Evidence for God from Science

Hey guys I was wanting to discuss whether or not you all think the new atheist movement (and possibly the atheist movement as a whole) has either recently stalled out or slowed down considerably due to the a vast number of recent events.

Events ranging from, primarily Christian apologist's rapid and awesome rise to the new atheist's challenges, plus other things even more recent, like where William Lane Craig tried to get Richard Dawkins to debate him one on one over Dawkins' book the God delusion, and Dawkins refused to do so.

In fact many other atheists where scheduled to debate Craig during the tour of Great Britain that Craig was doing and many declined closer to the time Craig's tour was to begin.

It looks like to me, at least currently, that the new atheist group or any atheist group does not currently have anything new or anything that greatly challenges Christianity and currently on the defense.

Do you all think this is right or am I missing anything? Let me know what you all think. Thanks guys. Take care.

It looks like to me, at least currently, that the new atheist group or any atheist group does not currently have anything new or anything that greatly challenges Christianity and currently on the defense.

Do you all think this is right or am I missing anything? Let me know what you all think. Thanks guys. Take care.

Yes, I think, they don't have anything new, yet. Or they'd be up to it in no time.

You know I've heard WLC and Alister McGrath and others talk about this for quite some time, their belief that there's been sort of a mini-revolution in Christian apologetics and philosophy while atheism has been stuck in the same old rut. And you're right, they haven't really come up with anything new for years. They haven't been able to adjust to Christian arguments that have a great historical tradition

On the other hand, I have necessarily seen hard evidence or statistics to really back this up. Granted if McGrath is right, then it might take a while for the numbers to reflect cultural changes in the universities or intellectual circles even as some of those circles are changing at least a little... maybe we'll have to wait until the next generation when current intellectuals who have already settled on atheism move on. Lots of times we trace secularism and "God is dead" attitudes back to the 60s, and yet it took years for there to be this steady decline in adherents... and according to the numbers three-fourths of Americans are still Christians.

So I think it could be even more clear that Christians have the upper hand intellectually, and yet the number of believers and number of atheists could still look worse than it does now. I think it'll really be about 30 years before we see how much of a difference this really made on the culture.

Atheisim will always be around simply because there is no proof that God exists ( evidence and proof are not the same thing) and some people will never accept God because they simply don't want to.
What has been exposed of the "new atheisim" is how little they know about the religion they criticize ( typically Christianity), how their arguments can shoot themselves in the foot and how arrogant and at times, not very bright some atheists are.
I think that overly hostile atheists like Dawkins, Myers, Harris and others did the atheistic cause more damage than good.
It is far more honest and convincing to simply say one doesn't believe in God because one has not found any proof, then to say stupid things that are easily proven wrong and make them look rather stupid ( religion causes wars, religion kills people, religion is child abuse, all that is wrong is caused by religion, etc, etc).

neo-x wrote:Yes, I think, they don't have anything new, yet. Or they'd be up to it in no time.

True, that's why I think that atheism as a worldview is well past its peak, among other reasons, such as:

1) In the past we didn't have strong evidence that the universe had a beginning, so many thought it was eternal and uncaused until as late as the 1960s.
2) In the past, our knowledge of biology wasn't as broad as nowadays. When you're not aware how complex life is, you're much more prone to believing that it arised from primordial soup. (Human genome sequence was completed in 2003, as far as I know)
3) The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1947-1956) further corroborated the credibility of the Bible.
4) The fact that the 20th century was undoubtedly the most violent in history, discredits the idea of "evolution of morality".
5) Christianity has survived all the hardships and stood the test of time. It has over 2 billion adherents, an ever-increasing number, and it's been spreading into all the corners of the world, as prophesized.

I agree with Narnia4 that it will take time until we see the full social effect of these events and changes, but I believe that Classical Theism has to rise again eventually, maybe even during our lifetimes. I hope so...

It came out kicking and screaming this time, Dawkins, Hitchens et al. I wouldn't say going backwards but it does seem to have calmed down a little, which is nice. We need more chats like this one and less debates like this, which is tantamount to two people seeing how many things they can disagree about in 2 hrs whilst trying to trip each other up.

My Lord, I hope so. We can never stop praying, especially for our adamant defenders to the public, like WLC. We should also pray for the strength and courage to always meet our challengers, and to step up to the plate the way Peter said we must; "put it to the test".
Debate with civility and tenderness, even in the face of ridicule and hatred. We have the love of Christ on our side, along with his blessed Truth. We will endure hardships for walking with Him, but we're not here to please the world -- we're here to please Him

I don't know about any of you, but I can take all the "abuse" in the world. Call me stupid. Call me brainwashed. Call me arrogant. Call me ignorant. I really don't care. Using those tactics removes any credibility they may previously have had. But the moment says something about Christ, I become VERY sad. Imagine how it must hurt our Lord to hear such ridicule and denial from those he loves It makes me so very sad for him, and I become defensive at the same time for HIS sake! How dare anyone make fun of my Saviour! And yet, I feel no anger or vengeance towards them. I feel pity. How sad it must be for them to not experience life with God in it. It only makes me ask Christ to forgive them...for they do not truly know what they do...

New atheism is a dying fad certainly - but that is not the main danger I think- Secularism is. An apathy of people who don't give religion a second thought. People just don't seem to care about it - and have a very superficial understanding of Christianity. It is seen in this country as a quaint feature of the past that is not relevant now. Political correctness has gone mad and other religions are getting more focus than Christianity just so we can be seen as a tolerant nation. This is where the real danger is. Not new atheism - just apathy and secularism

just apathy and secularism

I agree

The new atheism has done a lot of damage already, and in my opinion churches in general do not equip their members well to deal with it. Of course, once one looks at the books and lectures from the 3 stooges (Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris), the philosophy is at a kindergarten level, the objections are not new, and there is very little actual science.

