“Is God Dead” read a 1966 Time magazine cover. At the time, many had come to believe that science and religion were at odds since the process of evolution seemed to be more fact than theory. Moreover, the “evidence” seemed to increasingly confirm evolution as truth. Afterall, the universe and its lifespan were infinite so, sooner or later, life had to show up somewhere. Somehow.
Now however, science is making it more problematic to be an atheist, something many people are not aware of. Let’s first start with what atheists themselves find the most challenging to their ain’t-no-God faith. That is, the ‘fine-tuning’ of life on earth, the earth itself, the solar system and the universe beginning with the fact that the universe is not infinite. As the Good Book says, “In the beginning…” The big bang you know.
Physicist and atheist Steven Weinburg says the “cosmological constant” (energy density of the universe) is “the most extravagantly grotesque number of them all… If its value were different by just on part in 10 to the 120th power, life could not exist.” Atoms in universe? Ten to the 80th power.
Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, atheist, said of the formation of the universe, “we are back again to a monstrous sequence of accidents.”
Steven Hawking wrote, “If the overall density of the earth were changed by .000,000,000,0001 percent, no stars or galaxies could be formed.” Sometimes called the “Goldilocks Principle,” everything happens to be just right.
The earth and the moon were formed by the very precise collision of a proto-planet and a Mars sized body. The moon’s effect’s effect on earth is essential for life.
Earth is of a scale that also happens to be just right. A bigger earth with increased gravity would make the atmosphere too thick for life. If smaller, gravity would be insufficient. Solar wind would destroy the atmosphere. And earth’s magnetosphere, being just right because of earth’s size, protects us from killer radiation.
Earth also happens to be at just the right spot in the galaxy. Closer to its center would subject us to fiercer radiation. Also, the big outer planets like Jupiter and Saturn sweep up asteroids that would otherwise bombard earth and make life impossible. They just “happen” to be in the right spot providing that critical function.
There was a time when some thought that there was life out there somewhere and, if there was, we could detect it. That’s why the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project was launched. They found? Nothing, absolutely nothing. Dead silence. No indication that life exists elsewhere.
Also, there are life functions that appear irreducibly complex. For example, some evolutionary changes would have to have occurred simultaneously which appear virtually impossible. Says the math. Moreover, there would first have to be an “evolution” of the DNA code creating new functions.
If you reference Wikipedia you will find a variety of theories/explanations attempting to make the case that negate the idea of irreducibility. But their theories are certainly not definitive. Some of these ideas require an act of faith I cannot accept.
Years ago, I majored in biology and minored in chemistry. Although many of my contemporaries believed the theory of evolution, I could never buy much of it. Genetics and biochemistry courses revealed an intricate and precise complexity that seemed impossible to have just happened. Inorganic material becoming life and subsequent lifeforms crawling out of the sea and becoming mankind, were to me, trivially simplistic when stacked up against amazingly complex biological processes.
The more we know, and the more science reveals, the more it points to a creator. To be an atheist today requires an incredible leap of faith, a kind of faith that I don’t have, and a kind of faith I cannot even begin to comprehend.
I am a Christian. It is an easy faith for me to have but I doubt it is anywhere near that of today’s atheists. I have had a number of extraordinary experiences that have confirmed the absolute certainty of God’s existence. But, it doesn’t require much, or any faith, to understand that there is a creator. Science says so. More and more.
Gerald J. Boyum says
Excellent comments, Stan. I’ll just embellish and provide more support; i.e., To be an atheist, a person has to believe that::
1. Origin. The universe came from nothing, caused by nothing, and for no reason at all. Most scientists agree that the universe had a beginning. If it had a beginning, it had a “Beginner” according to the Law of Causality. The universe is not eternal which would conflict with the Laws of Thermodynamics. An eternal universe would have run out of energy a long time ago, that is, it would have suffered a “heat death” which would mean that all molecular motion would stop at 273 degrees below zero Centigrade or Absolute Zero.
