Yes, there is a God. But how do I know that? Why do I believe that? The vast majority of humanity has always believed in some kind of deity or deities. But the vast majority has been wrong about a lot of things. A few hundred years ago the majority believed that the sun, moon and stars revolved around the earth, and they were wrong. Truth is never decided by majority vote. And there has always been a persistent minority that has denied the existence of God, and sometimes those who belong to this group ask believers like me to justify our faith, and tell them why they should believe in God.
For some believers - not all, but some - it puts us in an awkward spot. Not because we find it difficult to believe in God, but because we find it impossible not to. I will give you a light-hearted analogy. There is a scene in the film Liar, Liar where a lawyer finds out cannot lie, and this threatens to ruin him professionally. So he tries really hard to tell the simplest lie possible. He holds up a blue pen and tries to say, “This pen is red.” Hilarity ensues when he cannot do it. His mouth won’t utter the words, and his hand won’t write the sentence. In fact his own hand attacks him and writes the word “blue” on his forehead.
It is kind of like that for me. I am unable to disbelieve the existence of God no matter how hard I try. Now I will say something that may disturb some of you. There are times when I feel like I would like to be an atheist, but I can’t, I literally can’t – I cannot deny what I know to be true.
And when I read the Bible, it seems to me that it is written by people who share this perspective. The writers of the Bible never try to prove God’s existence either to themselves or to others. Even when there are terrible challenges in their lives to the point of turning their world upside down, they fit those challenges into patterns of thought that include God. For example, when Naomi loses her husband and her two sons and she returns to Israel as a widowed, childless poverty-stricken refugee, she does not say, “I guess there’s no God after all,” but rather, “God has afflicted me. God has made my life bitter.” When Job loses everything, he does not wonder why he ever believed in God in the first place. Instead, he wonders why God is treating him that way. He questions God, and he may be tempted to curse God, but he never seems inclined to disbelieve in God.
The Bible’s perspective is reflected in Psalm 14:1: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” And in Romans 1 the apostle Paul maintains that the eternal power and divine nature of God are discernible from the created order. And Paul does not present this as a conclusion that you might arrive at if you assume some doubtful things. Rather, he presents it self-evident – an obvious truth that people suppress by wickedness.
For someone like me who regards the existence of God as self-evident, there can admittedly be some disconnect with individuals who say, “I just don’t see what you see; I don’t feel what you feel.” So here’s what I can do for the sake of the skeptic who really wants to engage me on the question of God’s existence. First of all, I would tell that person frankly that he or she would be better served not by listening to me, but by reading and listening to people who once shared his or her perspective. I refer to former atheists like scholars C. S. Lewis and Jay Budziszewski, and on the more popular level, journalist Lee Strobel and criminologist J. Warner Wallace. These are thoughtful individuals who traveled the road from disbelief to belief in God, and they are a thousand times better equipped than I to make the case to a genuine skeptic. And I’ll go one step further. I believe there Is value in reading the works of those who made the opposite journey, from theism to atheism. Which is why I have no problem telling a genuine seeker to go ahead and read Charles Templeton, Bart Ehrman and Dan Everett, to cite a few. Go ahead and weigh in the balance of your mind the thought journeys of those came to believe in God as opposed to those who came to disbelieve in him. And then in addition to that, I would say that you would be very well served to learn biographical details of these individuals’ lives – details which seldom appear in their defenses of or attacks upon theistic faith. I will leave that deeply suggestive hint hanging in the air.
The next thing that I can do for the skeptic is to say this. I have found that if I begin with the assumption that there is a God, and then I think as hard as I can and draw out implications and logical consequences of that belief, I often arrive at mystery. That is, I come to certain things that I cannot fully explain, questions that I cannot answer, things about which I can speculate and say, “Maybe it’s like this, I’m not sure.” One such mystery is, “Why is there suffering?” We will look at that next week.
