest that if there were multiple universes, they might not have had the conditions needed for elements and light and heat to produce life. That suggests that the entire universe has expanded and contracted, forming different substances and physical laws, more than once and likely several times. And each universe came into existance from what?
Perhaps probablity supports this argument, but the nature of it boggles the mind.
But we are arguing about something we can’t even define. Claims of scientific foundations for the creation of life, whether by the strict application of physics and chemistry, or by the hand of God, fall apart when we realize that we can’t even specify what it is that was created.
Please help me understand what is rational about the idea that everything came from nothing - vis-a-vis the big bang.
I'll ask again: Where in your experience have you seen something come from nothing?
How is it rational to expect (believe?) that it is even possible?
To the contrary, Judeo-Christian Scriptures teach this we are a desperately screwed-up, fallen race on a cracked planet where everything is somewhat out of whack. What we see around us (and in the pathology laboratory) is not the Universe in the pristine state: what, with your permission, I'll call God's Plan A. From Romans 8:
"For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time."
There you have it. In the beginning, everything was "Good." By the time Paul was writing, everything had been subjected to "frustration" and "bondage to decay." You'll probably agree: it's Not-So-Good.
I don't think the AIDS virus was part of God's Plan A. I think it developed subsequent to that catastrophe which took place right at the dawn of the human era. It may very well be a degenerated fragment of a living organism that used to be good. But everything has been subjected to some kind of univeral deterioration, universal entropy: "bondage to decay."
God did not create sin or death. In Christian theology, they are among the countless results of that cosmic catastrophe known as "The Fall."
OK, but you realize that if you were born in India, you would think the opposite. Why does god let geography and the location of one's birth have such a large influence on the fate of one's eternal soul?
All who deny Christ are subject to the second death.
Does second death mean you can rest in peace without living under the rule of a cosmic dictator? If I don't want to go to heaven or hell, is there a third alternative?
Most of them, definately not. They were not included because they were obviously not of God.
So god had a direct hand in guiding the early Roman Catholic church as to what books to include in the Bible? Did god also have a hand in bringing about the concept of limbo for babies who died before baptism? Likewise did god have a hand in the reversal and discarding of the concept of limbo by Pope Benedict last year?
Ages are dependent on time, which is itself a creation to be extinguished. God existed out of constraints like time and space, and will dispense with them after they have served their purpose.
I was born in 1978. Does that mean my age is something different than 30? If not, why does the age of the Earth have to be so ambiguous?
None of our founders were diests, and most certainly not Jefferson, who was known to spend two or more hours each day in prayer, and lead a church service each sunday in the chamber of congress. We cannot know where any deceased person is because we cannot discern the state of their hearts.
Jefferson once wrote a letter to John Adams where he said:
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter...
He quite obviously did not believe in the fable of Jesus, nor did Thomas Paine who said:
The christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun.
You're obviously in error on this, so to extrapolate from your earlier statement, the deist members of the Founding Fathers by your logic are now experiencing "second death".
Like all “evil” in our world, AIDS/GRID is only harmful because of sin. Sin made it “evil”. In a closed society where all sex is between married partners, there would be no risk of AIDS. The virus can go on its merry way harming no one.
Aids was not a factor for thousands of years. But I do not mean to argue. I completely agree with your point.
Nonsense. You can't easily specify the difference between a dog and a wolf, but you can cite examples of each.
As we learn more about chemical evolution we come closer to understanding what conditions are necessary to produce replicators. And as we do it will become increasingly difficult to draw a line between life and mere chemistry. This does not mean we cannot understand the what is happening. It simply means that categories are constructs rather than things.
Feel free to twist anything as you wish; its clear to me that you are well aware of the consequences that you attempt to deny. Own your own sh!t.
Poor analogy. A taxonomist can easily explain the differences between a dog and a wolf. A biologist can not easily define what is life. Even if you had a sea of RNA or DNA, what you would have is bunch of inert chemicals that replicate in the same manner as cyrstals. No one can call them living things.
BTW - dogs are a subspecies of wolf and while some dogs have most of the characteristics of wolves, most do not. The fur, jaws, and feet differ from wolf to domestic dog.
Humor me. Give it a try. You've already adnmitted that "some dogs" have most of the characteristics of wolves. So where exactly do you draw the line? What defines the difference other than selective breeding?
As for crystals, DNA and RNA have stable, crystaline forms, and yet they define living organisms. A human sperm cell is not much more than a packet of DMA.
