Jul 012013
 

What do all neo-Atheists have in common?  Two things, as I see it. Firstly, they hold an absence of belief in God, and secondly, they advance modern scientific causes to the existence of the universe.  On other questions such as the existence of a moral code independent of human conception, there is no unanimity amongst them.
As a novice, I am trying to make sense of what they say.  I should not be ruled out of order for trying to make sense of their claims. After all, certainly they do not expect one to be a registered scientist to understand or accept their arguments.   If they indeed belittle me for trying to make sense of neo-Atheism, then they are calling on me to believe their arguments without question; the operative word here being “believe”.  If neo-Atheism calls on us ordinary people to have “belief” or “faith” in their highly complicated theories and hypotheses, then I cannot see how this differs from religious forms of intellectual priesthood.  So I insist that I, as an ordinary person, with only a basic undergraduate degree in science should have the right to question the arguments of neo-Atheism.
Neo-Atheism has assumed a profound new confidence, and in fact much arrogance with the advent of modern new discoveries in science over the past century.  Most important of these discoveries, I think is the discovery of Quantum Physics in the past century.  There is also the discovery of new cosmological facts, such as the size and the nature of the universe, that offers neo-Atheists new tools to explaining their arguments to the origin of the universe.  The theory of the Multiverse or the theories around quantum fluctuations are often now used by men like Stephen Hawking in this regard.
My first question to them is what their Frame of Reference is for advancing their scientific explanations around the origin of the universe?  If one is for example going to explain the existence of Black Holes, then your Frame of Reference can certainly not be defined as the planet Earth, or Newtonian physics.  Planet Earth is too narrow a spacial Frame and Newtonian Physics is too narrow a philosophical and scientific frame within which to argue for the existence of Black Holes.
Neo-Atheists have made modern Quantum Physics and our own Time-Space contexts their frame of reference.  This, I believe is an absurdity.  If time, space and Quantum Physics are natural phenomena, or better put, paradigms, then how do we explain a paradigm by using the paradigm itself as its own paradigm?  Would this not be like explaining the sea tides by making the Earth our paradigm?  (And we know that the forces of gravity exercised by the Moon and the Sun on our Earth are really behind the phenomenon of sea tides on Earth. )  So my first problem with Scientism as articulated by neo-Atheists is their narrow frame of reference.  I wish to argue that any explanation of the origin of space, time and nature as a whole, must transcend space, time and nature.  In other words, the Frame of Reference must supra-spacial, supra-cosmic, non-time bounded (or timeless), and super-natural.
The absurdity committed by modern neo-Atheists therefore becomes very familiar, when compared to other fallacious and arrogant theories that arose in history.  I in fact do not see much difference between neo-Atheists and the first man who discovered fire, and then went on to ascribe wonderful supra-cosmic powers to fire.  In a hundred thousand years’ time, Quantum Physics may even turn out to be as mundane a reality as is fire as a natural phenomenon.
So neo-Atheism, after all is not as different from the first cave man, who, after discovering fire, goes on to, with a new-found arrogance goes on to preach fire as the ultimate explanation to the existence of his narrow intellectual realm.
My second question to neo-Atheists is, to refer me to a formally scientifically published version of their theories.  As far as I know, it is non-existent.  This means that their arguments do not constitute scientific theories and facts, but rather speculation and intellectual and philosophical theorising.  Which in turn places it outside of the realm of scientific discourse.  Which in turn means that it cannot claim to speak for science. Which means, that, when they appear on podiums or in book shops,  they should enjoy the same status as any other non-scientific philosophical or social discourse.  Why then do Richard Dawkins, and others like him don the cloaks of science when they debate against the existence of God?
Lastly, I wish to posit another definition of God, as, not only the ultimate explanation, but also the ultimate authority in the universe.  Seen in this light, one can then see the cause of the existence of fire-worshippers, sun-worshippers, Science-worshippers and any other person that calls to the acceptance of a natural phenomenon as the ultimate explanation of nature and the universe.  A call to explain nature through natural phenomena and causes is really a call away from a supra-cosmic, transcendent supreme reality.  Which is a call away from timeless and supra-cosmic truths. Which is a call to the mundane, and even the profane.  The statement “All humans are free”, is such a transcendent truth.  The job of the detractor of transcendence is an age-old call that culminates in the questioning of the very freedom of human beings.  In our times, the wonders of Quantum Physics are employed to lead us to the same age-old path of cancelling or denying our timeless and transcendent rights. Or otherwise put, our God-given rights.

 Posted by on July 1, 2013 at 10:02 am

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.