On the other hand, If I begin with the assumption that there is no God, and I think as hard as I can, then in several areas I arrive at something that is not mysterious but contradictory and nonsensical. I arrive not at something about which I have further questions and doubts, but at things which I know to be false. I land on garbage which I could not will myself to believe no matter how hard I tried and no matter how advantageous it would be for me to adopt.
I will outline for you 4 areas in which I find this to be the case. In all 4 areas I am breaking no new ground, but merely trying to express in a crude and abbreviated way thoughts that have been covered in greater and more compelling detail by souls worthier and minds more capable than my own.
Argument number 1 is from cosmology. The fundamental question of existence is why is there something rather than nothing. Why does anything exist - why is there a universe, or, as the case may be, a multiverse?
There have always been two answers. Either God made it, or it just exists. I don’t find alternatives to those two views worth considering. Under either view – “God made it” or “It’s just there” - something somehow has to be uncaused. That is, something, somewhere has no explanation for its origin or coming into being. He, she, or it is the ground at which we start. This truth is what makes atheist Richard Dawkins’ question, “If God made everything, who made God?” so jaw-droppingly stupid that it makes you wonder if that man has ever read a book or thought deeply about anything. I know that is a pejorative charge, but I stand by it. The old, old question “If God made everything who made God?” presupposes a God who can be made. And traditional monotheists have never believed in a made God. In fact, we have a word for made gods – they’re called idols. We don’t worship idols. The God of traditional theism is by definition unmade, eternal – he simply always has been. Traditional atheism has countered, “No, the universe is what is unmade, eternal, it simply always has been.” It’s a standoff. Theists cannot reasonably ask atheists, “Who made your eternal universe?” And atheists cannot reasonably ask theists, “Who made your eternal God?”
But the standard atheistic view of an eternal uncreated universe hit a snag about 90 years ago when astronomer Edwin Hubble proved to the satisfaction of all unprejudiced observers that the universe is expanding. Further work traced that expansion backward in time to a single point, infinitesimally small, 13.8 billion years ago, when all of the sudden, bang! We had a universe. It was no longer possible to claim that the universe that we live in is eternal – that it has just always been here. No, that is not the case. It definitely had a beginning.
That discovery was a profound blow to the theory that the universe, being eternal – like the God of the theists - required no explanation. Then further advances in physics and cosmology made the problem worse. Because bit by bit it was learned that certain universal constants have exactly the values they would require in order for stars to form and galaxies to exist – that is, in order for there to be a universe as we understand it. These constants include things like the expansion rate of the universe immediately following the Big bang. The mass of the electron. The mass of the proton. The speed of light. The strength of gravity. The strength of the strong and weak nuclear forces. Planck’s Constant. Crucially, none of these universal constants arise by the laws of physics – they are what they happen to be and conceivably could be otherwise. They have been compared by theists and atheists alike to settings on a dial that have to be zeroed in on exactly the right number for each of those 25 or so constants in order for atoms to cohere or for galaxies to form.
In 2012 physicist Brian Green gave a TED talk that you can watch on YouTube. In it he refers to just one of these physical constants, the amount of dark energy in the universe. There is a dramatic moment when he clicks a button and the number for the amount of dark energy appears on the screen expressed in what he calls the relevant units. That number is 122 zeroes followed by 138. And Greene, who is an atheist, talks about the problem of explaining that number. The problem is that if it’s a tiny bit bigger, then the universe expands too fast for stars to form. If it’s a tiny bit smaller, gravity collapses the Big Bang back on itself – and once again, stars don’t form. To put the problem crudely, “Who set the dial at zero zero zero (pretend I’ve just said 122 zeroes) 138?” And while you’re at it, answer that same question for the two dozen or so other dials that have the same issue. The dial for gravity, for example. This is not like picking a number between 1 and a 100 and happening to get it right. It’s a lot finer than that. The precision has been illustrated this way. Imagine a ruler the length of the observable universe. (Long ruler!). It is divided into one-inch segments. The gravity dial for our universe is set at one particular point, let’s say out by the Andromeda galaxy or something. Move that dial one inch in either direction and life as we know it would be impossible.