It does seem as if the novelty is wearing off a bit, and at least here in the US the battle is shifting to the courtrooms instead of the public sphere, with the support of the ACLU and other advocacy groups. As others have said, a more secular society seems to have resulted, where many people just don't think about religion, and the efforts in the courtrooms continue to do push that. Secularist humanism is becoming the new normal against which everything is measured.

neo-x wrote:

just apathy and secularism

I agree

I would, as well. It's interesting you say this Neo. I was having a conversation with someone who considers himself a "hard atheist" (without knowing it). I was able to deduce this from the following comment; (and I'm paraphrasing):

"No one understands where I'm coming from. Most atheists are either apathetic about religion, and I sure can't talk to Christians about how I'm feeling (my thought was why not? oh right, because you're afraid of being put in your place, my bad ). I won't add to the ignorance of this country by teaching people about the possibility of God when there is absolutely no evidence for his existence, and I won't be apathetic about it either, and let others believe it. It's annoying to me that people will just be ignorant even when the facts are staring them in the face! That's why indoctrination is so wrong -- it removes the clean slate a kid has when they're growing up to make up their own mind. Religion inhibits ones reasoning capabilities, and since we don't choose what we believe, it's almost impossible to break out of".

I then wanted to say "but...you were indoctrinated as a Christian...soooooooooooooooooooo..." ? LOL yay for not making ANY sense.

So, not only are the world's atheists growing smaller and more apathetic in their numbers, the amount of the "hard ones" are also dwindling. Honestly, I'd much rather deal with an apathetic atheist than a hard one, because at least they're open to change at some level. The hard ones are, well...

Religion inhibits ones reasoning capabilities, and since we don't choose what we believe, it's almost impossible to break out of

So, if I understood it right, he at least recognizes that atheism implies the non-existence of free will. I guess this leads us to conditioning and similar monkey business (I intentionally used that phrase ), but then the question arises, how can we stop "indoctrinating" our children if we can't help it?

Reactionary wrote:

Religion inhibits ones reasoning capabilities, and since we don't choose what we believe, it's almost impossible to break out of

So, if I understood it right, he at least recognizes that atheism implies the non-existence of free will. I guess this leads us to conditioning and similar monkey business (I intentionally used that phrase ), but then the question arises, how can we stop "indoctrinating" our children if we can't help it?

Yes and I'll quote this one verbatim;

" Again, proving you have no idea how beliefs or the human mind works. Are you truly this uneducated about this or are you simply blind? Our beliefs emerge from what we know and our life experiences, they are not "chosen." If new information is presented that alters what someone knows, they either reject the evidence, change their beliefs to correspond with what the new evidence bears out, or they have a cognitive dissonance that needs to be resolved somehow. I'm still waiting for you to prove Gods existence somehow. Everything you stated was false, as usual. You are wrong, you claim there is evidence for God and there is none, are you stupid?"

"Again, proving you have no idea how beliefs or the human mind works. Are you truly this uneducated about this or are you simply blind? Our beliefs emerge from what we know and our life experiences, they are not "chosen." If new information is presented that alters what someone knows, they either reject the evidence, change their beliefs to correspond with what the new evidence bears out, or they have a cognitive dissonance that needs to be resolved somehow. I'm still waiting for you to prove Gods existence somehow. Everything you stated was false, as usual. You are wrong, you claim there is evidence for God and there is none, are you stupid?"

Monica, this is one peculiar intellectual, I couldn't help being impressed by his eloquence. It's so evident that we're wrong here - I mean, he said that we're stupid, that should settle the debate. Still, I don't understand how we should know that atheism is true if our beliefs "are not chosen", but I guess I'm just a stupid creationist who wasn't endowed by the almighty Evolution to be among the ones who would understand the mysterious paths of randomness. Sorry, not my fault - blame my ape-like ancestors.

Now seriously, have you responded to him in a proper manner, as we usually do?

Reactionary wrote:

"Again, proving you have no idea how beliefs or the human mind works. Are you truly this uneducated about this or are you simply blind? Our beliefs emerge from what we know and our life experiences, they are not "chosen." If new information is presented that alters what someone knows, they either reject the evidence, change their beliefs to correspond with what the new evidence bears out, or they have a cognitive dissonance that needs to be resolved somehow. I'm still waiting for you to prove Gods existence somehow. Everything you stated was false, as usual. You are wrong, you claim there is evidence for God and there is none, are you stupid?"

Monica, this is one peculiar intellectual, I couldn't help being impressed by his eloquence. It's so evident that we're wrong here - I mean, he said that we're stupid, that should settle the debate. Still, I don't understand how we should know that atheism is true if our beliefs "are not chosen", but I guess I'm just a stupid creationist who wasn't endowed by the almighty Evolution to be among the ones who would understand the mysterious paths of randomness. Sorry, not my fault - blame my ape-like ancestors.

Now seriously, have you responded to him in a proper manner, as we usually do?

oh, sarcasm. I love how beautifully you use it as a tool. It's truly sad. It's a good thing this isn't my spouse who talks to me like this, or else that could constitute as abuse. Oh...wait.

My dear friend, I have not yet responded to him, because at times I must distance myself so I don't respond in a manner that is un-Christian (and to confer with the true intellectuals, such as yourself )