Now they can go to the “God works in mysterious ways” argument, but that doesn’t really ever answer anything (how many people are atheists today because of that answer).

Or there’s “God can intervene (directly) in evolution”, but that violates the whole naturalistic basis of science. For this argument to be true, there would have to be evidence of some evolutionary change that couldn’t have come about naturally. Since that evidence doesn’t exist (although unlikely, it is a possibility), god likely hasn’t intervened (here absence of evidence is evidence for absence).

Another theistic view could be that “God intervenes in the universe, guiding natural events which lead to selection pressures which lead to us” sort of far-fetched view, but once again, there’s a lack of evidence of intervention (mind you we have less overall knowledge beyond our planet), and at most this could be characterized as a god-of-the-gaps argument.

Also, one could argue that “God set the universe in such a state that humans would evolve in their current state”. This is more of the enlightenment deistic god, and certainly not the Catholic God that Dr. Miller is praying to. Nevertheless, it’s still unlikely to physicists like Dr. Victor Stenger who argues that the universe was at maximum entropy at the Big Bang, and therefore could retain no information from before creation.

Perhaps God really just didn’t know what he was doing and just arbitrarily created a universe hoping something like us would show up, and he got lucky (this time). But if this is the case, why even make up a god?

The argument comes up far too often.

Morality requires an absolute reference point.  Without God there can be no morals.

But it occured to me today that this parrots an argument made just over a hundred years ago in physics:

Light is a wave and therefore requires a medium to propagate.  Without the aether in interstellar space, there can be no light.

A bit of a background:

Light was postulated by Issac Newton to be particles that flew like tennis balls through the air.  This dominated until the single and double slit experiment showed the existence of diffraction, which could only be explained by a wave theory.  So after James Clerk Maxwell postulated his famous equations, the world decided upon a wave theory of light.

However, waves require something to move in. Just like waves in the ocean require water, waves of light should require something (be it air or glass) to move in.  But there wasn’t anything in space (as far as people could tell).  So how did the light from the sun get to Earth?

This led physicists to postulate an everpresent aether which filled the entire void of space.  This aether would allow the waves to get from the sun to Earth.

However, this aether should cause the speed of light to be different between a beam propagating with the Earth’s rotation versus a beam propagating perpendicular to the rotation.  This should happen because as the Earth goes around the sun it will “drag” some aether with it, this dragged aether will slow light down that’s going into it, but speed it up if it’s going with it (imagine light getting a tail or head wind), but going North-South the light shouldn’t really experience any net difference.  So when they performed very precise experiments to detect the aether, they found nothing!

The solution didn’t come until 1905 when Einstein was studying the photoelectric effect – basically a current is created when a light of a minimum energy is incident on a material.  Einstein postulated that light existed in photons (discrete particles), which solved the aether crisis and won him the Nobel prize (this was more practical than Special Relativity, which he also discovered in the same year, as well as the cause of Brownian Motion).

So what does this have to do with theological arguments about morality?

Basically, my analogy is that people couldn’t understand how light could propagate the void of space without an aether, in much the same way that people can’t understand how morality can exist independant of an absolute objective standard.

It took arguable one of the most brilliant people of the past century to solve the issue of light in space, negating the need for an aether, however, it is arguablly more accessible to understand how morality can arise naturally.

For more on naturalistic ethics, see some of my older posts:

• Why is God Ethical
• Atheist ethics
• Atheist ethics revisted
• Evolution of altruism