So atheist cosmology took a very hard hit in the 20th century when not only was our universe proven to be non-eternal, but it was also shown to be very very very finely calibrated to produce the matter and energy that we perceive. Some astrophysicists, unable to deny the implications, became believers, like Allan Sandage, who labored away at the task of determining the age of the universe. He became a Christian around the age of 56.
I believe it is fair to say that all astrophysicists, whether they were believers or not, were aware of the challenge to atheism presented by the evident fine-tuning of the universe. Astronomer Fred Hoyle, for example, famously said, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with the physics as well as with chemistry and biology.” More recently physicist Neil Turok has said, revealingly, “I would say the whole goal of theoretical physics has been to see how much we can understand without invoking someone twiddling the dials.”
So is atheism dead in the water among the physicists and cosmologists who are aware of the mind-boggling improbability of the fine-tuning of our non-eternal universe? No, not by a long shot. There is now one and only one refuge in which a non-theistic understanding of our universe survives. And it is in the theoretical construct of a multiverse. The theory of cosmic inflation proposed by Alan Guth of MIT coupled with string theory allows for the possibility, theoretically, of a practically infinite number of universes emerging, according to the common analogy, like bubbles in a bathtub. We happen to live in one of those bubble universes, but there are countless others. And yes, in those other universes you will indeed have different values for gravity and the mass of electron, etc. But those universes for the most part don’t amount to anything because stars don’t form in them, or maybe even atoms don’t form in them. But the bubble universe which by chance had all the right constants is the one where we find ourselves.
Is there evidence for a multiverse? No, there is not. The evidence for a multiverse is zero, zilch, nada, nothing. If you don’t believe me, for God’s sake look it up. The empirical motivation for belief in a mulitverse is non-existent. Its sole motivating force comes from a need to account for the fine-tuning of the universal constants without recourse to a supernatural super-intellect. That is the evidence – the mere fact that mind-based fine-tuning is philosophically unacceptable.
Now let me surprise you. If you were to ask me which view of reality is likely to be true, the universe or the multiverse, my money is on the multiverse. It’s a speculation, I know, but I come to it not means of scientific evidence, for which there is none, but by means of a fanciful extension of the classic ontological argument for the existence of God. I won’t go into the ontological argument. But in it, God is defined or imagined as “a being greater than which none can be conceived.” Let’s go with that assumption. Can I imagine a greatest possible being? Yes, I suppose I can. Which being seems greater, one that creates a universe or one that creates an infinite number of universes? I’d go with the second option. That seems to be a bigger God. If upon getting to heaven I’m able to ask God, “How many universes did you make?” and he says, “Just one,” I think I’ll be a bit surprised. “Really, just one?” “Yes, just one.” “Oh ok, well, that’s your call, obviously.”
Here’s my point. Nothing for me crucially depends on whether there’s a universe or a multiverse. But for atheist physicists - like Brian Greene, Alan Guth, Lawrence Strauss, Leonard Susskind - they must believe in a multiverse, not because of any evidence (which remains nonexistent), but because it gives them the only possible hope they have to account for this universe’s origin and fine-tuning while maintaining their prior faith commitment to philosophical materialism.
Then there’s the kicker. For me, even this escape hatch for atheism in the form of multiverse theory does not fulfill its promise to provide room for materialism. Because instead of believing in an impossibly fine-tuned-though-random universe, you must believe in something arguably more amazing: an eternal universe generator spitting out universes of varying physical constants till it gets a useful one. That’s a complex machine. To me all that does is push the problem back. Cambridge Physicist John Polkinghorne put it mildly when he said, “I don’t say that the atheists are stupid. I think that theism provides a better explanation.”
Argument number 2. The existence of rationality.
Let me approach this argument this way. Suppose I am having a debate with an atheist. What is happening in that debate? It would seem that we are both giving reasons for our beliefs and trying to persuade the other that our thinking is valid and the other’s invalid. We are saying that our perception is the one that matches reality and that the other’s does not. Perhaps we try to prove the other’s premises invalid. Or perhaps we say, “No, the premises are fine, but your conclusion C does not follow from premises A and B.” In other words, we are thinking and expressing thoughts.
