I've noticed a trend among some of today's prominent naturalistic cosmologists - pride greater than the universe itself. This trend is the idea: God doesn't exist because we don't need Him. Just like Adam and Eve in the garden, we've come to the conclusion that we don't need the Creator because the creation is all we need.
In a debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox, Dawkins basically said that he doesn't believe in God because we don't need to believe in him. The universe functions on its own with its own laws and mechanisms, so therefore, it doesn't need God. He also said that he thinks the only God that could potentially exist is the Deist God. A God who creates the world but has no personal dealings with that creation - though he does not believe it. This struck me of course, but it wasn't until I heard it again from a different cosmologist that I really saw what was happening.
In a debate between naturalistic cosmologist Sean Carroll and Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, Carroll said nearly the same thing as Dawkins. He said that since the universe, and even the idea of an eternal universe (as he claims) works on its own, therefore, it doesn't need God and that is why he doesn't believe in God. He even said that were he alive 200 years ago, he would probably be a theist. Sound familiar?
Dawkins and Carroll are basically saying the same thing: God doesn't exist because we don't need him to. This line of reasoning blows me away.
Often Christians argue that since the universe has the appearance of design then there must be a designer. To be fair, this doesn't necessarily prove that God exists. However, this line of reasoning is much more acceptable that the reasoning of Dawkins and Carroll.
Dawkins and Carroll are acknowledging the mechanisms as a reason for ruling out any possibility of a mechanic. The appearance of design may not prove a designer, but the appearance of mechanisms necessarily rules out a mechanic? How is that more reasonable? It isn't. You would be considered an absolute fool if you walked into a factory and saw all the engines working on their own so you reasoned that there were no engineers who created those machines. To use the analogy of John Lennox, a watch has mechanisms and gears but it does't mean it wasn't created.
The argument that usually follows is that a watch and the universe are not analogous because they are so vastly different in complexities. Sure, I'll give you that. But the metaphysical principle has nothing to do with the complexity of the mechanisms.
Here is what I'm getting at... The fact that the universe doesn't "need" God to operate, doesn't mean God doesn't exist. I really can't see any logical way you can follow that line of reasoning. Isn't it possible that God would create a universe with complex laws, principles, and mechanisms that would allow it to run on its own? Absolutely. So there is something deeper happening here: pride. We've replaced the Creator with the creation and we worship it instead. We are telling God, "we don't need you anymore, we will take it from here." Saying "I don't believe in God because we don't need Him" is much more profound that just saying "I don't believe in God." It is deeper, more sinister and the same kind of pride we see in Genesis 1.
Really modern cosmologists believe in God, just not the God we believe in. The god of cosmology is believed to be eternal, self-sufficient, all-powerful, incomprehensible - the author of life. They call this god, The Universe, Matter, or Us. They place their faith in scientific models. Their prophets preach a gospel of chaos and chance.
Cosmologists haven't stopped believing in God, they've simply changed gods.