Not only has the public's trust of the Stock Market gone down but apparently Atheism's trust in science is also waning. This weekend I spent a few minutes in a Christian apologetics chat channel talking with an atheist. Within about 30 seconds the atheist said, "Whatever".I must confess that that is a bit unusual. Most of the time atheists that would take the time to come into a Christan apologetics channel put up a pretty good fight. I usually have to really think about their arguments. This guy just seemed to not have the energy of love for atheism in him.
Dinesh D'Souza has written an article for Townhall.com offering a interesting viewpoint. He writes about the fact that science, especially in astronomy and molecular biology, has been showing the universe to be fine tuned for life. The coincidences are just too much to handle.
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.”
You got to love it when atheists are now defending a position that places them outside of the scientific realm. Keep in mind that this is exactly what they have been accusing Christians of for as long as I can remember.
Albert Mohler, President of SBTS, has also noticed this quite some time ago (read article here). The "New Atheism" is on the move. In my opinion, atheism is like that proverbial animal that is dying and backed into a corner. The leaders are attempting to fight back with one last stand. However, I am sensing the lay-followers have lost their zeal.
2 comments:
"This guy just seemed to not have the energy of love for atheism in him."
Or he could have just been tired.
"He writes about the fact that science, especially in astronomy and molecular biology, has been showing the universe to be fine tuned for life. The coincidences are just too much to handle."
Except it is assuming its conclusion- that life is special.
"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."
Not technically true. We have things like this:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/11/081105-dark-flow.html
Which are more toward "universe is infinite" and we have things like the brane theory, which suggests the reason gravity is so weak because it is leaking. They can test that.
"You got to love it when atheists are now defending a position that places them outside of the scientific realm. Keep in mind that this is exactly what they have been accusing Christians of for as long as I can remember."
Not really- atheists have been arguing with Christians about how everything got here since there have been Christians.
Of course, it is completely irrelevant to the topic because the theist argument is based on the fallacy of ignorance- it assumes we know how the universe works and that what happened is incredible. It also assumes life is special, an assumption that really is unsupported .
"The leaders are attempting to fight back with one last stand."
We have leaders?!?
Samuel,
Thanks for the comments.
"Or he could have just been tired."
That's probably more the case. Who knows? It was just odd. I bet if you were the one in channel it would have been much more thoughtful discussion.
"Except it is assuming its conclusion- that life is special."
True. The atheists cited in the article may be assuming life is special while arguing for its non-specialty, but I don't know that would have to be the case.
:-)
"Not really- atheists have been arguing with Christians about how everything got here since there have been Christians."
True, but atheists are also claiming their view is testable while Christian (and non-Christian) Creationists can't test their theories.
"Of course, it is completely irrelevant to the topic because the theist argument is based on the fallacy of ignorance-"
This is the heart of the response I agree that we all make presuppositions. The thing is that everyone presupposes laws of logic, reason, scientific method and morality and ect. The problem for the atheist is that he is unable to justify any of these presuppositions. If he argues against the Christian's presuppositions and demands that the Christian justify his position, then he puts himself in a precarious position. For he is not even able to justify the sentence he speaks. It is simply impossible to talk and not see that God must exist.
"We have leaders?!?"
I retract my statement. I was simply using common language to describe the appearance of atheism. When certain scientists and philosophers are attempting to do what appears to be leading atheism to become the normal way of thinking for everyone, it appears they are leading a movement when atheism may not actually be a movement in any real organized way. I guess I don't know how else to put it.
Thanks
God Bless
Howard
Post a Comment