Now let us suppose that atheism is true. In atheism, what is a thought? Think as hard as you can about what a thought has to be in atheism. In atheism all you have are matter and energy interacting with one another. In atheism, all thoughts are biochemical reactions. That is all that they can ever be. When I was a kid we would build volcanoes. You would get some sand or mud, shape it like a volcano with a depression at the top into which you would put some baking soda. Then you pour vinegar on top of that, and it would bubble up over the sides like lava. There was a chemical reaction whose evidence was the bubbling over. What happens in a chemical reaction is that electrons jump from the orbital of one atomic nucleus onto the nucleus of another atom. Or perhaps two atoms share an electron that formerly belonged to just one of them. And that’s it. That’s chemistry in a nutshell.
What causes electrons, en masse, to jump into new orbitals? Does Truth do it? Does it happen by rational inference? No. What causes them to jump is other physical causes – the proximity of other electrons, perhaps, or collision with a photon, or maybe a cosmic ray (a speeding atom fragment) bumps into it. In atheism, every thought you have ever had - including the thoughts you’re thinking now - whether you are Christian, atheist, brilliant, foolish, doesn’t matter – every thought you have had or will have, is completely determined by electrons in your brain moving to new orbitals in response to physical causes all of which are exactly as predetermined as the chemical reaction that takes place when you drop vinegar onto baking soda. The chemical reactions in your brain are more complex than our sandbox volcano projects, but they are every bit as physically determined.
And you thought you were rational. You thought you were thinking. You thought you were evaluating truth claims. Well ha! the joke’s on you. Because, in atheism, all your thinking has been done for you by electrons bandied about by forces you can’t control.
And it is here where I run into one of those snags where I would be forced to believe garbage if I were atheist. If there is no rationality, then why should I trust the rational inferences of an atheist? By his own admission, he’s not rational, he’s just bubbling forth words that are predetermined by the chemical reactions in his brain. To paraphrase Jonathan Edwards (the singer, not the theologian): “He can’t even run his own brain; I’ll be damned if he’ll run mine!”
I know that rationality is true. Therefore atheism can’t be. If you would like to explore this theme further, please, please, please read the first six chapters of C. S. Lewis's book Miracles.
Argument number 3 is cut from the same cloth as argument number 2, and so I will not pursue it in as great a detail. It is the argument from morality: the real existence of good and evil. We all know that there is such a thing as morality – good and bad, right and wrong. But there simply isn’t any way for atheism to ground righteousness or righteous indignation in anything substantial. Because at the end of the day all you have in atheism is matter in motion. Stuff bouncing off of stuff. And no amount of stuff bouncing off of stuff can produce moral obligation or moral depravity.
Joy Davidman describing her former outlook as an atheist wrote, "Life is only an electrochemical reaction. Love, art, and altruism are only sex. The universe is only matter. Matter is only energy. I forget what I said energy is only." She eventually figured out that that doesn’t work. Once you have convinced yourself that matter and energy are all that really exist, it is hard to articulate why you find anyone else’s behavior objectionable. How can a collection of atoms bouncing off each other ever be wrong? And if you yourself are a collection of atoms bouncing off each other, what gives you the right judge another bag of atoms? But every day without exception, on the news and on my Facebook feed, I see atheists expressing strong moral outrage against a variety of offenses, such as the exploitation of women, the rough treatment of immigrants or sexual minorities, the easy access to guns and the violence that results, the hypocrisy of depraved church leaders – and on and on and on. I have no objection at all to such expressions of moral indignation. I encourage them. I just want atheists to think deeply in their souls (yes, souls) about the justification for such anger. How can you, being just a complex configuration of matter and energy, find morally repulsive another complex configuration of matter and energy?
Jay Budziszewski in his essay “Escape From Nihilism” wrote this:
I ended up doing a doctoral dissertation to prove that we make up the difference between good and evil and that we aren't responsible for what we do. I remember now that I even taught these things to students; now that's sin.