2. Design in the Universe. The order, regularity, and fine tuning of 30+ physical laws to allow formation of the universe and make life on earth possible all happened by random chance. Probability of this happening by random chance is 1 over 10 to the 123rd power or a number greater than all the atoms in the universe. Mathematicians consider any probability less than 1 over 10 to the 35-40 power to be zero. These fundamental forces and constants just “happened by random chance” involving mathematical probabilities that for all purposes , would be interpreted by mathematicians as ZERO.
3. Origin of First Life. Life somehow emerged accidentally from non-living matter through purely natural processes. This has never been observed in nature, and natural processes cannot explain how non-living chemicals self-assembled into something as complex as the first living cell. This explanation would also be a violation of the Law of Biogenesis.
4. Origin of Information. Chaos and random chance produced information. The information required to produce incredibly complex forms involving increases in genetic information came about by random mutations and natural selection. Creation of information such as specified complexity requires intelligence and purpose. No known natural laws can create specified complexity. The information contained in one cell, particularly ones involved in complexity and different species in the Cambrian explosion again just happened by chance with probabilities as noted above.
5. Origin of Man’s Unique Attributes. Humans acquired their unique attributes of high order intelligence, sense of morality, conscientiousness, etc. through undirected random chance from blind, impersonal, and unintelligent natural forces. These attributes require a source, a Mind with those attributes; laws of physics and chemistry cannot explain them. This is only the beginning when talking about man’s unique attributes. There is no evidence at all that supports “molecule-monkey-man evolution”. If anyone claims such evidence, cite it and the source. If someone claims that such evidence exists, cite it and the source. Dr. Jonathan Safarti, a biochemist provides excellent refutation of the Theory of Evolution in his “Evolution, The Greatest Hoax on Earth”. Another good source here is The Icons of Evolution” by Jonathan Wells where he discusses “The Miller-Urey Experiment”, “Darwin’s Tree of Life”, “Haeckel’s Embryos”, “Peppered Moths, Darwin’s Finches, etc.
6. Origin of Human Values and Meaning. We are the product of valueless, purposeless and accidental natural processes and forces. Humans evolved from other species so they have no more intrinsic value than any other species of life on earth. There is no ultimate meaning to human life; when you die, that’s the end. There is no purpose, no identity other than a high level, intelligent animal, and no destination. We are alone in a hostile, uncaring universe. This is the “good news” of atheism!
Extracted from “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist” by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, and other sources.
In his book, “Evolution, The Greatest Hoax on Earth” Dr. Jonathan Safarti tells it like it actually is. There is no evidence whatsoever that supports “molecule-monkey-man” evolution”. If there was any such evidence, it would be broadcasted constantly and worldwide. In “Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth?” Jonathon Wells discusses why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong. He covers “Icons” such as:
“The Miller-Urey Experiment” that was attempted to show how first life began. It demonstrated that intelligence was required to set up such an experiment. However, the results from this experiment was tar.
“Darwin’s Tree of Life”. Of all the icons of evolution, the tree of life is the most pervasive because descent from a common ancestor is the foundation of Darwin’s theory. Ibid, Figure 3-1.
“Whittington [Harry] wrote in 1985: ‘I look skeptically upon diagrams that show the branching diversity of animal life through time,, and come down at the base to a single kind of animal…Animals may have originated more than once, in different places and at different times.'” Ibid p. 57
“Haekels Embryos”. “He drew embryos from various classes of vertebrates to show that they are virtually identical in their early stages, and became noticeably different only as they develop. Figure 5-1 of “Icons of Evolution” However, upon evaluations by other scientists, it was shown that Haeckels drawings were fakes which misrepresented the embryos they purported to show. Ibid, p.93-96
“Archaecopteryx: The Missing Link” “As a consequence, the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living things and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great.” Ibid, p. 111 Yet in 1859 those transitional links had not been found. [still true as of today. “The fabrication was discovered by Chinese paleontologist Xu Xing, who proved that the specimen consisted of a dinosaur glued to the body of a primitive bird.” Ibid. p.124
“Peppered Moths” “Industrial melanism in peppered moths appeared to be a case of natural selection.” Ibid. p.139. “But if peppered moths don’t rest on tree trunks, [as shown in photographs] where did all those photographs come from?
