The “new atheism” promoted by academics and writers such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens came under fire at a debate in Cambridge.
Terry Eagleton, distinguished professor of English literature at Lancaster University, opened the discussion, titled Responses to the New Atheism. He said that the last time he had spoken at the University of Cambridge’s Great St Mary’s Church was in 1968, during a debate on student radicalism – something, he noted, that we are likely to see a good deal more of.
“Why is God back centre stage again?” he asked. “Just when grand narratives seemed to be over, He’s back in the spotlight.”
It was the events of 11 September 2001, Professor Eagleton suggested, that brought the issue of religion “to a new focus of intensity and politicised the debate, not entirely to its benefit”.
Some scientists observe what appear to be quantum particles coming into and out of existence. They have very refined theories about this behavior, but no explanation for the cause of this observable effect. Since they do not understand the cause for this observed effect, they say that there is no cause for this effect. They are saying with straight faces that there are causeless effects…that stuff just happens.
1. This is a faith statement by scientists. They are asserting, without proof or explanation of the mechanics involved, that it is possible for effects to occur without there being a cause. Further, since they provide no mechanic for causeless effects, the theory is not falsifiable.
2. This faith statement is counter to all known science. It is contrary to the First Law of Inertia and the First Law of Thermal Dynamics.
3. This faith statement is a re-stating of the concept of spontaneous generation.
3. It is an extraordinary claim and the burden of proof is on scientists making the claim to explain and demonstrate the mechanisms involved in something naturally coming into being from nothing without cause.
4. Some scientists extrapolate that the entire universe can be created spontaneously from nothing for no reason because they observe quantum particles appear and disappear and assert that this effect is causeless. However, I have seen no explanation for this extrapolation or the mechanics involved in going from an observable effect of some subatomic particles to the expansion of an entire universe (in which those particles are).
5. Some scientists appeal to “probability” and “gravity” to say that the universe created itself out of nothing for no reason. This appeal has as an a priori that probability is a force, that it existed before there was anything in existence in the universe and before any of the dimensions of the universe existed. Before the universe came into being, according to science, there was nothing. That means nothing. There were no forces, dimensions, energy, or physical laws in existence, yet scientists assert that “probability” existed and was a force somehow capable of creation.
I’d laugh #1, if the sciences (and their children, the noisy atheists) were likely to grasp the ironies and grimace, having been caught with their particles down. But they won’t. That there is another answer possible – one that has a high probability – hasn’t occurred to them yet.
Larry