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.
Oh, I get it now. All those self-righteous atheists who don’t even understand their own religion were just trying to help me.
That really clears things up.
You need to look deeper.
One group wants to save souls; the other wants to deny their very existence.
That's a large and profound difference.
Here's a quick "write"; evil.
Live backwards; against the God that made you; evil.
This is a kind of post hoc ergo prompter hoc argumentative fallacy. If the physical constants were any different, we wouldn't be here to notice that they were different, so of course the physical constants are what they are.
Bookmark
Eh - your post is the reason for my tagline.
I concur. I would add an amendment however, that there are those people who like to kill (control, etc.), and justify their behavior - hiding behind an interpretation of an idea of God.
That would be an opinion.
One of the points of this article is the increasingly overwhelming amount of "coincidence" in the universe.
I would argue that it is NOT rational to dismiss this "coincidental" universe as simply a result of blind luck and chance.
Consider a slightly different perspective.
Let’s say you discovered Trader Joe’s, and gradually became more fond of it to the point of generally only shopping there.
Certain joyous perceptions accompanied your involvement with that particular group than any others you had found.
Meanwhile, some others had always shopped at Safeway. Along with their Safeway shopping came soe incentives for them to attract others away from their perceived competition by becoming an even larger store, to the point of monopoly.
You share with some friends how much you find the Organic foods at Trader Joe’s to help your health. Meanwhile an adversary comes along, not only insulting the worth of organic food, but insisting all food is chemical in nature and processed food and farmed fish is healthier anyways, and besides, Trader Joe’s really isn’t unique, they just buy second hand rejects from Safeway and really aren’t an independent store.
Even if the adversary is unable to convince or change your shopping habit, he might attempt to make your testimony appear inconsequential and might succeed in convincing you to shop Safeway for while just to check things out. Meanwhile, his ultimate intention really had more to do with his personal arrogance, seeking a perceived benefit for himself, and really not having any sincere love for his fellow man with integrity.
All along, there were many other shoppers who happen upn Trader Joe’s or Safeway and never communicate with others how they shop.
The parallel is that there exist people who have found God through faith in Christ. They have been exposed to a joy that isn’t artificial, but has such substance that they are amazed and somewhat disappointed they hadn’t been made aware of it sooner in their lives.
There are also some others who openly rebel against God in search for anything worldly, fleshly, and spiritually independent of God. Some believe they will increase their riches by distracting others from God and anything and everything He provides.
There is one last distinction. Christian belief that saves, the stuff of salvation, isn’t something any other human being can give to another. Accordingly, when the real Gospel is communicated to somebody who has never heard it, it isn’t a situation where the believer is trying to get somebody else to share his belief. On the contrary, it is an effort simply to communicate to another person that God provides something not available from anybody else and which we do not have from birth.
It is something very real, allows a perception of a universe not observable by those who have never believed and is quite significant, eternally so. Additionally, those who never get it before they suffer the first death, are on a doomed irreversible track which they will never be able to control, also very real.
Unlike Trader Joe’s, the food provided by God in His Word is good for eternal life. Like Safeway, there’s lots of farmed religion out there which is filling but not very healthy.
Perhaps then, you could offer an explanation as to why some atheists would go to such lengths - spending lots of money - when they could simply offer a winning explanation - logically - as to why belief in a transcendent being is illogical.
Hypotheses which cannot be tested, even in principle, are by definition not part of science! It's ironic that these atheistic scientists are actually retreating into what amounts to metaphysics.
Please, give us some ballpark probability that we can chew on and some numbers we can crunch to arrive at the same figure.
Oh come on. That response is just a way of disengaging from the discussion. Of course the physical constants are what they are; the question is "how" (or why)?
Where in your experience have you seen something come from nothing (or in the case of the universe - everything coming from nothing)?
***I think it is because some militant athiests believe that simply because a lot of people kill in the name of God, that if they stop believing in God they will stop killing.
You perhaps understand this is ludicrous because people always find some excuse to kill each other. ***
I agree.
I do not believe there ever has been such a thing as religious wars. The wars have been simply a grab for land and power, and religion is used as an excuse. Much the same as the Muslims are doing today.
Bookmark
For me, the further one explores physics, the more one realizes there has to be a God to make all this work.
Arguing afer the fact that it's improbable that the universe would have the correct physical attributes to create life is not only erroneous -- it is downright gibberish. The three obvious fatal fallacies in the argument are:
1. Without other universes to compare to which to compare this one, there is no possible basis for assigning any sort of "probability" to its existence or properties.
1a. Similarly, without fundamental knowledge about the entire range of "life other than as we know it" might arise out of different physical laws, there is no way to determine how wide or narrow a range of possible physical laws might be compatible with its existence in some form or other.
2. If the universe did not give rise to intelligence, there would obviously be nobody to formulate arguments as to whether or not it was likely to do so. Thus, the question can only be raised an applied to a universe in which intelligence does, in fact, exist.
The situation is equivalent to the joke about the Texas sharpshooter who shoots at a fence and paints bulls-eyes around each hole -- the probability of a bulls-eye is not small (as one would assume) but rather a dead certainty (because the existence of a bulls-eye is determined by the presence of a bullet hole, just as the existence of someone to frame the argument is determined by the presence of a universe that does in fact generate intelligence).
As you note, those who lack that self-discipline tend to degenerate into tribalism (sometimes with religious affiliation serving to provide a tribal identity).
That depends on your definition of misbehave.
There is no logical reason to be anonymously charitable without a higher power. There is no logical reason to sacrifice your own life for someone else's without a higher power. Given the opportunity, for example, to steal something with no possibility of being caught, without a diety there is no logical reason not to steal it.
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.