“From Ape to Human: The Ultimate Icon”. According to Darwin, the origin of man was fundamentally similar to the origin of all other species. Ibid, p. 209. A popular photo that shows an apelike creature evolving through a series of hypothetical intermediate forms into a modern human.” Ibid p. 210g. “…the ultimate icon goes far beyond the evidence. Such drawings are in Stephen Jay Gould’s words, ‘incarnations of concepts masquerading as natural descriptions of nature.'” Ibid. pp. 210 and 211.
Michael Ruse, an ardent evolutionist: “Evolution is promoted as an ideology, a secular religion…. Like so many other things we have encountered, this is not science, but myth.” Ibid p. 228
Ryan says
The things you’re pointing out: the placement of the Earth in the galaxy, the precise collision from a proto-planet, etc., seem to me, reasons NOT to believe in God.
For instance, if the Earth was created by God, why the need for a precise collision of celestial bodies? Why wouldn’t he just ‘make it so’? Was God not powerful enough to create the Earth just as he wanted it to be? Of course not, so why use a method indistinguishable from chance?
Gerald Boyum says
It is always interesting when a person with limited knowledge and intelligence (as all of us humans are) attempts to analyze the reasoning of a supernatural all-knowing and all powerful being, especially when the motive may be to justify a belief in His non-existence. No problem, you, me, and all the rest of humanity will have our “day in court” to justify why we should spend eternity in one place or another. You can include what you have written; do you think our Creator and Judge will be impressed? Your choice!
Knut Hamsun says
Although I disagree with some, actually most of what you say this is one of your more entertaining works. James Redfield wrote an interesting fiction book which credits religion for the birth of science, somewhat in reverse of this, The Celestine Prophecy if memory serves. Any good Atheist of scientific intellect should find the coincidences challenging to the idea God does not exist, but this doesn’t mean the alternative truth lies in any of the organized religions of man. As an Atheist I believe Christianity would most likely be an insulting affront to God. George Carlin got it right when he said “they made it up.”
Gerald Bolyum says
And atheism wouldn’t be an insult to God? Which part of “You shall have no other Gods before me” is difficult to understand? Just exactly what are you referring to when you say you believe Christianity would most likely be an insulting affront to God.? Christian doctrine and teachings are not the same thing as “Christian practices” and there are many examples of “Christians” using God’s name in vain to justify their actions. I think it was Dennis Praeger, rabbi, talk show host, and author who stated that the greatest sin any human could do is to commit murder in His name. All evil-doers will be held accountable!
You, George Carlin and anyone else are welcome to explain the existence of the universe and us humans with our unique attributes in the absence of a supernatural creator. At one point there was nothing, and then there was something!
It’s interesting to note that Albert Einstein’s calculations in his Theory of General Relativity indicated that time, space, and matter came into existence simultaneously! He was not an atheist; however, he did not like the theological implications of his calculations and supposedly added a fudge factor that altered the results to conform with the popular belief at that time that the universe was eternal. When this “error” was pointed out to him later, he admitted that it was the worst thing he had done!
Robert Landbeck says
If atheism is a filing faith it is for the same reason that institutional Christianity is also failing. Failing in the sense that it no longer carries anuy moral authority nor offer any solution to the gravest, urgent, existential questions facing mankind and the earth itself. And that ‘same ‘reason’ is reason itself. Limited in both moral and spiritual potential by the evolutionary paradigm under which our species exists and unable comprehend the extent of this unfathomable conundrum.
“What constrains the highest of human aspirations is rarely imagined but if the catalyst with the necessary authority to realize the dream were ever revealed, who would care enough to believe with sufficient courage and conviction to act? Unfortunately the world has usually preferred the soft, the easy and more convenient ways of intellectual vanity, political correctness and spiritual confectionery than the honesty and courage to question and confront human nature itself!”
Bill Davis says
You also failed to capitalize the word “Earth” like half a dozen times But remembered to capitalize the word “Mars”. Very strange.
Bill Davis says
That “quote” from Steven Hawking is misattributed (a mild form of plagiarism). It is very obvious because the statement is wildly false.