Dinesh D'Souza: When Science Points To God

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.

Keli wrote:Incidentally, I have 10 gigs of information refuting the exist of The Pink Unicorn and Spaghetti gods.

bmd wrote:

Keli wrote:Incidentally, I have 10 gigs of information refuting the exist of The Pink Unicorn and Spaghetti gods.

You and "Tail-gunner Joe", right? Do ya' share the same brown briefcase? Did ya' share Roy Cohn?

Armon Ayers wrote:

bmd wrote:

Keli wrote:Incidentally, I have 10 gigs of information refuting the exist of The Pink Unicorn and Spaghetti gods.

You and "Tail-gunner Joe", right? Do ya' share the same brown briefcase? Did ya' share Roy Cohn?

The Ad Hominen attack--the refuge of liars and nincompoops!

bmd wrote:

Armon Ayers wrote:

bmd wrote:

Keli wrote:Incidentally, I have 10 gigs of information refuting the exist of The Pink Unicorn and Spaghetti gods.

You and "Tail-gunner Joe", right? Do ya' share the same brown briefcase? Did ya' share Roy Cohn?

The Ad Hominen attack--the refuge of liars and nincompoops!

Perhaps you're right. I should have just followed your example, and called you an asshole.

Stephanie wrote:OMG, Armon! You have succeeded in making me laugh to the point of tears!

TerryRC wrote:I wonder why bmd or TerryRC have made no comment on this post?

I have a life outside this board.

I'll bite, though. Which of D'Souza's gratuitous assertions should you like me to address?

TerryRC wrote:The ones that bother you the most.

You will have to do better than that.

D'Souza's opinions are little threat to me and, as such, don't bother me.

Why don't you pick the assertions that you feel need the least defending.

bmd wrote:I still don't see any analysis of D'Souza's essay. Do you even understand what he is saying? If not, how would you ever be able to understand it when I point out the fallacies of his argument?

bmd wrote:You posted D'Souza's essay, not me. If you don't understand what he was saying, why did you post it?

SheikBen wrote:It's worth noting that Jim Jones came out of liberal, so-called mainstream Christianity (the Disciples of Christ). Such people lost their minds a long time ago--Jones was more of a symptom than the problem itself.