Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Steve Meyer bids farewell to Steven Weinberg’s “purposeless cosmos” thesis in the Jerusalem Post

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Meyer is the author of The Return of the God Hypothesis.

Here’s the op-ed. Casey Luskin looks at the controversy, in part based on time he has spent in Africa, working on South African fossils:

Reflecting on the death of outspoken atheist physicist Steven Weinberg, Steve Meyer notes,

“the twilight of an increasingly dated view of the relationship between science and religion.” He quotes Weinberg stating that, “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.” Elsewhere Weinberg stated that science corrodes religious belief:

“[T]he teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I’m all for that! One of the things that in fact has driven me in my life, is the feeling that this is one of the great social functions of science — to free people from superstition.”

Casey Luskin, “Meyer in the Jerusalem Post: Farewell to the Purposeless Cosmos” at Evolution News and Science Today (August 19, 2021)

This kind of language is highly offensive and condescending towards people in parts of the world where everyday life reveals evidence that the supernatural is real. Indeed, many of my African friends are Christians and scientists who, like some American scientists I know, see no conflict between science and religion. They recognize that God created the world to operate according to regular natural laws that can be studied by science. They believe, as I do, that He can also intervene in and direct nature when He wishes. You might believe (or assume, as many theistic evolutionists do) that such interventions never occur, certainly never in a way that would leave a record in the evidence. But your personal preferences don’t govern science, or God.

Meyer goes further and argues that not only can science and religion coexist, but science makes a strong cause for a religious worldview. In light of modern science, “Weinberg’s aggressive science-based atheism now seems an increasingly spent force.” This is because science challenges an atheistic worldview, but also because of the repugnant tactics of the “new atheists.”

Casey Luskin, “Meyer in the Jerusalem Post: Farewell to the Purposeless Cosmos” at Evolution News and Science Today (August 19, 2021)

Here’s the Salon piece, subtitled: “What once seemed like a bracing intellectual movement has degenerated into a pack of abusive, small-minded bigots” (June 5, 2021)

Put another way, it was hard to see what problems a volley of abuse and swear words would really solve. And that did seem to be the main solution the New Atheists proposed. And if that’s all naturalist atheism amounts to now, well…


You may also wish to read: How did new atheism become the “godlessness that failed”?

Comments
Mohammad
Acceptance of God, but then acceptance as some kind of objective factual God, and not a subjective God.
The great Muslim philosopher Avicenna, who was held in esteem by St. Thomas, St. Albert the Great, St. Bonaventure, Duns Scots and countless other Christian philosophers, would disagree with you. You could review this list for a start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_philosophers You could try Avicenna's cosmological argument - entirely objective - proof for the existence of God. It's not subjective - it's logical and fact-based. That's Islamic philosophy from the 10th century. It's not something ID came up with. St. Thomas modified that cosmological argument, as have many others. Basically, they're all saying: There are two kinds of existence: Contingent and Non-Contingent (or Necessary). Everything that is contingent depends upon something else to cause it to exist (and maintain it in existence). If everything depended on a cause, that would be an infinite regress. Therefore, there must be a non-contingent entity that is the necessary being and cause of being. That necessary being gives existence to contingent beings. That necessary Being is what we call God.Silver Asiatic
August 26, 2021
August
08
Aug
26
26
2021
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
ID will end at the apocalypse. So will atheism.Silver Asiatic
August 26, 2021
August
08
Aug
26
26
2021
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
Mr Torres says:
New Atheism appeared to offer moral clarity, it emphasized intellectual honesty and it embraced scientific truths about the nature and workings of reality. It gave me immense hope to know that in a world overflowing with irrationality, there were clear-thinking individuals with sizable public platforms willing to stand up for what's right and true — to stand up for sanity in the face of stupidity.
He's identified as some sort of "philosopher" and he couldn't figure out that atheism proposes absolute blindness, irrationality and nothingness? And instead thought it offered moral clarity? On what basis? If God does not exist, and there is no recompense or justice - then anything is permitted, including fascism. So, Torres makes his confession - he was grifted. Then he goes on to explain, not why atheism is a pathetic excuse for a worldview, but that individual atheists disappointed him. That's what counts as philosophy these days. "That guy did something I don't like, so whatever he represents is wrong". The moral problems that Torres whines about are directly traceable to atheism as their source. When Christians commit immoral acts, they are acting against their professed creed. When atheists do it, they're acting against natural moral law (and God's law) but obviously none of that counts. They're being consistent with nihilism. Torres, weirdly (but as usual also), wants to impose moral standards on his would-be atheistic heroes. Those are basically leftist secular moralities that have no basis in anything except perhaps the American Constitution and progressive Marxism (feminism plays a strong hand for him). Obviously, Torres has no foundation for any moral standards, once he embraces Darwin and materialism. That's all that Pinker, Dawkins, Krauss, Epstein and the rest have been saying. They do and say whatever they want because it pleases them. They're not accountable to God - that's the way it works. But I'll give Torres credit at least for admitting that he was mistaken about his heroes. That's a start.Silver Asiatic
August 26, 2021
August
08
Aug
26
26
2021
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
Long after “Intelligent Design Theory” is consigned to the trash bin of history, atheism will still be around.
Don’t disagree because ID is superior science and academia are fools. They will opt for nonsense vs truth. There is one truth and academia cannot tolerate truth.jerry
August 26, 2021
August
08
Aug
26
26
2021
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
The schoolbook for the Hitler Youth teached that the human spirit and soul is real. Sounds nice, however, it teaches this as a matter of cold hard biological fact, not subjective belief. That is the same kind of thing that the intelligent design movement is in danger of steering toward. Acceptance of God, but then acceptance as some kind of objective factual God, and not a subjective God. Which means the intelligent design movement would destroy the subjective belief in God, which is the practically functional belief in God. And from there on out, the intelligent design movement might then assert the human spirit and soul is objective as well, which leads to people becoming calculating and measuring in relating to each other. Calculating and measuring, because the spirit and soul would then in principle, be objectively measurable. It is heresy to profess belief in God as being objective, as well as it is wrong to profess belief in an objective human spirit and soul.mohammadnursyamsu
August 26, 2021
August
08
Aug
26
26
2021
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
Atheism is stupidity acted out. But then there is Einstein’s supposed quote
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe!
After reading of The NY Times readers discussing atheism/God. There is no better example of supposedly educated people who are stupid. A cure for atheists is Stephen Blume’s books on DNA. In it he points out the unbelievable complexity of the cell whose control mechanism is unknown. Matt Ridley, a big Darwinism believer, points to this complexity in the following tweet. Includes a photo of cell and contents.
Cellular landscape – the most detailed model of a human cell to date, obtained using x-ray, nuclear magnetic resonance, and cryoelectron microscopy datasets
https://twitter.com/mattwridley/status/1430568443594608640 Source for actual photo. https://www.digizyme.com/cst_landscapes.html A couple brought up intelligent design and two people challenging immediately went to who designed the designer and problem from evil.jerry
August 26, 2021
August
08
Aug
26
26
2021
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
Luskin and Meyer's latest prognostications on the demise of atheism remind me of Mark Twain's quip that "reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." Long after "Intelligent Design Theory" is consigned to the trash bin of history, atheism will still be around.chuckdarwin
August 26, 2021
August
08
Aug
26
26
2021
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply