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 have fun.  In other words, let's not let God and his commandments get in the way of enjoying life.  "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.  Even 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 problems here, one historical and the other methodological.  The historical problem 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 problem 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.  "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 were an infinity of universes, something like our universe is certain to appear at some point.  What to us 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.  Andrei Linde comments, "In some other universe, people there will see different laws of physics.  They will not see our universe.  They will see only theirs." 

The article in Discover concludes on a somber note.  Some scientists are hoping that their multiple universes theory will gain plausibility if it can produce predictions about our universe that can be empirically 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. 

D'Souza Debates Singer

“Can there be morality without God?”
a debate between
Dinesh D’Souza and Peter Singer

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 at 8:30 PM Richardson Auditorium, Alexander Hall, Princeton University

Use this link for Debate Flyer
http://involve.christian-union.org/site/DocServer/Dec3_DSouza-Singer_debate_ticket_info.pdf?docID=2621

Use this link to watch the previous debate between D'Souza and Singer on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/profile_play_list?user=tothesource1

Atheist bus ads reach America

The advertising campaign is part of an effort by the American Humanist Association to reach out to like-minded individuals around the nation's capital and elsewhere who might be interested in humanism. The atheist group espouses the belief that people can live a moral life apart from a belief in a god or the afterlife.

"Humanists have always understood that you don't need a god to be good," said AHA executive director Roy Speckhardt. "So that's the point we're making with this advertising campaign. Morality doesn't come from religion. It's a set of values embraced by individuals and society based on empathy, fairness, and experience."

Fred Edwords, spokesman for the humanist group, said the campaign seeks to connect with "non-theists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion", according to Fox News.

Christian Today

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/atheist.bus.ads.reach.america/21891.htm

Cosmic Darwinism vs. Cosmic Evolution

It is well worth putting the current intellectual squirming of scientists at cosmological fine-tuning into perspective. When Charles Darwin forged his version of evolutionary theory, he made very sure that his favored mechanism, natural selection, was God-proof. Other prominent scientists of his day had the very same evidence as Darwin, and likewise championed evolution. Alfred Russel Wallace (the acknowledged co-discoverer with Darwin of the powers of natural selection), Asa Gray, St. George Mivart, Sir Charles Lyell, and other scientists all accepted the fact that species had changed over time, but all thought that Darwin’s purely mechanistic, reductionistic account was insufficient to account for these changes—especially the intellectual and moral superiority of human beings. They accepted evolution but not Darwinism. In fact, they saw the progressive nature of the fossil record, culminating in that strange god-like creature, man, as a sign that evolution could not have been unguided. By contrast, Darwin seemed too strangely bent on eliminating the divine, and hence too tightly bound to his purely mechanistic account of evolution. For Wallace, Gray, Mivart, Lyell and others, that didn’t make Darwin a better scientist; rather, it made him a kind of intellectual contortionist who would offer any explanation, no matter how far-fetched, as long as it kept the divine foot from entering the cosmic door.

The multiverse controversy provides another, even more telling instance of this same affliction. Here again, we have a commitment to a purely reductionist account of the universe, one that would rather accept a kind of cosmic Darwinism than admit that the evolution of our universe, the only universe, has been so finely-tuned, so beautifully orchestrated from its very beginning that it could not have been the result of chance. Like Darwin himself, there are some scientists who would rather offer any explanation—even a multitude of other undetectable universes—than follow the real evidence where it leads.

This anything-buttery is well-represented in Tim Folger’s Discovery article. As he rightly notes, the “basic properties” of our universe “are uncannily suited for life. Tweak the laws of physics in just about any way and—in this universe, anyway—life as we know it would not exist….There are many…examples of the universe’s life-friendly properties—so many, in fact, that physicists can’t dismiss them all as mere accidents.”

Indeed. To do so would be unscientific. But here’s the rub. “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. Life, it seems, is not an incidental component of the universe, burped up out of a random chemical brew on a lonely planet to endure for a few fleeting ticks of the cosmic clock. In some strange sense, it appears that we are not adapted to the universe; the universe is adapted to us.”

Cosmic evolution is real, but in a direct inversion of Darwinism, it proves to be guided by an inherent, finely-tuned design adapted to us.

What to do? Now the underlying cosmic Darwinism is clearly revealed. “Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse.”

There it is, anything-buttery in full bloom. Better to invoke a “vast multiverse,” for which there is no evidence, than follow the evidence to a benevolent Creator.

Dr. Benjamin Wiker

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.