Atheist Desperation

17 Comments

The Hubble Ultra Deep Field, is an image of a ...

The Hubble Ultra Deep Field, is an image of a small region of space in the constellation Fornax, composited from Hubble Space Telescope data accumulated over a period from September 3, 2003 through January 16, 2004. The patch of sky in which the galaxies reside was chosen because it had a low density of bright stars in the near-field. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The number of new articles and books coming out that assert that the universe literally arose from nothingness without any deity reveal the desperation of atheists. They behave like individuals that assert an absurdity, thinking that if they repeat it enough people will believe it. No matter how much atheists repeat the mantra, “The universe popped into existence out of nothingness,” it will not make that claim any less incoherent. Atheists still play games with the “quantum vacuum,” even though theists have pointed out time and time again that a quantum vacuum is not mere nothingness. When Hawking speaks of a true vacuum causing the existence of a false vacuum, he is spouting nonsense. “Ex nihil, nihil fit” (from nothing, nothing comes to be”) is true today as it was in the past. Pure nothingness is just nonexistence–since it is literally no-thing, not matter, not energy–it cannot have any powers including causal powers. If the atheist tries to bring in another factor into the “true vacuum,” that brings back “something.” The atheist would be more consistent to accept the ancient idea of the everlastingness of the universe as do some “multiverse” theories. In the end, I do not think they save atheism, but at least they are not obviously self-contradictory.

Atheistic scientists often accuse theists of believing in the fantastic, in something so absurd that it cannot exist. Such claims are often salted with terms such as “Santa Claus” and “The Tooth Fairy,” as if that has anything to do with the issue of the existence of God. It is far more fantastic to believe that something arose from sheer nothingness. It is also far more fantastic to believe in an infinite number of universes in which all logical possibilities are actualized (If the traditional conception of God is logically possible, involving no contradiction, which it surely is, then I suppose the atheist would accept one logical possibility that is not actualized–but then the atheist is all about making exceptions when it suits him).

Atheism is primarily about rebellion rather than reality–some people refuse to accept a God who calls their behavior to account. Atheism is a matter of human pride–the refusal to accept any mind higher than one’s own or any truths that go beyond the purview of physical science (especially physics). Some atheists, such as the late Antony Flew, were honest seekers of the truth, and he became a believer in a deistic God. Atheists who are really God-haters may also change their minds if they can overcome their hatred. There is a subset of atheists who are hard core, such as the majority of the members of the National Academy of Sciences as well as those who deign to assert that something can come from nothing. These individuals could see God face to face and deny His existence. They are like the dwarfs in C. S. Lewis‘s The Last Battle, who perceive the gold and jewels Aslan offers them as horse waste and straw. Anyone who asserts a clear contradiction in defense of atheism must be willfully blind. These same scientists will use logic and reason to attack the coherence of a theory they do not accept–yet they assert a blatant contradiction as being true. The only way I can explain that is that the scientists’ beliefs are an act of the will rather than primarily an act of the intellect. They have willed to reject God, and their assertion of contradiction follows. If asserting that something comes from nothingness is the only “argument” that an atheist gives for his position, then that atheist truly is desperate. Atheists who accuse theists of irrationality ought to look at themselves in a mirror first.

Multiple Universes, God, and Faith

Leave a comment

 

Level II Multiverse, Every disk is a bubble un...

Image via Wikipedia

 

Since Hugh Everett proposed his “many worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics, physicists and cosmologists have speculated about the existence of multiple universes. In Everett’s theory, whenever there was an event of quantum uncertainty, the universe splits. Thus, in the famous story of Schoedenger’s Cat, in which a subatomic particle is fired at a batch of poison, there is a period of uncertainty in which is seems the cat is neither alive nor dead. This is the view according to the standard Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. But Everett said that what actually happens is that the universe splits into one universe in which the cat stay alive, and into another universe in which the bottle of poison breaks, the cat drinks it, and the cat dies. Since such events occur a near-infinity of times, there are an uncountable number of different universes.

Since then various theories of multiple universes have been proposed. In some theories all possible states of affairs take place, so that there is no contingency in nature–the “multiverse” is a metaphysically necessary being, and there is no need for the existence of God as a necessary being. In fact, multiverse theories seem to be a convenient way to avoid the existence of God.

Empirically, since other universes are said to be causally closed to one another, we could not detect another universe. Thus, what we really have in these theories are mathematical constructs that may explain some of the data. How to decide between the various multiverse theories or between them and m-theory or supergravity or some other global cosmological theory is the rub.

Theists, those who believe in a transcendent God, are often mocked by scientists because of the role of faith in theism. Yet what takes the stronger faith: to believe that the universe is created and sustained by an infinite mind or to believe that there are an infinite number of universes in which all possible states of affairs take place? Both views take faith. It seems to me that rather than believing an a near replica of me living in some other universe or on many universes, it makes more sense to affirm that this universe is the only one that exists, that it is by nature contingent–it does not have to exist–and thus it requires a necessary being to create and sustain it. If scientists wish to say otherwise through their multiverse theories, they have a right to do so, but they are not within their intellectual rights to deceive and claim that their positions require no faith.

So…. Where Did God Come From?

Leave a comment

A painting entitled "God creating the Sun...

Image via Wikipedia

Like many children, I drove my parents crazy by asking questions. One question I always had was, “Where did God come from?” Later I discovered how the question “Where did God come from?” differs from the question, “Where did the universe come from?” In an earlier post, I mentioned Aquinas’ Third Way to prove God’s existence, a version of the Cosmological Argument. Now if the universe is contingent, that is, it does not have the source of its existence within itself, then it must have a cause. Without the possibility of an infinity of contingent causes (for the infinity of contingent causes are still contingent), there must exist a Necessary Being that creates and sustains the universe. Now a necessary being cannot pass out of existence–so there is no issue of where a Necessary Being come from; God, the Necessary Being, just IS, ipsum esse, existence itself. Thus, the childhood question of “Where did God come from?” is an inappropriate question, a “category mistake,” to use Gilbert Ryle’s term.

But there is a psychological reason that we ask the question. When we see the world, the only conscious beings we know are humans and many animals. But humans and animals all die. Yet if we see a mountain in the distance or look up at the moon at night, psychologically it seems that they have existed forever and will exist forever. This is an illusion of our short life span as human beings. We do not have time to see massive geological and astronomical changes. But we do have time to observe the deaths of family members, beloved friends, and beloved pets. But there is no necessity that every conscious being be finite and contingent like us. I could not understand, as a child, how God could be conscious forever, past and future. Now I accept the Classical notion that God transcends time, but my mind cannot wrap itself around that concept–and why should it? For a species that cannot exhaustively understand finite things, it makes no sense that it could exhaustively understand God–such understand that we have is more at the level of an ant trying to comprehend human beings. It is still hard to grasp, having lost my best friend to cancer at the end of May, how a mind could exist eternally. But that is not a philosophical difficulty. The solution to the psychological difficulty is to accept that God, a Necessary Being who cannot not-be is required philosophically, and to realize that something can be true without our understanding it. Intellectual humility is a virtue.