I didn’t draw the line on species classifications, others did that. You seem to be saying that if a subspecies has similar characteristics to a species, then there is no real distinction. No problem. All mammals are exactly the same. Elephant = wolf = shrew. The differences are just a couple of distinctions claimed between the three things, so they’re really just the same.
Likewise, a quartz crystal is alive. It converts sunlight into heat, thus changing energy from one form to another. Under the right circumstances, it reproduces itself. It can be the size of a grain of sand, or several pound’s weight. It can have different colors and structures, the same way that a species can have subspecies that are differently sized and marked. Thus, a quartz crystal must be alive. Unless, of course, it isn’t.
I said no such thing. What I said is that classification is difficult in a continuum. The more history you know, the more difficult it is to draw fine distinctions.
It is obvious, for example, that your family and close relatives share some distinctive features, but as you traverse your ancestry it becomes clear that you are all human beings and are related to everyone else.
In the same sense, humans are related to mammals and mammals are related to vertebrates. The more history you know the more difficult it becomes to draw lines.
I'm not saying all animals are the same, but it is meaningful to say that all animals are related by descent.
As I said - it is clear you have tons of questions.
It is interesting that you sound as if you’re more interested in others’ eternity than your own.
That concern is in itself, a virtue.......
If the following doesn’t satisfy your thirst for determining the Way and who is part of the Way, then nothing will:
Jesus himself said, “I am the way and the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me.”
I know you’ve heard that a thousand times.
There is also a reason there are 66 books in the Bible. There are other books that could be included easily. You tell me why scholars from all over the globe and of dozens of ‘denominations’ over centuries have determined what books are contained in the Bible? Nothing to do with ‘the church’. You know, media speaks of ‘the church’ as being the Catholic church which is interesting. God’s word speaks of ‘the church’ as Christ’s church. His and his alone. Then there are members of Christs church.
It is no accident the books that are in the Bible are what they are.
I suspect there is plenty in those 66 books to get you to heaven without worrying about those books not included, right?
Why Thomas Jefferson? Cannot prominent people who do ‘good’ still be lost? I personally know numerous atheists who are far more giving of time and money than many ‘devout Christians’. I can also tell you that if one of these two is striving for a pure and giving heart, one is forgiven and one isn’t interested in forgiveness.
The age of the earth...where eternity is concerned, who cares? It’s age will prove irrelevant when we stand before the Judge.
Allow me to inform you of some critical data in your self absorption. Your pride will increase the weight on your shoulders with every passing day. Never forget that while you demean the Supreme Being, He is in fact, The Creator, and you are the created. This is absolute.
Your endeavour for ‘evidence’ will never cease. Nevermind the air you breath, the gravity holding your pride to the ground. The sun providing food for your full belly. And a billion other things you choose to look past in your search for evidence.
Do you not realize God KNEW Job would never let go of him? Who promised a life of chocolate covered cherrries, huh?
And just in case anyone has read this far, I really want to comment back to the original article before I get banned.
How far, how desparate and futile will a man’s thoughts dare to go to blaspheme God’s Universe and creation?
As if chaos isn’t enough proof in itself that all this CANNOT be the result of chaos - some have to come up with multiple universes to justify some self serving means.
John Clayton (former atheist) has a formula that proves more faith is required to believe in chaos than to believe a Creator made it all. Do some research on him.
Have a nice Thanksgiving!
Where did God come from? Nothing?
As with so many believers, you think your faith qualifies you to define morality.
What qualifies me to decide FOR MYSELF what such a work is is what qualifies you FOR YOURSELF to determine such a thing.
You don't really need me to spell it out for you.
It is impossible to accept the Bible as a ‘great book of morals’ and in the same breath deny its ‘holiness’.
Morality and holiness are two different things. It's really that simple. I can believe in the value of Jesus' moral teachings without thinking they come down from an unseen God--why is that so difficult to understand?
I don't expect you to BELIEVE as I do, but I don't see why you can't UNDERSTAND my position. Why is that so frightening to believers?
The self-righteousness of believers thinking only they get to determine morality--through belief in something THEY believe in that someone else may not--is not surprising.
Morals can flow from religious belief, but all your name calling doesn't mean YOU are the one who gets to decide for ME what *I* see as moral or immoral.
You or anyone else who flames me can search my posts going years back. Sure, I get into flaming back and forth sometimes, but I am on the whole very respectful towards believers. I expect only the same in return about my beliefs--even if they are not in your god.
Have a great Thanksgiving.
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.