Here's the article in all its self-embarrassing glory:
Whoa. Hold it. That's not necessarily the case. A lot of atheists are rather ticked off about religious demonization of science and theists' attempts to remove or censor scientific facts that they dislike for religious reasons. The effect of this ongoing denialism is that now atheists can point to facts about our world that some religious people still don't accept as proof positive that some religious beliefs are faulty and that the concept of religious faith certainly plays its role in enabling this triple tragedy of being wrong, refusing to learn, and foisting known falsehoods on one's children and the public in general as if it were gospel truth.
Contemporary atheism marches behind the banner of science.
But don't confuse atheism with science. Even though they both scare fundamentalists, they're not the same thing.
Well, God-of-the-Gaps conceptions at any rate, where God is trotted out to explain gaps in human knowledge (i.e. creationism). The other conceptions of God are too ghostly to have much weight.
The central argument of these scientific atheists is that modern science has refuted traditional religious conceptions of a divine creator.
But of late atheism seems to be losing its scientific confidence.Why? Because atheists put up billboards that don't have anything to do with science, apparently. Is that really what they consider a good argument on the planet that you're from?
Instead, we are given the simple assertion that there is probably no God, followed by the counsel to go ahead and enjoy life. In other words, let’s not let God and his commandments spoil all the fun.*cue the clips of atheists descending into reckless hedonism and carnal lust*
Oh, and here's why atheists have "given up the scientific card": fine tuning and the question of whether or not there are other universes.
Uggh. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt and lost it in Universe Alpha (we're in Universe Beta, by the way)
There are two hurdles here, one historical and the other methodological. The historical hurdle is that science has for three centuries been showing that man does not occupy a privileged position in the cosmos, and now it seems like he does.Umm...okaaay, there are all kinds of things wrong with that. #1 - we're talking about life in general, not necessarily human life. #2 - it's a just-barely-possible existence, combined with numerous planet-sundering threats and a nigh certainty of extinction. #3 - "privileged position in the cosmos"? Seriously?? How on Earth did he arrive at that conclusion?
The methodological hurdle is what physicist Stephen Hawking once called “the problem of Genesis.” Science is the search for natural explanations for natural phenomena, and what could be more embarrassing than the finding that a supernatural intelligence transcending all natural laws is behind it all?...
Wow. Apparently, hackneyed fine-tuning arguments are all that's needed to prove God. A lot of conditions in the universe are suitable for life to form (there wouldn't be any discussion on the matter if they weren't), therefore God. God-of-the-Gaps logic, what could possibly go wrong?
No wonder atheists are sporting billboards asking us to “imagine…no religion.” When science, far from disproving God, seems to be pointing with ever-greater precision toward transcendence, imagination and wishful thinking seem all that is left for the atheists to count on.Oh my God. This whole editorial was a fraud. "When Science Points to God". Guess what it has a distinct lack of? Science in any way supporting theism.
What a crock.