It was also agony. You cannot imagine what a person has to do to himself well, if you are like I was, maybe you can imagine what a person has to do to himself to go on believing such nonsense. St. Paul said that the knowledge of God's law is "written on our hearts, our consciences also bearing witness." The way natural law thinkers put this is to say that they constitute the deep structure of our minds. That means that so long as we have minds, we can't not know them. Well, I was unusually determined not to know them; therefore I had to destroy my mind. I resisted the temptation to believe in good with as much energy as some saints resist the temptation to neglect good. For instance, I loved my wife and children, but I was determined to regard this love as merely a subjective preference with no real and objective value. Think what this did to my very capacity to love them. After all, love is a commitment of the will to the true good of another person, and how can one's will be committed to the true good of another person if he denies the reality of good, denies the reality of persons, and denies that his commitments are in his control?
Jay Budziszewski came to understand that right and wrong are not subjective illusions magically dreamed up walking bags of complex seawater known as human beings. "Right" or "good" is that which aligns with the character of God our Creator. "Wrong" or "bad" is that which rebels against him.
4th argument, to conclude: We all know that we need someone to thank. I guess I would call this the argument from universal gratitude.
Years ago someone wrote this to an advice columnist: "We are an atheist family, but having grown up with a prayer before each meal, I started to miss the ritual, especially once we had kids. It felt as if there was something missing, and I wanted to commence the meal with something, so now we do 'thankfuls.' Everyone (including children) states something for which they are thankful. This custom is very well received and enjoyed by all types of guests, and seems to satisfy the need to begin a meal giving 'thanks.'"
I agree with that atheist that there is a need to give thanks. That need can be suppressed, though it will take some effort. It can be denied completely, and leave a hole. Or it can even be indulged, laughably and illogically, by an atheist who gives thanks while simultaneously denying that there is anyone out there to thank. At this atheist family table it amuses me to imagine a small child furrowing his brow and asking, “Daddy, who are thanking?” “Shhh! Ixnay on odGay. Eat your kale.”
We must thank. There is a reason why we delight to do so. To neglect thanks is to refuse our invitation to the dance.
Charles Colson was an atheist/agnostic who back in the late 60s and early 70s was special counsel to President Richard Nixon. In 1966, seven years before he became a Christian, he took his sons out on a sailboat he had just bought. In his book Born Again he recounted something unusual that happened that day. Here is what he wrote:
As [my son] realized that he was controlling the boat, the most marvelous look came over his cherubic face, the joy of new discovery in his eyes, the thrill of feeling the wind's power in his hands. I found myself in that one unforgettable moment quietly talking to God. I could even recall the precise words: "Thank You, God, for giving me this son, for giving us this one wonderful moment. Just looking now into this boy's eyes fulfills my life. Whatever happens in the future, even if I die tomorrow, my life is complete and full. Thank You." Afterwards, I had been startled when I realized that I had spoken to God, since my mind did not assent to His existence as a Person. It had been a spontaneous expression of gratitude that simply bypassed the mind and took for granted what reason had never shown me.
Years later reason showed him the ground for a gratitude that in one shining moment he found he could not repress.
Give thanks, give thanks, give thanks. You know that you should, and you know that it would be in your own best interests to do so. Do not stifle the instinct for gratitude that a good God has place within your heart.
Romans 1:21 says concerning evildoers: “although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him”. That is, they went as far as to repress the thanks that would spring forth spontaneously from them and complete the delight that God intended for them. The result of such suppression is given in the rest of the verse, which says, “their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.”
Let us pray.
Creator God, it seems an impertinence to discuss evidence for your existence while every moment we draw breath with lungs you created and try to think worthy thoughts with brain cells you constructed. Thank you for making us and supplying us with everything needful to remain in everlasting fellowship with you. Deliver us from wrongdoing, twisted thinking, and the ingratitude and contempt for you that would render our minds futile and our heats eternally foolish and dark. Save us for our good and your great glory.
No comments:
Post a Comment